Lent Assizes.
to Ilir, T--- --c rsL-un3ieraoie tnterest, in some measure owini f inple, ftom the other circuit, havingbeen brought specialll defendant, and came on for trial en Friday last, before Jo NATHAth RAsi., Esq., Chief Juistice, and a special jury. Mr. P-CocXRFL openerl the pleadingii. ThSe ATTOtnxEY GEERAL stated the case, and commenced b. ohserving tgat this was an action brought by the plaintiff, who . the Beragent of George Hai Dawkins Pennant, of Penshyn Cas clentsvq., C ? is the owner ot-a large estate and slate-quardes in thi cotmg of Carnarvon, against the defendant, who is a clergyman ad IC e ector of St. AnRe's, near Mlr. Pennant's quarry for a libel contained in a letter written to Mr. Pennant, charging the plaintif wTh conninvg at certain frauds upon his employer, Mr. Pennant The learne Ar,At.oenan th deaued Attomey stated that ihe jury would have three woint wterit e-first, whether the letter was the defendant's hand. ri1ting; secondly, was theletter a libel; and thirdlv the amount o ms.g Upon these three points he dwelt at coni?derable length l t larly t he stateLmentin the libel, that Mr. Pennant showed al eteeent to him to Mlr. Greenfield; and called, first ?G ar. D. Pennant, whio proved that he, on the i3th or 14tl the ,rch, I , received an anonymous letter by the post; tha th btiff was his under agent at Cae Brarchby-cafn quarry tate received otber letters before from lhIr. Hughes, which wern akvnowledged to be his, shid treated as such; that he firmly believ. ebi as far as his knosvledge of defendant's hand-writing would en ab2ehiim to judge, that the anonymous letter was defendant's hand writing. .'rosmexamined by Mr. TEMIPLE.-Had formerlvbeen upon mor fiiendly ternus than he was now with the defendant; be said tha the action was not brought at his expense, and thav lie had no tlirg to do with the costs, and was in no way liable to pay th, -ame; that defendant was formerly his tenant for a stable ant other irenises; that he had given him notice to quit, and tha quitted last All Saints; that he received the anonymou he ypost; that he was the owner of large slate-quarries, an( mad many men under the control of agents ; that he had receiv _ some anonymous letters before about the quarriea, and severa other subjects *he did not think he had received half-a-doze, hef; tbat he continued on the same terms with defendant afte received several anonymous letters, but that he had neve ecived one in the same hand-writing as the one in question. Greenfield, Esq., was the next witness. He stated him e the head agent to the last witness; that he knew defend. t, and had been on habits of intimacy with him, and often acted a agTistrate with him, and was perfectly well acquainted with hi hidwriting; had often seen him write; that he believed it to b hils hanil.wrrting; that he believed it to be his hand-writing a firmly as if he had seen him write it; that on the 12th of March 183 he had a conversation with defendant; that defendant wisher him to take an examination, taken by defendant as a mnagistrAte, t4 .r. Pennant, which witness declined doing, and informed defendan It was useless, al Mr. Pennant always showed him all papers rela. tive to thequarry. The letter was then put in, and read as follows:- " Cae-Brarch Slate-quarry, March 13, 1823. Sir,-b humbly inform you that it is calculated in this Quary tha you are robed of Hundred pounds a week, and Evan Thomas ant us Son if forced would tell in what way. I hope you will have at investigation, as it has been of Great distress to Your poor Workmes bia what they say here is that you are afraid of Greenfield to rnake R Hoping yot may get at the Truth of matters, is the prayei ofr of your Distressed Vorkmen." P.fr Greenfield, cross-examincd by MIr. WILLIAmS.-._Ee hat been long acquainted with defendant; and said that there were manj men at the quarry; that he was sure he never told any person excep defeudant that Mr. Pennant showed him all letters relative to thi quarry; that he shortly after called on defendant on the subiect o the letter, and charged him with being the auther, which defendan denied; that witness did not then or at any time say to tiefendan he did not believe him to be the author, for the mome'nt he saw it, hi believed it to be defendant's hand-writing; defendant went for E Bible; that witness expressed his surprise at his having written thi letter and mentioned his name, as he always considered him hi *Wen ; that defendant took up the Bible and appeared to be taking an oath, which witness endeavoured to prevail upon him not to do, al nothing defendant could do would alter his opinion; defendant thes kissed the book, and solemnly declared before God he was not th4 author; that when he charged defendant he considered himself im. pheatedW and told defendant he would bring an action against him defendant never dared him to do so; that he was in no way answer. able for the costs; that no applications bad ever been made to wit. ness for a sight of the letter. Air. Valentine proved that he was organist at defendant's chapel. and well acq uainted with defendant's hand-writing ; hxd often seeT hun write: that he believed the letter to be defendant's hand-writing An attemipt was made by the cross-examination to show that a quarrel had taken place between witness and defendant, which wan denied ; and it turned out to be nothing more than a disagreemeni about the propriety of playing a tune in the church, about two yean ago. The witness also pointed out the various parts in the feigned nand which were like the defendant's acknowledged writing. Jfr. Richard Williarns also proved that he was well acquainted with defendant's hand-writing, and believed the letter to be defen4. ant's hand-writing. Upon the case being closed for the plaintiff, Mr. TEMPLE, in a speech of upwards of an hour, addressed the jury for the defendant, and relied principally upon the want of motive for the defendanee writing the letter-the declaration so solemnly made on oath, and appeal to his God made by defendant, that he was not the author- the dissimilarity which he would show between the anonynouo letter and defendant'swriting-thathebshouldcealoneEvan Roberts. who would prove himself to have got the letter in question writtei to Mr. Penmantnand concluded a very eloquent address, with im. ploning the ury, if they could entertain a doubt upon the evidence to give the defendant the benefit of such doubt, as the consequences t averi 2inst him would be so serious to the defendant; and the pl;unt2ffnatzuffered no loss by it, which the learned counse] conceived wa not a hbel. The Rev. Robert Philips, and two other clergymen, and Mr. Saur.ders, a pnnter, were examined for the defendant ; they al were shown the letter in the box, and swore they did not believe it to be the defendant's hand-writing. The ATrOIut;Y-0z-.qERA. replicel shortly upon the evidence1 andcommented mostpointedly upon theincensistencyof the evidence with Mr. Temple's opening, as Evan Robert, the supposed author, was not called for the defence. The C(HIE JUSTJCs summed up the evidence at considerable length, and with much perspicuity, and ratherstrongly reprobated the defendant's conq.uct, in taking an oath before himself, and snaking so uncalled-for and profane an appeal to the Deity, which, - clergynm3n and a magistrate, he ought not to have done. he Jury retired, and after an absenc of about half an hour, re. turne4 a wcrdid: for tlkc defetdimi. Some persons in Court elapped theirhands, and show~ed other mymptomsof approbation, whichwai strongly reprebated by the Court; And the persons guilty of the in. decency were threatened to be committed. Ll!TAS ASSIZES. 'CAAVAuvn?-l -f-vD-vT L'Tft ThiM. V - T710.5 V. MORRIS HUGHES, CLERK.