0001

SOUTH WALES CIRCUIT. CARDIFF, Thursday, July 26. (Before Lord Chief Justice Campbell.)

The first cause called on was “Powell v. John,” in which no one appeared.

His Lordship.—Is it not 9o'clock by Cardiff time? If not so, we will wait a little while. I find, however, that it is 10 minutes past 9 o'clock. If no one appears, the cause must be struck out. Does any one appear? (A pause.) There is really a very thin attendance of the bar. The cause must be struck out.

The cause of “Hawkins v. Williams was then called on.

Mr. Grove, Q.C.—My Lord, this is an undefended case. Mr. Williams, the defendant, whose forensic abilities have won for him the distinguished title of “Sir William Follett,” here addressed the judge, observing that it was not an undefended case, as stated by the learned counsel on the other side, for he had the honour, by his Lordship's permission, to appear as his own counsel.

The Judge intimated his readiness to hear the defendant.

Mr. Williams said he was not quite prepared with his papers, and should be glad if the Court would permit him a little time.

His Lordship.—Certainly, Mr. Williams.

No other cause was then called on, the jury having been sword in “Price v. Thomas;” but in this case there were no counsel.

The Judge.—I must really proceed. The jury are sworn, and the cause must go on. Are all the bar asleep? I never recollect such a thing before in all my experience.

Mr. Evans, Q.C., here came into court, and, apologizing to his Lordship, at once proceeded in the case of

Price V. Thomas.

The plaintiff in this action was a most singular spectacle. He was the celebrated Dr. Price, of Eglwysilian, whose beard, hair, and peculiar costume have long been a theme of curiosity among all who have seen him, especially in court. To-day he stood at the barristers' table, with the white skulls and huge horns of three of his Welsh mountain goats and the shaggy and long black haired skin of another lying on the table before him. His iron-gray hair fell on his shoulders, in tresses and locks, down almost to his waist; and an Asiatic bears of silver gray, falling on his breast, over a turned down collar of beautifully fine and white linen. His jerkin, or jacket, was of Lincoln green, turned up with scarlet, the yellow buttons each bearing a different form of dog. The wrists of the jacket were scalloped—alternative green and scarlet, with yellow buttons, and the wristbands of his shirt were also scalloped. His scarlet waistcoat was similarly scalloped. The sharp, keen eagle-eyes of the doctor, his Welsh idiom, and general appearance were the subject of close attention by all in court, and we noticed two or three of the learned counsel engaged in sketching a likeness of this remarkable “Welsh character.”.

The action was brought to recover damages sustained by plaintiff in the loss of 137 goats and kids, as laid in the particulars, worried and killed by the dogs of the defendant.

Mr. Coleridge opened the pleadings, the first being that the defendant's dogs worried and killed certain goats belonging to the plaintiff; and the second, that the defendant kept certain dogs, well knowing them to be disposed to worry, kill, and destroy goats, &c.

Mr. Evans, Q.C. stated the case; Mr. Grove, Q.C., and Mr. Giffard appeared for the defendant.

Mr. Evans, Q.C., in stating the case, said the plaintiff carried on the business of a surgeon at Eglwysilian, where, also, he had a farm of about 33 acres, part of which was mountain land, upon which and upon his other land he had, in March, 1852, a herd of about 70 goats. The defendant occupied the farm adjoining; indeed, his farmhouse was under the same roof as the plaintiff's. The plaintiff complained that defendant and his sons, in spite of his repeated remonstrances, set on their dogs to worry and kill his goats, which caused the death of about 20 or 30; and this had induced plaintiff to bring the present action. The jury would observe that Dr. Price was somewhat singular in his style of costume. He did not dress in the common style, having an idea that the ancient jerkin and dress and the style of the olden time were more becoming in a descendant of the Cymri. But all this had nothing to do with the action—

His Lordship.—No; certainly not.

The first witness called was the plaintiff.

On being directed to kiss the book, Dr. Price minutely examined the pages, and at length, coming to some pictures, exclaimed, “My lord! I do not like these things.”

The Judge.—Take the oath in the manner in which you consider most binding to your conscience.

Another Testament was thereupon handed to plaintiff, who, having satisfied himself by an examination of its contents, kissed the book, and proceeded with his evidence, the substance of which was that his farm adjoined that of the defendant; that his flock of goats, which he kept from a preference of their cheese to that made from the milk of cows, did certainly stray from the craig on his farm to the lands of the defendant, who, with his son, frequently set his three sheep-dogs and his mastiff upon the goats, worrying them so savagely that they died; that he had frequently remonstrated with defendant, who, notwithstanding, still continued to set his dogs on the goats; and that from June, 1852, to December, 1854, 28 goats and several batches of kids were killed, the value of which plaintiff set down at 250l. 12s. 6d. Plaintiff caused considerable amusement by his description of his “beautiful” goats, the names of which—titles derived from Welsh history, &c.—were most difficult to pronounce, and were perfectly unreportable. He appeared to have kept a minute account of every transaction in connexion with the worrying and killing of the goats by the dogs of the defendants; and extracts from the entries were, by permission of the Judge, read by the plaintiff in support of his case.

0002

In cross examination by Mr. Grove, Q.C., the plaintiff admitted that he had frequently shot at the defendant's dogs. He had hit the mastiff once or twice, but had not killed him. He had also shot at the dogs of other persons, and had killed seven of them for chasing his goats. He had not yet brought action against his neighbours for their allowing dogs to worry his goats. Defendant had been a witness, not against the plaintiff, but his brother; but no threat had been uttered by him on that account against the defendant. Those who knew him would not attribute such a thing to him.

Mr. Grove.—Never mind that. You don't know what motives even those that know you impute to you.

Plaintiff, to Mr. Grove.—I have thrown 13 goats and kids into a pond on my farm.

The Judge.—Dead or alive?

Mr. Grove.—Not until after death, my Lord.

Plaintiff.—They were starved to death, my Lord, by Lady Harriet Clive, who had ordered them to be impounded.

The Judge.—Do not mention that now. I suppose it will be a case for the next assizes. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof.

Mr. Grove.—You have had, I believe, Mr. Price, some acquaintance with the law?

Plaintiff.—Very little, very little.

The Judge.—Fortunately, he has now the very able assistance of Mr. Evans.

Mr. Grove.—Were you not, Mr. Price, once tried for perjury?

Plaintiff.—Yes, and acquitted.

The next witness called was the plaintiff's daughter, who excited nearly as much interest as her father had done. She was about 12 years of age. A large brimmed leghorn had almost hid her very intellectual countenance, and her shoulders were covered by a peculiarly cut and scalloped white fur tippet.

Mr. Rees, the Court interpreter, was sworn to render her evidence into English.

The Judge.—Ask her if she goes to church or chapel, and knows anything of religion, or can say the Lord's Prayer.

Witness.—I do not go to church nor to chapel. I have been taught religion.

Judge.—Ask her if she understands the Lord's Prayer.

Mr. Rees interpreted the question to witness, but Dr. Price vehemently declared the question had been wrongly put.

Mr. Rees.—Put it yourself, then, if you like.

Plaintiff (warmly).—She has been brought up in the Christian religion, and is a first-rate Christian. She will make a splendid Christian. (Laughter).

Mr. Rees asked witness if she knew the Lord's Prayer and anything about future rewards and punishments.

She replied violently, in Welsh, that she had learnt, but did not now know, the Lord's Prayer; and as to future rewards and punishments, those who are wicked “will go to the fire, they do say.”

Question.—What is your name?

Witness.—Gwenhiolen Hiarylhes Morganwg.

[The literal interpretation of this name is “The Countess of Glamorgan.”]

Question.—Are you the daughter of the plaintiff?

Witness (in Welsh).—He says I am his daughter. (Laughter.) She then went on to describe the various occasions on which the dogs of the defendant had worried and killed her father's goats. Once she was on the craig, when one of the goats was beaten by the son of the defendant, and the animal, she said ran toward her bleating pitifully, and put its head to her head and “cried much.” She held it there for some time, and then, fearing it would die, she took off her apron, wrapped the goat's head in it, and ran for her father. Her poor goat died that evening. She corroborated her father as to the injury done to the other goats.

Other witnesses gave similar evidence.

For the defence it was set up that the defendant had not set his dogs upon the plaintiff's goats, and that the goats had died of the mortality at that time common on the Welsh mountains among the herds of goats.

The jury, after being locked up half an hour, returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 15l.