Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

1 article on this Page

MERIONETHSHIRE WINTER ASSIZES.

News
Cite
Share

MERIONETHSHIRE WINTER ASSIZES. CHARGES OF PERJURY. ACTION AGAINST DOLGELLEY COUNCIL. The winter assizes for the county of Merioneth- shire were held at the Shire Hall, Dolgelley, on Thursday and Friday last before Mr Justice Channell. His Lordship arrived on Wednesday afternoon and was met at the Railway Station by an escort of police under the command of Superin- tendent Jones. His Lordship was escorted to his lodgings and subsequently to Church. Is the evening, at the Lion Hotel, the High Sheriff (Mr E. 0. V. Lloyd, Rhagatt) gave his cfficers, the constables, and trumpeters a dinner. The Under Sheriff (Mr J. Charles Hughes) pre- sided and the vice-chair was occupied by Superin- tendent Jones. The Court was opened on Thursday morning and was crowded in every part, there being some cases of interest to be tried. THE GRAND JURY. The following gentlemen were sworn on the grand jury Messra John Vaughan, Nannau, fore- man O. S. Wynne, Dolrhyd; Edward Jones, Caerffynon Edward Griffith, Springfield Robert Prys Owen, Aelybryn Hugh James Lloyd, Tyny- noed John Chidlaw Roberts, Leahurst William Patchett, Alltfawr John Leigh Taylor, Penmaen- ucha; John Williams, Gwernhefin J.t E. Jones, Brynffynon H. Haydn Jones, Towyn; W. J. Morris, Barmouth Owen Lloyd, Waterloo House; Thomas Edwards, Blaenau; G. H. Ellis, Pen- mount Francis Evans, Dolgelley; H. J. Robin- son, Bodtalog; G. F. Scott, Penmaenucha R. Wynne Williams, Dolgelley Lewis Lewis, Bar- mouth; Wm. Jones, Bridge-street, and Wm. Davies, junior, Cae'rblaidd. THE CHARGE. In delivering his charge to the grand jury, his Lordship said there was nothing to come before them that day which indicated serious crime and it was hardly necessary for him to make any re marks at all on the cases to be ttied. there was one case in which a question of law might be raised. A man was charged with stealing a bag fiom the waiting room of a railway station and also with stealiug a horse and a bridle. It seemed that he had gone for the horse, rode it, and left it upon the road. If he had no intention other than that of taking it for a ride and not to dispose of it in any way, he would not be guilty of the charge. That was the only case in which it was necessary to say anything upon a point of law. There were two charges of perjury. This was one of the crimes which was increasing, not only in the county, but all over the country. There was a great deal of false swearing taking place and there was no doubt it was a very serious offence. In that case it was of a menial character, as it was committed by the defendants in defence of each other. He would not trouble them with his own views on the subject. y STEALING A HORSE AND A MINISTER'S BAG AND SERMON. The grand jury returned true bills against John William Davies, 29, Llantor, who was indicted for having on the night of February 7th stolen a bag containing a collar, a pocket handkerchief, a note- book, and a sermon valued at 10s, the property of the Rev R. Morris, Dolgelley. Accused pleaded guilty to the charge and also to having been convicted of felony at Ruthin Assizes last year. It appeared that the Rev R. Morris bad been at Cynwyd, near Carwell, for a couple of days and was returning on February 7th when he accidentally left his bag behind him in the waiting room at Cynwyd Railway Station. Accused stole the bag and subsequently sold it to a farmer for two shillings, having thrown the contents away with the exception of the manuscript, which was later on found by the police in a cupboard at accused's house. Accused was further charged with having on the night of February 7th stolen a hcrse and bridle, value f35 10s, the property of David White, Rhyd- yglaves, Llandrillo. He pleaded guilty to this charge also. Accused went to Rhydyglaves stable, which was not locked, took out the horse, put the bridle on, and rode it for three miles. He then got off the horse, turned its head towards Cynwyd and left it, leaving the bridle on tha roadside. In sentencing accused, the Judge said accused had pleaded guilty to both charges. There was a little doubt in law as to whether the accused stole the horse, because he had not disposed of it and it was not clear what he intended doing with it. However, he did not think it worth while accused withdrawing his pie], as to that charge. For both offences he sentenced him to hard labour for six calendar months on each indictment, the sentences to run concurrently. CHARGES OF PERJURY ONE MAN ACQUITTED. True bills for misdemeanour were returned by the grand jury agaiaat Rowland Edwards and -John Evans, labourers, of Greenfield-street, Machynlleth, who were indicted for having commit'ed pe-jury at Towyn Petty Sessions on November 5th. Mr Honoratus Lloyd, barrister (instructed by Mr W. Davies), prosecuted; and Mr Ellis Jones Griffith, M.P., barrister (instructed by Mr Martin Woosnam, Newtown), appeared for the defence. Rowland Edwards's case was taken first, Mr E. JonEs Griffith pleading not guilty. PETTY JURY. The following were called on the petty jury :— Messrs D. Aspinall, Barmouth, foreman E. Brazier, D. Davies, Thomas Evans, and L. O. Evans, Barmouth M. E. Cheek, Corwen A. Cotterill, Edward Edwards, and H. Evans, Towyn; H. Davies, Tyfos, Llandrillo David Davies, Llan- gor J. N. Edwards, Blaenau Festiniog Robert Evans, Llandrillo and J. Edwards, Bala. In opening the case for the prosecution, Mr Lloyd stated that on October 19th last Mr Rowland Williams, who bad been employed to catch rar bits en lands attached to Dolgelynin Farm, not far from Derwenlas, found two men (who he would say were the two prisoners) amongst his snares. An assault took place and Rowland Williams, the rabbit catcher, was left unconscious. When he recovered he went to Dolgelynio Farm and there was at- tended to. Subs, quentJy he took out summonses against the two prisoners for trespass and assault and the cases were heard before the Towyn magis- trates on November 5th. In consequence of the charges arising out of the same circumstances, it was agreed then that the cases should be heard together, but that that course should nat prejudice one defendant giving evidence for the other at the close. The charge against John Evans was heard and Rowland Edwards was called as a witness on his behalf for the purpose of helping his case. Rowland Edwards, the prisoner now before the Court, then swore that he was in bed on the after- noon of October 19th and that he never saw John Evans that day until half-past eight o'clock at night when returning to the quarry to work. He would call witnesses to prove that statement. He would call Rowland Williams, the man who was assaulted, and he would say that he had no doubt whatsoever that the prisoners were the men who assaulted him. How ell Davies, a stationmaster on the Corris Railway, and Griffith John Griffiths would say that they saw Rowland Edwards and John Evans at about half-past three o'clock going in the direction of the place where the assault was stated to have taken place. He would also call a witness, Edward Jones, who saw the two men on the high road returning from the place where the assault had taken place. The question for the jury would be whether the prisoner said what was un- true, knowing it to be untrue at the time. If they came to the conclusion he had, then they would find him guilty and, if not, it would be their duty to find him not guiity. David Evans, Machynlleth, clerk to the justices of the Estimaner petty sessional division, was the first witnet-s called. He said two informations were heard against the prisoners on November 5th. It j was agreed that the two charges should be heard together and, after the case for the prosecution had been heard, Rowland Edwards, the prisoner, was called as a witness on behalf of John Evans. Wit- ness produced his minute book and said the following note (taken when the case was before the ] magistrates) appeared Did not see Evans that afternoon saw him first at 8.30 p.m." In cross- examination, he said, "I was in bed on the after- i noon of the 19th. Did not see Evans anywhere that afternoon." In reply to a question by the i Bench, prisoner said he was in bed that afternoon. The result of the hearing was that prisoner was con- ] victed and fined for the trespass and assault.—In < cross-examination by Mr Ellis Jouee Griffith, witness said the cases were taken together, but ] treated as if heard separately. A man named Hugh 1 Edwards, a man named John Micah, and a girl ( named Sarah Ann Jones gave evidence for the defence. Hugh Edwards swore that he assaulted Rowland Williams and Micah said he was with 1 Edwards at the time. Eventually, Rowland < Edwards and John Evans were fined for the i assault. On the 22ud November they were tried ) for perjury and committed to Assizes. Subse- quently proceedings for perjury were taken against the three witnesses, Hugh Edwards, John Micah, t and Sarah Ann Jones. The charge against Hugh s Edwards was dismissed and the summons against 1 Sarah Ann Jones was withdrawn. The warrant < issued against John Micah was not executed. There were also charges of conspiracy against those men, but they were withdrawn on January 7th. Mr Ellis Jones Griffith (to witness)—Was it not < a condition, regarding Sarah Ann Jones, that if the charge against her was withdrawn that she must i not give evidence afterwards ? i Witness-A remark was made by the Chief Con- i stable openly in Court, but there was no such con- I dition. ] His Lordship, after Mr Jones Griffith had read I the remarks as reported in a newspaper, said it f was a question what defence was being made at t the time the remarks were uttered. < Mr Jones Griffith said the defence was no doubt that the men were not there. His Lordship said if that was the case, it was a most extraordinary remark for the Chief Constable to make, but if she had said she had made a mis- take, then the remark would not have been out of place. Mr Ellis Jones Griffith said he would call Sarah Ann Jones. There was no suggestion made by her or on her behalf that she had made a mistake. Witness-Not at all. In further cross-examioa- tion, he said the men were committed for trial. Bail was allowed defendants in jE50 and two sureties of £25 each, but proper sureties were not forth- coming and they were sett to Carnarvon gaol. He could not say at what stage tne Chief Constable made the remark referred to. Defendants were sworn to give evidence one for the other, although incidentally in the course of their evidence they made statements which helped themselves as well as each other. Mr E. Jones Griffith submitted that as the men were charged jointly to which they pleaded jointly. that the whole thing had been irregular-that. the two men could not have given evidence for them- selves. His Lordship said that a man who was called as a witness fcr another person could not be prevented taking the opportunity of doing himself good at the same time. Mr Jones Griffith contended that if the men were jointly charged either of them could not give evi- dence at all. There was a joint charge. His Lordship said there were two separate in- formations. The men were not jointly charged, but charged on separate informations and on the case coming cn the Bench decided to take the charges together, seeing that the greater part of the evidence was in common. The solicitor for the defence apparently did not object, but he said he did not want the charge to be turned into a joint charge and then it was understood that they would be taken together, but treated as separate. He was afraid the proceedings were quite regular. Mr Jones Griffith then said he must submit that that was so. Rowland Williami-, a rabbit catcher living at Towyn, was the next witness. He said that in October last he was employed to catch rabbits on land in the parish of Pennal, called Dolgelynin. Mr Lloyd-I am sure your Lordship has that down. (Laughter ) His Lordship—No, I do not think I have. (Re newed laughter.) M r Jones Griffith-It commences with a big D. Proceeding, witness said he had laid snares on the land and visited them on October 19th in the a'ternoon. It was about four o'clock. About 176 yards distant he saw Rowland Edwards and John Evans together amongst his snares. When he got up to them he saw that Edwards had a gun and Evans a stick. Asked them what business they had there amongst his snares and they made no reply. Told them they had no right to be there, whereupon Edwards hit him in the mouth and Evans struck him on the back of the head, causing him to fall down. Then they kicked him. He managed to get through a gap in the hedge and Edwards told Evans to give the b- a good kick before saying" good bye." Evans thereupon gave him a kick and he fell down unconscious. He remained there for some time. He did not know the names of the two men at the time; he believed that they were men from some caravans. On the following Thursday, however, he saw them ab the fair in Machynlleth and ascertained their names. On the following Saturday he took out summonses against them. He had no doubt about the men. Hugh Edwards and Micah he knew previously.— Cross-examined by Mr Jones Griffith It was quite light when he saw the men in the field. At first he thought they belonged to some caravans. Recognized them at Machynlleth fair and told them they were the men. Had no suspicion that it was somebody else who had assaulted him. Admitted telling a man named John Owen that he had a moustache like one of the men who assaulted him. Remembered Hugh Edwards saying (to the Towyn Bench) that Micah and himself had "punched" the old man; that Rowland Edwards told him he had been summoned and that he told him he would come forward and speak like a man. Knew those men before and knew Edwards as well as he knew his own brother. (Laughter.) You gave evidence against Hugh Edwards in the charge of perjury, but the case was dismissed ?- Well, they loosed him out whatever. (Loud laughter.)—In re-examination witness Ea"d I knew Edwards the same as my brother—(loud laugliter)-he had been working at Towyn, and I knew Micah too. Howell Davies, stationmaster at Llwyngwern Station on the Corris Railway, stated that he left Liwyngwern Station at 1-57 p.m. on October 19th, accompanied by Griffith John Griffith. They went down to Ffriddgate and then along the narrow guage railway. When they arrived at the Corris Railway Station at Machynlleth, he saw Rowland Edwards and John Evans walking towards Dovey Bridge. The road led to Pennal or Corris and he could not say whether they went in the direction of Pennal or not. He asked them how they were and they replied. Knew them before quite well. It would be about three o'clock when he saw them. Knew Dolgelynin Farm; it was about two miles dis- tant from where he saw the men.—Cross-examined: There was nothing unusual about the men and he took no more notice of them than of any other two persons he might have metonthe road. Could name no one else he met on the road. Often walked down to Machynlleth. but could not name anyone he met that week. He was first spoken to about the case some time in November. The trial for perjury took place on November 22nd and he was spoken to a few days before that date that would be three or four weeks after October 19th. He would swear that it was October 19th he met the men that was the only day he ever walked down with Griffith John Griffith. -Re-exainined Griffith came to Llwyngwern Station that day for two bundles of nails for the quarry which should have arrived by the 157 train. As they were not re- ceived by that train, Griffith and himself walked down to Machynlleth to get them. His Lordship—It looss rather queer to walk along the line for a parcel that should have come by train. (Laughter.) With a view to fixing the date Mr Lloyd was going to put in the quarry book which contlined an entry as to when the nails were ordered, but Mr Ellis Jones Griffitn objected, remarking that a stationmaster could know nothing about a quarry book. His Lordship allowed the point. Griffith John Griffith, Dovey Bridge, Machyn- Ileth, stated that in October he walked with the last witness to Machynlleth for two bundles of rails which should have come by the 157 p.m. train for the Llwyngwern quarry. On the way, they met Rowland Edwards and John Evans at about three or half-past three o'clock. Howell Davies spoke to them and they answered. Knew the men quite well. Did not know what date he fetched the nails, but it was the day after the thanksgiving services at Machynlleth.-In cross- examination, he said he remembered meet- ing the men because that was the day he walked down with Howell Davies, Met no persons but Rowland Edwards and John Evans. Had spoken to no one about the case. Had no conversation with Hugh Edwards about it and he denied having told Hugh Thomas, Graigfach, that he was not sure whether he saw the men or not. Had spoken to Robert Humphrey, who worked at the quarry but did not tell him anything about not being sure of the men. Was not frightened when the police came to him and denied having said so to anybody. The police came to him about a week or fortnight after the occurrence. Edward Jones, White Horse Hotel, Mtchynlleth, said that when driving on the afternoon of October 19th from Machynlleth to Pennal, he met Rowland Edwards and John Evans going in an opposite direction. It was between four or five o'clock then. He might have met other persons, but did not recollect having done so. He saw Ed'vards and Evans near the boundary of Dolgelynin Farm. Had known them for years.—Cross-examined Was sure they were the men. Had met them on the road about the 5th or 6:h October. The fir¡¡t cse had bean heard before he was asked by the p lice to ,,ive evidence. Admitted having tol l the m gis- Drates that he met Hugh Edwards and John Micah an the same road on the afternoon of October 19th. —Re examined The previous day was thanks- jiving day at Machynlleth. P.S. Hughes, Towyn, said he apprehended the prisoner, Edwards, on the morning of November 18th. Cautioned him and he replied, I have told no lies at the meeting."—In cross-examination, witness said he had the warrant in his hand when le arrested Edwards. It was too dark then to 7ead it to him, but read it at the Police Station. Did not remember telling the magistrate that he oad no warrant. Superintendent Jones read out ;he conspiracy warrant. Mr Lloyd said that was the case for the Crown. Ele added that he had other witnesses, but one was laid up and could not attend therefore the evidence of the other was immaterial in his tbsence. Mr E. Jones Griffith told the jury that before he could address them in the casp he would call before -,hem the evidence of John Evans who was tried vith the prisoner at Towyn and he would reserve lis observations until that evidence had been heard. fhe charge against the prisoner was that he made i false statement to the effect that he was in bed on he afternoon of October 19th and that he did not lee Evans until 8-30 that night. The question was whether the jury were going to believe there was 10 question of mistake in that case. Sometimes the iefence was that a mistake had been made. There was no defence of that kind in that case. They would have to decide who was telling the truth up- )D the whole. Was that man in bed on the after- loon of October 19th or was he along the public :oad as made out by the prosecution ? The charges igainst Edwards and Evans were those of being in search of game and assaulting a man named Row- and Williams and they were heard at Towyn- leard in a way that did not often take place, one viving evidence for the other. It would be material :or the jury to consider what evidence was brought igainst the men by the prosecution, simply that of >ne man who they had heard that day. Rowland Wi"iaoiri raid Rowland Edwards was the roan who bad a gun undr r is arm and who knocked him lown. Evans said he had not seen him that day. Rowland Edwards said he wis in bed. Sarah Ann Jones was called and s,e said that Evans was in bed that afternoon. Two men, Hugh Edwards and John Micih, said they were the men who assaulted the old man. Hugh Edwards said he would not stand by and see another man in trouble. He would appear before the magistrates and speak out iike a man and he did go. Yet the magistrates at Towyn came to the conclusion that Rowland Williams was right, the only witness for the prose- cution, who first of all thought the men came from some caravan. The mt-n were fined and paid toeir fines, but that was not enough, for upon that evi- dence a warrant was taken dut for perjury ag.inst the men who were brought before the magistrarcs and seut to the A-sizes tor trial. The question the jury had to decile was whether upon the evidence before them they thought the prisoner was on the land that day or whether Edwards did not tell the truth. A great point had been made about a gu n which Williams said Rowland Edwardshad withhim in the field, but not one of the witnesses had seen ir with him on the public road. Hugh Edwards and Sarah Ann Jones were charged with perjury and conspiracy. The former said he was the man who assaulted Williams, but the charge against him was dismissed, although he was the man who had told the very lie that was at the basis ot that prosecution. The charge was not proceeded with against Sarah Ann Jones. A kind of bargain was made with her-" If we do not proceed against you, you do not give evidence." The question was who was the jury going to believe? He regretted that he was not iu a position to call Hugh Edwards, but he would call his medical man w ho would prove that Hugh Edwards was not fit to at- tend. He would call John Evans who would say what he said before. There wa a good point in ,avour of the evidence of Edwards and that was that he gave evidence soon after -I he issault, where- as the witnesses for the prosecution haj not been asked for three weeks. It was wonderful how people's memories were refreshed. After hearing the evidence, he hoped the jury would find that the prisoner at the bar was not guilty of the charge. At thii juncture, Mr E. Jones Griffith asked the man John Owen, whom Rowland Williams had told was like one of the men who had assaulted him, to stand up. Owen having done so, Mr Jones Griffith asked the jury if there was any resem- blancp. in him to John Evans. Owen had a healthy appearance and a long moustache while Evans had grown a beard during his incaic ration. He also had a moustache and looked pile. His Lordship said the imprisonment of Evans might account for the altered appearance. Evidence for the defence was then called. John Evans said that what he told the Towyn magistrates was true. He was in bed on October 19th. Rowland Williams came up to him in the fair and told him he was the man who kicked him. Told Williams he did not know him and hid never seen him before. Did not see Rowland Edwards until 8-30 p.m. on the night of Octob, r 19tii. -In cross-examination, witness said he was in bed ou the day in question and was not along the road hading to Pennal. Mr Lloyd-Has Rowland Edwards got a gun He used to keep a gun, but it is a long time since I saw it. Does he ever carry the gun in his pocket?—I have not seen him. Have you never seen him detach the stock and barrel of the gun and put them in pockets placed inside his coat ?-I saw him do that once last year Sarah Ann Jones, housekeeper where John Evans lives, said her attention to what to' k place on October 19th was attracted on the following Thurs- day. Evans was in bed on the afternoon of October 19th and he left the house at ten o'clock to go to work. -Cross-examined: Evans took a stick with him when he went to work. When he worked at night, he always went to bed in the dayiime. Rowland Edwards possessed a gun, but she had missed it siuce the time he wad first" brought up." Dr W. R. Williams, Machynlleth, gave evidence as to Hugh Edwards's health and said he had advised Edwards not to attend that day.—In cross- examination, he said Edwards went ont about Machynlleth. He would not be able to commit au assault. This wa3 the case for the defence. In addressing the jury, Mr Ellis Jom s Griffith ref. rred to the peril to which Hugh Ed -.A ar,As ex- po, d himself when he came forward and told th, m igistrates that he was the man who assaulted Rowland Williams. He asked the jury to believe that story and, having reviewed the evidence, he asked them would they convict the prisoner upon the evidence of Howell Davies? Edward Jon^s, cailed by the prosecution, admitted, in cro,s- examination, that he saw Hugh Edwards and John Micah on the Pennal road on the same afternoon as he saw the other two men. The case for the defence all along had been that those were the two men who committed the assault. Reference had been made to a gun. Well, it was no crime to carry a gun, or even double it up and put it in the pocket. If it cou'd have helpe i the prosecution, the gun would have been there in Court and the fact that it was not there showed that not much could be relied upon that. Mr Lloyd also addressed the jury at length. Witnesses had been called on behalf of prosecution who said that they had seen Rowland Edwards and John Evans going in the direction of the place where the assault was committed and later on saw them returning, and they had the evidence of Rowland Williams who said he was assaulted by two men, whom he afterwards identified in Rowland Edwards and John Evans. He referred to the absence of Hugh Edwards that day and said if he was the man who would not let another man suffer, he would have attended that* day and given his evidence despite his medical adviser, but he had not done so. He asked the jury to find prisoner guilty. In summing up, his Lordship said the question for the jury to decide was whether they were satisfied that the evidence given by Rowland Edwards was untrue and that he knew at the time it was untrue. In a charge of perjury the law did not allow them to fiad a person guilty upon the evidence of one witness alone, but t.at did not apply to the present case, because they had three or four speaking as to the presence of the prisoner on that occasion. Observations had been made about other proceedings and the result of them, but it seemed to him that those had nothing to do with the verdict the jury ought to give. It was suggested in the first instance that the magistrates who heard the case first were very rash, at any rate, that they listened to the evidence ot one witness only. The question about the withdrawal of charges or the dismissal of charges had nothing whatever to do with the jury they must dtcide upon the present state of thingp. Referring to the dismissal of the charge of perjury against Hugh Edwards,his Lordship ,aid ifthe Bench hadonlythe evidence of one witness, Rowland Williams, they were bound, according to law, to dismiss it, The dismissal did not show that the man's evidence was true or untrue. The point was were they satisfied and they must be satisfied with the evidence brought before them—that the evidence given before the magistrates was false. The s'atement made by the prisoner on that occasion was that he was not in the company of John Evans on theafternoon, that he was in bed ant did not see John Evans until half-past eight o'clock when they were going to work. Was the jury satisfied or nut that that statement was untrue? Rowland Williams said he was assaulted by two mea who he did not know until he met them at Machyn- Heth two days later. It was suggested that Hugh Edwards and John Micah were the real men, but Rowland Williams said he knew tnem previously and would not require to go anywhere to ascertain their names. If the matter stopped there and there was no more evidence, he would ask them to acquit the prisoner. But there were thrcn other witnesses who said they saw Rowland Edwards and John Ev ins on the road that afternoon, so it was proved that the prisoner c uld not have been in bed a's sug- gested. HI asked them to consider their verdict. Meanwhile an adjournment was made for lUDCl and on re-assembii. g, the Foreman of the jury said the verdict was that prisoner was guilty, but they recommended him to mercy. John Evans was then put in the dock and charged with committing ptrjury. Lie pleaded not guilty. PETTY JURY. The following gentlemen were sworn on the petty jury to try the case -Me-.srs Morris Evans, Ciiffe Farm, Brithdir and Islaw'rdref; William Franklyn," Aelybryn, Towyn; Thoints Griffith, Blaenycein, Llandecwyn Richard Griffith, High- street, Dolgelley; Robert Hughes, Brongwyndy, Trawsfyuydd Hugh Hughes, Bndge-s" reet, Cor- wen Charles Hall, High street, Ba;a J. M Jones, Fern Lea, Barmouth; T. Palmer James, Frondirion, Dolgelley David Thomas Lewis, Man- chester House, Bala William Morris, Highgate, Trawsfyuydd and G. E. Owen, Greenwich House, Barmouth. For the prosecution the witnesses called in the previous case were again examined and cross ex- amined, but nothing new was elicited. P.C. Tudor, Machynlleth, proved the arrest of prisoner, John Evans. He was charged by Super- intendent Jones and he replied, I know notting at all about it."—Cross-examined The warrant was read to prisoner at the Police Station. With a view to fixing the date upon which Howell Davies and Griffith John Griffith walked down for the two bundles of nails referred to by them, Bennett Jones, Llwyngwern quarry, was called. He produced the quarry order book and showed an entry dated October 19,h when the nails were ordere i. He said they were ordered in tne morning and should have arrived by the afternoon train.—In cross-examination, he said it was not strange that the book showed no orders entered from the 14ch October until the 19th October. This was the case for the prosecution. For the defence Dr Williams and Sarah Ann Jones gave evidence similar to that they previously gave. Rowland Williams was put into the witness br.x, but Mr Jones Griffith told him to stand down and he would call him. Mr Ellis Jones Griffith asked the jury to consider this case upon its o wn merits and apart from what had transpired in the other case. Was the prisoner a participator in the trespass and assault cases ? He swora positively that he was not there and when arrested be said that he knew nothing at all about it. The question they had to consider wis whether it had been proved to their satisfaction that he had not said what was true and had it been proved that he was on the road on October 19th last. The witnesses for the prosecution were cot reminded cf the occurrences until three weeksaft?rand possibly they had made a mistake as to the date. Iu the course of his address, Mr Lloyd said that even Sarah Ann Jones, who was olbd for the de- fence, could not be called a disinterested witness Had she gone through the marriage cer. mony with Evans she could not have been called, but having regard to her relation to him she could be called and she was evidently interested in his freedom. MrJones Griffith had suggested that the prosecu- tion bad made a mistake as to the date, but if that was so, Mr Jones Griffith's own witnesses a!so made a mistake, for they said it was the 19th October. His Lordship summed upland the jury retired. At a subsequent p riod the jury returned into Court and the Foreman announced that they were not likely to agree as to the verdict. His Lordship—I must send you back again to try. The Foreman-I am afraid they will not. The jury again retired and later on returned into Court. The Foreman—We find John Evans not guilty. (Sensation.) John Evans wa3 thereupon acquitted and the jury was discharged. Rowland Edwards was then put into the dock to receive sentence. Mr Jones Griffith, in mitigation of sentence, pointed out that prisoner had already been in gaol for three months and that the jury had recom- mended him to mercy. He had a wife, and during the time he was in gaol a child bad been born to him. His family were dependdnt upon the Union. Addressing prisoner, his Lordship said that he had been convicted of giving false evidence before the magistrates. Generally speaking, p-rjury was a very s.rious offence and he was sorry to see that it wag a very prevalent offence. It was an offence in which in the majority of cases it was necessary in his opinion, to inflict severe punishment. At the same time, he cousidered that in prisoner's case it was n t so serious because there was a possibility for a person like the prisoner, who was charged with an offence, to give evidence practic- al!y in bia own favour, although nominally he was giving evidence for the other MSD, John Evans. Under those circumstances, he felfc able to p"s a lighter sentence. At the same time, he wished it to be thoroughly understood that in his judgment the offence was by no means a,triyial one. Taking into consideration the fact that prisoner had al- ready been three months in goal, he would sentence him to three months with hard labour. CIVIL BUSINESS. ACTION AGAINST THE DOLGELLEY URBAN COUNCIL. The case of Carpenter v. the L>oIg>-Uuy Urban District Council then came on for hearing. This was an action brought by Harold Frederick Car- penter, proprietor of the Cambrian Brewery, Dol- gelley, for an injunction to restrain the defendants, their servants, and agents from carrying on, con ducting, authorising, or permitting to be carried on or conducted the business of a slaughter-house for cattle at Dolgelley so, or in such manner as to cause a nuisance to the plaiu iff, his family, and servants by offensive sm dl, effluvia, or noise. Plaintiff claimed damages and costs. Plaintiff is a brewer and carries on business at the Cambrian Brewery, Dolgelley. The defendants, it was alleged in the statement of claim, were the owners and occupiers of the slaughter-house, which abuts on the brewery premises. It was alleged that the defendants carried on the slaughtering of cattle and conducted their operations there in s-uch a manner as to be a serious nuisance to the plain- tiff that the defendants kept their premises in a very unclean and insanitary state and allowed the offal, &c., to accumulate until it was in a putrid condition and it was alleged that the stench caused thereby was intolerable. Plaia- tiff also complained that the defendants allowed cattle to remain at the slaughter-house for a much long-r time than was necessary and did not give them sufficient food and water during th time, and the bellowing of the cattle was so con- stant and frequent as to deprive plaintiff and his household of their proper [es, and that plaintiffs business was damaged by reason of the vapours arising from the slaughterhouse coutaminating the yeast used by the plaintiff in his brewery opera- tions and injuriously affected the quantity of the beer brewed by him. Unless the defendants were restrained by injunction the plaintiff alleged that he would be unable to carry oa his business. The defence put in was that the defendants had erected the sl Augliter- house pursuant to the provi- sions ofthe Public Health Act; that they were not the occupiers of the slaughter-house, which was let from time to time to butchers that the plaintiff had not suffered the alleged or any nuisance that the premises were not kept in an unclean condition, or allowed offal co accumulate, or kept cattle that plaintiff's business had not suffered and that if any complaint existed (which was not admitted) that the plaintiff had not before action brought given the defendants sufficient or any opportunity to tender amends or remove the cause of complainant. Mr J. E. Fox, barrister, Croydon, and Mr E. 0. Roberts, barrister, Llanfachreth (instructed by Mr Edridge, Croydon), appeared for plaintiff and Mr Honoratus Lloyd and Mr Ellis Jones Griffith, M. P. (instructed by Mr Wr. R, Davies, Dolgelley) appeared for the Dolgelley Urban Couucil. In opening the case for plaintiff, Mr Fox said his Lordship would remember that the action was one which came before Mr Justice Kekewich in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, but sent down to those Assizes for trial. Having stated what plaintiff sought for, Mr Fox said the action was not launched against the Council in an antagonistic spirit by Mr Carpenter: The nuisance conplained of was two-fold in character. Plaintiff complained that offal, etc., was allowed to accumu- late, etc. that cattle were kept there ciuch lo-jger than necessary without food or water and he was disturbed by their bellowing and that the effluvia from the putrid matter was at tim(s so bid a.&. to cause considerable damage to the ingredietts he was obliged to use in his bnrdnesg. Plaintiff had made repeated complaints and repeated requests to defendants, but they had not been complied with. Defendants appeared to be under the impress-on, as far as he could gather, that because the slaughter-house was theie before plaintiff put up his brewery and residence next to it, that he was bound to put up with what existed there, rightly or wrongly. He thought that if a man had purchased land and went to reside on it that he was entitled to reasonable enjoyment of it. The defendants denied that they were the occupiers of the slaughter-house and said it had been erected by them in accordance with the provisions of the Public Health Act Ha would point out that the Council was nok bound to provide a slaughter-house, although they hid the right. Mr Fox then proceeded to read corr, spondurice which had taken place between Mr Carpenter and the Council. The following letter datfed 26th July, 1895, was written by Mr Carpenter to the Clerk to the CouDeil My attention has been called, t,) certain offal and decomposing animal matter in the slaughter house, the stench arising from which is absolutely unbearable. On inspection, I find at least a cart load of refuse there in »dvanc :d stage of decomposition. This is a state of things which surely ought not to exis", especially adjoining pre- mises where from ten to twelve men are constantly employed. I have on several occa-.ions called the attention of your Inspector to this and again to. day. I trust that the Urban District Council will immediately take steps to remedy this intolerable nuisance.—Yours faithfully, H. F. Carpenter." That letter, Mr Fox explai- ed, was sent a short time after completing the building of the brewery. It was read at the Council meetii g and the follow- ing was the minute appearing in the Council's minute book A letter wag read from Mr Car- penter calling the Council's attention to certain offal and d-com posing matter at the slaughter-house and which during the hot weather has proved to be a source of serious nuisance and deemed to en- danger the health of the persons employed by him in the adjoining premises. The sime having been considered, it was resolved that the Clerk write to John Price, Fronoleu, requesting him to at once re- move the present deposit and to remove future deposics at least once a week during the summer months." Mr Fox said it would strike his Lordship as something extraordinary t'at the de- fendants should take upon themselves to consider or come to the conclusion that the removal of de- composing offal should not tike place oftener than once a week in the summer months. Such a stite of things would be absolutely intolerable. He would deal with that in the evidence. What the state of the matter would be at the end of seven days he would leave his Lordship to con- jecture. Thii next letter, continued Mr Fox, was written on Augy-ust- 16th, 1895, from the Clerk to the Council to Mr John Price. It was as follows —" I am directed by the Council to inform you that having regard to the unsatisfactory manner the manme is removed by you from the slaughter- house, ti)ey have directed me to invite tenders for the removal of the manure for the twelve months, commencing on 2nd September next.-W. R. Davies."—On August 18th, the following letter was sent to Mr Carpenter from Mr W. R. Davies The Surveyor to the Council reported at the meeting held on Tuesday last that you have re- cently connected a drain from the brewery with the sewer in the main road adjoining and without applying for the consent of the Council, and I am directed to call your attention to the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, in relat;on to the matter whereby upon such conditions as would be agreed upon between the owner and the local authority, provision is made for allowing a drain similar to yours to be connected with the Bewer of the local authority. Notwithstanding, the work has been done (no doubt, through misad- venture) without obtaining the Councd's consent, I have no doubt you will now he prepared to enter- tain teryis and conditions in the same manner as if you had applied for such consent." Mr Fox pointed out that Mr Carpenter had built outside the urban council district and therefore the drain was Dot under the control of the Council and he was not required to submit plans to tnem. So that the letter was written under a misappre- hension. Mr Carpenter replied to that letter stating that he was not aware that the drain iu question had anything to do with the Couiicil, aud lieti he bought the land the drain was already mule. Ou J anuary 30th, 1896, Mr Carpenter agai.n made a complaint to the Council as foli(lws Some little time ago I called yonr attention to the insanitary state of the slaughter-house. Of late, it has been such an intohrable nuisance that I have had again to call the Inspector's att ntion to it. In the event of a recurrence of this, I shall be under the painful necessity of applying for an injunction to restrain the Council from using the _1- _1.L L 1.. siaugni-er-nouse aitogetner. An acknowledg- lient of fci.aletter was received from the Clerk to the Council, and Mr Carpenter replied on the 23rd of January, 1896 In reply to yours of yesterday, for which I am obliged, lam sorry to say that I regard the adjacent slaughter-house a nuis- ance in more ways than one. In the first instance, 1 have had just cause to complain of the abominable stench arising therefrom on several occasions, as the Inspector (Mr Jones) is fully aware and this is in itself enongh cause for complaint and I think the Medical Offic r of Health ought to have his attention called to it. I am sure no medical officer would for one moment permit such a state of things t') exist when it is a well-known fact that offal and o:her refuse is lying there from day to day in an advanced stage of de- composition without any attempt being made to re- move it or even disinfect the premises. Secondly. When animals are left there over night, I presume, for execution next n,or.iing, the noise they make prevents anybody from obtaining anything like a night's rest." Mr Fox said the n«xt portion of the letter referred to guttering and lights with which he would not trouble his Lordship. The letter con- cluded I big respectfully to remind the Council that I do not with to make myself objectionable to them, but I feel it my duty to call their at ention to what 1 consider gross neglect on their part." On January 30th, 1896, the Clp.rk wrote to Mr Carpenter statiog that the letters were read to the Council and consideration deferred until their next meeting. In the meantime, the Medical Officer of Health and the Inspector cf Nui-ancea would visit and report upon tiae premises. On February 3rd Mr Carpenter wrote to Mr W. R. Davies to the following effect "I am in receipt of yours of the 30th January and I am surprised to find that the Council deem it necessary t:) let such a matter as this stand over for further consideration. 11 will, therefore, have the Council clearly to under stand that I do not intend the matter to be shelved ver until another meeting, as in the meantime I or my employees may be stricken dewn with diphtheria With regard to the nuisance I complain of, I have met with such scaat courtesy on the part of the Council thit I must put the matter in the hands of my solicitor." Mr W. R. Davies acknowledged that letter and inf rme 1 Mr Carpenter that he had written to the Medical Offieer- of Health and to the Inspector of Nuisazices. Since that letter was received, Mr Fix said the Medical Officer of Health made an inspection of the premises and made certain recommendations of which he did not for a moment complain. He only wished to observe that whatever state of things existed at the time Mr Carpenter did uomp'ain they did not exist when Dr Jones went there, for as far as he could gather there was nothing in his report about any offil being at the slaughter-house. On February 20th, Mr W. R. Davies wrote to Mr Carpenter stating that the letterj had been duiy considered by the Council and he was directed to inform Mr Carpenter that although, on inspection of the premises, there did not appear to exist the nuisances alleged by him,they had given directions for such alterations to bs made in the drainage, etc., of the building as would remove the possibility of any nuisance arising from the premises. On October 21st, Mr Carpenter wrote to Mr Davies I sincerely hope that the Council will settle this question amicably and without further trouble as this has been a source of dissatisfaction to me for some months past. Of course, you know fully well that I am no'; unreasonable in making the request and I shall therefore be glad if you will bring the matter before the Council at their next meeting." Mr Fox passed several letters regaiding eaves and lights and said the next letter he desired to call his Lordship's attention to was one dated 26th February, 1897. from Mr Guthrie Jones, solicitor, to Mr W. R. Davies. It was as follows: —"I am instructed by Mr H. F. Carpenter of the Cambrian Brewery, Dolgelley, to write to you, as clerk to the Dolgdley Urban District Council, with rtferenceto a nuisance caused to him by calves and other animals which have been left over night at the Council's slaughter-house making a continual noise and bellowing during the night and thereby being a source of very great annoyance to my client. He has on several nights being unable to sleep oiing to the noise made by these animals and I am directed to ask your Council to take such steps as will prevent the continuance of the nuisance complained of, or my client will have po alternative but to take pro- ceedings for an injunction to restrain the same" Mr Fox said Mr Davies acknowledged receipt of those letters with regard to Mr Carpenter's complaints and stated that the same would be laid before the Council at their next meeting, On March 15th, Mr Daties wrote to Mr Carpenter sta ing that the letters were read at the Council meeting and that consideration was deferred until toe next meeting. Mr Fox said that the Council appeared to have considered the letters, for on the 23rd March the Council resolved that no action be taken in the matters referred to. On June 15th his client wrote to Mr Jones, the inspector of nuisances, as follow,i I shall be glad if you will again give instructions for the removal (,f the offal from the slaughter-house. The stench is again unbearable. I was always under the impression that such places should be cleaned and disinfected daily. I have had three lots of yeast spoiled this summer and the food in the larder will not keep in consequence." On June 16th Mr Carpenter sent the following letter to the 'Inspector :Twen,y-four hours have passed since I called your attention to the putrid offal reeking in, a state of foment in the slaughter-house aind you have not yet taken step3 to have it removed, I have called in two independent gentlemen to see it and they both agree that it is dangerous to be near. If you do rot hive the nuisance removed before twelve o'clock mid-night, I shall have to close my premises as it is impossible to carry on under the circumstances. You have already done me an incalculable amount of damage, compensation for which I am proceeding to recover. Every letter I write upon the subject has been ignored and ridiculed and I have arrived at the concfusion that it is useless dealing with the Council or its subordinates. The matter is, therefore, now entirely out of my hands and I have (not with- out great reluctance, and patience) instructed my solicitor, Mr Edridge of Croydon, to apply for an iojunction pending an action for damages." Mr Fox htre explained that Mr Guthrie Jones had friends cn the Council and in town and that was the reason he did not proceed in the case. Proceeding. he said that in reply to Mr Carpent r's letter, the Inspector wrote to him as follows Your remarks are rash and hasty when you say that no notice is taken of your complaints for in les3 than half an hour after the receipt of your fir,t letter I sent one o' the scavengers over and told him to.do whatever was wanted in order to hive the place free from nuisance to anyone. Will you please let me know what hour you will be there in the aft moon so that I can see you, for I can assure you that I have every desire to keep the place s-o as not to cause any nuisance to you ? Reply will oblige." Reply- ing to that letter, Mr Carpenter wrote the follow. ing letter to the I!, spect,,r In reply to your note just to hand, I am afraid you 'ake it that I am attaching all the blame to you. This, however, is not the case. All my former correspondence with the Council has been through Mr W. R. Davies, the clerk, which has been of no avail, and I am at a loss to know to whom to write. How- ever, your scavenger does not appear to have done anything as the place is in the same sta' f- now (only worse) as when I smelt it on Saturday. I am sure you are well aware that I am not agitating unneces- sarily as I know you must be cognisant of the fact that a brewery must be as clean as a dairy in order to obtain good results. Personally, I am very particular about keeping my place clean, and I make liberal use of clean water and disinfeotant daily. I am well aware that the Council have done several things to annoy me whi h, as gentlemen, they might have left undone, and I do not intend to he annoyed by them any longer. It will, bow- ever, exonerate you personally if you will kindly attend to this matter for me. I am sorry I cannot see you to-day as I am very busy, but if you like to call in to-morrow I shall be pleased to eee you when I think there will be a better understanding between us." Mr Fox said that was the case he would put before hia Lordship and then proceeded to call evidence. Plaintiff was then cal'ed and in examination said he was in Couit when the letters was read. The statement of facts was perfectly correct and the matters to which he had referred in his letters had existed in fact. Subsequently, he found the yeast going wrong and at last he discovered by the use of the microscope that it was degenerating by reason of the smell from the slaughter-house. There was no foundation for the suggestion that there was any nuisance on his premises, He had on several occasions known cattle to have been kept at the slaughter-house for seventy-two hours without food or water, The animals made a constant noise throughout the night and the statement that, he was deprived of sleep in consequence was perfectly correct. He had sent to the officer for cruelty to animals, but could not fix the date. Mr Lloyd said it was the 13th of November. Mr Fox said he pointed that out to show that the nuisance had been going on since the action was brought. Continuing, plaintiff said he had personally seen accumulations of offal upon the slaughter-house pre mises in a very advanced state of decomposition.— In cross-examination plaintiff sa;d he was the o, ner of the brt wei-y and purchased the land in 1894. Then knew the slaughter-hr use was there. If the slaughter-house were hp" clean it would be an ad- vantage to have it next door. His Lordship—Why would it be au advantage ? —Because it wculd be kept clean. His Lordship—That is a curious reason. In continued cross-examination, plaintiff said if the slaughter-hou-e were kept clean and in proper ordtr it would be an advantage. It would be a great disadvantage if not properly kept. Did not ascertain what manner the slaughter house was kept before he bought the land adjoining. He bought the land with the idea of building a brewery. He had had experience in the brewery trade. The brewery was completed in September. 189, and they commenced brewing in October, the following month. It was a modern breweiy and he would say it was the finest brewery of its size iu the Prin- cipality. J he vats were situated on the first floor and he admitted they were open to ri ceive dust or anything of that sort from below, but it Wi»s very improbable that there would be any dust theie. Admitted having had a small quantity of manure at the back of the brewery, but it had never ex- ceeded one-and-a-half to two loads. He denied that the stench from it on any occasion was intolerabe Never used artificial manure for the garden and there was no decomposed refuse at all on the brewery premises. Referring to the manure, Mr Lloyd asked what would become of the smell? Plaiutiff-I don't know. I am not a philosopher. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said the prevailing wind was in the direction of the brewery from the slaughter-house and his ^tables If the windows of the brewery facing that way were kept open it would find its way to the vat, but he did not think that would affect the beer. He had watched the slaughter-house vsiy -minutely. He had only seen the slaughtc r house being washed down on one occasion. Offal had been allowed to remain there for seven or eight days at a time and he had com- plained of it. He had complained also of the noise made by the bullocks, cows, sheep, pigs, and a lamb kept there. Asked what complaint he had against the pigs, plaintiff said there was a good dael of squea'ing going on when they were being killed. Mr Lloyd-Do you know of any slaughterhous,) where there is no noise when the pigs are being killed ? Witness-I never said anything of the kind. In further cross-examination, plaintiff said he did not know how long it was necessary to keep animals befcre slaughtering them. He did not know that it was necessary to keep them for any length of time. He could not say how many animals were killed at the slaughter-house during the year, but he should think several hundreds. He had called the attention of be Inspector to the offal and he said it was not his fault, but the fault of the man who held the contract for the cleaning of the slaughter-house, who ought to carry it away. The Inspector admitted that the place was badly kept and said he would have the offal removed. It was then in an advanced state of decomposition and had been there for a week. His yeast was damaged by the vapours from the slaughter-house and on some occasions was so bad that ifc did not need a micr iscope to find that out. Denied that his yeast suffered in consequence of certain in- gredients he used which were generally disapproved of by the trade. He used nothing but mab and hor,s.-Re-examined He exercised personal super- vision from day to day over the brewery. The manure was always removed from his premises and there could be no possibility of complaint. Ernest; Lloyd, pupil at the Cambrian Brewery, said he had seen decomposed offal in the slaughter- house yard and he had been sent by Mr Carpenter cn several occasions to put chloride of lime in the drain there. The offal he had known to have been allowed to remain there for several days.—Cross examined He believed there was a proper place for keeping the offal, but he had seen it about the yard. There was no smell from Mr Carpenter's stable. It was always kept down. (Laughter.) Asked what he meant by that, witness said there was once some grain which smelt a little and they put lime on it. He denied that the grain was rotten at the time. There was no strong smell from it and they put lime on in order that there should be no possibility of complaint by anybody. The Court adjourned at seven o'clock. FRIDAY'S COURT. The Court resumed on Friday morning when the hearing of the Dolgelley case was continued. There was again a large attendance of the general public, great interest being evinced in the case. Mr Fox said he had forgotten to prove the plans of the premises on the previous day. He would therefore put the plans in an i call a witness to prove them. Mr Lloyd said he would admit the plans. He had no doubt they were substantially c rrect. William Appleby, Basford, Nottingham, a brewer of forty-five years' expetience, said that up to a month ago he had been employed as brewer with Mr Carpenter for nearly two yea's Speaking as to the tt,te of affairs at the slaughter-house between June and Ju!y, 1896, witness said he noticed a fearful smell coming from the slaughter- house which arose from the offal which was allowed to accumulate and decompose there. The offal was in a state of foment and the Inspector's attention was called to it. Had personally made complaints about it and in the summer of 1897 had occasion to complain of it because his health suffered from it. The brewery premises were kept quite clean. On one occasion, when he was complaining, he saw Superintendent Jones, who was present in Court, and pointed out the offal. There was a large heap of it thre then. He also drew the attention of the Inspector of Nuisances to it and told him if it was not removed in twenty-four hours he would report the matter to the Board in London. The reply made by the Inspector was Perhaps you are an expert in letter writing." However, the accumula- tion was there next morning. His Lordship asked witness what date that was and witness replied that he could not remember. Mr Fox said he might fix it by the corres- pondence. It would be about August. Mr Lloyd thought it would be about Whit Mon- day. Continuing, witness said he had also often noticed refuse backing in the drain after an ordinary down- fall of rain. The smells from the slaughter-house would be greatly detrimental to successful brewing. To be successful with the brewery operations the brewer must be as absolutely clean as a dairy- maid in a dairy.—In cross-examination, witness said a stagnant atmosphere and smells arising from stagnant pools or putrid animal matter would cause yeast to degenerate. If there was decayed hops and manure in the brewery garden they would not effect the y, ast -those were perfectly harmless He had made no mlCroscrpical examination of the yeast, because that was unnecessary to a person of his experience. His Lordfsbip-Is there a substantial claim for damages t Mr Fox said his friend and he had agreed to leave the question of damage to the yeast out of the proceedings altogether. That would materially shorten the proceedings, as the witnesses on that question would not be called. He would waive his claim for such damage provided he obtained a result which he did not fear he would not. Mr Lloyd said the question of damages to the yeast had been raised on the pleadings aud raised in a very definite way but there were no parti- culars or evidence giveu as to the amount of Yk aSt destroyed. Thera was very little to guide the,n in the matter. His Lordship thought that was put in to show that the nuisance was a real and substantial one and to persuade the Judge who might try the action to grant che injunction. Mr Lloyd said he was prepared with a load of expert evidence on the question, but he would agree to the course suggested by his friend which would no doubt shorten the matter very materi- ally. Mr Fox said on that understanding he would not call any more evidence on the yeast question. His Lordship said the question was whether or not there was such a nuisance as alleged at about the time of action brought as would justify the in- junction applied for. An injunction to remove the slaughter-house entirely was not asked for. Mr Fox said that was all he asked for. Mr Lloyd said the point was really a narrow one. HIs clients had no desire to carry on the business io a way to cause a nuisance. The question was whether there was a nuisance since the Council took the mat'er up. His Lordship said Mr Lloyd could not leave out the fact that the nuisance was complained of be- fore. An injunction in the shape app!ied for would do no harm as long as the offence was not con- tinued. Witness, in continued cross examinati n, denied that there was an offensive smell from a heap of manure and hops in the stable. Admitted that he had put lime on it, but he did so that there might not be a complaint by the Urban District Council. The offal was removed from the slaughter-house to a kind of shed provided for its reception and the offal he had been speaking about was the offal in this shed. It remained there for forty-eight hours, as far as he could say, There would be about two cart loads of it. When he was being medically tre ted, he complained of the offal to his doctor, Dr Thomas. M. Littlewood Pulling, groom in the employ of Mr Carpenter, said he had had occasion to com- plain of the offtnaive smells from the slaughter- house. He bad seen the same heap of offal allowed to remain on those premises for days. He had alf.o seen nnggots on the offal. -Cross-examined There was some manure and hops in Mr Carpenter's stable on which he admitted putting lime. He denied that it had an offensive smell. Saw a cart- load of entrails lying about the Blaughter-houae. Alfred Barnett, 24, Gray's Inn-road, London, brewer's engineer, in the employ of Messrs Andrews and Co., said he had charge of the fitting up of the brewery when it was built. He was employed there for two months. The smells from the slaughter-house were very bad during the irne he was at the brewery. One day he went over to the slaughter-house when he saw a large quantity of offal in the receptocle which appeared as if it had not been cleared away for some time. Bad smell; would kill the yeast. Mr Lloyd objected to witness going into the yeast quebtion because they had already agreed to drop that. His Lordship concurred and Mr Fox did not pur- sue the matter further. Crosj-examined, witness said he was at the brewery from July to the eud of August, 1895. The stables had not ben built. Noticed the smells as soon as he arrived. The uffal should have been cleared every day. Robert Lewis, Market Hall, Dolgelley, said he had been in the employ of Mr Carpenter for about two years. When going to the slaughter-house for ca.'s meat, he observed offal lying about the place in a decomposed state. The smell was very un- pleasant. Ha I a'so seen offal lying ab mt the yard covered with maggots. In fact, people went there for maggots to go fishing. Parry Jones, electrical engineer at the brewery, said he had seen offal at the slaughter-house in an advanced state of decomposition. He had also noticed that animals were kept there and made considerable noise. To his knowledge one sheep was kept at the slaughter-house from Thursday until Saturday night. O. O. Roberts, headmaster of the Dolgelley Board School, said on one occasion at Mr Carpenter's re- quest he went into the brewery garden. He im- mediately noticed a very offensive smell and went away, being unable to stop there. Dr Hugh Thomas, Dolgelley, said he had not been in the slaughter-house, but his attention had bten drawn to the offensive s nell, and as far as he could make out the smell proceeded from decom- posed animal matter. The effect of it would be most injurious to health. -Cros.9 -examined He a tended Mr Appleby, who drew his attention to the smell. He had been in Mr Carpenter's stables several t mes and found no fault with it. Did not notice that the brewery garden was manured with decayed hops. William James, blacksmith, Dolgelley, said he had noticed the entrails of two or three animals lying about at the slaughter-house. They smelt, but did not appear to be old. Dr R. J. Shephard, medical officer for the Hay district, but now temporarily practising at Bar- mouth, said he had heard the evidence regarding the offal and, assuming it to be a fact, he thought it would be highly dangerous to public health, especially to the health of those on the brewery premises He was well acquainted with the moiel bylaws of the Local Government Board. In his opinion it would be a great risk if the offal was allowed to remain for seven days without removal in the summer time. In faT, it would be danger- ous if not removed in less than seven days at any period.—In cross-examination, he said that even having regard to the small business done at the flaughter-house, he did not think the offal should be allowed to remain for more than forty-eight hours. Reference was made by Mr Fox to the model bylaws of the Local Government Board, and his Lordship said they were framed to suit particular places. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr Lloyd said the matter in dispute had narrowed down very much and he proposed to deal as shortly as possible with it. His Lordship said the evidence as to the noise was not so serious and he thought it should he dropp d. The poict he would like to hear Mr Lloyd upon was whether the defeudant Council had done its best to clear away the offal. At pre- sent there was certainly a strong indication that it was not removed as often as it wad thought it should be removed. Mr Lloyd said he would direct his remarks and evidence to that point. Proceeding, he said he would call witnesses who would say that since the attention of the Council was called to the matter new arrangements were made and the slaughter- house cleansed every time animals were slaughtered. In September, 1895, arrangements were made with Mr John Price by which it would become his duty to remove the offal from the slaughter-house once a week, but subsequently one of the scavengers of the Urban District Council was deputed to do the cleansing daily, and he would be called and would say that he did so. He (Mr Lloyd) would prove that the Council had done everything they could have done to prevent the nuisance since they had taken the matter in hand. A shed was provided for the reception of the offal and there it remained until Mr Price came for it at the end of the week. The quantity of offal accumulating in such a place in a town like Dolgelley was very small, and it was not required to be removed so often as in a popu- lous district. During some port'on of the year Mr Price used to get about a bucketful of entrails and at other times about a barrelful. rhe quantity was so small that eventually Mr Price said it was not worth while fetching and he gave the contract up. Since June of last year the Council employed a man to go to the slaughter-house every morning and clear the offal away, and since then the slaugh- ter-house had been cleaned and no accumulations had been allowed to exist. Those were practically the circumstances having reference to that part of the case. When his Lordship had heard the evid- ence, he would ask him to come to the conclusion that having regard to the small amount of business done at the slaughter house, to the fact that the larger butchers in the neighbourhood had their own slaughter-houses at which they slaughtered, seven days was a reasonable time to remove the offal. R ferring to the model bylaws, which Mr Lloyd said his Lordship had remarked would be suitable tor Utopia His Lordship-I did not say that. I said they were made to suit certain districts. Mr Lloyd—It comes to the same thing, your Lordship, only I put it on higher ground, Continu- ing, he said those bylaws were framed so that they could be modified to suit a particular district, and tne smaller the district the lets serious would be the modifications. Those bylaws provided that offal should be removed every twenty four hours in a corrugated iron van. That would be very well for a populous district, but for a small place like Dolgelley it would be unreasonable to do so. He pointed out that as Mr Carpenter complained the complaints were enquired into by the Inspector and Medical Officer of the Urban Council and referred to the letter from, the Council to Mr Carpenter, in which it was stated they were most anxious to meet him in every way. He would call the officials before his Lordship, who would say that they had done their best from beginning to end. It was a pure question of fact, and when he had called his evidence he hoped he would have succeeded in showing that they had done all they could to re- move the source of complaint. His Lordship asked if defendants gave notice to plaintiff that the new arrangements had been made ? If not, then it was no surprise that he brought the action. He asked the question upon the question of costs. Mr Fox said the arrangement was made after action brought. Mr Lloyd (replying to his Lordship's question) said no notice of the new arrangement was given to plaintiff in writing. Whether verbal notice was given he did not know. His Lordship said the defendants could do no more than have it removed daily and the only other thing for them to do was to show that the man did do so. Mr Lloyd said they went further than that. The Council did away with the contractor, took the whole thing into their own hands and had the offal removed daily. Evidence for the defence was then given. The first witness called was William Jones, sur- veyor and inspector to the Urban District Council. He said that prior to September, 1895, the offal was not cleared away from the slaughter-house so often as once a week but after that an arrange- ment was made with a man named John Price to remove it regularly once a week. During that time he constantly visited the place and always found it in a satisfactory condition. Prior to the existence of the slaughter-house, the smaller butchers killed their animals in their own houses. The larger butchers now had slaughter-houses of their own outside the distriot and the Council's slaughter-bouse was only made use of by the smaller butchers and the income was only about 21 a week. At this point, Mr Fox handed in the answers to the interrogatories, remarking that he had for- gotten to put them in before. His Lordship remarked t'aat the slaughter-house was not a profitable concern at Dolgelley. (laughter.) Mr Lloyd-It was never expected to be. your Lordship. Mr Fox—The ratepayers do not object. Mr Lloyd—No only to paying costs. Continuing hia evidence, witness said the slaughter-house was not so well kept and arrange- ments were made after which the scavenger removed the offal daily to a shed and cleansed the slaughter-house. Ou the occasions he had visited the place, when Mr Price had the contract, he never recollected having seen the offal in a putrid condition. When the offal was placed in the shed it was mixed with ashes. Admitted having been to the slaughter-house on one occasion with Mr Carpenter. A little of the offal, which was not covered with ashes, was bad, and that was the only fault that could be found. The only smell at the elaughter-house was the natural smell, mostly from blood. There was a certain amount of s nell which was unavoidable. Sincethe 7th of June it was a fact that the Council, by means of their employees, had the slaughter-house cleaned daily. Subsequently he met Mr Carpenter on the street and they had a conversation, which ended in an agreement that future complaints w er9 to he addressed to him. He told Mr Carpenter that he was most willing to carry out any augges tions he might make. Mr Fox having read the letter from Mr Carpenter to the Inspector calling attention to the puir d offal and the letter saying that twenty- four houra had passed and the offal had not been removed, he asked the Inspector's opinion about that.