Welsh Newspapers
Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles
9 articles on this Page
IS BARRYWTTHTNCARDIFF PORT!…
IS BARRYWTTHTNCARDIFF PORT! — IMPORTANT TEST ACTION. JUDGE OWEN DECLARES BARRY A C R { SEPARATE PORT. 5 THE JUDGMENT. At Cardiff County-court on Thursday his Honour Judge Owen gave his decision in an adjourned case of considerable interest and im- portance to the shipping community in this district. The action, it will be remembered, arose in con- sequence of a claim made by Messrs. Baker aud Butt, of Bristol. asrainst the owners or the vessel Minattsol, of Rouen. The plaintiffs sued to recover the sum of £ 29 as extra expense for the vessel going to Barry instead of to Cardiff, through the conRia-nee of the cargo, and against this was a counter-claim by the owners of the Minattsol for e40 for demurrage. The ground of action really rested on the disputed point whether Barry was included in the port of Cardiff or was a separate port. Mr. Bailhache (instructed by Messrs. Ingledew and Sons) appeared for Messrs. Baker and Butt, and Mr. Brynmor Jones, Q.C., M.P. (instructed by Messrs..Downing and Handcook) for the owners of the vessel. For the shipowners it was contended that Barry was within the port of Cardiff for commercial purposes, and for the consignees of the cargo it was maintained that it was a separate port, chiefly because it had been absolute failure to establish Tisane, or that t.h?re had been sufficient use for a sufficient length of time. His Honour, in giving judgment, stated that in this action the plaintiffs were the owners and holders of a bill of ladineron a cargo of gvpsum, and the defendants were the owners of the ship Minatssol. The bill of lading was for the carriage of the cargo of the Minatssol from Rouen and for its delivery at the port of Cardiff. In the margin of the bill of lading was the note "to be dis- charged as soon as possible and without inter- ruption in any dock at captain's option." The -cargo was discharged at Barry Dock, and this, the plaintiffs alleged, was not within the port of Cardiff. Therefore, action was brought to recover Y-,29, the amount of extra expenses to which the plaintiffs alleged they had been put by reason of THE DISCHARGE AT E ABET INSTEAD OF AT SOME DOCK AT CARDIFF. The defendants made a counter-claim for zC40 10s. 8d as damages for breach of agreement for the hire of the vessel and in relation to the carriage of goods by her. At the trial it was agreed that the only question in the action and on the counter- claim which he (the judge) had to determine was whether Barry p,ort was, for the purposes of the contract between the parties, within the Port of Cardiff," and it was further agreed that whichever way he determined the question of amount of damages to be recovered by the successful party should be assessed by the Registrar. Plaintiffs alleged that for the purposes of the contract the question whether Barry Dock was within the limits of the Port of Cardiff was a question to be deter- mined by the common understanding upon the point of mercantile men, and that at the date of the contract there was no such common under- standing that. Barry was within the port of Cardiff. The defendants alleared-that it being shown by ancient authorities that before the present dock at Barry was built Barry was within the armpit of the ancient port of Cardiff as created by Royal prerogative. BARRY MUST BE HELD TO BE STILL WITHIN THE ANCIENT PORT unless it could be shown to have been taken out of it. and they further maintained that, if, evidence were admissible upon the point, the evidence showed that the common understanding of merchants as to,the limits of thø. port of Cardiff was that Barry was included. His Honour then sketched the history of the construction of the Barry Dock, and then referred to the decision of Lord Justice Bowen in the case of the owners of the Garston v. Hicke, in which Justice Bowen stated that the different Acts relating to the Bute Docks did not decide the question as to the limits of the port. He (Judge Owen), therefore, con- sidered that, except for Customs and pilotage purposes, there was no evidence as to any legal" port of Cardiff in the sense that a port has been created either by charter, grant, or statute by which the limits of the port are defined. Referring to the Penarth Dock, and its relative distance to the Bute Docks, his Honour stated that a vessel proceeding from Penarth Head to Barry would take a course of about eight miles in length, and he pointed out that it had not been alleged by the defendants that any port dues were payable to any authority at Cardiff by vessels using Barry Dock. He had referred to cases cited at the trial having reference to THE LIMITS OF THE PORT OF CARDIFF and to others bearing upon the point at issue. The I defendant's first point, that Barry was within limits of the ancient port of Cardiff, and must be -considered to be within the port," was supported by a return made to the commission issued from the Exchequer in 1886, which contained this passage That we do hereby declare and appoint Chepstow. Penarth, Newport, Barry Sully, -and Aberthaw to be within the said head port of Cardiff."—His Honour said Mr. Brynmor Jones, who appeared for the defendants, had cited a passage from Molloy de Jure Maritima. published in 1685, where (page 327) it was stated that Swan- sea, Barry, and other ports were within the port of Cardiff, although it was not stated in that work for that purpose they were within the port. Mr. Jones also cited passages from other old text books to-the same effect, which authorities, with others, will be found referred to in the case of Nicholson v. Williams. That had been referred to. These text books had not. he (Judge Owen) thought, the eame authority as the return of the commission issued under an Act, which was entirely a Customs Act, and was the King's issued by himself out of the Court of Exchequer, and the duty of the com- sioners was to "assign and appoint all such further places, ports, members, and creeks, as shall be lawful for landing and shipping goods," and to what antieut and head port," such places should "belong and appertain." It seemed to him (Judge Owen) that that return showed that Barry was at the time within the port of Cardiff, and was so for Customs or fiscal purposes only. It was to be noted that the return stated that Barry was within the 44 head port of Cardiff," and Barry and the other places named were subsidiary ports at which goods might be landed, though the Customs' dues were to be paid at Cardiff. "Barry" mentioned in this return was the old "harbour there, none of which was WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE NEW BARRY DOCK. This old harbour the present company was bound 'by statute to maintain. The defendants also put in evidence the London Gazette of January 4th, 1849. containing a notice dated the 20th of Decem- ber, 1848, signed by three of the Lords of the Treasury, whereby the limits of the port of -Cardiff were declared to "commence at the River Rumney aforesaid. and continue along the coast of the county of Glamorgan to a place called Nash Point in the said county," and it was further de- clared that the limits seaward of the said port of Cardiff shall extend to a distance from a low water mark of thret miles in the sea, including all islands, bays, harbours, rivers, and creeks within the said limits," The limits so fixed were the present limits of the port of Cardiff for Customs purposes. This order was made under an Act for amending the laws relating to Customs. It seemed to him that the return of 1686 and the order of 1848 were made'for Customs or fiscal purposes only, and, if that were so, they did not affect the question in this action. After reference to the distinction drawn by Lord Halsbnry and others between the word port" used in the fiscal sense and the word "port "used in the commercial sense, his Honour held that the first point raised by the defendants bad failed. The law which he had to apply in this case was contained in the judgment of Lord Herschell. now Lord Chancellor, in the case to which he had just referred, and in which was the following passage :—" I agree with the view which has been more than once expressed by learned judges, that in eonsidering such a contract as that with which we are dealing the word port' must be taken to have been used in its popular er com- mercial sense—that is to say, as applying to what would be understood as a port by shippers, ship- owners, and underwriters. Where there is a common understanding amongst such persons as to the limits of P port, the matter is free from diffi- culty." What he (Judge Owen) had to ascertain was :— (1) What was commonly understood as the "port of Cardiff" in its commercial sense by shippers, shipowners, and underwriters and (2) if he thought that there was no common under- standing amongst such persons as to the limits of the port, then what were the limits applying to the case, and the tests as to what constituted a. port as he found such tests laid down in the cases. The evidence given on each side was documentary and oral. The documentary evidence consisted of 9 documents relating to the limits of a Customs port, and with those he had already dealt. There were also documents relating to pilotage, the result of which he found to be as follows :-That under an old Act of Parliament Cardiff was within the Bristol Pilotage District, and that in 1861 au Act was passed establishing a separate pilotage board for the port of Cardiff. In that Act the port was defined to mean a Customs port for the time being, except the harbour of Penarth, so long as there should be a separate pilotage authority for that harbour. The Penarth pilotage authority had. he believed, being given up. and was merged into the Pilotage Board of Cardiff. In 1883 bye- laws framed by the Cardiff Board were approved, and in those bve-laws the limits of the port were defined to extend from the Rumney River to the Monkstons, and not to the westward of a line drawn, from the Wolves to Lavernosk. Then, by an Act of 1889, A SEPARATE PILOTAGE BOARD WAS CONSTITUTED FOR THE PORT OF BARRY," which, for pilotage purposes, was defined to be the xavigable waters comprised within an imaginary line drawn from the Breaksea point to the light- ship, thence easterly to the Flat Holm, and north- westerly to Lavernoek Point." The pilotage dis- tricts of the port of Cardiff and the port of .Barry were divided by a line drawn from Lavernock Point southward to the Flat Holm. and were co- terminous along that line. He found also that the "regulations of the Port Sanitary Authority of Cardiff. approved in 1885," stated that the ex- pression port of Cardiff meant so much of the customs of the port of Cardiff as lay between the Inner Rumney and Lavernock Point." He had had also before him six forms of charter-party, and one of a colliery guarantee used by shippers and charterers to. and at, Cardiff. He found in that documentary evidence no common under- standing as to the limits of the port. The oral evidence consisted of nineteen witnesses called by defendants, and twelve called by the plaintiffs. Defendants' witnesses were undoubtedly persons well-entitled by their position as com- mercial men at Cardiff to speak as such as to the limits of the port, but although they all stated with more or less certainly that THE PORT OF CARDIFF, IN ITS COMMERCIAL MEANING, COMPRISED THE NEW DOCK AT BARRY, some of them, at any rate, admitted that this was not accepted by all shipowners, and that cases had arisen where vessels under a charter to go to the port of Cardiff had refused, when required to do so, to go to Ba.rry. The defendaiits'firsr, and principal witness, in his cross-examination, admitted that a great many of the shipowners and shipbrokers of Cardiff DID NOT KNOW WHETHER BARRY WAS IN CAR- DIFF OR NOT. One of the reasons given by some of the defen- dants' witnesses for the opinion which they held was that all the business relating to vessels at Barry was done at Cardiff, and having regard to the fact that Barry Dock was opened only in 1889, and that the principal shipments there was as yet coal, that the offices of the colliery owners who shipped at Barry were, and had for years past been at Barry, it seemed to him (the Judge) that that reason did not amount to much. The de- fendants' witnesses were all Cardiff men ex- cept two, one of whom was from Liverpool and the other from London, and the evidence of those two witnesses as to the limits of the port was too uncertain to be of importance. The defendants produced evidence that in some trade returns or statistics, which were not official in character, Barry was treated as being in the port of Cardiff, but these ret,urns seemed to him to be for the district, and were not made for the port as such. The plaintiffs produced evidence of ship- owners and brokers, including some from Bristol, Gloucester, and Newport, who stated that in their opinion, and also in the opinion of commercial men, Barry was not, for commercial purposes, con- sidered to be within the port of Cardiff. It seemed to him upon that part of the case the burden was upon the defendants to show that for the purposes of the contract Barry was within the port of Car- diff, and that they had not discharged themselves of that burden. He found, as a fact, that there was NO COMMON UNDERSTANDING UPON THE POINT, and this was the rule as laid down by the Lord Chancellor and as laid down by Lord Esther. In 1892, the date of the bill of lading, Barry Dock had been opened for three years only, and that time seemed to him not to be long enough to establish a common understanding amongst commcrcial men upon the point as to what in that case were the limits of the port. Applying the tests mentioned by Lord Esher in his judgment in the case Garston v. Hickie," and by the Lord Chancellor in the passage from his judgment which he had read. Mr. Bryn mor Jones cited the passage from Lord Hole departialis maris as to what con- stituted the port which passava was stated at length in the judgment of Lord Halsbury. Lord Esher said But if you can see with your eyes that there is a protected water within a certain place you may be always assured there will be the port which is spoken of by business men under a certain name-the place where there is protected water by reason of the natural lie of the land and water." These words were used as to the port of Cardiff. Applying this construction to the present case, the facts were Penarth Head formed a protection to waters to the north and east of it, and within the head there was a tiatural haven. Barry Dock was seven or eight miles by sea from that headland, and to get to Barry from there a vessel had to go out to the open sea. of the Bristol Channel for a distance of seven or eight miles, and it was, he thought, A STARTLING PROPOSITION, and under such circumstances Barry Dock should be within what Lord Esher called the natural port" of Cardiff. But, besides that, the decided cases in which the limits of the port had been defined. at different times seemed to him to de- cide the question. In one case it was held that a vessel wrecked in the Cardiff Drain was at the time within the port. In another it was held that the port of Cardiff covered at least the water to the north of Penarth Head up to the Bute Docks and East and West Cardiff Flats and Penarth Flats, though the court in that case declined to decide whether the Penarth Roads were within the port. But in another case it was held that a vessel which had been towed out into the Bristol Channel three miles from Lavernock and finally sailed from her last port, which in that case was Cardiff. This case-" Price v. Livingstone "teeemed to him to be an authority that Barry Dock was not within the port of Cardiff, as its distance from Lavernock Point was somewhat greater than the distance to the place which in that case was held to be outside the port. He (Judge Owen) held that, replying to the question the tests which he had mentioned, BARRY DOCK WAS NOT WITHIN THE NATURAL PORT OF CARDIFF. His judgment both in the action and counter- claim would be for plaintiffs, the amount of damages to be ascertained by the registrar unless the parties agreed as to the amount. The plaintiffs were entitled to their costs, and, having regard to the public importance of the question raised, he would give a certificate, under Section 119 of the Act, that the eoets should be' taxed upon Scale C. Mr. Downing pointed out that he did not under- stand the counter-claim was settled by the decision, and was of opinion that Defendants might succeed upon it, even though the plaintiffs got judgment on the claim. on the claim. His Honour replied that he understood from what Mr. Brynmor Jones had said at the previous court that if plaintiffs succeeded on the claim, they must also succeed on the counter- claim. Ultimately, on the suggestion of Mr. Bailhache, it was agreed that judgment should be given for the plaintiffs in the action, and a reference be made to the registrar as to how much was due in the action, and what, if anything, was due on the counter-claim.
A COGAN FATHER ILL-TREATS…
A COGAN FATHER ILL- TREATS HIS DAUGHTER. HEAVY FINE BY THE MAGISTRATES. At the Penarth Police-court on Monday (before Mr. John Cory and Major Thornley) George Prince, boilermaker, Cogan, was summoned at the instance of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Ch ldren (for whom Councillor White appeared) with ill-treating his daughter Eliza- beth. Elizabeth Prince (defendant's daughter) said that on the 14th March she was living with her father in Pill-street. On the day mentioned she was out from 7,30 to 8.30 in the evening. When she returned her father took her by the sleeve and dragged her into the back kitchen, beat her about the head and neck, and kicked her. He held her by her necktie. She dragged him to the front door to try to get away, but he dragged her to the kitchen, again beating her. Hearing a knock at the front door, her father dragged her to the front door, and opened it. Mr. and Mrs. Hayes came in to her assistance, and she ran away to Mrs. Crawles. In consequence of her father's treatment, when she undressed she found a red mark on her neck and bruises on her chest. Her face was black and blue. Her father was drunk at the time he beat her. Mrs. Harriet Hayes. 14, Pill-street, remembered on Tuesday, the 14th March, she was sitting down in her kitchen between eight and half-past, when she heard the screams. She ran to defendant's door, which was looked, and, not getting any answer, she went for her husband. When they got back Prince had his daughter outside the door, clutching her by the neck. Witness and her husband loosed the girl, who ran away. The prisoner appeared to have been drinking. Mrs. Sarah Rodford. 32, Pill-streefc. said on the day in question, from 8 to half-past she was in the Gospel Room, opposite defendant's house, when she heard some screaming. She went to the door, and saw defendant there with his hand around the girl's neck. Defendant's daughter said. -1 Father, don't kill me, I am choking." The girl theu got away. Mrs. Kate Perkins, of 6, Harriet-street, near Prince's house, said on the 14th March she was on her doorstep, and heard screams. She ran down to Prince's house, and saw defendant with his hand around his daughter's neck. Defendant was very drunk. Mrs. Clara Crawles,4, Pill-street, said on the 14th March, about 8.45 p.m., the police-constable brought Elizabeth Prince to her house. She examined the girl, and found a red mark around her neck, bruises on her chest, and her face was black and blue. The girl was in an exhausted condition. Police-constable Tom Evans said on Tuesday evening at a quarter to nine he was called to No. 1, Harriet-street, and saw the girl in a crowd. She complained of being ill-treated, and said she feared to go back to her father. He asked Mrs. Crawles to take her in. He examined the house, but could not find any food, and but very little furniture- only one little sitting-room suite. Defendant had had some money left him, and he had been drink- ing ever since. Defendant said he had treated his daughter properly, had bought her all sorts of businesses, furnished his house for £ 25 and sold the furniture for AS. He had no business to be there at all. The Bench fined defendant £.2, or thirty days' imprisonment with hard labour.
ALLEGED THEFT OF MONEY AT…
ALLEGED THEFT OF MONEY AT BARRY DOCK. A MYSTERIOUS AFFAIR. Andrew Olser, of Barry Dock, was charged at the Penarth Police Court on Monday with stealing- £ 8 and a pencil, the property of Annie Drake, of Cardiff. Annie Drake, wife ot Michael Edwin Drake, living at 48, Court-road, Saltmead, Cardiff, said she was at Barry Dock on Saturday to see her husband off to sea. and just before he went, she saw prisoner and his wife, She asked them to wait until the ship went out. They did so, and afterwards in company with them she went to Barry Dock station. Prosecutor asked Mrs Olser if she was hungry, and she said yes, and they went to the Restaurant and had some tea and sandwiches for which prosecutrix paid Is. 6d. They then went to the station, and Mrs. Olser asked "prosecutrix to lend her some money, and she lent her 9*. They went up to the pawnshop, and Mrs. Olser took a ring out of pawn, and then on Mrs. Olser's invitation she went to the house at which prisoner and his wife lodged-a Mrs. Hall's. Prisoner was with them all the time. They went upstairs and Mrs. Hall said they had no tea in the house, and at prosecutrix's suggestion they went .9 out, and she bought some tea, butter, and beef. On returning to the house they went upstairs whilst the tea was being prepared, and witness gave them two sixpences with which to get some whisky. When she took the sixpences from her purse she had eight sovereigns in it, and a pencil which fitted into the purse. Mrs. Hall told her to take off her hat and cape, and she put her purse and handkerchief by the pillow whilst she did so. She went to the Window, and looked out for a few moments, and then Mrs. Hall brought in the whisky. Mrs. Olser pressed her to go down and see the master's garden, and she consented. When she went to put her hat on she discovered her parse had ?>een moved to the other side of the bed ripped, and the money all gone but 8d. Prisoner was in the room all the time with his wife. When she missed the money she went into hysterics. Mr.. ,Olser said Well, if the money's gone, one of us must have taken it." Mr. Olser went downstairs, and told the landlady there was a bother upstairs. Mrs. Olser sent prisoner for a policeman. Prisoner brought back two policemen, but they searched everywhere for it bat without avail. Mrs. Hall, who came up, picked up a sovereign, and gave it to witness. She had the eight sovereigns in her purse when she took out her purse, and Mrs. Olser saw them. Mr. Belcher, who appeared for the defence, applied for bail, and the case was adjourned to the Barry Dock Police Court on Thursday, bail being accepted of two sureties at j610 each.
[No title]
EPPS'S COCOA.—GRATEFUL AND COMFORTING —" By a thorough knowledge of the natural laws which govern the operations of digestion and nutrition, and by a careful application of the fine properties of well-selected COCOA, Mr. Epps has provided our breakfast tables with a delicately flavoured beverage which may save us many heavy doctors' bills. It is by the judicious use of such articles of diet that n, consti- tution may be gradually built up until strong enough to resist every tendency to disease. Hundreds of subtle maladies are floating around us ready to attack wherever there is a weak point. We may escape many a fatal shaft by keeping ourselves well fortified with pure blood and a properly nourished frame. Civil Service Gazette. — Made simply with boiling water or milk. Sold only in packets, by Grocers, labelled — "JAMES EPPS and Co, Homoeopathic Chemists. London." Also Makers of Epps's Cocoaine or Nib-Extract: Tea-like. WHY? WHY? WHY?—Why should people suffer from Liver Complaints? Why complain of Indiges tion ? Why bear the Pains of Disordered Stomach ? Why be wearied with Weak Nerves? Why be dis- tressed with Skin Diseases ? Why endure Hea dache ? Why be troubled with Bad Blood ? Why be tortured with Rheumatism ? Why be a martyr to Fits, EcszemaJ Piles ? When Hughes's Blood Pills will soon relieve you from every trouble. Sold by every Chemist and dealer UL. Patent Mecicines at Is Hd., I gd., and
THE PORT SANITARY QUESTION.
THE PORT SANITARY QUESTION. ——— LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD ENQUIRY AT CADOXTON. BARRY BEATS CARDIFF ON EVERY POINT. On Tuesday morning, at the Local Board Offices, I Cadoxton, Mr. F. T. Bircham and Mr. T. W. Thompson, of the Medical Department of the Local Government Board, held an inquiry respecting the appeal of the Barry and Cadoxton Local Board to be appointed the Port Sanitary Authority for that portion of the coast extending from Lavernock Point on the East to Nash Point on the Point. 6 Mr. Acthur Lewis (barrister-at-law), instructed by Mr. Arthur J. Hughes, appeared in support of the application of the Barry and Cadoxton Local Board, Mr. J. C. Downing for the Barry Company Mr. J. L. Wheat-ley (town-clerk) for the Cardiff Corporation and Mr. A. J. Harries for the Cardiff Rural Sanitary Authority. There were also present :—Mr. Robert Forrest, J.P., Mr. J. Morris, Major-General Lee, Alderman Vaug-hall (Mayor of Cardiff), Alderman T. Rees (ex-mayor), Alderman Jacobs, 'J.P. (chairman of the Port Sanitary Committee). Dr. Walford, Dr. Prichard, Dr. O'Donnell, Dr. Treharne, Dr. Lloyd Edwards, Dr. Neale (medical officer), Inspector Leyshon, Inspector D. Jenkins. Mr. W.' Thomas. Mr. Howe! Mr. Lewis Lewis, Mr. Pardoe (surveyor), Mr. Smith Jones. Mr. Bircham said he thought it necessary to point out that the Local Government Board had no power to alter the Provisional Order constituting Cardiff as the authority for the present district without Parliamentary powers being obtained. Neither could they alter and take from the Cardiff Port Sanitary Authority without first repealing- the Provisional Order. The Local Government Board had power to make a Provisional Order for one year, and could renew and make arrangements for the possible outbreak of cholera this summer. Nothing of a permanent character could be done under one year. Mr. Thompson also dealt with the necessity of protecting the coast against infection by small coast-trading ves"els. In reply to a question of Mr. Wheatley respect- ing the manner in which the notice of the enquiry was drawn up, 3fr. Bircham explained that the notice was purposely drawn up widely in order to provide for every possible emergency that might arise. Mr. Arthur Lewis, in opening the case for the Barry and Cadoxton Local Board, said that body asked to be formed into a Port Sanitary Authority, having jurisdiction from Lavernoek Point to Nash Point. In asking that that should be granted them the Local Board did not do so in any arbitratory manner. They would be content with a smaller area providing THE PARISH OF SULLY WAS INCLUDED IN THEIR DISTRICT. There was a strong case, he thought, that Sully should be included, as undoubtedly in a very short time that parish would become part of the Barry and Cadoxton Local Board. It contained a number of suitable building sites, and he believed there was already a scheme on foot to utilise it. The Barry and Cadoxton Local Board had in the past shown itself quite capable of dealing with the require- ments of the district from a sanitary point. It had already provided hospital accommodation for infectious diseases, and if necessary that could be increased. At the present time.they had room for six beds at the hospital, but accommodation for 12 could easily be found. Further, that they had the great advantage of being to take any infected cases directly from on board the vessels to their hospital with the patients being carried through any thickly populated portion of the district- Last year the Barry and Cadoxton Local Board engaged a tug. and TOOK EVERY PRECAUTION AGAINST CHOLERA obtaining a footine, and they were allowed to use the Flat Holm. That permission had now been withdrawn, and they were warned that they could not rely upon having hospital accommodation there again Although that was the case the Board had still sufficient accommodation in case of emergency. Mr. Bircham asked whether the hospital near the docks was all the accommodation. Mr. Lewis replied that the Board had also tent accommodation. The Local Board had also a site for a hospital two miles out of town, but of course an hospital could not be erected there under six or eight months. They were prepared to do all they I could to arrange matters, and were prepared to accept terms that their district, on the eastern boundary, should include Sully Island. Mr. Bircham remarked that the present pro- posal of the Local Board would include the eastern portion of Sully Island. He did not sup- pose Caniiff would object to that. Mr. Wheatley replied that they would as that would take in part of the Cardiff moipring ground. Mr. Bircham then enquired as to the mooring grounds. Mr. Lewis claimed that the mooring ground said to belong to Cardiff vessels was really for Barry. By having Sully Island they would secure a suit- able site for an hospital. Dr. Neale stated that in 1889 Dr. Blaxley visited Barry and. in company with .Captain Davies and the Custom authorities, mapped out that portion near Sully Island as a mooring place for infected vessels. That would keep the channel clear for other ships. In reply to Mr. Wheatley, Dr. Neale said healthy vessels did not as a rule anchor in Sully Bay. He had seen vessels bound to Cardiff anchor higher up but never lower down. Perhaps small vessels from Bridgewater misrht anchor there. By Mr. Bircham-Under the existing state of things, as the Port Sanitary Authority for the district, even now we should have to send cholera- affected ships to this place. It was the mooring place for the district. Mr. Bircham remarked that the great objection raised by Cardiff was that healthy ships would practically moor in the same place as the infected one. Mr. Thompson stated that in many ports a similar condition of things prevailed. By Mr. Lewis—Dr. Blaxley surveyed the whole ground and fixed the mooring station. Alderman Jacobs said they objected to Sully Bay being used as a mooring ground by infected vessels because it would do away with Cardiff- bound vessels mooring ground. They would not object if it were a little more out at sea. Mr. Thompson questioned whether a position more out to sea wou'd be more safe than the present one.. Mr. Wheatley, in addressing the Commissioners traversed the whole of the ground of the negotia- tions opened up between the Cardiff Rural Sanitary Authority and the Cardiff Corportion. The latter had agreed with the former to take patients at 5s. per day, and A10 was paid by the Rural Sanitary Authority. After the Cardiff Corpora- tion have arranged with the latter body to deal with their patients, the Rural Sanitary Authority had given their consent to the present proposals of the Barry and Cadoxton Local Board. At first THE CARDIFF CORPORATION COULD NOT UNDER. STAND how this was brought about, but it now appeared that a gentleman on the Barry and Cadoxton Local Board was also a member of the Cardiff Rural Sanitary Authority. (Laughter.) The Barry and Cadoxton Local Board had also had dealings with the Cardiff Corporation, and there was an idea afloat that the former had not been well treated. The Corporation agreed with the Local Board for the sum of £ 30 to allow them to erect a tent on the Flat Holm. That agreement I expired on the 25th December last. Some difficulty arose, and although telegrams and deputations were flying about, nothing was done for a month. The Corporation sent in their account for Y,30, which was paid. Mr. Wheatley was proceeding to go further into 'details, when Mr. Lewis asked for a letter, but; Mr. Bircham reminded those present that there was no such thing as human gratitude. They wanted to know what it was proposed to do in the future. Mr. Wheatiey contended that the Barry and Cadoxton Local Board had no reasonable grounds for hoping that Sully would shortly be included in their district, seeing that the parish had already refused to become part of their authority. With regard to the question of anchorage he contended that he could prove that large vessels bound for Cardiff did moor there, and he considered it would not be advisale to allow them to mixed with infected vessels. What ground had the Local Board for saying that they could use Sully Island as a site for an hospital. Had they obtained the consent of the landlord, or, WHY DID THEY NOT USE BARRY ISLAND 1 Mr. Thompson pointed out that under the cholera regulations a mooring station must receive the consent of the Superintendent of Customs. Evidence was then put in on behalf of the Cardiff Corporation. Alderman Jacobs was the first witness called, and, in addition to tearing out the opening statement of Mr. Wheatley, said the Cardiff Corporation had gone to the expense of renting the Flat Holms and erecting hospital accommodation for cholera patients. He contended that all ships bound for Barry anchored in the Barry Roads. It would not be advisable to have a joint Sanitary Authority; as there would be friction and jealousy. Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis—The Cardiff Cor- poration have refused the Local Board assistance this year. I don't know that the Local Board have appointed an assistant, medical officer and engaged a tug. I inspected this mooring ground last Saturday, and saw three or four steamers and several pilot boats there. They were within half or three-quarters of a mile of the shore. While he was on the shore two weighed anchor and left in the direction of Cardiff. I don't know the boundary of the mooring ground for Barry. In reply to Mr. Harries, Alderman Jacobs said he eonsidered that the Cardiff Corporation had treated the Rural Sanitary Authority very hand- somely when they asked them to pay only £ 10 towards the heavy expense to which the Port Sanitary Authority had been put. Alderman Rees next gave evidence, and stated I that the Flat Holmes had been taken by the Cardiff Corporation on a lease for 21 years at d650 per annum. In reply to questions by -the Commissioners. Alderman Rees stated that the Corporation were prepared to provide more accommodation on the island when necessary, and had appointed the necessary officers and nurses. Alderman Rees stated in reply to Mr. Harries, that although the Rural Sanitary Authority for Lavernoek had paid £ 10, their portion of the con- tribution by rateable value was lis. lid. Mr. Lewis cross-examined Alderman Rees as to the number of vessels which arrived at Barry and Cadoxton, but the latter was unable to give the tonnage in either ca.se. He considered that would be a mistake for one Port Sanitary Authority to inspect vessels bound for the port under the control of another authority. He was not aware the Barry Quarantine mooring ground had been appointed three years ago, if it was so it was a mistake. Mr. Harper, surveyor, also supported the case for Cardiff, considering that those waters in which the work of the officials of the Corporation was carried out should be under the control of the Port Sanitary Authority for that district. Dr. Walford said about one-third of the vessels bound for Cardiff anchored in the waters between Lavernock Point and the Bendrick Rock. He also said vessels were inspected by the officers from Cardiff as low down as Sully Island. In reply to Mr. Lewis, Dr. Walrord admitted that he had not personally inspected any of the vessels below Sully, but he had spoken some. Mr. Downing also questioned this witness, and pointed out that while in his proof he had referred to inspections in the Cardiff and Penarth Roads yet he had omitted to touch upon the Barry Roads until that day. Mr. D. Jenkins, Inspector. was also called, and sa.;d he had inspected vessels, perhaps 20, below Sully, but in reply to questions this witness stated that the ships had only anchored off Barry and Sully because there was not sufficient water in Penarth Roadj. Captain Davies wan then called on behalf of Barry, and, in reply to Mr. Downing, said the mooring ground for Barry was the water enclosed by a straight line drawn from Nell's Point to the Point east of the Hayes Farm. That was out of the way of the vessels going up or down Channel. He had never seen vessels bound for Cardiff anchor there. If they were awaiting orders or crews, they stood off the Bendrick. Not more than one per cent. of the Cardiff-bound vessels anchored there at all. Barry was bound to have the water from the eastern side of Sully Island for quarantine and other purposes. By Mr. Wheatley-I have never seen Cardiff- bound vessels anchor there from time to time. 3y Alderman Jacobs-Sully Bay is a good anchorage groand for large vessels. Mr Morris (clerk to the Penarth Local Board) did not think that body would object if the Barry and Cadoxton Local Board only took in Sully. Mr. Harries agreed that Lavernock should go to Cardiff and Sully to Barry. Mr. R. Forrest., J.P., said he was deputed by the Barry Dock directorate to support the Local Board's application. He agreed that Sully should come under that authority. He did not. think they could not erect a hospital on Barry Island, as that was fast becoming a residential neighbourhood and pleasure resort. Mr. Bircham dealt favourably with the sug- gested division at the eastern portion of Sully Island. The representatives of the Cardiff Corporation agreed to an arrangement of that sort for one year. THE NASH POINT BOUNDARY. Mr. Lewis then opened the case for the Local Beard, covered as far as Nash Point. Mr. Bircham thought that it would not be fair to make the parish along the coast pay according to their rateable value, when they would not receive very much attention. Mr. Lewis contended that the Barry and Cadox- ton Local Board had last year shown the greatest care and attention over that neighbourhood. He urged that the parishes should contribute. Major-General Lee pointed out that the coast wa. protected, and the people should pay accor- dingly. Mr. Bircham said it was impossible for vessels to land their sick there as the coast was very rocky. Mr. W. Thomas stated that he had seen, in fine weather, persons landed there from small boats. After some discussion, it was decided that the Rural Sanitary Authority should class together Sully, St. Athans, Penmark, and Forthkerry, and pay according to rateable value towards the charges of the Port Sanitary Authority if the Local Government Board decided to give the Barry and Cadoxton Local Board control over that por- tion west of Barry,
[No title]
CONSUMPTION CURED.—An old Physician, retired from practice, had placed in his hands by an East India Missionary the formula of a simple vegetable remedy for the speedy and permanent cure of Con- sumption, Bronchitis, Catarrh, Aslima, and all Throat and Lung Affections, also a positive and radical cure for Nervous Debility and all Nervous Complaints. Hav- ing tested its wonderful curative powers in thousands of cases, and desiring to relieve human sufferiug, I will send free of charge, to all who wish it, this receipt in German, French, or English, with full directions for preparing and using. Sent by post by addressing, with stamp, naming this paper, Dr. J. P. MOUNTAIN, 1.6. Percy-street. London, W. No MORE GRAY HAIR OR BALD HEADS—See the People's Fireside Journal, this week. All news- agents, Id.; post free, 2d., from 59 Newman-street London. W "SAPO-LINI" containing Linseed Jelly, is a perfumed, Emulsive Toilet Soap, 4d.; post free, 6d Of Chemists.
CORRESPONDENCE. t.
CORRESPONDENCE. t. *< The Editor does not hold himself responsible for the opinions of his Correspondents. THE RECENT DISESTABLISHMENT MEETING AT CADOXTON BARRY. TO THE EDITOR OF THE SOUTH WALES STAR. SIR,-Did you see your contemporary for last week ? I daresay you did. There is some poor fellow there suffering very 'badly from the effects. of the Suspensory disease, which is raging with great rapidity throughout the length and breadth of the country. It is a terrible disease. It effects, not only the body, but also the mind. Once it will come into the system it effects the whole of man— body and soul. People under its influence do say and do the most ridiculous things. I suppose, Mr. Editor, they are not accountable for what they say nor do while suffering from the epidemic. I do pity some of the sufferers upon my honour I do. Who can help it that hath a grain of sympathy in his nature ? The individual who titled himself A Little Member of the Great, Holy. Apostolical, Scriptural, Historical, Catholic, and Protestant. Church of England." is suffering greatly from the effects of the Snspensaria. The disease has penetrated through his whole nature. He is in a dangerous condition—almost beyond any hope of recovery. He calls Mr. Matthews, of Swansea, to book for what he had said at the meeting held in Cadoxton recently. Poor Mr. Matthews! I'm afraid it is all up on him now. He has met with his match at last. This most wonderful individual will be sure to render him speechless on the ques- tion of the Disesta.blishment and Disendowment of the Church. This writer says in his letter for last week that he had heard that the Liberationalists and some political Nonconformists were in the habit of saying some very hard things in their public meetings about the Church and her dignitaries. The writer, being of a genial turn of mind, could hardly credit that such was the case. He could hardly credit that the Nonconformists were guilty of what they were accused of, so, in order to find out for himself, he went to the meeting that was held at the Market-hall, Cadoxton, and, alas Mr. Editor, he found out, that the report was perfectly correct. The Nonconformists were not pointed one shadow blacker than they are. We, Noncon- formists, are a bad lot, without mistake. All the speakers (says this writer) were more or less un- just, but Mr. Matthews, of Swnnsea, surpassed them all. Of all the sinners, he was the chief among them. Why did the Young Wales Party commit such a blunder as to send to Swansea for such a. ma.n as that Mr. Matthews ? Why not leave. him to Swansea, and not bring him to Cadoxton to deliver a speech full of mis-statements from beginning to end. It was not necessary to go so far as Swansea for a person to deliver a speech of that kind. Plenty nearer home could be found. Who could think (eaid the noted writer under notice) that Mr. Mathews, of Swansea, was ft minister of the Gospel of Peace ? Why, what did he that night in Cadoxton that made it difficult to believe that he was a. minister of the gospel of peace? What did he indeed.' I should think he did enough he went over the names of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops of the four Welsh dioceses, and repeated what each one of them had said on different occasions. Another thing, he said that the Bishop of Llandaff had told a lie. And did he say that ? He did. 0, well then, who could say that he was a minister of the gospel of peace ? Mr. Matthews must have had a brazen face to say in a public meeting that a bishop was guilty of telling a falsehood. Be a little more couteous and lenient, Mr. Matthews, towards the bishops of the Church of England when they do tell a. little lie on occasion of great trial; do not ventilate, the lie told. bl 1P try and hide it from the public. Is a lie a lie, Mr. Editor, when it comes out of the mouth of a Bishop, or is it not ? I suppose it is. A lie is a. lie whoever says it is, whether a bishop or someone else. The little member of the Church of England said that the bishops are and have been for the space of 1,300 years the spiritual rulers of the Welsh people, and within brackets he has these words (a fact which no one can deny), Methinks, Mr. Editor, that the writer himself is within brackets too, namely, the brackets of ignorance, or else he could -never ha.Te been so dull as to write in the way he does. What was the condition of Wales when the spiritual rulers had the whole country to themselves ? Well, it was anything but spiritual, there was not much spirituality to be found: in the land of that period The bishop, spiritual rulers of the Welsh people for 13 centuries, do not mention such a thing, if you please. What work did the bishops accom- plished for little Wales ? Well, they accomplished a most glorious work they persecuted even unto death the good men (such as John Penry) that were doing their utmost so enlighten their fellow country men in things spiritual and eternal. We in Wales are not indebted to the Church of England, and her bishops for our spiritual educa- tion. Hands of bishop, if you pleaee.—Yours, &c., NONCONFORMIST.
-:......s.._._---_._----EXPORTS…
-s. EXPORTS AND IMPORTS AT BARRY DOCK. Below will be found full particulars as to the ex- ports and imports at Barry for the week ending April 8th, 1893. It will be seen from the table that already this year there have been shipped 1,199,011 tons 2 cwt. against 1,152,358 tons 0 cwt. at the corresponding period of last year, being an increase of 46,653 tons 2 cwt.:— IMPORTS:- Week ended Corresponding April 8, 1893. week ended April 9,1892. Tons ewt. Tons cwt. Pitwood 1,107 0 1,150 0 Timber ————— ————— Rails Silver Sand — ———— ————— Iron and Iron Ore Building Materials ————— 884 0 Generalmerchandise ————— 8 0 Total 1,107 0 2,042 e Decrease 935 0 Total to April 8, 1893 42,251 15 24,548 5 Increase 17,703 10 EXPORTS :— Coal 79,574 6 72.908 14 Coke. 855 9 1.030 17 Rails 450 0 Iron and Iron Ore. ————— General merchandise 5 2 ————— Total 80,885 7 73,93:4 11 Iecrease 6,945 16 Total to April 8, 1893. 1,199,011 2 1,152,358 9 Increase. 46,653 2 ———— REPORT OF SHIPPING: — Number. Tonnage. Steamers arrived 32 36,807 Steamers sailed 28 31,865 Sailing Vessels arrived. 10 8.679 Sailing Vessels sailed 11 13,025 Steamers in Dock this day 29 37,800 Sailing Vessels in Dock this day 27 34,101 Total. 56 71,901 VesselsinDock as per last report 53 70,616 Increase 3 1,285 Decrease — ———- Vessels in Dock, corresponding week, 1892 55 67,437 Accountant's Office, Barry Dock, April 10th, 1893. a.
Advertising
KAY'S COMPOUND Essence of Linseed Aniseed. Senega, Squill folu, &:c.: Hd.„ 13}., &c.