Weekly Mail

PASSIVE RESISTANCE. SECOND SALE OF GOODS AT CARMARTHEN. The second sale of the goods of "passive registers" has come and gone at Carmarthen, and there is nothing exciting to record. During the distraints made on the 11th inst. by Police-sergeant Phillips and Police-con- stable David Jones, as well as during the col- lection of the impounded goods on Tuesday morning, and at the sale at the market-place at mid-day, the passive resistance of the defaulters to the payment of the education rate was transformed to something resem- bling active connivance in the legal processes, with the result that there was only a small gathering present to witness the sale by Mr. John Francis, auctioneer. Everything passed off, apparently, quite amicably. The total amount to be recovered was about 922. At the outset the Rev. A Fuller Mills asked Mr. Francis whether he could legally sell dis- trained goods at a sale which had not been publicly announced, and the reply received was that he had been asked by Mr. R. M. Thomas, the town-clerk, to sell the goods, and that was the whole position. "But the town-clerk has nothing to do with this point," said Mr. Mills and the Rev. W. W. Lewis, whereupon Mr. Francis closed the argu- ment by remarking "Then I will run the risk of it." Mr. Mills: What are your charges? Mr. Francis said the town-clerk charged 6s. on each lot for the expenses of removal and selling. Mr. Thomas Thomas (Myrtle Villa): We want full particulars of how the charge is made up. What are your charges? It is an advertisement, you know. Mr. Francis: Well, yes, it is; but I never thought of that. (Laughter.) The auctioneer then put up each of the seventeen lots, announcing the reserve price in each case, and fifteen were disposed of without delay, for the amounts due, to sym- pathisers with the movement, as well as to "passive resistors," the whole proceedings occupying about halt an hour. A silver Watch (11s. lid.) and a coal scuttle (£1 2s. Id.), the impounded goods of B.F. Richards, Francis- terrace, and Thomas Bright, Spring-gardens, were withdrawn and retained by the police. In the case of Thomas Daniels, Priory-street, tailor, who owed 6d. and costs, the police had made no distraint, as the defaulter said he had no goods to levy upon. Immediately after the conclusion of the sale the ministers present proceeded to hold a public meeting in the market-place, where- upon Mr. Portnell (the lessee of the markets) informed them that he had no right to allow them to hold the meeting there, but that they could do so on the fair-ground. The little crowd, headed by the ministers, then proceeded to the fair-ground. A resolution was carried to the effect that legal advice be taken upon all matters pertaining to the pro- cedure that day, and that, if they found there had been any illegality, they would offer resistance and fight it out to the bitter end.

HETTY PIT DIFFICULTIES. FINAL SCENE IN A MEMORABLE DISPUTE. The final scene in a. memorable labour dispute took place at the Park Hotel, Ponty- pridd, on Tuesday afternoon, when an agree- ment was signed putting an end to the diffe- rences which have barred the way to a settle- ment of the long-continued dispute at the Hetty Pit, Hopkinstown, near Pontypridd. Work will be resumed forthwith. Mr. Hugh Bramwell (agent Great Western Colliery Company), Mr. James (manager), and Mr. C. Kenshole, Aberdare (solicitor to the Coalowners' Association) represented the owners, and Mr. Ben Davles (agent for the district), Mr. W. P. Nicholas (solicitor to the South Wales Miners' Federation), and a depu- tation of the men, acted on behalf of the employes. The repairers have been notified to renort themselves to-day (Wednesday), and many will commence operations the same night. Colliers are also requested to attend at the offices and sign on. Work will be found at once for those out of employment on the spot, and others who have found places elsewhere will also be re-instated at an early date. Nearly 1,000 men were originally affected, together with their wives and families dependent on their earnings, but at least 400 of the men have since found work in other collieries.

WELSH TIN-PLATE TRADE. SHEET MILLMEN'S SECRETARY APPOINTED. At a meeting of the council of the Tin and Sheet Millmen's Union held at Swansea on Saturday the election by ballot of a generaJ secretary to fill the place of Mr. Thos. Phillips was announced, the figures being- Ivor Gwynne H. Davies — 502 Majority & Mr. Gwynne was thereupon formally appointed to the position. MILLMEN'S QUARTERLY MEETING. The South Wales and Monmouthshire tin- plate millmen held their quarterly meeting at the Bird-in-Hand Hotel, Swansea, on Saturday, Mr. John, Edwards (president) in the chair. A decision was arrived at that two organisers were sufficient to cope with the work in the district. The meeting was favourable to the resolution of "abolishing payment by shearers for rising plates." This question will be brought before the Concilia- tion Board at the annual meeting.—Mr. Tom Griffiths (organiser) moved a reaolution pro- testing against the importation of Chinese labour into South Africa.-The resolution was carried.—It was also agreed that local M.P.'fl be requested to support, the Trades Unions and Trades Disputes Bill.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL SUMS UP. In the Divorce Court on Wednesday, before the President (Sir Francis Jeune) and a special jury, the hearing of the case of Pollard v. Pollard (the King's Proctor intervening) was resumed. It will be remembered that this was a case in which Mrs. Kate Pollard had obtained a decree nisi for the dissolution of her marriage with Mr. Thomas Pollard, now living at Ply- mouth, and the King's Proctor intervened, alleging that the divorce had been obtained through an arrangement made by persont acting on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent should be induced to commit mis- conduct. The evidence was concluded before the court rose for the Easter Vacation, and the case had been adjourned until now for counsels' address. Sir Edward Clarke, K.C., then addressed the jury on behalf of Mrs. Pollard in reply to I MR, SLATER. the King's Proctor's case. He reminded them that Mrs. Pollard was granted a decree on November 24, 1902, on the ground of the cruelty and misconduct of her husband. The misconduct was alleged with Maud Goodman. The King's Proctor had intervened, alleging that it was arranged by persons acting on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent should be induced to commit misconduct in order that the petitioner should obtain a divorce. It was alleged that in October, 1901, there was a verbal agreement at Slater's office between Mr. Slater, Mr. Henry, and Mr. Osborn, the solicitor, to employ some person to induce Mr. Pollard to commit misconduct, and that to carry out that wicked agreement Cyril Smith, lies, and Frederick Davis were employed and supplied with funds. There were, therefore, grave interests involved in this case—the interests of Slater's, of Mr. Osborn, and Mrs. Pollard. He could have wished that Slater's should have been repre- sented by counsel; but as that was not so, it was his duty to make some observations on their behalf. There had been full opportunity given for the investigation of their conduot and methods; and the King's Proctor's counsel had not been able to attack any member of the firm with regard to their character or their action in any single case previous to this. He (Sir Edward) contended that it had been shown in evidence that detectives who had formerly been employed by Slater's, and had established a rival agency, had threatened to "smash up Slater's," and that one of them said they were making use of the Pollard case with that object. They I MR. WILLIAM HAMILTON. must, therefore, regard with suspicion the evi- dence of witnesses engaged in such a con- spiracy. That there was no instruction given to Slater's men to procure mieoonduct, he submitted, was shown by the fact that when one of the detectives suggested in his report the introduction of women to Pollard at Plymouth he was telegraphed to under no circumstances carry out the proposi- tion, and return immediately. There was not a &crap of evidence to support the charge made against Mr. Osborn, and it was quite legitimate and proper for him to get state- ments from the witnesses at Plymouth. Sir Edward then referred to the unhappy rela- tions existing between Mrs. Pollard and her husband, and with regard to the proceedings at Plymouth he pointed out that Maud Good- man had herself said that Mr. Pollard had committed misconduct with her. When she made that statement Mr. Osborn had not the smallest reason for mistrusting her. Coming to the Jersey incident, he said that neither Mrs. Pollard nor Mr. Osborn had any know- ledge of it when the petition was filed. The President, interposing, said the thing was done by Davies, who was in the posi- tion of an agent to Mrs. Pollard. She em- ployed Slater's, who employed Davies, and even though she bad no knowledge of what he did, if he induced Mr. Pollard to commit misconduct she must bear the consequence. If Davis procured misconduct in Jersey, and Mr Pollard afterwards committed misconduct with Maud Goodman, it would be a question for him to decide whether or not that did not amount to conduct on the petitioner's part conducing to misconduct. The Solicitor-General (Sir E. Carson) then replied on behalf of the King's Proctor. He said that if it were true that Slater's Arm I MR HENRY. had existed for the purpose of obtaining dis- honest evidence with the view of having the results of that dishonest evidence registered as the decree of the High Court, nothing oould go more to endanger the foundation of society and the administration of the law. If it were true that Mr. Osborn had abused his position, and that he, an officer of that court, had been a party to bringing a false case for the purpose of earning a very large sum of money for himself, then there they had again another terrible danger in regard to the administration of justice. They could not leave Mr. Knowles out of the ca, Ise. Mr. Knowles, the millionaire, had a remarkable interest in the case, and was prepared to pay without limit to enable Mrs. Pollard to get a divorce. He (Sir E. Carson) asked the jury, therefore, to pause before they decided that the case had a bona fide origin. He thought that, whatever might be the verdict of the jury, they would consider it was high time that Slaters' were exposed. A detective busi- ness, even when conducted with the greatest care, was a dirty business and a dangerous business, because they must necessarily get a class of men to do this invidious work who were not of the highest order. In the case of Slaters', they had no account of what was done fcr the zeZ,300 paid to them. There was no acoount of disbursements, and no letters were kept. The learned counsel had not concluded when the court adjourned. (

JURY FIND FOR THE KING'S PROCTOR. The hearing was resumed on Thursday, when The Solicitor-General (Sir E. Carson) con- tinued his address to the jury in reply on the whole case on behalf of the King's Proctor. He said there was one observation made by Sir Edward Clarke in his speech which was rather misleading. Sir Edward Clarke said that, although witnesses had been examined who had been in the employment of Slater's firm for years, the King's Proctor had been unable, by cross-examination, to point to a single wrong done or perjury com- mitted by Slater's in regard to any former cases in which they had been employed. That observation could have no weight, because they were here trying a specific case against Slater's, and it would be impossible now to go into other cases in which Slater's firm was engaged. He now came to the question, Was there a conspiracy, an agreement, or any arrangement to try and procure that Pollard should commit misconduct? It was not neces- sary to prove that the three persons con- cerned met together and made the arrange- ment, but it was sufficient to show by other fads that they co-operated in one of the most disgraceful incidents that could be brought before a court of justice. Slater's were employed in October, 1901, and sent detectives to Plymouth to watch, and then they had a report from their man Smith, in which he said: Given the necessary money, in my opinion the matter in hand would stand a hance of going through to-morrow when we are due to meet the two girls. Sir Edward Clarke said that on receipt of that report Slater's ordered their man to return. That night be, but if this had been an unusual thing Slater's or any respectable agency would have disavowed what was done and dismissed the man summarily. The importance of that matter was that a man in Slater's employment, like Smith, should dare to write a letter of that kind to his employers. It pointed to that being one of the ordinary methods of that firm. They kept in their employment a man who had suggested that he should take means to get Pollard to com- mit misconduct. Could they doubt that Smith thought it perfectly within what he was expected to do for Slater's? If they believed the witness Cartwright, SLATER WAS INVOLVED IN THAT? There was no doubt that Henry was involved in it. Then toor\l was the Jersey incident. That disgraceful incident was admitted. What did they think of an agency that em- ployed a detective who took a. man to Jersey for the purpose alleged, and yet Mr. Henry had the audacity to say in the witness-box that he understood that Davis took Pollard to Jersey only for oompanionship, and to get information from him. He submitted that on the evidence it was plain that Mr. Henry knew of the Jersey incident, which occurred in March, 1902. When, according to their own story, Slater's afterwards learned the whole story of this broken-down, semi- drunken man being carted over to Jersey and taken to a house of ill-rep,ute,. when they learned of what, to any decent man, must be as VILE AN INCIDENT as could possibly be perpetrated towards any individual, what happened? Slater's still kept this man in their -employment. #Why did they not dismiss him? Because they knew perfectly well that if they dismissed Davis he would have had no mercy upon them, and feared that he might come before the court and tell how it was that he came to go to carry out, that dis- graceful incident in Jersey. Immediately after that Mr. Knowles was asked for a pay- ment of £2.?O. Had they the least doubt that that was the price asked for one of the employes of the firm taking Pollard to Jersey? It was as clear as anything could be that Henry and Slater were concerned in the concoction of .that vile plot. Passing to the part of the case as it affected Mr. Osborn, his lordship had said that he would ask the jury whether a false case was presented to the court on behalf of the petitioner. If a false case was presented, then, of course, the decision given upon that false case could not be allowed to stand. The President: The questions I shaJI put are, first, whether a false case was presented, explaining to the jury that it does not neces- sarily mean a case false to the knowledge of Mr. Osborn, and, if so, whether it was with the knowledge or by the procurement of Mr. Osborn such a false case was submitted to the court? The Solicitor-General said he should ask the jury to answer both these questions in the affirmative. He would not press the case against Mr. Osborn, who was a solicitor, any more than the evidence seemed to warrant. Mr. Osborn was largely mixed up with Slater's firm. He had been employed by Slater's in fifteen oases during one year. HIe must make one observation about the readi- ness with which Mr. Osborn lent himself to this business. He was told on the 18th of July, 1902, to go to Plymouth. Slater's asked him to go on behalf of Mr. Knowles, and he did not even know Mrs. Pollard at that time. He took his instructions from a man who, so far as he knew (though, of course, that was not so), might be a lover of Mrs. Pollard's, trying to get rid of the husband for his own ends. That did not seem to be an ordinary method for a solicitor to take instructions and seeing his client, and yet going to Ply- mouth taking her husband's photograph with him to bad houses there, and showing it to loose women to see if they recognised the man. He submitted that from the way in which the evidence was procured it was nn- possible that Mr. Ceborn could have believed that the evidence of these women was true in its inception. In conclusion, Sir Edward Carson said it was their duty to take care. above all. in the administration of justice nobody should be allowed to tamper with the truth, and to see that the justice administered in the courts was absolutely pure and undefiled. (Slight applause.) PRESIDENT SUMS UP. The President, in ramming up the case to the jury, said he regretted that the state of the law was such that persons who were not directly named in the case, although impli- cated in it, namely Slater's firm and Mr. Osborne, could not be directly represented. It was an unfortunate state of the law. How- ever, in this case the interests of those persons had been very properly defended by Mrs. Pollard's counsel, Sir Edward Clarke. He would have eight questions to submit to the jury, but there were really only two main issues—the first relating to the Jersey inci- dent and the second to the conduct of Maud Goodman and Mr. Osborn in connection with her. They must not let sympathy for Mrs. PollaTd affect them in this case. If she could not prove her husband guilty of misconduct she could not get the relief she sought. That, however, did not deprive her of a certain lief. It had been proved that there was cruelty, and on that she had her remedy in separation Questions of character had been raised in this case. There hlfd been attacks on both sides, and, although that might have caused considerable relevancy, that did not constitute the main issue. An attack had naturally been made by the King's Proctor on Messrs. Slater and Mr. Osborn, whose conduct was represente-d a6 being highly re- prehensible They were not there to try the character of Messrs. Slater, and he depre- cated the reference made by counsel to his- tory when he said that they had for nearly twenty years conducted their business with- out King's Proctor being able to show any complaint against them. The answer which the Solicitor-Oeneral made to that was con- clusive, that they could not in that court try the whole history of Messrs. Slater. He de- precated also any appeal being made to him on the matter. He declined to express any opinion. Messrs. Slater had had cases before the court over and over again, but he de- clined to say whether he had formed any opinion as to the conduct of those gentle- men. The view which he took as to detec- tive evidence was that there were occasions on which it was an unfortunate necessity that detectives should be employed where there was suspicion well founded with regard to a particular individual, but no actual legal proof. Then he was far from saying that it was not legitimate to employ the honest actst of detectves' to discover what the real truth of the matter was. If detec- tive evidence was carried further, and was used to make a case which was not true, no words would in such a case be strong enough to express the reprobation of every right- minded person with regard to such conduct. There had beeC COMPLAINTS OF TREACHERY on the paTt of seme of Slater's men. Hod- er that might be the jury must consider the probaibiliitites of the case in considering whether their evidence was true or not. His lordship then proceeded to examine in detail the points which the jury would have to con- sider. He handed them a. list of eight ques. tions. First, they would have to consider whether material facts ha^d been withheld from the court. They would also have to decide whether there was any arrangement to procure Mr. Pollard to commit misconduct. With regard to the Jersey incident, un- doubtedly Davis took Mr. Pollard there to procure misconduct. The case, however, was not to be decided on that, but on the alleged misconduct with Maud Goodman, and the jury had to consider whether a false caee was presented to the court, and whether there bad been misconduct with Maud Goodman. The question as to whether Maud Goodman gave false evidence or lot involved the con- duct of Mr. Osborn. The jury retired to consider their verdict at a quarter to four o'clock. THE DECISION. The jury found for the King's Proctor on all issues. The decree of divorce was rescinded. Mrs. Pollard was granted a judicial separa- tion on the ground of cruelty. All the docu- ments in the case were ordered to be impounded.

SAILOR BLOWN TO ATOMS. The fishing vessel Alfred, on arrival at Ramsgate on Monday, reported that when the vessel was off the Dutch coast a, member of the crew observed a small keg floating in the water. A sailoi named Goldsmith and a deck boy put off in a small boat to obtain the keg, and, having placed it in the boat, Goldsmith attempted to open it. The keg exploded, and Goldsmith was blown to pieces, all traces of him disappearing. It is supposed that the keg contained dynamite- Tne boat was also Mown to pieces. The boy was rescued, severely injured.

TRAGIC AFFAIR AT TREHERBERT. ALMOST A MURDER AND SUICIDE. A series of incidents, almost culminating in a murder and suicide, occurred at Pen- yrenglyn, Treberbert, in the early hours of Saturday morning, and the surrounding dis- tricts were thrown into a state of conside- rable excitement when the story of the sen- sational affair became. known. The facts, briefly stated, are that Benjamin Prothero, age 38, a rider employed in Ynysfeio Col- liery, and residing at 39, Baglan-street, Pen- yrenglyn, Treherbert, attacked his wife with a pruning knife, and nearly succeeded in murdering her, cutting her throat, and other- wise injuring her; then jumped from an upstairs window to the pavement, a depth of about 16ft.; was taken charge of by three coloured men, who handed him over to Mr. Ivor Thomas, the well-known boxer (known as "Ivor Butcher"), and that Prothero (while Thomas went to see the extent of the tragedy I BENJAMIN PROTHERO. I in Prothero's own house) hacked his own throat in ihomas's house, and would pro- bably have succeeded in committing suicide if Thomas had not returned and wrested the knife from him. It seems from what can now be gleaned that, after getting up between four and five o'clock in the morning, Prothero attacked his wife furiously with a knife, hacking at her throat until she became covered with blood. Mrs. Lewis, who lives in apartments with the Protheros, heard screams, rushed to the room and saw the terrible struggle. She shouted to him to stop, and Prothero retorted by shouting, Go out, or I'll kill you." She rushed out, in her nightdress, threw stones at the window of the next house, and thus drew the attention of Ivor Thomas, who promptly went to the rescue. Thomas rushed into Prothero's house through the back door. The unfortunate victim of the onslaught was then lying in the kitchen. Seeing Thomas, she said, Oh, Ivor, he has. nearly killed me." Thomas then called up- stairs to Prothero, who appears to have jumped from a window into the street, leaving the window stained with blood. Thomas rushed out of the front door to give ohaee, but found that he had been forestalled, r as Protbero had been seized by three coloured men and a white man whilst he was mounting the railings in front of his house. Noticing his strange appear- ance they took him in charge, and, Thomas arriving on the scene, he took Prothero to his (Thomas's) own house, leaving ,him there. Not knowing the full extent of the tragedy at Prothero's home, Thomas left, for the purpose of seeing what had really hap- pened to the unfortunate wife and children. He had just turned to go when Thomas's lodger called after him, saying, He has taken your oao-ving knife to kill himself." Thomas turning round saw the man madly gashing himself in his throat, inflicting a fearful wound, cutting right through the larynx. Before being able to complete the attempt to destroy himself, however, he was stopped in the nick of time by Thomas. Police-constables Owen and Bees were Boon on the spot, and took charge of the premises. With every possible expedition, Drs. M'Kinnon and Cameron arrived on the scene, and at once proceeded to examine and close up the wounds of the man and woman. THE WOMAN'S INJURIES. It was found that Mrs. Prothero had a. cut in the right temple three- quaxters of an inch long, a cut across the throat which extended to 4in., a stab on the top of the chest, and a wound 3fcin. long on the right breast, as well as several cuts on both hands, one on the thigh, a small cut on the right side, and other injuries, supposed to have been sustained by the woman being, as it is asserted, thrown downstairs. More serious, however, than even the THE SCENE OF THE TRAGEDY. (The house on the right, No, 39, is that In which the affray took place. In the adjoining house, No. 58, lived the father of the prisoner.) wounds inflicted was the fact that the woman, had a miscarriage. PROTHERO REMOVED TO CARDIFF. Prothero had a cut in his throat 4in. long, and had injuries to his left foot, probably sustained by his attempting to jump through the window. His wounds, however, are not regarded as likely to prove fatal; but under the circum- stances it was deemed advisable to send him to the Cardiff Infirmary. He was still wild in his manner as he was oonveyed to the sta- tion. He left Treberbert, in charge of Police- constable Rees, by the twelve o'clock train. There are eix children, the eldest of whom is twelve years of age, and the youngest three years of age. The youngest child wae in bed with his mother at the time of the tragic occurrence, and was covered with blood. A painful feature in the case is the fact that Prothero's father was lying dead at his residence, next door to the scene where the affair took place. IVOR THOMAS'S VERSION. Ivor Thomas, mentioned in the case, is the well-known light-weight boxer, and he lives next door to Mr. an-d Mrs. Prothero. Speaking to one of our representatives, he said that about four or five o'clock on Satur- day morning he heard a row at Prothero's house, and shortly afterwards there was a crash at his window. On looking out he saw Mrs. Lewis attired in her night-dress. She appealed to'him to come to her assistance. He (Thomas) ran downstairs, and on enter- ing Prothero's house. by the back door, a ghastly sight met him. Mrs. Prothero was lying at the foot of the stairs covered with blood. "It takes a lot to upset me." Thomas declared, but this really did updet me. Her face was simply oovered with blood." He asked her whtut was the matter, and she replied, He has nearly killed me." Prothero was on the other side of the street, and there were three coloured men holding him. He took Prothero to his (Thomas's) house and left him for a few minutes in the kitchen. On returning he was horrified to find Prothero slashing away at his throat with a carving knife. Prothero must have got out of his house by jumping from the bedroom window, because his ankle was sprained. Mrs. Lewis, who resided in apartments with Prothero. declared that Prothero had been very strange in his manner of late. This morning," she said, he entered my room and asked for some wine. c I replied that I had none, and then he left the room. Shortly afterwards I heard a scream and saw him attacking his wife. I shouted to him to stop it, and he replied, Go out or I'll kill you.' I was frightened, and ran to call Ivor Thomas, who lives next door. That is all I know about the affair." FUNERAL OF PROTHERO'S FATHER. The funeral of the father, Mr. David Pro- thero, aged 75 years, took place on Saturday afternoon, when the mortal remains of the old man were interred in the Treorky Ceme- tery. MRS. PROTHERO'S CONDITION. Mrs. Prothero was reported to be a little better late on Wednesday night, and it was not, therefore, considered necessary for the police to take her depositions, as ha.d been intended in view of the relapse of Tuesday night.

DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES. IMPORTANT SOUTH WALES APPEAL CASE. In the Court of Appeal on Wednesday, composed of the Master of the Rolls and Lords Justices Romer and Mathew, the case came on for hearing on the appeal of North's Navigation Col- liery Company from an order of Mr. Justice Bucknill in chambers granting an interim injunction restraining them from making oertain deductions from the wages of Williams and others, the plaintiffs, who are six colliers in the employ of the defendants. The plaintiffs, in breach of their contracts of ser- vice with the defendants, absented themselves from work one day in September last without leave or notice, and they were sum- moned before the magistrates at the instance of the defendants, and each were ordered to pay damages, amounting to 30s., in three fortnightly instalments. On the first instalment of 10s. becoming due the defen- dants deducted that amount from each of the men's wages, and this action was brought to recover the amounts thus deducted, on the ground that such deductions were illegal under the Truck Acts. The present appeal was from an interlocutory injunction granted by Mr. Justice Bucknill, restraining the defendants from making any further deductions pending the trial of the action or further order. It was understood that this appeal was being treated as the trial of the action. Mr. J. Eldon Bankes, K.C.. Mr. Montague Lush, K.C., and Mr. J. C. Ashton (instructed by Messrs. C. and W. Kenshole, solicitors, Aberdare) appeared for the appellants, and Mr. Rufus Isaacs, K.C., Mr. S. T. Evans, K.C., Mr. Bailhaohe, and Mr. Sankey (instructed by MesSVs. Smith, Rundell, and Dodds, London. agents for Messrs. Walter Morgan, Bruce, and Nicholas, solicitors, Pontypridd) for the respondents. Mr. Bankes, in opening the appellants' case, said there were two separate questions raised by this appeal. The first was whether the deductions in question were deductions for- bidden by the Truck Acts—that was to say, whether they were forbidden as a deduction. The second point was whether, even assuming they were forbidden as a. deduction, it was not quite plain that the employers were entitled to set them off in any action brought as this one was. If it was quite plajn that the employers were entitled to rely upon a "set- off" in any action which was brought, then he ^submitted the court would not grant any injunction that would prevent the employers doing with an action what they could not do without an action.—Mr. Bankes proceeded to cite a number of previously decided oases in support of his contention that the deductions made in this case were not illegal. Mr. Isaacs, for the respondents, said.it was very desirable that their lordships should give a decision on the question of principle involved in this case. viz., whether these deduc- tions were illegal under the Truck Acts. The point as te "set-off" seemed to him to beg the question. At this stage the court rose, and the further hearing was adjourned till Thursday, when Mr. S. T. Evans, following Mr. Rufus Isaacs, K.C., for the respondents, said the question was whether there was a statutory obligation on the part of the employers to pay the full amount of the wages earned. He submitted that there was such a statutory obligation under Section 3 of the Truck Act, 1831. Lord Justice Romer pointed out that the Act said that the entire amount of wages earned by or payable to the workman should be paid in current coin, and not in kind. The mere non-payment was no offence under the Act. Mr. Evans submitted that on the true con- struetion of the Act what wae payable to the workman was the entire amount of the wages earned, and that any reduction from that sum without the workman's consent oonstitlltep. a breach of the statute. In the course of the arguments it was I arrsnged that the court should only be asked to decide the question of whether or not it was within the law to make the reductions in question, and that no declaration shduld be made as to whether or not the employers, if the deductions were found to be illegal, had been guilty of a criminal offence. Mr. Eldon-Bankes, K.C., having replied, Their Lordships reserved judgment till Friday morning.

TWO MEN: ONE WIFE. NEWPORT WIDOW'S STRANGE STORY. A very unusual point was raised in a case under the Workmen's Compensation Act at Newport County-court on Thursday. It was the case of Flanagan v. J. Lyeaght, Limited, iu which a sum of £ 300 was claimed by the widow in respect of the death of her husband. Mr. Moore applied for the applicant; Mr. Sankey (instructed by Messrs. Downing and Hand- cook) for the defence. Mr. Moore said he understood that the unusual defence was raised in this case that the applicant was not a dependent, and he had better grapple with that point at once. The allegation was that she was not the wife of the dead man. It waa true that she had lived with another man years ago; but she stated that she did not go through the cere- mony of marriage with him. And if she did, there was a question whether the man was not a married man at the time, and, there- fore, could not have married the woman. If she was not the wife of the deceased man, of course she could not make the claim. He had taken upon himself to point out to the woman —and his Honour wouji Appreciate the deli- cate position that he had been placed in- what a serious matter it would be to make an application on oath which was not strictly true. His Honour Judge Owen: Yes; you had better put her in the box at* once. Mr. Sankey: I suggest that before this unfortunate woman is sworn I might be allowed to put a question to her. His Honour: I will ask the question myself. WIDOW IN THE BOX. The applicant, a middle-aged woman, dressed in mourning, was called, and the judge asked her: Now, before you are sworn, listen to me. You are making a claim as the widow of this man Flannigan. Were you married to him? Applicant: Yea, sir. His Honour: Were yon ever married before? Appiicanft (with a smile): I don't remember it, air. His Honour: Oh, don't laugh about it, please. It is a serious matter. If you øwearr that you were married to him, and it proves that you were not, you will be prosecuted for perjury, and you will, perhaps, have to go to prison for a long time. Mr. Sankey: Now, I ask Boytt to stand up. His Honour: Is that the first husband? Mr. Sankey: Yes. His Honour (to the applicant*: Now, were you married to that man before? Applicant: He said I was, sir. The marriage certificate of the applicant and Fanagan was put in, showing the date of the alleged marriage as April 13, 1895. Boytt was awdirn, and said he was a labourer, living at 13, New Houses, Aberbar- goed. He was married to th3 applicant, whose name than was Margaret Brian, at Newport Registry-office on July 6, 1880, and was certain she was the same woman. The certificate was put in, and his Honour, having examined it, said he found the ages did not correspond, but he supposed that was a mere detail. Boytt said after they had lived together for a. good while the woman deserted him and the children. He asked her to come back, but she refused. Mr. Moore: There is another version from that. She says she was kicked out by the man. The woman was re-called, and, without being sworn, asked by the judge if it was true that she married Boytt at Newport in 1880. The Applicant: Well, they said as I did. Mr. Sankey said he had a dozen witnesses of the fact. Mr. Moore said he would, upon this state of affairs, tell the woman that she ought not to go on with the case. His Honour: If she did I should decide against her, and if she swore that she was the widow of Flanagan I would order a prosecution for perjury. The woman, alluding to Boytt. remarked that he always kicked her about like a dog. His Honour: I have nothing to do with hat. Tlhe only question is whether you were married to him. Applicant: I never remember going with him. The case did not proceed further, and his Honour said there would be no award.

BOY KILLS HIS MOTHER. At Cambridge County Police-office the lad Frank Rodgers, charged with the murder of his mother, Mrs. Georgina Rodgers, IJt Meldrith, was formally remanded to Mof,l- bourn, Cambridgeshire, where the case will be heard on the 25th inst. The lad has been visited in Cambridge Gaol by hia father and his brother. He sleeps well, seems quite cheerful, and does not appear to realise his position.

I ENGLANIYS OLDEST SOLICITOR. Mr. A. S. Field, clerk of the peaoe and clerk to the Warwickshire County Council, is about I. to resign his offices. He is in his ninety- aecond year, and is the oldest solicitor on the rolls. Born at Leamington, Mr. Field can trace his descent from Oliver Orumrwoil.

ACCIDENTS IN THE DISTRICT. DISTRESSING STREET SCENE AT SWANSEA. An inquest was held on Saturday oa the body of the child Henry Jones, of Neath-road, Landore, who was run over and killed by aa electric tramcaj on Friday. The child's grandmother, Mrs. Ann Cockin, said the child wandered from the doorstep into the road. Thomas Ray, the driver, said the child ran across five yards in front of the tram, and although he did everything possible, he could not pull up in the space. He was only going about four miles an hour.—Dr. Morgan Adelaide said death must have been instan- taneous, as the spine was broken and both arms and some ribs fraotured.-Polioe-cou- stable Northcote said the body was extricated in about fifteen minutes by means of jacks obtained from Vivian's works close by.—The Coroner strongly condemned the habit of parents in allowing children to play in the busy streets, as was the case in Swansea, but said his remarks did not apply to this par- ticular case. The jury returned a verdict of Accidental death," exone.rating the dtivear from all blame. CARDIFF MAN BURNT TO DEATH. Mr. E. B. Rsece, coroner, held an inquest at the Town-hall, Cardiff, on Monday oa the body of Daniel O'Callaghan (46), boiler- maker, of Cumrae-etreet, East Moors, who died in the infirmary from the result of burns. Mrs. Isabel O'Callaghan deposed that oa Saturday night her husband did not come to bed with her, because, he said, the hour was too early, and he went to sleep, perfectly sober, in an adjoining room. She heard nothing more until she was awakened at 9.30 on the following moraing and found her hus- band alongside of her. Then she looked at him, and saw that his face was disfigured and charred. She asked, "Whatever is the matter?" and, attracted by a smell of burning, she went into the room her husband had occupied, and found the mattress smouldering and the place full of smoke. Witness ran > downstairs and returned with a bucket of water, with which she put out the fire. She saw that her husband's shoulders were burnt, ae well as his face, and ran for help. The pipe produced she found in the smouldering bed, with the mouthpiece bur-At.-Dr. Timms (Cardiff Infirmary) said the man was brought in with very severe wounds on the face, chest, back, arms, and back of legs, and he also suffered from shock, and succumbed at 11.30 p.m. He vomited a lot of flui,d, which smelt of drink. Possibly he was burnt as suggested and overpowered by the fames.-The jury returned a verdict of Accidental death front burns." WORKS ACCIDENT AT CAERLEON. While a gang of men employed at the new asylum works at Caerleon were engaged on Monday evening in removing one of the boilers, weighing twenty tons, a crab gave way and the boiler fell a distance of fifty feet. One of the fitters who was at work at the winch received cuts on his head by being struck by the handle, and the new boiler- house was completely wrecked. Had the boiler slipped a moment or two sooner it would have fallen upon the gang of men working underneath, for they had only just got out of the way when the accident happened. ACCIDENT AT A SWANSEA WORKS. Thomas Williams, a labourer, 50 years of I age, employed at Baldwins Steelworks, Landore, fell from a gantry at the works on Saturday and fractured his pelvis and I injured his back. He is lying at the Swansea I Hospital. DEATH ACCELERATED BY AN ACCIDENT. Mr. R. J. Rhys (coroner) held an inquest at the Star Inn, Merthyr, on Saturday, touching the death of Edgar Davies, aged eighteen, a stoker employed at the boilers of the Clyn- mill Drift, belonging to Hill's Plymouth Com- pany. Mr. Gray, his Majesty's inspector of mines. was present, the company being repre- sented by Mr. Percy Wa.rd.-Da.vid Jones, the driver of the haulage engine at the drift. said that on the morning of the Z3rd of December last he heard Davies shouting, and found him on the etage by the side of the fly- wheel. He complained of a pain in the abdo- men, and said he had been struck by the fly- wheel. At the time of the accident Davies was cleaning the engine.—Dr. Ward said the man recovered from the direct effects of the accident, but he had suffered from heart disease since a child, and death was due to cardiac failure. Death was, no doubt, accele- rated by the accident, but having regard to the condition of the heart he thought that the deceased could not under any circum- eta-nees have lived more than another year or so.—The jury returned a verdict of "Aoci- dental death," the Foreman saying that most of them thought there ought to be a whistle for the driver to blow before starting the engine when it was being cleaned.—The Coroner considered that the best thing to do would be to dean the engine before it was set working at all, and Mr. Percy Ward undertook that in future this shoaM be carried out. COLLIERY FATALTTY. Frank Morgan, aged 27, of 14, Jones's-court,' rcntlottyc. employed as a haulier at East Elliott's Colliery, New Tredegar, was killed on Monday. His horse took fright, and caused him to be crushed between the side of tho drift and the moving trams. He was re- moved with all promptitude to the pit's head, where death took place. At the No. 2 Llwynypia Pits, John Jones, hitcher, of Ynyscynon-road, Trealaw, has met with a terrible accident. He was descending the shaft of the pit in a oage, with half a dozen other employees, when, in the act of alighting at the Two-foot-nine Seam, he missed his footing, and fell headlong to the bottom of the pit, a distance of a couple of hundred yards. As might have been expected, hie body was terribly cut, and death must have been instantaneous. At the Robert-town Hotel, YnysybwL on Saturday Mr. R. J. Rhys (district coroner) held an inquiry touching the death of Thomas Roberts, cogman, aged 61, who had succumbed to injuries received in a fall of roof at the Ocean Colliery, Ynysybwl. Mr. Dyer Lewis, his Majesty's inspector of mines, was present. Mr. Edward Jones, M.E. (agent to the colliery) represented the Ocean Company, and Mr. Silas Williams represented the Miners' Federation.—The jury returned a verdict of "Accidental death." BICYCLE ACCIDENTS. Two young men, named Arthur Pritohard < and Herbert Thompson, of Newport, went for a ride on a tandem cycle, along with two uncles, whom they are visiting, at Old Trafford, Manchester. They were proceeding at a fair speed along the Chester-road, when, in avoiding a motor- car which was approaching the city, they crashed into a milk-cart, and both were flung off the machine into the roadway, and their companions, who were behind, narrowly escaped dashing into them. Both Pritchard and Thompson were badly bruised and shaken, and had to be taken to Old Trafford in a cab. Their machine was but little damaged.

CHILDREN DRUGGED. A FATHER'S EXTRAORDINARY CRIME. The extraordinary case of two young children drugged in a flat in Camberwell came up at the Old Bailey, London, on Wedne&- day (before Mr. Justice Darling), when the father of the infants, George Hallam (55), a draughtsman, was placed, on his trial for attempting to murder them. For the prosecution it was stated that prisoner, a married man, with a third child in addition to the two mentioned in the indiotment, did not appear to have lived very happily with his wife. He had a house iJ1 Camberwell-road, and some time ago he also hired a flat in the neighbourhood, but did not fnrnish it. with the exception of placing a bed and a few other articles there. On Sunday night, April 3, the prisoner went to this flat with a friend named Blakesley, utking with him the two children. He put the children to bed, and sat up talking with Blakesley, to whom he produced a, document which purported to be his will, and asked him to witness it. Blakeeley stayed until early ia the morning, and then left. The next inci- dent in the story wae that the children awoke feeling very sick and giddy, and saw their father lying on the floor. They went to sleep again, and. as it proved, remained in slumber all through Monday and right up to Tuesday moruimg, when their father took them-teome. They were very unwell, and invertigation showed that they had been drugged with a large quantity of chloroform, the father hav- ing also administered some to himself. What was the motive of the prisoner, said counsel, one oonld not understand, but it was sug- gested that he was trying to frighten his wife. Witnesses were called in support of this charge, and later, at the request of th. Judge, several of the witnesses were re-called They stated that in their opinion there wim no ground for the statements of the prisonei regarding his wife's fidelity. The medicai officer of Brixton Gaol could not certify that Hallojn was insane. The jury found that the prisoner admis- tered the drug with intent to murder, but that at the time he was suffering from 9 delusion as to his wife's fidelity. The Judge: Do you mean the prisoner waa insane? The Foreman: We do not go so far M that. The Judge having further instructed tho jury on the point, The jury found that the prisoner was aa insane at the time. His Lordship paeoad senteaoaof fisiHjwnl a tude for Ufa.