Weekly Mail

FURNITURE! THE BEST VALUE GIVEN Good, Substantial FURNITUB.1 WAREANTEP TO WEAK. ALL SOUND. HOME-MADE GOODS. TO GET THIS VISIT THB Atlas Furniture Co., Hayes Buildings, Cardiff. £50,000 WORTH OF STOCK TO SELECT FROM FOR CASH OR em EASY TERMS. GOODS DELIVERED OOEE. CATALOGUES FREE ON APPLICATION.

# Not a stimulant merely for the moment, but a Permanent and Agreeable Form of Nourishment.

PLIGHT OF A WELSH GIRL. BABY SENT IN A BASKET TO BRISTOL. An inquest was held on Wednesday at Bristol ^roner's-court, and some remarkable facts *erei disclosed. It seems that on Saturday, paroh 11, a Japanese basket arrived at Clif- ton Down Station, addressed to Mrs. W. R. ^y, Cornwallis-avenue, Clifton, ait which *<idress it was in due course delivered. The Gceiver, on opening the parcel, was horrified j* find in the basket the body of a young j^ilfi, the circumstances of whose death now ^a-ged the attention of the coroner. Mr. Marlay Samson, barrister, of the South Wales Circuit, was present in the interest of Miaa Lewis, Detective-inspector Robertson *a*tch«id the case for the Bristol Police, and Sergeant Thomas, of Narberth Police, was *ls<J present. Mabel Frances Levy, 5, St. Vincent's-road, Cornwallis-avenue, Clifton, said that she was acquainted with Frances Emeline Lewis, a I)--r-,on whose home was at Southampton. This lady was a very old school 'riend of witness's. She occasionally stopped at witness's house, and they Corresponded. On February 22 Miss Lewis *rote Mrs. Levy, saying that she was going Narberth, in Pembrokeshire, to stay, and witness to meet her at Stapleton Road, hieh station she would pass through, Witness did meet her, and Miss Lewis told that she waa going to stay at Mr. and rjrs- Lewis's, her first cousins, at Grunway, f'a.rberth, for about three weeks. Subse- quently witness received a letter from Miss Lewis, her friend, the substance of which as that she was going to return earlier ftan she exp«ected, and asking that she might selad on her luggage in advance to Mrs. Levy. on Saturday, the 4th of March, a dress- arrived. Witness here identified the 3«keit, which was in court, and she also °°Sni8ed the labels thereon as being in the handwriting of her friend. On one of these labels was the writing, Miss Lewis, +, re Mrs. W. R. Levy," and the address with d w°rds, "Luggage, to be delivered imme- The other contained the same address p to the effect that the parcel came per reaA Western Railway to Clifton Down Ration. Witness was somewhat surprised to this basket, but sihe put it in the sitting-room. Another letter arrived, Postmark on the envelope being March 6. Inside this was another envelope, whioh secured. On the latter were the words, ^"frs. W. R. Levy; private; to be read when alone." REMARKABLE LETTERS. jOne letter was very long, the sole essence that Mi«« Lewis asked Mrs. Levy to take the parcel in the basket and quietly do away with it at night-time when dark. The filter expressed contrition, stating that she Would have been married before but for an T4nt4Dreseen oirrumstanoe. No one knew 'of .her misfortune except herself. Witness informed her husband, who communi- cated with the police, and they removed the basket. The letter in the outer enve- fcSv gorrow that sihe could not to* come to visit witness then "Hkfld 'f u a ba<1 congfo and op-Id, and she 11 might come later. T!he leitter in eavelope began: — I am going to tell you will, I am •"raid, shock you and lower your opinion We, but I hope wihen you know that you ,7* Dot judge me too badly. I have mT*11 weak and foolish. «« writer went on to say that in the pre* violle week she had a baby dead born, and continued:— Don't be too horrified, dear. I know it's j.ery awful, but no one knows but you, and I want you to keep my secret for me. t betray me to anyone, not even to Mr. We should have been married long eJpre this but for the loss of some money *[hich prevented us. but wc shall be mar- '"led this summer. Neither my people nor j}1** know anything about this affair, and 1 would die sooner than let them know it, as it would kill them I am sure. The letter proceeded to state that witness 'OUld guess what was in the brown paper *3>rcel in the basket, and asked her to get 1*1 <>f it. Witness was very much startled at letter, and gave it to her husband, who /^Qununicated with the police. Witness did °t write Miss Lewis, as the news contained ? the letter came as a great surprise and Oock to her, but Miss Lewis wrote a day or later, March 9, asking if witness was Pec ting her. as she was leaving NaT berth the following Monday. Witness had not from her since. ■Medical evidenoe was to the effect that full had been established, but that the hild had died from want of attention at birth. Mr. John David Lewis, of Narberth, said J«4t Miss Lewis, his cousin, visited him as J** result of a long-standing invitation. He rfd a conversation with her, and she told that the child was born during the night, was unconscious, and, recovering in the Turning, she found the child lying by her dead. ^Mra. Lewis, wife of the previous witness, to having been out for a drive with Lewis. She had not mentioned her con- ation to witness, nor did she know of the ^*t that the girl was in a certain condition. Detective Slade said he received information rora Mr. Levy, and opened the basket, in "Jch he found a parcel containing the body Of a newly-born male child. A CONFESSION. Margaret Ovenden, trained nurse, of the outh Wales Nursing Association, said that Friday she was asked to go down to Nar- J~rt& to see Miss Lewie, who did not say what a« her condition; in fa-ct, Miss Lewie made no statement until yesterday, when, while Jpiing up to Bristol in the train, ehe said, questioned by witness, that she had v5 a child on the previous Tuesday night, bftng unconscious at the time of the birth, £ ? £ she did not know of the ohild until Wed- morning, when she recovered. T^his completed the evidence. The Coroner, in summing up, said that the was most peculiar, because of the eitra- J^iinary manner in which the poor girl g'Ught to dispose of the body of the ohild. methods indicated a most innocent state mind. The coroner dealt with the medical ldence, which showed undoubtedly that ?ath was due to heart failure, due to want Of attention at birth. There was absolutely j0 suggestion on the part of Mr. and Mrs. ,g*y and Mr. and Mrs. Lewis of complicity. 7°th parties were quite sincere and open, had acted kindly towards the girl. The consideration for the jury was whether was culpable negligence on the part of girl. Ite jury expressed the opinion that the girl have been called as a witness, but the "kroner said that her health would not allow this being done. *'ie jury, after retiring for some time,! ^turned a verdict to the effect that death due to heart failure, following want of "^Per attention at birth. phe Coroner remarked that that was not ^jja.1 to manslaughter. "ke Foreman of the Jury: No, sir.

DISTRICT VISITOR'S FALL. STORY OF AN UNWELCOME BABY. -William Bollond, 40, was convicted at the olty of London Sessions on Wednesday of Electing Vincent Trafford, an infant, in a 5nner likely to injure its health. irh*7 said she met the prisoner she was a district visitor six years K<x They had cohabited, and Bhe had borne tn six children; but three had died. o*^he accused was hostile to Vincent, and ^jclared he would not have the baby near j don't care what becomes of it. Let devil have it," he once remarked. e locked up the tins of condensed milk that she should not feed it. had also compelled her to walk the with the baby at night, because he ^Id not allow her to keep it in the room. 6 was sentenced to six mon ths' imprison- in tbe seootod drvisioa. f IL

PIT CALAMITY IN THE RHONDDA-See Page 2. II i

WHISKY-DRINKING WIFE DIVORCED. A petition for dissolution of marriage was presented in the Divorce Court by Mr. John M. Hogarth, a distiller's manager, living at Bootle, who alleged that his wife, Emma. Jane, had misconducted herself with William George Burke, a ship's steward. Mr. Barnard (instructed by Messrs. Wynne and Sons), for the petitioner, said that the parties were married in April, 1873, at Rhyl, Flintshire, and afterwards lived at Bootle. Some years aeo the wife made a confession to her husband with reference to a man, not the co-respondent, but he forgave her, and they lived together till 1904, when 6he gave way to drink, and they then occupied separate rooms. On October 27 the petitioner returned home from business, and, having let himself in with his latchkey, found his wife, only partially dressed, with the co- respondent. It was clear that they both had been drinking. The husband demanded an explanation, and took the co-respondent to the poli ce-station, where his name and address were ascertained. Since the suit was oonrmenced the wife had written three letters to her husband asking for forgive- ness; they did not contain a confession, but seemed to say that ghe did not remember what took place on the afternoon in ques- tion. The petitioner, in the course of his evidence, stated that he and his wife had had two children, but both died. After the loss of the first boy she g-ave way to drink, and while he was in Cuba he heard she had been very bad; about every month she had a bout. After taking the co-respondent to the police- station witness returned to the house, and found the bedroom in confusion; the bed- clothes were on the floor, the blind was drawn, and the gas lighted; there was a box of cigars, belonging to witness, on the table, with a corkscrew, cork, and wax wakoh. In the kitchen were a bottle of whisky aind two glasses. The next day witness and h'.s wife separated. He had since had three1 letters from her, one of which ran: My Own Darling,—What can I say that will moke you think well of your wile a^giain ? 1 can scaircely write; my braan serais paralysed. Do not leave me, my own. You know I had such a dreadful cold. I felt in the afternoon that a glass of whisky would oure it, and after having it nearly lost the use of my legs. That youth you saw here very kindly asked if he could see me home. I was thankful for his support. I told him what a beautiful garden I had, and he said he would like to see it. Hence the dreadful scene what happened when you came home. Now, darling, do forgive your repentant wife yet once again. Do write me a word, darling, a.nd say something to your own lonely, affectionate wife. How home is desolate without you! Life looks black and I dreary; only death can release me from the remorse I am feeling. Speak to me again, or I shall go mad. All to me is black darkness; not a ray of light. Speak to me again, if only to upbraid me. Do not let me die like a rat in a hole.. It is Sunday. I do not like to go to <jhr.rc.ih without you. I have watered the plants, but even they seem to hang their heads. Answer me, my own, for God's sake, and remember our children. No one has a particle of my love but you. From your ^suffering1 wife, EMMA. HOGARTH. The police-officer described the state in whioh he found the respondent when he returned with the husband. A decree nisi was granted.

TWO WEDDINGS AND TWO ELOPEMENTS. If a Divorce Court lawyer with a Tigorous imagination had been told to sit down and invent a ta-ngled matrimonial tale, it is doubtful whether he could have produood I anytthing so romantically intricate as a story told to Mr. Justice Baxgrave Deane in the Divorce Court. The heroine of the story is a Mrs. Ford, A4ho had already twice had her marriage annulled by the court. She had also been the heroine of a church-door parting and of an elopement. The other principal ohara-cter of the story, Mr. Theodore G. Ford, her husband, has taken the male pa.rt in run elopement, too. Around these elopements the strangest part of this strange story hangs. Husband and wife did not elope with one another; both eiop,emenu took place after they were married: and, in spite of the elopements, they are still, by the decision of the Divorce Oourt, husband and wife. The following is the plot by which this remarkable state of things came about:- In 1889, when she was a girl of seventeen, Mrs. Ford married a Mr. William Douglas Steer at St. Mary Abbott's, Kensington. She left him at the church door, and never lived with him as his wife. MARRIAGE BY "DURESS." Six years afterwards She came to the Divoroe Court and explained why she had adopted this extraordinary course. She had been told by her mother, she said, that the ceremony was merely one of betrothal." She had been forced into the ceremony against her will. The court took pity on her, and annulled her marriage with Mr. Steer. So a second marriage, which she had con- tracted four years after the duress mar- riage, became good in law. She had married Mr. Ford in 1893. A period of five years without further ma/trimonial complications followed, and then Mrs. Ford treated her second husband as she had treated her first. She left him, and eloped with a Mr. Alexander Donald Barnard. This happened in 1900. In 1904 Mr. Ford obtained a divorce from her on the ground of her elopement. ELOPEMENT ON EtLOPEMENT. But on Monday it transpired that, while pleading one elopment as a reason for being freed from matrimonial ties, he had been 'guilty of another elopement himself. In 1903 he had eloped with the mistress of the house which he had entered as a paying guests shortly after his wife went a.way. He had taken his hostess, Mrs. Felgiate, to WestcLiff-on-Sea, and Mr. Felgate had met him in the City, had thrashed him, and had then got a divoroe, making him co-respon- dent. Mr. Justice Bargreave Deane, who was counsel for Mrs. Ford when she divorced Mr. Steer, decided that the divorce that Mr. Ford obtained last year must be rescinded on the ground that husband and wife have both been equally guilty of elopement.

DIVORCE COMPLICATIONS. In the Divorce Court on Monday Mr. J. Hair. vey Murphy, on behalf of the King's Proctor, asked the court to rescind a decree nisi granted in the case of Ford v. Ford, and Bar. nard. He said that respondent, Ella Louisa. Clark, then a girl of seyenteen, went through a, ceremony of marriagd in 1889 with William Douglas Somerset Keppel Stier, and she was told that it was simply a form of betrothal. On that understanding sfhe was married in 1893 to Mr. Theodore Jermyn Ford at Knights- bradg-e. In 1895 the respondent obtained a decree of nullity with regard to the marriage with Mr. Stier on the ground of duress. In 1900, when living at Laleham, Mrs. Ford eloped with Mr. Alexander Barnard. Mr. Ford in 1902 went as a paying guest to the house of Mr. Percy St. George FeLgate at Richmond, and he and Mrs. Felgrate after- wards disappeared, and were traxsed to cliff-on-Sea, Where they lived • Felgate obtained a drwoe f the co-respondent. Notwithstanding that, Mr. Ford had brought a suit for divorce from his wife and obtained a decree. The King's Prootor, under the ciroum- stances, asked the court to rescind the decree on the ground that Mr. Ford himself had committed misconduct.. Mr. Justice Bargrave Deane accordingly rescinded the decree nasi.

A CHANGE OF HUSBANDS. In the Divorce Court on Tuesday Mr. Ber- tram Stevenson, an engineer, who had resided in Cambridge Gardens, Kensington, petitioned for a, divorce from his wife, Evelyn Stausten Stevenson, on the ground of her misconduct with Mr. Bowen Stilon Mends, whose position was not stated, and from whom damages were claimed. The suit was undefended. Counsel for petitioner said that oo-respotndent had made a settlement of £ 3,500 upon respon. dent, and he had agreed to pay JEMO damages. Petitioner made respondent's acquaintance in 1900. In 1901 he went out to South Africa in the Yeomanry, and after fighting out there for eighteen months or two years returned to this country, and in April last year was married to respondent. In June she asked her husband to let her go for a few days' yachting with her aunt, Mrs. Mends. When she returned petitioner noticed that his wife received presents of clothing and jewellery) She F'a.id that the clothing came from her aunt Questioned as to where the jewellery came from, she refused to give any information. The result was that there was a quarrel, and in July she went away, saying that she was going to stay with her mother at Willesden. The husband went there next day, and found that she was not there. Respondent returned subsequently, and then admitted that she had been with co-respondent and had mis- j conducted herself with him. Petitioner, being attached to respondent, forgave her' on her promising to give up the acquaintance of co-respondent. Towards the end of July. petitioner went to the shooting at Bisley, and respondent arranged to go and stay with her grandmother at Brighton until his return afty going to her mother for two days. Sub- sequently petitioner received a letter from his wife, in which she said she thought "flfhef had better not return. Petitioner made inquiries. and it afterwards transpired that she was I staying with co-respondent.—Counsel for .co- respondent said that the latter had -a settlement on the lady, and was willing to pay JBSOO damages. He was anxious to marry I her as soon as he had the opportunity.—A decree nisi was granted, the jury assessing the damages at £ 500.

TELL-TALE LETTERS. No defence was put in to the divorce suit of Mr. Edward Percy Morton, a gentleman living near Leeds, for a divorce from his wife Florence by reason of her misconduct with Mr. John \V. Driffield. Mr. Priestley, K.C., stated that the parties were married in April, 1888, at South Shields, and there were five children living, one of whom the petitioner, though in law bound to maintain, was aware was not his. For the first eight or nine years they lived fairly happily together, but in 1896 the petitioner had to 6peak to hie wife about her conduct with a man. She seemed to change somewhat towards him, but generally things went on smoothly till 1901, when Driffield and a man named Rishworth came on the scene. The wife seemed to have been much attracted by the former, and to have gone wherever she could find him. The petitioner, however, knew nothing of it till October, 1902, when he found a pieoe of poetry signed "Jack" in his wife's possession. His suspicions were aroused, and he determined to keep his eyes open, but. unfortunately, his wife had already com- mitted herself. Incriminating letters had passed, and the petitioner found some from the co-respondent to his wife. In one, dated July 28, 1903, occurred such passages as:— My Darling,—Your ever-welcome letter to hand yesterday; but what a morose and downcast humour you must have been in when you wrote it. However, to business. Why do you always harp on the "parting for good" string? I havie told, you repeatedly I will never give you up. If it comes it will come from your side, for you know in your heart of hearts that you have my love completely. Darling, I shall never tire of you, or want to part with you. My love will never, never change, nor ever want. I love you with all the old passion, and it will ne'er leave me. Yes, darling, I am the same old Jack. When I have you by my side you know it. Rest assured. darling, that you have my entire love, and always will have while Jack has a breath left in his body. You are my darling, and I worship you with a love that knows no end. Mrs. Morton then wrote to the oo-respondent that her husband knew of the letters, and asked him to send hers. He did A CURIOUS THING. He kept the original of her last letter for future eventualities, and sent a. copy. It began:— Darling,-I wish I were going to see you and talk to you instead of writing. Do you know, Jack, I have been awake half the night thinking and wondering what will become of me when we are parted for good. Darling, I am sure I shall want to die. It's Tuesday to-morrow, love. Do write me a letter and tell me what is wrong. My life and love is all yours. Burn this as soon as possible. That was the letter Driffield described as morose. The important passage in a letter of the co-respondent, dated August 11, was:- You must come and meet me coming from the Templfe some week-night. It's lovely and lonely and dark; so I should like to have kissed you on Sunday, but I dared not. Oh, my darling, we must arrange plenty of meetings now the dark nights are coming on. The respondent went to her relatives, and the I husband felt it his duty to supply her with money till he was advised to discontinue the allowance, pending alimony being granted. When he demanded an explanantion of her conduct she wrote letters which contained the clearest possible confession as to her rela- tions with the co-respondent and other men. Mr. Turner (instructd by Mr. H. R. Austwick) intimated that he should not call Driffield or cross-examine the petitioner's witnesses. In his evidence, the petitioner mentioned that he made the acquaintance of Driffield at a whist drive given by a neighbour. In the spring of 1903 he took exception to his wife going to meetings of the local choral society, as he objected to her meeting Driffield. One day he was out with a friend when he saw his wife come from behind a hedge. She walked towards a stream to draw him away, but, instead of following her, he struck diagO: nally across a field and intercepted a man who turned out to be Driffield. He subse- quently received from the co-respondent a with a covering letter Sir,—I have received the following note from your wife, asking for all letters she has copy of the letter his wife had written to him written to me to be returned to you. I have destroyed all except the last, of which I enolose a copy. The original, of course, I shall keep till some arrangement is made. A decree nisi, with the custody of the chil- dren and oosts against Driffield, was granted.

CONVICTED 500 TIME?. Five hundred convictions for drunkenness, extending back for more than half a cen- tury, are recorded a. wxmaai named Mary Clarke, aged 77, who was sent to gaol for a mouth by the Derry magistrates on Wednesday. I THE FUN OF THE FAIR. MISS CARj/XlivON: Dear me; a test of strength, eh I Well, really, I think I can beat them all I

,-n FIRE AT PENARTH. "f 0 WESLEYAN METHODIST CJJAPEL GCTTED. Aa,bout 1.& on Thursday it was discovered that the TWaLeyan Chapel in Aroot-street, Penarth, fire. The police and the fire .brigade at rushed to the spot and endeavoured to cope witfc the outbreak. Telephoning h^alf an hour later, our cor- respondent$Bjid tihat there was no hope of the buildiiMr$>eing saved, as smoke was issuing froanrfery pan of it. A number i&jj sailors from the. docks assisted the brigade. The, fire, however, had such a. hold Oit the building that it burned with grea&4hrry. ft,- was a foregone conclusion that the buildiag would be demolished. It is said thai originated in the organ chamber. WitMq 3Q minutes of the outbreak the vthole building was one mass of flames. I Therjji was a-good supply of water, and the hrigjB^ wiaus •doinjf j^jlentttd work to save the At o'clock the fire iAs. raging furiously, but uju±o t^jut time^^ QonJn^d to the ebap«)i«ii*H*S, and .to adjoining buildings, but the tenants of the houses in the midst of which the chapel is situated began to remove their goods, fearing their homes might be affected, A fire escape, which had been placP-d against the building to assist the brigade, was burnt, and it snapped in two. FIRE UNDER CONTROL. At 2.15 the fire brigade seemed to be master- ing the flames, which had not yet, however, got hold of the schoolroom and parlour. At about 2.30 the brigade had got the fire under control. Thousands of people lined the streets, and great excitement prevailed. ALARMING INCIDENT. I Shortly before three o'clock the house, adjoining the ohapel on the southern side caught fire, and flames began to issue from thii roof, but the brigade played upon the building and extinguished the fire. It is fortunate that the wind was blowing from the west, as it confined the flames to the chapel, and the other buildings at the rear are practically untouched. The valuable organ which cost £600, has been destroyed, and the chapel has been ruined, only the four walls and the massive towers in front being intact. Tho roof fell in with a crash in a little over ai hour after the fire was discovered. The police, under Inspector Hallett and Police- sergeant Clynoh, rendered valuable assis- tance, and the brigade, with Councillor W. L. Morris in charge, worked splendidly. The'present minister is the Rev. W. W. Treleaven. FIREMAN'S NARROW ESCAPE. At 3.15 there was a fresh outbreak at the southern side of the building, and an extra. supply of water was brought to bear upon it. The wind had also risen, and was blowing with greater force, and the slates left on the portions of the roof which had not fallen in were hurled to the ground, one of the firemen having a narrow escape from being injured. A SINGULAR COINCIDENCE. It is a singular coincidence that only this week a very strong effort was made to raise funds for the extension of the Arcot-street Chapel premises. For years the lack of accommodation for social meetings has been keenly felt, and this lack has been accentuated since the Revival broke out, for a large number of new members has been added to the Aroot-etreet society. For some months the members of the chapel have been preparing for a bazaar with the object of raising £500, with which to make some structural alterations Mid extensions, and also to instal the electric light. The bazaar was held on Tuesday and Wednesday, and a good sum raised. THE CHAPEL'S HISTORY. Arcot-street Chapel is the head of the Penarth Circuit, which, consisting of the town named and the societies in all the places along the line down to Barry Island, was separated from Canton Circuit, Cardiff, about twelve years ago. Arcot-street Chapel was built when the population of Penarth was just beginning to gather, and stood wind- swept and solitary in its conspicuous position just over the dock. Though latterly the building was almost hidden by houses, its handsome front elevation was a noticeable feature in the view from the dock station. Trinity Wesleyan Church, Penarth, is an off- shoot from Arcot-street. The seating accommodation of the chapel ypan 750.

NEWPORT HUSBAND'S STORY SAID HIS WIFE HADN'T GOT A CHARACTER. Henry Lee, a barber, of 105, Shaftesbury- street, was charged at Newport Police-court I on Wednesday with assaulting his wife, Margaret. On Friday he locked her out of doors, and on Monday, when she was in bed, he went and pulled her out and, pushing her down the stairs with a stick, turned her out into the rain with only her nightdress on. She produced the stick, which! was broken into three parts. Replying to I defendant, the wife admitted that she had pawned a sewing-machine and the little boy# clothes. Defendant alleged that his wife was drunk almost every day, and produced a handful of pawntickets, which, he said, belonged, to her. He admitted striking his wife, and said he would do it again. He would not live with her any more. She was a bad 'un. The Chairman: Dont run your wife's character down like that! Defendant: She hasn't got a character to run down; she lost it years ago.. Continuing. he told the magistrates that he did not care what they did with him. He gave his wife 26s. per week, but she only bought halfpenny. worths' of tea and begged food from the t restaurants. A toe of 21s., or a month, was imposed. j Iktaadast: Well. I'll do the time.

LOSS OF THE KHYBER. CARDIFF MEN AMONG THE CREW. Messrs. J. Joyoe and Co., of Liverpool, 1 managers of the barque Khyber, which was losu off the Cornish coast on Wednesday, have supplied the following list of the crew: SAYED. I j Gust Johansen, eeivman, joined at Mel. bourne. Len Harris, cabin boy, joined at Pre- mantle. W. Willis, apprentice, Sea.combe, Liverpool. LOST. Captain Henry Bothery MagfruH, Liverpool. W. H. Allan, first mate, Doncaster. Edgar Pye, second mate, Southport. Isaac Framcie, sailmaker, Liverpool. W. Weddell, seaman, Cardiff. G. Guthrie, seaman, Leith. R. Lloyd. apprentice, Liverpool. R. Owens, apprentice, Wallasey, Cheshire. H. M'Garvcy, C. Drew, A. Laidetlad, seamen, shipped at Cardiff. T. Steinberg, J. E. Laidlaw, E. Lindsay, G. Schneider, J. Gonsolas, and L. E. Hyde, sea- men, joined at Fremantle. Thomas Gear, W. Reynolds, T. Snoddy, sea- men, joined at Melbourne. J. Mahoney, carpenter; J. Mitsayasu, cabin boy; C. Stutz, seaman, addressee not known. I

NEW YORK FIRE. I TERRIBLE SCENES: TWENTY PERSONS KILLED. I. At a. tenement fire on the east side of New York (as already reported) twenty people were killed and very many were injured. It is not the first time that people have been roasted alive on the fire escapes which are now attached to all New York tenement houses. ¡ Outside each floor of a tenement is an iron platform with an iron ladder to the ground for escape in case of fire. When the firemen got to the doomed tene- ment thousands of horror-stricken people were watching the victims die on the plat- forms. These iron structures had become red hot, and the bodies of the dead and dying heaved up and down on the bars of the grid- irons. Whom the brigade reached the platforms by their scaling ladders they found the tops of the permanent escapes ohobed with roasted remains. The heroism of the firemen was magnificent. One' of the men half-way up a ladder caught at a woman leaping to the ground with a child in her arms. They were enveloped in flames. The baby was jerked free of its mother's grasp, and fell on a heap of snow unhurt. The woman tumbled into the arms of a policeman, while the fireman, knocked off the ladder, fell on the pavement and broke his collar-bone. A little Jewish girl declined to be rescued till she had guided a fireman through a. win* dow to save her baby brother.

A MOCK MARRIAGE. PitLaible was the story related in Penzance Polioe-court by a spinster, named Mary Anna. Berrymaaa. She said she had been through a. form of marriage in her own house with a man of i good education, and, &he thought, of con- siderable means. He read a, portion of the marriage service himseM, and aoted in the dual capacity of parson and bridegroom. Under Scottish law, she said, he told her they were man and wife. They visited different places, but the expenses were paid by her cousia. j The oourt granted Berryman a maintenance j order for the ohilid ol this mf X starriom. 1

A WIFE DESERTED .& SEQUEL TO A MINISTER'S ELOPEMENT. An extraordinary case, involving a married Methodist minister, named Frank Cordova, md Miss Julia Bowne, a member of the :hoir of his Church in South River, New rersey, has culminated in the conviction of Cordova for the non-support and desertion >f his wife. The maximum &&xten«e of a. rear's imprisonment was imposed. Cordova eloped twice with Mies Browne. lis wife forgave him after the first elope- nent, but the second, which took place a nonth ago, resulted in the arrest of Cor- lova and the girl, the latter being detained is a witness. She refused to be released from prison on Ls a witness. lova and the girl, the latter being detained is a witness. She refused to be released from prison on jail, saying that she preferred sharing the irison hardships with the minister. During Cordova's trial he wept, and knelt before the iudge, declaring that the intolerable condi- ions of his .home life forced him to leave. In Cordova s second trial, wfeieh was begun >n Tuesday, he was found tifty of bcatiM. iiis wfStrHis eietfcu-jieat-jia U-- muBMj led that her fatheevaelly beat her moth th ind the child's evidence brought tears to tbo 1 .-yes of many in court. Cordova admitted [lurling household goods at his wife. An extraordinary feature of the case is that Mrs. Cordova is reporting the trial for i New York evening newspaper. Cordova. is 11 years old, and Miss Bowne 23.

ALLEGED FORGED CHEQUES. JURY DISAGREE FOR THE SECOND TIME. For the second time an Old Bailey jury lave declined to convict Lionel George Peyton Holmes, aged 52, of having uttered a forged cheque. They foiled, as on the former 0000,. sion, to agree, and has case was accordingly adjourned untal next sessions. He is out on bail. I The oheque was for 46819, purported to be Arawn by Mr. Marshall Fox, of Victoria-street, Westminster, and was presented at the Vic- toria-street branch of the London Joint Stock Bank a few miqutes before closing time on September 22 last- Within half an hour some of the notes obtained in exchange were converted into Prench money at Messrs. Cook's Tourist Office in Ludgate-circus by a man who "seemed in a. hurry." In January Holmas was arrested, and. in February he was tried for the first time. The evidence for the defence in the second trial oomsasted mainly in the provimg of an aJibi. Holmes, who was a dis- penser, had sworn that at the time of the presentation of the cheque he was perform- ing his duties at a surgery. Dr. Bridgwater, of the "Progressive Medical Alliance," Oxford-street, swore that at four p.m. on September 22 Holmes was assisting him at an operation. Cross-examined, he said that Holmes was his dispenser and assistant. The doctor admitted modestly that his degree was an American one. Although he was informed that a man I named Shackell in his employ had been con- victed of forgery, he not only continued to employ him, but gave him a reference by which he obtained some furniture on the hire system. Last week Shiackell was convicted for steal- ing the furniture in question. The doctor admitted that he knew Miss Toovey, the secretary to Mr. Marshall Fox, by whom the cheque in question purported to be signed. He bad once taken her to a restaurant near Victoria. Station, but he did not know that her employer, Mr. Marshall Fox, had seen them there. SStill, in reply to counsel, the doctor admitted that he knew a man, named Walter MacdoniaJd, who was a patient of his. Mr. Avory: Are you aware that he has been sentenced to three years' imprisonment at Adelaide for forgery?—No, I am not. I was not aware that he had been convicted. The Macdonaid I am epeaking of fought in the Boer War, and was afterwards received as one of the Colonial contingent by the late Queen at Windsor Castle. Do you know a man named Charles Tamplin?" asked counsel. Yes," was the reply. Is he a patient of yours?" No, he is not." "Do you know that he has been sentenced at this court to twelve months' hard labour for frauds in connection with stamps?" No, I do not." You never heard of itt?—No; I have not Been him more than twice in my life. Also do you know a man named Dr. Ady ? -Yes. Is he a patient of yours ?—No. Has he also had the misfortune of being convicted and sentenced to seven years' penal servitude for abortion? "Very likely," was the doctor's reply; "but you might just as well complain of the King for knowimg Dr. Collins." The Recorder: Well, you had better keep tihe King's name out of the case. Mr. Avory: Do you know a man named Flackman?—Yes; he is an hotel manager. And has he had the misfortune," inquiired counsel, "of having been convicted for keep- si disorderly house?" You ought to know," was the retort, more about him than I do, as you defended him." The court filled with laughter as the cross- examination terminated. Mr. Arthur Flackman, ithe next witness, said that he visited Dr. Bridgwater ait four p.m. on September 22, a.nd saar Holmes in the con- sulting-room. In oroes-examination, the witness acknow- ledged acquaintance with a convict, named Prank TVurbow, or Taylor, or Terry. He admitted that he himself had been earuenoed to four monrthe for assisting to manage the West-end Supper Club. After other witnesses had been called, and ooonsel had addressed the court, the jury I retired. They were absent for mo-re than an hour before returning and announcing their honeleee Ai eammeot.

Strongest and Best" yj f -H.&AZXA Fry's* i t fP Pare COJZoeIItra," I Cocoa ) Over 300 |Bgl|Sy Gold Medals and Diplomas. ■

1 SAD STORY FROM THE RHONDDA. j STRANGE STATEMENTS IN A PATERNITY CASE. 4 Wattstown people took exceptional interest .n a case tried on Thursday at Porth >olice-court (before Mr. Stipendiary Ignatiuft rVilliams and Mr. L. P. Griffiths). The come )lainant was Emily Wiltshire, a quiet-look* ™ ng young girl, with a pleasant smile, livin< jj it 145, East-road, Tylorstown, and the defen* M iant a young collier, named John Day, of 53, vfl SiUside-terraoe, of the same place. Day was IjJ mmmoned to show cause, 4c. Mr. James Phillips, Pontypridd, was for the applicant, ind Mr. Harold M. Lloyd. Cardiff, defended. Before opening the case, Mr. Phillips asked hat all women and young people should eave the court. The Stipendiary: I do not see why women should not listen to these things. It peou. iarly affects them. The young people, how sver, should go out. Mr. Phillips said the complainant was SIXTEEN YEARS OF AGE LAST JUNB. rhe defendant Day was a brother of < SVilliam Day, who was married to oom- j plainaaLt's sister, with wihom the oomplaina«ib J lerself lived. For some time the two brothers were in partnership carrying on a confectioner's and fish shop business, and the defendant would go regularly to the shop. Early last year William Day, who was a collier, used to go to work in the early morning, and his wife got up to prepare his breakfast. She would then return to bed about seven o'clock. During this time of the day on one occasion the defendant went into the kitchen, where the complainant wea. caught hold of her by the arm, and acted improperly. The girl DID NOT SCREAM and made no complaint. This conduct waft repeated on other mornings, and also sraw evenings. They did not pass as lovers; tbera were no letters, no presents, and no walks. The defendant had admitted to his brother. in the presence of his sister-in-law, that he had acted improperly with the complainant. | In September last the doctor was called to A examine her, and he found her in a. seriong condition. William (the brother) went to Bee the defendant about the matter, and hig reply was, I have been with her a eoople ot times." Subsequently he alleged that a man. named Williams, who was known as "Dài Mardy," had something to do with the matter, but that he could not prove this. Afterwards, when taxed with making the statement, the defendant denied ever having said such a thing, and mentioned his own brother as having something to do with it." Complainant corroborated her advocated statement as to the proceedings in the in the early morning after har J BtJter nad returned to bed. | lifr, Phillips: Did you scream?—No, Bit; I), could not. Mr. Lloyd questioned the girl minutely no to how many times she had walked out with «. man named Mardy. She mentioned having -p&rz-pttxm 'WTOT'M&TCy" tffae night. She nad been to a danoe and lost Mi-, train. Williams never kept company witik her. On the Easter Tuesday SHE SAW "MARDY" IN CARDIFF. I Mr. Lloyd: Will you swear you did not come back with him from Cardiff alone? Witness: I don't remember. Subsequently the complainant said she did not return with the man. She used to attend three dancing classes. "Mardy" did not pay her dancing fees. Once, when she lost her dancing slippers. "Mardy" piaid for a new pair. "Mardy" used to go to the dances, but did not dance himself. Mr. Lloyd: Did he go to take her homèf. —I cannot say wha.t he came for. Did any other mam behave improperly with you?—I don't r,emember it, sir. Do you understand what I am asking you+ I don't want to take an unfair advantage of you. I repeat the Question?—No no 00" sir. „ You said you could not scream. Trnyr—* was afraid to scream; I struggled. How many times did impropriety tain place?—No answer. Ten, fifteen, twenty, or 100 times?—»a answer. Afterwards Mr. Lloyd elicited that lmpro per conduct took place a few times in the .morning, and a few tunes in the evening. Complainant was cross-examined as tic whether her age was not eighteen, but she still maintained tihat she was seventeen next, June. She mentioned that impropriety once took place between her and defendant on the mountain side. Ihis was in September, 1903, some months previous to the first occa- sion in the kitchen. Mr. Lloyd asked her if this was not thI only occasion upon which misbehaviour had, occurred, but she maintained that h«r evi- deDce was correct. She had not stated that she was going to get defendent to marry hsr BY FAIR MEANS OR FOUL. William Day, a collier of Wattstown, BtAi that he suggested to defendant that he should marry the girl, but he did not offer to pay th? expenses of the weddirg, although ha might have gene so, for the sake of the girl, had the weddin gtaken place. Defendant accused witness of being implicated, bui there was no foundation for the accusation. Witness believed that defendant made the sugestion because witness had had to puU th^ g-irl out of bed one morning. Mrs. Day said that defendant told her that h* blamed his brother. David John Williams, the man known aa Dai, Mardy," said that he walked out with the girl on one or two occasions, amd had been to dances. lie purchased her a pair of slippers, because, when carrying her slippers home one night, he lost one. He bad also bought her a brooch. He demied ever having acted improperly with the girl. The defendant was called, and denied having acted improperly with the girl, except on the one occasion in September, 1903, or the mountain. The Bench ordered defendamt to pay 3a. 64. per week, and costs.

COUNCILLOR SUMMONED. STRANGE SCENE AT SWANSEA. Councillor Morgan Hopkin, of Swansea, was summoned on Thursday for assaulting Steven Bedford, a bailiff, while the latter was levy ing a distress for rent on Marcli 8. Mr. Edward Harnes, solicitor, who repr* eented complainant, asked leave to withdraw the summons. Complainant, he said, was engaged in levying a distress for rent on certain person. Mr. Hopkin had collected 9 private subscription and paid the bailiff oufc, and afterwards forgot himself, and in a temper struck complainant. He waa willing to express regret for anything he had said or done. Mr. Hopkin said he desired to apologise for what he had done. He lost his temper beoansa he did not like to see the poor put upon. The sumjxiiQE^ .WM withdrawn.

BIRKENHEAD MURDER TRIAL The trial was resumed at Chester on Satur- day of George Huxham, indicted for the murder of Emma Williams, 71 years oi age, at Birkenhead. At. the close of the case for the prosecution Mr. Ellis Griffiths put prisoner in the witness-box to prove an alibi. Prisoner stated that he met deceased's daughter, Emma, on the afternoon in ques- tion, accompanied her home, had some drink there, and made an aTrajigemfnt. to see the girl a^ain at Feven o'clock. He left the house. but returned to make sure of the exact time to meet the girl. He then went with the girl to a shop in. the neighbourhood, where they bad lemonade, oranges, and chocolate. They then separated. The young woman failed to keep har appointment at seven o'clock, and after waiting an hour for her he went home, buying stout and provisions on the way. H. ^ever returned to the deceased's house after" leaving i*. the second time. The jury found the prisoner guilty, witf a strong recommendation to mercy. Sen&exu^ iOt death was paoaati.

CARDIFF DIVORCE CASE. PETITIONER GRANTED DECREE WITHOUT COSTS. In the Divorce Court on Monday Mr. Justice Deane had before him the case of Lauder v. Lauder and Davey. Mr. B. Francis-Williams (who was instructed by Mr. Harold Lloyd) said this was the un- defended petition of Mr. John Lauder, of South Shields, for a divorce by reason of the misconduct of his wife with William Davey at Penarth. The parties were married at St. Jude's Church, South Shields, on August 10, 1898, and there were no children living of the marriage. They lived together until July, 1900, at South Shields, when petitioner joined a ship which was going to Penarth. While living there the husband had to go to sea to earn his living, and in 1901 they went to live at Dock-road, Penarth, with Mrs. Hughes. While petitioner was away at ooa the respondent was visited by the co-respondent, and in consequence of his staying there late at night Mrs. Hughes f<mnd it necessary to tell Mrs. Lauder to go from the house. In 1902, while the husband was away at eea, the respondent and co-respondent went to Bristol together as man and wife. It 130 happened that plaintiff heard in South Shields what had happened at Penarth, and he went to Bristol and saw his wife. Since then the wife had given birth to a child of which the husband could not have been the father. His Lordship said that there was not suM- Client proof that the ooreanoudent knav that respondent was a married woman, and simply granted a decree nisi without costs.

NEATH SENSATION BIGAMOUS BAKER SEN- TENCED AT ASSIZES. Before Mr- Justice Lawrence at the Glamor. gai. Assizes on Thursday a sensational story ] was told concerning part of the career of a much-married man, named Walter William < Stock, a Merthyr baker, 41 years of age. The charge against him was that of marrying one < Hannah Cooper, his wife, Elizabeth Ann < Stock, being then alive, on December 31. 1905. Prisoner pleaded guilty. Mr. St. John Francis-Williams (instructed by 1 Messrs. Vaughan and Sons, Merthyr) prose- I ctrted, and said that the prisoner had been i married to three or four women. He had < treated most of them badly, and had been in t trouble three or four times. Police-constable Toy was caHed to give an 1 outline of prisoner's career. Twenty years I ago, said the officer, the prisoner was married ( to a woman named Rogers at Bristol, but that j woman was drowned in America. He was 1 next at the- altar at Chepstow in 1891. This woipan died in confinement. While this < TOMfiawi-wa# ill stfiWHier ittfman., nain&3TtSAlj?es, 3 came from Bristol to nurse her. PrisoBerntar- I ried this woman. Hodges, a.fter misconducting himself with her. Tho paitnership was not < a happy one, and pTisoner treated his wife ] badly and deserted her. The next lady to be enamoured of the prisoner was Hannah < Oooper, who became acquainted with him at I Neath, and was married to him. In three t months after the marriage she died. And now the charge against him was that he mamed Cooper while Hodgea was alive. The- Judge (to Police-sergeant Toy): So far as you know. the woman Oooper died with- out discovering that prisoner waa married. t Police-sergeant Toy: Yes, so far as I know. The woman Hodges has been in service, and is now a housekeeper. The prisoner, in his own defence, said he was very sorry, but he had witnesses to prove 1 that he was not unkind to his wife, and that ] she left him to go and live with a man in < Cardiff. She had lived with this mail before he had met, her. The Judge said that the circumstances were peculiar, and he thought he was justified in pasring a light sentence, which WM three ( calendar months' hard labour. ===============