Weekly Mail

MR. NORRIS'S GIFTS. ] t GENERAL ADMISSION OF THE CHARGES. As on the previous day, the balconies were crowded on Wednesday with gaily-dressed ladies and memters of the district council. Evidently the people of Penarth were antici- pating more fun during the day. On the Commissioner taking his seat, ) Mr. G. L. Norris intimated that he was anxious to save the time of the court as much as possible. He was prepared to admit the whole of the charges in the list 'j before him fo far as the giving away of pieces cf money, cake, and bread were con- • cerned, with the exception of Numbers 12. 13. and 14, with regard to the giving away j of a tie. This was the first he heard of this. A CHARACTERISTIC POSES OF MR. NORRIS- He would have a complete answer to the eharge-3 when the proper time came.' How could the giving away of money and goods to people in the North and Central Wards affect the electors of the West Ward? The Commissioner: You admit the whole of the charges, Mr. Norris? the charges, Mr. Norris? .Mr. Norris: In the way I have explained, my lord. I don't know tlie persons, of course, to whom the money and goods were given. The Commissioner: You admit the list in a general way? I Mr. Norris: That is just it, my lord. The Commissioner: Then you had better), let Mr. Francis-Williams prove the cases specifically. Mr. Xorris: I will. I should like to he allowed to re-call Mr John Owen, The Don, and Mr. Ellis Roberts, who were examined: on Tuesday. The Commissioner- You shall Presently. SILVER BITS IN THE AIR. The first witness called was Mr. William Webber, saddler, of Corner's Well-road, Pen. arth, who said he was a voter in the West ard. On the evening of February 22 he was standing near his shop in Glebe-street, Mr. Norris came up to him whilst ha was talking to some neighbours, and told them he was going to give away threepenny-pieces on the following Saturday evening, and he wanted them all to come. By the Commissioner: He had seen Mr. Norris circulars. Bread was the same price at all the shops in the town till then, when Mr. Bishop came down in price from 6d. to 5d., but Mr. Bishop had sold his business since. (Laughter.) In opening his cross-examination, Mr. Norris promised to treat the witness very nicely indeed. "I know you are a respectable tradesman," said Mr. Norris, and the witness replied. Yea, and I work hard, as many hours as anybody." Do you wish his lordship to believe that I came to a man of your standing to ask j you to come and buy a loaf at Bishop's and accept a threepenny-piece from me?- Y ou told us we might have come. Of course, naturally, as a figure of speech, they could all come. But there was some- thing on my leaflets. You don't call yourself a poor widow, do you?-I don't look like one. (Laughter.) What was my motive all through that bread busings. That rests with you What is your idea?-I cannot say really. During an exchange of courtesies between the two respecting Mr. Norris a leaflets, the latter remarked, amidst laughter, "Do you know that Pickford has one of my leaflets in each pocket, and that he would not part with one of them for a guinea?" I Witness said he saw Mr. Norris throw some threepenny-pieces into the air outside Bishop's shop, and as far as he could fee anyone who went up could have a three- penny-bit. Men as well as women had one. George Spear, plasterer, said he was lucky enough to catch one of the threepenny-pieces thrown into the air by Mr. Norris. He did not buy a loaf at Bishop's. In reply to Mr. Norris, witness replied: I thought your object in giving the money away was to help a good cause for the poor. (Applause.) You are a plasterer, earning good money. Would you accept a threepenny-piece from me?—I would. (Laughter.) The Commissioner: Would you accept it for your vote?—Oh, no. sir. (Hear, hear.) By Mr. B. Francis-Williams: There was a scramble for that threepenny-bit I got. I nearly broke my leg in getting that three- penny-bit. (Laughter.) Richard Mathias, Cogan, dock labourer, said he bought a loaf of bread at Bishop's. and when he came out Mr. Norris presented him with a threepenny-bit. Mr. B. Francis-Willia-ms: You a.re not a. poor widow ? Witness (emphatically): No, sir, I am not. (Laughter.) The Commissioner: Do you generally deal at Bishop's?—No, sir. Mr. Francis-Williams: At that time did you know that Mr. Norris was a candida.te MR. B. FRANCIS-WILLIAMS GROSS- EXAMINES MR. NORRIS. I for the West Ward?—I had heard rumours that he intended standing for several wa-rds. The Commissioner: Do you consider that the threepenny-piece was given to you so that you should vote for Norris?—I thought there was something coming off at the time. "A SMART LAD." William Stanley Richards, son of Richard Richards, painter, Glebe-street, said he went to Lipton's shop on February 22 and bought some tea and sweets, amd when he ca.me oat Mr. Norris, who was standing by the door, gave him a penny. Mr. Norris: What do you think my object was?-I don't know. sir, but I thought it was to advertise the tea. Mr. Norris: That's right. You are a smart boy. A MAN WHO "WENT BY COAXING." William Matthews, Rudry-street, another lad, spoke of receiving a threepenny-piece. Cross-examined by Mr. Norris: What did you think my object was?—I thought it was to bring the price of bread down. Did I bring the price of bread down?—Yes. Are you thankful for it?—Well, we are. | (Hear, hear.) Mrs. Maidment, a widow, said she was i naking purchases at Lipton's, and Mr. Norris rave her a piece of oake. She was not a roter. I was very glad of the oake," said wit- less, for my children wanted it." (Hear, lear.) What did you think my object was?—I ,hought it was very good, and you brought ,he price of broad down. A little girl, named Gladys Sidford, said the went to Bishop's, a.nd Mr. Norris told ler to go there again, and that he would mow her by her hat. (Laug-hter.) Witness: At Cogan the people gave the vrodit to Mr. Norris for bringing down the price of bread. Mary" Ann Dewar. 144, Plaseey-street, wife )f a chief engineer, said Mr. Norris asked ner to buy some tea at Lipton's, and then p,ve her a penny and the price of tea. TEA DOWN. In reply to ¥r. Norris, she said she then paid Is. lOd. a pound for her tea, but now she get it for Is. 6d. Mrs. Lucy Jenkins, Brom field-pi ace, gave similar evidence. J. A. Allen. 11. Wood-street, painter, paid he met Mr. Norris on the Saturday before! the election in Glebe-street. Witness asked him what his chances were, and he said, "If the men would only work like the ladies I would go in in all the wards." Witness then said, "Well, if I vote for you you ought to gi^e the missus a new hat. The Commis?ioner: Did you mean that in a joke?—Well, at the time it was only a joke. Mr. Norris replied, "Well. as to that, we will speak about that after the election." Mr. B. Francis-Williams said the case as to the tie would he abandoned. The Commissioner said that the cake dis- tribution waa admitted, and in the lot of | witnesses on the list there were only three voters, the children being assumed to be the children of voters. The question was whether the cake, &c.. Wa-1; given away in connection with the approaching election or in connection with his dispute with the Chamber cf Trade, or in connection with both. Mr. B. Francis-W'iiliams: The question is, Wa.< it done to infl^n00 the voting of the voter, whether directly or indirectly? Mr. William Norman., of Glebe-street, Penarth, t labourer, ::pve evider.ee that on the 29th of February ^^t Mr. Norris. who said, "Old man, ba\e not had a bit of cake yet. Here you afe- .Witness went "by coaxing." and Mr. Norris handed him a piece of cake. He was a voter in the North Ward. c J'r. William Ley-l'n' farm labourer, a voter in the West Ward, w-as in Lipton's shop on the evening of the 29th of February. His wife and children were present. Mr. N-otTi8 gave him a pk-oc of ca^e, which he accepted. He did not know what t>»Ktt Mr. Norris had in view in gi\"ing d."wny tllc, cake. Mr. William lined, a labourer, who votes in the North Wa-td. Gave like evidence. Edward Hunt, a fourtesn, son of Mr John Hunt, platelayer, <,f Agr.e-- ertreet, Cogan, said he was outside Lipton's on the evening in lon> when Mr. Norris gave him a giece ° cake. He saw Mr. THE PETITIONER (MB- MORRIS). I Norris on the election day 11€ar the Cogan Schools. He promised them a tea an<* bank book if he got in. His father was a voter in the West Ward. I FIVE SHILLINGS AND HOLIDAY COUPON. The Commissioner pointed out that it was neoessary to prove that bribe was given to a voter or member of his fS,JIlIly to influence a vote. Witness added there were about twenty boys present at the time. In c ros8-e x a min* tion vvitn<-«s said the house in which his father lived belonged to Mr. W. L. Morris, the petitioner. By the Commissioner: He mentioned to his fath-er the same day what Mr. NOT-ris had told him. Thomas Hunt, brother of the last witness, gave similar evidence. Cross-examined, the little fellow said no one had prompted him as to what to say that day. His brother and himself had been to the house of Mr. Morris, the peti- tioner, about a week ago, and they made a statement there. His mother sent them. Mr. Morris told him what to say, and gave his brother and himself two oranges. (Ap- plause.) Mr. Norris: That is not bribery, is it? (Laug-hter.) Mxs. Hunt, mother of the laet two wit- nesses, said she sent the lads to the petitioner at his request. She heard the respondent say before the election that he was going to give the children a tea and bank book. A man named Cook ro&e from the body of the hall and informed the Commissioner that it was not ba.nk book" which Mr. Norris I spoke of but 'banquet." Mr. Norris: Now, Mrs. Hunt, be open. Is it not a fact that Mr. W. L. Morris, your land- lord, the petitioner in this case, promised his oogan tena-ata that if he got in he would give each of them five shillings and a holi- day coupon? Witness: Yes. (Applause in court.) Mr. Norris: Was that in the form of a. bribe, eh? (Laughter.) The Commissioner: In what way did yon take that promise? Witness: I took it as a joke. The Commissioner: Did you treat Mr. Norris's promise, too, as a. joke, or did you take it as meant seriously' Witness: I treated the whole thing as a joke, both Mr. Morris and Mr. Norris. OFFIERS AS "JOKES." The Commissioner: If evidence is given of corrupt practices, even if there is no recri- minatory petition, I shall have to report them. If one side is said to ha.ve made an offer in a joke, then the other side may equally as fairly be said to have made au offer in a joke ae weU. (Hear, hear.) If I ind thait neither of them were jokes. I shall have to report upon both accordingly. Mr. B. Francis-Williams: I ask you to say that what Mr. Norris did was done to influence votes by gaining popularity. Mr. Peterson, manager of Lipton's at Penarth, said that Mr. Norris bought 4cwt. of cake at hi.s shop, and paid £ 4 9s. 4d. for it. He did not know that there was a trade dispute going on in Penarth aa to prices. The cake was only given to children. cake was only given to children. "According to that letter (handed in by Mr. Norris) "it Wai; a matter of joint adver- tisement between Lipton's head oilice and Mr. Norris," witness added. In the course of argument the Commis- sioner said he did not think at present that it was treating specially for the West Ward, but a general treating for the whole of Penarth. j Mr. B. Francis-Williams said his case was t.bat the circulation of the handbills was an action of bribery, as well as the giving awa.y of threepenny-bits, penny pieces, and cake, and the promises to children of tea and. bank books. If all this was all done for the purpose of gaining popularity, it was cor- rupt practice. "MALICE, SPITE, AND ENVY." Mr. Norris replied on the whole case in his own defence, after being told that the petitioner did not intend going into the wit- ness-box. lie Find his defence war; that he did not ask a oinsle elector for a vote, nor had he bribed an elector to get his vo'e. From beginning to end he did not spend twelve hours in the West Ward, and his total oxpen«v3 for that ward were under 15s. Mr. Lovat-Frat-er would not get in for South Glamorgan at that price. (Laughter.) Mr. Lovat-Fraser: I am afraid not. Mr Ncrris, continuing, said the cause of ti'.e petition was malice, spite, envy, ill-will, a.nd jealousy, backed up by a section of the district council, Penarth guardians, and Chamber of Trade members, who were unahle to answer what he had already dis- covered, and were afraid of what he would yet discover, llamcty, who had had the benefit of the £10,C{\() of the ratepayers' money that had been wasted. Also because he was in favour of electric trams, for which the work- ing men were asking. Also because he dis- covered that councillors had had their private lrcprovomt nt.s paid for out of the rates. ("Shame. Also, because he dis- covered that working men had been sum- moned for their rates on March 4. whereas councillors and (,t her ra topayer", who were relatives or frknd" of the rate collector or the late chairman of the council, were not proceeded a-gainat till the 12th or 31st of the month. His object in giving away hread. tea, and cake, wr.3 to bring down the prices of goods at Penarth, which were higher than at Cardiff and ether places; and at that time he he.d :i>> intention of being a candi- date for election for either ward, and actually did not decide to come forward till the meeting cf 110mi;¡atiún. Mr. B. Franeie-Williams pointed out that the leaflet issued on February 12 contained the words, "Vote for G. L. Norris," where- upon Mr. Norris said that that was merely a matter of s;>e>jch. If he had sat for the North Ward, where he had eight times the majority, there would have been nothing heard of aii LiJ, (Hear, hear.) "LOT or WASHERWOMEN." Continuing, Mr. Norris said: For twenf years I have had to suffer from this precious editor and this clique, and at one time everyone in Penaa-th was against me in con- sequence, but to-day it is the reverse, my lord. (Hoar, hear.) To-day they are ashamed of showing their faces outside the doors. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) If one person corner to me from the West Ward and says that he is tired of me I will give up the seat without a petition. I have nothing to leaj-n on the distr.c-t council amongst a lot of washerwomen. I had a very nice letter from Lord Lore-burn (the Lord Chancellor) the other day, and I will read it. The Commissioner: Oh, no, please don't. (Laughter.) Mr. Norris Kaid he fought the four wards without the aid of the register, and he, as a matter of Let. did not know who had votes and who ha.d not- "A VY GRAVE CHARGE." On the resumption of the court after lml- cheon, the Commissioner said he had been pout into a position of great difficulty in con- sequence of the determination ef the counsel for the petitio'nor to rely upon the charge against the respondent of having promised to give tea and bank books in the evoat of his election. If this charge was to be taken as serious, the-a he must regard equally as serious the allegation of the witness, Mrs. Hunt, that the petitioner had promised to give 5s. and a holiday coupon to each of his Cogan tenants if returned. He would ask Mr. Franc is-Williams to re-consider his de- cision, otherwise be must take both charges into consideration. After a brief argument, l-r. Francis-Wil- liams promised to re-corusider the position, and give his decision later on. THE RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE. Mr. Norris, the respondent, then went into the witnees-box to formally refute the charges of oorrupt practices against him. In reply to the Commissioner, he said he had not decided wetand before he issued .tfa<& leaflets, which were ontirely connected with chamber of trade matters. He gave the money and cake away in order to bring down the price of bread, by inducing people to go to shop-o where prices were lower. In cross-examination by Mr. B. Fra.ncis- Williams, Mr. Norris said he owned 30 or 40 houses in Penarth and several in Cardiff. It was absolutely untrue that he had said in Lecemler and January to Mr. Ellis Roberts and Mr. J. T. Owen that he in- tended occoming a candidate. He did not decide to go to the poll until the morning of nomination day, March 19. He had pur- chased the register days before with a view that he might be a candidate, but he had not made up his mind. Continuing his evidence, respondent, sug- gested that Roberts had given evidence against him because he (the respondent) had found that Roberts had not paid his rates until March 12, wherc-ae some working men had been summoned on March 4 for not paying their ratee. Owen gave evidence against him because he (the respondent) caught him telling a lie with regard to Mr. Snell's election. By attracting people to Bishop s and Lipton's shops by means of gifts, the shops of the members of the Chamber of Trade were deserted, until they all dropped their prices equal to those charged in the two ahops named, Mr. Francis-Williams said that, after oon- smeration' he had come to the conclusion to withdraw the case with regard to the bank books, and thus relieve the Commissioner of the difficulty he had referred to after the adjournment. The other charges, he sub- mitted, were s-atuciently strong of them- sel Yes, The Commissioner. at the conclusion of the °J^0ss-examin«tioi1 of the respondent, inti- maW that he found himself in a position ct difficulty, and lie wished Mr. Francis- will I am g to address him on these points. Assuming that in coi^s-equenee of a dispute between himself and the Chamber of Trade. he did. lor purpose of advertising the goods of certain tradesmen, distribute coins, bread, and cake, was ;t necessary for him to have announced that he was an intend- iiig candidate, and that this was done for the purpose cf influencing vote6? Mr. Franci6-W illiums had called several children to give evidence, but not a single voter to whomau.f bribe had heen ghen. or any promise made, for the purpose of influencing his vote. Assuming, also, that Mr. Norris hr.d done this. we-e any votes influenced there-by, and did it constitute bribery and treating ? Mr. Francis-Williams submitted that the respondent had decided, as early as January or December, to stand at the election in April, and that his only object in giving money and cake away was to make himself popular and thus influence the votes of the electors. The Commissioner stated that he would give judgment at two o'clock on Thursday. He wanted, ui the meantime, to read care- fully through the shorthand notes of the respondent's evidence.

NO RiUh UNSEAT G D. Interest in the petition proceedings was in no way abated on Thursday. In delivering judgment, the Commissioner aaid: The petition alleges bribery and treat- ing by the respondent. The respondent did not entet an appearance to the petition. He did not obtain legal advice, and uo parti- culars were ordered to be delivered of the charges relied on in the petition. The petitioner, having claimed a scrutiny, was bound to deliver the particulars of votes ho objected to, and, whether for this purpose or not I don't know, some particulars wer.j filed on June 6 in the central office too late to be available for a scrutiny, and those par- ticulars haye been treated as thk- particulars of bribery and treating by the petitioner. Petitioner claimed the seat, but this claim was abandoned by Mr. B. Francis-Williams. Respondent declined to have legal assistance, although I pointed out to him the danger in which he stood, having regard to Uie charges made against him. The fact that the respondent's case has not been properly put before me has caused me considerable difficulty, because the various observa- tions of the judges on similar charges have not been put before me from the point of view of the respondent. Nor have witnesses been called by the respondent, who would or might have been oalled if he had been legally represented. One of the material points in this trial has been the date when the respondent became a candidate-, and as to whether he was a prospective or announced candidate on February 12. If the respondent had been properly represented I should have expected to have heard evidence from those who per- suaded him to stand as he alleges in March, but now there is no evidence to support his own evidence. One charge put forward, which was not in the particulars, was a charge of offering a bank-book and a tea if the respondent was elected. This was alleged to have been done on the day of the poll Mr. Williams, however, has withdrawn this charge, and so I need not ——————BB——an— consider it. Mr. Williams also withdrew Charges 12, 13, and 14 in the particulars. GIVING OF MONEY IS BRIBERY." The first point I have to decide is when did the respondent become or determine to become a candidate for the April elections? Two witnesses, opponents of the respondent,' say he declared his intention to stand in December or January- Other witnesses say they heard the rumour in Febrnary. On February 12, in his circular, there is the pc.ssa.ge: — P.8.-Make the elections, four wards, a bread question. Vote for Merthyr at 4d. a loaf and G. L. Norris, who tells you it is absolutely true. The respondent says this was a figure of speech, but I cannot accept this explanation. Respondent says he did not determine to go to the poll until the nomination day, but on March 10 he paid for a oo-py of the regis- ter, the nomination day being March 19. No witness was called to support the res- pondent. although many might have been called if his statement is correct. I must now decide on the evidence before me andT-ot upon evidence which might have, but has not, been called. I can see no reason to doubt the evidence of Mr. Roberts and Mr. Owen, and, therefore, I find that at the time the circular of February 12 was issued, Mr. Norris had determined to become a candi- date, and the circular was an intimation to the electors that he was going to stand for the four wards and asking the electors of the four wards to vote for him. Bribery is thus defined by the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854, which if applied to elections of this character-.— Every person who shall directly or indi- j rectly give, offer, or promise any money cr valuable consideration to or for any voter, to or for any other person to induce any voter to vote or refrain from voting. In reference to treating, it has been said in several cases (Rochester, Hexham, Great Yarmouth, and Bodmin) that there may be two intentions—the one legal, the other illegal—and that the predominating motive must be ascertained.- If the case had rested on the giving away of cake alone I might have had great difficulty in separating the election from the fight against the members of the chamber of trade, which began in December. 1907, and was going on in Feb- ruary, 1906 But this giving away of money is bribery OT nothing. One act of bribery invalidates an election, however I trifling the amount, especially -when the act is that of the candidate himself. It must also be remembered that the majority in the West Ward was a, small one; and. therefore, this act of a general offer and general distribution of money i; very important (Justice Cave in Ipswicn case). Who were the persons who received the money? Eleven cases are alleged in the j particulars. Some were cases of children three were cases of voters, two in the North Ward, and one in the West Ward. Of the children s parents some of them lived in the west ward. The offer was only a genera! one, but voters actually received money. The respondent admitted that what was done in tho Central Ward was known in and effected all the wards. Has it. however, been held that when money is offered by a can- chàatc in an election circular asking for votes, and which money in fact got into the hands of voters and children of voters, that such an offer can be looked at as an innocent offer a.nd be separated from its natural consequences if affecting in some way the voters in an improper way? SEAT DECLARED VOID. Here, again, Mr. Norris is at a great disad- vantage, because if such a care exists, or if it were necessary to prove that voters were, in met. influenced, no one on his behalf nailed my atten- tion to any such case, and I cannot find one. To my mind, the offer of money, coupled with a request to vote. can only be said to be addressed to those who have votes, and that, therefore, it must be hold to be bribery within the section I have quoted as being an offer of money to vo-terj to induce them to vote for the candidate. Holding this view, it is immaterial to consider the pieces of cake. The penny stands on the tame footing as the threepenny-piece- beoause they are both nientioned in the cir- cular of February 12. I cannot rely on the evidence given by the respondent in conee- quenoe of the way in which it was given, and also for the reason that I ha-ve com-c to the conclusion that Mr. Norris is a man of very peculiar temperament and of an imaginative inin(t-in fact, a man who does not appreciate and regard things in the same way as others would, and does not in the leilst consider tho effect of his language and his acts. In fact, the word "eccentric" describes the views I have formed about the respondent. But can a man of such temperament escape from the legal consequences of his acts? Mr. Justice Wills, in the Montgomery case, said ■ SOME OF THE WITNESSES. that if a drunken man offered 6a. to a voter and asked him to vote, that was bribery for which the drunken man was responsible. If Mr. Norris had taken my advice and h.if' been properly represented, I might have fert some doubt about the case, as this is a subject on which judges' views differ. But after considering all the circumstances of the cose I do not feel tha.t I can separate the election from the fight with the chamber of trade over prices of food, and say that the offer of money in a circular that at the same time asks for votes is not within the' Act of Parliament. The consequences to Mr. Norris are very serious. But if I come to the conclusion that Mr. Norris's acts are within the Act of Parliament, I have no right to alter my judgment because of the disqualification which follows from my deci- sion, very serious as it is. I, therefore, find that Mr. Norris was per- sondliy guilty of bribery at the election; that his election is therefore void, and that he must pay the costs of the petitioner, and 1 eo declare. It is not usual to order the Public Prosecutor's costs to be paid by the respondent, and in nearly every case I have examined the judges have refused such an order. Therefore, I make no order for the respondent to pay such costs. The respondent did not answer truly, in my opinion, questions in reference to the date of his candidature, and. therefore, I cannot comply with the requirements of the section if I granted him a certificate of indemnity; but. at the same time, I con- eider tha.t he did not fully realise the legal effect of his acts in February, although, as I said before, this does not enable me to absolve the respondent from the legal consequences of those acts. The decision will be that the petition be allowed, tha.t the seat be declared void, and that Mr. Norris be directed to pay the costs of the petitioner. Mr. Norris waved his handkerchief after the delivery of the judgment.

FA T.E OF M B. NORRIS. There is some speculation as to the posi- ,].0in Mr. Norris as a. result of the findings oi the Commissioner. The Municipal Elec- IRR?8- ^'orrill)t and Illegal Practices) Act, is fairly clear on the point, and acoord- mg to this Mr. Norris is permanently dis- qualified from holding a corporate office in penarth. The effect of the vital section of e Act dealing with the point is that Where, -pon the trial of an election peti- tion respecting a municipal election for a trough, or ward of a borough. it is found by the report of an election court that any corrupt practice, other than treating ana undue influence, has been proved to have been committed in reference to such Section, by or with the knowledge and consent of any candidate at such clecticn, or that the offence of treating or undue influence, has been proved to have been committed in. referen.ce to such election, by any candidate at such election, that candi- date shall not be capable of ever holding a corporate office in the said borough; and, if he has been elected, his election shall be void, and he shall further be subject to the same incapacities as if at the date of the said report he had been convicted of a corrupt practice. The Act goes on to make a distinction where the corrupt or illegal practice is oom- mitted by agents of the candidate. In that case tho disqualification extends only to a period of three years. There is also the question of possible future proceedings against Mr. Norris. It will now be the duty of Mr. Foa, who represented the Public Prosecutor at the inquiry, to report upon the matter to the latter, who will, within the next few days, decide whether Mr. Norris shall, or shall not, be proceeded against for illegal prac- tices. A person found guilty of an illegal practice in reference to a municipal election shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding £ 100, and be incapable during a period of five years from the date of his conviction of being registered as an elector within the borough in which the Illegal practice was committed.

'MONEY WITHHELD." 4 SECRETARY AND TREASURER FINED. At Cardiff on Thursday, before the stipes" diary (Mr. T. W. Lewis), Henry Morgan, treasurer of the Court Baroness of Wind- sor, of the Cardiff United District branch of the Ancient Order of Porœtcrs, was charge0- on the information of George Cross Turn-ef, George James, and Maurice O'Brien, trustees of the court, with withholding certain pro perty of the society, to wit, the sum JE41 14s. Id. Mr. W. G. Howell prosecuted; Mr. Harold Lloyd represented Morgan. Mr. Howell, m opening, explained that some months ago the district management oommittee had reason to believe that affairs of the court were not conducted in proper manner, and appointed special auditors to investigate the accounts. Tho auditors had before them the books, papers- and documents, and found that the amount of money in the hands of Morgan belonging to the court was £71 14s. Id. Since tiha-u time defendant had paid £.30, lea.ving the balance of JMl 14s. Id. Defendant had froIn time to time promised to pay, but his pro- mises had not been fulfilled. Mr. Harold Lloyd: The deficiency of JE41 14s. Id. is admitted. His Worship Admitted to have been lawfully withheld?—Yes. Mr. Harold Lloyd said his client had filled the post of treasurer for six years, and he had a wife and sIx or seven children to sup- port. His case was that he had to deal with large sums of money, and did not keep proper accounts. His business, unfortu- nately, fell off, and it was the usual story of mixing other money with his own and not taking the care he should have taken- He had (Mr. Lloyd pointed out) made restitu- tion of this £30, which had been handed over, and defendant had also made an offer, which he did not know whether his worship would entertain, to pay back the money by monthly instalments. The Stipendiary: I cannot adopt that course, which has been pursued in many cases. These cases of fraud upon Friendly Societies have been very numerous during? the last •'two or three years, and I am not sure that I have not treated them with too much leniency. Mr. Lloyd could not take exception to what his worship had just said. Mr. Howell: The defendant has paid £.30 on account. The Stipendiary: It is the money of people who can ill afford to lose it. Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps it will meet with your approval that these people should so far as possible have their money Lack. His Worship imposed a fine of £10 and costs, and made an order upon defendant to re-pay the money or go to prison far. three months, the order to be suspended for two months to afford an opportunity to find the money SECRETARY'S ADMISSION. The Secretary (Charles Dudden), who was undefended, was summoned for withholding JE40 &1. 4d., the property of the same society- Defendant pleaded guilty. Mr. Howell said this defendant's position was thc.t he was unable to pay except by instalments, which they could not accept. His Worship (to defendant): Have you any explanation of the misappropriation?—No, sir. Xor anything to say?—I don't think it i3 any use Fined £5 and costs, the money to be re- paid, or in default three months with hard labour. The order was suspended for two months.

AGRICULTURAL SHOW AT HENLLYS. Brilliant weather favoured the holding of the fifth annual show in connection witJ the IIonlly.= Working Sheep Dog- Society at the Castle Farm. Henllys, on Thursday. 1h8 entries were more numerous than in previous years, and a large number of people gave tho show their pa.trona.ge. Results:— SHEEP SHEARING COMPETITIONS. SotMor servants of Monmouthshire farmers who have not previously won a first prize1 1st. J. Saunders, Herillys; 2nd, F. Lloyd. llenHys; 3rd, W. J. Edwards, Llantarnain- Sons or servants of Monmouthshire farmers, under sixteen: 1st, J. NichoUs» Risca; Znd, J. Dowling, Rogerstone; 3rd. F, Farmer, Henllys. Open to all comers: 1st, J. Llewellyn, Bed, linog; 2nd, J. Edmunds, Llantamam; 3rd. James Jones, Den Open to residents in Monmouthshire vho have not previously won a first prize othof than in the boys' class: 1st, R. Dando, Llaa- tarnani; 2nd, R. Phillips, Newbridge; 3id- Owen Jones. Llantarnam, STC-C K COMPETITIONS. Cob, mare, or gelding: 1st. T. Rees, Oa^ leon; 2nd, E. Nicholas, Penywain, Cwmbri'f Mare or gelding, two to four years o»5 under 14.2, most suitable for undergrolJPi purposes: 1st, W. James, Henllys; 2nd, Hardwick, Cwmbran. > Roadster, mare or gelding, over 14.2, but JJJr. exceeding" 15.2: 1st R. Dando, LiantarB*1^' 2n-d-B.-C. I>aviee, Cwmbran.. Broo-d cart m»re, in foal or with foal foot: 1st. F-T>nmtr» nm T Jliffj *•< larnam. Juniper, mare or gvlcn:ns\ .no-: exceeding 13.2: iVt. O. J Llantaruivin; 2nd, W- Harris, Caerl.vn. Mare or gelding, any height: 1st, T. JteeS. C aerie on 2nd, R. Dando. 'Tradesman's turn-out: 1st, R. A. LeW1S, Bettws; 2nd, R. Dando. Boar, any bro^d, op«sn: 1st ana 2na, J- Da vies, Cwmbran. „ Breeding sow: 1st. F. Edwards, Malpas-roa»» Newport; 2nd. R. Evans, Henllys.; White breeding sow: 1st, J. Williams, Owffi' bran; 2nd. G. BayHs, Bettws Dairy cow, any breed: 1st. J. Adams, Hen- livs; 2nd, A. E. Dando, Llantamam. Hereford bull, any age: let, W. Morgan. Llandegveth; 2nd, E.' C. Davies, Cwmbran. Champion beast in show: W. Morgan. Pair of cattle: l«t. F. J. Wadley, Croesy* ceiliog; 2nd, J. Lloyd, Henllys. Welsh mountain mm: 1st, J. Lawrence. Llantamam; 2nd. T. Stephens. Henllys. Three Welsh mountain ewes and lambs: 1st, J. LI. Thomas, Lower Machen; 2nd, T- Saunders. Henllys. Three Welsh mountain lambs: 1st, O. Jones. Lla.n tu rn a-m. Lowland ra.m: 1st, F. J. Wadley, Croad" eeiliog; 2nd. E. C. Davies. Cwmbran.

WINNERS AT HORSE SHOW AT OLYMPIA. The Great International Horse Show a' Olympia was opened on Thursday evening i11 the presence of a large gathering of spec- tators. There were 58 exhibits for the best light trade single turn-outs, and the five cups offered were taken by Mr. Pellow Hoddesdo-n. Herts; Messrs. Sykeg, Joeephene, and Co-. Regent-street; Mr. John Cause, Newingtofl Causeway; Messrs. Scotts (Limited), Old P/cnd-stTeet; and Messrs. W. H. Smith and Son. The class for ponies, novices, nOt exceeding fourteen hands, provided an extremely keen contest between an America and English competitor. Finally the exhibit from Grand New Farm, Lancaster, Pennsy^ vania, was triumphant, Messrs. Jones aJW Son, Colwyn Bay, being second. The 00Ø1" petition for American trotters was won by MT. Buttfield, U.S.A

HUSBAND LOCKED OUT. RHONDDA FRUITERER AND WlFE- SEPARATED. An application was day by Mrs. Johanna Brooks, Hannah-stre^ Porth, for a separation order against he" husband, Joseph Brooks, a fruiterer, on plaint of persistent cruelty. Mr. A. T. Jana^° (Messrs. Morgan, Bruce, and Nicholas appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Char' E. Matthews (Messrs. Grover and Matthe^8' defended. From the evidence, it transpired tbat defendant was a bankrupt, and applied: carried on the fruit business, and the ture on the premises was her property- withstanding this, it was alleged by prosecution that Brooks forced an entry breaking down the shutters of the shop-^ the wife had locked the doors to keep 11 OUt. Mrs. Brooks stated her husband Zp. kicked her, and used most foul She went to the room where he was sleep to turn the gas off on the night of Apr1 upon which he threatened to kill her, broke some furniture. lutein In the witness-box, defendant absom ill. denied having struck or in a/ny way treated his wife. The Bench granted an order of ee^a'zZ^jfl' defendant to contribute 5s. per week tenance.

A VERSATILE DEATH OF CRABTREE, BRILLIANT INTERNATIONAL- 1 1 All the football world will loani regret of the death of James Crabtr kgffi great international, of Burnley a^. ViLla. which occurred at his resw Lowells, Birmingham, early on Crabtrce had been ill for some wee lis. ^jl- In his time he was probably the liant footballer the world has everfl^J,red played in every position, and he five positions" in international played against Sootland four tUDes. ad fl** Wales five times, and against I1" j^pr^ times, while on seven occasions sented the English League aga1 Scottish League. ",80S He was also a capable cricketer^rabie in his early days a sprinter of ability, besides being a clever ly.pai^ pla5^- Ho was the first of the h e ePory £ professionals, it being commonly -fill^ that, he received £ 7 per week *"ro:.nh(>a6t club. Perhaps Crabtree's proudest yilU» the fact that ho was a member ot tggcci^" team when it won both the FootPfTl tn iB96- 4 | tion Cup and League Championsh1?