The Cardiff Times

The washerwomen of Boaen have struck work to better themselves." They get If. 25c. ( I s.) and a glass of brandy (La gnutlc) per dav they want 2f., a glass of brandy, and a cup of coffee, and insist that no other starch be used in their laundries but the Glenfielcl.-Prench Paper. Since Horniman and Co., London, first imported pure tea from China, per ship Cauibalu, the public preference f< r this truly cheap tea, h,.s vastly increased every year. Horniman's pure green is a dark olive, the natural appearance of the young leaves when not coated with the usual uluish mireral facing powder their 1 lack abounds in strength, as it consists entirely of the spring gathering, that iiec- (I s no: to be artifi- cially darkened, as there are no brown wintry ieaves to dis- guise. Consequently Horniman's teas are not only pure, but amasingly strong and cheap. As spurious imitations are I offered, eaeli genuine packet is signed Horniman & C., Original Importers of the Pure Tea." Upwards of 2000 Agents are appointed.

• -T — BRISTOL BANKRUPTCY COURT. TUESDAY* Re D. Jones, Aberystwith, Innkeeper.—This was a sitting for last examination and discharge. Mr. Box (from the office of Messrs. M. Britton and Sons), for the official assignee, said he did not oppose the allowance of an order of discharge, but as the result of the appli- cation to debtors had been to get in a sum of 7s. 6d. only, he hoppd the bankrupt would give his assistance in getting in the debts. His Honour said the bankrupt must do his best to assist his creditors. At present there was a total loss, and he hoped the bankrupt would feel it to be a duty incumbent upon him to help the creditors and do the best in his power for them. The bankrupt then passed his last examination and was granted an order of discharge. WEDNESDAY. Re T. Smith, Midsomer Norton, brewer.-The first meeting in this case was adjourned. Re E. S. Parsons, Neath, late colliery proprieter. This was a first meeting. No creditors' assignee was appointed. Messrs. Press, Inskip, and Thomas were the solicitors to the petition.

arliamtntarn Intelligent. MONDAY. It is seldom that the proceedings in the House of Lords excite so much interest as was apparent on Monday night when the Reform Bill came on for second reading. The attendance of peers was very large, especially on the Minis. terial side of the House, and the privileged seats were crowded with foreign ambassadors, members of the House of Commons, and others who possessed the right of entree. The Earl of Derby moved the second reading of the bill in a speech of considerable length, in the course of which he re- viewed the attempts made at various times to deal with the question, and expressed his regret that last year the want of tact and conciliation manifested by Mr. Gladstone prevented the late Government from passing their bill. The noble earl asserted that on no occasion, either in 1854, 18SO, or last year, had the Conservative party opposed the second reading of their opponents' bill, but in 1859 the same indulgence was not accorded to their bill, and this year it was only through the refusal of a large section of the Liberal party to act with Mr. Gladstone that the second reading of the bill was not opposed. The noble earl warmly declared himself in favour of the lodger franchise, condemned the proposed amendment of Earl Grey, and made an eloquent appeal to the House to support the Government and pass the measure. Earl Grey then moved the resolution of which he had given notice, and criticised the provisions of the bill at great length. He com- plained of its democratic tendency, and contended that the Government ought to have adhered to the XIO franchise, and I have devised other means for admitting those who were con- sidered entitled to the privilege of a vote. The noble lord became so exhausted towards the close of his speech that it was with much difficulty he could make himself heard. The debate was adjourned In the House of Commons, the Chancellor of the Exche. quer stated the course it was proposed to take with regard to the business of the session. There were fiftv Government bills on the paper, and of these it was proposed to abandon nine. Of the iorty-one remaining eleven came from the House of Lords, and would not be proceeded with until the latest period of the session; but to get through the business he proposed that morning sittings should be held on Tues- days and Fridays. Without any comment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer then moved the second reading of the Scotch Reform Bill, and no hon. member rising to address the House, the bill was read a second time amid considerable laughter. Mr. Hardy. moved the second reading of the Royal Parks Bill, which gave rise to considerable discussion, and an amendment was proposed by Mr. Taylor for its re- jection. Mr. J. Hardy, in commenting upon the speech of Mr. Taylor, said the hon. member was returned by the refuse of the constituency he represented. For this expression he was at once called to order, and had to withdraw the words. Upon a division the *econd reading was carried by a large majority. The House then went into Committee of Supply, and several votes were agreed to. TUESDAY. 1 1 1 'r-r..Jl.l'= OJU. — _1 _1 -I ( session, Will wuc V. nut mmr itwn Saturday, the 10th of August.

1H ark-eta. LONDON CORN MARKET.—MONDAY. There were very heavy foreign arrivals of wheat, oats, and peas last week. Wheat, with almost no arrivals from Kent or Essex, millers had to pay fully Is. per qr. more money to meet their necessities. The very large supply of foreign on fine and ripening weather only served slightly to check the upward movement, and all descriptions realised a like im- provement, but with less demand than on Friday. Norfolk flour brought Is. per sack more money, and the better marks were held at a greater advance. It was the same with every variety of foreign, but town millers made no change. Maize continues about the dullest on the market. The scarcity both of English and foreign barley caused a general advance of Is. per qr. The malt trade was quiet, with prices un- altered. Oats, with exhaused stocks, and a good country and foreign demand, this grain brought 6d. per qr. more money. With but a moderate demand for beans, prices were maintained. The scarcity of English peas threw the demand upon foreign, which maintained former values. CURRENT PRICES OF BRITISH GRAIN AND FLOUR IN MARK-LANE. Shillings per Qr Shillings per Qr. Wheat-Essex and Oats-Scotch feed 22-30 Kent, white new 62 to 74 Scotch potato, ,27 34 Ditto, red new.. 62—73 Irish feed, white 21-26 Norfolk, Lincoln- Ditto, flne ,27—31 shire, & Yorksh., Ditto, black.21 — 26 red 64-72 Potato .26—31 Barley 32-35 Beans—Mazagan :i8 39 Chevalier new. 38-48 Ticks .98-39 Grinding. 33 3,i liarrow 38-44 Distilling .35 — 42 Pigeon 43-48 Malt—Essex, Nor- Peas-White boilers 4.0 43 folk, and Suffolk, Maple 40 — 44 new 66 — 70 Gray new 38 —.40 Kingston, Ware, Flour-Townhouse- and town-made holds, per sack of new .66—70 280\bs.54 — 60 Brown, new -51-59 Country. 45-47 Rye 34-38 Households 48 50 Oats-English feed. 25 31 Norfolk and Suf- English potato.. 28 34 folk on shore 4-1 47 WEDNESDAY. Little business was done in English and foreign wheat, to-day, but Monday's prices were fully supported. Spring corn was firmat late rates. METROPOLITAN CATTLE MARKET.—MONDAY. The supply of beasts at this market to-day was in excess of Monday last, and, although the beef trade ruled heavy, prices were firm at the subjoined quotations. Of sheep, the supply was not so large as last week, and there was no material alteration in the mutton trade. The lamb trade was dull, at a reduction of 2d. per stone, the extreme quota- tion being 6s. 8d. For veal the demand was not so good and to effect sales lower rates had to be submitted to. The pork trade remains unaltered. Statement of Prices, per stone, Monday. Beef 3s. 6d. 5s. 6d, I Veal 3s. 6d. 5s. 6d. Mutton 3s. 4d. 5s. 2d. Pork 3s. Od. 4s. 2d. Lamb 5s. 4d. 6s. 8d, LIVERPOOL CATTLE MARKET.—MONDAY. At this day's market, consequent on the great facilities enjoyed by Liverpool for the removal of Irish cattle and sheep to any part of the country, facilities enjoyed by no other market in the United Kingdom, there was a very large attendance of buyers from the northern, midland, and southern districts. The supply of stock was less than on last Monday, and the demand was very good for cattle, sheep, and lambs, at higher prices for each. HOP MARKET.—MONDAY. Messrs. Woolloton and Son report that the recent advance induced many holders to offer their stock, and a fair amount of business has been effected. To-day's reports arc contra- dictory, a few announcing improvement, but the majority speak of increased vermin. Holders require a further advance, but the memorable recoveries which have occurred at periods later than the present induce caution on the part of con- sumers, in the hope that favourable weather may follow the recent heavy rains and produce an amended prospect. Ver- min still exist in the Alost district of Belgium, but the Poperinghe plantations, like Bavaria and Bohemia, are in excellent condition.

LATEST AMERICAN INVENTION.—The very laft thing is I a patent papet shilt-costa 25c.. warranted perspiration proof, and wears three weeks without washing, if only properly got up with the Glenfield Starch.—American Paper. PROPOSED AMALGAMATAON OF THE MIDLAND AND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAYS. The fallowing circular, emanating from Leeds, has just been forwarded to the shareholders of the Midland and Great Western Railways:- It is desired to unite the interests of these important undertakings in a manner that, while amounting to an amalgamation, would still retain the separate boards of directors, but put an end to all injurious competition. The heads of the proposed arrangements are as follow:— 1. Full utilisation of existing railways, no further pro- motion of competing lines, and no new lines to be promoted unless sanctioned by both companies. 2. The revision of fares and the abolition of all competition. 3. The working of the West Midland and other narrow-gauge lines in unison with the Midland system, and addition of narrow on the broad guage, so as to admit the Midland to South Wales. 4. The joint guarantee of the debentures, interests, rents, and preference charges of both companies. 5. The issue of a permanent debenture stock, to take the place of debenture bonds as thev fall due, so as in about ten years to extinguish the borrowed money debt entirely. 6. The appropriation of the joint balance of nett revenue in proportions as nearly as possible upon the open stocks as follows: 7 per cent. per annum. „ Birmingham & Derby 51 „ „ g „• Great Western 3J g s oxford 2 | §. „ Newport If „ S „ South Wales. 3} „ „ H a. is Deiievea tne saving by the joint-purse system indica- ted, and the more economical, because free and unfettered, working of the two systems, would place the stocks of the two undertakings at a very much higher value, and rapidly augument the dividends above named. It is also hoped that means may be found to include the broad-guage lines to the Land's End in the arrangement—the Midland and Great Western having an interest in them sufficient to render the union of the whole desirable, both to the proprietors and the public at large. The importance, indeed, of free and har- monious working between Glasgow, Leeds, Birmingham, Birkenhead. London, Bristol, Milford, and Penzance cannot be over-estimated. There is reason to hope the boards of the two companies will not be adverse to these proposals. When the plan is more mature the written assent or dissent of every proprietor will be sought, probably not in time for the consideration of the question at the forthcoming meetings, but in time for the formation of a committee to arrange for the preparation of the necessary Parliamentary notice for November next. Meanwhile, shareholders having suggestions to make would do well to forward them to the secretaries of the respective companies, with whom, copies of this preliminary circular have been lodged."

A VESSEL FROM CARDIFF FIRED AT BY THE SPANIARDS. In the House of Commons, on Friday, Mr. Headlam rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the house to the papers concerning the destruction of the ship Mermaid, by a shot from a Spanish fort; and to move that an humble ad. dress be presented to her Majesty, stating that, in the opinion of this house, the demand for compensation from the Spanish government made in respect of the destruction of the ship Mermaid was just and right, and that there was nothing in the correspondence laid before the house which would sane. tion her Majesty's government in withdrawing from the de. mands that have been made. The case he had to bring before the house was one of great gravity and importance, and one which affected the honour and dignity of this country. An English vessel, in the ordinary prosecution of her voyage,and engaged in a perfectly peaceful pursuit, had been shot at and sunk by a friendly power; the property of those who owned the ship and cargo had been destroyed, and the lives of those who navigated her had been put in peril. Her Majesty's go- vernment, after a careful review of the facts of the case, aad acting under the advise of the law officers of the Crown, had made a demand for compensation on the Spanish govern- ment, but they had been met with a flat denial, and all attempts at friendly arbitration had been equally rejected by the Spanish government. That being so, the question he had to submit to the house and her Majesty's government was whether a demand so made could be so refused consistently with the rights of the people of this country and the dignity of the Crown. The Mermaid sailed from Cardiff On the 1st of October, 1864, with a cargo of coals, for Ancona, and on the 16th of October she arrived off Fort Ceuta, at tbe mtrance of the Straits of Gibraltar. She there encountered a trong east wind and tempestuous weather, to which Sir iVilliam Codrington testified. About six o'clock on the norniog of that day, the Mermaid proceeded to tack towards .he coast of Africa, and as she was beating up close against :he wind she came, about half-past ten o'clock, within range )f the Spanish battery at Fort Ceuta, when she was alarmed 3y a blank cartridge being fired at her. Her ensign was misted, and flying about 18 inches above the deck in the main -igging, and the helm was put down so as to keep the vessel off the shore., In about seven minutes, when the ship's head was to the wind, a second shot was fired from the same fort, end she was struck on the starboaid side just below the water line. A third shot was shortly after fired, but that went over the ship. The water gained so fast or. the ship, that the captain had only time to save the chronometer, and iwenty minutes after the crew left the ship she went down. Her crew reached port Ceuta about one o'clock the same day. There was not the alightest imputation to be made against I he vessel, and had the boats been swamped in a heavy sea \nd the crew lost, no opportunity could have been given to the government to demand compensation for this unwarrant- able act on the part of the Spanish authoiity. The latter •stated that they did not see the ship's Bag; and, assuming that to be true, surely Englismen on the high seas were not to be capitally punished in this manner; and even, they saiti, if it had been, it was no proof that the vessel was an English ship. All the crew of the Mermaid distinctly swore that it was flying. After the ship was struck it was shifted, but it was hardly possible from the position of the ship for the Spanish fort to see it. The Spanish authorities admit firing a shotted gun, but they allpgp that the shoi did not strike the vessel, and they account for the sinking of the vessel by imputing to the capt/ftu —i I'rpJl1 that thpv entered into a conspiracy and scuttled the ship by boring a nu.c order to cheat the insurance company. The Spanish autho- rities refused compensation on two grounds-first, in conse- quence of two discrepancies in the captain's first and second examination, which arose, however, from errors in translat- ing the evidence into Spanish; and also because they preferred to believe their own witnesses in preference to that of the captain and crew of the Mermaid. With regard to the principal fact-the striking of the ship- the Spanish witnesses said they did not see the shot strike her. That was very probable, because, the shot striking her below the water line, they might be under the impression that it fell short. And they also disbelieved the statement that they did strike her, because she was turned head to sea afterwards. The Spa'nish authorities, therefore, drew mere inferences respect- ing what were undoubted facts. There could be no doubt that in reality the Spanish statement confirmed that of the master and crew of the Mermaid, and might be 3«.id to be perfectly identical. The facts of the case were perfectly clear. It could not be supposed that a British crew would join in a conspiracy to destroy their own ship in order that the owner might obtain compensation from an insurance company. Whether the government would allow this matter to remain as at present he would be glad to learn. But he would ask what had been the action of the British Govern- ment on the subject ? When it first came before Lord Russell in November, 1864, he stated that the facts must be verified by affidavit, and that was done. Earl Russel, on the 14th of January, 1865, said there was a right on the part of the owners to demand compensation from the Spanish Government. And in 1866—the 23rd September—Lord Russel said her Majesty's government regarded the case as a clear case for compensation, and instructed our ambassador to ask for a mixed commission. The correspondence was continued, but in the end the Spanish government refused a commission; and the matter had not been pressed further, though no reason appeared to exist why the British govern- ment should not have demanded the compensation thought to be due from the Spanish government. Subsequently came the application of the owners of the Mermaid to the Foreign Office to press the matter further. But the noble lord, on the 29th October, said, the Spanish government were not prepared to admit that any compensation was due. It was now for the house and the country to consider whether the matter should rest as it then did. It was quite impos- sible that any tribunal should allow that the decision of the Spanish government, based as it was altogether on inferences, and not on facts, was sound. As it was a matter for the house to consider, he would ask them to put upon record a resolution to this effect, ^nd which was in effect that it was the duty of the government to make a demand upon the Spanish government for compensation to the owners of the vessel. Lord Stanley, in replying, said he was bound to say that the circumstances of the cise had been very clearly, fully, and, upon the whole, fairly stated on the part of the right hon. gentleman. There was one puint, how- ever, to which he, in justice to their opponents, was bound to allude, and that was that the shot from the Spanish fort, and which sunk the Mermaid, was not intentionally fired at the vessel but accidentally struck her and this was borne out bv the evidence of Sir William Codrington. He laid stress on this, for although the claim to pecuniary compensa- tion would not be removed, yet the spirit in which the ques- tion should be treated would be moderated. The question would be a very different one if it arose through mere care- lessness or through the deliberate intention to sink the vessel. The latter assumption ought not to be entertained without strong evidence, and in this case no such evidence existed. He entirely concurred in the view taken by his predecessors, Earl Russell and Earl Clarendon, and that was that the case ought to be submitted to arbitration; but all such requests had been met by refusal on the part of the Spanish Govern- ment, who rested on the evidence of their own officers, con- flicting as it did with the evidence on the other side. The British captain might or might not have taken the wisest course with a view of saving his ship after she had been fired into; but this did not appear to be of much conse quence-it did not materially affect the claim for compensa- tion. To say that the ship was not struck at all was a sin- gular assumption on the part of the Spanish Government The evidence of the Spanish officials was inaccurate, and further, it was founded on belief only, while the evidence of the British captain and crew was founded upon facts, as they were in a position to see everything which took place. He thought the evidence of the captain and crew, notwithstand- ing some discrepancies with regard to the time the ship re- mained afloat after receiving the shock, was far more trust- worthy than the evidence taken by the Spanish authorities. The matter had been argued over and over again. Her Majesty's Government adhered to their view, and the Spanish Government adhered to theirs. Then came the question of what was to be done. Unhappily, there was no international tribunal to which cases of this kind could be referred, and there was no international law court to which parties could be re- quired to refer cases of this kind. He begged to say that if such a tribunal exis ed it would be a boon to the world, and a great advance in international civilisation. (Hear, beer.) When two Governments differed on a question of this kind, and the arguments were exhausted, they had either to let the claim rest for a titbe, reserving the right to enforce it, or to proceed to enforce it. The enforcing of the claim could only be effected by one of two courses they might either withdraw the ambassador, or.they might make war, and they might make reprisals which were almost sure to end in war. To break off diplomatic intercourse was a totally in- adequate rtmedy for that which was to be cured. It showed that we had taken offence, but it did not inflict any substantial pressure on the other side. The other alterna- tive was war or reprisals; but that was a grave matter. A war between two gieat European countries ought not to be thought of till all diplomatic efforts to maintain peace had been exhausted and failed, and would not be supported by the nation or by any people on the Continent. (Hear, hear.) But it was said that this was a case, not of international wrong, hut that the vessel was sunk through mere accident. It was not like a case cf wrong against a British subject. All that they could make of it was that it was a case of considerable I carelessness on the part of the officer in command of the Spanish fort. It was not a case in which we could assume that the Spanish authorities acted in bad faith. No doubt they had acted upon the evidence of their own officers. They had deeded on extraordinarily inadequate testimony Still it was not to be inferred that because of this case the Spanish authorities intended to deny justice. Look at the case from another point of view. They might think very lightly of the risk and inconvenience of quarrelling wi,h a power like Spain; but were they prenared tr> l„J J r n! .™i --j t\ c*rea to lay down two rules—one for the weak and the other for the strong ?(Hear, hear) Supposing a similar case occurred with the Government of the United States or France. He did not deny that the claim would be the same, but would the House press the Govern- ment to make the demand on the Government of the United States ? if it were a question not to go to war upon he would be glad to bear from tile right liott. gentlemen what »teps ought to be taken. As argUments had been exhausted 11 ,be *seless t0 °ve? them aga" "lie fd '$ written a line expressing that he had A C u i r Ud l.« >t .!> oh.„gfd his Jpf'lT, dC'S he was Dot prepared at present to takp i,n SUDJfct- b^" It might be that another administration fn Suei>ti0" again, aider the matter from a different point ,.f view. They would Government had not been backward in proposing a claim in reference to the Alabama. When iV^T*8 8 f w I" ington appealed to the Government of i??™ A asked for arbitration, they were met hv a .countr), and but they did not withdraw their ambassLo^TrXeatenuis w.th war, nor did they withdraw their ciaim In tbef case of Spam this country ought to act in „ • .tue,.c.ase bearanceand conciliation. (Hear, hear ) Thp thorities might feel a grievance which U dTd nof'see If'a case should arise, on winch the Spanish 1 u >J request us to go to arbitration, the^ the > would insist upon this case of the Mermaid beiSg con'Ed Joeul7be pnr0eparedltoa[ k -°f migHt & S Vi '• 5i"sle f if C.rtt races wprp r»n„„ j L °' judgment; but UD^ US that^here wPL Gd C0™ictior* 'ft be forced upon us that mere was an intention on the Dart of the Spanish authorities to refu,e us justice (hear hear) and if there were deliberate ev.dence of a refusal of just"e it would us £ hoped the tight hon. gen.lem,„ „uld t hi, riw.ta;.) 'a"? ..U^c.ory rS: ■.SST.'a h'id'Si lord' press the motion to a division J U 1U,U» inconvenience had been elt h" being required to show ihj^ "hf X merc.hant .v«se,s marine league of the SpanishTorts and 7 T firpd at and lives and Ports, and that vessels haa been hred at, ana lives and property destroyed. In March 1865 the late Government concluded an agreement with Spa'in that the- uWW'"g CoU'^ should no longer be r2 sqo'that this kind of 8eren t ^oul d'not hanUS d that his right hon. fiiend would not a k th u"' He trusted resolution ."forcing o» taking some active steps, but wcM i .i neces.uy ot hands of the noble lord.' (Hea^r 7" The motion was then withdrawn.

I OPENING OF I'OVTHCAWL DOCKS. Monday last was & day lone- j annals of Porthcawl. L Mmembered m the menced two years ago, we,e folm" entrance of the steam shin °Penedr. V the burthen, followed by the qL? B,°fden> '00 the Porthcawl tug boat and « t,U° steam ship Enterprise. The weather wa/J3 °°ve-rimmed 0x6 sequently many vessels which wfvJ erous.' con" prevented from entering. rpv„ T 'en ^xpeoted, were out in the morning for a sh rt orni=« opening. In the meantime thp apiFre^ara^ry approached, and endeavourad t ?°?er E?terPnse before the Bteamer, and r,early Suo» i ciock As the vessels steamed in thoxr « m doing so. The band of the Ilth Glamorgan vi /heir canaons- pier, and played "See the Visitors were allowed to co £ ng T ^0me8' throughout the day, a large !um W w! • °hn Brogde^ from Maesteg, Ton-lu and Brlt? pDg congregated ran from each place. All vessel! In nnrfXCUrS1,0n tmn? with flags, banners, &c, and were decorated to Brogdon and Sons, were dTspWd g 8UCCe8S parts. A variety of amusemomi l m conspicuous large assembly, and especially to £ rr ^tifvTho ? who were present in large rmmWa boys and girls, school, from Maesteg. addlg SS' Messrs B,ogden-s of youngsters. Dancing was kent „ ^lj to the number green before Mr, Brogden's hou-e a*? 8Piri* °* permitted; rain, however, came on weather day, compelling all to get under that the opening of the docks will »- over\ 18 coal trade up the Llynvi and nglVe an ™Petus the honour of carrying away the fir.t Smore J a leys. The new dock belongs to the Oemnro^° i00 taken to Hayle. Smore Steamship. It was

THE VENALLT STEAM COAL COMPANY. THTicIEcHAi^Slt?^Tc^p^;T- (.Before Vice-Chancellor Sir R. RE THE VENALLT STEAM COAT, Mr. ypeed (instructed by Mr. James v (.LIMITED.) tor) appeared in support of the petition ernPt^orao> 8oli«- pany. Tho company was formed in 18fU Wl?u Up the COm' £ 15,000, in 1,500 shares of £ 10 each i Cap'tal °f Arthur Owen Davies, was one of the oriir" ° pelltloner> Mr- also the engineer of the company Hp glnal Promotert>, and „ company. Me was the holder of 30 fully paid-up shares, he claimed £ r,7 balan™ It to him, and he petitioned to have the comDa account due the ground that it was unable to pay its debt^u^° £ 1ttf"up on to carry on business for a whole yJLr. ceased soMi{oraJm%^twi?f^tl^'pet™ ant,eker 8114 New, other shareholder. The company \^as 1 PPeared for every individuals, ten in number only. -TKJ" I,roprietary OF gentlemen of well-known wealth and hoci«fe>re Principally trusting to the truth ot the representations in the'rBt, who> the petitioner had found capital to develope the scheme He handed in to the Court numerous affidavits accom-naniM Y,v documents made exhibits, which he rv,n't0r,ri,^ 7? found to prove conclusively the untruth statements. With regard to the anLSf denied that there was due to the pet,itiom»r n„»«i -IT had been overpaid, and was in debt tn demand of payment had ever been madf „ e comP«-ny '■ n0 pany; the first that was heard of the allp<^aljSl t C01?" statement in the petition: while in debt was the oner had written to the managing direct™- « v petitir letter (exhibited with tiie affidavits} wh,I ^umpany a with thankfulness the receipt of a cheaue ^knowledged to be returned." If the case were further a- a *oan affidavits read it would be seen what wern ti^6 lnt? and t^e which had given rise to this petition. rea motivea The Vice-Chancellor: The petitioner nr™™ v- in a two-fold character: first, as ashareholrW j Petltlon as a creditor. It appears that he held no RTTJ 8econdly, perhaps, in respect to which he may hav« -^except two sums of money) which were not fully Paid „ P iwo sma11 the only shares he held are those allotted t v. °therwise» numeration for services prior to the inn™? 88 a re- company, all of which shares are paid °f,the general rule, a shareholder coming forward As a company, whose shares are paid up in full h«s ° 7md UP a in this court, unless he can show that thf>\ locus standi tag.up will be to confer sorae ^t of .the wind- ing amongst the shareholders some portion of^y the company. He has no interest in WJT,?; assets of expenditure, because upon a shareholder f''ng'uP roS<^ds mand can oe made. If this is not a coniDanv n° le" that is perfectly unimportant to this Detitin^ m.akl £ S profit, be called upon to contribute to losses Tf cannot going on losing money, but has pronertJ « c°mPany which may produce a surplus so th^ ? now unconverted bution amongst the shareholders thPn h° ?e a dlstri" interest in winding-up. But before T J?? Y AVE 811 cation of a shareholder in such a r>o«"r the appli- expect very strong evidence tc* xl011'. s"°u^ at least winding-up of the company would k ^at2the ^sult of tie over and above the debts nnd l; Produce a surplus Not only is there no such evidnn u1CS t^le company, even an allegation to that effect e' ^ut there is not far as regards his character no a?1' therefore, bound, as disregard the application. Th & if e^°^er> wholly to creditor of the company, and h^ comes forward as a debted to him in a sum of £ 57 fb^ 8a^\ t^e company is in- money paid. The company denv -and ^a^°ur done and general rule, when a debt is cont &lr ^nde^tedness. As a would be to allow the petition to tlie ProPer course the petitioner an opportunity of ove.r> order to give I was under the impression that th debt. At first in this case, and was inclined to ICMK l^e proper course in order that he might brine an P £ tition stand over But having heard the evidence T o v.to try tile fact of debt- conclusion that the company d und to come to the penny. And, moreover, 1 come t^ih*101 owe ^'lu a sinS^e impossible this gentleman when >, conclusion that it is could have believed the companv ePre.sented the petition I find he sends in his own Btatem W t ^ira a Penny> because termination of his service on tho ^counts after the and all he demanded was £ 183 m ^ecember, 1865; 10s. for travelling and other plus' a balance of £ 19. He leaves it to the company making the total £ 203. him. The company immediately* ^at they have paid by which it appears that they hm- S<;1^ a covinter account, and they owed him only £ igo ,.e Pai^ bini £ 200 by cheques, compassion, and to settle the « but 118 a matter of give him'credit for £ 16 13S 7^0U,nt> they are willing to Against that, no remonstrant r travelling expenses, sent in, no demand was ever maTat made> 110 account was think it is the height of imnra^ • 7 gentleman, and I forward as a creditor of a cotnn ty for an7 man to come them up without having and endeavour to wind account of his debt, giving «n a dei?anc*> or 8el?t in an he presents his petition. j^PP^umty to meet it before creditor for £ 57, he was bound ♦ Relieved himself to be a he presented his petition and send in an account before entitled to maintain such a r> Wlt doing that, he is not according to this Act of Pari n'- because no company, to meet its debts, unless it iR'anient' *s to deemed unable £ 50, and the creditor has mad0^debted to a particular person the petition, and three weeks vf & deman(* before presenting mand being satisfied. If «,• 0 elapsed without that de- should be bound to dismiss th .tleman was a creditor, I complied with the Act of p« r Petition, because he has not on that ground, but because T ?ment- Therefore, not only due to him, or that the netif no!" believe there is a penny thing was due, and because j°nor himself believed that any- the most vexatious that ev regard ,lle petition as one of never ought to have been rJ Was, Presented, and that it with costs. esented, it must be dismissed

BREAKFAST.—EPPS'S COCOT^T^T- of this preparation has ten 1 he very agreeable character vigorating and sustaining witb»g?nerf1 Iu" developed bv the special and g™*eful flavour Cocoa is used as their upreparau°n aPPlied- tbis thousands who never bei s?J beverage for breakfast by much higher than Coffee t rl MT' Cocoa stands very Homoeopathic Chemist first eftabbshed EppS' tht very generally called Epps's Hom*oPaSic Coi of tlit/proverbts proved bTnurch^0" Tbe correctnes9 article of domestic consumption tbaHTt rfco"lmendl^ a,1>' good in quality. The „ J I y "f Uoo (ty and cheapness of Horniman t lotinrt frrtm f !ts Presenf large sale and constant reeommen- k y t0 mi]y- It is abtainable in most towns, bu s there are spurious imitations, it is needful to see that Horniman and Co. a signature is on each packet.

ik ptait e*amined: ru'68 the club, after living Ifr SR many weeks we are put on half-pay. id tbBowen, in addressing the jury for the defence, iC$c Company had recently taken a house for aa 6 in 'ront of it was a circular coal-trap. The igfrca h stePPed 00 and sl>PPed through, injuring his tCPKit Do* t^10 ex^en^ rep/esented. The defendants "rJuPold d«ly not to squander the money of theshare- 10 d1Wstlv^ payin8 moro damages than the plaintiff was a" eni^^d to. They sent a medical gentleman to •s;wshim. in March, who reported to them that the • Was P0rfectly recovered and able to go to his I BD<* at that very time the plaintiff had given rd t^6 t0- c'u^ t'tlat he d'd DOt t0 any 'on8er '88 f 6 Bick list. The defendants, acting on the infor- to r' they obtained, and using the best judgment they ?e a 0rm with a desire to act liberally to the plaintiff ? ^°'dr aS consistently could in justice to the share- toJr8. fixed on £ 30 as the sum, and paid it into Court, A V »'ll^etl8ate the plaintiff for the expense he had been e. A <Hen°. the suffering he had undergone in conse- •rn1 ac°ident, which had taken place, as they "fj «eCol ?d> through their default in not having properly it the cellar grating. The Company calculated Td th9 0unt on the basia of the £ 1 6s. 8d. a week, which ft" ^ftd been earning until the accident. They iW W d that be ought to have gone to work at the *j Jj *ep0 *he« the surgeon whom they sent to examine him it "«t hitn as able t0 do 80- The reason that he had »* ^Q^h116 t0 work ever sinoe Probably wa8 that he '■eu J to come before the jury with the statement that Id' stil suffering from the accident. He stated n V ^05 *>ad been living on credit ever since his club V stopped. It wa9 not likely that his grocer or iif" totl/ C°u'd Qff°rd t0 support him ever since March; iqjjaPs his solicitor, Mr. Smith, had been his banker ft ttocD^i8 period, trusting to pay himself out of the & <0u,l 8.°f this action. The defendants had not been I t*p^Qicated with at the time of the accident; it was r d a^ter before they were informed of it, and ij gent their surgeon to examine him, who con- totltl him then fit t0 8° t0 work- This morninR l.hat it bad seen him again, and so had Dr. Paine, nd>* th6tlled ^im perfectly able to work. The fact was ll|(j J*0 plaintiff was making a iob of the accident he 'J with; and under the advice of others, taking I 0j4 the unfortunate circumstance of his re- J ^is injury to extort from the defendants' pockets (w am°unt of compensation than was fairly due tm lii Allowing witnesses were called for the defen- Mr j W 4bet" Jones: I am a surgean in charge of the et4 works. 1 examined the plaintiff's knee on I found nothing the matter, but a little en- of »C6nt' and considered be would be able to work as jftl Opj^j 8awyer in a week or two. I communicated that to the defendants. I examined the knee with tif ^y 0ain.e to-day. In my opinion it is in a healthy state. jf10'00 '8 that heis now able to work as a top sawyer. *Dt ^u88ell has said that his charges against the deiend- 5|jf ten guineas. I would rather not give.an opinion at charge, unless I knew the number of visits. I ioiQt° °harfc6 of very large works, and cases of knee s'j Cr!,0^eD come before me. rt j ^jur" 1s"ex«mined Mr. Russell b*s tlie same class of tiff ules ,to attend in his practice. I attended the plain- J direction of Mr. Morgan Williams, a saddler, who H 8tgi 0tnething to do with the gas company. When i tbe plaintiff, I thought he was not then in a thr6 lon to go to work. The injury being received lij to ij Months before, it need not have been a serieus one tneanvb Prevented his going to work for that interval. I fel) I by serious," an accident that affects a man for a i trOI:Xl ears. I should call an injury which detains a man 1> work for three months, severe, but net serious. J Qc hacelldent to a working man, keeping him from earn- Wages, is serious to him. I should call this ac- a 8prain. I should call a severe wrench a sprain. A b'.1I the discolouratim which the evidence shows to b|i a«en place in tl s case, L should cali it a bad acci- ifj am in a bett r position to judge of the case to- r ^w#t,lan I was in March. I cannot see what Dr. cor»,rd8 describes, considerable traces of the accident. lOP&red the two knees. One was half an inch larger "( tbe other; but the thigh was two inches larger. thft 8ttlal1 thigh has sustained an accident. I attribute A Vi8reater size of the one knee, thigh and calf, to its 'j beeo more used than the other. K kogg Judge The whole of the enlargement of the have existed before the accident, being ( '° dim'nution of size caused by the old acci- ff !(¡¡t to the other leg. If the plaintiff feels pain in the rf fo i' ^as not recovered, and he ought not to use > Jtot)1" *^ere i8 a tendency for the injury to recur. Tbe • treatment of a joint which suffers from inflamma- < Jl lfi '° S've Perfect rest. 1^examined I found not the slightest traces of exr O.S inflammation this morning. My opinion is that OJ Vtrger s'ze of this knee is not caused by the acci. aJ »' Pa'ne I a medical man practising in ^fn. This moroing I examined the plaintiff, with S v 0ll«s, and tested the place in every iray, and from ii ,rnination I conclude that he is able to work ji Cr0p Sawyer. L to #"examine<i: I do n°t know the particular motion «0$e. P sawyer, but I suppose it involves placing the <Jlree1.n various positions, and I moved the knee in all thif, >ons in order to test. It is of cours^ a different "N for the knee to be thns tested for a few moments ilj. {or it to be in work for a whole week. I should I §ine that the plaintiff had quite recovered from any l(*ent the knee had sustained some months ago. I Ijj. °nly reason from the condition the knee is now in, c»n quite understand that six months ago it may Slls^ained a very severe accident, but from which it di8eDow quite recovered. If there were any permanent in Vfftse °f the joint, I should expect to see traces of it 6d]aa^c^ing the motions of the knee this morning. The 'Ctio:ernent may be accounted for by the increased Q °f that leg, consequent upon the injury sustained inCr a8° by the other leg. I am not satisfied that the llljnt aSed size of the recently injured leg is due to that te The plaintiff told me he had pain. I examined 8'0h found the muscles firm, and came to the conclu. i at there was no great amount of pain. At first I hy tk 01 know whether I was employed to examine him hQ Plaintiff or the defendants. I thought the man ^af°L0t feel as much pain as be said he did. Assuming to tvh« really felt the pain, it would alter my opinion as condition of the knee. uQr<1aro Ph'"iP3; 1 am tha SecreLaruy ° i tu frl ^Paoy. I received a letter, February 18t Smith and Linton, plaintiff's attorneys. That 4*it> first intimati<>u the company had of the plaintiff p 8 sustained an accident. lIerv oss.examioed I afterwards learned the company s were informed of the accident the same nig Wn cb il occurred. I am a clerk of tbe defendant s at- j.,eJs as well as the secretary of the Gas Company. 04 1 r. Bowen having addressed the jury on the whole O ^r* Giffard replied, severely resenting seme allu- O8 Mr. Bowen had made to Mr. Russell's charge of the gUIeas, and also the allusion made to Mr. bmitb, -plaintiff's solicitor. iL „ M ti* Judge having summed up the case, the Jury. C0ll for about half an hour, and then returned into lut rt wUh a verdict for £ 50 beyond the amount paid 0 Court. YU CI-AXM FOE FORAGE OF COLLIERY HOBSES. United Merthyr Collieries Company v. Thomas Wajn'^rjeant Pulling and Mr. Bowen were f6nda^; Mr. Giffard, Q.C., appeared for the case was °f an uninteresting character, and pos ^efo J n° features worthy of a detailed report. ^orK ant was a contractor, who bought a num er o r.6y' and with them worked the plaintiffs No. P at Aberdare. There was an ogreenien borses should be fed out of the plaintiffs for ?,8' and this action was brought to recover payment l6ô e keep of the horses in question, from October, the 'i *.° February, 1866. The witnesses produced for the ? tiffs included the colliery manager, Mr. Holmes, It t?ePer the store, and the ostler abov9 ground; the h failed to produce the ostler who actually fed Prn p 1-868 underground, and hence there was a lack cf lhe° jas to <lUBntity of forage actually consumed by 81} horses. The plaintiffs undertook to bliow the total quantity of forage issued from the store cone of the witnesses admitted that the whole of this not be fairly charged to the defendant, as the tf.^ger had a mare, three colts, and some pigs, which a'so fed out of the same stores. da r plaintiffs' case had lasted nearly the whole Suu tha Judge, on the application of Mr. Giffard, non- 6^ d the plaintiffs deciding that there was no case to Or jury. The amount in dispute was only thirty On torty Pounds, tbe defendant having made payments b, accoUnt. The cause of the nonsuit was that the l>ffs were held not to have complied with the terms Vi6 8P0cial contract they had made with the defendant -rf6 rnatter* f 6 Court rose at the conclusion of this case, •j,. WEDNESDAY. Court opened at nine o'cleck. *FI, ACTION OF EJECTMENT. fkomas v< The Qilfach Coal Co.—Mr. Bowen and Kngbea were for the plaintiff, and Mr. ranc s for the defendants. ^ugbes read the pleadings, which stat ard Thomas was the plaintiff, and the Gil ac and Mr. Edward Gibson were the defendants. ,.] Sdant Gibson did not appear; tbe other defendants »?l6d to be in lawfal possession of the premises. Wo r* ^ow<in, in opening the case, said that Mr. Thomas 0&11 lhe owner of a farm in the parish of Llantrissan to lea Gellygraw. The Gilfach Coal Co. bad leased WS of Mr. Bruce Pryce, of Duffryn, which were situ- a °ear the plaintiff's farm. The company were de- r&i?Us connecting their mines with the Ely Valley •tart y» and as Mr. Thomas' land lay between the mines w the railway, they applied to him for a lease of so i„ cb of Lis lunii as was reauisite for the purpose of lay- a traniroad. Mr. Thomas granted them a lease IOI ». y^aiSj by the conditions of which the company were Pfty Mr. Thomas a toll of four-fifths of a penny per aA°n all minerals carried over his land from the pit, o aK equal toll on all articles brought to the pit by the »0DclPanv or any one else; and in case the toll did not S^'int to the sum of £ 25 a year, then that amount tK 'u'd be paid as a minimum rent. It was covenanted j;,at the rent should be due ha'f-yearly, on the 24th e and 24th December; and within twenty-eight days W.tLo"b dates, the company should furnish the plaintiff c» correct account of all the goods that had been ft^ried over the tramroad, so that he might estimate the of the toll due to him. This rent had been U,'i.'iu i!lv j aid for some ye xr but 1 itterly the company bad paid nothing, and had furnished no accounts for the half-year ending December last. The lease had thus become void, and the plaintiff sought, according to a provision made in the lease for such an eventuality, to recover possession of his land. Mr. F. Williams, for the defendants, did not dispute the facts stated on behalf of the plaintiff, but alleged that the company had become insolvent and was being wound up; and he urged that the plaintiff ought to be non.suited, under these circumstances. The Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, and the jury found for the plaintiff accordingly. DAMAGE TO LAND BY COAL MINING. Richards v. Jenkins and others.—The plaintiff was represented by Mr. Giffaid, Q.C., and Mr. Hughes; for the defendants, Mr. H. James, of the Oxford Circuit, was specially retained, and Mr. De Rutzen appeared with him. Mr. Hughes read the pleadings, which stated that Thomas Richards was the plaintiff, and Jenkin Jenkins, Josiah Rees, Francis Daniel, and John Jenkins were defendants; that the plaintiff was possessed of an iron foundry and certain land, which was entitled to support by pillars from the effect of the mining excavations carried on by the defendants underneath but that the defendants had so negligently and improperly carried on their mining operations, and wrongfully excavated under plaintiff's premises, as to cause great damage thereto, for which compensation was sought in this action. The defendants had pleaded that they were not guilty, that the plaintiff was not possessed of the premises, that the land was not entitled to such support, and that they were lawfully entitled to carry on their mining opera. tions as they had done. Mr. Giffard, in opening the case, said that although the pleadings were complicated, there were not many points in the case to which the attention of the jury would be called. The plaintiff was the owner or lessee of certain land at Morristown, near Swansea, on which he had erected dwelling houses, a forge, and other build. ings, which had been injured by the working of the defendant's mine under the surface. The houses had been shaken and the forge rendered inconvenient to work in by the subsidence of the soil. The defendants among other pleas said that they had not caused the mischief, and that praJtically, was the only question to be ed The plea that tbe plaintiff was not in possession o7the land was a mere formality inserted by the pleader; at any rate the plaintiff would prove himself to have been in lawful possession. In another plea the defen- J"O -1. L L L.1 .1 t" dants practically coniessea inau iuey u»u uuuo iuD i„rv complained of, but alleged that they had the right to work the mine as they bad done. There would be no dispute as to what the rights of a surface owner were. His right to have his land supported was a natural right, which was not takan away by the grant of the minerals to another person. When the landowner bad granted to one man the surface, he had no right to grant to any one else rights of mining that were inconsistent with the due enjoyment of his grant of the land. Each grant was to be exercised so as not to prevent the proper use of the other. The mine owner was only entitled to carry on his operations to such an extent as would not preju. dice the safety of the surface. The plaintiff did not com. plain of the working of the mine, but of the excess to which it had been carried. This question would depend partly on the general principle of Jaw and partly on the lease-4 executed to the parties by the original owner of the land. It was provided in the lease 4tothe plaintiff that from time to time the lessee of the mines should make compensation to plaintiff for any damage that might be done to the surface by the mining. It might be argued from this that the lease contemplated injury to the surface, and compensation for it, and that therefore the plaintiff ought not to bring an action against the defendants,except under that clause of the lease but he held that this clause did not limit the plaintiff's rights, it only meant that if in the course of the mining the surface was injured as such, compensation should be made for such injury, and that this did not at all affect the question of support to the soil. This question, if it arose, would be one of law simply. As to the question of fact to come before the jury, there could be no doubt that the buildings had been injured, from some cause. fie would offer evi- dence to show that it arose from the subsidence of the soil. Evidence might be given on the other side to show that it did not arise from that cause. It was a matter of opinion as to what cause the accident arose from and his (Mr. Giffard's) experience taught him that in matters of opinion any amount of evidence could be had on both sides. The apparent result, the injury to the buildings, could be naturally accounted for by the supports of the roof of the mine being withdrawn. It was admitted that the defendants had been working underneath. Putting these facts together, without any scientific testimony, common sense would indicate that the one rationally explained the other, and that the re- sult would not have happened if the cause had not been there. It might be argued by the defendants that as other workings had been carried on there before theirs, the injury to the building might have resulted from those old workings, and not from theirs, and therefore they were not responsible for the damage. If this were alleged, the dates would become important. The mines had not been worked a long time before the defendants took the mine. They had not pursued the usual and proper course of mining as it was carried on here and elsewhere, but one which had rendered it extremely diffi. cult for those who went to examine the mine on the part of the plaintiff to see what bad been done. The jury were aware that in working coal it was customary to leave pillars of coal standing, to support the roof. The vein of coal was only 64 feet from the surface. In working at so slight a depth, and under buildings, it was very careleps mining to leave the roof without sup- ports. The evidence would show that the injury to the buildings was coincident with the removal of the pillars of coal, As to the amount of damages to be paid, there would be no appeal to the jury, as the counsel on both sides bad agreed to refer the amount to arbitration, in case the jury should find that the defendants were liable. The Judge remarked that tbe right to mine must be carefully exercised, and in accordance with the mode prevalent in the country.. Mr. James said that the surface owner had a right to support for his land, but not for buildings placed upon it, unless they had been standing twenty years. The Judge was understood to concur in thinking that the surface owner was not entitled to support for the extra weight which he might place on the surface after the mines were being worked. The following evidence was called for the plaintiff Thomas Richards: I hold the premises respecting which the present action is brought, under lease from Mr. Penrice. I have been in possession of them since 1842. I have erected a smitbery, forge and other build- ings beginning 24 years ago and finishing them thirteen year's ago. The present defendants began working the PwlI Bach Colliery in 1861. It had previously been worked by the Swansea Coal Company, who gave up working about 25 years ago. About ten years before the defendants began working I first noticed something the ™tter with my buildings—a few bricks dropped from orM. That was all I noticed before the defendants be«n to work the colliery. Afterwards I found the walls t« be cracking, and a turnpike road near my pre- muiea sank and I noticed the surface of my own land to Te dropping down, under which tbe mines were being worked I went down about 15 years ago in company w.th Josiah Bees, one of the defendants, and who was with Jew the Swat]sea Coal Company, and saw th!t there were pillars of coal supporting the roof. After that I built a fitting-up shop. After I found my land givin- way I went down again, about six weeks ago. The mineB have not been worked since 1865. In March 1865 I saw Josiah Rees, who said he was very sorry they destroyed my property. That was at the time they I Snfto give up. I suggested that a surveyor should go down and examine it. He said the place was I V, f nn T wanted him to leave a windlass for the 811 Sb V tPo ,o down and he did not do so, but took it surveyo ^other had BOme houses, forty or fifty yards away. J nn tv,e other side of the road. They gave from my ^gfr'Qnt of the houses fell into the road. Tbe TYnHiints were applied to about it, and they rebuilt the defendants Pbuiidings have been getting worse, houses. My ori{ej the mines from 1861 to 1865. L colliery since eighteen je.r, before.. buildings are, a smith's shop, Cr,OSS eI.Toun?r; S ""°P- ™<> smithery, a toun y foundations of the chimney bad a high cbim y- fae smith'8 shop wa8 erected were sunk in theg James: It could not be first, 25 or 26 year ° only t00k possession in that, for you have told^s y J directly after I 1842. Witness: >™as° ja dated September, 1842. took possession, rbe vears* after the smith s I „„t built th. foundry, toe lbefktjllg shop—twenty one years ag chemical works shop fourteen years ago. I bu wQ^ near Swansea in 1855. I conn hefore until at the faundry after that—as much as ig62 1802, when it became dangerous to stop • I complained to Mr. Penrice, tbe owner ot I aiso complained to Josiah Rees in the latter part of 1862. I did not write to Rees, nor can I mention any one who was present on any of the numerous occasions when I complained to Mr. Rees in 1863 and 1864. lie crack in the arch which I noticed before the mines re- commenced working was owing to my cutting a large drain. I swear that Thomas Griffiths, a workman in my employ, had not before 1861 complained to me that the walls of the fitting shop were not safe. I told him to take care how he worked. I alluded to the arch from which the bricks fell. Griffiths never pointed out to me that the upper part of the walls bulged out. I knew before I built my works that the Swansea Coal Company worked the mines there. There ere two veins there— the two foot vein and the four foot vein. It was the Utter, tbe upper vein, to which I went down with Mr. Hee, I noticed no timber props when I went down with Mr Rees. Tbe coal had been worked underneath with Mr iiee clvansflfl Coal Company—both of !K S1Th/level of the two foot vein 1 take to be under m, building.. ^found J"? S: 1°, rZw'Z difendfn.. for .he por.ion of the ,Ws. rent iroiu & furnace at my works, which6felT down three years ago. It had an abutment, imbedded-in the wall. 1 am sure that Mr. Rees told me in 1865 he was sorty they had injured my bulbing. There were two colliers standing by, who might have heaid him. I have never inquired after them, to firid them out and have them as witnesses. Re-examined I carried on the foundry and kept it in full work, from the time it was built until 18G3. The stock also has been in full use. I have done business there sufficient to amount to a profit of £300 or £ 400 a year. I found no difficulty or danger in working until 1862. Thomas Griffiths left my service some time be. fore 1863, and has been for some years in the defend- ant's service. (On further questions being put it ap- peared that this meant that Griffiths was in business for himself and did jobs at his foundry for the defendants, among others.) William Fisher, a collier, deposed that he bad worked for the defendants in the two-foot vein for twenty-three months, and had seen the four-foot vein. The pillars of coal were excavated in the four-foot vein, to a suffi- cient extent to allow the trams to pass. When witness last saw the four-foot vein, three years ago, there were pillars of coal left there. In the two-foot vein where witness worked, the pillars were cut up and sent out and the place ef them filled up. Mr. John Reynolds, of Neath I am a mineral sur- veyor, and was employed by the plaintiff to inspect the mine is question for the purposes of this trial. From the surface to the top of the four-foot vein is 64 feet, and to the bottom of the two-foot vein 70. The four- foot vein has the pillars extracted. It was on June 22 of the present year when I saw the mine. The roof had fallen, to a certain extent. That is certainly not the proper or usual manner of working a vein so near the surface, in that district. The fall of the roof extended north and seuth 100 yards. That would be under the plaintiff's building. I should expect such a fall to pro- duce an injurious result upon the buildings. I saw the buildings, and am of opinion that the injury to them has been caused by the fall of the roof. Cross-examined: If the miners have no surface to de- posit on it would be a usual and proper mode of work- ing to deposit the rubbish in the upper vein. I think where the depth of the mine was so little, it would have been just as cheap to lift it to the surface as to the upper vein. It would save the rent of the surface by deposit- ing the rubbish in the disused vein. I could clearly distinguish between the rubbish placed in the one vein from the other, and that which had fallen from the roof. The nearest point to which I went, underneath, to the situation of the plaintiff's buildings was 18 or 20 yards. The plaintiff's buildings come to within 20 yards of the pit. There are workings in the four-feet vein within twenty yards directly under the plaintiff's build- ings. I judged them to be recent workings because the circumstances were such that the roof could not but have fallen before now, if they were old workings. The recent workings have taken place within five years. The top would not have held longer without falling. It is a good top while they are working, but it falls after a while. I surveyed this colliery in 1860 for the landlord, before the defendants worked there. I then found the top standing in the old levels of the Swansea Coal Company for three-quarters of a mile. The stalls were driven 60 yards wide and 100 yards long, and the roof was still standing. It was a good roof. I should not like to say I have known any better roof in any other colliery. Mr. Rees, a builder, was called to prove the damaged state of the buildings. Having pointed out the cracks in the walls, &c., he was cross-examined, and stated that though be thought, from observation, that the chimney stack was slightly out of the perpendicular, he had not plumbed it, nor had he dug to ascertain if any of the foundations had sunk. David Francis, a collier, was called to prove that the pillars of coal had been excavated under the plaintiff's premises, but he stated that during four months he worked there he had only seen one pillar out into. David Owen, owner of houses in the vicinity of the plaintiff's premises, deposed that he had oemplained to the defendants Rees and Jenkins respecting damage done to bis houses by their mine working, and he stated that he understood they were talking of purchasing Richards's premises—on account of the injury they had done to it. Rees replied that they bad not injured wit- ness's premises, but he could not say that they had not injured Richards's buildings. Mr. James then addressed the jury for the defendants. He complained of the manner in which Mr. Giffard had conducted the case, Substituting, suspicions and. conjec- tures for facts. He asked the jury to do justice to the defendants, and not to take Mr. Giffard's insinuations as proof and evidence. The allegation of the plaintiff sub- stantially was that the defandants knowingly worked their coal underneath the plaintiff's premises so as to deprive them of support; and that they had then bidden the deed by filling up the workings with rubbish—to prevent the plaintiff from seeing what they had done. The proof offered had been qsite inadequate to sustain such a theory. The plaintiff stated that be had built various buildings from and after the year 1842, on land which he admitted he knew to have been honeycombed by pre- vious workings of the mine. He (Mr. James) would show that there had been not only two, but three work. ings of this mine. There were older workings (by whom he did not know), than those of the. Swansea Coal Co., which preceded the recent workingsoftha defendants. The plaintiff had gone to land under which there bad already been two workings, and had there erected buildingsof con- siderable weight, in which machinery was plaoed which caused much vibration and it would not be surprising if after this weight, vibration and the wear and tear, a subsidence of the foundation and crackings in the wall had taken place, without any additional cause. This was not like building on solid earth. Tho plnintiff DO well knew that the land on which he built was liable to subside, that he made personal" investigation by going down into the mine; but he trusted to his own judg- ment, without taking the advice of an engineer, and concluded that it was safe to build. He found on going down, pillars of coal in the four feet vein, but he did not state that he had found any in the two feet vein. He at- tributed the injury to his buildings to the removal of the pillars of coal from the four feet vein but there bad been no proof that any such pillars had been removed. That was a mere theoretical opinion and surmise, based on the alleged fact that the four feet vein was filled up, by falls from the roof, or by rubbish cast there from the two feet vein; from this the plaintiff's case assumed that if this rubbish bad not been there, it would have been seen that the pillars bad been removed. But in seeking to make persons liable for damage done to the property of another, it was not enough to surmise that becanse the witnesses were unable to ascertain how a certain fact stood, therefore it was to be concluded that if they could ascertain, the fact would be found to be in support of the allegation that the defendants bad caused the damage. But beyond this surmise the plaintiff pro- duced no evidence whatever, except the mere fact that the plaintiff's buildings were injured, and on which they tried to throw the onus on the defendants of proving that they bad not caused the injury. There were traces of damage to these buildings before the defendants com- menced their workings. The plaintiff himself admitted that there bad been a crack in the wall, previously. He attempted to account for this by saying that he had dug a drain which caused it; but no evidence of a skilled witness was given to show that the drain could have caused the crack. If the injury to the plaintiff's buildings had been caused by the defendants' workings, there would also have been a subsidence of the soil, which was no proved to have occurred. He should show that from theipit mouth down to plaintiff's buildlugs, there was nowhere a crack in the land. If the buildings bad been injured the land they had been built on would have been affected to. If the injury proceeded from the mining the greatest effect would be shown on the heaviest building, the chimney stack, which Mr. Rees, the builder, could not say was injured, he (Mr. James) would prove that it was neither cracked nor out of the perpendicular. The stack was the part of the building nearest the mine. If the workings had affected the soil, the foundations of the stack would have been the first affected. Besides this, it would be show nth at such of the plaintiff's buildings as were injured were erected on made land, on earth which had probably come from the shaft in the previous workings. The injury to the walls of the buildings was in the upper part, where the walls were thinnest; whereas if it arose from the mining the injury would be shown in the lower story and at the foundations. He would prove that before the defendants' mining commenced, the plaintiff's attention was called to the bulging out of his walls and this evidence of injury had gone on increasing, not in consequence of the working of the mine, but from the vibration of machinery in the buildings. Mr. Giffard in the course of the examination, finding that the colliers who bad been called bad not given the evidence which he wished, had intimated a charge against the defendants of tampering with the witnesses. This he (Mr. James) utterly denied. He had had some experience in mining cases, but be never knew one attempted to be proved in the way this had been. It rested entirely on the evidence of Mr. Reynolds, much of which was mere surmise. He saw something pre- venting his view in the faur feet vein—either falls from the roof, or rubbish tipped there, and be jumped to the conclusion that the pillars of coal bad been removed. Mr. James here exhibited plans of the colliery workings, and at great length explained them to the jury. He stated that evidence would be produced showing the course of the old Swansea workings, and he would be able to identify the locality of that part of the mine which was under the plaintiff's premises with great distinctness by the circumstance that whenever the miners came to a certain part of the mine they could hear the sound of the hammer striking the anvil in the plaintiff's smithy above them. From this identification of the locality of the plaintiff's premises he could be able to show that there had been no coal mined whatever in the four feet vein under the plaintiff's buildings, since the Swansea company's workings which bad ceased in 1848 and as to the two feet vein the defendant's had not mined there at all. These facts which would be proved in the evidence, would negative Mr. Reynolds'surmises. Evidence would be given that none of the pilliars bad been removed. The evidence for the plaintiff had only spoken to one pilliar being cut through and thiit was in an opposite direction to the plaintiff's buildings. In concluding, the earnest counsel reminded the jury that it was lor the plaintiff to prove his case affimative!y, not to suggest a mere suspicion and leave the defendant's to rebut it. He then called his -witnesses. L. Mr. Evaii Daniel, cousin of one of the detenaani-, said he was nn engineer, mineral agent to Lord Cawdor. He said he had great experience in mines. Had known the Pwllbach colliery for many years. When the Swan- sea Coal Company worked it, witness made a survey of the mines; and it was then reported, and had been be. yond living memory, that the same mines were woiked by a copper company a hundred years before. The Swansea Company gave up the works in 1848. Witness was agent fur the lesser then, and had been ever since. The two-feet vein witness did not closely examine, it not being supposed to be of great value. Witness had recently made a survey of the mine—on July 9-for the purpose of this trial. The nearest point of the defen- dants' workings to the plaintiff's premises was 28 yards 2 feet, in the four-feet vein and in the two-feet vein, r { 85 yards 1 foot. The depth fiom the surface to the four-feet vein was 62 feet 5 inches-3 feet 6 inches more than it was stated to be by Mr. Reynolds in his evi- dence for the plaintiff. There was 20 feet 9 inches from the top of the four-feet vein down to the top of the two- feet vein below it. It was probably bad ground, from the fact that the pit was walled in going down. Wit- ness could distinguish the old workings from the new- in the former the roof being supported by timber props so old and decayed that they crumbled at the touch. In the two-feet vein all the workings were old. In the four. feet vein, going towards the plaintiff's premises, there wera both old and new workings there were fails from the roof, and rubbish taken from the two-feet vein and thrown in the vacant space in the four-feet, until it was now impossible for anyone to go directly under the plaintiff's premises, or to say from observation whether the mine there had fallen in or not. The witness was subjected to a lengthy cross.txamina- tion by Mr. Giffard. He stated that the lessees of the coal mine were Messrs. William Martin and William Llewellyn. They sub-let their lease to the defendants. Witness was to receive, as agent for the lessors, a royalty, and a deaj rent or minimum payment was fixed. The royalty was only payable for a single quarter, as in no other quarter did it amount to a much as the dead rent. The defendants lost money by the speculation, and gave up working the mine in 1865, four years after they tock it. Witness authorised them to take pillars, and all the coal they could find-everv ounce the Swan- sea Company's former workings had left in the pit. There were piliars only in certain parts of the mine. If pillars bad been worked out from under the plaintiff's premises, it might have injured his buildings but from witness's knowledge of the state the pit was in when the Swansea Company gave up working it, in 1848, be was certain that the defendants did not work out any pillars from under plaintiff's buildings. Mr. Edward Daniel, father of one of the defendant", deposed that he was formerly a working collier. Went to work for the Swansea Coal Company in May, 1840, and worked for them as long as they labted, until 1848. During that period the part of the mine under plaintiff's premises had all the coal worked out except pillars left for support; but all access to those pillars was cut off by the rubbish from the two-foot vein being placed there, for a doubls purpose-partly before it was more convenient to tip it there than on the surface, and partly because it furnished an additional support to the roof. That part of the mine had not been worked since, but remained as the Swansea Company had left it. John Samuels, another working collier, gave similar evidence. The Court then rose. [For continuation see Eighth Page.]