The Cardiff Times

WAGES OF IRON AND STEEL! WORKERS. Issue of a Manifesto. At the meeting of the Executive Council of tho Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers and Mechanics of South Wales and > Monmouthshire, held at the Castle Hotel, Tre- decar, reports were received from the various lodges in reference to the result of the conference with the employers' representatives on the I Sliding-scale Committee at Cardiff on July 23. It was seen from these reports that, while the great majority of the members were favourable to the maintenance of the Slidmg-scale principle, 301 considerable percentage of the mechanics were j disposed to have nothing to do with the arrange- ment.—It was resolved by thirteen votes to four that the following manifesto be issued and sub- mitted to the master", and that they be requested I to grant another audit :— To the Employers of Blaenavon, Ebbw Vale, Tredegar, Dowlais, and Cyfarthfa Works in connection with I the Sliding-scale. Gentlemen,—The question of improving the agree- ment that now exists between tha employers and employed has created a widespread and heartfelt desire that some method should be as soon as possible adopted to ameliorate the present condition of tilings, and by :.I,n almost unanimous vote taken at the works, the discontinuance of the present and the construe- tion of an improved scale appears to be the universal wish of the men. We are now in complete sympathy and harmony with the adoption of a Sliding-scale, having had evidence of tho benefits that mU8t neees- warily accrue from the continuation of the good { feeling that has existed between tho different repre- sentatives of masters and men, and are quite agreeable that every clause, with the exception of Nos. 6, 7, and 8, should contmne as heretofore. At a < joint committee ot representatives selected by the different sections of men employed at the works, it was decided, after having obtained reliable information a" to the quantity of rail" of a lighter section than that which is mentioned in the I present SlidiJlg-sCt1.le agreement being worked at the different wQrk", that some reform is absolutely necea- sary, and, acting in unison together, the mechanics 1 and steelworkers 3re of opinion that tl1e net average selling price of rails should be reduced from 401b. to 201b per yard. In reference to men paid by the day, without restriction as to trade or labour, it is keenly felt that the present standard rate of wages should be very I materially advanced, and, taking into consideration I the circumstances which we are at present labouring under, we are perfectly justified in applying for an immediate 2dvancLJ of at least 20 per cent., subject to the condition that. in tbe event of the steel workers obtaining their demands, the day men shall not participate in any of the advances that may occur until theprices reach a minimum which will be considered as 20 per cent above the present standard rate. Clause 6 reads: "The wages shall be regulated by a Sliding-scale based upon the average net selling pnce of steel rails 401b. per yard and upwards and steel tin bars, as ascertained and from time to time certified by the accountants." Clause 7 runs: "That I the basis on which wages are to be regulated shall be the combined average net selling uTice on trucks at the above named works of steel rails weigh- ing 401b and upwards and steel tin bars invoiced during the three months of the audit." Clause 8 is That the standard minimum rate of wages be those paid at the Monmouthshire and "South Wales works in March, 1889; that no reduction of wageJ be made when the combined average net selling price of steel rails 401'o. per yard and upwards, and steel tin bars are £ 4 5s per ton net in tracks at the above-mentioned makers' works, or below, and that the maximum rate of wages be paid when the combined average priee of steel raih, 401b. | D'?r yard and upwards, and steel tin bar3 are £ 6 10s per ton net in trucks at the above-mentioned makers' works, and above, and that wages be advanced or reùGced at the (J,bove-rnentioned works when the com- bined average prices of rails and bars are from £458 to £5108 per ton, at the rate of 1 per cant, for every ) shilling advance or redudion in the combined net self- iug pr ce in trucks at the above-mentioned works, and when the combined average prices are from £5 10s to £ 6 103 per ton at the rate of y2 per cent. for e very shilling advance or reduction, and that an customs in vogue at the above-mentioned works in March, 1839, remain in force.

NISI PRIUS COURT. (Before Mr Justice MATHEW.) CLAIM WITH RESPECT TO A PUMP. CENTRAL GRAVING DOCK Co. V. J. AND H. GWTNNE.—In this action, which was resumed at half-past ten on Monday, the plaintiffs, the Cen- tral Graving Dry Dock Co., Swansea, sought to recover £54.6 damages from the defendants, hydraulic and mechanical engineers at Hammer- smith, in respect to a pump, which the plaintiffs alleged did not perform its work in clearing the leakage of water in the dry dock in accordance with the representations of the defendants.—Mr J. Eldon Banke-s and Mr Villiers Meager (in- structed by Messrs Lowles and Company) ap- peared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Abel Thomas, Q.C., M.P. and Mr Benson (instructed by Messrs Ingledew, Ince and Company) for the defendants. —Mr Abel Thomas, in opening the case for the defence, submitted that the plaintiffs had not made out that the defendants had undertaken that the 12 inch pump supplied should do any- thing which it had been proved it had not done. He contended t at the plaintiffs had not given a fair trial to the pump, which they had taken up at an expense of J3400. The pump with the pipes supplied by de- fendants, and the strum box, were still on the dock premises. The centrifugal pump had originally cost £280, and yet the plaintiff brought an action for abont £600, which included J6320 for cost of putting it up. The plaintiffs would have saved considerable expense if they had spent £30 in getting in a small pump from the plaintiffs, which would have.done all they wanted. —The defendant John Gwynne, sole partner in the firm, and a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Naval Archi- tects, and the Academie Nationelle of France, said that ho had been making centrifugal pumps of his own invention since 1854. He contended that the pump supplied was perfectly suitable for the required purposes, and warmly said that the plaintiffs ought to have given him the order to put up the machine and work it himself, and if it did not do the work that would be the proper time to complain. Instead of that plaintiffs had been tinkering with the pump, and were now trying to spoil his reputation. Witness said that he had a conversation with Mr Hey wood, chairman of the Dock Company, in London, and suggested as a mode of settlement that he would supply a small donkey pump at a cost of £30. he (witness) to pay half and thejplaintiffs theother. Mr Heywood asked witness to put that statement in writing, which he said he did.—His Lordship said that was quito unnecessary, as it would not affect anybody's judgment. Did the defendant say that this small pump would have set matters right?—The plaintiff replied In the affirmative, and added that after seeing the dock several times lately he was satisfied that the pump would liavo done everything that was necessary, and that it was not even necessary to make the pump work continuously at the rate of 30 gallons a minute.—Cross- examined by Mr Bankes, witness contended thay the pump would have kept the dock perfectly dry if it had been worked according to his in- structions.—Edward Sergeant, mechanical en- giueer at Luton, and formerly chief draughtsman in the employ of tho defendants, and Harry Hunter, formerly an engineer with the defendants, gave evidence relative to visiting the plaintiffs' dry dock, the latter declaring that the pump worked satisfactorily whilst he tried it, and thoroughly emptied the dock of leakage water. —Mr W. R. Kinniple, Westminster-chambers, and a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers (formerly consulting engineer to the Llanellv Harbour Commission) gave expert evidence, and said that the strum box (which was not put up at the advice of the defendants) was an improper one, and it was necessary that the foot-valve should be continuously in the water and below the bottom of the culvert. If it were so placed and worked intermittently, even if not suitable for the purpose, it would keep the dock dry. When a pump was not found suitable tho remedy practised by all engineers was to supply a small drainage pump, which would result in a very great saving of steam. The price of such pump would be £60 or £70, including carriage and various necessary pumps.—His Lordship then said that the only- question for the jury to decide was whether the undertakincr'of thedefendants was to supply a pump which would effectively deal with the leakage. —Mr Bankes suggested that the jury should tie asked whether they thought the plaintiffs in- formed the defendants the exact purpose required of the pump.—His Lordship replied that that was involved in his question, adding that if de- fendant was informed. tM- what purpose ww pump I was required, and undertook that it should I answer that purpose, and it did not, then the contract had been broken.—It was then agreed that the above question should bo put to the jury, after which Mr Abel Thomas addressed them. Mr Bankes followed, and his Lordship having summed up at some length, the jury con- sidered their verdict, which was immediately given in favoun of the plaintiffs, the amount of damages being referred by his Lordship to the learned counsel. Mr Bankes subsequentlyinformed his Lordship that he had come to terms with the learned counsel for the defence, and he asked for judg- ment for £35110s 7d and certificate for special jury, the pump to be returned to the defendants, Mr Thomas confirming.—His Lordship gave judgment accordingly. CLAIM FOR TIMBER SUPPLIED. WILLIAMS AND CO. v. BEVAN.—The plaintiffs in this action, who are timber merchants at Neath, sought to recover the sum of £726 15s Id from Mr Bevan, a colliery and brewery proprietor at Neath, for timber supplied to his father, to whose estate he succeeded, for the erection of cottages in connection' with the Seven Sisters Colliery.—It will be remembered that the action was tried on Wednesday, when the defendant, who pleaded the Statute of Limitations, was uny represented. His Lordship gave judgment for the full amount to the plaintiffs, but subsequently, at the request of Mr B. F. Williams, Q.C. (who was then instructed for the defence), the case was re-instated. Mr Benson andMrS. T. Evans, M.P., (instructed by Messrs W. Robinson Smith and Son) appeared for the plaintiff, the defendants' solicitors being Messrs L. J. and F. H. Kemp- thorne, Neath.—Mr Benson informed his Lord- ship yesterday afternoon that the parties had come to terms. AN EJECTMENT CASE. LEWIS V. SAMUEL.—This was an ejSStment case, and claim for transfer, in which Mr Abel Thomas, Q.C., 1.LP. (instructed by Messrs Bell, Roderick, and Gray), appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Bowen Rowlands, Q.C., M P. (instructed by Mr J. H. Jones) for the defendant. Mr Thomas, addressing his Lordship, at the close of Monday's sitting, stated that the case had been settled, all imputations to be withdrawn, and the defendant agreeing to pay plaintiffs' costs up to £ 50.—Mr Bowen Rowlands agreed, and judgment was given accordingly. ACTION ON A BILL OF EXCHANGE. THE NATIONAL BANK OF WALES V. SCHLES- IKGEI: AND CO. AND OTHERS.—This was an action tipon a bill of exchange.—Mr W. Bowen Row- lands, Q.C., M.P., and Mr David Lewis (in- structed by Messrs Downing and Handcock) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Villiers Meager for the defendant Moffatt.—Evidence having been given,' his Lordship gave judgment for the full amount-£300.

TUESDAY. CROWN COURT. (Before Mr Justice LAWRANCE.) SENTENCES. Oil his Lordship taking his seat, Charles Webb, a joiner's apprentice, and Frederick Hale, labourer, were charged the previpus day, the latter with indecent assault on Lily Lee, and tha former with aiding and abetting, were brought up. The jury had found Webb guilty, while tho charge against Hale broke down. Webb was sentenced to six months' hard labour. Henry Beard (36), labourer, who pleaded guilty to committing a rape on Elizabeth Llewelyn at Peterston-super-Ely on the 12th of J uly, was sentenced to 12 months' hard labour. William Price (19), collier, for a like offence on Keziah Gregory, in July last, at Llanwonno, was sentenced to 12 months' hard labour. Edward Aousic (22), sailor, who pleaded guilty to a criminal assault on Charlotte Emmott, at Cardiff, was bound over to be of good behaviour in the future, the girl herself, from the evidence adduced in the indictment against Martha Griffiths, whose house she had resorted to, appear- ing to be very much to blame. NOT GUILTY. Edmund Thomas (67), a retired mason, was indicted for feloniously and criminally assaulting Amilia Rowland, a widow, at. Trevina, near Whitchurch.—Mr P. Evans prosecuted, and Mr W. Denman Benson defended.—It was alleged that prosecutrix went to prisoner's house to inquire for her daughter, and prisoner threw her down and committed the offence complained of. The only corroborative evidence was that of a niece, who said she heard a scream. Prisoner was found not guilty and acquitted. ANOTHER CASE OF NOT GUILTY. John Evans (32), a one-legged haulier, was charged with feloniously and criminally assault- ing one Bridget John, a widow, at Loughor. Mt. Lambert Bond prosecuted, and Mr S. T. Evans, MP., defended.—It was alleged by prosecutrix that prisoner met her on Loughor Common and forcibly assaulted her. In cross-examination, she I admitted tiias she had had two illegitimate children since her widowhood, and one before her marriage. In defence it was urged that proseou- trix was a consenting party, and prisoner deposed to this on oath. Prisoner was found not guilty, and he was accordingly discharged. A SYMPATHETIC JURY." Daniel Jones (on bail) was indicted for unlaw- fully and indecently assaulting Lily Bowden at Aberdare. Mr David Lewis and Mr Foa were for the prosecution; and Mr Denman Benson defended.—Prosecutrix said she lived with her grandmother at Aberdare, and was return- ing from a visit to her parents at Merthyr on the evening of Sunday, the 26th of June. There were six other passengers in the carriage, including the prisoner. A young woman sat on her right and the prisoner on her left. As they entered the Abernant Tunnel she felt a hand clasp her boot. She knocked it away, and the next moment the prisoner moved closer to her, and she found an attempt being made to in- decently assault her. It was dark, there being no light in tho carriage, and she asked, Has anyone a match ? Someone has insulted me." A match was struck, and prisoner then pretended to be asleep. She said, Young man, I shall report you at the next station." On reaching Abernant she reported prisoner, and he was arrested.—Miss Jones, a waitress, gave evidence as to the excla- mation of prosecutrix and the consequent striking of the match, and a cab-driver named Richard Evans said he struck the match in response to the request of Miss Bowden. Prisoner, he said, was in drink.—-In defence it was urged that the prisoner let fall a match, and in picking it tip he accidentally caught hold of prosecutrix's boot, and prosecutrix became excited and accused him of the assault.—The jury, after a short deliberation, found prisoner not guiity, the Foreman adding that if there had been a light in the carriage they would have found him guilty.—The Judgre (sar- castically) I need not point out to an intelligent jury that if there had been a light there nothing of the kind would have happened. (To the pri- soner) You may go. You have met with a very sympathetic jury, who have an excellent reason for letting you off.—A fresh jury was empanelled to hear the next case. CHAKGE OF ROBBERY AT ABERAVON. Evan Mills (29), tinker, and Thomas Connor (19), labourer, were indicted for feloniously robbing John Thomas, and stealing a watch and chain worth £3 anl the sum of 14s, at Aberavon, on the 4th ult.—Mr Allen Upward prosecuted and Mr Foa defended.—Prosecutor alleged that he went to Aberavon on the day in question, and on re- turning he was accosted by a man, who addressed .him in Welsh. The man then deliberately put his hand in prosecutor's pocket and stole the watch and money. On the following day the watch was pawned by the prisoner Mills with Mr J. J. James, pawnbroker. When charged, Mills accused Connor of giving him the watch to pawn, together with half-a-sovereign for the purpose of redeeming a pair of trousers Connor had pawned the previous day. Connor denied this.— Both prisoners were found guilty. Miles, who had been previously convicted, was sentenced to nine months' hard labour, and Connor to six months' hard labour. ANOTHER LUCKY PRISONER. David Davies (18), collier, was indicted for feloniously breaking and entering the shop of Daniel Jones, at Dowlais, and stealing two pairs of boots also with the like offence at the shop of John Samuel Davies, whence he was alleged to have stolen a suit of clothes and two hats. Thomas Henry Lewis was an accomplice, and he having pleaded guilty previously had been sent to gaol as already reported. Mr T. Williams prosecuted. The only evidence offered was that the premises had been broken into by somebody, and'prisoner said he received the articles from Lewis.—Prisoner was found not guilty on the ground of insufficient evidence, and the judge, in discharging him, said, if the jury knew as much about the prisoner as he did they would have arrived at a verv different conclusion. Only in December last prisoner was convicted of a like offence in com- pany with Lewis. BREAKING AND ENTERING AT YSTBADYFODWG. David Hughes (41), a carpenter, and Thomas Davies (55), collier, was indicted for feloniously breaking into the dwelling-house of John Jenkins and stealing various articles of underclothing at Ystradyfodwg m May last. There was a further indictment of stealing a pair of boots, a loaf of bread, and a. pocket handkerchief, the property of Henery Thomas, who lived with Jenkins. Mr Thomas Williams prosecuted. David Hughes had previously pleaded guilty, and was ordered to stand down. The prisoners were found after the alleged theft concealed in a hayrick, and Davies was wearing the missing boots and Hughes the hat, while several of the other missing articles were found close by.—In defence, Davies said he knew nothing about the burglary, and that Hughea gave him the boots.—Prisoner was found guilty, and the judge, taking into con- sideration the fact that he had been 11 weeks in gaol awaiting his trial, sentenced him to only two weeks' imprisonment;. Hughes was sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment. CHARGE OF ASSAULT AT MAESTEG. Patrick Austin, on bail, a respectable-looking, strongly-built fellow, WM indicted for wounding Gregory Hamilton at Maesteg on the 15th of May. Mr Tudor Howell prosecuted, and Mr T. G. Morgan defended.—Prosecutor said he went to the Talbot Arms, Maesteg, and while he was there prisoner came in. Prosecutor, at the request of prisoner, sang a song, and while he was doing so prisoner wanted to tight him, and knocked him down and stamped on his face. He gave no cause for the assault.—In cross-examina- tion he said ho was not in the habit of being assaulted Wtien he sang.—The Judge: Ho would not sing very often if he did. (Laughter.)— Prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to three months hard labour. AN ABSENT PRISONER. Win. Williams, charged with attempting to ob* tain 2s by false pretences from the Penrhiwceiber Ooal Company, was the next prisoner called, but he did not surrender to his bail, and Mr Plews, who appeared tor the prosecution, said he under- stood Williams had absconded.—Mr Lewis, who was instructed to defend No, not exactly that, but he can't be found,—The Judge Well it is the same thing. If h^1 does not appear he will have to stop in f >1, jf. caught..till the next I //a, assizes.-—*Mr Lewis He has been here all through the assises.—The Judge Where is he now ?— Mr Lewis: I can't say. The man who bailed is in the adjoining court.—The Judge Well, we can't try him, you know. ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AT MERTHYR. Nicholas Cahill (20) and David Morgan (19), labourer, were charged with assaulting Gwyn Prosser and David Davies, and stealing a sum of money, at Merthyr.—Mr Plews prosecuted. Prisoners were found guilty. and Avers sentenced Cahill to 15 months and Morgan to 12 months, the Judge saying that if the wounds were more more serious he would have added flogging to the sentence. BOBBERY WITH VIOLENCE. James Green (23), seaman, and Bridget Toley (29), hawker, were found guilty of robbery with violence from Harry Kristy, seaman, and sen- tenced to six months each.

NISI PRIUS COURT. (Before Mr Justice MATHEW.) A DISPUTE ABOUT BLACK PLATES. DAVIES AND 00. V. GLANAMMAN TIN-PLATE Co., LIMITED.—This was an action for breach of con- tract by the defendants with respect to the non- supply of black plates to the plaintiffs.—Mr Abel Thomas, Q.C., M.P., and Mr Villiers Meager (instructed by Mr J. R. Richards. Swansea), appeared for theplaintiffs, and MrW. Bowen Row- lands, Q.C., M.P., and Mr W. D. Benson (in- structed by Messrs Aeron Thomas and Co.), for the defendants.—The statement of claim showed that a contract was entered into on the 17th September, 1890, by which defendants were to supply to the plaintiffs 250 tons of black plates at the price of £9 2:3 6d per ton. The defendants failed and neglected to deliver the 250 tons according to agreement, and on the 16th of October they repudiated the claim, and refused to perform it. The market price of black plate at the time when the defendants repudiated the claim was j311, and the plaintiffs claimed the difference betwetn the contract price, £9 2. 6d, and the market price,£ll per ton, being £1178 5d on 250 tons. The defendants denied that any contract was effected as alleged, and that on the 17th September Mr Legg, with whom the alleged contract was made, was not authorised to enter into any contract on their behalf. Mr Abel Thomas said that the contract was made between the plaintiff (Mr Davies) and Mr Legg on the 17th September on the way to Pantyffynon. Black plate was made in two ways, out of Bessemer and Siemens' steel, the ordinary price of the cheapest plate at that time being £9 2s 9d per ton. Correspondence took place between the plaintiff and the defendants, and the former had a con- versation with Mr Roberts, the secretary of the Glanamman Works, and the plaintiff work! say that he understood that the defendants practically agreed to send the black plate. b a couple of weeks the price per box b'-d considerably stiffened, from the time thel contract was made until the contract was repudiated. Mr Legg had ¡ for a considerable time been a salesman to the company, but a dispute occurred between him and the company in September, 1890, and hin connection with them was severed. This was i no way intimated to the public at large, and he (the learned counsel) imagined that he was right in believing that no private arrangement made between Mr Legg and his employers just pre- vious to the entering of the oontract would in any way affect the position of an independent buyer, who did not know of such arrangement. Mr D. M. Davies, plaintiff, a metal broker at Newport, Pem., corroborated counsel's state- ment as to the contract with Mr Legg, as manager of the Glanamman Works, and, In reply to his Lordship, said that he was not then aware of any restriction to his (Mr Legg's) authority. Mr Rowlands said that Mr Legg was virtually dismissed from the defendants' employ at the time, and contended that he had no right to enter into an agreement on their behalf. Plaintiff, proceeding, said that the contract was for 250 tons rough 20 x 14 Bessemer black plate. He subsequently had an interview at the Castle Hotel, Swansea, with Mr Roberts, the defend- ant's secretary, who said that Mr Legg had no authority to make the contract, but he spid he would very likely have the plates, saying that the price was fair. Plaintiff told him he had sold the plates, and would expect delivery. On the 20th October plaintiff bought black plates from the Villiers Company at jBll per ton, which was the market price as far as be could ascertain. Cross-examined by Mr Rowlands, plaintiff said he had on many previous occasions made con- tracts with Mr Legg. The difference between the price of finished and rough ^biacl: plate was about £1 per ton. Mr Rowlands referred to one of the rules in the articles of association of thedefendants' company, which stated that no person, except the directors, or any person directly authorised, could enter into a contract for the company, and Mr Legg was not authorised to do so at that time. Mr Morris Saun iers Roberts, called for the defence, said he was secretary to the company when the contract was made with Mr Legg, and, referring to the interview with the plaintiff at Swansea, witness said he told him he had received the contract note, and told him that the company could not fulfil it, inasmuch as they had sold all the plates they would make during the next three or four months. He told him that Mr Legg had no authority to enter into the contract, when plaintiff replied that he was not supposed to know. Plaintiff said he could buy plates else- where, and witness told him be had better do so. A lengthy argument here ensued between his lordship and Mr Rowlands, the former pointing out that it seemed to him that Mr Rowlands statement that Mr Legg had no authority to buy had disappeared, as plaintiff said he did not know of the arrangement between him and the defendants, and it was held up that be was manager at the time he made the contract. He, therefore, gave judgment for the plaintiffs for £343 15s, and costs. A SWANSEA COMMISSION CASE. MILLWARD V. JONKS.—In this action the plain- tiff, Thomas Millward, civil engineer and com- mission agent at Swansea, sought to recover £ 500 from tho defendant, Thomas Jones, formerly proprietor of the High-streeff Brewery, Swansea, proprietor of the High-streeff Brewery, Swansea, being commission agreed upon for the sale of the brewery.—Mr Abel Thomas, Q.C., M.P. (in- structed by Mr J. F. Sevens), appeared for the plaintiff, .tna Mr W. Bowen Rowlands, Q.C., M.P., and Mr Plews (instructed by Mr R. T. Leyson), for the defendant. In opening the case, Mr Abel Thomas said the plaintiff claimed the commission for effecting a sale of the brewery and the right of supplying bear, etc., to certain public-houses, to Messrs Hancock and Co., Cardiff, whose Swansea manager was Mr Joseph Hall. On the 23rd of April, 1890, defendant had a conversation with ¡ the defendant, who was desirous of selling the brewery, and eventually they entered into an agreement, dated the same day, which stated that in the event of defendant soiling his business through the introduction of plaintiff, he would pay the latter five per cent. commission, but that if no sale was effected no payment whatsoever would be made. Negotiations were carried on by the plaintiff, and eventually an arrangement was effected whcieby the defendant was to receive £10,225 from Messrs Hancock and Co., and plaintiff claimed his commission. It was suggested by the defendant that just before tho contract was entered into plaintiff agreed to take j3200 instead of £500. Mr Millward would, indeed, be unlike ordinary commission agents if he were to enter foolishly into that agreement, but ho denied that such an arrangement was agreed upon. Mr Thomas Milhvard, the plaintiff, said that as the result of the negotiations with Messrs Hancock for the sale of the brewery, the agree- ment produced was arrived at between defendant and himself to pay 5 per cent. commission on tha amount he received for this property.—Under- cross-examination, plaintiff said that at the request of the defendant he endeavoured to get j6500 of the commission from Messrs Hancock, but they declined. Mr Leyson, defendant's solicitor, asked him if he would take JB150 from the defen- dant, but he refused, but said that ho would take J3200 from him if he could get £300 from Messrs Hancock. Evidence was also given by Mr Joseph Hall, who was manager for Messrs Hancock and Co., at Swansea, at the time of the sale and also by J. Clarke, who said that while he was in defendant's office, with whom he was a clerk, he heard a conversation between the defendant and the plaintiff, who declared that he would once again try to get the commission from Messrs Hancock. Mr Thomas Jones, the defendant, admitted entering into an agreement with the plaintiff, but he gave the plaintiff to understand that if ho didn't get £12,500, the price originally suggested, he shouldn't have anythingror his services. The negotiations upon that price dropped, but in September, 1891, plaintiff again negotiated with Messrs Hancock, when he told him that if he had his price, about j310,000, he would give him £200 as commission. Mr Layson, defendant's solicitor, said that the plaintiff and defendant agreed to the £200. His Lordship referred to the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, and gave judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, £493 15s. A CARDIFF HOTEL CASE. JoHNANDOTHKRSV. JEHAN.— In this action the plaintiffs, the proprietors of the Abergarw Brewery, sought to recover £280 from the defen- dant, Charles Jehan, being moneys had and received by him between July 31, 1890, and October 14, 1891, for the plaintiffs whilst acting as manager of the Grand Hotel, Westgate-street, Cardiff.—The plaintiffs stated that there were deficiencies in defendant's account to this amount, which they claimed under an agreement entered into between them on the 31st July, 1890.—De- fendant admitted the agreement, but denied that he received any moneys for the use of plaintiffs, that there was any deficiency in the cash returns for the goods sold, and that he was in any way liable to tho plaintiffs for the sums claimed. The defence also stated that on the 14th of October the defendant was wrongfully dismissed, and he claimed £250 as damages, and also claimed the return of £10. which defendant stated was paid on the 9th of October in satisfac- tion of all claims against him by the plaintiff. Mr Abel Thomas, Q.O., M.P., and Mr Harley Downs (instructed by Messrs Jones, Mackintosh, and Dixon) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr B. F. Williams, Q.C. (instructed by Mr Harry Cousins), for the defendant.—Mr Abel Thomas said that the defendant was an undischarged bankrupt. Morgan John, one of the plaintiffs, said that the spirits were diluted in the hotel during the defendant's management, and upon questioning him the defendant admitted it. Witness told him that by so doing he had placed the licence in jeopardy, and that convicoion might follow. Defendant also told him that the rum was also diluted, and being asked the reason why he said it was an error. Witness told him that he should havo sold the spirits as it went to the hotel, and further, that he was totally untrustworthy, and that he must be dismissed. The defendant had pledged the plaintiffs' credit to the extent of about £70 or £ 8Q»with #evan (tgd jCow.oftny and Others. His Lordship: Have you paid them? Witness Yes, my lord. Under cross-examination witness said that the defendant had purchased bedding, &c., from Bevan and Company on the occasion of the visit of the British Association to Cardiff, but he didn't give him authority to do so. The furni- ture bought was at the hotel now. Witness had told the defendant that whenever he wanted anything for the hotel he should let him know, and he would decide as to what.should be bought. The goods for which the defendant pledged the plaintiffs' credit in some cases, but not all, were hotel necessities. Walter Meacock, clerk in the firm of Jenkins and Jones, accounta.nts, Cardiff, gave evidence as to the deficiency in the accounts, and as to testing the spirits and finding them diluted. Charles Jehan, the defendant, said that when hp, became manager of the hotel he found it exceedingly dirty, and there was only one hand engaged to do the work. Ten or eleven of the rooms were furnished and twelve unfurnished, With reference to the allegation that he had pledged the credit of the plaintiffs, defendant said that he was told by them that he should have the hotel properly furnished, and that all neces- sary repairs should be attended to. No furniture came for three for four months, and throughout the house he constantly contended with much difficulty owing to the rooms being un- furnished but the business gradually improved, as the books would show. Whenever there was a banquet or dinner at the hotel it was necessary for him to hire knives, forks, crockery, &c. What the plaintiff John had said with regard to the dilution was greatly exaggerated. He was placed in such a position about the supply of spirits, which came in small quantities from Bristol, that Some of his hands had sold Scotch foi Irish whiskey to customers, and even mixed both. (Laughter.) Mr B. F. Williams I hope they didn't find it out. (Renewed laughter.) Witness said that he couldn't say, and pro- ceeded to state that from the first ten months of his management he made 61 per cent. gross profits on the goods from the brewery, which he thought was a fair profit for anybody. He had been hotel manager at Ostend, Bruges, Weston, and elsewhere. About the dilution of the rum, witness said it was entirely a mistake. He believed that the rum in question was proof," but it was not when he diluted it. The next morning, however, it was put right. His salary was £1 a week and 15 per cent. on the gross takings. Defendant was severely cross-examined by Mr Abel Thomas upon the question of accounts and the dilution of the spirits, in the course of which ho said that he used to leave a bottle of brandy, whiskey, and rum out at night, a.nd hearing some skirmishing early one morning he went down- stairs and found that four of the servants had been drinking, and he was compelled to discharge them. No one except hotel managers knew the trouble and the difficulty they had to put up with their servants. The servants on this night had drunk half a bottle of brandy, and had afterwards diluted the remainder. He denied that he had diluted the spirits. His Lordship You say you are not re- sponsi ble for the dilution ? Defendant: N">, my lord, I am not responsible. I was exceedingly careful, and it must have been done bv the servants. Defendant then explained to his Lordship that six years ago he was served with an injunction for infringement of copyright, in oonsequence of which he made himself a bank- rupt. He had not since applied for his dis- charge. Mr Williams referred to the difficulty which his client had to contend with in managing the hotel, and submitted that nothing was done which would entitle the plaintiffs to dismiss him without the usual notice. His Lordship, however, gave judgment for the plaintiffs for £33 17s 7d (the amount mentioned by Mr Abel Thomas) and also gave judgment for the plaintiffs on the counter claim, Mr Thomas observing that his clients had offered to abandon everything above £50, so as to settle the matter long since at the county-court. CLAIM FOR MACHINERY SUPPLIED. JHNKINS, TRADING AS JENKINS AND SONS, V. EVANS AND OTHERS.—Ia this case Mr David Lewis (instructed by Mr M. A. Jenkins) ap- peared for the plaintiff, and Mr Abel Thomas, Q.C., M.P. (instructed by Mr G. J. L. Morgan) for the defendant, Lewis, Evans and the others being unrepresented. — The plaintiffs were merchants and metal brokers at Port Talbot, and sought to recover the price of boiler and engine supplied to the defendants for a colliery near Llandebie, and also five per cent. interest on the amount due.—It appeared from the evidence adduced that the plaintiffs had pre- viously brought a similar action against the de- fendant Evans, and that judgment had been given for the plaintiffs Evans, but they failed to recover anything. Evans sold the colliery to the defendant Thomas«Lewis, a police-constable in the Rhondda, for £400, who it appears undertook to pay their debts up to £100, and promised also to pay the plaintiffs for the boiler and engine as soon as he had sold the colliery. He negotiated for the sale of the colliery, and a London company offered to purchase it for £1,300. They visited the colliery and the boundary, and were pleased with it but Lewis saying that the boiler and engine would have to be sold with the colliery they withdrew their offer. The colliery had not since been sold.—Evidence' was given by Sidney Arthur Jenkins, manager of the plaintiff's firm, and P.C. Thomas Lewis, one of the defendants, and eventually His Lordship gave judgment for the defendant, Lewis, each party to pay costs.—Mr Lewis asked if it was not possible to get something out of the defendants, and asked his lordship to order that the engine, which was worth J635, should be handed over to the plaintiff.—His lordship re- plied that he could not do so under the ciicum stances. AN ABERAYRON PROMISSORY CASE. GRIFFITHS V. LLOYD.—There were two actions on the cause list in the above name?, with respect to promissory notes and auctioneers' commission, but they were consolidated. There was also a counter claim for BIOS 17s.—Mr Abel Thomas, Q.C., M.P. (instructed by Mr A. J. Hughes) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Griffith Jones (instructed by Messrs Hervey, Smith and Com- pany) for the defendants. In opening the case, Mr Abel Thomas said that the plaintiff was Mr Griffith Griffiths, farmer, auctioneer, and merchant, carrying on basiness at Aberayron, Cardiganshire, and the defendant. Richard Simpson Lloyd, was a lime and coal merchant, a solicitor's clerk, and also attended in the county-court office for a firm of solicitors. Plaintiff and defendant had been very great friends for many years. In 1885, an action was brought by the defendant m the Probate Court, London, which was an exceedingly expensive one, but it finally turned out successful for him, by means of which he obtained a considerable amount of property. Ho had, however, to borrow money to carry out this litigation, and he had a promissory note for £200 from Captain Thomas Jones, New Quay, Mr Griffiths, tho plaintiff, signing it with the defendant. Mr Griffiths was informed some time afterwards that the bill had not been paid; he spoke to the defendant, and an action was threatened, but eventually a new promissory note for £200, dated October 5th, 1391, was given, Mr Lloyd signing first, and Mr Griffiths second. The interest on the £200 had been paid up to Decem- ber, 1891, by Mr Lloyd, who had, however, started some strange theory that he had given the £200 to Mr Griffiths, who denied that this was the case, tho second action being brought for a great number of items. The defendant, in addi- tion to acting as solicitor's clerk, also acted as trustee in some small bankruptcies, and plain- tiff, as auctioneer, sold for him in sortie of those cases, and some of tho amounts claimed were for commission, but most of them were for goods bought by the defendant at those sales for plaintiff. Griffith Griffiths, the plaintiff, corroborated the counsel's opening statement, and was cross- examined at length by Mr Jones with reference to the accounts between him and the defendant. A bill was handed over to the plaintiff, which purported to be signed by him. The plaintiff looked keenly at it, and said that he had never seen the bill before, which led his Lord- ship to declare that the case was assuming a very serious character. Another similar bill was again handed to the plantiff for examination, and, having done so. he stated that the signature was that of his own name, but he had never written it. It was also, he explained, signed in 1891, but the stamp was for 1833. Richard Simpson Lloyd, the defendant, said that be was county-court clerk at Aberayron and also coal and lime merchant, after which he was examined at length relative to the accounts exist- ing between himself and plaintiff. He proceeded to explain the circumstances with reference to the cheque for £200. At that time he received £1,500, and the plaintiff asked him for the £200 for which ho was surety. Wit- ness said that he agreed on the understanding that he was henceforth to act as surety on the amount, and not 1\3 principal. He then gave piiiintiff a cheque for the amount, and plaintiff went to the bank. Finding it was closed plaintiff returned, and asked him if ho would pay him the amount in cash. Plaintiff said he fortunately had the gold in the house, and thereupon gave it to the plaintiff, who then endorsed the cheque and returned it. His Lordship eventually gave judgment for the defendant (Lloyd) on the claim, and also on the counterclaim. This concluded the civil business.

8HEBEENING AT CARDIFF. Before Dr Paine and Major Sloper, at the Car* diff police-court on Tuesday, a married woman named Angelina Tinsley, of 26, Tredegar-street, pleaded guilty to selling beer without a licence on the 31st July, and was fined £1 and costs, or ordered to prison for a month with hard labour. A loquacious female named Maria Gibbiin ws3 charged with an illicit sals of beer at 32, BuxzarCL- street, on Sunday, the 31st ult. Some thirteen women and six girls were seen to enter the house, and on the police gaining admission they found two beer barrels—one empty and the other on tap—on the table, while liquor wttS flowing all over the table and Dicks said the conduct of the house was ehsg-race- ful, and the illicit traffic had been carried on for some time.—The case was adjourned till to-mol" row, in order that defendant might bring evidence for the defence. Mary John, alias Kennedy, of 30, Stanley. street, was summoned for a. similar offeuce, but did act; appear, and a warrant was issued for her arrest. The police had watched the house on Saturday midnight and saw nine men and seven women enter and leave. An infirm old man named John Barrett, of 21. Mary Ann-street, was charged with sliebeening on the 31st July. According to the evidence ot the police the unlawful business had been con- ducted for some time past. He was fined £5, ot ordered to a month's imprisonment. Elizabeth Rumley, of 25, Ferry-road, appeared in answer to a summons charging her with seIling beer without a licence on the 31st ult. P.O. Evans had watched the house on previous occasions, and on the morning in question he saw a number of people filter and leave carrying jugs. On going in himself he found a 411z-gallon cask of beer in the kitchen cupboard, and a empty ono in the yard. She called a. lodger, who swore that he bought tho cask of beer whioh was found in the cupboard.—" The Bench imposed a fine of £10 and costs, observing that terrible perjury had been com- mitted by the defendant's witnesses. George Lawson, a. tipper, was charged with selling beer at No. 7, Cumnouk-place, on Sunday. the 51st ult. Sergeant Aplm proved the case, and defendant, who expressed sorrow for tbe offence, was fined £5 and costs. Louisa Martin, of 38, Helen-street, summoned for shebeening on Sunday afternoon, the Mst July. Some four men, two girls, and 16 women were seen to leave the place during mid-day, and on the police entering they satf the defendant in the act of throwing a 4%-ga.110n cask of beer over the wall. On the table in the kitchen were found a number of cups and jt'?4 with liquor in them, while there was beer m the teapot.—Fined £3 and costs. Margaret Desmond pleaded guilty to two sum' mouses charging her with selling beer without licences at Nos. 18 and 20, Mary Ann-street,, an" was fined £5 and costs in each case. On previous occasions she had been fined for similar offences.

CURIOUS WELSH LAW CASE. The suit of Keen v. Edwards, referred from the High Court of Justice for trial at the City of London Court, came again before Mr Commis- sioner Kerr, on Tuesday, by adjournment. The previous proceedings have been reported in this paper. Mr Cnpps was cDunsel for the plaintiff and Mr Olara for the defence.—The action was brought by Mr W. B. Keen, trustee of a,^ bank- rapt printer's estate, against Mr Evan Vincen| Evans for £ 24 19s, as secretary and a member oi the Honourable Society ot Cymmrodorion, and for £6 2s 4d as secretary of the National Eistedd- fod Association, of which Sir J. Puleston w&9 treasurer, and a large number of Welsh gentlemen membors of the executive committee. The defendant admitted that the work was done, and the case was adjourned for the purpose of add in.? the whole of the members of the two Associations as defendants, and this had now been done.—Th0 defendant said at the former hearing that the defendant companies had a counter-claim fot £ 200.—Mr Cripps now said that the defendantS had agreed to a verdict against them, on term* which it was not necessary to make public, an^ there was to be a judge's order against: them 11 necessary.

SETTING FIRE TO A HAY RIOK, At the Lower Troedyrawr petty-sessions, h|^ at Cardigan on Tuesday, Mr C. M. Griffith*} Q.C., in the chair, a labourer named EdmuO Edwards, Dyffryn Farm, Llangoedinore, brought up in custody, under a remand, with the above offence committed on the 3rd The evidence of Mrs Thomas, wife of Mr Grin*6 Thomas, Carpenters' Arm", Llechryd, the owned of tho hay, went to show that prisoner had h» two pints of beer in tho house on the night 1 question, and on being refused more lie mao use of an expression that she would regret haviDg refused him beer. She was called out of be about 11 p.m., and informed that the rick was o tire.—A groom at Fernhill, named Wm. r well, proved seeing prisoner and his going in the direction of the rick.—P.C. J°a said that prisoner on tho way to the lock-nP admitted the offence.—Prisoner was committe" to the assizes,

AN ELOPEMENT FROM TIPTON. The simultaneous disappearance during f tb: latter part of last week of the wife 0 .ed publican, of Tipton, and a young unmarfloC man, residing a short distance away, was _J. from the first regarded as a coincidence, and formation received on Mouday, it is stated, Sj that their departure was the result of ir^uLcy arrangement. For some time past the intiU*1^ between tho pair has attracted considers attention among the neighbours, and » familiarity, it is stated, has been the cause several violent quarrels as the house of the erl"' 5 wife. It has been ascertained that the y°u t0 man and his inamorata booked from Dudley Manchester on Wednesday last, taking with th one of the injured husband's children. At pi'ese^ the whereabouts of the elopers is not known. warrant has been issued.

A FIND OF COAL Late on Sunday night a valuable field of six to seven feet thick, wa? discovered at t jj. Ashton Moss Colliery, Ashton-under-Lyne. r'" is believed to extend to the colliery bounds $1i and if this proves to be correct it will c°vey,e a least a thousand acres. Tests show it to splendid house coal. It is the most remarh^ coal find since tha discovery of the Roger some time ago.

SUICIDE IN DmiHAM GAOL. George Owen3 (42), a native of Bristol, was undergoing a short imprisonment (or committed suicide in Durham Gaol on Knotting together several strands of oakuni attaching his handkerchief to one end of provised rope he succeeded in hanging 'llI\ed from the tipper liinge of his cell door. He the hinge by standing on a stool, which he kicked away.

A BARONETCY FOR SIR ARTHUR SULLIVAN. to It is reported that amongst the honours conferred before the present Government from office is a baronetcy for Sir Arthur vjotu' In bis person music will thus receive an such as has been conferred already on art fre' than once in late years, and on medicius 1683. aueaUv. Sir Atthur was created Kniaht in

..C% South Wales Coal Trade. FEDERATION v. SLIDING-SCALE. The Result of the Ballot, At a. meeting of miners' delegates at the Grand Hotel, Cardiff, on Friday afternoon, Mr -Lewis Miles, the secretary, presented the results yL the ballots on the question of whether the men should join the Federation or keep to the Sliding- Dcale. The declarations on which the voting was taken were as follows: No. 1.—"I am m favour of abandoning the Sliding-scal<* principle, and joining the Miners' Federation of Great Britain." No. 2.—"I am in favour of a powerful organisa- tion which shall embrace the colliery workmen of South Wales and Monmouthshire also in favour of the Siiding-scale principle (if amended) as a regulator of wages." The result in the following tabulated statement are those officially supplied us :— ior For CoUierv. No. 1 No.2 Lawis Merthyv 132 453 Great Western 760 2M Siaca 599.. 191 aHyncorrwg 12 40 ^Sirehgiwe 4 192 Monacbty, Yny3ybwl 25.. 20 Bodringailt 193 233 Henllys 5 59 Mwynypia 427 891 ■Sirwain Steam 13 200 Hrpentwys 54 24 National (Waststown) 338.. 314 Ynysfeio 56.. 190 Gilfash 1.. 11 Penmaen — 39 Gelligaer — 10 Oakwood (Cwmavon) — -• 26 Lleity Shenkin 77 344 Peatwynmareii «. 3 21 Cvfmcynon, Mountain Ash 101 173 Prince of Wales, Abercarn 4S0 376 Blaenganr (Ocean) 57 277 Deep Navigation, Trefaarria 247 553 Tydraw, Liacsamlet — 50 Dioas Isha 4 ^S6 Fiorch-naan 134 332 No. 9 Pit and Windsor Level 66 291 Glan Hy wi District 33 160 No. 1, Vercxlale 209 420 No. 2, Femdale 130.. 366 No. 3, Fenidale 123.. 402 No. 4, Ferndah; «. 52.. 377 Moria, Port T.Ubot 30.. 183 Blaenavon Collieries 419., 361. Penrhiwceiber 198 558 Owmaman 133, 465 (iamgoch, Gowerton 7 117 Duffrjn Rhondda, Maesteg 23 (7 Pentreporth 1.. 43 Albion (Ostfyiiydd) 370.. 9S5 Gwaelodywaen — 15 Cwmbran 124.. 255 Werfa 53 407 Pwii Bach. Ystalyfera — 36 Dare (Ocean) 236.. 384 Darran Fawr (Garw) 13.. 46 Nant Wen (Dowlais) 11.. 122 Upper Cymtner S3 29 Dm&s 65 437 George Colliery 45.. 249 Hendreladis 10.. 122 Abergorky 164 356 Vochriw (So. 1) 34.. 412 West Shondda 5 34 Tvnewydd, Ogmore i29 21 Elba (Swansea) — 40 Gor"ltimon 226.. 167 Cort Herbert. 115 108 Gilfach Level 15 Maerdy 197 700 Oysamer 290 418 Glyn Tonyrefaii 72.. 48 Garw Liaavwit 7 22 "Windham (Qginore) 440 166 Ariel Aberbeep; 25.. 19 Tonne 1 (Abernant) 41.. 226 Forest ITach 9.. 60 Old Tredegar 672 868 T>eeo Duffryn 210 347 Cyfarthfa 144 797 Primrose 25 18 Petiygraig(house) 13.. 60 Clydach-Merthyr <T3ydach) 33.. 90 Nantymeiin 109 243 Gelli (house).. 40 100 Henwaen (Blafj<*) 274 61 Coedcae 66 78 Bryngwyn(Ke/arrfoel) 23,. 119 Glyngwernen — 6 Ysgyuborwwn 23 1?5 Gellt (steam%_ 139 301 Aberam,iii 130.. 200 Avon Hill. Abergwynti 23 80 No. 1 Pit. >5e«Uinoi» Dowlais 29 222 Focbnw, So.. 2 Dowlais 54 338 South Tujtuel Pi-(Dowlais) 6 412 Mynydd>Tmvydd 4 125 Pentre ^Swiuisea) 3 148 Penrhyw (Pontypridd) 95 202 • Crynaat — 70 Blaenycw ji 47 213 Manly, North SVinjttield 5 70 Cae CoU?.t-ry, Llanclly 17 lCO Rhymr/y Collieries log 392 Pwll Vlawr, Llansamlet — 240 BtrlTfj, Dare, Cwmdare 59 490 I Low.* VarteR 103 134 Copper Pit, Morriston 4 138 Brjngwyn, Bedwas 45.. 74 Cc-albrook Valu 56 302 South Griffin, Blaina 357 211 Peggy's Pit, Cinder, and Havod Collieries 43 127 Cinder Pit, Biaina 116 131 I/Ower Deep Pit, Klaina 164 283 Bedlinog, i\o. 2 Pit 32.. 391 Cefn Bntbdir 13.. 127 Avon Level to 92 Seven Sisters, 3.. 150 Onllwyn, Neath lo 100 Cgfa Gyfelaeh — 72 North Griffin, B tain a 245 130 Standard, Ynysliir 138 327 Merthyr ValoCol?ieries 163 1,0>,7 Meiros, Llanharr;tn f>5 34 Tvlorrtown 142 439 North Dunraven, Elacsirhondda 63 214 Varteg, iSwruisea Valley — 60 TannelPife 4L.. 236 Long W .rk Pit, D;)wla.is 10 188 Pontypridd 185.. 194 Darron Ddu, Ynysybwl 35 11 i^ernhill 94 221 .Plymouth Collieries 333 S78 Navigation, Mountain J: Mi 245 623 Rivai- Level 20 117 Darran 25 117 Naval Collieries, Penygvuig 210 775 Glyn^wyn Level 21 26 Tvnybedw 64 170 Lianercb 197 25 Maritime, Pontypridd 384.. 21 I ZJaabillcth ?.. 11 Rhosllantwit, CaerphiTjy 170 51 Six Bells 113.. 36 Tiliery Pit 619 11 Budry Merthyr Collier; I, Caerphilly 34 70 Holly Bo»h 28 71 Park Pit (Oceau) 223 331 Abergorki Level. Aber oant.).. 42 Lanelay (Pontyclown) 31.. 10 I' Engine Pit & Yard Le vel(Sirbowy) 5 114 No 9 Pit, Sirhowy 31 167 No. 7 Pit, Sirhowv 5 124 No. 7 Pit, Sirhowv 5 124 No. 6 Pit, Ebbw Vale 11 59 I 19 113 Clav Level, Ebbw Vt'ko 1 16 Graig Fawr, Ebbw V s le 9>l 138 Coke Oven, Ebb'. V: *le. 4 94 Waenllwyd, Ebbw 'ale 120 564 No. 1 Pit, Victoria, F.biw Vale 3 186 No. 5 Pit, Victoria, Ebbw Vale 55 91 Na 22 Pic, Ebbw V ile. 34 33 Treaman 82 97 Varteg Hill 338 160 Cwmtillorai Collier ies 152 — Cwmanty Groes 150 Cwm 175 Aberbeeg 113.. 34 Greentneadow 99 2 Garth, Maesteg 63 143 Coegnant 131.. 343 5<o. 9 Colliery, Ma jsSeg 50 147 Maesteg Deep Pit 40 54 International, Fir «ngarw 149 369 Totals. 18,314 35,119 In the CwTQcyr inn (Mountain Ash) Colliery 26 men remained neutrs 1. ¡ It will there fore be seen that the total number of miners part icipating in the poll was 55,121 the number of votes given in favour of the No. 1 declaration, v iz., to join the Union Federation of Great Britain was 18,214, while the number in favour of the amended iSliding-scaJe was 35,119 the majority in favour of the last being 16.805. The South Wales miners have thus, by a majority o! \m;)re than two toone, resolved against joining the National Federation of Miners, which would meafa .100 abandonment of the Sliding-seala for the r« ,-gu lating of wjigcs. With very few exception: j, tfae whole of the workmen affected I have voted. Out of 167 collieries, nearly 40,000 votes wet.,e i-worded in favour of the maintenance of the ".3liding-scale and 19,000 against, all tbf% voters pledging themselves to abide loyally by the result of the ballet. In five C011ieri.3S cnJy did the men determine not to be bound 1>: f the majority, and in these the voting shows Woout 500 to 250 against. It is the v opinion of the prominent membas of the Joint Sliding* scale Cammittee that the result of the auditor s' report—2% per cent., or 6d in the £ re- ductioB;—will be received with some surprise by by the miners, who were expecting a much larger decroaoe in wage. It would also exercise an efféct on the ballot, but in favour of the Sliding-scalo. Thf) following collieries are those which are not willttis: to abide by the decision of the majority — f'oriNo.l. POT No. 2. Traneh, Pontypool. 35 0 Primrose Colliery, Pontardawe 15 165 Diamond Llanwit, Bed was 123 16 Blaensychan 250 0 V&p Hill 1 „ 52 Totals 424 233

STEELWORKERS AND THEIR SLIDING-SCALE. Saturday a meeting of the Executive Council of the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steelworkers and Mechanics of South Wales and Monmouthshire was held at Tredegar. The business opened with the receiving of re- ports from the various bodies with reference to the result of the conference with the masters' representatives on the Siiding-scale Committee at Cardiff in July last. The reports indicated that while a majority of the men favoured a continu- ance of the sliding-scale, a large section were opposed to it. In the course of the discussion a f delegate from Blaenavon explained that a mani- festo from Blaenavon was presented to the em- ployers, who, being under the impression that the men's representatives were prepared to fight tho matter out with them, looked upen the document as non-receivable because of its having come from outside parties, and it did not bear the repreaen- tfctive's signatures. The SECRETARY said it was mentioned that the I Coupe"! and the representatives bad a hand in drawing up the manifesto, and he thought the employers were very much to Warns f.,r not dis- cussing it and making whatever counter-proposals they might have considered expedient. A3 it was, cussing it and making whatever counter-proposals they might have considered expedient. AS it was, thsy simply said they would have no slidlng-sc&le as all unless the whole body of the workmen were embraced In its operation. Tuere was now a dark cloud hovering over South Wales and Monmouth- shire, and if that cloud burst on the 1st of Sep- .ember, the responsibility would l:e upon the employers. An Ebbw Vale representative said the feeling of his lodge was that unless they got a better agreement than they now had they should fede- rate, because they were determined not to be tyrannised over any longer. It was resolved to request the masters to con- sent to another audit and to again receive the manifesto. A mass meeting will be held at Nantybwch on the 20th mst.

SHIPWRIGHTS' DISPUTE AT NEWPORT. The Newport shipwrights are disputing as to chargeman with their employers. The charge- man is the first man on a job, and as being in charge of that work he claims 6d per day extra. The employers say that they alone are responsible for any damage done to vessels whilst under repair, and assert that the appointment of chargeman should rest with themselves. The point reached the acute stage at Messrs Thompson and Hawkes' yard, Mill-parade, last week, and in consequence of notice from the Newport Shipwrights' Society the men came out on Satur- day. The employers offered to pay the money conditionally on the men returning to work and the subject being referred to the Conciliation Board. No answer wa3 given to this, and the Employers' Association held a meeting on Satur- day at which failing a reference to any arbitrating body. a general lock-out should take place. As the men did not return to work on Monday, it is expected that the lock-out will ensue. There are about 90 shipwrights on the books of the Society, but at present they are not fully employed.

EMIGRATION RETURNS. The emigration on British account daring the I month of July, as shown by the emigration re- turns just issued, amounted to 16,743, and pre- ss tits a decrease to the extent of 1,4-13 when compared with the return for July, 1891. This decline is shared by all the nationalities of the United Kingdom proportionately, the English de- I partures having fallen from 12,602 in July, 1891, to 11,709 last month, and the Scotch and Irish from 1,815 and 3,739 to 1,549 and 3,445 respec- tively. With regard to destinations, the chief decline has been^ in the number bound for the United States, wtiich, at 12,036, shows a reduc- tion of 917, while in the record for Australia and all other places, given at 1,058 and 528, the decreases are respectively 136 and 320. The departures for 1 Canada and South Africa, returned at 2,323 and 792, remain I practically stationary. The emigration on foreign account, returned at 11,270, shows an increase of 402, due entirely to a large influx of foreigners to Canada. The result for the month is a total of 28,178 departures, as compared with 29,167 in July, 1S91, being a decrease of 992. For the seven months expired July 31 the British emigration amounted to 123,176, which, compared with 126,199 for the corresponding period of last I year, presents a decrease of 3,023. To this de- crease the three divisions of the United Kingdom have contributed, the English at 71,839 showing a reduction of 1,399, and the Scotch and Irish at 12,784 aud 40,127 respective deceases of 98 and 1,526. In respect of destinations the returns for the United States and Australia show consider- able reductions, but those for Canada and South Africa small additions. The foreign emigration, which was heaviest in the direction of the United States and Canada, is returned at 80,056, which, compared with 69,661 this time last year, shows the large addition of 10,595. The entire emigra- tion from British ports this year has reached the total of 204,961, which, as against 197,451- recorded for the same period last year, shows a net increase of 7,507.

ALLOTMENTS IN CARDIFF. Results of the Competition. The judges have made their awards in the competition among Cardiff allotment holders, promoted by Councillor S. A. Brain, who offered three prizes in respect of each of the three allot- ments—viz., Canton, Grangetown, and Cathays. I Mesrss A. Pettigrew and Stephen Treaeder, the judges, state that they consider the Grangetown allotment the best kept and most productive of the three. The splendid crops of vegetables they saw there are, they say, all the more remarkable because they are grown on reclaimed land which, a short time ago, was subject to flooding by the tides. It has been raised by the Health Com- mittee 4ft. above tide-level by the use of house refuse, and now forms a piece of most productive land. The following were the -uocessful holders I —Canton allotment—1, Charles Male 2, J. H. Evans 3, Alfred Webb. Grangetown — 1, Edward Foakes 2, Timothy Desmond; 3, Chas. Gedrych. Cathays—1, Henry Forster 2, Henry Joues 3, A. White. The prizes will be dis- tributed at the Horticultural Show, to be held this month.

The sword presented by the Emperor William to his little son. the Crown Prince, on his tenth birthday, contains an inscription on its blade, of which the-following 13 a translation: "Trust in God. Be brave in combat to preserve honour and glory. He who fights bravely, relying on tho help of God, is never overcome. All your powers of body and mind belong to your country. To my dear son William, May 6, 1892.— WlLHELM R" SPECTACLES TO SUIT ALL SIGHTS, as recom- mendedbytha medical profession.—Tainsh, 5,Kich- street* #1356 tf.

Glamorganshire Assizes., SATURDAY. CROWN COURT. [Before Mr Justice LAWBANCE.] CARDIFF CASES. William Scroggs (31), fireman, was found guilty of an unmentionable offence with Bertie Pegler, at Cardiff. Mr Morgan Evans prosecuted. Sentenced to 15 months hard labour. Martha Griffiths (30),3. shopkeeper, was indicted for suffering Charlotte Emmott and Alice Young, girls between tho ages of 13 and 16 years of age, to resort to certain premises, of which sho was the occupier, in July, last for an improper purpose. Mr Clement Davies prosecuted, and Mr Charles H. Glascodine defended. Emmott deposed to visiting the house in question, 51, Bute-road, Cardiff, in company with Alice Young and two sailors. In cross-examination witness demed gutting herself up in order to look 16 years of age at the time of the alleged offence, or that when prisoner expressed her regret that a girl so young should be brought there she replied she was over 16 years of age. The mother of Emmott produced the certificate of birtb, and said she had had considerable trouble with her daughter, who had lived for some months in a London home. Alico Young gave like evidence, and similarly replied to questions put in cross-examination.—Mr Glasco- dine, for the defence, laid special stress on the allegation that the two girls endeavoured to make themselves look over 16 years cf age, and thus deceive the prisoner. — The jury found the prisoner guiity, and sentence was deferred till after the hearing of the next case. Mary Bird (29), of no fixed abode, was indicted for a similar offence, on July 16th, at Cardiff. Mr Jackson prosecuted, and Mr S. T. Evan", M.P., defended. Elizabeth Ann Greedy, who said she would be 15yearsof age next October, said she having been shown the house by another girl named Georgina Fee. She saw the prisoner at the entrance and said "I am going upstairs." She replied, "All right." In cross-examination she said she had been to the house twice with Fee. Fee was called and said she was 17 years of age. She spoke of frequent visits to the house, one of which was in company with Greedy. James Henry Greedy, brother of the prosecutrix, called as to the age of his sister, and being unable to read the certificate of her birth, gave an age 12 months older than the certificate showed. Mr S. T. Evans thereupon raised an objection, contending there was no evidence that the person men- tioned in the certificate was the prosecutrix. The judge, however, recalled the brother, and after further questioning him allowed the case to proceed. Prisoner was found guilty. The prisoner Griffiths, tried in the preceding case, was then placed in the dock with Bird, and the judge addressing them aaid if tho girls had been ravished at theprisouers'house he should have passed tho most seveie sentence of the lay;, but unfortunately they were not of th", most virtuous character. Addressing Griffiths, be said it was in his power to deprive her of the custody of her four children, and though he would not do so in this case he would adopt this course in the future. It was not in Courts of Justice that tho real evii could be removed, but he hoped that time would come when there would be a moral improvement in Cardiff. He addressed Bird similarly, and then sentenced both to one month's hard labour. Joseph Wilson (40), a sailor, was indicted for indecently assaulting a little girl aged six, named Annie Foley, at Cardiff, on the 25t'n ult. Mr Morgan Evans prosecuted and Mr Glascodine defended. The assault was alleged to have been defended. The assault was alleged to have been committed on a railway siding at Dumballs-road. Cardiff. Prisoner was found guilty and sentenced to six month's hard labour. CHARGE AGAINST A WHITCHDECU SCHOOLMASTER. II Robert Small (72), schoolmaster, was mdjeted for an unmentionableotIenceon Iris Evans. There was a like offence with respect to Arthur Lewis Evans, at Whitchurch, near Cardiff. Mr Evans prosecuted, and Mr Glascodine defended. Prisoner was found guilty, with a recommenda- tion to mercy on account of his age.—The Judge, in passing sentence, said, but for that recom- mendation, he should have passed a severe sen- tence. As it was the sentence would be nine months, with such labour as the prisoner could do. A CASE FROM BIERTHTH. John Mnrphy, on bail, was charged with attempting to criminally assault Nellie Ballinger, between 13 and 16 years of age, at Merthyr on the 23rd July. Mr David Lewis prosecuted, and Mr S. T. Evans, M.P., defended. There was a discrepancy between the evidence given by the girl before the magistrates and that before this Court, and his Lordship therefore directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was consequently discharged. ALLEGED ASSAULT AT PENKHIWCEIBKR. William Alexander Davies, a respectable- looking young collier. about 28 years old, surren- dered to his bail on a charge of criminally assault- ing Rose Hannah Bryant, aged 14, at Llanwonno, on June 25th. Mr Arthur Lewis prosecuted, and Mr Benson defended.—The prosecutrix, a good- looking girl, who gave her evidence very intelligently, said on the night of the assault she was accosted by the prisoner, who was a neigh- bour, and he induced her to go with him down a lane, where the offence was committed. He also attempted to assault her on two subsequent occasions the same evening. — Prisoner, who elected to give evidence on oath, totally denied the assault, and said the evidence of the girl was imaginary.—Several witnesses gave evidence for the defence with the object of proving an alibi, and the jury, after a brief consultation, found a verdict of not guilty. Prisoner was consequently discharged. NISI PRIUS COURT. (Before Mr Justice MATHEW.) CLAIM FOR £500 COMMISSION. GOMDBMG v. WESTLAKE.—In tins action Hyam Goldberg, the plaintiff, who is al shipowner and commission agent at Swansea, claimed £500 from W. B. Westlake, the manuger and a large share- holder in the Pacific Fuel Company, Swansea, being commission, which it was stated by plain- tiff the defendant had agreed to pay him for negotiating for the sale or amalgamation of the Pacific Company with the Atlantic Fuel Work.?, Swansea, which ho said he had effected. Defendant denied that he had requested the plaintiff to procure the Atlantic Company as a purchaser, and also that ho had promised to pay him £500 for his services. From the evidence adduced on Friday, it appeared that negotiations had taken place between the parties with refer- ence to the sale from which defendant withdrew upon finding that he was not in possession of sole right to certain wharf sites at the Prince of W ales Dock, and because he said that the terms offered were not good enough. Counsel agreed I to his Lordship's suggestion that tha jury should decide the case upon the following questions :— (1) Whether the terms werfe finally arranged between the defendant and the directors of the company (the Atlantic) (2) if finally arranged, whether the defendant refused to carry out the contract which had been entered into with plain- tiS (3) whether the defendant refused to carry out th" contract because he discovered that he had no preferential right to the wharves.—Mr Bowen Rowlands opened tho case on Saturday by addressing the jury, when he said that it was perfectly clear that the plaintiff at the request of defendant negotiated for the purchase, and that he was deserving of some reccmpense for his services. The negotiations were dropped not by the plaintiff but by the defendant.—It was there- fore for the jury to decide whether the plaintiff was entitled to the amount claimed, or secondly to such sum which they might consider a sufficient recompense. His Lordship, in summing-up, said that plain- tiff sought to recover a large sum of money as commission in two ways. In the first place, the plaintiff said that he was employed to render certain service by defendant, who promised to pay him JB500 as a reward. Having rendered such services he said ho was entitled to that amount. In the second place, he said defendant undertook to pay him £500 in a certain event, but that he (defendant) prevented it taking place. The case would ho best illustrated by the following: Supposing a man wanted to sell freehold pro- perty for JB3,000, and promised £100 commission to an agent for selling it. The agent finds a purchaser, but the owner then said that he had changed bia mind. Tbe agent claimed his com- mission, but the owner replied that he promised to pay it if the property was sold, and that he was not liable. Oh," says the agent. that is aU very fine, but it is not the law. No, it was not tho law, and the agent would be entitled to say that it was not his fault the property was not disposed of, and that he under- stood the owner, as a man of reason and a busi- ness man, would not, prevent him having his commission. That was the law, and the jury would be right in giving him tho stipulated com- mission. In another case a man wanted to sell freehold property, with a quantity of plant, furniture, or stock, and promised to pay JB150 to an agent if he found a purchaser the agent also to make tbe valuation. The purchaser was found, but no valuation made. and then the owner said that he had changed his mind, and would not sell. In this case the jury would be entitled to take a certain amount off the commis- sion in consideration of the work the agent did not do, and to give him, say, £100. The plaintiff in thi3 case said be had effectively negotiated, and found the Atlantic Company as a purchaser, and that, after the defendant had decided not to sell, he was entitled to tha stipulated commission, or that amount with deductions the defendant might wish to make. The one important con- sideration for the jury was whether this transac- tion between the Atlantic Co. and Westlake was finally settled aud an agreement effected. What was supposed to be done was to amalgamate tho I two works, Westlake's property to be held in shares in the Atlantic Works.—His Lordship pointed out that defendant said there was not a scrap of paper to show an agreement was effected, and that not a single director was called to prove the existence of such agreement, and that there was no formal record in the minutes of the com- pany of it.—The jury retired to consider their verdict, and after an absence of 40 minutes re- £ ^0ie^' £ ave a verdict to the plaintiff for ACTION ON A BILL OF EXCHANGE. THE GREAT MOUNTAIN COLLIERIES COSIPANY, LIMITED AND OTHERS V. HARRIES AND CO.— This was an action on a bill of exchange, Mr Abel Thomas, M.P. (instructed by Mr Wm. Cox, Swansea), appeared for the plaintiffs, but Harries and Co. were not repre- sented. Mr Thomas said that the plaintiffs claimed JB292 14s 2d and interest from the 2nd of May, 1892, under a bill of exchange, which was drawn by Messrs Jackson and Co. and accepted by the defendants. It was sent down by Mr Jackson to plaintiffs in order to induce, and it did induce, them to withdraw an execution whioh they had upon a judgment against his estate.—Mr Naylor. solicitor, Swansea, gave evidence to the effect that Messrs Johnson and Co. had sent bim the bill with the request to ,1L..F. hand it over to the solicitors of the plaintiffs, who were in possession of Mr Johnson's goods. He handed the bill to Mr Cox, and believed that the execution was then withdrawn.—His Lord- ship gave judgment for the plaintiffs. BREWER V. PUBLICAN.—A PECULIAR CASE. EVANS (WIDOW, ADMINISTRATRIX) V WALKER AND SON5.-Tho plaintiff in this case was Mrs Elizabeth Evans, widow and administratrix of the late James Evans (former landlord of the Imperial Hotel, Landore), and the defendants, Messrs Walker and Sons, Limited, brewers, of Warrington and Burton-on-Trent. The plaintiff was represented by Mr Abel Thomas. M.P., and Mr Benson (instructed by Messrs W. Robinsou Smith & Son, Swansea),and the defendants by Mr W. Bowen Rowlands, Q.C., M.P., and Mr T.Ter- rell) instructed by Messrs J. B. and T. Knowles). The statement of claim showed that plaintiff sought to recover J3125 which was retained by the defendants on account of certain discounts allowed to the deceased in course of his business as a publican. By an agreement datt-d March 16th, 1888, between the deceased and the defend- ants it was agreed that in consideration of the deceased purchasing all beer, &c., from them the defendants would allow him 20 per cent. dis- count on the monthly account, 5 per cent of that discount to be retained by the defendants for him as a reserve fund, on which interest at the rate of 5 per cent would be allowed and placed to the credit of that fund, which was to be held by defendants as security against non-payment by deceased of goods supplied. In December, 1891, James Evans having becomc lunatic, plaintiff surrendered his interest in tho Imperial Hotel to William Green, and they ceased to have further interest in the hotel, and the reserve fund becamo payable to tho deceased. The plaintiff, therefore. claimed J3125 9s ICd and also the interest thereon at 5 per cent. from the 30th June, 1891.—The defend- ants denied that any custom existed in the trade at all as to discounts as alleged, and alternatively that if any such custom existed, it did not apply to a tied house. They also entered a counter- claim under an agreement dated tho 9th of August, 1887, which was made between the deceased, James Evans, and Sir Andrew Barclay, Walker and Sons, in which it was agreed that Evans should, for a term of ten years, purchase from the latter or their assigns or successors all the beer, &c., which would be sold by Evans or his successors at the Imperial Hotel or elsewhere. Under the samo agreement Evans agreed to pay to defendants as liquidated damages the sum of £5 for every 18 gallons in cask of beer, ale, porter, or stout, and £5 for every gallon of wines and spirits which he or his successor might purchase from any other person. The defence further stated that plaintiff had committed a breach of that agreement by purchasing of other persons 232 barrels of ale, beer, &c., during the six months subsequent to 3rd of Dec., 1891. Defendants, therefore, claimed £1,000 damages for the breacii, and £2,320 by way of liquidate damagos. Mr Abel Thomas opened the case at some length, and said that although the jury had been solemnly sworn to do justice between the parties, he could not help thinking that his Lordship would have to do the justice, and the jury would have to do the sitting and listening, because there were no facta in dispute between them, or a very faw, and it would finally turn on a question of law. —Mr Rowlands That is so.—Mr Thomas, con- tinuing, said that in consideration of defen- dants advancing to the deceased, Evans, on mortgage, a sum of £JOO, tho latter entered into the ahove-menfcioiied agreement to purchase beer, etc., from the defendants. In March, 1888, the mortgage was paid off, and another agreement was entered into 1D which the defendants agreed to allow 20 per cent. discount to the plaintiff. Referring to the clause dealing with defendants' claim of £5 for every 18 gallons of beer, the learned counsel said that it might be common law but it was not common sense. Why, if there were very thirsty people living at Landore, and did a good deal of business at the Imperial Hotel, Messrs Walker and Co.'s profits would be something like 100 per cent. on this house alone. In conclusion, he contended plain- tiff was entitled to the amount defendants held in their hands belonging to the estate of tho de- ceased, James Evans, and that the defendants were not entitled to any of the amounts they claimed. The question was left for his lordship, and in the course of a protracted discussion, he said that the agreement required very careful considera- tion, and that the case, as well as the agreement, was a very curious one. He suggested that it would be very advisable if counsel could effect some arrangement. — Mr Rowlands and Mr Thomas held a brief consultation, but some diffi- culty seemed to arise as to what should be referred to his lordship, who said that he would not intervene unless counsel had full authority from their clients. He advised them not to prosecute tho caso any further, for it might have to go a long way be- fore it would bo finally settled. Of course, if they wanted to establish it as a pre- cedent it had better go on. If counsel refused coming to an arrangement it would astonish him.—Counsel again consulted, after which Mr Thomas said that he was prepared to give his lordship a free hand in the matter.-His Lordship (to Mr Rowlands) Not tied, Mr Rowlands, I can settle it for you if you give mo power. If not, I can do no more, and you will I have to go to the Court of Appeal.—His Lordship and the learned counsel on both sides then retired for a few minutes, and upon returning Mr Rowlands thanked hi3 Lordship for inter- vening, and said that an arrangement had been arrived at by which tho defendants would pay JB100 to the plaintiff in settlement of all disputes, each party to pay their own costs.—Mr Thomas agreed, after which hi3 Lordship said, that although the company was strong they felt in- clined to be mercifuL It was well this arrange- ment had been arrived at, for the case presented an unquestionable legal difficulty. It might have given rise to a protracted hearing, and in the end, even if the plaintiff got all she asked for, not a single penny would go to her pocket. CLAIMS WITH RESPECT TO A PUMP. CENTRAL GRAVING DOCK Co. V J. AND H. GWTNNE.—This was an action in which the plaintiffs, the Central Graving Dry Dock Co., Swansea, sought to recover £546 damages from the defendants in respect to a pump, which, it was contended, did not perform its work in accordance with tho representations made by the defendants.—Mr J. Eldon Banks and Mr Villiers Meager (instructed by Messrs Spick^tt and Sons) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Abel Thomas, M.P., and Mr Benson (instructed by Messrs Ingledew, Ince, and Co.) for the defendants. The case was that the plaintiffs, owners of a dry dock at Swansea, were desirous of purchasing a pumping engine which would not only bo capable of pumping a considerable body at water out of the dock after docking a vessel, but would also be adapted for pumping out the leakage water which continuously found its way into dock during high-water. After considerable correspondence a contract was made with the defendant company, who were well-known pump makers at Hammersmith, for a 12-inch pump engine for £288. The defendants committed a breach of the contract, as the pumps provided were not capable or adapted for the drying of the dock by pumping out the leakage water, and were useless to the plaintiffs, who had, consequently, been put to considerable expense.—Mr Banks having lengthily opened the case for the plaintiffs, and evidence having also been given corrroborat- ing his remarks, the court adjourned until Mon- day.

MONDAY. CROWN CPURT. (Before Mr Justice LAWRANCE). A TREDEGAR INNKEEPER CONVICTKD OF FORGERY. Thomas Williams, a respectable looking middle-aged man, on bail, was indicted for wlomousiy uttering a promissory note for the payment of £50, knowing the same to have been forged, and with intent to defraud David Jones and Mary Jones, at Llanwonno, on the 12th oi January last. Mr David Lewis (instructed by Messrs Morgan and Rhys) prosecuted, and Mr Francis Williams, Q.C., and Mr Arthur Lewis (instructed by Mr James Phillips) defended. Prisoner is the landlord of the Castit) Hotel, Tredegar, and a cattle dealer, and according to the evidence of Mr D. W. Jone?, tho cashier at the London and Provincial Bank at Pontypridd, he bad an account there and on the day in question he put in at that bank a promissory note purporting to be signed fry mark of David Jones and by Mary Jones's signature, pavable four months after date, for the sum of J350. This became due on the 16th of May, and as it was not met on the 17th notice was given to the signatories, who declared thty had never heard of its existence. At that time prisoner had a large overdraft of about £600. The original of the noto was not obtainable, prisoner having had it returned to him by means of a cheque, but a copy had been taken. In cross-examination, witness said prisoner had been allowed overdrafts up to £1,500. He had three farms', besides being landlord of the Castle Hotel. David Jones denied that he had signed the note, but said he owed prisoner £13, and had had county-court proceedings instituted against him for it. He never made his mark as he could write. He denied that he had ever signed a bill in his life. Mary Jcnes gave similar evidence, and denied writing her name, as she could do nothing but make her mark. She could not write or read a letter. She denied ever owing prisoner as much as £50 at the same time. Mr Arthur Stanley Cobb, manager of tho Pontypndd branch of the London and Provincial Lank, was called, and Mr David Lewis asked him it he had the subpoena served him to attend beiore the magistrates.—Mr Cobb replied that he had not, but that the solicitor for the prosecution had It. Mr David Lewis read the subpeena, which, amongst other things, ordered the production of the note. Witness said he was on his holiday at the time, and it was handed to him on his return, and at the samo time he heard from his clerk that the prisoner h.1d taken over the bill. The dav he returned and received the subpeena he signed" the letters, but ho did not know at the time that one a t m couta'ned the bill in question. Mr Lewis Mr Jones knew ? Witness He did not mention it. i He knew— £ believe so. The Judge; He must have done. Mr David Lewis As a matter offaet, was not there a note on it in pencil by you, "Not to be Siyen up till Mr Cobb has spoken to you 1" The Judge (interposing): Jones informed you the note had been jriven up ?—Yes. That is to say the prisoner had paid tho money for it. (Addressing counsel) It seems to, me ? monstrous thing, when the attention of a banker is called to the fact of a dispute about a promissory note placed in the bank and receives a subpeena from the magistrates. I don't say this gentleman knew, but it looks very much, you know, like assisting, to i.wrevent justice from runninsr its oourse. Mr Cobb: I dcn't know whether you would like to know the explanation of the clerk. What he said was he considered when the bill was paid it must be given up, and he sent it in the ordinary course. The Judge: You knew there was a dispute about this ?—Yes. You knew Mrs Jones had been to the bank 1—I am not sure I heard that. You knew Mr Jones ?—I don't know that. Mr Rhys had seen mo—the solicitor. You knew there was a dispute ? You knew it was said to be a forged bill ?—I knew of a dis- pute. I suggested to Mr Rhys the proper course w:uld be to pay the money and take the bill, and then take proceedings—otherwise I was not quite sure of my position. You could have secured yourself under the law —you could have said, Here I am I have a subpoena."—I bad it not then. I asked my solicitors what I should do, and they said Hand it over to any party interested who tenders you the money.' Although you knew it was forged 1—At that time I did not. I simply placed the facts before my solicitors, and was guided by their advice. You had not the subpeena at that time?—No; I was away at that time. But yon had it when you came back, and the note was in the bank at that time ?—Yes, but I was not aware of it. All I can say is it was extremely improper con- duct on the part of everybody concerned—tending to defeat the ends of justice by the very persons who are bound mora than others to assist. Very much like assisting a customer of the bank after knowing the trouble about it.—Personally I knew nothing- about it except I bad to go away, and I toid my clerk to abide by whatever advice was received from the solicitors. In cross-examination by Mr Francis Williams the witness said prisoner was in the habit of pass- ing about £15,000 a year in the bank. In defence, two witnesses were called as to character-ox-Superintendent of Police Matthews and the Rev Thos. Harris Williams, curate of Ystrad. Both spoke as to prisoner's honesty and good conduct. Mr Francis Williams, in addressing the jury for the defence, drew attention to the fact that the witness to the bill called before the magistrates had not been called before that Court. He then dilated on the prisoner's good character, and asked why prisoner should utter a bill for such a small sum as J650 when as much as £15,000 of his passed through the bank each year, and he had been allowed overdrafts of as much as £ 1,500? In summing up his Lordship commented in strong terms on the conduct of the bank authori- ties, and said every bunk which was respectably conducted should have retained a suspicious bill, even if it lost money by doing so. The two officials called had acted most improperly, and he would not try to apportion the blame as Mr Cobb put it on Mr Jones, but the fact remained that had it not happened that Mr Walter Morgan had taken a copy of the note thero would have been no possibility whatever of proving the offence. Tho jury, after a brief deliberation, found prisoner guilty, with a recommendation to mercy on account of his excellent character. The Judge, in passing sentence, said he did not think anyone who brought his mind fairly to bear on the case could doubt that the jury was per- fectly correct in its finding. There seemed to him to be among some people an idea that they could use instruments of that kind by meeting them when the time came but it was a very serious offence. The jury had recommended prisoner to mercy, and he quite agreed with the view they had taken in that respect, for he had had an ex- cellent character given him. Forgery was a crime that generally brought with it a very serious punishment but he took all the circum- stances of the case into consideration and gave full effect to tha recommendation of the jury, as he always did. The sentence would be six weeks' hard labour. INDECENT ASSAULT IN THE RHONDDA. William Evans, on bail, was charged with as- saulting and behaving indecently to Elizabeth Ann Withers, aged 13 years and nine months, at Ystradyfodwg.—He was found guiity and sentenced to nine months' hard labour. CHARGE OF INDECKNT ASSAULT AT SWANSEA. Charles Harvey (aged 20), a labourer, and Joseph Thomas (on hall), were indicted, the former for feloniously assaulting Margaret Rad- ford, at Swansea, and the latter for aiding and abetting him. Mr Allen Upward prosecuted, and Mr Plews defended Thomas. Dr Howell Thomas said he examined prosecutrix, and saw no signs of the committal of the alleged offence. The case against Thomas broke down, and he was discharged. Harvey elected to give evidence on oath, and the jury, after a short deliberation, found prisoner not guilty, and he was discharged. ANOTHER INDECENT ASSAULT CASE. Charles Webb (16), joiner's apprentice, was indicted for criminally assaulting Lily Lee, aged 11 years, at Swansea; and Frederick Hale (15), labourer, was indicted for aiding and abetting Webb in committing the offence. Mr Plows prosecuted, and Mr Tudor Howell defended Hale, and Mr David Lewis, Webb. The prose- cutrix, her younger sister, and a girl named Bessie Garn were, it was alleged, out walking, when they saw two lads near the Horseshoe Walk. They were eating something like grass, and Garn asked them what it was. They said they did not know, but there was plenty of it inside the building. They went inside and Hale pulled Lee up a ladder to an upper bedroom, whilst the two others ran away. Lee said that in the meantime Webb criminally assaulted her. The jury found Webb guilty, and Hale not guilty; but they wished tho latter reprimanded for his share in the affair.—Sentence was deferred. INDECENT ASSAULT. William Jones, on bail, was indicted for un- lawfully assaulting Clara Thomas, at Llantrisant. Mr Arthur Lewis prosecuted and Mr David Lewis defended. Prosecutrix, who is a widow, alleged that she was crossing the mountain from Talygarnand she met the prisoner who, she alleged, treated her in a brutal manner, striking her repeatedly in the face, and pinched her about the body. In cross-examination, she denied being convicted of larceny, or of leading an immoral life. In defence, it was urged that prosecutor was subject to exaggeration.— Prisoner was found guilty, aud the judge, in passing sentence, said the prisoner had been recommended to mercy, though thty found it very difficult to say on what grounds, though it was very evident it was on the whole facts of the case. Tho sentence would be a very lenient one—six months' hard labour.

WEDNESDAY. CROWN COURT. (Before Mr Justice LAWRANCE.) OHARGE OF ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AT PENARTH. Alfred Hutchins, dock labourer; Daniel Rad- ley, fireman; and William Sidford, a shunter, were charged with assaulting Charles Halvorson, at Cogan, and with stealing from his person 15-i and a pipe and tobacco pouch with violence.—Mr David Lewis prosecuted, and Mr Tudor Howell deft ided.—Prosecutor alleged that on thb 29th of April he met the prisoners at the St. Fagan's Hotel, Penarth, and they took him to the Unionist Club, of which prisoners were members. There they played cards for some time. Ho left and went in the direction of Cogan, and being subsequently overtaken by prisoners they all went together to the Windsor Hotel, where more drink was had. On leaving there just before 11, they continued in the direction of Ccgan, and had not gone more than 400 yards when prisoner set OJ :m, beat him, and robbed him of tho articl 1 uned. He admitted in cross-examination that he; was the worse for drink at the time, and also that he had several times been convicted for various offences. He denied that he had offered to square the case, or that he had said he was not sure prisoners were the men.—A potato merchant of Penarth, named Henry Buckler, said be met prosecutor, and went to have a drink. Prosecutor said, Have you seen anything of those chaps ? Ain't they fools not to come and see me. und square this case. If they would give me £ 10, ^1 I would auic the country ad never come back." Prosecutor added that he was drunk, 3; j the time, and was not sure whetnef prisoners were the men or not. cross-examination witness denied that it waS lie who offered prosecutor £10 to settle the case- —A man named Amott said the pipe and pouCU produced were the property of the pris-onei" Radley, and not of the prosecutor. — David, a bailiff, said he saw prosecutor, who p1\1d him some money, and showed him a further saying that was all lie had. After then, aV before the alleged assault, he spent 2s <ki. ness also spoke to the conversation, and COIT"01'; rated what Buckler had said.—Mr Tudor Howe'1 delivered an able s\teech for the defence, iUiC* prisoners were found not guilty, and they were discharged. AN ABSCONDING DEFENDANT. I William Williams (on hail), charged with at tempting to obtain by false protegees 2: *'a0. property of the Penrhiwceiber Coal CoiripanJr» with intent to defraud, at LIanwoano, did noli surrender to his recognisances.—The Judge there- upon issued a warrant for his arrest, and ordered his surety to forfeit his recognisances. THE FINE ON A JURYMAN. In discharging the jury his Lordship said: There is one observation I want to make before you go—or rather to address to the public. Ti>0 other day I fined a man for speaking to the jury, and some people seem to think I was offended he- cause I saw a man speak to the jury. Now I did it because I saw a man standing in that passage speaking to a juror when the jurymen were deliberating on the verdict, atii for anyone out. side the jury box to do that is a great of'/ance. I have taken pains to find out what he said, and 1 find the person who was so fined was a ji:ryu|Un himself summoned 011 that jury. I find he into the jury-box before any juryman was caller that day, and he was turned out of the box by the officers, as i3 very proper when they see suspiciously anxious to do their duty. He stood in that corner the whole of the time and took strong view of the case, and I find from the corner juryman he addressed that he said they ought to find the man guilty. I felt when I saw him speak" to the juror no would take any such part unless to ,111 some way interfere with the course of justice- No human being, after I have finished addressing you. has any right to speak to you. I only no'* mention this to you in order that people may know the real grounds on which I deait with the offence. I knew there was something wron!j» and if 1 knew then what I know now I doat think I should have been satisfied with the fine imposed, but perfectly justified in dealing very much harder with a man who undoubtedly attempt to interfere with the course of justice I want this fact to be publicly known, not 13 justification of myself, but in order that the public may know the ground on which the fin" was inflicted, and the reasons with which I was actuated, under which I consider I was amp»y justified in doing as I did, though I had not that knowledge at the time I fined him. The business of the assize then terminated, and during the day their lordships left on the long vacation. «««»■