The Cardiff Times

BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, & DEATHS BIRTHS. CORY.—On April 2nd, at Sea. View House, Penarth, the wife of John Cory of a. daughter. E06 DADDS.—On April 2nd, at 24, Neville-street, Canton, Cardiff, the wife of J. H. Dadds, of a d&ufchter. 790 LITTLF..—On the 50th of March, at Cwmpennar House, Mountain Ash, the wife of W. Little, of a daughter. 1 REG 'ILLES —March 30th, at Plasturtou-a venue, Cardiff, the wife of T. S. Tregelles, of a son. WILLIAMS.—On 2Sjth, at Hafod Shop, Hafod, the wife of Seph WiUiams, of a daughter. 485 MARRIAGES. BRYANT—BEITH.—On the 30th hilt. at Grangetown, (by licence), Edward Bryant to Margaret Beith, of Gransretown, Cardiff. 565 HEH.SCHHL.JoxES-.JONES.-On Wednesday, the 3id instant, at St. Mary's Church, Swansea, T. H. Herschel-Jones to Beatrice Mary Jone. both of Swansea. 2535 ROCKE — OWEN. — On the 28th March, at Mount Pleasant Chapel, Swansea, by the Rev. R. Henry Roberts, B. A., President of Regent's Park College, Robert Ernest, second son of Charles Rocke, Esq., Hampstead, to Helena Mary, second daughter of Rev. James Oweu. 2493 DEATHS. BEDFORD.—On March 26th, at Rock Villa, Ebbw Vale, William C. Bedford. COLL the 30th, at Fair Orchard, Nash, after a short illness, Harriet, the dearly-beloved wife of Walter Colletr, aged 50 years. COUGHUN.—On the 30th lilt., at 1, Bedford-street, James Henry, hon of Andrew Coughlin, aged 20. Passed away peacefully. DAVID.—On the !i?th inst- at Tymaen, Upper Boat, David David, aged 76 years. EDWARDS.-On April 2nd, at Station-road, Hirwain, Gwenllian, widow of Jenkin Edwards, Nantymoel, and mother of Mrs Da vies, Cefn Brewery, Merthyr Tydfil. Public funeral on Friday for Penderyn. No wreaths. 873 EMERY.-On March 29th. suddenly, at Severn-road, Canton, Caroline Mary, thebeloved wife of Mr Robert Emery, aged 59 years. 453 EVANS.-At 12, Plough-terrace, Port Talbot, on the 2nd illilt., Benjamin Evans, aged 36. Funeral Friday,4.30. JAMES.—Mrs F. M. James, beloved wifn of Mr Griffith James, Yftradgynlais (daughter of the late Moses Rowlands, Peny^r^is), on Sunday, M trch 31st. JONES.—On March 26th, a t Mardy Hark, Abergavenny, Mary, the b«loved wife of Evan Jones, aged 64 years. JONES.—March 27th, J. B. Jones, Cloth Hall, Ciydach. JONES.—On the 31st ult.. at Chapel Farm, Nash, Milly, dearly beloved wit,3 of Alfred Jones, aged 42 years. Deeply regretted by her sorrowing family and friends. KELLY.—April 3rd, at No. 1, Plasturton-place, Cardiff, Sydney Osborne, the sevemh and dearly-loved son of James and Sarah Keliv, age 17 years. No cards. THOMAS.—April 1st, Mary Gertrude, the beloved child of John and Sarah Thomas, aged 10 months. TRKZISV.—On March 31st, at 57, Tredegar-street, Cardiff, Sarah, the beloved wife of George Nicholas Trezise. TRKZISV.—On March 31st, at 57. Tredegar-street, Cardiff, Sarah, the beloved wife of George Nicholas Trezise. I

The Institution of Civil Engineers now consists of 1.862 meinbsrs, 3,687 associate members, and 17 hoHOiary merrber?, all boing corporate mem- bers under the by-laws besides which there are t attached sto it 365 associates and 816 amdeaHi, representing a total of 6,737 of all classes-—beioe an increase of 180 in the past ye*1*-

Alleged Brutality by Policemen. THE DEATH IN SWANSEA GAOL., Constable's Charged with Manslaughter, At the Pontypridd Police Court on Wednesday —before the Stipendiary (Jdr Ignatius Williams), Alderman W. H. Matthias, Mr Win. Williams, Mr T. Jones, Mr Edward Llewellyn, and Mr James Roberts—the three police-constables, Thomas Thomas, George Perkins, and Win. Evaus, appeared in answer to the charge of manslaughter preferred against them in connec- tion with the recent death of Mark Morris, a collier, of Tylorsbown, whilst undergoing sentence in Swansea Gao!. Mr Powell, of Neath, prose- cuted, and the constables were defended by Mr Arthur Lewis, barrister (instructed by Mr James Phillips). At the outset of the proceedings Mr Powell stated that he thought the case would not all be heard in one day, and on this Mr A. Lewis said it wouid be convenient for him under the circum- stances if they could agree to adjourn at 4 o'clock. This was agreed to. Mr Powell then suggested that it would perhaps be bettor to try the three defendants together in order to save time, though he had separate evidence. The Stipendiary If you have a joint indict- rnrnu you must have a jomt attack. M, Powell: My ease is this: that the three defendants were hammering away at the man at one and the same time. Mi' A. Lewis Your Worships will see, as I have been able to gather from the coroner's depo- sitions, thao there was a wide distinction with regard to the evidence against the respective defendants, and really the question is this: whether the prisoners will be injured by theoascs being taken together. Although appearing for them I do not think I ought to ask the Court to prolong the inquiry to tho extent to winch it mjst be prolonged if they are taken separately. The Stipendiarj It may be the duty of the Court to discharge one or two of the prisoners if the case is not made out agaiust them, and then their evidence will of course be taken by the dafenc*. WHAT WITNESSES SAT. Morgan Llewellyn, collier, 25, Madeline- terrace, Ptmtygwaith, was the first witness called. On the 14th February he was standing at the door of tho Bridgend Hotel in the locality. He heard a row inside between John Rues and a lish seller. The deceased, Mark Morris, took Rees's part. He then saw a po:iceman come in. The officer (Thomas) took hold of the fish vendor and ejected him. The deceased took out the hat which the fish vendor had left behind, and gave it to Thomas, who said, Thank you." Perkins and Evans were outside. Perkins asked, What are you interfering in our business for ?" Mark Morris replied that he was not interfering at all. Perkins thereupon seized the deceased and shoving him along remarked, Go home." Morris then exclaimed that he was not drunk. Perkins pushed him farther on until he WM over the bridge, which was about 25 "ards away from the hotel. The deceased ask. d Pwrkins to follow him lower down the road, as he (the officer) could do very well with him while he had two constables with him. Perkins then said, "Will you threaten me like that, you ?" and struck him on the head with his truncheon. Before striking him Perkins had tryed to put the handcuffs on him. Evans afterwards struck him on the head when they were by the corner ot the butcher's shop near the bridge. The deceased then feU to the ground, and Perkins and Evans fell upon him. The officer Thomas did nothing but help to put the handcuffs on him while he was on the ground. The deceased rolled from underneath the officers and got up. P.O. Thomas then struck tha deceased with his fist. The officers at that time failed to handcuff him. Perkins and Evans then shoved the deceased along the road and beat him with ther truncheons. Near Mor- gan's shop the deceased asked- It WHAT HAVJi: I DONE ? I'll go with you." The conversation was in Welth. The deceased called out for his mother and sister, and witness and a com- panion went for them. On returning, witness noticed them trying to handcuff him again. Evans and Perkins struck the deceased again Wlttl their truncheons, and Thomas was endeavouring to put the handcuffs ou, and also struck him with his staff. Witness saw blood on the deceased's face and skull,and also saw blood on P.C. Evans's face. The blood bad spurted from deceased's head. The blood on Evans's face was produced by a blow which he had giveu to the deceased. He noticed Evans's hand under the deceased's chin while he was striking him with the other fist. The deceased said, "You got my blood on you." The deceased's sister came up and put her arms round her brother's neck, The sister requested the polioe to go away and not to abuse the deceased. About 10 minutes later the polioe went away. The deceased was sober. He did not strike the police at all, nor attempted to do eo. CROSS-EXAMINATION. Cross-examined by Mr Arthur Lewis Witness wa," not inside the Bridgend Hotel. He had been at MM Thomas's coffee-tavern, but he was not there when the row in the street began. The fijht in the hotel took place in the bar. He could see the fight from the doorstep. Rees and the fish seller were both old men. The deceased took John Rees's part, and knocked down someone who was kicking the old man about. The deceased was a friend of Rees. He did not know who the man was thai; the deceased knocked down. The deceased interfered because a drunken man was kicking about the two men that were fighting. He did not kuow that the deceased had sustained an injury to his head at work. He did not know that the deceased was violent, nor had he heard that he (the deceased) had been convicted and imprisoned. On that particular night he was not sure whether the ampe near the bridge were out. The shops neaf the place were open, and light came from them. He was quite sure that Thomas used his truncheon before he (witness) went for the de- ceased's mother and sister. The three constables were holding the deceased when he returned to the spot. He saw Thomas and Evans strike a blow each when he came back after fetching the mother. THREE DIFFERNT ACCOUNTS. Mr Arthur Lewis Did you swear before the coroner that Thomas had not got his staff out, and. in answer to Thomas, he did not hit him at all !-— I can't remember. The Stipendiary; You have given three different accounts of it. This is what I have got down When be came back Thomas was trying to put the handcuffs on aud Evans and Perkins were striking him." Mr Arthur Lewis Do you mean to stick to that ?—Witness: I saw Thomas strike the deceased. Mr Arthur Lewis Did you see one of the eons tables struck by one of the crowd?—Yes. Further cr oas-examined witness said he did no see thedeceased biting Evans's thumb. The deceased broke one of the handcuffs in wrestling with the constables. He did not say at Swansea, before the coroner, that the deceased exchmned," If you come down here I will do for feu." He saw altogether about ten blows struck on the head by the officers. The deceased's head was very much bruised. He saw Evans strike a hard blow after he (witness) had been fetching the mother. That was the most severe blow of all. He saw no blow struck by the deceased. He dtd not see deceased stnke Perkins under the chin when hIs nama and address were asked for. Witness saw the deceased at the railway station when the haudcuffs were on him. H." was not violent then. Up to that night he had been told that the- deceased had been a total abstainer for six weeks. Albert Lewis, collier, also gave evidence. Sarah Morgan, wife of Thomas Morgan, grocer, of Fontygwaith, said she remembered the night of the 14th February. She heard a noise outside her shop. She opened the door and saw thiee policemen—she knew Thomas —coming down, with Morris walking in front. They came opposite the shop and stopped opposite the window. She heard Morris say then, I am not going, because you can't say what I have done" (in Welsh). The three policemen then rushed upon him and took hirn up against the wall, when they began using their trnnoheons. She saw more than one of them using his truncheon at the same time, but could not say which of them it was. While Morris was against the wall he didn't attempt to hit the police. Cross-examined by Mr A. Lewis: Witness said the policemen had their backs to her. There were not a great many people about, say 20 people and 40 children. They were all standing round watching what occurred. She saw the constables using their staves and heard Morris groaning. She could only identify Thomas at that time. She knew him because he lived in the place. Her daughter was Miss Janet Morgan, but her (witness's) consent had not been asked. (Laughter.) By the Stipendiary She did not see Thomas using his staff. Re-examined by Mr Powell: Witness said she saw more than one constable using a truncheon, but could not say who. She did not see more than two constables using their staves. John Wiltshire, the next witness called, said he was present at the Bridgend Hotel on the 14th of February. He Raw the row in the hotel, and corroborated the evidence previously given as to the circumstances. He saw Perkins shove the deceased, and heard the latter say, "You can do very well now that you have got two or three people backing you up." Morris then said some- thing, but witness didn't hear it, whereupon Perkins said, "If you threaten me like that, you I'll show you." Perkins then stniok Morris a blow with his fist. He also saw the struggle below the bridge. The constables had Morris on I the ground, and were beating him. He heard Morris Say something in Welsh, but he (witness) I didn't understand it. When opposite Mrs Morgan's shop he saw the three constables strike Morris with their staves. He saw Evans strike Morris a particularly savage blow on the head, the force of the blow making the blood spurt up into Evans's face. the force of the blow making the blood spurt up into Evans's face. Cross-examined by Mr Arthur Lewis The witness denied having made certain statements before the coroner, as shown in his depositions. At this juncture the Stipendiary said it seemed quite clear that a row was going on at the Bridgend Hotol, and that the police were quite justified in removing Morris. This, however, wss quite a different thing from striking Morris on the head with their truncheons. Witness, Continuing, said he saw Morris struck on the head about 10 times by the constables. The constables were hammering on the deceased's head for a considerable tune. Questioned by the Stipendiary, witness said he was certain that he saw the constable Thomas. strike Morris with"his staff.' J Janet Morgan, daughter of Mrs Morgan, grocer, said she saw the struggle between the police and Morris. She corroborated the evidence of previous witnesses as to what Morris said, and as to the police having used their truncheons. She also heard the orowd calling on the police not to kill him, but to let him go.. When Evans struok the blow which made the blood spurt oot, she) saw that Evans held Morris by the throat with his left hand. Mr Powell informed the Bench that he had other witnesses he could call to apeak as to the deceased's sobriety. The Stipendiary There is no necessity for that. There is no doubt that it was the dnty of the police to move this man Morrie. He had been previously convicted of disorderly con- duct, and had shown a disorderly disposition that evening. Continuing, the Stipend! ary said he supposed the doctor would not be able to prove whether the blow which caused the spurt of blood was likely to have been the blow which was the cause of death. Mr Powell pointed out that there were two clots of blood on the brain. Mr A. Lewis said they had now only to deal I with the medical evidence, and at this stage he thought he was justified in asking the Bench whether they thought that a case had been made out against Thomas «• distinct from the other two prisoners. The question was whether, in the event of the conflioting evidence with regard to I Thomas, there would be any probability of a jury convicting him. The Stipendiary You oannot ask that, because though the jury may probably not convict Thomas, there is evidence to go to a jury. They might dismiss the first witnesss evidence altogether, as he had given four different accounts of the transaction. Then they oarne to the evidence of the man Wiltshire, who had clearly said that be sawall three constables strike Morris, and he had afterwards declared that he saw Thomas strike Morris on the head with hie staff. Under the circumstances, he did not see bow they could withdraw the charge against Thomas. Mr A Lewis said there might be a scintilla of evideiicn as affeoting Thomas, but he thought they ought to consider the broad principle as to whether, in the face of the fact5, any jury in their senses would find Thomas guilty. That, he thought, ought te be their guiding principle, for it was rather hard to put a man upon his trial upon a scintilla of evidence. The Stipendiary There is no reason to with. draw. Wiltshire got a little bit confused as to what Morris said to Perkins, but otherwise he seemed a very straightforward witness. Mr Arthur Lewis Of course, you will hear the whole of the facts before you come to the con- clusion that you will commit for trial at all. The Stipendiary; If there is strong evidence the other way, I do not see why we shonld rely upon the evidence of Wiltshiie. The case was then adjourned. Resumed Hearing. At the Pontypridd Police Court ou Thursday, before Mr Ignatius Williams (stipendiary). Alderman Dr. H. N. Davies, Mr Thomas Jones, and Mr David Llewellyn—the charge of man- slaughter against the three constables, Thomas Thomas, George Perkins, and William Evans, was resumed. There was again a crowded attendance of the public ita court, and intense interest was evinced in the proceediugs. The three constables, attired in uniform, stood near the dock, while Captain Lindsay, the chief constable, occupied a seat in thp, well of the court. One witness only remained at the close of the inquiry yesterday to be called in order to oom- plete the case for the prosecution. This witness was none other than Dr. Themas, the medica! officer to the Swansea Gaol, and his evidence was naturally expected to have an important bearing on the case. Dr. David Howell Thomas, physician and surgeon practising at Swansea, and the medical officer of her Majesty's gaol at Swansea, being examined by Mr Powell, deposed that the deceased man (Mark Morris) was admitted into the prison on the 15th of February. Witness examined him on the morning of the 16th and made a report of the man's condition when he entered, and had also made a report as to his condition on each suoceedmg day up to the time of his death. These reports witness read ou as follows :— Witness (cotttinuing)said he found two lacerated wounds on the head which could have been caused by a blunt instttwent. The three wounds Were close together, fia was present at the post ruottem exavniitafton made by Dr. Latimer. Ha had read Dr. Latimer's report and agreed with it. r Mr A. Lewis This being a criminal case I cannot admit anything; but if this gentleman (indicating witness) was present at the post mortem and Can verify the report of Dr. Latimer by his own experience and from what he saw, I am quite willing to accept it as his evidence, bat I cannot admit it as Dr. Latimer's report, as he is not here. Mr Powell: Quite so; I am quite willing to accept it in that way. Do you adopl that report, doctor Witness I do. Mr Powell (to the Beach): Of course, if there is a committal, I shall have Dr. Latimer to give his evtdenoe. In fact he has been bound over with that object. Witness then read the report of Dr. Latimer as follows :— Report of examination on the body of Mark Morris, made on the 4th day of March, 1895, ab her Majesty's Prison, Swansea:— Aspeot placid, eoohymosis from erysipelas, not a bruise over bridge of nose, no bruises on face. Rigor mortis on three inoiaed wounds on head, two on left parietal bone, one more pos- terior reaching to lambdoidal suture, two pos- terior outs healed and front one partially open. No pus there, well nourished, Marks of linseed meal poulticing over the chest to zyphrid cartilage of sternum, slight ecchymosis at foremost wound wound internally on reflecting scalp. More ecchymosis on the spot corresponding with middle wound, none at the back one. Neither wound had extended right through scalp beyond the loose layer above the tendon of the muscle. No pus anywhere on reflecting aoalp. No fracture of skull vertex. No pU8 within skull. No signs of adhesion of dura water to hone. No unusual amount of blood. On reflecting dura water along line of supiror, longitudinal sinus found au adhesion three inches in length and inch in breadth at vertex close to side of longitudinal sinus (left side), and on corresponding right aide a spot corresponding to it same length, with slight adhesion near top of false oerebri. Congestion of vessels around adhesions. No lymph. No basic meningitis or congestion. About 3oz. fluid. Brain substance not affected"; sliced hemispheres an both sides, making sections down to ventricles. Nothing pathological there. On back hypostatic coups- tion of skin. No bruises. Heart Bound every. where. Lungs—a portion of the base of the right one airless with pneumonia, otherwise they cupitated on pressure and noated no pleural adhesion liver adherent to diaphregm smooth surface; no lvmph; arm, not fatty or oinhotio congested, 3*1bs. weight. No peri. tonitis or interitis. Both kidneys healthy. Cause of death Erysipelas,men^initis, coma, following wounds on head.—H. A. LATIMHA." In reply to Mr Powell, witness said he con- sidered the immediate cause of death was menin- gitis with coma. He should say that the eryei- pelas had completely subsided. It was not ecohy. mosis on the bridge of the nose. There was just a blister there. There were three laoerated wounds on the head, aud marks of poulticing on the ohest which witness had applied in bis treat- ment of tbe deceased. There was no sign of pneumonia. Some time after Morrie entered the gaol he suffered from slight pneumonia, on the right Jung, but it was not sufficient to cause death. This would be due to the weak con- dition of the patient in consequence of his low state. The liver was smooth. The kidneys were sound. From his examination of the liver and kidneys he was of opinion that deceased could not have been an excessive drinker. The wounds were not sufficiently heavy to go through the scalp to the skull. An effusion of blood corre- sponded with the wounds. Deceased while in gaol received every treatment he could possibly receive. THOMAS UlSOHABOeD. This having concluded thecasefor theprosectifcion the Stipendiary said We consider tha evidence of the doctor has materially altered the state of things. The evidence of the doctor goes to prove that only three blows could have been inflicted. That being so, though the evidence is certainly very much stronger against Perkms and Evans, the case against Thomas has been materially diminished. It is scarcely possible if only three blows were struck that Thomas could have been a party to the striking. Under these circumstances we are of opinion that no jury would convict Thomas upon such evi. dehce, and that being so we think we are justified in discharging him from the case. The other two men will be committed to take their trial, and Thomas will he discharged. Mr A. Lewis here pointed out that he had brought anumberof witnesses tothecoath, having understood that the Bench intended to beaff the whole of the case before committing the prisoners for trial. He understood that this was the intimation of the Bench yesterday. The Stipendiary We did not quite understand you. I thought the case was over. Mr Lewis I asked you particularly yesterday, The Stipendiary: I think it only fair to the constables that we should hear anything that can be said in their behalf. Mr Lewis said he was afraid if he did not open his case he would not be able to call certain witnesses at the Assizes, and it in spite of what had taken place the Bench had their minds perfectly open as to I committing the men for trial, be would proceed to open his case. DEFENDANTS COMMITTED. After hearing the evidence for the defence, the Bench committed Perkins anri EvnM to take their trial at the next Assises, allowing them bail hi two sureties of £10, or one in jB80, and the same amount in their own recognizances.

SAD ACCIDEN r AT DOWLAIS. A serious accident on Tuesday befell Mr Ben Evans, the well-known con tractor, of Dowlais. He was thrown, it appears, from his horse neat < Rhymney Bridge, and sustained shocking injuries especially about the head. He wss found lying in the road insensible for a time. Afterwards he was carried to his home at Dowlais, where he lies still in an unconscious condition. Several doctors are attending him, but his life is despaired of.

M. Maurice Boucher has finished his transla- tion of all the songs found in Shakespeare. They will bo published shortly. It will be interesting to Jeatn how "Full Fathom Fiva" and Where th<- Bee Sucks are tendered in French. Tc^jccomsrs CoMKKircma.—See Illd. Gaidet H55 O*1*51- Utaston-rd., London.

THE "WITCH" BURNING CASE IN IRELAND. Proceeding's Against the Aooustd. The hearing of the case against the husband, father, and others who are charged with the burning of Bridget Cleary because she wa. supposed to be a witch, was resumed by the magis- trates at Clonmel on Monday. The prisoner* were loudly hooted on their way to court. Among "the witnesses called was the Bev. Father Ryan. who heard Mrs Cleary's confession and administered the Sacrament on the mcraing ot the shocking occurrence, Four of the prisoners are professionally represented. William Simpson deposed to seeing herbs forcibly given to the deceased by her husband the night before she was burned to death. The four other prisoners held her down. They asked her certain questions, and when she did not answer satisfactorily one of the prisoners called out, "Make a good fire, and well burn her and make her answer." She was taken out of bed and held over the fire for 10 minutes. Her body was allowed to rest on the grate. She had no clothes on except a chimese. The others prisoners looking on and did nothing to preveat it. They shouted in order to drive out witches and fairies. When the deeeased eventually answered that she was Bridget Cleary they were satisfied that they had Bridget Cleary and nob a witch and put her back to bed. Rev. Corne'ius F. Ryan, of Draugan, deposed that the Clearys were members of his congrega- tion. He administered the last rites to the deceased. She was wild aud excited, but coherent, and be had no suspicion of foul play or witchcraft. If he had he should have absolutely refused to say mass in the house, and have given information to the pohce. On the following day he was informed that deceased had been burned to death. He was horror-struck and told the police he suspected foul play. The Court then adjourned. The hearing of the charges against the ten per- sons alleged to have been concerned in the burning of the woman BridgetCleary was resumed atClon- met on Tuesday. Mrs Mary Simpson corroborated the evidence given on Monday by her husband as to.tiie placing of Mrs Cleary on the fire. Those present at the scene cried, Away she goes, away aha goes." as if they were driving something out of the house. They thought the person in bed was not Mril Cleary, but a witch. Mrs Cleary did not appear to oe in her right senses. 8he was raving. All the questions put to Mrs Cleary were asked before midnight, because, as witness explained, the witch could not be driven away after twelve o'clock. Witness heard Cleary telling people that his wife had "gone away with the fairies," and that they had gone to the foot of Kylenagrana. where Mrs Cleary was to appear, tied on a grey horse. Cleary added that if he could cut the ropeS which bound her to the fairy saddle and keep her she would remain with him.—Patrick Dunn (a prisoner) Who ordered Mrs Cleary to bf brought to the fire ?—Witness You did.—W. Kenny (a prisoner): Did you see me holding Mrs Uleary over the fire ?—Witness You assisted,—• The presiding Magistrate remarked that Mrs Simpson had given her evidence in a satisfnotory manner. A farmer named Smith deposed to having been called to Cleary's house the evening on which Mrs Cleary was burned. The woman Was in bed when he entered the room, and her husband was giving her holy water out of a bottle and asking her to take it in the name cf God." She took it,. Witness went down to th6 kitchen fire. Mrs Cleary got up, dressed, and came down to the fire also. After a while she began to talk about pishogues (fairies) and other things. Witness did not think she was in her right mind. Witness left about midnight.—Police Sergeant Rogers deposed to finding the body of Mrs Cleary buried in a hole in a dyke about a quarter of a mile from Cleary's house. The hole was only three feet long and 18 inches deep, and the body was doubled up, It was wrapped in a sheet, with a bag round the head, and stockings on the feet.—Dr. Wansboro gave evidence as to the shocking manner in which the lower parts of the body were burned.—The court adjourned.

DRIFTED INTO WESTON BAY. And Decked in the Police-court. Two men in a boat had an unpleasant adven- I ture in Weston Bay on Sunday evening. They left Caidiff in the morning fur a sail, but were carried out of their course, ;>nd losing the rudder drifted m Weston Bay. Getting near Anchor Head one man jumped out, and escaped with a uuckiug. The other man was eventually landed safely. On Wednesday both were brought before tho magistrates charged with stealing from a barge at Knightstone a canvas bag, shirts, stockings, hoots, a double barrelled gun, an oilskin ccmb. a. jaoket,and a pair of trousers,of the vatueofB4, the property of Win. Chapman. The prisoners gave their names as James Webb, of Sunderland, and Samuel Da vies, of London, but the polioe are of opinion that the names are false, and that they have been' previously convicted. They were apprehended at Barry, where the property was found. They pleaded guilty and eleoted to be dealt with summarily. Each was sentenced to three months' imprisonment.

FEARYul SUICIDE NEAR BRIDGEND. I On Tuesday morning a young man named Joha Howells,.a miner, took his life in a very deter- mined manner by placing the barrel of a gun against his head ancHhe stock against the floor, blowing his brains out in the pre sen oe of his mother and p>pr.

ROGERS' AK ALES AND PORTERS, In 4% Gallon Casks and Upwards PALE AND MILD ALES from lOd per Gallon PORTER AND STOUTS from Is per Gallon BREWERY, BRISTOL. CARDIFF STORES WORKING-STREET. NEWPORT STORES COMMERCIAL-BUILDINGS CHEPSTOW STORE.S.. BEAUFORT-SQUARE. Applications for purcnasing agencies to be made to the Brewery. 139b6 2475

SATURDAY, APRIL 6, 1895. FOR RELIGIOUS EQUALITY. THE Welsh Disestablishment Bill passed its second reading by the satisfactory majority of 45. After Mr ASQUITH'S masterly speech it was a foregone conclusion that the Bill was safe for the second reading, but the most ardent and sanguine supporters of the measure hardly expected so large a majority. It is very satisfactory, and though the Unionist organs have struggled hard to explain it away, it has proved too much for them. They have raised the cries of the Church in danger and the robbery of GOD" without being able to save the position, and now recognising that they are beaten, they affect to despise the whole movement which has led to the demand for Disestablishment and Disendowment in Wales. They now affect to regard the present debate and the present agitation as a farce. It is a very serious and a very earnest farce for the Noncon- I formists of Wales. Judging by the alarm of the Church dignitaries in the Welsh dioceses, it must be very difficult for them to read the expressions of opinion in their organs at the present time, for they so thoroughly belie the professions and the actions of Churchmen. Do the fighting I Churchmen acquiesce in the conduct of the party organs in writing of this agitation and discussion in the House of Commons as a I' mere farce 1 No donbt this is what the Opposition in the Commons will strive to make it when the Bill is in Committee. I The Times, for instance, is already chuckling on the number of amendments which are flowing in, and it is being boasted that every line and word of the Bill will be contested. They had better carry it to the letter, and then the majority will be able to treat such tactics as they deserve to be treated. In our present issue will be found a very full report of the debate. There is no new argument to be advanced in favour of Disestablishment and no new argument against reiigious equality to be met, for the whole question stands in the same position as it did last ye%r nay, where it has stood for many years so far as the people of W%lea are concerned. They have been unswerving in their demand, consideration of which was long delayed, but whish has now been met in a determined fashion by the Government. The Lords may wreck the measure after it has passed the House of Commons, but there is no going back on a majority of 45 in favour of Disestablish- ment and Disendowment on a second read- ing.

THE AGED POOR. AFTER a period of two years' labour the Renort of the Rival Commission on the Aged Poor has been issued. It ia far from being a satisfactory report, for the majority of the Commissioners do not recommend any serious departure from the present methods of administering the PooriLaw, and they declare that none of the systems for granting pensions to the aged poor which were brought under their notice can be re- commended. The result of the report will have the effect of damping public enthu- siasm for social reform in this direction, but the question cannot be set aside altogether. It will be revived almost im- mediately by some debate or other on social problems in the House of Commons. Before examining the findings and the recommendations of this Commission, let us point out Lord ABERDARE'S share of the work as president of this important in- quiry. As a social reformer who had taken a life-long interest in the working of the Poor Laws, the late Lord ABERDARE made an ideal chairman of the Aged Poor Com- mission, upon which was the PRINCE of WARES, and the agricultural labourer and representative of the labourers, Mr JOSEPH ARCH. The Commissioners were very markedly divided in opinion, and in ordee to avoid the necessity of I issuing a minority report if pos- sible, the report of the Commission was very much delayed. Lord ABERDARTS I was particularly anxious that only one main report should bepresented, and to bring about this result he laboured long and arduously to secure something like agreement amongst the members. But that proved impossible. Several notes of disagreement are appended to the report, which it is sad to recall was presented for signature one day after his death. These explanatory notes from in- dividual members of tho Commission which are attached to the report are more numerous than usual. The PRINCE of WALES, in order to maintain his position of neutrality, does not sign the report in any way or make any comment. Lord LINGEN, another member, does not agree to auy alteration or relaxation of the present Poor Laws, except in the direceion of more thorough administration and improvement in the direction of kindness and humane treatment of paupers. Mr LOCH, I of the Charity Organisation Society, as might have been expected, rigidly adheres to the strict lines of orthodox economy as laid down in the principles of his society, which has been described, perhaps a little severely, as a society which consists mainly of organisation with a slight tinge of charity. Mr ROUNDELL and Mr PEEL each object to particular points in the report. Lord BRASSEY, Mr JAMES STOART, and other social reformers object that the recommendations made in the report do not go far enough. Mr CHAMBER- LAIN and Mr CHARLES BOOTH, who have different schemes of old age pensions, and Mr RITCHIE are completely out of sympathy with the report. Obviously, such a report can be of very little assistance in the settle- ment of the questions which the Commission was appointed to inquire into. The value in the Commission to the State will be, as usual, not tha report of the commissioners, but the evidence which 7 # they collected. It is somewhat disappoint- ing to find in the report the declara- tion that no fundamental alterations are needed in the existing system of Poor-Law relief as it affects the aged," I and that it would be undesirable to interfere by either statute or order with the discre- tion of the Guardians in granting relief to the aged. Where there is a sensible and humane body of men on the Board of Guar- dians no doubt this is true, but in the case of many Unions the administration of the I Poor Laws is a grim farce. This particular part of the report is more disappointing than all the rest, but where there is so much disagreement and not one practical or important recommendation is made by the Commission, the whole report may be passed lightly by. The Commission has prevented any immediate legislation on the subject for the next tew years. But it is too much to expect that Mr CHAMBERLAIN and Mr CHARLES BOOTH are likely to allow their I schemes of old age pensions to disappear from public notice. The question will be constantly raised, and the pity is that after waiting so long for the report of the Com- mission it practically leaves the whole question where it was. It has taken two years to discover that things are not so bad after all, and are not likely to be much mended by alterations. Mr CHAMBERLAIN, who has expressed his want of sympathy with the report, is likely to go on advocating his scheme for old age pensions. He believes that in the case of the labouring classes at least one in three become paupers at the age of sixty-five, and he argues for a system of State-aided voluntary insurance. Mr CHARLES BOOTH, on the other hand, who has done so much to get at an accurate estimate of the condition and the numbers of the destitute poor in London, goes further than this, and advocates old age pensions, paid by the State, to every man and woman on attaining the age of sixty- five at the rate of five shillings per week. These and other systems of compulsory and voluntary State insurance for the aged were laid before the Commission, and of this part of the subject the report states :-16 We have carefully examined the various schemes for State assistance to the aged which have been submitted to us, and we regret that in view of the financial and economic difficulties involved we have been unable to recommend the adoption of any of them." If we are to take finding of the Commission I as a settlement of the question of the aged I poor, there was no justification for the appointment of the inquiry, for they leave things just where they found them. Here is the opinion of the majority of the mem- bers of the Commission on the number of adult poor. It is an opinion held by very few who have taken the trouble to inquire < I very carefully into the subject. The report declares that the view often held, that the aged labourer has in general only the work- house before him in which to end his days, has been shown to be erroneous." Would that this doctrine were true. It would be ) worth more than the cost of the Commission to any nation to find that it were so. I The reader may form his or her own opinion on this point from personal observation, and he or she will be assisted in arriving at a I quite different conclusion from that of the majority of the Commissioners by noting the fact that several of the members dissent very strongly from it. It is surely a matter of everyday knowledge that the opinion of the majority on this point is not borne out by fscts. The reader may be wondering by this time whether the report recommends anything at all. The report is not entirely barren, but it does set forth as being desirable many Unions are already en- I deavouring to carry out on the initiative of sensible and humane Poor Law Guardians.

MURDER IN BARRAGK8. A dreadful imurder was committed at Ipswich 'I' Militia Barracks on Sunday, a. member of the permanent staff of the Suffolk Artillery Militia, named Walsh, sergeant-instructor in gunnery, shooting Quartermaster-Sergeant Parkin, another member of the staff. The two men were alone in the gunnery after the staff had attended church, when Walsh took down a carbine and fired full in the faoe of his companion. The bullet passed right through the head, causing instant death. Walsh, who is in custody, is stated to have of late i apparently suffered from delusions.

THE CHARGE AGAINST A SWANSEA SOLICITOR. Said to have Misappropriated £ 5,448. Tbe knowledge that Mr Charles Norton, the well-known Swansea solicitor, would be brought np at the Swansea Police Court 011 Thuxsday ou a charge of breach of trustwhicharoseout of evidence given by him in his recent public examination in bankruptcy, attracted an exceptionally large attendance at the court. Mr Norton, who has since Christmas been detained in prison for noncompliance with the requirements of the Bankruptcy Court, was brought to the Police Court in a cab under a writ of habeas corpus, and while waiting the opening of the case was accommodated in the inspector's office. On entering the court, which he did from the cells, he went into the dock. THK CHARGES SPECIFIED. That Mr Norton, being trustee under the wills of the late Mr and Mr8 Craddock, of Leamington, did appropriate to his own use and benetit (1) the sum of £ 3,000 left for the benefit. of Ernest Arthur Craddock and his children, under aud by II virtue ot a certain will of Jobu Craddock, ou August the 28th, 1885 (2) the slim of £ 400, being part of £ 1,000 left for tho beuetic of Emily Gertrude Hayites under and by virtue of the will of Louisa Onwldock on the 31st of January, 1833 (3) the sum of £ 455 left for the benefit of Emilv Gertrude Haynes under and by virtue of the will of Louisa Craddock on July 1st, 1885 (4) the sum of R,1,000 left for the benefit of Euuly Gertrude Hay ties uuder and by virtue of the wiU of Louisa Craddock on June 21st, 1830 and (5) the sum of £ 633 left for the benefit of Emily Gertrude Haynes under and by virtue ot the will of Louisa. Craddock on the Slet ot December. 1391. ANTKCKDBNTN OF THK ACCUSED. He went on to "ay that Mr Norton, who had previously been practising at Nuneaton, came to Swansea in 1867. and ultimately he succeeded the late Mr Joliti Trevilian Jenkin as solicitor there. Since that time he had been Carrying on business in Swansea as solicitor, and the circumstances of the charge that was being preferred against him originally arose out of the will of the late John Craddock and his wife Louisa Craddock, of Leamington, with whom he became acquainted when practising at Suneaton, for whom he "acted as solioitor, and with whom he was on very friendly terms. The late John Craddock was a solicitor and banker, carrying on business at Leamington, and by his will, made in 1866, he appointed his widow (Mra Louisa Craddock) and the Rev. T. E. Meredith tiustees, And after making certain genoral and specilic bequests ho gave £ 3,000 in trust for his son, Ernest Arthur Craddock, for his life, and after his death for the child or children absolutely. Ernest Craddock died oil the 27th April, 1881, leaving issue one ohild, named Emily Louisa Craddock, who attained her majority on the 23rd May, 1893. Mr Norton, after the death of Mrs Louisa Craddock, as the trustee of the will of John Craddock, became possessed of y, sum representing the legacy of £ 5,000, upon which he paid interest to Mr Ernest Arthur Craddock during his life, but he failed to pay this legaoy to Emily Louisa Craddock, who 18 now entitled to it as the daughter of Mr Ernest Craddock. There was a second codicil to the will, dated the 10th of December, 1874, revoking the appoint. ment of the Rev. Mr Meredith as executor and trustee under the will. John Craddock died on the 30th December, 1874, and his will and codicils were proved in 1875 by his widow, Mrs Louisa Craddock, the soie executrix, and he believed on that occasion Mr Norton acted as solicitor for Mrs Craddock. The estate of John Craddock was sworn as under £ 200,000. Mrs Oraddook made hot- will on the 19fch of July, 1880, and she by that will appointed Mr Norton and her daughter Emily Gertrude Craddock (now Mrs Haynes) executor and executrix, and Mr Norton sole trustee. Mrs Craddock died on the 8eh of July, 1881, and probate of her will was granted on the 29th of July, 1881, to Mr Norton and Mrs Haynes, and among other depo. sitions in her will Mrs Craddock bequeathed to Emily Gertrude Haynes the sum of £1,000 absolutely, and gave the residue of her estate to Mr Norton and her daughter in trust for Emily for her life, and after her death for her children, and, in default of children, as she by will should appoint. NEAKMT £ 17,000 IN NORTON'S HANDS. Mr Norton had the sole control of the property under that will, and had the whole of the securities representing the property in his hands. Mrs Haynes took no active or controlling part in bhe administration of those estates, Mr Norton, being the trUsree under the will of her mother, and also beoorning thereby executrix's trustee, under the will of her father, of securities which passed under those wills. He would, as trustee, bo able to dispose of them in the usual way. That property of Mra Oraddock's, as would appear by the books of Mr Norton (which had been examined, and which he would put before the Court), on the 31st ot December, 1891, amounted to £13.331 Is, after paying debts and legacies other than those which had been referred to, and in addition to that there would be proved the sum of £ 2,250 in the hands of Mr Norton, which had continued in his hands and was contained in his ledgers in the trust account relating to the late John Crad- dock. So he should be able to prove to the Court from Mr Norton's books and other evidence that the aggregate amount of trust money which had come into his hands was £16,881 Is 2d. He continued to pay interest on the various sums of money which were in his hands for investment from time to time to the persons entitled to the beneficiary and the interest accruing under those wills until a very recent date. ACTION IN CHANOBHY. But he thought he would be able to show that although investments had been long since dis- charged and the moneys received by Norton, still the interests were paid by him in the manner he bad indicated, not out of the revenue received in respect of those securities, but from his own private sources. Mrs Haynes and Miss Craddock having applied unsuccessfully to Mr Norton for the payment of the legacies and also of the moneys in his hands, and being nnable to procure them, on the 31st of May, 1894, they commenced an action in the Court of Chancery to obtain payment of those legacies and trust funds, and an order was made that Mr Norton should bring into court the securities which, it was alleged, be had in his hands. Mr Norton having failed to ooinply with the order, a writ of attach- ment was issued against him, and the writ was now in force. Now Mr Norton was charged with appropriating £ 3,000 to his own use. That bequest was contained in the will of the late John Crad- dock, which he would produce. He was also charged with appropriating £ 1,000, which was was given in the will of Mrs Louisa Craddock to Mr Haynes, jBtOO to his ownt use. He (the ^speaker), would call Mn) Haynes to prove she had only received J6600 on account of the bequest, and there was a balance due to her of £400. The next item dealt with was JM55 received by Mr Norton on the 1st of July, 1885, also forming part of the estate of Mrs Louisa Craddock, which lie should be able to prove was received by Mr Norton, was paid by him into his banking account, and had been used by him for his own private purposes. That sum was in respect of Nuneaton Shares, while the fourth sum of £ 1,000, also forming part of the general estate, it was alleged Mr Norton received in 1890, and was in respect of some property known as the Stockiiigford property, the money for which he received into his own hands, and which they would be able to prove got into hit own backing account and was used by Mr Norton for his own personal pur- poses. With respect to the fifth Item of JB630, it was received on the 21st December, 1891, in rebpect of a mortgage by one Thomas Jones, and was received by Mr Norton on the date named, and came into his banking account and was used by him for his own purposes. The evidence he should call would go to show that the various securities that had been in existence had been from time to time discharged, and the moneys in respect thereof had been received by Mr Norton and paid by him, not into a separate trust fund, but to his own bank, to his own personal oredit, and that there were now no securities in respect thereof. For the breach of trust he had rendered himself liable to the on minal law, and for that he should ask them to send Mr Norton for trial. Mrs Haynes was then called and gave evidence chiefly of a documentary character in substantia- tion of the statements in theopeniufif speech. She was under examination when the Court adjourned for lunch. AN adjournment. On the conclusion of Mrs HaynWm evidence the case was adjourned for a fortnight. Mr Glascodine asked for bad. but Mr Da vies strongly opposed this. The Bench said they would not grant bail at this stage, and when they did they would require the substantial amount of £ 1,000. The prisoner was then removed in oostody.

MODERN DRAMA, After a good honest snarl by th« Press, the ex- Bank clerk has been allowed to seat himself comfortably in the censorial chair Jefll vacant by the death of the late Mr Piggott. By those who know him best, he is credited with an impartial and judicial mind, and may probably fulfil his censoring duties in such mild and fatherly fashion as to become a popular figure in the dramatic world. There is very little that is new to reoord in theatrical circles. Mr Irving is very busy rehearsing at the Lyceum. ,,Irl i.,i which "fetched" THE NEW CENSOR GV PLAMi, MB GKO. A. "BEDFORD. I thp Bristol ians .0, "A Story of Waterloo,"along with a short -I ram ale t t Don Quixote," hy thelateMrG. Wills, are to form the attrae- i va menu at this inn pie of Thalia. While Lewis Waller is tired of >j«ing an Ideal Knsband," and uieans throwing it over and be- coming a bache- lor again, the lessee of the theatre is win- ning theheartsof the oi&izens in the City of Cult- ohaw, and what Boston says is, of course, law to all America, save, perhaps, Philadelphia. Mr Comyns Carr is withdrawing !Sowin(? the Wind at the Oomedyfor *> play by* Sardou- l'

Alleged Libel on Oscar Wilde. LORD QUEENSBERRY ON HIS TRIAL. DEFENDANT PLEAD?JUSTIFICATION. The suit of Oscar Wilde and the Marauis of Queensberry was down in on Wednesday's list for trial at the Central Criminal Court, before MrJus- tice Collins and a common jury. The words of the indictment charge John Sholto Douglas with maliciously publishing a defamatory libel of and concerning Oscar Finjral O'Flahertie Wi!ls Wilde. The general public and the members of the Junior Bar were very early in attendance, and not only was ail sitting room taken up, but the passages of the court were so blocked by the crush that ingress and egress was a matter of great difficulty. Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., Mr Mathews, and Mr Travers Humphreys had been retained for the prosecution Mr Carson, Q.C., Mr C. F. Gill, and Mr A. Gill were counsel for the defence, a watching brief for Lord Alfred Douglas (the son of the defendant) being held by Mr Besley, t^.C., and Mr Monckton. The plaintiff arrived ftt half-past 10, accompanied by his solicitor, and took a seat lu the well of the court immediately in front of Sir Edward Clarke. Immediately afterwards the jury answered to their names, but it was not until 20 minutes to 11 that silence was called for the entrance of the learned Judge. Lord Queensberry at once surrendered to his bail, and was conducted to the dock. His Lordship seated himself, but obediently to the attendant's request advanced to the front and stood with his amis resting upon the ledge. The Clerk of the Court having read the indictment charging the defendant with having published a defamatory libel of the plaintiff upon a card addressed to him, Lord Queensberry replied, Not guilty," and added the further plea The libel is true, and Was published for the public benefit." SIR KOWARD OLARKE'I!! OPENINGADDITKBS. For the prosecution, Sir Edward Clarke then openad. The libel, he said, was upon a visiting card containing the name of Lord Queensberry, and it was a matter of very serious moment, because it imputed to Mr OfCM Wilde the gravest offence with which a man could be charged. But a far graver issue was raised by the plea that the libel was justified, and that Mr Oscar Wilde had for a considerable period solicited certain persons (whose names were mentioned in the pleadings) to com- mit indecent practices. Tha learned counsel traced the plaintiff's career at Trinity College, Dnblin, and subsequently at Magdalen College, Oxford, his marriage with a. daughter of the late Mr Lloyd, Q.C., and his later literary and WILDE. J artistic career. He detailed the plaintiff's social connection with the sons of the defendant and wivh Lady Queensberry, who some years ago obtained relief from the marriage tie owing to misconduct on the part of the Marquis. Touch- ing n*xt on the introduction of Mr Wilde to Lord Quaeusberry by Lord Alfred Douglas at the Cafe Royal, Sir Enward called the attention of the jury to a. personage not hitherto mentioned This was a man who had been given some clothes by Lord Alfred Douglas, and who alleged that in the pockets he discovered four letters addressed to Lord Alfred by Mr Oscar Wilde. Whether the man had fouud or stolen them was a matter of speculation. This person came to Mr Oscar Wilde, represented himself as in distress and as wanting to go to America, and the plaintiff gave him JS15 or j620 in order to pay his passage. He then handed t(oplitintiff the letters. Tothosetetters he (Sir E. Clarke) did not attach the slightest im- portance. As was generally the case the important letter was retained. While Mr Oscar Wilde's play A Woman of No Impoltancc" was in prepara- tion, what appeared to be to some extent the copy of a letter was handed to Mr Tree, the actor, with a request to give it to Mr Wilde. After this another individual called on the plaintiff and offered him the original, but he said "No," he had a copy whioh he looked upon as a work of art and did not want the original. Plaintiff looked upon the letter as a sort of prose sonnet, and told the man that it would probably •ftpeav as a eonnet poem. It did so appear in a critical magazine edited by Lord A. Douglas and called The Spirit Lamp. The learned counsel read a letter opening with the wOlds" My own boy,—Year sonnet was lovely, and it is a marvel. That most red-rose-leaved lips of yours should be made for the music of song rather than for the madness of kissing." The writersuggested that Lord Alfred,being alone in London,should go to Salisbury "and coolyour hands in the gay twilight of Gothic things." The signature was always With undy- ing love. yours, Oscar." The words of the letter did appear extravagant to those in the habit of reading commercial correspondence. (Laughter.) But it was merely an expression of poetic feeling, It bad no relation whatever to the painful sugges- tion now made. On the production of the plain- tiffs play, "Thelmportance of Being iu Earnest," Lord Queensberry was refused admission and his money returned, beoauxe he brought to the theatre A BOUQUET or VKQUTABUSS -(Iaughter)-and the jury might have their doubts whether his Lordship was responsible for his actions. The learned advocate dealt at some length with the suggestion made against plaintiff because of his connection with certain literary productions, and as showing his real feeling. As to improper publications, he mstanoed the fact that the plaintiff the instant he saw a production called "The Priest and the Acolyte wrote to the editor of the magazine protesting against its continued appearance. As to Mr Wilde's Pic- ture of Dorian Gray," it was simply idealising reality in the sense of harmony and beauty. Sidney Wright, the porter of the Albermarle, deposed to handing Lord Queensberry's post- oard;to Mr Oscar Wilde. OSOAR IN THK BOX. The plaintiff himself then entered the witness- box, and assuming an easy poze with his arms resting on the rail, he answered the questions of his leader in a firm, deliberate voice. He me the man Wood, who had the letters reterred to, at the rooms of a tailor, and Wood said a man named Allen had stolen the letters from him, but they had been recovered by a detective. Plaintiff told him he did not consider the letters of an$ importance. Wood said he had been offered j660 for what witness described as his beautiful letter to Lord Alfred Douglas." His reply was, I never received so large a sum for a prose work so short in length." That letter. formed the basis of a French poem, afterwards published and signed by a young French poet, a friend of his own. Passing from various inter- views with Wood and another person named Tyler, witness described a scene with Lord Queensberry in his library. He told defendant he supposed he had come there to apolo- gise for the letter he bad written about plaintiff and his son. Defendant replied that the letter was privileged, adding that plain- tiff and Lord Alfred had been kioked out of the Savoy Hotel at a moment's notice, and that they had been blaokinailed, and that plaintiff had taken rooms for defendant's son in Piccadilly, These statements were perfeotly untrue. THREATENED WITH A TRUFAHTNG. He asked defendant, Do you seriously accuse your son and me ?" Lord Queensberry answered. I do not say that you are it, but you look it." (Slight applause in court.) The learned Judge I will have the court cleared if there is the smallest repetition of disturbance. Witness completed Lord Queensberry's answer —" I do not say that you are it, but you look it, and you pose at it, which is just as bad. If I catch you iu a public caf6 again with my son I will thrash you." Plaintiff replied, 1 don't know what the Queensberry Rules are, but ¡' the Oscar Wilde rule is to shoot at sight." He then ordered the defendant out of his house, saying to the servant, This is the Marquis of Queensberry, the most infamous brute in London. Never allow him to enter my house again. If he attempts it, send for the police." He was not responsible for the publication of "The Priest and the Acolyte in the Cameleon Mtugazine. He disapproved of it, and expressed his disapproval to the editor. There was no trnth in the state- t ments of defendant contained in the pleadings. 4WOB8E THAN IMMORAL-BADLY WBITTKN. Mr Carson began his cross-examination by asking plaintiff whether ho was not something over 39, the age whioh he bad given in his examination-iii-chief. He now said he was born on the 16th October, 1854. In addition to his houee iu Chehea he had rooms in St. JamesVplaoe, and Lord A. Douglas had visited them. He regarded the Priest and Acolyte as violating all the artistio canons and as being disgusting twaddle, but he had never publicly dissociated himself from the Cameleon in which it appeared. Was the Priest and Acolyte" tmrnora! ?— It was worse, it was badly written. (Laughter.) The learned counsel took plaintiff through a series of questions on his "Phrasea and Philoso- phies contributed to the Cameleon. Wickedness is a myth invented by good people to account for the attractivenss of others." Do you hold that to be a safe sitiorn?-Witnose: I Most stimulating. (Laughter.) You think anything that stimulates thought is I good, whether moral or immoral t—Thought is neither one nor the other; thought is intellectual. Counsel called attention to a criticism of Dorian Gray in the Scots Observer, in which it was described as set in an atmosphere of moral corruption," and asked plaintiff whether he regarded that as a suggestion that his work pointed to a certain grave offence ?—-Witness Some might think it so, whether reasonable or not. AN SXTKAORDINARY LKTTBR. Mr Caraon Listen to this second letter of your own toLord A. DougIAs:- Dearest of all -boys,—Your letter was; delightful, and,l it was like retiz and., vellow w»n<»f TT"> T out of sorts. You must not make sqfenes with me they kill me—they wreck the loveliness of life. I cannot see you so Greek and gracious, distorted by passion. I cannot listen to your curved lips saying hideous things to nie. Don't do it, you break my heart. I must see you soon. You are the divine thing I want, a thing of grace and genius, but I do not know how to do it. Shall I come to Salisbury ? Thsre are many difficulties. My bill here is £149 for the week. I have also a new sitting-room over the Thames for you. Why are you not here, my wonderful boy 1 I fear I must leave. No money, 110 credit, and a heart of lead.—Ever your own, OSCAK. Plaintiff (with a lofty air) An extraordinary of lead.—Ever your own, OSCAR. Plaintiff (with a lofty air) An extraordinary letter. Everything I write is extraordinary, (Laughter.) Mr Carson You do not pose as being ordinary Plaintiff (with a gesture of contempt): No. Is that a love letter ?—It is a letter expreseive Cross-examination coutinued: Wood was a young man who had held a clerkship, and was in of love. Cross-examination coutinued: Wood was a young man who had held a clerkship, and was in a different social position. He had been asked by Lord A. Douglas to help Wood, and slipped with Wood at a cafe on the night of his intro- duction. On one occasion he gave Wood j62, but not for an object suggested by the learned counsel. He never misconducted himself with Wood at his house irfChelsea while his (plaintiff's) wife and children were away. RKMAltKABLK STATEMENTS). When Wood brought those letters to him he thought he came to levy blackmail. My suggestion to yon is that instead of giving him J616 you gave him J630. Did you not give him JB5 the following day ?-Yes. (Sensation.) Did you have a champagne farewell lunch with the man who levied blackmail "-Yes; he con' vinced me he had no bxd intention, and that the letters had been stolen by other persons. Was it then you gave him the £ 5 ?—Yes. Why ? he SMd.615 would land him penniless at New York. Did yon not think it strange that a man with whom you had lunched in a private room should seek to levy blackmail ?—PerFect'y infamous. Cross-examination resumpd He knew Wood as Alfred," and two other men named Allen and Taylor were also known to him. Allen was known to him by reputation as a blackmailer and nothing else. Ho gave Allen 109 to show his contempt." (Liughtsr.) After Allen came Olybume, who also consulted him about the letters. He was also kind to Cly- burne and gave him lOs. (Laughter.) He told Cly- burue he was afraid he was leading a dreadfully wicked life. Clyburne said, There's good and bad in all of us," to whioh he replied, You are a philosopher." (Laughter.) Is the discovered letter the only one that a sonnet was written about ?—I should have to go through a great deal of modern poetry before I -covrtd answer that. (Laughter.) Did you become fond of the office boy to a firm of publishers in February, 1892 t -No. Was it a young man of IS employed in the shop ?—Yes. Was he a handsome boy?—He had an ifltel* lectual face. Did you ask this lad to dine with you at the Albemarle Hotel ?—Yes. Was that for the purpose of an intellectual treAt ?-Well, for him, yes. (Laughter.) Did you dine alone ?—No, a gentleman Was present. (Plaintiff wrote the name.) Counsel closely questioned plamtitf as to what took place while the lad was in his company, and plaintiff appealed to the learned judge to protect him from the ignomy of being obliged to answer detail after detail, seeing that he denied all. Did you ever give him any money ?—Yes. an three occasions. First, £4; secondly, a railway fare to Cromer, where my wife and I were staying; on the third occasion. £ 5. Did you present him with copies of your works t -Yes. With the inscription, "To Dear Edward?'— Yes. Did you become friendly with a lad who sold newspapers, bnt who Was a loafer, at Worthing (Laughter. )—YeE. Was he a literary character?—No. He and another youth assisted two fishermen to pulldown the boat I and Lord A. Douglas were using. We took the youths ior a sail, Was Alphonso literary ?-No; he was a pleasant kind of creature. (Laughter.) No familiarity ever took place ? Did; you give Alphonso sums amounting in all to £ 15 ?—- Plaintiff (emphatically): Never. You gave him a cigarette case, a nook, and your photo?—Yes. V Counsel held up a walking-stick, amidst laughter, and plaintiff said he gave\ it to Alphonso. He took the same boy to Brighton and gave him a blue serge suit. It might have been that their bedrooms at the hotel communi- cated. Mr Carson had not concluded his examination when, at a quarter to five, the conrt adjonmed. Lord Queensberry was again admitted to bail. THUHSDAY'8 PROCEEDINGS. The Marquis ot Queensberry again surrendered to his bail to-day at the Central Criminal Court, charged with publishing a defamatory libel con- cerning Mr Oscar Wilde. The doors were opened at half-past nine, and even at that comparatively early hour the Junior Bar not only monopolised the greater part of the sitting accommodation, but overflowed into the adjacent passages in such numbers as to seriously obstruct the view from many points. For some time the chief usher was occupied in finding seats for holders of cards of admission, and the aldetmanio benoh soon became as crowded as yeaterday. Lord Alfred Douglas, a pale, slim, fair-haired youth, aat tn It. remoll.. ooraer olose to the dtxw through which the Judge usually enters from the robing-room. The Marquis was again attired in. the semi-sporting costume which seems to go far towards making him a distinctive personality. Mr Wilde, with his flowing hair, brushed back and falling negligently upon the heavy black velvet collar of his overcoat, sat chatting to his solicitor for some time before the reappearance of the jury. Lord Queensberry took hit place in the dock at half-past 10, and a few moments later Mr Justice Collins oame in. As Mr Wilde stepped into the witness- box holding a glass of water, the defendaut wrote a note and passed it dowu to his counsel. OSCAR AGAIN IN THE BOX. Mr Carson, Q.C., at once resumed his cross. examination by putting to Mr Wilds questions about) his relationship with the man Taylor. He used to go to the upper part of a house occupied by Taylor, whero th«re were tea parties. Taylor's tootne did not strike him as peculiar, exoept that they were more tasteful than usual. Were they not luxurious for the upper part of a house—13, Little College-street ?—They were pretty rooms. Did you ever see the curtains otherwise tbátl drawn ?—Yes. Were you ever there at any time when light was let into those rooms and when a double set of curtains wete not drawn across ?—Yes, onoe in March. Were not these rooms always strongly per- fumed ?-I would not SAY always. Taylor burnt perfumes. Did you meet Wood there ?-Yes. And another person (named) ?—Yes but I have not seen him for a year, and have not the remotest idea where he is at present. Have you been told he has disappeared within the last week ?—No; his mother was asked by Taylor where he was, and was told he would be back home on Monday. Did you see Taylor with a lady's costume on ? —No. JUftQUIS OF QOKHNSBSUay. Mr Carson having concluded his cross-examina- tion, Sir Ed ward Clarke began his examination by putting in certain letters of Lord Quewnsberry upon which questions were put to plaintiff. The first of the series was dated Carters Hotel, W., April. 1st, and was from Lord Queensberry to Lord Alfred Dou^la*. ASTOUNDING ALLKGATIOKS. The writer began :— Alfred,—It is exceedingly painful for mi to have to address you in this style, but I decline to receive any letters from you. Any which may come in a disguised handwriting or in other people's will be put in the fire unread. Ain I to understand that having left Oxford as you did with discredit to yourself, the reasons of which were fully explained to me by your tutor, you now intend to lounge about town ? I was put off with th# assurance that you were going into the Civil Service or the Foreign Office. Then the assurance was given me that you were going to the Bar. It appears to me you intend to do nothing. You are too late now for any profession, antl I utterly decline to supply you with. ufficient funds to enable you to loaf. You are preparing a wretched future for yourself, and it would be cruel and wrong for me to encourage you in this. l)o you seriously intend to encourage you in this. Do you seriously intend to make no attempt to help yourself? Secondly, your infa- mous intimacy with this man Wilde must cease, or I will disown you and stop all money supplies, and if necessary I will go personally and tell hun so. I atn nnt going to try 1 o analyse this intimacy, and make no accusations, but to po»o as a thing is as bad as to be it.. Vv'ith my own eyes from this window I saw you in disgusting and loathsome familiarity. It was proved by your manner and the expression of your countenance. It turned my blood cold. Nevor have T seen such a sigbt in human nature as I saw in your hort-ibio fast. I hear now on good authority that his wife is petitioning for u divorce from him on the grounds (if-iatid unnatural crimes. Is this true, and do you know it ? If it is what is your position, going about with him as a woman? The hoTror has crossed iny mind that you may possibly be brought into this whether true or not. Posing 044018 (o tD6 to bo equivalent to ti criminal relation- ship- If I thought the actual thing true I should be justified in shooting him on the spot. These English Christian cowardtT!—men they call themselves—want waking up. I will stand this no longer. I will stop all money or insist on your leaving the co.atry.-Your disgusted so-called father, QUBENSBSRKY. Sir E. Clarke r Is there any foundation for the statement as to a petition for divorce?—Plaintiff: Not the slightest. WHAT A FUNNY LITTLE MAN." Sir E. Clarke informed the jury that Lord Alfred Douglas replied to the letter by wiring :-— Queensberry, Carter's Hotel.—What a funny little man you are.—Arjcnrci) DOUGLAS. -(Much laughte:) The answer of Lord Queens- bevxy was dated Tuesday, April 3,0..1 :— You impertinent young Jackanapes. I.request you not to send me such messages by telegraph, and if you go on sending me impertinent messages I will give you the thrashing you so richly deserve. Your only, excuse is Mioj*. un rho cranv. learn from an Oxford man j that that was your reputation there. If I oateh rdl. with this ma.n Wilde I w ill make a public scandal fh <t way you ittle dream of. It is already a suppressed one. I prefer an open on e. Unless the acquaintance ceases I shall carry out ir<v threat and stop supplies. I will cut, you down to a mere pittance, so yon know what to expect. QCEKNSBBRRY. The next letter said Y'he learned oounsel, wal from Lord Queensberry fro Mr A. Montgomery, the father of the lady win? was formerly defend. ant's wife, and who was the mother of Lord Alfred. Savoy Hotel. Why send such a telegram unless the boy denies staying there with Oscar Wilde? As a matter of fact he did so. and there has been a Btiuking scaiidal. I know that thay were warned off, but the proprietor will not allow this. This hideous lCaudaJ hM been going 011 for year". Your daughter must be mad the way she is b»having. She evidently thinks I want to make out a case against my son. Nothing of the kind. I have made out a case against Oscar Wilde. I said to him. I do not accuse you of beinlt a ————, hut, you look like one and you pose as one. If I were certain of the actual fact I would 5hoot, the fellow at sight. I accuse him 0 posin*. I will mark him if lie does not stop. I don't believe Wilde will now defy me. He plainly showed the white feather. He is a cur and coward of the Rosebery type. I am convinced that the Rosebery-Gladstone-Royal insult that came to me through my other son-tbat she worked that. I saw Drumlaurig on the river last night, and it rather upset me. A MKLANOHOLY ItfSFEBKNCB. Lord Drumlaurig, the learned counsel explained, was the defendant's eldest son, who recently died. The letter continued :— It shall be known some day that Rosebery not onl, insulted me by lying to the Queen (whichjnakei her at bad as him) and Gladstone, but also has made a iife- long quarrel between my son and mp. PAKKNTAL LANGUAGE. In a letter following from Scotland on the 251st of August, 1894, Lord Queensberry addressed Lord Donglas as An abortion and a reptile. You are no son of mine, and I never thought you were. On the 29th of August) he addressed bim as "you miserable creature," and went on— If you are my son, it is only confirming to me how right I was to face hoTor am) misery rather than bring others into the wortd that is my reason for breaking off with your mother. So dissatisfied was I Iba1í when you were quite a baby I shed bitterest tears that I had brought.-such a creatine) into 1 lie world; that! had unintentionally committed such a ciime. You must be deme'ited. There is madness on your mother's side. Few families in thi« Christian country are without it if you look into them. It all depends 011 yourself whether I make you any further allowances. Replying to his counsel, plaintiff said be utterly disregarded Lord Queensberry's requests that he should discontinue seeing Lord Alfred Douglas. He made some modification in one passage of Dorian Grey obediently to a suggestion of the late Mr Walter Pater. On the Court reassembling after the adjourn-" ment, Mr Oscar Wilde apologised to his Lordship for keeping the jury waiting some minutes. Keplymg to Sir E. Clarke, he said he helped the bookseller's assistant Shelley because he was in difficulties and was a young man interested in literary subjeots. Taylor WM educated ab Marlborough. ^Nothing had come, to plaintiff's knowledge, against the charscter of certain per--> sons mentioned in cross-examination to-day. He had never been at Camera-square or Park- walk. He at first refrained from taking proceed- ings against Lord Queensberry owing to pressure brought upon him by the Queensberry family. On the conclusion of the re-examination a letter was put in from Lord A. Douglas to his father accusing him of meanly depriving him of meney. If necessary he should defend himself with » revolver. If he (Wilde) or I shoot you we shall be acting in self-defence against a violent and daugerons rough. If you were dead nobody would miss you. After the reading of correspendence between Lord Queensberry and Mr Wilde's solicitors the case for the plaintiff closed. ADDRESS FOB THE DBFKNOB. Mr Carson at once began bis address to the jury for the defence. He said the Marquis of Queensbury withdrew nothing, and what he had done was premeditatively done. Taylor was the pivot of the whole oase, and be, the proprietor of the extraordinary den in Little College was absented. These various men would would be called on defendant's behalf, and would prove for what purpose they were introduced by Talor to Oscar Wilde, who bad strange associates as a man of art, and who has so generous and demooratio a soul. That he could accommodate himself to the valet, the coachman, and the newspaper boy. (Laughter.) From plaintiff's writings and course uf hfe defendant was justified in assuming that Wilde was addicted to certain habits. The idea of The Priest and the Acoiytt" and of Dorian Gray" was precisely the same idea as that disclosed in Wilde's letters to Lord A. Doagtes. What would be the horror of any member of the jury finding that his own son, under the domination of a person hke Mr Osoar WIld., had written contributions in the Chameleon dis- closing the results of that education tll certain tendencies of mind. If they came to the conclusion that Mr Wilde's book Dorian Grey was of the description he had submitted to them It here could be no answer to the plea of justification; and Lord Queensberry was bound to have acted as he bad in the interests of his own son. The case was adjourned, defendant being admitted to bail.