The North Wales Weekly News

Conway Bridge and Tolls. Important Chancery Action. I An action of considerable interest to the residents of I Conway, and the cab proprietors and owners of Llandudno and Colwyn Bay, was heard before Mr, Justice Eye in the Chancery Division on Thursday, when the plaintiffs were the Conway Bridge Commissioners, and the defendant was Mr. John Lloyd Jones, the lessee of the tolls. The action was brought by plaintiffs, seeking an injunction restraining- the defendant from levying increased tolls on the Conway Bridge. Mr. E. Clayton, K.C., and Mr. Trevor Lloyd (instructed by Mr. W. Thornton Jones, Bangor) were for the Commission- ers, and the defendant was represented by Mr. P. O. Lawrence. K.C., and Mr. Owen Thompson (instructed by Mr. J. W. Hughes, solicitor, Conway). Mr Clayton said the Corporation of Conway consisted of the members for the time being of the Town Council of the Borough of Conway, and as such they were incorporated under the name of the Conway Bridge Commissioners. There was vested in the Corporation the bridge over the river Conway and the right to levy tolls on persons and vehicles passing over the bridge, with the right to let the tolls. The defendant, Mr Jones, was the present lessee of the tolls under a deed of 22nd March, 1907, The action was for an injunc- tion to restrain the defendant from carrying out a threat to levy tolls in breach of the terms of the lease, and the com- plaint was that after having for nearly two years conformed to the terms of the lease as to levying the tolls, the defendant had now issued a circular that he was going to raise the charges. If carried out this would have a very serious effect in the Borough of Conway. The defendant had raised the question as to the construction of the lease, and he also counter-claimed for rectification if the construction was as alleged by plaintiffs. The tolls which were proposed to be levied by defendant were, no doubt, authorised by the Conway Bridge Act of 1878. Passengers paid id, and a charge of 6d was made on vehicles each time they passed or returned, but there was a provision that the tolls should only be paid once on the same day in the case of foot passengers, private carriages plying for hire, and carts. Up to the time of the granting of the Jease to the defendant, though there was a right under the Act to charge hackney carriages every time they passej, yet, in fact, it was the practice well-known to charge in the case of hackney carriages when empty nothing at all, and in the case where they were carrying the same passengers they were charged only once instead of twice. Mr Lawrence said that was disputed. LIMITATIONS OF THE LEASE. The submission of the plaintiffs was that the words of the lease limited the tolls to be charged by defendant to those which, according to the practice at the date of the lease, were in fact levied. The words were that the tolls shall not be increased beyond the tolls now taken," and he submitted that meant those which might be demanded under the Act. There were exceptions to the charges for foot passengers, such as children going to school, people going to church, a..d burgesses going to vote. His Lordship Did people have to make a statutory de- claration that they were going to church ? (Laughter). Mr Clayton said there was some difficulty, as obviously a person might say he was going to church when he was only going to qualify as a bona fide traveller. (Loud laughter). The defendant had issued a circular that he intended to levy the tolls allowed bv the Act. and therefore the action was commenced. He should call witnesses to show the tolls which were levied at the time of the lease, and should contend that the construction of the lease precluded defendant from doing so, as the words of the lease made a distinction between the tolls which could be taken and those which were now taken, levied, and collected." Mrs. Elizabeth Furness, of Plas Mawr Academy, stated the custom of levying tolls during the three years that she held the lease of the Bridge. Her nephew was in charge, and she went to the bridge daily to assist in the collection of tolls. The return fare was never charged on vehicles during her time, nor to her knowledge for the last twenty years. Mr. T. E. Parry, Town Clerk, was examined at length, and in cross-examination bv Mr. Lawrence, said the Com- missioners had given certain exemptions from tolls without authority from the Crown or from the Act of Parliament. He did not think it had occurred to the Commissioners that the collector had no right to take more or less toll than was authorised by the Act. Mr. Isaac Lloyd Parry, clerk in the employ of the Town Clerk, gave evidence as to the preparation of the draft lease and bond, and the submission of the same to the defendant. Dr. lVI. J. Morgan, one of defendant's sureties, also gave evidence as to the lease and the bond, which were submitted to him. For the defence, Mr. Lawrence, K.C., said he would sub- mit that the lease could not bear the construction placed on it by Mr. Clayton. The lease was taken on the footing that the tolls were to be of a certain amount. Increase of tolls was a phrase, and they did not increase tolls if they exempted certain persons. Increasing or reducing tolls was a very different thing from saying certain persons were to be let off altogether. It was quite plain that the defendant had got the right to charge the several tolls or duties which are or can be now demanded for and on the bridge." The guarantee was that the lease was to be on the footing that the tolls now taken and demanded would continue at least during the period of the lease. There was to be no increase and no de- crease. The only persons who could increase the tolls were the lessors. It was clear the defendant was entitled to charge all the tolls except any mentioned in the Act, but the Commis- sioners had no power to exempt any class, and his lordship would hear that, in fact, this was not done. Some paid and som did not. M*. J. Lloyd Jones, the defendant, said he lived at Con- way, and was a hairdresser by trade. Before he took the lease of the bridge he made observations as to the persons and !ehicles passing over. He made observations lasting over he whole year in 1905, remaining on the bridge for a whole day once a month. He tendered on the result of his obsf'i <ations. Cross-examined.—When he tendered for the lease he was quite unaware that it was the practice not to charge a hack- ney carriage twice, but only once, for a double journey. He knew that a carriage going over the bridge empty to fetch a fare and returning with one would be charged once. He was told this by the cabdrivers, and he followed that practice after he got his lease. The action was adjourned and resumed on Friday morning. Mr. Thompson, summing up the defendant's case, said as to the pure construction of the demise in the lease he contended that the right view to take was that the defendant was entitled to levy all the tolls which were leviable under the statute quite irrespective of any exemptions which were allowed by the Commissioners or the previous leaseholder other than exemptions under the statute. Mr. Clayton, K.C argued at some length in reply on the legal points arising in the case.

The Judgment Mr. Justice Eve :—In this case the plaintiffs, the Conway Bridge Commissioners. claim an injunction to restrain the defendant from levying certain tolls or duties which they allege are proposed to be levied by him, or threatened to be levied by him, in breach of the terms of the lease under which he is lessee of the tolls of the bridge, which is vested in the plaintiffs. Now by the lease the plaintiffs, in exercise of the statutory powers conferred upon them, demise to the defend- ant; All and singular the several tolls or duties specified in the schedule hereto annexed which are or can be now de- manded and taken on or at the site or near the end of the bridge erected over the River Conway at the town of Conway in the County of Carnarvon aforesaid subject nevertheless to all such restrictions and exemptions as are contained in the Statutes relating hereto and so as to such tolls or duties to be taken at any time during this demise shall not be increased beyond the tolls or duties now taken levied and collected at the gate or turnpike aforesaid." Then the lease was for a term of three years from the 1st April, or from midnight on the 31st March, 1907, and the rent which the lessee, the defendant, agreed to pay was a large amount, amounting to ,62,075 for each year of the tenancy. The lease contained various covenants by the lessee for the maintenance of the toll houee and other matters which I need not refer to, and also an express covenant by him, in addition to the statutory exemptions, that he the lessee his executors and adminis- trators shall not nor will at any time during the continuance of the demise take or demand any toll or duty of or from any of the persons or for or in respect of any of the the things hereinafter mentioned, that is to say," and then there were set out in, I think, eleven sub-clauses the name or descrip- tions of persons who were, partly by Statute and partly by some other means, held or treated by the Commis- sioners, the plaintiffs, as exempted from liability to pay toll for the use of the bridge. Now those exemptions do not include the particular matter in respect of which this action is brought. It has been established clearly by the evidence that at the time when the defendant contem- plated tendering for the lease of these tolls and for some years prior thereto-I cannot myself think that it is con- clusively established that for any such period as twenty years prior thereto-but at any rate for some time prior thereto the lessee of the tolls had been in the habit of treating the drivers of hackney carriages plying for hire in a manner which was in favour of the hackney carriage drivers, but it was not in fact authorised by any of the Statutes. What they did is stated succinctly, and I think with accuracy, in paragraph 3 of the statement of claim. It is there said At the date of the said lease one toll only was demanded and taken in respect of a hackney carriage passing over the said bridge with passen- gers and returning with the same passengers or without passengers on the same day and no toll was demanded or taken in respect of a hackney carriage passing without passengers over the said bridge." Now that practice was in vogue and had been followed by the lessee who immediately preceded the defendant, and was perfectly well known to the defendant at the date when he took up this lease; and he continued to follow that practice until the month of February last when he issued a notice to the effect that on and after the 1st March next, which was the 1st of last March, it was his intention to taks advantage of enforcing his rights under the Statute and of charging thereunder a toll in the case of a carriage plying for hire every time it crossed the bridge. When that notice was given the plaintiffs, appreciating that the enforcement of this toll might operate injur- iously to the town, came to an arrangement with the defendant under which the bringing oi the notice into operation was suspended for one month, and in the course of the month, having taken advice, the plaintiffs came to the conclusion that according to the true construction of the lease what the defendant had threatened to do would be a breach of the conditions of the lease, so at the end of the month they accordingly issued the writ in the action, claiming an injunction to restrain him from acting on the notice. That action now comes on for trial, the plain- tiffs on the one hand alleging that if the defendant gives effect to this threat as he intends to do should the decision be in his favour, he will be committing a breach of the lease the defendant on the other hand contending that according to the true construction of the lease he might do, and is entitled to do, that which he threatens to do without commit- ting any breach of the lease; and the question in the action is really a question of construction whether or no bv the lease the defendant is prohibited from exacting from hackney carriages plying for hire a toll each time it crosses the bridge. Now, to clear the ground, the plaintiffs do not contest this, that according to the Act as it stands, and according to that portion of the Act which is incorporated in the schedule to this lease, the defendant is legally right in the position which he takes. That Act is emphasized by this, that in the very section of the Act by which the tolls are fixed and the purport of which is reproduced, if not the exact words which are reproduced in the schedule to this lease, the proviso which exempts certain carriages from paying the second time when they cross over the bridge more than once on the same day, is limited to private carriages and is not extended to carriages plying for hire. But the plaintiffs allege that, although that is the position of the Act, the demise here is so qualified as to prevent the defendant from exercising the statutory right, which he would otherwise enjoy, and they say the limitation is to be found, not in any express covenant to be found in the lease, although as I have pointed out there is at least one express covenant which deals wtth exemptions, but is to be found in the qualifying words with which the demise ends, commencing with the words and so as to such tolls or duties to be taken at any time during this demise shall not be increased beyond the tolls or duties now taken levied and collected at the gate or turnpike aforesaid." and they say that having established, as we have done in this case, that at the time when this lease was granted and for at least three years prior thereto there had been no toll taKen or collected at the gate in respect of the hackney carriage returning with the same fare or returning empty, that qualification prohibits the defendant from now attempting to exact those tolls. Now it is not, I think, open to me to conjecture how the clause came in. If it were so I think at a very eady stage, we all of us were able to make a pretty shrewd guess as to the circumstances under which that clause originated-origin- ated I mean in this lease. namely, that it was a clause which had been copied from earlier leases and quite possibly its history went back to the time when there was, as we know there was at one time, power vested in the Commissioners from time to time to vary tolls; but I do not think for the purposes of construction alone I am really entitled to take that into consideration. On the question of construction I have to treat this as the bargain deliberately come to by the parties who are parties to this lease and say what they meant by the bargain. Now in one respect the argument which has been addressed to me on behalf of the plaintiffs and the defendant goes on the same lines. Both rely upon the word" increased," and both agree, I think, that the word increased" bears the meaning which I think any ordinary person would attach to that-an addition to something which is already in existence. Now on behalf of the defendant it is said if you charge a man nothing you cannot increase nothing by adding something to it. What you do then is to substitute something tor nothing and then you are really im- posing, according to their contention when you impose a toll on him or a tax on him, not by way of addition to an existing tax or toll, but by way of a new imposition, you are not really increasing any toll or tax, but you are taking him out of the category of exempted persons and putting him in the category of persons who are liable to pay. On the other hand, on be- half of the plaintiffs it is alleged that that is too narrow a construction to put upon the word, because the allegation upon which the breach is founded is not an allegation that the hackney carriage was exempted, but an allegation that he was only called upon to pay once and having paid once that freed the bridge for the return journey, or in the case of the first journey being an empty journey, that the payment which was made on the return journey was a payment which covered both the going and the returning journey, and it is said that by adding the toll or extracting the toll, either when the carriage is returning in the first instance or when it is going in the secend instance which I have given, you are increasing a single toll which was paid under the existing practice and making it a double toll. Now with .reference to that there is one matter ot evidence which the lady who was called spoke to which may, from practical point of view, create a little difficulty, because she did say that supposing a hackney carriage went over to the Junction and the driver said he was going to fetch a fare he would be allowed to pass free and if he came back with his fare he would be charged, but if he came back empty and said his fare had not arrived, no charge would be made to him. Therefore there seemed to be a class of cases in which he might both go and return free. Now the first point which, I think, tells in favour of the defendant is that that is not really an increase of an existing toll. In my opinion, it'is not an addition to a sum for a toll which is already extracted, but it is the imposition, in circumstances under which exemption has been hither- to enjoyed, of a toll and I think strictly speaking the exaction of that new toll could not be called increasing any existing toll but that, I rather agree with Mr. Clayton, is perhaps a narrow ground even to decide a question of construction. I think it is necessary to examine the whole of the demise a little more closely and see whether some other meaning altogether is not the true meaning to be attached to these words. Now it must be borne in mind that the demise is all that the lessee can legally demand from the persons in accordance with the schedule and it is clear. upon comparison with the schedule and the section of the Act, that the tolls which were then demandable were the maximum tolls which the Commissioners could impose and the Commissioners, of course, let, or offered for letting, the tolls on the footing that the state of things sub- sisting at the date of the lease will be maintained during the demise otherwise it obviously would be extremely unfair to the lessee. A man might tender for the tolls and would tender for the to Its on the footing of the maximum toll would be maintained through his tenancy and then if by any means the tolls were reduced he would be liable, under his lease to pay rent, but would be only able to extract from the public the tolls at some rate less than the maximum, and I do not think in this connection one must omit altogether the fact that when once the lease is granted so far as the body who happen to be the Commissioners are concerned they are really more concerned with the prosperity and welfare of the town than they are with the profits that the lessee of the bridge tolls can make. They have their rents secure and one of their primary duties is, of course, to further the interests of the town which they represent. In this case it has been shown that frequently did they receive remonstrances from I outside sources in which it is pointed out that the tolls which are levied on this bridge are at any rate calculated to deter persons from visiting the town and spending money in the town, and, therefore, it is one of those cases in which it is of paramount importance to one of the contracting parties that the tolls should be maintained if the other party has any interest at all it is^ier^J in favour of their reduction. The lease being a 1 "all and singular and several tolls or duties specifie. Schedule hereto annexed which are or can now ?- a tided and taken"- for the purtose of this part of the cas^ 1 -an omit in- tervening words-" such tolls or duties to be taKen at any time during the demise shall not be increased beyond the tolls or duties now taken levied and collected at the gate or tnrnpike aforesaid." Now equally of course it may be that it is to the benefit of the lessor if the lease is getting near its expiry that the tolls should be increased. Here again the interests of the lessee and the lessors are by no means the same. The lessee is desirous to maintain the traffic the lessors on the other hand, who are only interested in the rent which they can obtain from the tolls, may desire so far to raise the tolls as to offer attractions to other persons to come in and tender for them in the succeeding three years at a higher rate, and during the time when the tolls are raised, or in consequence of the rise, it may be the traffic would be diverted from the bridge and the lessee would suffer, although when the matter came to be dealt with by the lessors in inviting further tenders for the tolls the fact that the toils were at a higer rate may be entirely to their benefit. There again it is the con- verse of what I have said with regard to the reduction of the tolls, and in those circumstances 1 cannot help thinking that the real construction ot this clause is to maintain for the benefit of the lessee a constituency in the tolls. He himself, of course, is bound to pay his rent. In one sense it might be said that if the tolls were increased it would be to his benefit. As I have pointed out it might be that the increase would be at a time when it would be to prejudice and to the advantage of the lessors and I think, according to the true construction of that phrase, the only pertinence of that clause in this demise'is not by way of qualification of all that which is the subject matter of the demise, but by way of salutary check on any attempt that might be made during the currency of demise to raise the tolls possibly to the great detriment of the lessee. I think, therefore, on both grounds there is no breach by the lessee in that which he proposes to do, and I think that that construction is aided, and materially aided by this, that when you come to the covenants into which the lessee is called upon to enter which have reterence to the tolls which he is to take, you find an express covenant, dealing in detail with all classes of persons and all cases in favour of whom, and in which the lessee is not to exact the statutory tolls. If the real meaning of the parties by introducing those words at the end of the demise was to impose upon the lessees, the obligation of observing the practice of his predecessor or pre- decessors, I cannot help thinking the lease would have been extended, in that part of it which imposes the covenant deal- ing with exemptions, so as to include in them at least this case which has beeti shown to be a case which at any rate for three years had been the constant practice, In those circum- stances I think that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the injunction which they claim in the action, and that really would dispose of the matter subject only to this, that as is always the case where a counterclaim is raised the Court hears the evidence both on the claim and counterclaim so far as it overlaps at one and the same time and in this case in particular seeing that another court may take a different view of the construction which I place upon the lease, I thought it right to hear both the action and the counte claim out. and I am about to express the conclusion I have arrived at if the case had arisen tor determining this upon the counterclaim. Now, for the purposes of the counter-claim I must assume of course that the construction which I have arrived at is wrong, and that according to the true construction the de- fendant is bound to observe the practice which attained during the time of his predecessor, and that if he departs from that practice, he will be committing a breach of the terms of his demise. Now, the question which arises on the counter-claim is, that being so, is that a condition or term by which the defendant in the circumstances ought to be bound or is it a term or condition from which this Court will relieve him? His case is,—The insertion of such a term and the imposition on me of such a condition forms no part of the contract into which I entered, and although it is to be found in the written document which purported to give effect to that contract, it ought to be struck out of that written docu- ment, because that written document does not give effect to the contract into which I entered. Upon that counter-claim a number of very interesting-and I think some of them very difficult-questions have been raised and if I thought for the purpose of my judgment that it was necessary that I should decide all those questions, I should certainly have taken the opportunity of looking further into the authorities before delivering my judgment, but in fact I do not think it is necessary to determine many of those questions. In the first place, Mr. Clayton, on behalf of the plaintiffs-the defendants to the counter-claim—says that there never was any contract between the lessee and the Commissioners other than the contract which is to be found in the lease. Of course, if he is right on that cadit questio, because this is the contract and upon theassumption which I am dealing with thecounter- claim, this term is a term of that contract. I have, first of all, therefore, to determine whether there was in fact a contract between the defendant and the Commissioners. Now, what was done was this. The Commissioners in accordance with the statutory requirements inserted in the month of Januarv, 1907, advertisements inviting persons to tender for the bridge tolls. The bridge tolls were to be let by private treaty on the 6th day of March next, that is to say this, that he actual letting was to take place on the 6th day of March next. Then it says how tenders were to be delivered it stated the rent which had been paid during the preceding three years, and that the Bridge Commissioners did not bind themselves to accept the highest or any tender, and then whoever happens to be the accepted bidder, must at the time pay one month in advance of the rent at which the tolls may be let, and give a bond with sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Bridge Commissioners for payment of the rest of the money monthly in advance." That advertisement was inserted in newspapers circulating all over the Kingdom. In response to that on the 26th February, the defendant addressed a letter to the Bridge Com- missioners I beg respectfully to offer the sum of £ 2,075 a year, for three years for the tolls ot the Conway Suspension Bridge. (Subject to the conditions of letting.) I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant, John Llovd Jones." That, with other tenders, came before the Bridge Committee on the 27th February. The tenders were opened and after the amounts, without disclosing the names, I understand, had been considered, it was resolved unanimously That tender No. ? be accepted, subject to the securities being satis- factory." The Chairman then informed the Committee that Tender No. 2 was the tender of Mr. J. Lioyd Jones, The Bazaar, Conway, and immediately following that meeting, the Town Clerk wrote to Mr. Lloyd Jones asking him tosend a cheque for £172 18s. 4d. a month in advance and to give him the names of the gentlemen who would act as security cr surety for him. On the 6th March the cheque was sent, and the names of the sureties were given, and on that day, in accordance with the notice of the tender, that the tolls wouk.1 be let on the 6th March, the Town Council met, andthty read the minutes of the Bridge Committee; they adopted those minutes, and they expressed themselves as satisfied with Mr Lloyd Jones' sureties. I think myself in all probab ity there was a contract come to on the 27th or 28th of February, when the Town Clerk made such a communication to Mr Lloyd Jones as showed him that his was the accepted tender, because his obligation to pay £ 172 18s. 4d. only arose if and when his tender was accepted, but if I had any doubt about that, I am quite satisfied in my own mind in fact that the contract was concluded on the 6th March, when the resolutions of the Bridge Committee were adopted by the Council, and the gentlemen whose names had been submd as sureties were approved. Now, having come to the con- clusion that there was a contract in fact, Mr Clayton says that the next difficulty with which the defendant is met is this-that there was no contract in law. In the next place he says the Statute of frauds was not complied with. With regard to that, without offering an absolutely concluded opinion, I think if this case turned merely on the question of the Statute of frauds, I should hold that the entries on the minute books of the Committee and the Corporation, referring, of course, and interpreting, as they do, the documents to which they refer, were a sufficient memorandum to take the case out of the Statute. With regard to the question as to the contract not being under seal, I think the defendant would be in great difficulties if this were an executory contract. As at present advised, I think if this was a mere executory contract, and he was suing the Uo-n- missioners to enforce that contract in the absence of any document under seal or of any documents signed by a person authorised under the seal to sign, it would be a defence to the action. In that connection I must not be treated as offering a concluded opinion, because I propose for purpose of wh it I am going to decide on the counter-clair^"lo assume that this contract ought to have been a contflfct under seal, and that the defendant to the action would have been in the difficulty which I have indicated if the contract was not executory. Now, following upon what took place on the 6th March was the preparation of the lease, and the bonds I which the bondsmen had entered int,) and their execution by the lessee, by the Commissioners, and by the bondsmen, on or about the 22nd March, and the further letting into possession of the lessee on the Sunday night of the 31st March. Now, I think that the authorities on which the defendant relies do establish this, that [ may look at the performance or part per- formance which was accomplished when he was let into possession as a part performance referable to the true contract between him and the lessors and not as a part performance referable only to the written document of the 22nd March, I think Olley and Fisher, which is a deeision of Mr Justice North in 34 Chancery Division, is an authority in support of that proposition, and that being so any question which might have been a serious difficulty going to the enforcibility of the contract, if it had been executory arising under the Statute of Frauds or by reason of it being invalid through not being sealed, is really got rid of, because the moment you get part performance it renders admissible evidence to the true contract in respect of which such part performance took place. Now if I am right that the contract really was a contract which was to lie gathered from the minutes of th 27th February and the 6th March and the various documents which were incorporated by reference to minutes, there is not from beginning to end anything in that contract which would restrain the defendant from charging all the tolls which he was entitled to charge by the Statutes, other than tolls which would otherwise be payable by the persons or in the circum- stances which are dealt with in the specifical exemptions in the advertisment for the tolls, and upon that footing, holding as I do that being part performance, it is immaterial to determine whether the Satute of Frauds or the absence of seal would have afforded a good defence if the agreement had been executory. Holding further as I do the true contract come to, at least as early as the 6th March, I cannot im- pose upon this defendant a term which is not to be found in that true contract. No one suggests there is any reference between him and those persons who were representing the Corporation, because as far as I know, he did nothing but answer the written advertisement which was made. And in those circumstances, if in this case I had come to the conclu- sion that according to the true construction of the contract, the defendant was debarred from making the statutory charges, I should nevertheless on the counter-claim have ordered the lease to be rectified by the striking out therefrom of such portions of the lease as imposed that restriction upon him. It is not necessary that there should be any formal judgment drawn up on the counter-claim, and what I propose to do is to dismiss the action and to order the Commissioners to pay the costs of the action and the counter-claim. In doing so, I only wish to say this with reference to an obser- vation which fell from Mr. Ciayton, that the Commissioners were perfectly justified in taking the action whieh they have done. It is their duty, as it is their privilege, to look after the interests of Conway at large, and all its various inhabi- tants, and if they had a legitimate grievance brought to their attention by the proprietors or drivers of hackney carriages. they were quite entitled to come to this Court and to take the decision of the Court as to what their true legal position was as between the proprietors of the hackney carriages on the one hand and the defendant on the other. Mr. P. O. Lawrence My Lord, I should ask by the same order that we have an enquiry under the undertaking as to damages instead of making any other application. Mr. Justice Eve: Yes, if there was damage, +1 Mr. P. O. Lawrence: Yes, an undertaking givin. in the usual form. Mr. Clayton That undertaking would not apply. Mr. Justice Eve: I thought there was some agreement come to ? Mr. Clayton That was before action. Mr. Justice Eve That was not continued ? Mr. Clayton: No, Mr. P. O. Lawrence: There is a motion, if your Lordship would look at the order of the 2nd April, 1909. The under- taking is an undertaking" to abide by any Order this Court may make as to damages in case this Court should be of opinion that the defendant has sustained any by reason of his undertaking herein after mentioned which the plaintiffs ought to pay "—that is the common form-" and the defend- ant by his Counsel undertaking until judgment in this action or until further order that neither he nor his servants or agents will levy any increased or additional tolls or duties at the Conway Suspension Bridge in the County of Carnarvon in breach of the provisions and so on. Mr. Justice Eve: Why ought not that enquiry to be directed now, Mr. Clayton ? Mr. Clayton: The only undertaking that the defendant has given is that he will not levy increased tolls in breach ot the provisions of the lease. Mr. P. O. Lawrence: It is what has so often been said. If you take it in the terms of the covenant that will not do. Mr. Justice Eve No, of course it would only mean an extra application, would it not ? Mr. Clayton I was going to submit to your Lordship that there could be no damages under that, but that point will be left open. Mr. Justice Eve: Yes, certainly, what damage, if any, is suffered by reason of the undertaking. Mr. Clayton There was only one thing, and that was that if we pay the c -sts, it should be on the personal undertaking of the defendant's solicitor to return them. Mr. Justice Eve That is always the case, is it not ? Mr. Clayti n No. Mr. P. O. Lawrence: It has come to be the rule to give that undertaking, otherwise they might get a stay but if that is asked for I should certainly on behalf of my clients give my friend an undertaking. Mr. Justice Eve. Very well. Mr. P. O. Lawrence: That will be of course within some limited time. It always is, I am not going to give an under- taking generally to let him have his three months. Mr. Clayton The only thing I am asking for is an under- taking by the solicitor-his costs will be paid as soon as they are taxed-that it we appeal in due course and the Court of Appeal so orders, he will pay them back. M r. P. O. Lawrence: My friend knows that on an under- taking given in those vague terms the Court would not stay the payment of costs only for a limited time. Mr. Justice Eve: It is really a substitution for a stay. Mr. Clayton I agree. Mr. Justice Eve: When you grant a stay it is generally upon terms of some sort. Mr. P. O. Lawrence: My client does not want to have the money and then not know for three months whether it is to be his or not. Mr. Justice Eve: Will a month do? Mr. Clayton Yes, my Lord. Mr. Justice Eve: If you give notice of appeal within a month. Mr. P. O. Lawrence Yes, then if you give it within that month, the undertaking extends to after the notice. Mr. Clayton Yes. May I take it also that the enquiry would not be proceeded with in that case, if we give that notice of appeal within that time? Mr. Justice Eve I think you may say that, yes, and the costs incurred are reserved. Mr. Clayton If your Lordship pleases.

A Llandudno Boarding House Charges of Selling Intoxicants. Landlady and Waiter Heavily Fined. A case of considerable interest to the board- ing-house keepers along the North Wales. Coast was heard at Llandudno Police Court on Mom- day, before Dr. Dalton, and other magistrates, when F. G. Lindsay, Inland Revenue Officer, Llandudno, summoned the Misses Louisa and Henrietta Davey, the proprietresses of the Brynymor boarding establishment, and also their waiter, Thomas Stevens, all for selling half a pint of beer to be consumed on the premises on Saturday, September 41th, a bottle of clarent, and half a pint of beer on the 51th, and a tin of fifty cigarettes on the 4th, in each case without the excise licence. The prosecution was undertaken by Mr. C. Simpson, Inland Revenue solicitor. London (in- structed by Mr. F. D. Drake, Supervisor of Customs, and Excise, Rhyl), and the defendants were represented by Mr R. S. Chamberlain, Llandudno. BEER, WINE, AND CIGARETTES. In opening the case, Mr. Simpson said it was a case in which one could not help distinguishing in some way between the man Stevens and the Misses Davey. It appeared that some time ago the ladies were keeping a lodging-house in Abbey-road, and afterwards removed to Hyf- rydle," and Brynymor," which was next dioor, was tenanted by a Mr. Brown. The latter Lett Brynymor about twelve months ago, and the Misses Davey took it. over, and threw it into one with Hyfrydile and opened it as a boarding- house. They did very little until this last season. At the same time that they took over Bryny- mor they seemed to have taken over the waiter Stevens as well. Up to this time there was no complaint against the female defendants, but from that time complaints constantly reached the Supervisor of Inland Revenue that intoxicat- ing liquors were being sold there. It was felt that it would be improper to' take proceedings on the evidence of persons who stayed there, and who- might be biassed, and for that reason an officer of the Customs and Excise was in- structed to take rooms, there over the week-end, and he asked for liquors in the ordinary way, as one would at an, hotel, and he was served withput any demur. He asked for beer and wine and cigarettes om the 4th and 5th Septem- ber, and they were served mostly by Stevens without the slightest hesitation. It would ap- pear that the Misses Davey were teetotallers, and they did not appear to have been brought up in an atmosphere of drink, and it was highly probable that they would not have carried on this kind of business had it not been for the advent of Stevens, who appeared to; have influ- enced them, and through his influence liauors had been sold there. The liquors had been ordered mostly in Stevens' name, but of course, the persons who were occupiers and who were there allowing the things to be sold were equally liable. Mr. Chamberlain said he would not trouble about the liability. THE POLICE SEARCH. Continuing, Mr. Simpsion said that quite apart from this case, the police appeared to have ap- plied under the Licensing Acts for a warrant to seize intoxicating liquors found on the premises. At the same time as the police the officers of Customs and Excise went to the house, and the first person they saw by entering the side door was Stevens. When asked his position irL the house he said he was the waiter. Inspector Owen told him that he had a search warrant, and said that he would be charged1 with serving Mr. Atkinson, pointing to one of the officers, and Stevens replied' that he knew what he was referr- ing to, it was the half a crown he received! that morning for a bottle of wine and two bottles of beer which belonged to him (Stevens). The In- spector told him he was liable to be prosecuted, and Stevens said that the stuff was always ordered from Brown's in his own name. It was for him, and he took full responsibility. The officers then went downstairs, and there saw Miss Louisa Davey, who said that her sister and herself were tenants. Inspector Owen told her what had happened, and she replied that it was the first time she had sold stout or beer. She also added that she never received money be- fore, but that two gentlemen had paid for two bottles of stout, and Mr. Atkinson paid for a bottle of beer. They got it from, Brown's, and it was really their order, but got it in Stevens' name. She also said "All liquors supplied to visitors were previously ordered for them. I have never put them, in the bill." Mr. Lindsay asked about the beer supplied to Mr. Atkinson, and she replied It was beer left over after the visitors hadi left." Inspector Owen again, asked whether Stevens ordered the stuff in his name on her instructions, and Stevens chimed in with I take the full responsibility. At this time Miss Henrietta Davey entered the room, and when asked whether she knew anything about it she replied in, the negative, and as a matter of fact he (the advocate) would say that she did not. in the private room a stock ot beer was found, and when asked where it had come from Miss Louisa said they got it for the convenience of visitors. Most of the stuff, the advocate said, was sold after hours. He was bound to say that Stevens had been very frank about the mat- ter. Considering the enormous amount which had to be paid by licensed persons nowadays, those who did not pay a licence should not be allowed to sell the goods tOo the prejudice of those who did. EXCISE OFFICER AS DETECTIVE. Benjamin Atkinson, an Excise officer stationed at Holywell, said he engaged rooms according to instructions, at the Brynymor boarding estab- lishment for the week-end, oommencing the 4th September. In the evening he had dinner, and Stevens, who was serving, was asked for a bottle of beer, and he at once brought one to the witness. He did not pay for it then. The same evening, about 9.30, he asked Stevens for cigarettes, and he brought a tin of 50 unopened, for which he paid is. 3d., and Stevens made the remark that they were the same cigarettes as be smoked himself. After 11 o clock that night witness rang the smoking room bell, and Miss Louisa Davey came in. He asked her for somie beer, and she brought in a half-pint bottle of Bass's ale, for which he paid 3d. Two other gentlemen came into the room and asked for Guinness's stout. She brought in two half-pint bottles, and was paid 6d. for them. On the Sunday, at the mid-day meal, he asked Stevens for some wine, and he replied that he could have claret, but that he must take a whole bottle, which cost 2,9. Witness took a bottle, but did not pay for it then. Again that evening he was supplied with a bottle of beer by Miss Davey, for which he tendered 3d., and again he was supplied with another bottle by Stevens. The morning he asked the waiter for his bill, and 15s. was charged for board and residence for the week-end. He asked Stevens if there were any extras, and he xeplied that there was 2s. fol the bottle of wine and 6d. for two small basses. Witness handed him a sovereign and told him to- include the extras in the bill. He returned with 2S. 6d., and the receipted bill, but the extras were not included. The same day wit- ness returned to the house with the police officers, and he corroborated the advocate's statement as to the conversations. Cross-examined, the witness denied that on the first evening he asked the maid three times for beer before she went and. told Stevens. The witness was siubjected to searching cross. examination on this point, but he still main- tained that he only asked Stevens for the beer. Questioned as to. his previous experience of boarding houses, witness said he had stayed at Bath, but he could not remember the name. There would be between 50 and 100 people there, and he saw liquor sold. The place was not licensed. (Laughter.) Mr. Chamberlain I was not asking you about your official visits. Have you had no experience of boarding-houses in your private capacity? Witness I do not know that I have. Mr. Chamberlain Is it the custom in a legally regulated boarding-house for customers who want a drink to make their own purchases and put their initials on them to be put before them as they want them?-Yes, I believe it is. And that is legitimate?—Yes, I believe so. Continuing his examination, witness denied that when he asked for cigarettes he was offered some by Stevens out of his own case. He did not say that he required a tin. Do you suggest that there was a trade in liquor being carried on in the house for the purpose of making profit?—Liquor was being consumed! in the house. Do you suggest that there was a substantial trade in liquor for the sake of profit?—I should sav a trade in liquor was being carried on. Did you believe Miss Davey when she told you she had nothing to' do with it?—I had no reason to disbelieve her. Did you ask Miss Louisa Davey for whisky be- fore asking for the beer?—I asked for a whisky and soda. Why didn't you tell the magistrates so, and that you were refused?—It has nothing to do with the charge. Is it fair that she should not have the benefit of having refused you a whisky and soda ?-She did not refuse me. Why didn't you have it, then!?—Her explana- tion was that Stevens had gone out, and she could not get any. At the close of the examination, Mr. Chamber- lain, said he intended calling the maid who was asked by the witness for the beer in the first instance. Re-examined, the witness said his recollection was that he did not ask the maid for beer. WAITER ACCEPTS RESPONSIBILITY. Inspector Owen, who made a search of the premises on the 6th September, said he was ac- companied by Sergeant Williams and two Excise officers, and tihey first met Stevens and told him who. they were and what their business was. He also- charged him with selling a bottle of wine and two- bottles of beer. The defendant replied that he knew what they were referring to. It was the 23. 6d. that Mr. Atkinson paid him that morning. But the wine and the beer was his own property. Miss Louis,a Davey was called in, and he accused her of selling a bottle of beer', and! she replied "Yes" it is the first time, I have done it. In. fact, I was never offered money before. Two gentlemen paid for two bottles of stout, and he (pointing to Atkin- son) paid for the beer. It is really our order, but it is in Steven's name." Stevens then said, "It is mine, and I take full responsibility." Miss Henrietta Davey said she knew nothing about what had happened. They went down to a private room, and found in a cupboard three large bottles of Medoc wine, one pint bottle of ale, sixteen half-pint bottles of lager beer, out bottle of whisky, one bottle of London gin, and in a corner of the room in. boxes they found ten bottles of cidler, II bottles of Bass's ale, 13 bottles of Guinness's stout, and a decanter half full of claret. On the mantelpiece in the private room they found a tin of 50 cigarettes and five cigars. He must say that in the dining-room they found several bottles with the names of visitors who were in the house, and these were not touched. He (the witness) was quite satis- fied with the explanation that they did belong to visitors. Cross-examined, the witness said that the bottles found downstairs were not marked at all. He denied telling the female defendants that the cause of the bother was because the previous tenant of the house had been suspected of illicit trading through Stevens, who was there as waiter previously. Mr. Lindsay, the Excise officer, and Sergeant Edward Williams corroborated. A WITNESS OBJECTED TO. Mr. Simpson was about to call Mr. Browin, who supplied! the liquor to Stevens, when Mr. Chamberlain objected to. the evidence. Mr. Simpson said it did not appear, as he would only prove the amount of liquor which was consumed in the house. THE DEFENCE. Mr. Chamberlain, in opening the defence, said he would plead that the defendant Stevens was technically guilty to selling the liquor, and also that Miss Louisa Davey was soi in the case in which she ,served the exciseman. There was no case to. answer, he submitted, with regard to the cigarettes, and he also submitted that no- thing whatever had been made out against Miss Henrietta Davey. It was the practice, said Mr. Chamberlain, in boarding-houses for visitors TO buy in their own liquor, and for the staff of the boarding-house then to, take charge of it. That was what was done at Brynymor, and he held that there was no evidence of the sale of liquor having been carried on with a view to. profit. The very fact that such, a small quantity of liquor was found on the premises under the search warrant went a long way to prove his submission to be correct. With 30 or 40 people in the house that would be sufficient only for a couple of meals. THE MAID'S STORY. Mary James, the maid alluded to, and who had been sent for, deposed that the Excise officer who visited. Brynymor had asked her three times for a bottle of beer on a Sunday nighf before she sent Stevens, to him. Mr. Simpson It was on a Sunday and not a Saturday night?—Yes. Louisa Davey said that when she told Inspector Owen was that she had put the duty of attend- ing to the liquors of the visitors entirely in the hands of Stevens. He was to. take the orders of the visitors and obtain the liquors for them in his own name and to. be responsible for them. All that was in the house belonged to Stevens except a bottle of whisky and a bottle of gin, which were her own, and some of the beer, which belonged to visitors. Stevens used to drink beer, but she and her sister were practi- cally teetotal. Cross-examined by Mr. Simpson, the witness said she had always liked the visitors to have what they liked. In the house next door she took their orders herself, but having more re- sponsibility with the larger house she entrusted the duty to Stevens. The beer and the stout were ordered in dozens, and they had to keep an account how it went. The tobacco on the sheilf in the private room belonged to Stevens,. The defendant was next questioned as to the occasion on the Sunday night, on which she her- self supplied beer to Mr. Atkinson and received payment. She said that it was after eleven o'clock at night, and the lights had been put out. He asked for the whisky, and she turned on the lights again in, the smoke-room, and went to. look if he had a bottle of whiskey. Stevens had gone (he slept out), and she could not find that Mr. Atkinson had a bottle. It was very late, and, in, order to get him to go to bed she let him have the bottle of beer, Mr. Atkinson knowing very weill that she would do anything to get him to go to bed. (Laughter.) THE WAITER'S STATEMENT. Thomas Stevens, the male defendant, said he had been to the greengrocer's and to other tradesmen when Mr. Atkinson asked him for the cigarettes, and had just bought the box which he supplied to him at the price he had paid for it. The bottles of beer and the wine which the Excise officer had were left in the place by pre- vious visitors. He had about a couple of dozen bottles for himself every week. Of the beer in the private room, some belonged to Mr. Rook, of Dudley, and some to Mr. Lomax, of Hamley. The cider belonged to Mr. Ellis, of Stratton. Cross-examined, the witness stated that beer was sold to him at Brown's at 2S. a dozen bottles and the stout at 11s. Sd. The proper prices wetre 2S. 6d. and 2S. respectively, but the discounts were allowed generally in the town to boarding- house keepers. Mr. Simpson Don't you know that you are not allowed to accept any discount in that way? Mr. Chamberlain I dio not know that. Mr. Simpson. I know. The witness It is the usual habit. Mr. Simpson Don't you know that you are not allowed to have any profit whatever, or even any advantage out of the sale of liquor? Witness I was not aware of it, sir. Fiuther cross-examined, the witness denied that liquor had been sold in the house in any other cases than those as to which evidence had been given. THE VERDICT. The Justices retired to consider their decision. On returning to Court Dr. Dalton said that Stevens would be fined £ 10 and costs on the first case, ^5 each and coats on the second and third, and while the fourth charge would be dismissed, Louisa Davey was fined £5 and costs on. the fi,rst case, while the other charges would be dismissed. All summonses against Henrietta Davey would be dismissed. Therefore, Stevens was fined /,2o and costs and Miss Davy £ 5 and costs.

Mayor's Day at Conway. BURGESSES ENTERTAINED. Yesterday (Wednesday) his Worship the Mayor Councillor John Williams, J.P.) attended divine service at the Sion Congregational Chapel, ac. companied by the members of the Corporation and other bodies in the town. The flag on the Mayor's Tower of the Castle. was flying all day, and when the procession was formed in the afternoon a tremendous concourse of people Lined the streets. A very large crowd of the in- habitants assembled at the Guildhall, where the procession, headed by the police under Deputy Chief Constable Rees, started. Then followed the Conway Borough Band, and afterwards His Worship the Mayor, wearing his robes and chain of office, who was immediately followed by the ex-Mayor (Dr. M. L Morgan.) and the Deputy Mayor (Councillor Hugh Owen) and by Alder- man Dr. R. Arthur-Prichard, Alderman Edward Roberts, and Alderman, A. Netherwood. Next came Councillors Fred J. Jones, A. G. Rogers, Edward Jones, J. E. Conway-J ones, A. J. Old- man, James. Stott. Letters of apology were re- ceived from Councillors James Porter and Robt. Jones. Following the Councillors came the Magistrates, represented by Messrs. Owen Row- land, J. Adey Wells, John Dowell (Penmaen- mawr), and Edward Wllliamrs (Chairman of the Conway Rural Council). The officials of the Corporation came next, and afterwards the members of the Free Church Council and the Corporation, workmen, including close upon 100 men. The Fire Brigade under Chief Officer Delamotte and Lieut. Owen Williams formed a bodyguard for the Mayor throughout the proces- sion. Amongst those we noticed in the proces- sion and at the service- were Rev. W. E. Jones CPenllyn), Rev. T. Gwynedd Roberts, Rev. B. Menai Francis, Rev. J. Luther Thomas, Rev. 0. Selwyn Jones (Deganwy), Rev. J. 0. Jones (Gyffin), Rev. D. C. Davies (curate, Deganwy), Rev. William Edwards, Rev. Phillip Price, Rlev. W. Mellor, Rev. Robert Jones (Rector of Gyffin), the venerable artist, Mr. Clarence Whaite, Messrs William, Roberts (High Bailiff), J. T. Morgan, William Edwards, D. Wynne Roberts, J. T. Jones, Herbert Jones, Captailin W. Roberts, William Griffith, John Evans (Deganwy), J. T. Williams (solicitor), W. G. Williams, William Thomas, William Hughes, T. M. Jones, Hugh Parry, John Roberts, Henry Jones (Deganwy), Owen Hughes (Gyffin), H. Williams (Isfryn), R..T. Hughes, J. P. Griffiths, W. E. Jones, Slater (Llandudno Junction), J. Roberts, W. Cynwal Jones, Thomas Jones, E. Loyd Jones, Roger Williams, J. Theo. Jones, T. C. Jones, J. Hooson, Dr. W. Morgan, be- sides a large number of ladies. Large crowds of people lined the streets as the procession wended its way to the Seion Congregational Chapel, where the service was conducted by the Rev. J. Luther Thomas, as- sisted by the Rev. T. Gwynedd Roberts (C.M.) and the Rev. W. Edwards (B.). In the set fawr were the Revs. W. Mellor, Philip Price, W. E. Jones (Penillyn), J. O. Jones, O. Selwyn Jones, and D. C. Davies, curate of Deganwy. When the Mayor entered the chapel Miss Sallie Foulkes played a voluntary on the organ. A hymn. having been sung, the Rev. Gwynedd Ro- berts read a portion, of scripture, and the Rev. W. Edwards offered up a prayer. The Rev. J. Luther Thomas took for his subject Christian- ity and our civic responsibilities," based on the 20th verse of the Sth chapter of St. John, These words spake Jesus in the treasury." A hymn having been sung, the service was concluded, and the procession again formed up and wended its way to the Town Hall, whea-e at the invitation of the Mayor and Mayoress close upon 500 people sat down to. a sumptuous tea, prepared by Mr. Fred Jones, of the Gros- venor Restaurant. His Worship the Mayor pre- sided, and he was supported by the Mayoress and a large company of ladies and gentlemen. After full iustice had been done to the iroorl things provided, the Mayor, who was given a cordial reception,, proposed the loyal toasts, the band striking up the National Anthem. After a spirited rendering by the band, Ald. Dr. R. Arthur-Prichard submitted the toast of "The Mayor and Mayoress of Conway in eulo- gistic terms, and referred to. the lengthy services of Councillor Williams to the ancient borough. They all knew how often he had headed the poll at an election. Councillor Williams deserved the honour, and the members of the Corporation would assist him as far as. they possibly could to carry out the duties as successfully if not more so than the previous year. With reference to the Mayoress, it was quite enough for him to say that if she attended to her duty as Miayor- esis as she did as a wife and mother, he felt sure Conway would, be proud of her. (Applause.) She was a lady who had endeared herself to all. He was also- glad to notice the daughters present, and with respect to one of them he hoped that they would be enabled to testify their apprecia- tion of her father's services by making her a wedding present during the year. (Laughter and applause.) Three hearty cheers were given the Mayor, and the band struck up For he's a jolly good fellow." In response the Mayor thanked the company for accepting his invitation, and for demonstrat- ing by the large attendance that they appreciated his selection as Mayor. He felt that he had been 'highly honoured, and especially so when he considered that he took the Mayoral chair by the unanimous vote of the Corporation. He had always held that politics should not be brought into the election of Mayor, and he hoped to live to see the day when an understanding would be come to whereby a Conservative and Liberal would be elected alternately. He again .thanked the company, and a/lso the officials and workmen, who- had done so well to make that day's function a success, and also the Rev. J. Luther Thomas, the Mayor's chaplain, for his services during the afternoon., and Mr. Fred Jones for the excellent arrangements he had made in the hall. 'The only other toast was that of the Conway and District Nursing Association Fund, sub- mitted by the ex-Mayor (Dr. M. J. Morgan). This was also heartily received, and the cere- mony concluded with the singing of the English and Welsh National Anthems.

The small child has his constructional instinct awakened by material objects. The process may begin with mud pies and end with a poem, a system of metaphysics, or a Budget.—Dr. T. P. Nunn at the Educational Handwork Union. Our greatest asset is our beastly climate. So long as we have that, it means a struggle; and II that means preserving the grit of our people.—' Mr. Arthur Shadwell, Ll.D., at Birmingham.