The Welsh Coast Pioneer and Review for North Cambria

TAKE THIS TO-DAY To your Chemist for the New Remedy for NERVES, STOMACH & KIDNEYS. Costs only a Few Pence. A new remedy has lately been brought to light which is now being recommended and pre- scribed everywhere. It is made from a famous prescription by a noted specialist, and is called Dr. Cassell's Tablets. It costs only a few pence, and we advice all persons, young or old, who are suffering from any form of nerve or bodily weakness, or such complaints as indigestion, weakness of the kidneys and back, palpitation, loss of flesh or appetite, weak lungs, and those who are in any way thin, weak, nervous, or badly developed, to try these tablets. Stout people may take them without fear of increase of adipose tissue, because of their extraordinary power of converting fat into sound healthy flesh, blood, bone, and muscle. The price is only loid, larger sizes Is lgd and 2s 9d, and any chemist will supply Dr. Cassell's Tablets. The public are to be congratulated in now being able to secure this famous remedy, for everyone is astonished at its marvellous strengthening effect.

-1 LLANRWST COUNTY COURT. DISPUTE BETWEEN COUNTY COUNCIL OFFICIALS. "A MISERABLE SQUABBLE." BLAENAU FESTINIOG BILL OF EXCHANGE CASE. This court was held on Friday, before His Honour Judge Moss and the Registrar (Mr J. E. Humphreys). OFFICIALS AT VARIANCE. George Wynne, surveyor and mspector of nui- sances 0 to the Llanrwst Urban District Council, sued Evan M. Jones, rate coilector to the sarnie authority, for Y,5 10s, aileged to be duo from the latt-er for certain alterations carried out jit Salis- bury-terrace, where both parties reside. There was a counter-claim for £ 5 damages, and an ap- plication for a mandatory injunction to remove a< certain gully. Mr C. T. Allard appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Porter (of Messrs Porter, Amphlett and Jones) for the defendant. Mr Allard explained that the olaim was in respect to certain paving and renovating work at Saiiabury-terraoe. £ 5 10s being the sum agreed upon between the parties as defendant's portion of the expenses. Mr Porter said his client and the plaintiff were both officials of the Urban Council of Llanrwst, and both lived in Salisbury-tar raoe- The own- ers of the houses in the terrace decidod to have the pavemont and the street improved. They came to an agreement with the plaintiff to take charge of the work, and to share the expenses between them, the sum agreed upon by the de- fendant being £ 5 lOe. Before tho work was com- pleted, however, the plaintiff placed a gully which previously stood at the top end of the ter- race in front of the defendant's door. The gully was intended to clear the .surface water, and it was attached to t.he main sewer. During the dry season the gully would naturally be empty, with the result that the sower gas from the main would naturally escape through the gully, as there were no ventilators, and thus cause a serious nuisance. The oontractor had no right to do that, but on being approached upon the sub- ject the surveyor declined to move it. The matter was referred to tho members of the Counr- cil, who however had no jurisdiction, as the street was private property, but a.n attempt was made to bring too matter to an amioable conclu- sion. Subsequently the pipintiff suggested that the defendant should undertake the removal of the gully himself, and sent him "a specification as long as the drain. and one that he could not undertake to carry out" (laughter). It was con- tended by the defence that it was the duty of tho contractor to remove the gully, and not the de- fendant. If he gave a guarantee that the gully would be removed before the next sitting of the court the defendant would be satisfied. Evan M. Jones gave evidence bearing out Mr Porter's statement, and added that he did not see any plans or specifications of the work before the work commenced. The contractor com- menced operations Oil the other side of the road, wh-en witness objected, and said that he would only pay for the repairing of half the width of the street. This kd to a bother, and 33 far an he (witness) was conocrned the work came to a.n end. Eventually tho plaintiff came to witness's house, and apologised for the temper he had shown, and begged to be allowed to go on with the work. After some discussion relative to the cost. it was settled that witness's share should be B5 10s, and for the sake of peace he agreed to this. In reply to His Honour. witness explained that the contract included flagging, channelling and metalling half the width of the street. The work was left altogether to the discretion of the plaintiff. Continuing, the witness said he com- plained to the plaintiff for placing the gully near his door, and addressed a letter to him on the subject- Ilia Honour: It is a miserable squabble between two officials. Are there any engineering diffi- culties in regard to the gully? Mr Allard: The street has now been levelled. Therefore, the gully would be useless if left in its original position. Mr Porteir: Yet the plaintiff after the conversa- tion with the councillors suggested that my client should move it then. Mr Alla.rd: But t'he defendant should pay th cost of the, experiment of attempting to make water run up hill. His Honour: Water gravitates to the lowest: point. Mr Allard: The level of the street has be-on. changed. Continuing, the defendant said he received a letter from the plaintiff, who said he oould noil shift the gully, that it was properly trapped, that no smell would driae from it, that there were two gullies by his own door, and that if a nuisance took plaoe he would feel it most. As the plaintiff thus refused to move the gully complained of witness appealed to the Council. The members did their best to settle the matter, but as the terrace was private property they had no juris- diction. On the following Monday witness re- ceived a long letter from the plaintiff. He then went to the clerk's office, anl saw the specifica- tion, which showed that the gully could btf moved. To the beat of his knowledge there was no ventilator in the sewer near Salisbury-terraoe. He had paid B5 10s into court. Before the Soe-wer was made up there was a channel, but no surfaoei water drain. If the plaintiff undertook to remove the gully he would be satisfied. Cross-examined by Mr Allard Before the al- terations were commenced the street end paving were not in a very good state. He had frequent- ly approached the plaintiff on the subject, and urged upon him to prevail upon the other owners to join to have it properly repaired. At the time the work was in progress the plaintiff was also supervising work which was carried out at Car- rington-terraoe, which adjoined Salisbury-ter- race. Before the alterations the pave- ment was much broken in certain places, and there was no greeting over the old gully. At times the street flooded slightly becauso dirt clogged the old gully, but all that was necessary was to move the dirt, which he had often done. The houses were, however, quite dry. The work was left to the plaintiff's discretion, but he ob- jected to pay towards the cost of making up the furthest half of the road. He was quite satis- fied with the job except the gully and the ven- tilating. No price was given at first. Ho could not say whether the plaintiff had supervised the work without profit to himself or not, but he could not be at a loss over it. John Thomas had told witness that if he had guaranteed J64 10s to- wards the cost, it would be enough, as "that was the cost of seven yards, whereas his house was only six yards wide." The level was higher at the end of the terrace than near witness' house. The plaintiff had levelled the paving. It would probably alter the fall of the water. Witness did not know at the beginning that the paving was to be raised on a level. The gully would probably work as well as before, but he objected to the nuisance. His Honour: But you do not expect the Sur- veyor to try and cause the water to run up hill, do you? Re-examined by Mr Porter: It was not neces- sary for the gully to be opposite a house as it would answer the purpose quite as well if placed at the further corner. There was more danger now as the gully was nearer the sewer. The gully was also too small. His Honour: The Surveyor could not get the water to flow up hill except by scientific means. He had done his best by placing two gullies there instead of one, as was the case before Mr Porter: The surface water drain's proxi- mity to the sewer is the cause of the complaint against the contractor. Mr Allard: A ventilating shaft would remove that complaint if there wa3 any danger, which we deny. His Honour: It is a miserable squabble. The ventilating shaft should be provided by the Coun- cil, who are the owners of the main sewer. Continuing, the Defendant said he offered to pay for the removal of the gully, but withdrew the offer because he thought the specification was drawn out for the purpose of obstruction as evidently the plaintiff expected more work through It. A man offered to shift the gully for £ 1, but subsequently, after seeing the plaintiff, he refused to do so. If the gully was not on wit- ness' property, he should pay nothing for its re- moval. EXPERT WITNESSES' VIEWS. Mr Farrington, C.E., of Llandudno and CQ)- wyn Bay, said that during dry seasons, owing to tho gully being connected with the main drain, there would probably be an escape of sewer gas through it, and especially so through the close proximity of the main drain to the defendant's house. Mr Hugh Hughes, surveyor and engineer, also stated that during dry weather the gully would be a nuisance owing to its connection with the main sewer. In reply to Mr Allard, the Witness said there was sufficient escape now for the surface water and apart from the close proximity of the con- nection with the sewer, it was satisfactory. He oould not say whether the gully was properly trapped, but the gully would be dangerous in case of a draught. Probably a bucketful of water would allay the nuisance. Mr Allard contended that the gully was placed in a similar position to others in the town, and was in no way a nuisance. George Wynne said that before the improve- ments were carried out, the houses in the ter-

RicDard Jones 4 Co., £ td. I r PRE-EMINENT > I FOR I BEDROOM SUITES. 1 RICHARD JONES & Co., Ltd., CHESTER. CHESTER.

1Ic.t. ^e's over # ^S^jjw N K r( I Jr/BRAND If r For Bright Work Makes Light Wefk Bees a Day's Work in an flour. Won't Wash Clothes ^44^^ BENJAMIN BROOKE « C9., LIMITED. 1JL7 „ ==J THERE IS NOW NO NEED TO BUY CHEAP FOREIGN-MADE TALKING MACHINES, WHEN YOU CAN GET A GENUINE GRAMOPHONE MADE BY THE GRAMOPHONE CO. AT THEIR OWN WORKS FOR £ 3 IOS. J|IS|p YOU CAN SEE IT AND BUY IT AT THE SHOP OF M A.T,,S.C., WjZa A. (;HEETHAmmp THE NORTH WALES GRAMOPHONE SPECIALIST, 12, QUEEN ST., RHYL. PHONOGRAPHS FROM 3/11. REPAIRS TO ALL CLASSES OF MACHINES. THOUSANDS OF RECORDS IN STOCK, DISC & CYLINDER. THE LARGEST STOCK OF MACHINES AND RECORDS IN THE NORTHERN COUNTIES. Telegrams 11 CHEETHAM, RHYL.' Telephone No, 3 x 2. L.u- Absolutely the BEST and CHEAPEST COAL. Finest HOUSEHOLD COAL 14/3 per ton at the Wharf Splendid Coal delivered at Pensarn and Abergele and like distance at 18/4 per ton. ROBERT JONES & CO., TELEPHONE 71. V 0 R Y D, RHYL. JOHN HUGHES, THE APOLLO MUSIC DEPOT, ABERGELE ROAD, COLWYN BAY (Next Door to Messrs. Pryce Williams & Co.) ARGE STOCK OF SHEET MUSIC, ORATORIOS, OPERAS, <5TO VIOLIN STRINGS & ACCESSORIES. $OLE AGENT FOR STECK PIANOS and the PIONOLA, PIANO PLAYER and PIANO, also for the COLUMBIA GRAPHOPHONE. ZONOPHONE & COLUMBIA RECORDS IN STOGK. TUNING & REPAIRING. PIANOS FOR HIRE, I- J. DICKEN & SONS, fouae Fir hers, Furniture Removers and Storers, &c. RST HOUSE IN THE DISTRICT. LARGESi .nON LINOLEUMS, CORK, ENGLISH AND FOREIGN CARPETS. BEDROOM SUITE A SPECIALITY. VAIIGHAN ST., LLANfJUf)NO. STATION EOID, COLWYN I BAY TMvLte a. IlbLt 119* UNDERTAKERS. i ALL GOODS DELIVERED FREE. L- RAY & MILES' 23 ° CLEARANCE SALE YEARS. 9100,000 worth of FURNISHING GOODS I Commenced February 1st, | TIIE Trade, Hotel Keepers, & all about to Furnish, will find this an opportunity for selecting Cheap Goods that rarely occurs, as the entire Stock will be re-marked at prices irrespective of cost. Original prices, in plain figures, left on goods, so that customers may see the reductions made in price Furniture Upholstery Cretonnes Blankets Bedding China and Coloured Curtains Trimmings Dimities Flannels Bed Glass Tapestries White Curtains Chintzes Calicoes Hangings Pictures Damasks Table Covers Cornices Linens Down Ironmoagery, Repps Fancy Blinds Cornice Poles Bedsteads Quilts lYe., flc. OUR ANNUAL CARPET SALE during the same period, when all Goods in the Carpet Department are reduced in price. Carpets made fr laid free of charge.. Floorcloths ? Linoleums laid free of cost. February 1st to March 13th (inclusive). Catalogues free by Post on application. RAY & MILES, s^Don"«O4A? LIVERPOOL. Te.'egpams: Furnishing, Liverpool." Telephone 1214 Royal A. RICHARDSON, (Tel. 230) r PIANO SHOWROOMS, 43, BRIDGE ST. ROW, EXPERIENCED TUNERS VISIT F^TTT? CT/7 7? gUUL PARTS OF NORTH WALES. £ l JLLO 1 J-J £ \t

CONWAY. LICENCE REFERRED FOR COMPEN- SATION. The adjourned licensing sessions for the Llan- dudno and Conway Division were held at Conway on Monday. Colonel the Hon- H. Lloyd Moelyn presided, the other magistrates present being Col. C. H. Darbishiro. Messrs J. Allanson Picton, Jelf Pettit, Owen Row-land, E. Wood, John Doivell, and J. W. Raynes. ROYAL OAK, LLANDUDNO. Mr R. S. Chamberlain (Messrs Chamberlain a.nd Johnson) applied for tho renewal of the lioence of the Royal Oak Hot-el, Llandudno, to Miss M. Thomas- Mr James J. Marks opposed on the ground that the licensee had been oon- victod for permitting gaming. Sergeant Williams gave evidence regarding the conviction. Mr Chamberlain said that the licensee was a woman of estimable character, and had a record of 19 years' «orvioe without anything at all against her. Upon the occasion mentioned slie was merely the aarvant of a man, and had done nothing herself. Supt. Rees stated that the ownership of the house had now changed hands, and he had no- thing at ali to say a,gainst the licensee. After consultation the Bench decided to renew tho licence to Miss Thomas. NEW BOROUGH ARMS, DOLCARROG. Mr R. 0. Davios applied for a renewal of the licence of the Neworough Arm. Dolgarrog, to Hugh Evans. Mr Marks opposed on the ground that the late licensee had been convicted of per- mitting drunkenness. Supt. Rees stated that the police had no com- plaints against the new tenant, and the Bench granted a renewal of the licence. CROWN INN, CONWAY. Mr J. W. Hughes applied for a renewal of the licence of the Crown Inn, Conway, to James G Graham. Mr Marks, who opposed, said that the licence had been referred for compensation at a previous court, but a provisional licence to sell had been granted up to the licensing day. The Bench, of oourae, oould grant another provisional licence to aell until the Compensation Committee had dealt with the case. He contended that there were sufficient houses to supply the needs oj the district. Mr J. W. Hughes contended that the court had no power to make the order mentioned ty Mr Marks at the time it was made. The clerk of the court had a/d vised that the licence had elapsed at the time. Sut. Roes stated that there were four fully licensed houses in the locality within a radius of 50 yards. In cross-examination he said he had not received any complaints against the house. He also stated that there were only four free houses in Conway beoide6 the Crown. John Crossfield Ingienorth, Cadnant Park, said that in his opinion if the Crown licence was taken away there would still be ample accommodation in the town. The Bench adhered to their original order to refer the house for compensation, but granted a renewal of tho licence to sell pending the de- cision of the Compensation Committee. FERRY HOTEL, TALYCAFN. Mr Chamberlain, on behalf of Mr Wm. Davios, Ferry Hotel, Talycafn, applied for a new seven days' licence. He said that four years ago a six days' licence was granted to the Ferry Hotel, which was then an old-fashioned cottage, and sub- sequently a seven days was applied for, which was granted conditionally that no drink was to be sold before noon or after 7.30 p.m. on Sundays. The hotel had since then been absolutely rebuilt, and was situated in the midst of beautiful scenery which attracted a large number of people to the locality, especially in the summer months, and as the conditions of the licence now stood the pro- prietor could not supply victors with either food or drink after 7.39 p.m. He oontended that the court had no authority to impose such a con- dition, in face of the legal rights of a bona-fide traveller. There was another house on the op- posite side of the river which had a. full seven days' licence. It was, therefore, not fair that a licensee in one county should have what one in another county had not. Wm. Davies, licensee of the Ferry Hotel, cor- roborated his solicitor's statements- and further said that upon several occasions he had to pro- duce his licence before he could get people to leave the house at 7.30 on a Sunday evening. After consultation tho application was LTra- t-ed by the bench. BILLIARD LICENCE. A 'Hi r-i licence WM granted to Mr Edwards, of the Aberoonwy Tomperance Hotel, Conway. LLANDUDNO LICENCE TRANSFERRED. A temporary transfer of the licence of the G re sham Hotel, Llandudno, from Mr Evard to Mr W. H. Gibbs, of the Llandudno Bottling Stores, was granted. EXTENSION OF A JUNCTION LICENCE. An extension of the licence of the Station Hotel, Llandudno Junction, until midnight was granted to Mrs Roberta for Monday next, being the oc- casion of the St. David's Day Banquet.

race were damp, because the surface water re- mained standing in the roadway in consequence of the position and condition of the pavement. He took charge of the work at the request of the residents, as he wanted to get the street in lino, with the other property adjoining, which he was then improving. The floor of No. 1 house was lower than the road. The water could not run as it had done before owing to the levelling of the road. The whole length of the channel was 46 yards 6 inches. The gully was safe from sewer gas as the tmp was entirely underground, and owing to evaporation there would be no danger. If there was any danger to the defen- dant, there would also be danger to everyone in the town. There was also a gully before his own house. The pavement was a wide one, and the gully was consequently some distance from the house. The defendant lived at No. 7. He (witness) could not very well do what the defen- dant asked without the other tenants' permis- sion, and if it was done it would interfere with the system he had adopted. Cross-examined by Mr Porter: He was not qualified, but he had had eleven years' experi- ence, and had had practical experience before he came to the town. He had been a draper, but had not been brought up one. When he started the work it was with the intention of its adop- tion by the Urban Authority, and he got it in line with tho adjoining property for the purpose of adequate scavenging. It was a proper course to adopt to connect the gully with the main sewer, and the fact that it was placed in front of the defendant's door did not oonstitute a danger or a nuisance to him. He oould have moved the gully, but did not do so as he did not think it would be the proper course to adopt. The defendant had brought up the case as he was on bad terms with him (witness). There were six ventilating shafts connected with the sewer in the vicinity. The specification submitted de- fendant in regard to the removal of the gully was a simple one. By Mr Allard: There was nothing in the specification but what would have to be done. In reply to his Honour, Witness said the cost of a ventilating shaft would be E2 or E3. Jobn Thomas, of Salisbury-terrace, said the work had been done to bis satisfaction, and was undoubtedly well done. The gullies were placed in their proper positions. Mr W. Davies, Watling-street, said that he was tho owner of Nos. 3, 5, and 6, Salisbury- terrace. He did not interfere with the work, but left it entirely to plaintiff, and he was quite satisfied with the result. There was a gully placed in front of his property. By Mr Porter: Mr Wynne was his tenant. He (witness) did not live in the terrace. By Mr Allard: The work was left entirely to the discretion of the Surveyor, and he did not in- terfere with it in the slightest degree. His Honour: I will go and see tho place my. self before I give my judgment. In tho afternoon, His Honour, after inspecting the work, gave judgment for plaintiff for the claim and counter-claim, with costs on the claim. THE RHOS FARM PARTNERSHIP CASE. Mr R. O. Davies referred, to the Rhos Farm partnership case, which had been adjourned to the May Court. It will be remembered that the plaintiff, W. Williams, seeks to dissolve partner- ship with Llewelyn Roberta, Rhos Fann, and ap- plies for a statement of account. His Honour appointed Mr Ben- Hayes as receiver, and in- structed the Clerk to examine the accounts. Mr R. 0. Davies now said he appeared on behalf of the receiver in the case, who desired to bo furnished with instructions how to proceed. Mr Twigge Ellis, on behalf of th defendant, said he would undertake not to remove anything from the farm pending his Honour's decision. His Honour said it was in the hands of the Receiver, 30 that tho defendant could not move anything. The case would come on for hearing at the May Court. After further argument, his Honour said the case stood adjourned with the view of the par- ties ooming to an understanding in regard to the accounts. Too much time had already been wasted over it. BLAENAU FESTINIOG BILL OF EX- CHANGE CASE. A case adjourned from the last Court owing to the illness of the female defendant again came I up for hearing. Owen Jones, Tanlan, Llanrwst, sued W. R. Griffith and Naomi Jones for £ 25 4s 4d, said to be principal due on a dishonoured bill of exchange. Mr Twigge Ellis appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, and Mr R. O. Davias for tho defendants. Mr R. O. Davies explained that Naomi Jones was still too ill to appear. Mr Ellis: Such was the case at the last Court. The illness appears to be chronic. His Honour: You had your costs. I am pre- pared to go on with the case, and take the de- fendant Naomi Jones' evidence on commission. Owen Jones, the plaintiff, said he was a far- me.r, and that the defendant, W. R. Griffith, owed him the amount of the claim for stock plaintiff had sold him in January, 1908. He pressed upon defendant to pay it, but could not secure a settlement. He thereupon asked Mr W. G. Owen, manager of the Metropolitan Bank, to draw out a bill of exchange, and took it to Fes- tiniog. He then saw the defendant, Griffith, and his wife, who both lived with Naomi Jones'. They said, "We were thinking of you to-day. We have had a cheque from America, but as it was not signed, we had to return it for the signature, and this will cover your acoount." Witness then produced the bill. and asked the defendant, Griffith, to sign it. Naomi Jonfs then came into the room. He told them that he would not wait any longer for the money ;us about seven months had already elapsed since the transaction had been earned out. After some trouble, Naomi Jones and Griffith signed the bill, and Mrs Griffith witnessed Naomi Jones' mark. lie said he would wait, for a month before present- ing the bill, as by that time the American cheque would be to hand. He explained to the female defendant her responsibility in signing the bill which he kept until it was due, but as there was no money to meet it, he allowed the defendants another month's grace. Cross-examined bv Mr R. O. Davies- He ex- penenoed some difficulty in securing Naomi Jones signature, and was with her for probably half-an-hour. When he took the bill to Fes- tiniog he intended to secure Naomi Jones' signa- turo. He did not get the bill signed in order to draw money He told the defendants that he himself would pay all the expenses as he only wanted security for his money. Hp had not spoken previously to the female defendant about tho debt. At first she did not like to become respomihle for it, and he (witness) reminded her of the American cheque which would cover the bill, but she still appeared reluctant, He prob- ably told her that she would be doinfr him a personal favour by signing it. He told her he could get the money at the bank in the mean- time if he required it. Griffith signed the docu- ment first, and then Naomi Jones made hor mark He did not tell her thai; he would not hold her responsible for the rn-oney.¡{" Mr W. G. Owen, manager of the Metropolitan Bank, said he saw the plaintiff on August 15th, and, according to his instructions drew out a bill ot exchange. The bill was subsequently left with him for oollection, and not discounted. The plaintiff was not a man to require accommodation so far as he knew. The bilr was subsequently dishonoured. J Cross-examined, probably he discussed the subject with the plaintiff, who said he had some difficulty in securing his money from the male defendant, and he intended to secure Naomi Jones' signature to the bill. In rr.ply to His Honour, the witness said the bill was probably completed after the signatures were made. I Mr Ellis: There are no material alterations in the bill. His Honour: Oh, there is indeed. The fe- male defendant's name did not really appear on tho bill for a month after she had plaoed her ——'—— .„„„„ -u_ cross upon it. It W:1.S open to anyone's m01 bsing entered—a vc-ry dangerous thing to do. j Mr Owen: I knew my mark quite well, was not at Festiniog when it was sijncd. His Honour: You did not see the mark illaj*. and were entirely dependent on the slatemei*' ol the plaintiff. After some further discussion the case adjourned in order to secure Naomi Jones' deuce on commission. A TRAMP'S REMOVAL. The Standing Joint Committee of the Carnat. vons hi re County Coimcii sued the Llanrv^ Union for 15s, the cost of the removal tramp from Capel Curig to the Llanrwst W'°r house- Mr Bodvel Roberts appeared on bohalf of tb6 plaintiffs, and Mr A. Lloyd Griffith for the of fendants. Mr Bodvel Roberts explained that the trarflP in question had left BaiLgvr Workhouse and found near Cupel Curig by a farmer, who "uP plied him with food and shelter for hours. He then sent for the police, whe, ing the main's condition, hired a conveyance 158 and removoo him to the LLanrwst \Vorkh-ouje" the charge for tha car being a reasonable oI^j" The Llanrwst Guardians, however, refu sed W jj pay, and it had to be paid by the police | rity. The fact that the man had a little i in his pocket debarred the police from { ing him as a vagrant. The Guardians had tjr > charge of the poor, and it was the only ,3 rity which was empowered to pay for the rr mo vat of the man to the workhouse. His Honour: Have you any auiraority to that the Guardians are liablo to anyona their own officials? Mr Lloyd Griffith: The only persons who a legal rig'ht to deal with the matter arc t relieving officers and the overseers. t His Honour; Have you to wait for one those officials to turn up when a man is dyi° £ Mr Roberts contended that the fact that man remained at tho workhouse for 15 dsyo showed that he was ill. j His Honour adj-ouraad the rase to enable j to look up the Poor Law in regard to f subject. I ADMINISTRATION OF AN ESTATE- j Jane Roberts, of Penrhos, Trefriw, broug^j j an action against Owen Roberts, Wrexham, I Robert Wood Parry, Bettw-sycoed, for an 0 [ count, and seekuiig an order that the estate bf administered under tiie direction of the eoU^j j Mr Chamberlain (of Messrs Chamberlain j Jolhiison) appeared for the defendants, and j Porter (Messrs Porter, Amphlett and Jones) i the plaintiff. f Jane Roberts, the plaintiff, said she was tl)o wife of W. Roberts, PerulIü3, Trefriw, and one of the beneficiaries under the will of lØ I late father, W. Roberts, of Bettwsycoed, wbO 0 died on February 5ih, 190ö- She had app^^ to lihio defendants, who were the executors, to settle up and to show the accounts. She 0 not know how the men carried on after bef mother's death, and she was anxious to kaO* ■what was done. She went to Owen RobeH* and asked him what he waa going to do. r^pked that everybody liad been paid, and he had borrowed money to pa/y the credit0* She replied that this could not bo the caS0* There was a house which rented at £ 40, and sum of £ 14 had been left at the bank, w!hi<# she understood was to be devoted towards t.b6 repairs of tho house. When her father died left money at the bank. The executors had 11;d told her what had been done with it. She J. not know that at the time of his death 10 ii.-sentory of the goods in the house was nia^ but W- Roberts told her that there was worth of furniture there, and that the house worth £ 500- Witness was at the sale, and some things taken away. Some of the stu** was bought in, and were sold practically nothing. Under the father's will _he was ell' titled to a share of tho rent of the house, ly"I she had never had a penny of it. The was empty at present. Cross examined Her father left half the tot; nituro to her sister, Alice, and the between her and her brol.hcra and Ristero. Mr Chamberlain: That is what we contelli, The father left tiie house, and £ 64, half to wife and half to his daughter, Aiice. Tho h* ainoe at the bank at his death was £ 54 3s, whi<^ was paid out on February 9th, 1906, to the wido'* and Alice Roberts- Tiie only thing due to th^ plaintiff was one-sixth of the half value of furniture. The witness proceeded to say that the furuit was worth more than £ 100. When her fath^J died Owen Roberts said the house was wortft £ 500, and she thought so also. xllice sold thf furniture after har mother's death for £ 65 8s 3d- His Honour: There is a mortgage of £ -150 on the house. Mr W. J. Roberts (M essrs Robert and Rog Jones, auctioneers, Llanrwst) said the firm oeived instructions fsom the executors to sell w1™ furniture. t å Mr Chamberlain: What do you estimate f.. value of the house at? Witness: L400, In reply to Mr Chamberlain, witness said £ 65 8s 3d realised at trie sale was paid to f?" joint account of the executors. Probably A606 Roberts bought in abuul. £ 3 worth of goods- Mr Chamberlain contended that the could only claim one-sixth of half of th^ of the sale. g His Honour adjourned the oase to the n £ court. A PENTREVOELAS SADDLER'S CLAIM-- John Williams, saddler, Pentrevooliis, ol;A Cspt. Milcher. oi Poole Mine, Bottwsyeoed, £ 4 8s 9d, said to be due- for goods sold. Mr A. Lloyd Griffith appeared for the pkiintdb and Mr R. O. Davies defended. < The plaintiff stated that the defendant haw 9" ordered a set of h».rne:w valued B4 5s and things valued 3, 9d from him. He sold tho har- nees direct to defendant, who did not say t' he was acting for {.ho late Coed Mawr and Mining Company, as he would not have him if he had. The transaction was to bo •• ready money one; but he had not received aUJ* payment. He gave the defendant ih bill whrcu he took the ham-ciss to the works. DefendaU* then ordered a strap and chain, and witness w.ø instructed to send defendant another bill. fendant, gave him a piece of paper to show wh»» name to make the bill to. Pie said he would draw out a cheque for the amount, but n-ever did. Cross-examined: The harness were for a ca £ horoo at the works, and he went, to the works to measure the horse. He did not a.sk the defenda-tf* what, his commission was, in order to add it td the bill. The bill was sent to Capt. Milohøt He did not know how the ootnany's name go on the bill produced; it had been made out witness' son. He did not know the company ilad n' gone into liquidation last summer uniil a. mont'' ago, and he did not attend the sale of tho rnulØ at Bett wsyooed. Captain T. IT. Mi'cher said the plaintiff to the mine to canvass for work, and asked nos if he wanted any harness. Witness him an order for a set of ordinary cart harness, and t.he order was plaeod hdore the company. the samo way as other orders. When the harness tho plaintiff said it was usual to the commission for the agents to the bill, and ho desired to know what was witness's Witness told him that lie did not do business 111 that, way, and asked him to make the bill as 1<>w as possible- The bi'Is sent in were mode to Cop-d Mawr Poole Mining Company. They w--ro th«n all together. TTe had sent two to the c°"]' pany's office, the other was the one produce^ After tho sale on October 1st, which was tised all over the country, witness was rcC pointed manager for the new company. The time he heard that he was held responsible the harness was on December 23rd, when reoerved a communication from the plaintift solicitor. tAl ITis Honour adjourned the case. and itiGtlu()O the. defendant to produce the other two bills at l the next court.