The Montgomeryshire Express and Radnor Times

ECHOES OF A LOCAL DIVO RCE CASE. Stories of Other Days. The Dad's Marriage Present. For Whom Was It Intended ? The Assize Court Decides. Before Mr Justice Pickford, a petty jury, and a crowded Court of spectators, the story of a Mont- gomeryshire matrimonial tragedy was told at the Assifea in the Welahpool Town Hall last Tuesday and Wednesday. Tt was an action brought by Isabel Martha Williams, of Hazeldpne, Forden, to recover .£478 9s 6d, which she said had been lent by her to her late husband-John Charles Wil- liams, farmer, of the Woodlands, Forden-from, whom she had recently obtained a divorce. Mr Trevor Lloyd, barrister (instructed by Mr G. H Morgan, solicitor, Shrewsbury), was for the plaintiff, and Mr Fredrick Marshall, K.C', and Mr Hugo Marshall, barrister (instructed by Messrs Harrisons and Winnall, Welshpool), for the defence. Mr Trevor Lloyd, in opening his Casa, said that the parties were married on October 21st, 1903, but, the defendant, having unfortunately seduced his wife's sister, a divorce was consequently obtained on January 31st, 1908. Before the marriage the father had arranged to make to his daughter a wadding present, which took the form of £ 300. That sum was handed over to plaintiff by cheque, but she, never having had a banking account and not being used to cheques, suggested that the amount be made out to her husband. That was done, and subsequently the cheque was handed over by her to the defendant, not as a gift —because it was a gift absolutely to her from her father-but for the defendant to hold and bank for her. They went to London ON THEIR HONEYMOON, and there it was suggested that they should get r, furniturevand the defendant asked that he should have some of the money that stood to his name for that purpose. They made a bargain up in London about it, and on returning home de- fendant paid between .£80 and .£100 to the furni- ture people out of the monies which belonged to Mrs Williams. With regard to this claim of X300 the plaint ff's story is that the money was given to her by the father to deal with as she liked. It was a matter of credibility. The next item they dealt with was .£25. In accordance with a pro- mise the plaintits father had given her a pony. The defendant, not knowing that this gift was about to be made, had bought another pony before the other pony arrived from the father, so they had two ponies whereas they only needed one. He suggested that he should sell the gift pony, but she demurred; there were some few words, but after some persuasion she allowed defendant to sell her pony, which he did. He promised, she said, if he sold it to give her a black pony instead, but he never did, and never handed over the proceeds of the sale. The next sum of £ 100, which plaintiff said she lent, really should be £ 95—she had £ 5 of it herself to pay a dressmaker's bill. On January 12th, 1906, her father made a will, under which, besides other property, freehold and other monies, he left to the plaintiff, Mrs Williams, .£600 in trust for her, and to Norah, his other daughter, he left Xi,ooo. The plaintiff had already had X300 wedding present, which made .£900, and this .£100 made up the £ 1,000, SO THAT EACH OF THE DAUGHTERS might bave the same amount. Shortly after the father had made his will-he died the following month—a conversation took place in the presence of both the plaintiff and the defendant as to the £100 he meant to give to the plaintiff The father being so ill, he signed a paper, which the mother took to the Bank, and on January 15th £ 106 was drawn. £ 100 was handed over to the plaintiff by the mother in the presence of the father. She put that in her drawer, paying 45 out of it for a dressmaker's bill. Then th> defendant began asking her to lend him the money, as it would be useful for buying stock, &c. for some property he had taken—the Flos. She would not let him have it for some time, but in the coarse of two or three weeks she handed over the whole of the £ 95 to the defendant, but not as a gift. Coming to smaller sums, Counsel said that urder the will of her father the plaintiff had been left some bank shares In his lift-time the shares were in the joint names of the father and plaintiff, and the father took the dividend. But, when he died and hi< will came into opera- tion, the dividends were paid over to her. On August 2nll a dividend warrant was received by the plaintiff for .£21. When that arrived, defendant was present, and asked to look at it. When he was about to put it in his pocket, she asked for it bask, and there was a scene The defendant's conduct altered very much towards the plaintiff directly after the father had died Up to that time they bad been mure or less on good terms, but, as soon as th- father died—he unfortunately left the defendant as trustee to the estate, and had asked on bis death-bed practically that he should be practically a guardian, and look after the young woman Norah. ¡ whom he seduced-people ia the position of the daughters thought that a trustee had some tuthority over them, and the defendant rather t-x-rciaed that authority by abusmg and using lan^u^/e which no decent man would use to- wards his wif-. Mrs Williams became RATHER AFRAID OF HIM, and it whs a ter r^p->att-d requests or demands for th* m -nies to be paid over to her that she Wdlt to W Ish pool, ca-thud th,- dividend warrant and handed the money over to him That might be c,.¡,l!e.lmo'IBV lent, but Counsel suggnst^d t-h i-t it was morn like money demanded by menaces fruin h. wifrt and handed ovur by threats. Th defendant d-nind tnis; he admitted that he had thw money, but said that it was used for the comrn in fund, for household expenses. This was again a LU-ttter of credibility. Very much the same thiug occurred with reference to anothei dividend vvarraut for £ 22 10s Defendant was present when it arrived Hi" d-m inis and threats bnoairn worse; she put X20 to his credit, th* X2 lUs. sh" hr uziit home and put on the tab!e. At uric* h* picked it up and put it in his pocket. There was on, OthH sum of X9 19s. 61. the half- year's interest on the XGOO left to the plaintiff under her father's will. The cheque was sent by Mr Morgan, solicitor, to the plaintiff's mother, because she was oue of the trustees with the defendaur, and it had to be endorsed by both the mother and the defendant. he mother endorsed it and handed it over to the defendant as the other trustee; he obtained the money for himself. That made up the X178 9s. 6d., of which the plaintiff had seen for her own personal use the l*r. £ M sum of .£5. The defendant said either he did not have the m';ney, or, if he did, it was given to him perfectly willingly by his wife f >r purpo es of using as household expenses. Counsel said that was absolutely untrue, that they had con- tinually asked for the money back; that the plaintiff bad no money, that when the father was living he was giving her pocket money, that the defendant repeatedly said he would repay her, but had failed to do anything of the kind. Not only that, but having been DIVORCED UNDER REVOLTING CIRCUMSTANCES, they had the greatest difficulty in getting rid of the defendant as a trustee he had kept every- thing except a few things given back after many demands he had notp;id a farthing to the wife and children of marriage, nor a farthing towards the cost of the divorce suit, and Counsel sug- gested that the jury would probably do what the Divorce Court did—the woman would be believed, and the man would be discredited. Wearing a navy blue costume, a fur necklet, and a brown hat trimmed with wings, the plaintiff gave evidence to bear cut Mr Trefor Lloyd's opening statements of her experiences since she was married to defendant five yeirs ago at the age of 21. The plaintiff said she was the daughter of the late Mr William Davies, Cwm, Forden. When her father told i er he was going to give her a wedding present cheque for £ 300, she was rather overcome, not thinking her tnrh.ii would have given so much, so she kissed him and thanked him for it. When she had left the room defendant en- tered, and she heard her father say to him This is Isabel's wedding gift." She saw the defendant putting the cheque into his pocket, and she said, You remember, Jack, that is my money, if the cheque is made out to you." He said, It is. I know it is." During the furniture transaction, the defendant asked her to lend the money, as all the stock at home had been given him by his father, who had given him no money. She agreed and .£80 was paid for furniture, but there was a good deal of carriage and other expenses. The defendant asked her to let him have the rest of the money, as the Woodlands was a much larger farm than his brother's, and not fully stocked. She suggested why didn't he borrow the money off his father The defendant replied that he had done a good deal for him, All the £ 300 went that way. Explaining her claim for Xioo, the witness said that her mother, when she came back from Welshpool, said that she had had X106 out of the bank-X6 was for her own use, and the .£100, in notes, my father told her to give to me, and told me to take care of it. -He told me he ,-FELTIJE&SIER IN HIS MIND to put things right." When the dividend warrant for .£21 arrived, the witness said she waited to put the money in the bank in her own name—he asked several time for it, and at last said he must have it, that he had no ready money. His manner was very nasty. The dividend war- rant for X22 103 arrived in January, 1907; her husband asked for it, and she told him she wanted it. She had made up her mind to leave the Woodlands and wanted the money especially. Her sister's trouble had come to her knowledge the previous month and her husband confessed. He used a lot of bad languago to her with regard to the divipend warrant, saying he must have it, as he was overdrawing his account at the bank. She told him again she wanted it, and he threat- ened to charge her sister and her mother for their keep at the Woodlands—her mother was there nursing Norah's child. He also told her as he was trustee to her father's will, he could ruin the lot of them. She was thoroughly frightened, and went at once to the bank. She left the Woodlands about a week afterwards. She had asked for her money back many times, and the defendant told her not to worry about it as it was there in stock, and he would give it back. Cross-examined by Mr Marshall, witness said that during her father's illness the defendant used to go and do a little managing on her father's farm, which was near the Woodlands. Apart from the .£600 she had Xl,000 worth of shares, and her sister had some property apart from the £ 1.000. She had had furniture restored to her after the divorce proceedings, but not much, they were mostly wedding presents. HER FATHER'S WEDDING PRESENT. During the three weeks before her wedding her father promised half a dozen times to make a present, but not in the presence of the defendant. The cheque was not put in an envelope and handed to the defendant; it was quite wrong to say that the defendant opened an envelope in the train as they were both going to London, and then showed her the cheque. She did not knpw that hes husband had no account at the time in a bank. The reason the cheque was not made out in her name was that they were going to London and she did not wint to have a cheque of that amount in her possession. A day or two after they were married her husband told her he had sent the cheque to his father to open an account with it at Lloyd's Bank. She made no objection, thinking he would be keeping it safe for her, Mr Marshall: You told us all about the furni- ture. I suppose you know very well from what he told you after the account had been opened that he paid out a number of accounts in the ordinary way in connection with the farming business ?—Yes, he asked me to lend him this money it was to go tow&rds the stock. THE EXPENSES OF THE HONEYMOON. Do you know that he paid the expenses of the honeymoon out of the £ 300?—No, I don't. Supposing that to be so, would you expect to have the money back again ?-Well, I didn't think I should have to pay the expenses of the honeymoon at any rate (laughter). In the ordinary course probably not. But let me put it to you generally, did you expect to join your husband, he being provided with a good farm and stock and furniture, and you should provide nothing, or, if you did provide something, that you shculd have it back after a lappe of several years? He always told me he was well off (laughter, in which the witness did not join). He didn't want any money except on the occasions that I mentioned He borrowed it. You knew perfectly well the state of things afterwards. Was it your expectation that you should put nothing into the concern, that you should enjoy all the benefits, and as regards using your own money that you should save it or spend it in fae way of packet money ?-I didn't mean to spend it at all. I meant to put it by for the children. Do you really suggest, Mrs Williams, that this, in your opinion, was a fair thing to do, that your husband should do all the work and find every- thing, and, if the wife has anything at all, that she should keep it ?—He didn't ask me to give it him. He asked me to lend it him. I helped to get the living as much as he did. Yon suggestion seems to be that you were to contribute nothing and ~e was to contribute everything. Was ^hat your view? "WHY SHOULDN'T HE?" Witness was silent for a moment, and then answered W h v sh uldn't ho ? He had plenty! Thq Judge: Your idea of married life was that any money contributed by you towards stocking the farm was only a loan to be repaid ?—Yes, he OJ:' to d foUl, my lord. Witness, in reply to further questions by the Judge, said shq would not expect to have any money returned that her husband had spent on her clotLes or food. Mr Marshall: Was not this really in your mind-as a matter of fairness between yourself and your then husband—that setting out to- gether as a married pair to engage in the farming business, and you having to live by it, that you would never have expected this money back again but for these unfortunate divorce proceedings Is not that the tact ?-N,). I should have expected him to give me that back towards the children. I see. But not if you had been living together? —Yes, I should have expected him to give it up. When did you exuect him to pay you back a^ain ? —He told me he'would pay it back in time altogether. I didn't expect it at once. He would save money eventually. He didn't state any time. Witness said she did not remember the pony her father gave her being FRIGHTENED BY A MOTOR-CAR, and becoming unmanageable At any rate, whether the pony was given to the defendant by her father, or whether it was put into the defen- dant's possession by her, he didn't keep it very long before he sold it. M.r Marshall: In regard to all these sums— £ 30), X100, and other smaller sums—you never made any claim tor them until after the divorce pro- ceedings btigan ?—I often asked the defendant when hn was going to save money enough to put some of this money on one side. Pay you back or put some on one side ?—Pay me back. Can you tell us any one particular case when you really seriously asked him for any part of this money back ? —No, I can't give you the date. Anywhere neai the date or the time? Any- thing that you remember it by ?—I can give you the year. I had XIOO It was in 1906, a month or two after my father's death. Where was it you asked him ?-A.t the W ood- lands. How much did you ask him for ?-I didn't specify any amount. I said My money." Were you wanting any money at the time?- No, not particularly. Did you have any difference with him at that time ?- W e often had differences over money matters. And was it on the occasion of one of these differences that you ask3d him for your money ?— Yes. Was there any other occasion that you distinctly remember at all ?-I don't remember, but I did ask him several times. Witness declared that the £ 100 was never handed by her father to the defendant. It was handed to her She could not tell the exact por- tion of the .£100 that she gave to her husband a few days after she had received it. It was £ 33 or £ 40; he was going to a fair to buy stock. Mr Marshall: What fair was it ? -I don't re- member the fair. It would be Welshpool or New- town, or perhap6 he went to Llanidloes. The next sum witness gave her husband was about the same, or perhaps X5 more." Mr Marshall: Do you remember what the third amount was ?—No, I don't remember exactly. HER MONEY BOX. Is it correct that you had a box er drawer in which a leather bag was kept, containing cash for the use of the house ?-No, I never saw a leather bag. The material might be a little different, or any- thing of the sort. Will you answer the question substantially ? Anything of the kind ?-No. Where did you keep the money ?-I kept the .£100 I had in the drawer. I had nothing under lock and key. Any money required for the use of the house, where was it kept ?-It was never kept by me. The Judge: You didn't keep the money for the house ?—No, he didn't allow me any money He paid all the bills himself. Mr Marshall: There was no cash about ?-No. During my father's lifetime I never went home, but he gave me a sovereign for pocket-money. I suppose you paid the grocer's ?—He paid the grocer. And the butcher's ?—Yes. And for your dresses ?—My mother found me most of my clothes. After my father died my mother found me mourning. Vary few clothes I had. The Court adjourned three quarters of an hour for lunch, after which Mr Marshall resumed his cross-examination. The plaintiff changed colour repeatedly, but preserved a remarkable self-composure under the sharp fusillilde-of questions that were fired at her by the veteran, grey-haired K.C. The next witness for the plaintiff was her own mother-Martha Davies, Hazledene, Forden. As she entered the witness-box, dressed in black, the JUDGE GAVE HER A FRIENDLY SMILE that would serve to put her at ease. Mrs Davies said she remembered her husband promising to give the plaintiff a wedding present of money. She never heard her husband saying that he was goiag to give money to the defendant. The pony was given to the plaintiff and not to defendant. The X100 was given to plaintiff to make her share equal to Norah's. Witness took the note to the bank and on her husband's instructions paid the .£100 to her daughter. Matthew Powell, manager of Lloyd's Bank, Welshpool, said an account was opened with defendant in 1903, when X300 was paid in. On February 1st, 1907, X20 was paid into the bank for defendant's account, the X20 being taken out of a dividend warrant. This ended the case for the plaintiff, and, open- ing for the other side, Mr Marshall argued that, assuming the plaintiff's story was correct and the various monies belonged to her, that did not entitle her to turn around after they had lived together for three or four years, and to say she was entitled to get back every single farthing that went for the upkeep of the house, etc. Was it to be tolerated that a female should be married and enter into housekeeping on terms of that kind. Surely there should be some mutuality in matters of that kind. DEFENDANT'S STORY. The defendant, who had been viewing the pro- ceedings from amongst the spectators in the rear of the Court, entered the witness-box, and kept his face turned towards the jury. His late wife took a seat at the solicitor's table by the side of Mr G. H. Morgan, and under Mr Trevor Lloyd, her advocate. Witness said his father was now tenant of the Woodlands, and be was his farm bailiff for 10s a week with board and lodging. Shortly before his marriage plaintiff's father asked him what should he give him. He said he would leave it to him to give him what was proper. Nothing farther was said until the wedding day. Just before leaving for the honeymoon Mr Davies put an envelope in his hand. He opened it when they were in the train near Stafford, and found it contained a cheque for .£300. When they got to London he posted it back to his father to open an account for witness in the bank. Mr Davies never said anything about the money being for plaintiff, but when he gave him the envelope he remarked, "HERE IS A PRESENT, FOR YOU, JOHN!" Plaintiff never asked for the money to be in her name until the divorce proceedings. He after- wards drew cheques upon the account in the bank for household and farm expenses. The ready money at the house was kept in a drawer, and both had access to the drawer. Mr Davies' pony had been frightened by a motor-car, and Mr Davies told witness he could do nothing with it, and said, I will turn it over to you, John, to see if you can manage it." He drove it for a few times, but could do nothing with it, and sold it. In one conversation a month or five weeks before his death Mr Davies referred to witness taking the Flos lands, and said, You will be rather short, perhaps, in stocking. IwijlgivoyouXloo.11 Witness thanked him. On a Monday Mrs Davies went to Welshpool, and brought .£100 home in 1.£5 notes. Witness was in the bedroom. Mr Marshall: What took place?—She pulled the notes out of her pocket in a bundle, and handed them to Mr Davies-I was sitting at the bedside at the time. She said, "Her you are, William," and he received the notes in his hand on the bed, and handed them over to me. What did you do with them ?-I thanked him for them, pnt them in my pocket, and called on my father, who lived a field or two away from Mr Davies, and said, See what Mr Davies has given me to-night! What did you do with the money ?—It was taken to the house, sir, and put in the drawer. I can't recollect what was done exactly with it. It was paid in different bills and for stock. Witness added that when he got home he showed the notes to his wife, and told her where he had them from. but she made no claim to them. It was not correct that he had the money in three quantities. When the dividend warrant for 421 came nothing unusual took place wort than when any other cheque came in. There was no quarrel between him and his wife, and she did not say she would lend it to him. It was used for paying bills The X9 19s 6d was used to pay was!es and one thing and another. You heard what your wife said about your ¡ USING BAD LANGUAGE, I that you were overdrawing your account, and threatening about making the mother pav the I expenses What do you say about that?—It's wrong. Ia it true ?—No, it's untrue. Witness did not recollect anything being said about the dividend warrant for X22 10s. He thought the plaintiff was going to to vn, and she said she would take tbe cheques—there was another cheque for XI 15s 6d about the same time. When he entered the farm, an estimate was made of the stock and effects between his father and himself, and the late Mr Charles Howell, solicitor, drew up a promissory note for X2,000, which the defendant signed, there was interest marked upon it at 2i per cent, which he qaid. When witness quitted in 1907, Messrs Morris, Marshall and Poole made a valual^on, amounting to .£2928 He owed his father on another promissory note .£392, and there was also a loan owing to his father of X205, making a total of Y,2597, leaving a balance of £ 330, which his father paid him by cheque. At the end of the half year witness had a very small balance left in the bank Cross-examined by Mr Trefor Lloyd, witness said he was not anxious to know what was the gift given him in an envelops on the wedding day. He was not going on his honeymoon with nothing. He had 940 in his pocket—part of this was from his father and he borrowed X20 from his brother, E,Je bad nothing in the bank, but he had his farm to go back to, and a house furnished. Mr Lloyd What could have been in the envel- ope, a note or a cheque ?-I couldn't tell. I took it for a present, You didn't think it was a valentine did you? Until you got to Stafford you forgot it ?-No, sir. HE DIDN'T TROUBLE THAT MUCH. You remembered it was in your pocket all the time and you were burning to know what was in envelope ?-No, sir (laughter). You didn't really take that interest in it ?—I didn't trouble that much, sir. Mr Lloyd So much for that. Witness said he sold the pony for .£26 to a horsebreaker, Ashton. He did not tell the buyer it was unmanageable or wild. Mr Lloyd: Did he try it before he bought it ?- Yes, sir, I rode it myself As an unmanageable pony? (laughter).—Not for me to ride it. Just for the day the horse-breaker was there it was quiet, was it ? (laughter).—No, sir. Witness said that his father-in-law died three years to this February. Witness was continuitlly with him, and managed the farm. Mr Davies gave him the notes fcr .£100 in Mrs Davies's presence, and she must have seen it. When told that night about the gift, his father said It was very good of him." The plaintiff gave the divi- dend warrants to him voluntarily at once. Were you hard up at that time?—Not.more than at any other time (laughter). Were you present shortly before the father died in his bedroom ?—Yes, sir. Did he ask you to be kind to his daughter Norah ?-No, sir. What ?-No, sir. Nothing of the kind ?-No, sir. You know that he trusted you?—He never mentioned anything about trust" or anything else. He made you trust-ee for Norah and your wife ? —Yes, sir. Did he ask you to look after their interests ? Now be ca.reful !-No, sir; he never said any- thing of the kind. The only time he mentioned it to me was quite three years before his death. And you didn't know you were going to be trustee except by what be said three years ago ?— That's all, air. WIFE LEAVES THE HOUSE. Witness said his wife said several times she had forgiven him, and when the dividend warrant arrived in January for X22 10s he thought she had forgiven him. He was quite surprised on February 7th when she left his house. Mr Lloyd: What stock you have bought with Mra Williams' money is now made over to your father ?—What he has claimed. But everything that you had is made over to your father, including everything that was bought with Mrs Williams' money ?--No, sir. Where is it ?-I paid the bills I owed. A good deal of the stock was bought with Mrs Williams' money ?—Yes, sir, and the money I received from Mr Davies. Re-examined, witness said the stock he bought out of the £ 300 was not on the farm at the present time. He had paid his father X12 for lambs, and .£17 to J. Thomas for heifers, and another cheque for cake. The other witness for the defence was defen- dant's father—Charles Williams—who was examined by Mr Hugo Marshall. He corroborated the statement that his son was engaged by him as a bailiff for 10a a week with board and ledging. His son had been a joint tenant with him of the Woodlands, but when this occurred, sir, the landlady objected to his continuing." He remem- bered very well the plaintiff and the defendant being married he had known Mr William Davies very well for thirty years and more. Mr Davies never said anything to him about a present for the plaintiff or the defendant. AN ENVIABLE SIGHT. He remembered Mr Davies* pony running away, and a motor-car coming behind it containing Mr Davies, who bad not been thrown, but had got off the pony. He remembered very well one evening his son calling upon him, and showing a bundle of notes. Witness asked him, How much have you got ? He replied, Twenty X5 notes," and witness made a remark that Mr Davies was very kind to give it to him. He saw the plaintiff fre- quently when she was living with defendant. On what terms were her husband and she living ?—Very good. I have gone at night occa- sionally, and found them playing cards together. Did you ever hear her speak to him roughly ?- No. not out of the common. Did you notice any change in his manner after the death of her father ?-I didn't notice in the least. Did you talk to Mrs Williams about her matters at all ?—Oh, yes, we used to talk aa usual. Did she ever say anything to you about any monies of hers ?—Ne. Did she ever say her husband had any monies of hers ?—No. Did she make any complaints that she could not get any money from her husband ?—Never, sir! Not a word! Witness said that he took the property over from him after the unfortunate incident, and the net result was that he gave his son a cheque for .£330. Cross-examined by Mr Lloyd, witness adhered strongly to the statement that his son pulled the notes out of his pecket, and told him where he had them. I can swear it ON MY DYING KNEES," he declared. I can see them in my mind now (laughter). You never mentioned this to anybody -N o. Tou know your son was pretty short of money ? —Sometimes he was short, and when he was he always came to me. and I always lent it. Mr Davies used to say I don't think you ought to do all, Mr Williams." He had to get some elsewhere sometimes ?-I don't know about that. You got tired of lending it?-No. Mr Davies said that he didn't think I ought to do it all. Mr Marshall: Was that before the marriage as well as after ?—No; after the marriage. I think that is all I have to ask. That is the case for the defendant. It was now 5 20 p m., and the Court adjourned untii 10 30 on Wednesday morning. THE JUDGE SUMS UP. On the resumption of the court on Wednesday morning counsel on both sides addressed the jury. Justice Pickford, in summing up, said that the question for the jury to decide was whether this money or part of it could be recovered or not. The plaintiff was only entitled to a verdict if it had been proved to their satisfaction that she had lent this money or some part of it to her husband. There were several sums, but he did not want separate verdicts for each. The separate sums included X300 given by the wife's father; there was .£25 proceeds of the sale of the pnny; X,oo again given by the wife's father; a dividend of X20 from Lloyd's Bank; £ 9 9s 6d interest on the .£600 left to the wife by her father, and X22 10s, I another dividend on bank shares. In looking at that they must look at what th« transaction was at the time the money was handed over, whether or not in the first place she allowed her husband to receive it, whether or not she handed it over on the terms that it must be paid back again. Again, they must not look at the state of things as they were at present, for now husband and wife were divorced, and the wife had been badly treated by her husband; but they must look at the state of things at the time when she had the money and when they were living on good terms with no intention of separation, and with every intentioa of living together happily. They must look at the state of things then and say whether under those circumstances the money was merely lent or contributed for their mutual benefit. Something had been said concerning the conduct of both parties, but it was of no purpose except in so far as it might incline them to believe one witness more than the other. Nobody could deny that the defendant had behaved extremely badly. It would be HARDLY POSSIBLE TO IMAGINE a man behaving worse. At the time-when he was acting as trustee for his sister-in-law, a girl of 17 y»ars, he seduced her, and she had a child by him. He behaved still worse when he said his wife con- nived at this. When asked to give particulars, he gave particulars practically the same as what she gave herself. She had allowed this girl to sleep in the same bed and to dress and undress in the same room that she and her husband occupied. She had admitted that on two occasions she had allowed this, and he thought it was a very injudic- ious and very unwise thing to do. Nothing more than that had been said against her. If those facts inclined them to believe one party more than the other then they were of some importance. It did not follow that bt-ciuse the man was immoral that be was necessarily a liar, they might looi upon him though vith more suspicion. Putting that on ene side, had the plaintiff made out that the money was lent, in other words had she let her husband have it upon the terms that she was to be paid back ? That would involve that she was to have the benefit of living on the farm, and have support for herself and her children, and it was suggested that that was not a very likely arrangement fur the parties to have entered into. The wife's case was that she did let the husband have the money as a loan and as a loan she was to have the money back. Was the X300 given to the husband or the wife ?-that was the FIRST THING TO DECIDE. Upon the eountarfoil of the cheque there was the husband's name. If they looked on some ef the other counterfoils they would find that there was a memorandum showing what the money had been drawn for. That did not seem to go very far the wife claimed that it had been given her on the day of her marriage as she was going away. She had asked for it to be drawn to her husband's order, because she did not know any- thing about cheques. On the other hand he said it was given to him in an envelope and she had said, Here Jack, here is your present" He says further that it was sent to his father for the pur- pose o! paying in to his account. If it was given to the husband that was an end to the wife's claim; but if given to the wife they had to con- sider another matter. It eventually got into the husband's account by the consent of his wife, but she says that it was there to be kept for her. They must carefully coisider the position of the husband and wife at the time the money was given, they were then ON THEIR WEDDING TOUR. Defendant had had some money given him by his father, but not all the furniture they wanted, and in London they discussed the ques- tion of buying more. The%rest of the money was applied in buying stock and other things for the farm. The defend- ant appeared to have drawn from the account whenever he wanted the money. It was for the jury to consider whether he was holding the money for her, or whether he was to spend the money for the mutual benefit of both, remembering that both parties contemplated living together for the rest of their lives. If the father meant it as a present to be used for their mutual benefit, it might help them to come to a conclusion. What they had to look at was, suppose he had made money out of the farm, would she be entitled to say to him "YOU MUST PAY ME BACK THAT X300 CASH. If she could not say that, then she was not entitled to the return of the money now. If they thought it was the wife's, then did she lend it her husband to be used on the farm on the terms that it was to be paid back to her, or did she let her husband have it to stock the farm for their mutual benefit ? If they thought without doubt that the plaintiff allowed the defendant to have that money on the terms that he was to pay it back again when required her, then they must find for the plaintiff, otherwise it must be for the defendant. Concerning the pony, the father had un- doubtedly made the entry in his book to the effect that it was a present to his daughter. As to the 4100 that was another matter, it was said to be given to the wife te make her portion equal to that of her sister; but he could not see how they could draw any inference one way or the other. If they thought it was given to tha wife they had to ask themselves whether the wife let the husband have it as a loan to be paid back in money, and to be paid back when asked for at any reasonable time; or whether the wife let the hnsband have it to be spent for their mutual benefit for stocking the farm, on which they had lived a number of years. There were two or three other small items, and except the last really rested upon the same question. It was said that the defendant took the X9 9s 6d without the authority of his wife, if he did so then he must pay her back, but if he took it in the other way then he need not piy it. As to the X22 10s the plaintiff's case was undoubtedly a strong one, for I at the time of that money being paid she KNEW OF HIS DISGRACEFUL CONDUCT with her sister, and he must have known pretty well at that time that she,would not give it him. She said she let him have it because she was frightened, because he said be was going to charge her mother with the expenses of her sister's keep and her confinement. That was a perfectly disgraceful thing to say. They must consider their verdict and say if they thought that the plaintiff had made out that she had lent the monies or any part of them to defendant, the total of which was .£478. After thirty-five minutes' consideration the jury returned with a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of .£278 9s 6d. Mr Marshall: It is not for me to ask how the amount was made up, but it does not square with any of these items. His Lordship: It may very well be that they have not struck out the whole of any one particu- lar item, but they may have struck out part of them. Mr Marshall: Yee, that may be so. The Court then proceeded with the next case.

Bogus Benefit Clubs Banned. I beg to propose that we send it to the House of Lords It's no use sending it to the House of Commons!" With this grim joke Mr John Edwards, Heldre, a veteran Forden Guardian greeted about three weeks ago an appeal by the Swansea Union to join in insisting that every Benefit Society should give a guarantee to its members At last Wednesday's Buard meeting Mr Edwards was somewhat surprised to learn that the agenda contained a notice by him to move the adoption of the resolution. However, he readily complied, condemning the slate clubs and public-house clubs that existed for a few years. and then disappeared, with a result that many members went into the workhouse. The Rev. D. E. Rowlands seconded this resolu- tion, which was agreed to unanimously.

Viscount Morley made an important speech at the India Office in reply to a deputation which voiced the Mussulman demand for effective repre- sentation in regArd to the Indian reforms. BUTCHERS' HIDE, SKIN AND WOO I. Company Limited, New Canal-street, Birmingham. —Current Prices Hides—95 and up, 5|—4|; 85 to 94, 5—4f 75 to 84, 4f ö5 to 74. 4 -4 4 8 w 9 2 56 to 64, 4-4; 55 and under, 4-4; heavy cows, 4-4; light cows, 4^—4; bulls, 3f—3 £ warbled and irregs, 3 £ —4| Calf, 17 and up, 7; 12 to 16, 8i; 9 to 11, 8i; light, 8f. Horse hides, 21/ 19/3, 18/ 16/ 14/ 11/ 7/9, 7/ Wools- Lots, 9/6, 8 9, 8/6, 8/1, 7/10, 7/6, 7/1, 6/3, 5/6. Wools—AL 6/9 A 5/8, B 4/4, c 2/10. Welsh Wools I —4/4,2/10, 1/11. Fat-Bost beef, 3jd; seconds, 2id; best mutton, 3d; common, lid. Mixed fat, 2fd. Bones-Marrow 1/2. Waste, 9d socre.

7 —-— "IN OPEN COURT. Forden Guardians and the Press. Influence of Old-Age Pensions. Purse Strings Loosened. The Local Authorities (admission of the Press to meetings) Act, 1908, was again mentioned at the fortnightly meeting of the Forden Board of Guardians last Wednesday, when the Clerk (Mr C. S. Pryce) had finished reading through the minutes of the last meeting, and before the out- door relief cases ware discussed. With regard to the question that was raised at the last meeting about the admission of the Press," said the Clerk, I have read the Act of Parliament carefully through, and I find nothing to add to what I said at the last meeting. There seems to have been some little misapprehension as regards the resolution that was passed some months ago. It was suggested that the resolution was illegal, but this Act is only dated the 21st December last, so that the resolution that was passed before this Act was passed was perfectly legal." Mr Percival Hurlbutt: The Act is in force now ?—Yes. Mr Hurlbutt: What is your opinion ?-My opinion is the opinion I expressed at the last meeting that the Press can bi excluded under certain circumstance, but that a resolution to that effect will have to be passed at each individual meeting. Mr Edward Davies That resolution I passed WAS IN ORDER AND LEGAL at the time I moved it ? The Clerk: Certainly! Mr Hurlbutt (indicating the Press table, which was occupied by an 'Express' man): What happens now ? Here are all these men coming (laughter). We have always taken the relief cases in committee before. The Clerk: You can exclude the Press. The section of the Act means to say if there is any business that you think is of such a nature that it is in the public interest to exclude the Press, you are empowered to do so. But you must under that seetion pass the resolution every time. Mr Stafford Prioe-Davies (Marrington Hall): You can't make any permanent rule about any part of the business ? The Clerk that is so. Mr Price-Davies It must be done every time Mr John Edwards: But we can do it in the meeting. The Clerk Certainly! Mr Edwards: Now, I think we should have a conference with the Press what they are going to do (smiles). Mr Edward Davies: My own feeling on the matter is that as far as I am concerned I should be very pleased for THE PUBLIC TO KNOW ALL that materially affects them. But with relief cases, of course, we have always depended upon the guardians from the districts where there are applications. And now that this thing is open to the Press the probability is that we won't get the information which we would have had if it was in committee, and perhaps the relief cases will be passed without the information that we had before. At the same time it is humbug to go and pass a resolution at every Board meeting that we shall take it in committee first. As far as I am concerned we shall see what the Press will do. The Clerk: I had a recollection when the reso- lution was passed to exclude the Press from the relief cases, it was actually out of consideration for the poor people whose cases were being dis- cussed. The Chairman (Mr William Pritchard): I think we may safely trust the gentlemen of the Press that it will be an honourable understanding that the names are suppressed. With that reser- vation I think the Board would be quite satisfied in proceeding with the relieving officers' reports. Well, THERE IS NO RESOLUTION. Mr John Edwards: I am very pleased myself for everything to be open. The Board then proceeded to deal with the relief cases. In the Welsbpool district a clear tendency was shown to increase somewhat the amount of the weekly grants in response to an unusually large number of applications to that effect. One very tidy deserving person" was reported to be in receipt of 3s weekly, and the Chairman raised the pertinent question, Can she live on that ? It was decided to advance her another 6d weekly. Relieving Officer James Fortune remarking that the applications for an increase were due to the effect of the old age pensions. A very old woman," getting 2s a week applied for an increase, and it was admitted that she "LOOKED PRETTY WELL HALF- STARVED So the Board decided to grant 3s a week, of which one son relieves the ratepayers to the extent of 18d a week. Another very tidy old man, who has worked hard all his life-time," had his weekly allowance increased some time ago from 2s 6d to 3s 6d, and now, like Oliver Twist, he asked for more. But he didn't get it. 4s for one Welshpool couple was declared to be hardly enough, and it was agreed to give the two 5s between them. When another case was mentioned a rural guardian remarked that he was glad that they did not apply for an increase (laughter). The Guardians, he declared, were very liberal that day —there were four applications granted running (laughter). Another Guardian It's the cold weather, A third Guardian: It's a great age when you get to be 80. In connection with the Forden Union outdoor relief, it is noteworthy that, though last week the number of recipients throughout the Union, 210, was less by 22 than in the corresponding week of last year, the amount distributed-X21 17s—was .£1 10s 6d more than during the corresponding period. The Guardians present at the above meeting besides those already mentioned were Miss Oakley, Captain W. J. Corbett-Windfr, Rev D. E. Row- lands, Messrs John Davies, T. Rogers, J. Anwyl, W. P. James, W. Humphreys, David Pugh, R. Edwards, W. Colley, J. Ward, E. Bore, W. Rogers R. Jones and Robert Tomley.

Forden Master's Report. WHY IT DID NOT APPEAR IN THE EXPRESS.' At the Forden Board of Guardians it has been customary, when Workhouse Master Walter Downes has submitted his report to the Board of Guardians for him to hand it to the Press. Last Wednesday, an Express man (who happens also to be a ratepayer in the Union), made the usual application to Mr Downes for the journal. But Mr Downes now declined to lend his book, and therefore we are unable to record this week for in- formation of Express' reading ratepayers what has happened in the Workhouse during the past fortnight. A few minutes later the Master permitted the representative of a contemporary newspaper to view his journal, and to make extracts therefrom.

NEW MILLS. BAND OF HOPE.-An entertainment in con- necti n with the above was held on Friday, January 22nd, presided over by Mr D. O. Jones. The following was the programme:— Recitation, 'Abstinence is best,' S. A. Howells; recitation, 'He followed his nose,' Arthur Jones; solo,' God bless our temperance band,' C Howells; recitation, Sample rooms,' Dora Jones; competi- tion for children under ten in answering six ques- tions from the Abstainers of the Bible,' 1st, May Huwells, tqual 2nd, O wear Thomas Parry and Mary Ellen Jones; for those under 14 years, 1st, Charles Howells, 2nd, William Pryce Lewis, 3rd, Walter Andrew; solo, 'Glyndwr,' Mr C. A. Williams; recitation, Only a child,' May Howells; two part-song, Hail, merry playtime, hail,' Juvenile Choir; recitation, 'T.T. Alphabet,' C. Howells; solo, 'Our Band of Hope,' Mr R. E. Hamer; recitation, Stand firm,' Penry Jones; recitation, 'I couldn't stop,' Sarah Evans; quartette, Con sider the lilies,' Mr C. A. Williams and party. I Mr Sinclair, M.P., Secretary for Scotland, has been elevated to a peerage so that he may take charge of Scottish business in the House of Lords

For Children's Hacking Cough at night, Woods' Great Peppermint Cure. lIlt. 2/9.

RECHABITE DINNER AT NEWTOWN. The annual dinner of the Hafren Tent (Ne- 2,109) of the Independent Order of Rechabites was held on Thursday evening in the Tent room at the Cross Restaurant. An excellent spread was splendidly served up by the gdnial Hostess (Mrs George) and an obliging staff of assistants. 1 The chair was taken by Mr Albert S. Cooke, J.P. (chairman of Newtown Urban Council), whilst, in the absence of Mr John Humphreys, the vice- chair was occupied by Dr F. P. Jones. The tables having been cleared, the Chairman briefly thanked the members for the honour they had paid him in inviting him to preside over the gathering, and congratulatad both the adult and juvenile branches on the steady progress they were making. The usual loyal toasts having been musically honoured, the Independent Order of Rechabites was submitted by Mr C. J. Newell, and responded to by Mr George Jonqj, P.C.R, who both com- mented upon tn* rapid advance the Order was making as iihowa by the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies. The "Mid-W^ljij D.Ldc" wag given by Mr Richard Goodwin, one of the district trustees, who urged upon the young members to take a greater interest in the work of the district. He trusted that when the annual District Council meeting took place at Aberystwyth some of them would make an effort to attend, irrespective of being appointed delegates, as it would give them a better insight into the working of the District and Order generally. The funeral contributions of the Tent were paid into the District account. He was glad to say that the Hafren Tent had made no funeral claim from that fund for the past six years. The toast was briefly responded to by Mr E. Woosnam Hamer, P D.C.R., who referred to the difficulties of working the District owing to its scattered position, extending as it did throughout the four Mid-Wales counties. There were 12 tents in the district with a membership of 700. The latest quinquennial returns gave the valuation of the District as worth 2 is 10id for every X of its liabilities The toast of the evening, that of the Hafren Tent, was placed in the hands of Mr George Newell, P.C.R., who said the Tent was instituted in that room in July, 1891, and was registered in 1892. It commenced with a small number, but it had gradually and steadily grown, and now had. a membership of 72. He also urged upon the members to be more regular in their attendance at the Tent meetings. It was a Society they might well feel proud of. He coupled with the toast the name of the Chief Ruler ef the Tent, Mr D. H. Powell. Mr Powell, in responding, said it gave him great pleasure, as thd Chief Ruler of the Tent, to respond to that important teast. He felt proud t of the progress that had been made during the past year, but hoped still greater progress would be made during the coming year. He said they began the year 1908 with a membership of 65; at the end of the year they totalled 72 showing aa increase of seven. The amount of accumulated funds at the commencement of the year was 4557; they were now X609. During the year only some .-£26 had been paid out iu sick benefit, which reflected great credit upon them as a tent, but was not surprising when they remembered that any person wishing to join must become a total abstainer. As Mr Goodwin bad said, there had been no call upon the funeral funds of the district by this Tent for the past six years in succession. With regard to the solvency of the Tent, they had only to refer to the quinquennial valuation of the Tent by the official valuer of the Order (Mr H. Wells-Smith, Sheffield), which showed that the Tent were able to pay 22s 3d for every £ of its liability, proving that the Tent was in a very strong financial position, having a surplus balance of III per cent. over its expected liabilities. He hoped that during his year of office a great increase would be made in the membership of the Tent. The health of the "lhafren Juvenile Tent was .proposed by Mr David Hamer (secretary), who remarked that be was pleased to state there was a great improvement in the condition of the juvenile tent. At the commencement of the year they had on the roll a membership of 22. By the end of December their membership had in- creased to 34. They had also transferred three into the adult tanto The juveniles had not missed initiating a member at each tent for some time, and he trusted that enthusiasm would extend to the members of the adult tent. The toast was responded to by Mr John Andrew (superintendent). He said that for some time they had been working under disadvantages. Those dinadvantagei had now been overcome, and he hoped that some of the younger members of the senior Tent would render what assistance they could to make the juvenile tent still more flourishing. It was a noble work—that of getting the children instructed in the true teachings of temperance. There was no danger for the children in their tent, and he trusted they would all bring their influence to bear on parents to send their ohildren to the juvenile Tent. Mr J. P. Wilson submitted the toast of the Honorary Members," and thanked them for their generous smpport. He hoped that during the coming year they would still add to their number. Mr J. E. Lane Griffiths responded. He was pleased to accept the kind invitation which they had extended to him to be present with them that evening. Connected aa he was with educa- tion, he looked upon the objects of that Tent aa true educational work. He wished the Tenta- both juvenile and adult—every success in the future, and would do what he could to help them. The Medical Profession was proposed by Mr John Griffiths. He referred to the treatment of the members by all the medical men as being worthy of the profession. No complaint whatever had been received by the Secretary from any of their members. Dr F. P. Jones responded. He said that all the medical men of the town were always most ready and willing to do what they could to help on the work of friendly societies.. There was no town better served by the medical profession than Newtown was at the present time. The Town and Trade" was proposed by the Chairman, and responded to by Mr Morgan Davies. The Chiirman and Vice-Chairman" was proposed by Mr C. T. M. Tayler, and briefly responded to by both gentlemen. The Hostess was submitted by Mr O. D. S. Taylor, and was acknowledged by Mrs George. During the evening a song was given by Mr A. Cecil Taylor, and selections on the gramophone by Mr H. Bowers. The proceedings closed with the Welsh National Anthem. To HvjTH £ .KB. —ilra Winslow s souLiniig •_ up. has been used ovoi fifty years by millions of mothers for their children while teething, with perfect success. It will relieve the poor sufferer immediately It is pleasant to taste; it produces natural quiet sleep, by relieving the child fr m pain, and the little oherub awakes as bright as a button." Of all ohemists. Is lid per bottle