Wrexham and Denbighshire Advertiser and Cheshire Shropshire and North Wales Register

,K0UUjI M.\(; ISTRATES' COUKT. 1; Owen, K.q.), 1 ( J' K. \L (Jvertoii, I, I J" ''?""? I'"i. Wiiliams. !.?. ?"??'?'?'?! WI;AI:IM; \/TAla: 'ii"tl-rwise Sarali .loiies. was "?'.1??.? s'.e.ii-iog apparel, the ?. ?' ):??f!. Iiacm-lid nt the f.¡"11 \I'!1t" t,,??.tnr \ViU(-.).p- 11. ¡- j' ¡. I'" ¡.t.-j 1 T:. "?""?'!)??t ")! the ground T')' J" I tl ( t \j_,i' '1 '?'? '.?ttfK-<?)nity \1" .i"'IL'I" f' j t' I \,¡'tll wnf' jlU> !• ''? ? 'tiier eliarge with 'I 1 ¡"I' 1 'It :i„„ 1:1 Iprepared to go ..n, but ""sitioii to complete the  '?'"?'r? e.„irt. The Bene!) de- lit:;t!. tilt, It ?.-nt,a? /?'?L.L?. p. RII;(J]NMR THEN PRO-' ^:l pan- ?'?-H. h,t.,pi)?t .-?t)? h silk -kirt, which the earm^ ?h..n III. apprehended  t.k ¡Iv:' i"t" "H-t..fI\' at ('ut'dllot:th, ?t ?.  k h !t.?-.t.) y.? < Wilpot'th, ? '?"?' jTrh-m-il ;?:)i)tst her hvn. 'I'll* police had ..reived ""l¡l:[t:'Jil :If th, "I,)" fJ'(l1l1 thf (ioJden I ,i:: lilt-, ?"<<-k?.)t).t' prisoner up on :?' '?'.s))t. hi i)? lirst Ill-ought up, UI" ..th," d'u'c., -1i"Hn:ssdl I. ,„ '?-.?L..r.t.?..?t? ?.,Ju r ;?t" ?.- ).h)ct-d a? her property. '?'?'.?in.? ?itn't'thc ?ithNov. ?. '??hn.?.d a ??L .-t.m..H,J a! ?"'?' .?'-):).t.r?.?.dt)tt' prisoner h "I I • I 1 t I   f' '\Y- "tt two "!aI'. but !tu had .?„ "??' tile articles were missed,  '1', :nll'¡" to \110 II ,J.} I.e likd,)' '"? ???!t?')i«?f.Nh)))t;i)kc]y t,l,-|o. and witness remembered the prisoner loitering about to.:ir,. th" t!m.. tht.y W"I' 1I11"'1"1. time they Were missed. '• i t )).tt flit- had been !y {'lIy!ted fur stealing wearing ,ull !t' subsequently ga ve inlornia- :? !?'"rr. iiH' ).r)-?!it'r\\<.tttJ know t: '?"?!?")t-'<' v?ry ?(')i,m)(tit'th(;y .) ';?? "?[ht ?mtts. sht'cutddt?sny?et -i | ¡¡¡."tai" )'111>' \\ithttut, I.<:illè' 01,- h) is fairs rooms without being ol>- ?i? ) '?" l ed ?"' !<T I I I, r  joiner, was charged by John 'i'? '?'t?.'?nultit)?!)h)i. Com- I-'h,lJ". wile ¡¡,allItllI C\' 111111, -( 0111- I.. 'II ';¡C :t!¡,¡ hi" 'Iik ,,¡¡i,l tll<t "II 111I,lay I ,l. dl'Pllllallt. \itlt illlllt!tt; m:t,Il i !I'-ir1' ,1 V ls' ',r"ke open tlie door of their ??. 1'tted tile assiiult complained i);JI "IIUIUtt",[ tilt,. a:;f¡¡¡lllt 'OJlll' ¡¡nen • .ttn,g the eoni]ilainant three times ?t'. t"Jnaeh a,l ;'hnost knocking the ?'"? -'I"?"?. the "ft.?'.? l"11, defendant denied the .? ?-' '??'t ..hun? < :nitit)i% to prove that the complainant had challenged him (I >avies) to fight.-Sergeant Dutton said that there was a disgraceful row in the house, espocially among the women, He found Thomas on the floor in a very exhausted state as though he he had been \'ery badly abused, his ftec, bleed- ing ail over, Hugh Davies, the defendant. was very itupid, and stood in the street saying he wouid go away when lie liked.lames Griffiths was then charged with assaulting Ann Thomas, wife of the previous complainant. She said when Davies knocked her husband dowlI, Critiiths struck her in the breast and held her down whilst Davies abused her husband. Davies also struck her on the nose till the blood spurted out.—Sergeant Dutton said Mrs Thomas complained to him that (iriffitlui had strikiiigli,-t-Hii,rli Davies, tor the defendant, swore that UriHiths did not strike her at all.Davies was ultimately lined ;"):" and (»s costs, and Crilfiths 5s and costs !)s. j W ::I» EXVAV.—Before C'h:M. Hughes and T. AN' ?- i C..I ones, Esqrs. I A DROP OF L\I!()\n:M. I an elderly woman, from I Bwlchgv.yn. was charged with being drunk and incapable on the previous evening. Sergt. Joneti paid lie found the defendant first of all incapable- in the street, and endeavoured to persuade her to go into some house, and sub- sequently lie discovered her equally incapable in one of the courts of tlie immediate neigh- bourhood. He then had. her locked til) foi- safety. Defendant had told him that she had taken a drop of laudanum, which had made her stupid, and incapablc of taking care of her- self.—The Chairman advised the defendant in future not to take laudanum The old lady promised implicit obedience, and w as dis- charged. having been lociie(I iip Lll iii-,Iit.

.0 i_)LKTY-JAtaRATE' COURT. J MONDAY, JANI'AUV 21ST, 1S78. I ?jfitre T. LL FitzHu?h. Esq., Capt. ('r'tRth-E??ca.wcjt), W. Low, Esq., ;ui? E. E\.1'n. sl. A TRAM! un Lovett, a tramp, was ehargcll hy t'.C. Davies, with begging at Isycoed. Dis- eluu'iiei! with a caution. T1IE ELVBISTOL'K CASE. I Thutuas Hughes, Nnntvlhulron, was (.'h:u'ged w :T,ii steaiing several m-tieles of wearing an- paaei oelonging to DiWid Vaughau, miller, Erbistock. Mrs Vaughan identilied the ar- ticles produced, including a small s hawl, a l»iws ft' winery, a pair of new boot. a bag, and a piece of beef, as belonging to her. he I had fetched the things from Overton on S?tur- (by wee?.and cn the way home, on reaching Ovcrt.ui Bridge, she called in at Mrs Holt's shop for a lonf. leaving the things just outside. She w,, not in the shop two minutes, hut when she come out they were goiie.-Williaiii Bagn;ii: said lie came out of the Overton Bridge Inn with his father and Thomas Hughes just before ten. Hughes went on a little before them, past the shop. About half an hour afterwards he saw him again going up to hi", own house, and told him that rl's Yaughaii had complained to' witness that he (Hughes) had taken her things. He replied that he thought the shoji was all in darkness, and afterward* said he had been in the Naut w ood to get a stick. Vaughan then eitlllC nlJ and charged Hughes with taking the tilings, and he again denied it. Witness then went with Vaughan to search in the wood, but they found nothing. —By Mr Bennion Acton, who appeared for the defence Mrs Holt did not charge witness with taking the things, she asked him who had gone up before, and he Wheit he and Yaugluin went to hunt for the things, they casually looked into the granary at Mr Gnniths', Nanty lladroii. where the things were afterwards tound. hut did not see them then.—P.C. Lawley said he received information of the I theft or. the following Monday, and went to the prisoner's house. Prisoner allowed him to search the house, which he did, finding no- thing. Out subsequently, in searching a neigh- bouring hay-loft, lie found the missing articles, Prisoner said he was very glad the things were i found. Witness then took him into custodv. and on the way to Ruabon, prisoner said, Well, its no use, I suppose I shall get a mouth for this.—By Mr Bennion Acton itliesi did not know before he searched where the things M ere, nor had he any infor- n.ation that they had been found in the hay- loft on the previous day. Hughes began the conversation on the way to Ruabon. Witness never said that prisoner could not get out elf it. —Mr Bennion Acton said the prisoner would reserve his defence, an,1 Hughes was then committed to take his trial at the next Quar- j ter Sessions, bail being accepted. P.C. Law- ley was complimented on the straightforward way in which he gave his evidence. C.\SE. Hugh Joseph and Jonathan Williams, Coed- poeth. were charged by the Guardians of the Wrexham Union with neglecting to support their parents. Ordered to pay 2s a week and I the cos ts. i E1.1ZA11KTH I'KINCK AOAIN Elizabeth Prince, the young woman from i Eilesiiiere, who has been committed several j timcs by the Borough Magistrates for drunk- enness, and who has left her little child on one or tw-> occasions on the bare streets, was brought up charged with breaking valuable stained glass and other windows at the Walnut Tree Hotel, Khosddu, on the previous Friday, —Martha Jones, servant at the Walnut Tree, said she heard the crash of glass, and on run- ning out, saw the prisoner pick up a stone and throw* it at the large front window. Two large panes of glass were broken. Prisoner was drunk at the time but had had nothing in their house.—Prisoner said that she had been supplied with two glasses of ale there and that the landlord had pushed her out and in doing so had sent her head against the glass door and broken it.Mr Wilson, the landlord, said lie was standing at the bar when Mrs Wilson called his attention to the prisoner, who was sitting in the bar parlour. He told her that he could not allow such characters to be in his house, when she replied that she would go out when she liked. Complainant then turned her out, and immediately he heard the smash of -Ir Oswell Bury, Clerk to the Wrexham Union, said the prisoner had a ciiild 14 months old which had been taken from her when she was previously committed by the Borough Magistrates. The child was b/ought to the y orkhonse and was now boarded out at cost to the Union of 4s per w eek. He therefore applied that in the event of the prisoner being committed the child be sent \;it:1 her.—The ('hairman said that was a question wh:ch would have to be considered in due course,The prisoner was fined 20s anil iOs costs, and ordered to pay the damage of the plain window LTIS. hi default, she was committed to Kuthin for two months' hard i labour. AKS.-U'I.TS. ivlward Divvies was charged by John I Hughes, Pent re Broughton, with assualt- tliig him. The parties were going home I 1 0 in a trap w hen Davies drove so recklessly that Hughes remonstrated with liiiri and said lie was too drunk ti) (Ii-ix-e. This en raged Davies W)1O struck Hughes a blow in the face. Killed 2s (id,and 12s lid costs.—Maria Griffith, Moss, was charged by Ellen Plnenix with throwing bricks at her and giving her two Mack eyes (for the second time within two months). Defendant denied the charge, and sa;a the complainant and a man rushed into hr(defe)JI¡¡¡IIt\) house and abused her and her child. The cross-sumiuoiis for this offence taken out by Maria (irittiths against Ellen and James Pho-nix was then gone into, the magistrates ultimately dismissing all the charges and ordering each party to pay their own costs.—Ann Jones, Penygelli, was charged by Ellis Richards, the Nant, Bar- sham, with striking him on the head with a tick. Defendant said the vomplainant gave her a blow first, and she then took a stick out of his hand and gave him a blow back again. Fined is, costs 10s fid. Philip Gilpin, M inera, for assualting Edwin Williams, was lined 2s lifl, and 8s (j(1 costs. —Mr Bennion Acton said a boy named Joseph Evans, had surrendered himself on a charge of stealing a quantity of peas valued at 3d, the property of Mr T. LI. Fitzhugh, in July last. The was tinerl ls, costs Is (kl, and the value of the peas. Mr Fitzhugh retired h'.nnthe Bench during the hearing of the case. THE M.I.HoKO tNOKi'KNT ASSAtTl.T AT THE IIOSSF.TT. Thomas Evans, joiner, Rossett, surrendered to his hail on a "harge of committing an in- decent assault upon a YOllll3 woman nmncd Klizabeth Price. Mr Sherratt appeared for the complai nant, and Mr John Jones for the defendant. -Mr John Lewis having read over the evidence taken OIl the first occasion, the prosecutrix was cross-examined by Mr Jones, who afterwards, on behalf of the prisoner, called Willi;,m Clialloner. who said that on the oth January he was sleeping in a building adjoining the house of the prosecutrix. It was a shi|.j. i)i, and over it was a loft in which witness and another vountr man named Thos. Smith V, ere sleeping. Anyone in this loft could see through a window into the kitchen of the house, and iiio-rlit in question witness saw the prisoner in the house with the prosecutrix and her father. Could hear talking going on. and Price had a bottle in his hand, from which he some beer. He then asked Evans if he could get some more, and if lie had any brass. Evans said the place was not quite closed, and Price a-sked his daughter to go, but she refused, and ,,Id Price went for it himself. Evans then began to plague the prosecutrix about her sweetheart. She screamed, and Evans pulled her back on to her chair, but did nothing more to her. He did not pull her or push her .about; neither did lie get her down on she. Hoor. Did not go down from the loft thitt night, and had slept there because he and his companion Smith were out too late.— Smith having corrohoratell the latter's evidence, and Joseph Gillam having borne lestiiii(iiiy as to the reputation of the (le- feiid-mt, the case was dismissed. Tnecsn.vv.—Before Capt. Griffith-Boscawen and S. Y'orke, Esq. NIULIT I'OACHIXLI. Of?rh-s Evans, painter, Huxley's Buildings, | was charged with having trespassed in pursuit ot rabbits, on bUll m the occupation of Mr Stej.ht n Dickin, Bieston, on 22nd October. Henry Gillam, Llanypwll, said he saw the pri.-oner and another man named Jones, who, iii,-tiiage,l to get off. Jones had purse-iiets, two ferrets, and three dead rabbits. Evans had a stick in his hand, and both men were in the rabbit burrows alongside the hedge of the field, and when the keepers got over tin- gate Kvans bolted off. The prisoner main- tained that he was not on the land at all. There were four previous convictions against him tor various offences, and he was now sen- tenced to six months imprisonment with hard labour, and ordered, at the expiration of that time, to find sureties, himself in £20, and two sureties of t]O each, not to offend in like man- ner for a period of two year- or, in default, to Ia- imprisoned for a further term of twelve months. —————

NORTH WALES COAL AND IKON TRADE. The coal market is without little change this week. The demand for steam coal con- tinues steady at unimproved rates, and the deliveries of gas coal are unchanged. A slight improvement has been experienced in the request for house coal. A moderate business is being done in slack, but coke is still dull of sale. The chief feature in the iron trade is the reduction of wages in the South Staffordshire district, but the eil'ect upon the demand for iron is not likely to be of a beneficial character so long as other extraneous questions are un- settled, and which entirely overshadow every- thing else. on is ver y general, orders for The depression is very general, orders for all descriptions of iron being scarce and prices ruinously low. Wrexham, Jan. 2oth, 1878.

LIVERPOOL CORN MARKET. LIVERPOOL, Friday. Froiti the various reports in circulation re- garding the Ministry and war, our market opens dearer, holders asking 2d to 3d per cental on wheat flour, and firmly held for more money. Indian corn, new mixed American, 28s 6d to Ss nil old, 2)s (itl beans (Egyptian), 32s to j 33,s peas (Canadian), 37s (kl.

A :-Tr EET COLLISION IN WREXHAM. CONFLICTING KYIPEXCE. At the Liverpool Assizes, on Thursday, lie- fore Mr Justice Denman and a common jury, an uetion was brought by Mr Alfred Polding, manager of a chemical works near Wrexham, against Mr John Yaughan, innkeeper and milk dialer, of Wrexham, to recover damages for tlu- loss of a horse. Mr J. B. Aspinall, Q.C., and Mr Addison (instructed by Mr Evan Morris) appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr Gully, Q. (I.. and Mr French (instructed by Mr J. Jones, solicitor) repre- sent, al the defendant. Mr Aspinall, in opening the ease, said the pl.intift' wm manager of some chemical works near Wrexham, and the defendant was a puh. lican and milk dealer in the town of Wrexham. The plaintiff, on the day in question, the 14th of August, 1877, was driving from Wrexham in tin- direction of his own home alOlJg a street c-nlled Hope-street. There was a street called Priory-street running into Hope-street at right angles. The plaintiff was going at a good paet. ahout seven or eight miles an hour, along Hope-street, which was a broad and open street, the time being between five and six o clock in the afternoon, and as he (the learned counsel) need hardly remark, it was quite day- light. The plaintiff was on his right side of the i-o:l, and as he approached Priory-street, the defendant, who was driving his ¡milk cart, turned quite suddenly out of that street into Hope-street. He was upon his wrong sitle, and was driving at a considerable rate. The two vehicles came into contact, and the near ,iiiii,ft of the defendant's trap struck the plain- tiff's horse in the breast, and penetrated to a <lcpth of several inches. As a result of the injury the horse died, and the plaintiff now sought damages to cover the value of the horse and the expenses which were incurred in stabling and attending it before its death. The plaintiff, Mr Alfred Polding, was then called. He said he bought the horse in May, 1S77. for £ 63, and at the time of the purchase agreed to give t5 more at the end of three months if he found that the animal suited him. It did suit him, and the £ 3 W;1.S about due when the accident happened. He considered the horse to be worth £8:) to sell. In reply to Mr Aspinall, the witness described the occur- rence, and went on to say that he paid £ 2 (id for the use of the livery stables, to which the animal was taken after it was injured, £ 1 5s to the veterinary surgeon, t:2 14s for watching it. and other sums for the hire of horses which was rendered necessary through the disabling of his own animal.—Cross-examined by Mri (hilly The veterinary surgeon's was close by. He did not say the horse would not recover. I paid £2 14s for nursing it for three days- there were three men, and it was watched day and night.-And you paid £ 2 (is for the livery stables for three days, for the use of the stables, quite apart from the grooms and every- thing else? Yes.—Have you got that bill? The whole of the bills are there. u- Well, as to j the value, you put it at £8,), but 1:63 is what y< u paid for him. Have you paid any more ? No.—Then you have not paid that extra I have not. The Judge Have you had a demand for it? No. I have seen the man abnut it. and he said he would see how I went on, he would not be hard upon me. Mr Gully You mean how this action went on ? Yes.—Had you been in Wrexham that day? No, in Liverpool.—On business? Yes. —What time did you get back ? At ten minutes to five.-And then you went to the Inn and got out your horse I made two or three calls fir.t.-Were you driving some dis- tance? I was driving five miles.—And this horse, had you driven him five miles in the morning ? No, I had gone away the night be- fore.—Then your horse had not been out of Wrexham that day ? No.—It was a very fast lioi-se, was it not ? Not at all, (iuite the re- verse.—But it improved from ttj3 to £ 85 be- i cause it was fast.—No, because it was a good tsound horse, and very stea,ly. --Now I must ask you, were yon not in the habit of (Irii-iiig it at ten or twelve miles an hour, and were you not driving it at that pace on this ocea-1 sion ? Certainly not. You were driving j seven or eight miles an hour, you say ? From seven to eiglit.Was there a lorry in the street just before the collision ? Did you no- tiee any ? There was nothing in front of me when the collision oceiirre(l. -Now you put yourself three feet from the curb. Are you sure of tliit ?-Yes, about three feet.—Then you did not alter your position at all when you saw the clllIision was coming You were just the same distance from the curb when the ac- cident happened that you were when you first saw the defendant ?-I should say I was a little further.—-Then you had pulled out into the road ? When I saw I could not pass him on my own side I pulled out a little.—What part of the defendant's trap did you see first ? I cannot say. It came on me like a flash of lightning.—Well, but a flash of lightning is rather difficult to measure. How fast was he going? About eight miles an hour.—Then j you were going like a Hash of lightning too ? i: had a clear road before me. -Then I suppose you took it for granted that nothing would come out of that street ? 1 did, -Then you say this man was driving at eight miles an hour round this corner with his reins loose, not pulling his horse either to the right or left? Yes. Re-examined by Mr Aspinall My learned friend has asked you something about the damages let me ask you how long it was be fore you replaced this horse ? About three or four months. The Judge But you can hardly say that he is entitled to compensation for the depriva- tion of it all that time ? Mr Aspinall No, my Lord, but 1 appre- hend he would be entitled to damages for any reasonable time spent before getting another II horse. Witness: I paid one man four pounds for the i use of a horse for three weeks. Mr Gully: May I ask the witness this question ? Do you remember seeing a man named Stephen Jones just after the accident ? j —Not just after the aeci (lei it. --Well, on the same evening?—Yes.—In Wrexham? —In Wrexham.—Did you say to him" It is all accident it can't he helped it is a pure accident. "—No, I did not. —You never said that it was a pure accident ?--No. certainly not. Mr A-qjin:dl C'ould you tell, from what you saw of the defendant's cart coinin (foil t of Priory- street, what side he At-as going ? -He came from the left side, anil was cutting a(.;t-i)ss t(i the right side of Hope-street. C John Rowton was the next witness. In reply to Mr Aspinall, he said he was groom in the service of the company, of which the plaintiff was manager. He waited with the dog cart for the plaintiff at Wrexham, and was with him in it when the aeeillent happened. The plaintiff drove at his usual pace, at the proper silk-the left side -of the road, and when nearly opposite the Horse and Jockey the defendant came suddenly round the comer of SPriory-strect on the right hand side, which was the wrong side. The plaintiff shouted out to warn him, but the collision took place. The witness produced the hit which had been worn by the plaintiffs horse, and pointed 'out how the right side of it was bent by the force which the plaintiff had exerted to get the horse out of the way of the collision. The witness was cross-examined by Mr Gully, but nothing of importance was elicited. John Edwards, a car driver, was the next witness for the plaintiff, and was cross- examined hy Mr Addison. He said that at the time of the collision, standing close by the Horse and Jockey, in Hope-street, Mr Polding came up first. He was on the proper side of the road, and was driving at a middling decent pace.-Tiie Judge What sort of a pace is that ?- Witness About seven to eight miles, I exnect. Cross-examination continued There was a lorry standing in the way a little further down the street, but after he had passed it, the plaintiff went on to the left side again, and there was nothing else before him. Mr Vaughan then came driving out of Priory-street with a slack rein, and the left shaft of his shandry ran right into the plain- tiff's horse's breast.—Cross-examined by Mr Gully Now, have you not been since the accident to Mr Yaughan and offered to give evidence for him ?-No such thing. He came after me.—Well, you did meet ?—Yes.—Did not you offer to give evidence for him ?—No, sir. Mr Sharrock, my former master, had sold his horses, and I was out of employment, and Mr Yaughan said I'll give you a pound a. week if you will come to me till the trial is over." —Did you not go to Mr Vaughan, and did you not say that you would be witness for him that the plaintiff was in default, and had driven like a fool ?—No.—And did you not ask Vaughan for something-, you being out of employment at the time ?—No, sir. He took me in a public house several times, and gave me a glass of beer. Mr Gully Well, we will see what lie bus to say about that. Mr Aspinall: I understand you to say that on the contrary, he sent for you and offered you work and wages W itness Yes, lie did. Mr William H. Kennedy, veterinary sur- geon, practising in Wrexham with his father, was the next witness. He was examined by Mr Aspinall, and said he saw nothing of the accident himself, but remembered the horse being brought to his place immediately afterwards. The witness was going on to afterwards. The WItness was gomg on to describe the state of the animal, when Mr Gully said it was not necessary for him to do su, as the cause of death was admitted. Mr Aspinall: Well I want to know how deep was the wound, and what direction it went in. Witness It went directly in, not in a slanting direction. One of the ribs was broken.—The Judge How deep must the shaft have gone in to do that ? Witness About five or six inches.—Cross-examined by Mr Gully: Did you measure the wound ? I did not.—When were you first asked to give evidence about the direction of the wound and the nature of it ? I cannot recollect.—It was sometime after the horse was dead ? Oil yes, some length of time.—The Judge Which side was the rib broken ? The near sitle-the near side first rib.-An(I you are quite confident that the wound was not a slanting wound but went in straight ? Yes, my Lord. Mr Aspinall: That is the plaintiffs case. Mr Gully, in opening the case for the defendant, said he was not going to discuss the plaintiffs evidence at that moment in de- tail, because the first witness he would call would be the defendant, who would give his own story. He would then call other wit- nesses and he would have an opportunity of addressing the jury upon the whole case and say what he had to say at one time. All he now called to the jury's mind therefore was this, that what the plaintiff had to make out was that this was a collision which was wholly caused by the negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff had given evidence to show this, but lie (Mr Gully) had evidence to call on the other side, and when the jury had heard it all they would have to say whether or not the plaintiff had made out to their satisfaction that this collision was caused entirely by the negligence of the defendant. If it was an accident; if it happened in con- sequence of the two vehicles meeting at the corner of the street under circumstances in which neither of them could be said to be to blame, then the defendant was not liable. Still less was he liable if it was shown that the collision was caused, as he (the learned counsel) would endeavour to shoW; by the negligence of the plaintiff; John Vaughan, the defendant, was then called, sworn, and examined by Mr French. He said he was an innkeeper and milk dealer. On the 14th of August he was in Priory-street with his horse and shandry. He had last stopjjed in that street about 20 yards from Hope-street to serve a customer with milk. He was driving along the left side of Priory- street, and was making across the road for the left side of Hope-street, and saw Poltling I coming along, driving very fast. He (Polding) was on his wrong side, viz., on the right side coming up Hope-street. There was a lorry below, and it was in passing this, he supposed, that the plaintiff had got on his wrong side. When lie saw the plaintiff coming alona lie pulled up his mare on her haunches to avoid the collision, and the plaintiff ran smack into him. At that time, witness was three or four feet off the curb stone in Hope- street. His own mare was strained in the shoulder by the collision. He would be going at the rate of G or 7 miles an hour after stop- ping to deliver the milk in Priory-street. It was not true that he had the reins loose. They were as tight as possible. It was not at all true, as the plaintiff had said, that he was looking back over his left shoulder in turning out of Priory-street. He was driving very carefully, and looking straight before him. He had not a whip never carried a whip. Had heard the evidence of the witness Edwards. Remembered seeing him after the accident. Edwards came to his house with his wife and a man. Did not know the man's name. He was one of Wardle's men. Edwards said "I saw the accident." Witness said Did you ? Edwards went on I was stand- ing below Mr Kennedy's and I saw the man driving up very fast; and I said to myself, you will be home very soon at the rate you are driving After that I saw him run into you." Edwards asked him (the witness) to lend him a i shilling, and witness' wife, at witness' request, lent him the shilling. Edwards was often asking him to lend him money after that, but lie would not. On one occasion Edwards said to witness Anyone that will give me I will tell the truth for." So far as he could judge, the plaintiff was driving his dogcart at the rate of 10 or 11 miles an hour, or else he could have avoided the aeeident.-Cross-ex- I amined by Mr Aspinall.. How fast do you say you were going?—Six to seven miles all hour.—Do you say you never carried a whip ?--No. Why, have you not been recently fined for treating one of your horses cruelly with a whip ?-Not with a whip. Have you not been fined for cruelty to horses within the last few days ?— Yes, but it was a horse which had a boil on its back. I don't drive my cart horses myself, and I did not know of it. How many times have you been nned for cruelty to your horses ?—About twice altogether. Oh, about twice altogether. Is that all ?—Yes, that is all. What was the name of the house you delivered the milk at in Priory-street ?—I don't know the name. You don't know the name? Well, what was the number ?—I don't know the number. Then you can give me neither the name nor the number ?—It was a stranger to me. Was it a door or a gate ?-A door. And did you give the milk to a man or a woman ?—To a womtn 'Was she the servant or the mistress? --The mistress, I think a person came out of the house and asked me for the milk and I gave it her. She was not a regular customer. Now in what position was your horse when the collision occurred ?-It was making across the street for the left sÏtleor my o wn side. How far was your horse's head from the curb- stone on your own proper side when the collision happened ?—About three or four feet. And how far were you across Hope-street I before you saw him Just about a couple of yards across the street. Was your vehicle completely out of Priory-street? No, only the horse's head. Then you saw him on the wrong side of Hope-street coming along at the rate of ten or eleven miles an hour when your horse's head was only just out of Priory-street ? —Yes. Did you pull up then ?- Y es I pulled up my mare on her haunches. And you were going slowly—six or seven miles an hour ?-- Yes. Well, could you not stop before you got across the street ?—I could not. I stopped the mare as quick as I could, but lie was into me. Now, about Ei wards. You say he came to you ? — Yes. And you never went to him ? —Never. Nor offered him employment ?—Nothing of the sort. When did lie come to you ?-He has been several times to me. Well, you knew he was coming here as a witness for Mr Polding ? --No, I did not. Now is there anybody here who was present on any occasion when lie came to you ?—No, except my wife. She is here. You said there was somebody present when lie came to you once ?— Yes, a man from Wardle's. Is he here ?—No.—Re-ex- amined by Mr Gully Now as to the cruelty my friend has spoken of. I believe you have had contracts with the Wrexham Corporation for taking away manure ?—Yes. And you have employed horses and men in that way —Yes. And were those two occasions my friend has alluded to occasions in which the horses were worked in an unfit state by the men, and you knew nothing about it ?—Yes. Mrs Van ghan, the wife of the <lefelHlant, I was next examined by Mr (?ully. She spoke to the man Edwards having come to their public house and being served with beer at the request of the defendant, ?he also lent him a shilling at the defendant's request. She was attending to her household duties, but heard Edwards say distinctly that he would give his evidence to those who paid him best. She would swear that any time. There was a man present at the time, and Edwards' wife was also present. The man's name was John or Jack. She could find him if the learned counsel wished, or she could telegraph for him. He was in Wrexham. Cross-examined by Mr Aspinall Did not know what made John say the words. They were all that she heard. She had no conversation with him because she was vexed about her husband giving him the beer. The words he used were-" Yes, Mr Vaughan, those who pay me best I will come to be witness for." Did not know what the three words Yes, Mr Vaughan," were in answer to. William Mayson, a surveyor, in practice at Wrexham, was examined by Mr French. He said he did not see the accident. He was standing in Priory Street, and saw Vaughan's trap coming along at a "jog trot," or about six miles an hour. He was talking to a gentle- man, and neither saw nor heard anything of the accident until it was over. In reply to the learned judge, the witness said he knew both the parties, Mr Folding more by sight and Mr Vaughan for about 12 months. He knew Vaughan because he had supplied him with milk. Had no interest in the matter at all. aw the defendant's shandry after the accident. One shaft, the left one, with blood upon it. Noticed a great qnantity of blood in the road. It was about six foot and a half from the curb-stone on the near side going down Hope Street, that was Vaughan's near side. David Evans, innkeeper at Wrexham, was next examined, and caused some amusement by his strongly marked Welsh accent and manners. He put the speed at which Polding I was driving at ten miles an hour. the two traps went together "like dogs." The Judge: "What Sort of dogs ? Witness Fightmg .1008, (Laughter.) In reply to Mr Aspinafr, he said the accident took place not in the middle of the road, but a little to the Horse and Jockey side of the middle. Edward Jones, an ostler, said the plaintiff was thrashing the horse, and going at the rate of twelve miles an hour. 0 0 Eliza Wynne said she saw plaintiff driving at a furious rate, and expected to see an ac- cident and Vaughan's cart going at the rate of what she would call a farmer's jog—a trot. In cross-examination, she said her son was in de- fendant s employment, but she could not say whether he wcntillto his situation before or after the accident, but believed it was before. Re- examined, she said that the clerk of plaintiffs solicitors had waited upon her to hear her story, and said that she would have £2 and expenses, if her evidence had been for Mr Polding, but as it was she had better keep quiet, and say nothing. Mr Aspinall said, that Mr Morris had no knowledge whatever of this, and the witness explained that it passed in conversation with Mr Lee, Mr Morris' clerk, whose wife she was nursing. Stephen Jones, Green Man Inn, said that Mr Polding had told him that the affair was a pure accident. This concluded the case for the defendant. Mr Gully addressed the Court, said the collision was of a character of which there was always great danger, in the streeta of a town, where two vehicles met at a comer without having had a previous sight of each other. There was considerable dispute as to the exact circumstances under which it occurred, but he submitted that the balance of evidence was in favour of the defendant's story. He referred to the bit which had been used at the time with the plaintiff's horse, and considered it in itself, and the manner in which it had been used as evidence th;it the animal had a con- siderable amount of "go" in it; and would probably be going at a considerable speed. He repudiated the attempts which had been made to discredit some of the defendant's witnesses. The point for consideration, he considered to be what sort of pace the parties were coming at: what parts of the road they were upon, and what steps they took to avoid the collision. It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to make out his case and he sub- mitted that he had failed to do this and if the jury could not find that the collision was the direct consequence of the plaintiff's fault, it was at least a pure accident. This, how- ever, was a cross action, and if they found the plaintiff to be in fault the defendant claimed f;23 as the damages lie had sustained, and this had not been disputed. He thought the plain- tiff's claim to be somewhat exaggerated, es- pecially for livery, and attendance on the horse, which included servants' breakfasts, teas, &c., and £7 for hired horses extending over some three months. He submitted, how- ever, that defendant had made out his case. Mr Aspinall said that of course they must expect a conflict of evidence in such cases but in this case there was a curious conflict of nationalities. It would not have been safe to try this case at Wrexham, but Liverpool was a sort of cosmopolitan place where such things had no weight. Still, it was curious to see how the witnesses were divided in that way. He asked the jury if Mr Polding's story was not deserving of credit: and he remarked that the defendant's occupation of a milk seller, looking out for customers, would render him inatten- tive in the way described by the plaintiff and his witnesses. He remarked upon the evi- dence for the defence, and thought the way in which defendant had endeavoured to obtain evidence as at least suggestive. He main- tained that the onus of taking care rested much more upon the man who was turning sharply out of a narrow street into a main one, than upon the one who was driving along the main street and he thought the evidence was con- clusive that the plaintiff was driving straight along the street at a reasonable pace and the manner in which the wound was inflicted showed that the defendant must have got well round the corner before the collision occurred. He was content to leave the matter to the jury, only remarking that the plaintiff's estimate of damages was a reasonable one. The learned Judge, in summing up, said that this was not one action but two; and they would have to consider both. The plaintiff said that the defendant was negligent in coming round the comer as without any neglect on his own part that he did all he could to avoid a collision but that de- fendant's shaft struck his horse, causing in- juries from which it died. Oil the other hand, the defendant said that the plaintiff was going at such an unreasonable pace that though he was not going at an un- reasonable pace himself he came into collision with plaintiffs horse, and the shaft went into it, but this was rather with the nature of suicide than of murder. Therefore, the plain- tiff had no right to recover, for it was his own fault but his own horse was injured in the shoulder, by which he had suffered loss for which he claimed f:23, as to which there had been no cross-examination. So that they might, if they thought proper, find for the defendant for that amount, or for some other sum, making a discount from a man's own view of his case. Now this was certainly a puzzling case and he could not say at all to which side their judgment would incline. There was evidence entitled to consideration on both sides. The plaintiff's case was an exceedingly good one until the defendant's case was heard and he must call their atten- tion to the evidence as it bore on the one side or the other. The two cases were as thoroughly irroeoncileable as any he had ever heard in his life and lie had heard such cases frequently, They were as wide as the poles asunder; and though they might be- lieve in the intention to be accurate, it was impossible to believe in the accuracy of both. It was important that they should judge which were the most independent witnesses in the case. His Lordship then reviewed the evidence in detail; remarking that he could not lay down any proposition of law that it was more the duty of a man going out of a narrow street into a main one, to keep a bet- ter look out than a person driving a long such mam street. ']'lie obligation of both to be careful was equal as far as he could see. He also remarked that nothing could be more dangerous than to take things for granted, as the plaintiff admitted he had done, in driving along the street in question, as to there being no risk of collision in the vehicle coming out of the side street. Nothing was so foolish and reckless as taking things for granted. In reviewing the evidence for the defence, his Lordship commented upon the defendant's at- tempt to obtain evidence, and thought it would have been better if he had not done so. It was for the jury to consider how far his witnesses or any of them were partisans but he thought that if they had come to prove the whole hog they would have prove d more than they did. If they believed that both parties were guilty ol contributory negligence iieitliei- would be entitled to recover, and the same would apply if they were of opinion that it was a pure accident. If they were of opinion that either was wholly to blame, then he was responsible to the other for the damage he had done. The Jury found that both parties were guilty of contributory negligence, and therefore tl 0 neither was entitled to recover. His Lordship I entirely agree with you, gentlemen. Mr Aspinall Wli at oidcr will your Lordship make about costs ? His Lordship Eaeli pay his own No, how is that ? I will consider the point. It is a verdict for the defendant on the claim and for the plaintiff on the counter claim. On resuming after the adjournment — His Lordship said it was a question whether each should pay his own costs or the plaintiff the costs of the claim, and the defendant those of the counter claim. Mr Gully said that a verdict of pure accident was a verdict for the defendant. His Lordship: I do not desire that you should now argue it. I will consult my brother Pollock, It is a new point. I do not know that it ever happened to me before, on a claim and counter claim with a case of accident. I think it is desirable that a rule should be es- tablished. I will take time to consider it. Yesterday his Lordship stated that he had considered the point, and had decided that each party should pay his own costs. I ETTY v. WILSON. This was another local case, at Liverpool Assizes. The plaintiff was Mr Thomas Etty, a Liverpool solicitor, and the defendant was Mr William Shea Wilson, late foreman to Messrs. S. Davies & Son tailors, Wrexham. Mr James was for the plaintiff, and Mr Rus- sell, Q.C., amlllr Kennedy were for the de- fendant. The plaintiff's claim was for costs in carrying through some bankruptcy proceed- ings for the defendant, and it appeared from the statement of Mr Etty's case that in 1870 the defendant got into difficulties and was obliged to file a petition for the liquidation of his affairs. For the purpose of the liquidation a Mr Vine was appointed trustee, and the plaintiff was appointed solicitor to the trustee. The assets were not large, but in August last the defendant, in an action for slander against Mr Charles Davies, obtained a verdict for £2.10 and costs. Mr Vine, the trustee in Lallk- ruptcy, claimed that sum as part of the estate, and proceedings were taken to have it paid over. The defendant thereupon consulted Mr Etty as to what course he should pursue and Mr Etty advised him to get his adjudication in bankruptcy annulled. The defendant then employed Mr Etty to take the necessary pro- ceedings for the purpose. Mr Etty, however,, did not succeed in procuring the annulment, and now sued for his costs. Defendant's case was principally that he had agreed with plai- tiff for a specific payment in consideration of his getting the bankruptcy annuo ed, and that as plaintiff had failed he was not entitled to payment. Mr Russell, upon the evidence adduced, contended that the case being for work done was not made out, and therefore the judgment must be for the defendant. It was' clear that the arrangement between the parties was a special one, allll pbintiff hd not fulfilled his part of the agreement. In reality the court had no jurisdiction, and plaintiff ought to have sought is remedy in the Bankruptcy Court. His Lordship, taking Mr Russell's view, nonsuited the plaintiff. WREX1IAM, m)LD, AND (,OXA][ S QCAV HAILWAY I COMPANY V. NICHOLAS. Mr Edwards, Q.C., appeared for the plaintiff, who claimed a balance of £ 113 6s ;(11 for goods earned for the defendant. There was no defence, and a verdict was given for the plaintiffs for the amount

———— lw ————— FOOTBALL. GROSVESORV. ALBION", Wrexham.— A match will be played to-day, (Saturday), between the above clubs, on the ground of the latt,t-, in Chester Road. Kick off' 2.43 p.m. FORESTEBS V. MOLD.—On Saturday the third match between the Gwersvllt (Foresters) and M Id clubs was played at "Mold. (, wer- sylli beat Mold at Gwersvllt the first match, and Mold beat Gwersyllt at Mold the second match, and on Saturday last Gwersyilt were' again the victors by three goals to one. after some first rate play on both side: COKWFA v. LLA?<;OLLEX EI ISEI;. — This j m?teh was played at Corwen on Saturday, in very favourable weather, and resulted in a victory for the home team by two goals to none, one of which was'ilisputed. For Corwen' R. Thomas, W. Cole, E. R Williams, and R. Williams distinguished themselves also the i left wing (T. P. Fuller and J. Roberts) passed well. For Llangollen, T. Roberts and Jones played well. We are sorry to state that in about five minutes after kick off the captain of the home team (E. H.Williams) was very badly hurt, and had to be carrierl from the field. OSWESTRY (2XD TEAM) V. GOBOWEx,-The return match between these clubs was played at Oswestry on Saturday. Oswestry having won the toss, the ball was kicked off by the Gobowen captain (Oswell), when it was quickly returned by Meredith to Davies who passed it to Jones, lie scoring the first goal in two minutes from the commencement of the game. The ball was no sooner set going again than a second goal was obtained in about the same time, and a third very soon followed, which made three goals to none in less than eight minutes from the kick off. After this, the visitors played steadier, and tried all they could to obtain a goal, but found it hard work to pass the backs. Another goal was got by the home team during the first half-time, which made four goals to none. On changing ends, the Gobowenites did all in their power to defend their goal, but notwithstanding all this, three more goals were credited to the Oswestry team, and the game ended in a victory by seven goals to none. For the home team, the play of Jones, Owen, Cheesman, and Saunders (who would do better if he would pass a little more) of the forwards: and Groves and Gough of the backs was very good. For the Gobowen, Oswell, Sanderson, and Nuttall, played well. The following com- prise the Oswestry team :— Goal, A. Crowther, back, T. Gough (captain) half- backs, R. Groves, T. Meredith, ami H. Evans right- win, J. Cheesman, and W. Davies; left-wing, T. Owen, and D. Williams centres, U. Saunders, and H. P. Jones. We have not been able to obtain the Gobowen Team. SHROPSHIRE ASSOCIATION CHALLENGE CUP. !—OSWESTRY v. SHREWSBURY.—These teams met at Shrewsbury on Saturday to decide the second tie, but contrary to expectation the match ended in a draw, both sides scoring two goals, and Oswestry a third goal, which was disputed. Mr Hawley Edwards kicked off for Shrewsbury, and instantly the ball was carried into the visitors' quarters, and well returned by Higham, but was soon brought up the ground again, and was close in the Os- westry goal, but Mr Williams' first attempt showed he was in fine goal keeping form. In- deed, he for the first half-hour stopped shot after shot and never this season have we seen a goal so severely pressed. However, just thirty minutes after the start Shrewsbury- ob- tained the first goal, amidst loud and well-de- served cheers. Matters at this time looked very queer for Oswestry, the Shrewsbury men playing in fine form, and continuing in this style a second goal was kicked for Shrewsbury 45 minutes from commencement. After half- time a change seemed to come over the aspect of affairs, and in many of the Shrewsbury team there were signs of flagging, but yet they played on well, though evidently getting worse, while Oswestry seemed to be slightly improving, but only twenty minutes time was left to make matters even, and by a well-sus- tained spurt on the part of the whole of the Oswestry forwards, they kicked three goals with ten minutes to spare—marvellously quick time, considering the team playing against them. In point of play and superior judgment Shrewsbury were by far the best. They had the best of the game to within the last twenty minutes, when somehow or other their whole machinery seemed to break down, and at the call of time Oswestry were pressing them very hard. We think that as Oswestry was obliged to visit Shrewsbury without a voice in the matter, it will be nothing but fair, if tel- this drawn match, Shrewsbury should visit Os- westry. For Shrewsbury, Hawley Edwards deserves special mention, though selfish with the ball yet he thoroughly understands how to work and make the most of his team. Sprott, Wraters, Sandford, and Salt played grandly, while on the part of Oswestry, considering Davies was suffering from a bad chest, he played remarkably well, as also did A. F. Jones, an admirable centre player. Savin, Owen, Outhbert, and Shone played as usual in fine form, but the back play was loose, more so on Saturday than has been shown this season, and but for Mr Fisher Williams, Shrewsbury, in our opinion, would have obtained half-a- dozen or more goals. The teams were as follows :— SmiEWsnuRY.— Goal, J. H. Sprott; backs, K. J. Jones anil J. F. Cooper; half-backs, H. J. Chapman and B. Salt; right wing, E. T. Lloyd and A. Waters: I left winji, F. Sandford and F. Salt: centres, \V. E. Sprott allil J. Hawley Edwards (captain). Os WEST a v.— Goal, T. F. Williams hack, G. G. Higham; half-backs, J. Groves, I. Jonos, J. Davies left-wing, G. Savin and D, Owen right wing, W. Shone and W. Cuthbert; centres, A. F, Jones and W. H, Hfwies (captain),

"V" WELSH ASSOCIATION CUP. At a committee meeting held at Ruaholl on Monday last, the draw for the third ties was concluded, and the names came from the hat as follows Druids v. Newtown Star, at Plasmadoc Gwersyllt v. Wrexham, at Gwersyllt; Bangor a bye. Tobepl-tye(loff by February 9th. TheprotestsoftheOswestry club against the result of thelate match v. W rexliam at Oswestry were overruled, and it was certainly beneath the dignity of a club of such high standing to bring forward such frivolous and unfounded objections. db-

LONDON CORN MARKET. LONDON, Friday. Witeat held firlll for 2s advance, not much done yet. Barley, oats, and maize decidedly firm, and more money asked. Beans, peas, and tlour steady.

THE CHURCH CHOTR AND WORKERS' ScpPER at Bcttisfield was held the other evening About 80 sat down to a most substantial ami excellent supper, kindly given by Lord and Lady Hanmer. The chair was taken by the Rev. J. Dobell, and the vice-chair by Air Kelsall, Bcttisfield Hall, churchwarden. After supper the Rev. J. Dobell thanked the choir and Church workers for their kind help during the past year, and wished them a happy new year. Singing was then begun, and the fol. iowin<t took part in itMiss C. Lei(rh Mr and Miss Meredith, Mr J. and Miss Hughes Messrs J. Harper, Brockhurst, G. Butler v Dodd G. Hughes, K Woolley, Miss H?' and the choir. After giving three hc?' cheers for Lord and Lady Hanmer and f M and Mrs Dobell, the company d?per?

w„.t, i„ favour of legalising marriage with The Chairman Well I .lon t sou what the Board lias got to do '•f! 'thi' I ?w the "ther <hw that a Bo?rd of( iuardians had 1???' -?'"?? "??'' ?'? !t ,volution resi.vctinstl.c NN-Ztl- ?,oill" ()Il be- Len Russia anil Turkey, winch 1 "s?t t?,A-t.e)t L) wliit:h I tlioii-Itit, ;i n c t ?;U. = I know ]t has 1,e"u 1^" red to in VuUw of C<"Mnousth?t ?88 boards of .uardiai.s ,«i**d resolutions tmam- inomlv hi favour of the Sunday clo;;mg m Ire-   t¡ke an'  !F.? ..?rdt?t)K-)"'t)t!"J'n'?'??ctore?thye K,r: (RCI1C\l,.t lallghtl'JI,),  1,1,led that as boards ot guardians much 't/?t ?t\?) rt .?? ?uu?n??it w?pcr. ? I;++1P more in ??"' ?""? to v<'t? m favour W Bi! re?rn? t. I)Y ?ii- Itol)ert Th. of tilt' Rill refel'I\" to 'y I1' \,0 lert. ll' ?.t!'t?.  tluM1 1. '"? H'? t?.Ic. Dr. R. C, IM its, Knaboii, applied that his son might .'? mpointt'd deputy-vaccinator, the Chairman ..Lt-t'?i'? i)'? he .Uw:u'? understood th?t the vaccination must he done personally hy the m- ).?jj?;?j appointed. Out of courtesy to Dr. Huberts, the Clerk was instructed to write to tilt! ill?tullete(I t() Avrite to matter.—T. 0. Jones and H. Hcwitt, t?.l-nys ttliolmd absconded from the workhouse and had to lie brought hael; by a pulice utficcr, were ,,filled to he well bjrehed by the schoolmas- ter. T, C. ■[ones .stating, ill reply to the mas- ter. that lie had run away because the school- master "licked him!" (Laughter.)—The ma-it s hooks showed the number in the linu-ie to he 287. against 271 in corresponding n -v last year, and 284 last week. Vagrants relieved 3ii: indieciles -12 schoolboys 22, »irl*-L lilectill. of the P> >;ird was held on Tuesday, when there \)'<' ',rp"eut: :\It'l'h;ls, J-hl!(hes. in the chair: WIltei- ,I ones. Koekc, Mr T. H. Coleman.-Mr Lindop presented his report as follows :— T„ the i¥f/»'X' •!>' tlt' B )('). 1 11 I UCNTl KM-r'N- -i to Sll.l'.Ult 11 If TOlll.ttin.? list 01 ¡ i,)..u.tt.)?.t)..r.n.t. of *U.mi, in*™ ,7.?h.t.: '"?'t?'??'?'? tj'?"?='t the uMing CMlitM! fur IKvemlicr l*ta, wturfi meeting ?.?..ftt.rwnt'??'?"))tt')'!??'?'?: )-))..n)L-H"h?.Y':i'L'nth.T\)!r"(?-st)wt, K.nir c'lililiva of s.')!.?i a,l', hm Ill!' I'tl'st .It'f:mltt'l' I is );rt ]? if :1.2e, Ni,,]I) l?!14 been sent t? ?.!)?.?t.?' .? )':L?t't?.k'?)'?'jhn'); •' -i.'rirtit'f Hug' L IVplar-roail. Robert j ?)7rtit! r ?'?'??'?-?'"? '?'??"'? since flit. !:Ui at N:;venili 'r last. l'.at h -voie l Ann i_ e I'iuot:, j 'nooks, s.iiil |ii •oyiit"are:its t<» he 13. the worst attender in the [ .I.j, :11 Wlr''li .111' Iwloims. Tlie illness of the grawl- licen the for liail attendan,e. I t)Vi) II.I! l:i M'liii'l at all. I S;irali Hriitiths, in. > orkslmv-squiire, Kinuia, M lu>t ■M'liteui' er, \v,i i disclnrged from the Free tsciiool j jrwjular 'tutfiidaiicc, not in school at ail at '111". II • r, WiUi'.iiii i;i'vts. nilor, i'i, rentrefeliu, Jane, v A meilii'al Mititicaie lri> lieen >eiit to me in this Wilfei Smilh. pijie m;ikev, ID, The Walks, \iwv. K! n« >u Fi.'hniavy, h;i.s atremleil school lately 4.1 ilf I lit. s.-K hv a i W .Noil. u JirehviTilit. Mount Yard, riiiirk-" Wilile, sti-ii-si.ii. lint in school at all at present. Tiiii :-a.-e liu- sexcval times oecupieil the attention of the B.<nl. 4, -I.illn Evan-, labniirer. Crescent JSui4 ldit n.js, ratlierine, eU-.vn last An.mi-t: Alary, 7. Wither of tlie-r children nr.- ill school. |i».—,lose»'« VVyim. s kimier. II, Stanley-street, li'icHias. eleven June, was sent to the j-Vev Si-lio! a s!i..vt time a^o. in c,.iisei|nence of the iielf'-iJ taken !>y the Sei.d tir.ai'd, hut lie h:is sinee fer irr.-euLii- arteiitlance. He has been rr-chaitlod since the notice was served. li. Til".mas Hayes, .-hoeniaker, ?! :\lnuut-stret't.; :I.,Jtt, ,f:t4lv N%it., ;It the 1;1,t itit-etill?', t(P )«. ?.?('t'J tile (.f Haves sou, Abel. L'Inlin Jones, tiniher laller, Cutlev's-entry, a -.?j];!r "ir-lev w.is made with regard to Jones' pranil- Nlit.1 t,l I"lames Dojle, lahonrcr, Market street, Tiicmia-s, tliis month. N(?t in school. I h .e tlie honor to be, tiTtleiu- n, junv oheilient ??!)t. ) ■hdi ..nd, 187N. -I. LIMMIP. In else No, certitieate HI irantism signed by Mr William Bott, ,h"Ú] the child to bo is last December. tile ellil(i tii l?!, I.) I;i?,t 'I111]:l' were J'ea. and the Chairman stated thai iie had received an acknowledgement in 'in Mrs Pry ce-.l ones in reply to tlie vote of r iii.inlence passed the Board in reference to the death of her late husband. The Clerk that with regard to the election of a member to occupy the sent at the Board i" ive reil vacant by tlie dei-eaie of Mr Pryce- ■inii—.Tiiere appeared to be some little difficulty in tiic matter, and he thought a special meet- hu '.v.mid be required for the purjio.se of such rid iinn. Mr -litill" was requested to w rite to tlv Diipai'hiieiit for instructions.- A discussion ne a took place in reierence to the new regula- tion re. jiiirni^' a child on its filtering school to have given him a'nook to be supplied liy the, Kdue'ttinn Department called "The Child's School Bo..];, in winch must be entered a • ■crh/icate of its birth, with the name of the • IhM, t.'ie number of attendances, and the >trjli"i?' passed during the year, the child's ai;e at jias-nig such and such standard, &c.— The I 'h.-unnan said Mr Fyfe, British School, wanted to know if the Board would agree to '!n- managers making arrangements with the I:" .tl'ar; Mr .1. Bury, to supply certificates, which lie would undertake to do at 3d. per iii't'ii. the cost to come out of the school funds, h the Board obtained tlie certificates they not pay more than 2d for them, hut Mr ?ti!?! agreed to do the work f'?':}d if the ?«'i would allow such an agreement to he I Ili ;i,,i-veliieii t to I)c ™W\M! into, as it required an acknowledge- Jiii'iit from the School Board (so Mr Fyfe said) i;u h iii I)i ] It Ile tiiat "uch an he made.—Mr H'ii;ke thought it would be a very good thing !i.'ve the particulars as to age. < £ c\. in the school-hook, and there would then be 1 il-imittiiess about tlie matter that would I'-inl'T it mure satisfactory to deal with; in i::l'o, th hook would he a certificate of character ii'i'ii 1miv on Ins leaving school to go to Ni"(,i-k. lie tlnmght tlie cost of flu- certificates ought to (-.oil it, out of titeachool 'amis, ami not ..ut of the rates. The Act! really only mniired the certificate of birth ill tin- case of new admissions into the school tin"- the bt .laimai'v. of the present year, hut, \] I.' llr>rt'wislm,l to have the ages of all the, the school, and would require about • il;^s.— Mr Kocke said he should leave it v fnc schiioj maiiauers to take theii- own t'lr;> i-oidd obtain the ccrtilicates t!u- better.—After some further 'I.S.US.IHII. it was RESOLVED, with regard to the I' 0 '(ni-t .prcieiYt .1 by the Chairman on behalf -br J'y/e, to leave the matter to the dis- ''?'?''tf)r sehool inanage'i's, the Clerk '?"tt.- th?t tit?y \r..t?at"ld?rty to make ¡kp' t 1 f' t ;1armiigenients, and, of course, to pay t1'" I'ggistinr whatever sum they liked.— "? said lie ?h?.th] hav e to ask the ";Ij"" "']-' I 1 tl .?'?:uit,?,?.?,.t.?].,? which the 'I 1 1 1 '?'" Wrexham would have to duly 'ir. tur tile lioai'd's exjienses during the "")' \1" k I f'] ??"y?r. Mr 15. k e la spite of the 1 Vigilance Committee ( Laughter.) »(,K ()!i. yos! The Chainnan moved '<()!). yes' The C!):unnau moved application for the required sum of '.I,!) "I' 'I' 1 \Y-p '1 me,.].- to ti)e Town Council in due '["?'?"?.!ssecondedhyMrHocke, and '• fin-re was no ot'ier |.ub]:c business. ——————