The Tenby Observer Weekly List of Visitors and Directory

POLICE COURT PROCEEDINGS. COMMITTED TO QUARTER SESSIONS. Brought from Carmarthen Prison, where he had been on remand since last week, Frank Francis, a young man of nineteen, described as a collier, and living at No. 26, Ethel Street, Melincrythan, Neath, was placed in the dock at the Tenby Police Court on Monday morning on a charge of stealing from the Prince's Head, Tenby, on September 14th, a gold watch and chain, a scarf pin, a safety pin. a purse, and Is. 6jd. in money, the total value being £2 14s. 7^d., the property of Henry James Foreacre, the adopted son of Mr Guy, the land- lord of the house in question. The case was heard before the Mayor (Mr T. Tucker), Messrs. F. N. Raiiton, R. H. Tuck, J. Leach and C. Farley. The first witness called for the prosecution was Gaorge Guy, landlord of the Prince't Head, Tenby, who said he remembered September 13th when the accused in the dock came to his house at night and asked for a bed. Witness told him, however, that they were full up, and that he could not accommodate him, whereupon one of his boarders (Harry Chambers) said he would share his bed with him, and he did 150. On these conditions witness let the accused have a bed, but no price was mentioned. They retired to bed that night about ten minutes past eleven. The bedroom was on the upper floor, and in the same room there was another bed in which two people were sleeping, Foreacre and a man named James Jones (at least that was the name he gave witness). In the other bed were the accused and Chambers. The next morning, about half-past nine, his son told him something, in consequence of which he (witness) went to the police at once and reported it. The last to come down from the bedroom that morning was the accused. He was in the bedroom about two hours after the others had left it that morning. Prisoner. dd he had no questions to ask. Henry James Foreacre said he resided with his father at the Prince's Head, where he acted as barman. He was present on the night of September 13th, when the accused came to the house and engaged lodgings with his father. They retired that night about a quarter-past eleven. There were four sleeping in the bed- room—two lodgers, himself, and the accused. Chambers and the accused occupied one bed in the same room. which was near the top of the house. The two lodgers got up first, leaving the bedroom about half-past seven, and he (witness) went about eight o'clock, leaving the accused in bed. He (accused) came downstairs about half-past nine, and went into the kitchen and put on his coat. Witness could not say whether he had washed. When he was in the kitchen witness went upstairs to the bedroom. It was usual for him to do this after a stranger hed been stopping for the night. When he got into the bedroom he discovered he had lost something. When he looked at his waistcoat he found his watch and chain gone. The waist. coat was left on his box near his bed. He also missed a gold pin. The value of the watch was about £2, and the guard 2s. 6d. The watch and chain produced were the ones he missed from his waistcoat pocket. The glass of the watch was broken when he lost it. By Mr Railton-It was not by the broken glass that he identified the watch there were a couple of dents in it. Continuing his evidence, the witness said he lost a gentleman's gold pin from his waistcoat, and valued at about 10s. The pin produced was the one he had lost, He also lost another, a trumpet pin, value one penny that was on the mantel-piece. A leather purse was also lost, and this he valued at 6d. The purse con- tained Is. 6d. in silver and a halfpenny in bronze it was stolen from his trousers' pocket. The trousers were on the box with the waist- coast. He wore the clothes in which the pro. perty was the night previous, but when he came down in the morning he wore different clothes. When he entered the bedroom next morning he found that his clothes had been disarranged, though still on the box. He came hurriedly downstairs when he found these things were missing, but the accused had gone. Witness told his father about the things being lost from the bedroom, and then went in search of the accused. He went out the Esplanade way, but failed to find him. Later in the day Police- constable William John called upon him and showed him the property, which he had identi- fied as belonging to him. That was the first time he saw it since it was lost. Prisoner had no questions to ask. Police-constable William John (19) said he remembered the morning of September 14th, when from information received he made en- quiries and weut in search of the accused in the duck. As a result of this search and en- quiry _he found the accused in Hoyle's Mouth Road, near Holloway, about 10.35 a.m. Imme- diately the accused saw him he ran in the direction of St. Florence. Witness followed and caught him before he got very far. He was on foot. Having caught the accused he had a conversation with him, and found in the right hand pocket of his coat the watch and chain now produced. He then cautioned the accused and charged him with stealing the articles, to which he made no reply." He took him to the Tenby Police Station. Whilst there he searched him and found a gold pin, a leather purse con- taining Is. 6d^ and a metal pin. They were hidden in a breast pocket of his shirt. Having found these other articles upon the accused, witness charged him with stealing the whole, but he made no reply. During the day he showed the articles to Henry James Foreacre and he identified them as his property and they had been in his (witness's) possession since that time. Prisoner had no question to ask. Mr Leach asked what was the information about the accused. Superintendent Thomas said it all depended upon whether the Bench found a prima facie case against him. The magistrates intimated that they did find a prima facie case against the accused. Superintendent Thomas said that as they had found a pnma" facie case against Francis he was going to ask the Bench to send him for trial to the Quarter Sessions. There were two previous convictions recorded against him, and these had been verified. One conviction was for stealing a bicycle, for which he received two months' hard labour, and the other for stealing a watch, for which he was sentenced to three months' hard labour. The Justices' Clerk (Mr G. Lort Stokes)—Do you wish to say anything ? Prisoner (smilingly)—You may have a few more things yet. In reply to Mr Farley, the accused admitted that he had stood in the dock at Tenby on a previous occasion. He was then formally committed to take his trial at the next Quarter Scsstons at Haverford- west, Police-constable William John boing bound over to prosecute.

THE LODGER CLAIMS. FOUR BROTHERS' OWNERSHIP CLAIM. [The following is a continuation of the pro- ceedings at the sitting of the Tenby Revision Court last week, before Mr Leu-is M. Richards, Revising Barrister.—Ed. T. 0.] Mr J. E. L. Mabe (representing the Liberals in the Borough) objected to the retention on Divi- sion 1. of the Occupiers' List of Mr Ivor Tucker, who was on as occupier of a house in Bank Lane, stating that he was on the Old Lodger List last year, and now claimed again. Mr Mabe main- tained that he could not be on both lists. Mr W. H. Thomas (representing the Conserva- tives in the Borough) said he was instructed to withdraw the lodger claim. Mr Mabe said that if Mr Tucker occupied the house he now claimed for he couid not have occupied as a lodger next door. The receipts for rent paid Mr Tucker to his father, Mr T. Tucker (Mayor), were then handed up to the Revising Barrister by Mr Thomas. The Revising Barrister (examining them), gave it as his opinion that they had evidently been prepared for the purpose, and he disallowed the vote. Mr Mabe—What about his lodger claim ? Revising Barrister-I will deal with that when I come to it. The Conservative objected to the name of Mr Ratford Woods, on the ground that he was not the occupier, Mr Thomas stating that in some bankruptcy proceedings it was stated that Mrs Woods's daughter owned the furniture, while Mrs Woods occupied the house. Mr Mabe-Do you think that sufficient proof ? Revising Barrister-I think it is. Mr Mabe-I think you should have strong proof before you cross this man off the list. This man has not been made bankrupt. The Revising Barrister said that what had been put before him was strong enough proof for him, and he was going to strike Mr Woods off the list. Mr Mabe-Very good, sir. Miss E. A. Jones-Lloyd, Miss L. E. Jones- Lloyd, and Mrs M. A. M. Thompson, all residing in Victoria Street, claimed to have their names inserted in Division III. of the Occupiers' List, and, no objection being made, the claims were allowed. The Old Lodger Lists were then taken, there being ten, made chiefly on behalf of the Conser- vatives. Mr Mabe again asked what the Revising Bar- rister intended doing with regard to the vote of Mr Ivor Tucker. Revising Barrister-Tucker I am going to strike out. Mr Thomas—He is objected to. Mr Mabe (to the Revising Barrister)--It is entirely within your discretion. The first objection was made by the Conserva- tives, against Thomas Adams, Thorn Cottage, Harries Street, Mr Thomas claiming that 13s. 6d. per week (inclusive of board) was not sufficient payment to secure a vote. Mr Mabe submitted that the objection itself was bad in substance, as it did not refer to the qualifying period. The Revising Barrister enquired as to whether there had been any principle in vogue in Tenby as to what should be the amount. Mr Mabe-Yes, sir, and I can prove it by the reports. Mr Kendal said they had fixed upon this pretty well as regards the County, but did not know whether any arrangement had been come to in the towns. Mr Mabe said that claims at 13s. and 13s. 6d. a week with respect to lodgers had been allowed for years at Tenby. These figures were inclusive of board. He thought the Assistant Overseer could prove that. Mr G. J. S. Lyons (Assistant Overseer)-Yes, 13s. and 13s. 6d. Mr Thomas—I have successfully objected to one man at 13s. 6d. it is not possible for a man to live in Tenby on 9s. 6d. per week. Revising Barrister-I don't believe it is. Mr Thomas-I submit that it is not possible to do it at 13s. 6d. Mr Mabe again raised his point as to the form of the objection being bad, but the Revising Bar- rister, after examining a paper, said he did not agree that it was, and over-ruled the objection. Mr Mabe asked that a case might be cited on the point raised by him. The Revising Barrister, dealing with the ques- tion of qualification, said he would lay down a rule that while not interfering with votes which had been allowed by his predecessor, new claims at 13s. per week would be disallowed. Mr Mabe put in an objection to the vote of William Boobyer, 11, Culver Park, on the ground that he had only resided there 4J months during the qualifying period. Revising Barrister-Has he been ill ? Mr Mabe-No; he has been away working. His business takes him away. Revising Barrister—Have you given him notice? Mr Mabe—Yes. Mr Thomas said that Boobyer'a wife and family occupied the rooms for which he claim, and that he came down periodically to visit them about once a month. Mr Mabe maintained that this was not so, and that Boobyer only came down to vote at the last election, and again at Easter, when he stayed a week. That was not once a month as stated by Mr Thomas. He (Mr Mabe) was prepared to say this on oath. Mr Thomas-I say his family occupies the rooms. The Revising Barrister said he should strike Boobyer off the list. John Alfred Thomas, 4, Park Terrace, who was stated to pay 13s. a week, inclusive of board, was objected to by Mr Thomas. Revising Barrister-I don't believe it can be done in Tenby at that sum, and I am going to dis- allow the vote. Mr Mabe-It has been done for years. William Henry Davies, 3, St. Mary Street, who also paid 13s. a week, was objected to by Mr Thomas on the ground of the figure being insuffi- cient to carry a vote. Mr Mabe-The payment of rent is immaterial; the question is what is the value ? Here we have a house rated at C8 10s., which is quite sufficient. Mr Thomas—That is not considered. In the case of John Ishmael Rodney, it was remarked by Mr Mabe that the value of the house was JE20. The Revising Barrister repeated that cases at 13s. per week which had been allowed by his pre- decessor he was agreeable to let stand, but he should disallow new claims at this figure. Mr Mabe (warmly)—It is a trick, sir, nothing else I can prove that they have claimed at 13s., been on the list at 13s., and allowed by your pre- decessor. Revising Rarrister-I shall not allow any new votes at 13s.; all will be allowed this year. I don't like striking off people who have been on. Mr Thomas—I would ask you, sir, to reconsider Boobyer's case. The request was not acceded to. Robert Craig, Greenhill, claimed to have his name inserted in Division I. of the Occupiers' List. Mr Mabe, who supported the claim, said that Craig paid 3s. a week rent, and was a carpenter working for Mr F. B. Mason. He was not em- ployed on the premises for which he was claiming. Mr Thomas—They are Mr Mason's premises. Mr Mabe said Craig had been employed with Mr Mason for several years previous to going into this house. Mr Mason had asked him if he would like to go and live there, and he had done so. Revising Barrister—Is he here ? Mr Mabe—No, he is at his work, but he will be free at twelve o'clock. The Revising Barrister said he would adjourn the case for Craig's attendance. Later on in the sitting, however, Mr Mabe pro- duced Craig's rent-ook, whereupon Mr Thomas, who had objected to the claim, withdrew his opposition, but in doing so said that in his opinion the book looked as if it had been filled in very recentlv. At the same time he reminded the Revising Barrister that he had said Mr Ivor Tucker's receipts had been made out for the occasion. The Revising Barrister examined the book, remarking that the entries went back to 1909, and seemed to be all right. Ho allowed the vote. Lodger claims were next dealt with, and alto- gether there were thirty-nine new aspirants for the vote. In pursance of the rule which he had laid down at an earlier stage of the proceedings, the Revising Barrister struck out the names of all those whose weekly payment for board and lodging did not exceed 13s. per week, and at the same time disallowed a number of claims on the ground that the rateable valuable of the premises was not such as to carry a vote. The Conservatives objected to William Davies, 2, Culver Park, on the ground that 13s. weekly was insufficient. Mr Mabe said this man was an Old Age Pen- sioner, and could only get 13s. a week, all of which he paid over for his board and lodging. The Old Age Pension Act, Mr Mabe maintained, never meant that a man was to be disenfranchised. In spite of this plea, however, the Revising Barrister struck the name off the list. Mr Mabe called the Revising Barrister's atten- tion to the fact that in the past the different registration agents were asked to agree as to a minimum in regard to the rateable valuable of premises, and £5 was agreed between them. Revising Barrister—I don't know what was agreed. Mr Thomas—I didn't agree. Mr Mabe—Yes, you did; here is a report of it. The claim of William Hoffmann, Three Mariners, St. George Street, was objected to by Mr Mabe on the ground that he had no bedroom on the first floor, but on the second. The vote was allowed, however. Mr Mabe objected to the claim of Herbert Stanley Morris, Melrose House, Warren Street, stating that it was a lodging-house, and therefore could not provide the accommodation which the claimant was set down as occupying. Mr Thomas, supporting application, said it was a large house, and that there were several bed- rooms. The vote was disallowed. Mr Thomas objected to the claim of William George Nicholls, Westgate House, South Parade, it being alleged that he had been absent from Tenby during the qualifying period. Mr Mabe maintained that Nicholls had not been away four months. Mr Thomas—He has been away working as a dentist. Mr Mabe—I say he has not been away four months. I want Mr Thomas to prove that he has. Revising Barrister—Is he here to-day ? Some one in Court was understood to answer in the affirmative, though the claimant did not appear. Mr Thomas said it was not the wish of Nicholls's family that he should claim this vote neither did he think that it was his (Nicholls's) own wish from what his brother had told him (Mr Thomas). Mr Mabe—Hearsay evidence is no evidence. Revising Barrister—I don't think I should ob- ject then. If he is not a willing voter he is not likely to trouble you. (Laughter.) Mr Thomas—It is quite a toss up which way he votes. (Renewed laughter.) Mr Mabe objected to the vote of Percy Hubert Pugh, a Post Office clerk, 3, Harding Street, who was down as paying 7s. a week for two furnished rooms on the first fioor. The contention from the Liberal side was that he did not occupy two rooms on this floor. The Revising Barrister was understood to have struck the vote out, when Mr Thomas appealed to him and said he must ask him to reconsider the case, maintaining that the vote was the most genuine one the Barrister would ever have. Revising Barrister—Let it stand. On the ground that he was a shop assistant compelled to live on his employer's (Mr George Lord) premises, the vote of R. W. Scott, 9, High Street, was objected to by Mr Mabe. Mr Thomas said he would submit that Mr Scott paid for his lodgings in accepting a reduced wage. Mr Mabe—I submit that he should have claimed as a service voter. Revising Barrister—Struck out. Mr Mabe objected to the vote of William Henry Thomas, junior (son of Mr Thomas, the Conser- vative Registration Agent), on the ground that he had also claimed for a lodger's vote at Neyland, and did not occupy at Tenby. Mr Thomas—He comes up week-ends. Revising Barrister (to Mr Thomas)—Does he pay you 5s. a week ? Mr Thomas—Yes. Mr Mabe—Does your son live in Neyland? Mr Thomas—Part of the week. Mr Mabe—Does he live in Marine Terrace ? Mr Thomas—He did. Mr Mabe—He has claimed a lodger vote this year at Neyland. Here is his claim. Mr Thomas—I have nothing to do with that. Mr Mabe quoted the case of Miller v. Bruce in support of his objection in this case. Mr Thomas said that the rooms in his house at Tenby were kept for his son's exclusive use, no one else occupying them. Revising Barrister—I shall allow it here. Mr Mabe—But he works in Neyland Mr Thomas—His residence is in Neyland as well as Tenby. The Liberals objected to the vote of Walter Reginald Yeomans, 13, High Street, on the ground that he did not live there, Mr Mabe informing the Court that the landlord of the Commercial Hotel had told him that Mr Yeomans lodged there. Mr Thomas—Is the landlord here ? Mr Mabe.—No. He admitted it last night. He added that Percy Edward Yeomans carried on the business of a dentist at 13, High Street, and em- ployed his younger brother, Walter, as an assistant. Revising Barrister—Does Percy Yeomans live there ? Mr Mabe-Yes, but not the younger one. Mr Thomas—Both take their lodgings from Mr Truscott; he is the tenant of the house. Mr Mabe—He took on Mr Truscott's upper rooms when he came to Tenby as a dentist, and when the brother came later he helped him in his business, and he his down on the list as paying rent to Mr Truscott. He does no such thing. If his declaration his correct he is living on his em- ployer's premises. They don't claim jointly. Revising Barrister—How many rooms are there? Mr Thomas—It is a very large house. Mr Mabe—My information is that there are five rooms. Revising Barrister—It is perfectly clear that this claim cannot stand. Are there six rooms? Mr Lyons—Three or four rooms. The claim was struck out. This concluded the Lodger List, and the Owner- ship List for St. Mary's In-Liberty, Tenby, was then dealt with. Mr Kendal (Conservative Registration Agent for the County) asked the Revising Barrister to cor- rect those addresses in the list where they were wrong. Mr John George (Liberal Registration Agent for the bounty) strongly objected to this being done unless a declaration had first been made, and in support of his objection referred the Revising Barrister to sections of several Acts of Parlia- ment to prove that he (the Barrister) had no power to alter addresses. Revising Barrister-I shall continue to change addresses where I am asked to. I have done it for years. Whenever I am asked by either party or either side to change addresses I do it. Mr George-I find that under Section IV. of the Parliamentary Registration Act, 1843, there must be a declaration made. This section pro- vides for a declaration, but although it is some- what modified by Section XL. it is not entirely repealed. Revising Barrister—You may quote sections till you are tired. I am going to alter addresses when I am asked to do so. Now (to Mr Ifendal) will you give it to me. The Liberals objected to the vote of Mr John William John, Sunnyhill, Manorbier, in respect of the ownership of property in St. Julian Street, Tenby, in the occupation of Messrs. Morris Brothers, ironmongers, on the ground that he had now no beneficial interest in same. Mr George—This man is Revising Barrister—Have you given him notice? Mr George—Yes. He then proceeded to state that some of Mr John's property had been sold, and went on to refer to the legal case of Haggar v. John, in which certain facts were revealed. Mr Kendal said he must ask Mr George to con- fine himself to the property in St. Julian Street, and not go into a man's private affairs. Revising Barrister (to Mr George)—Are you prepared to say that Mr John is not the owner of the property in St. Julian Street? Mr George—I say that he has no beneficiary interest at all. It is in the hands of trustees and mortgaged up to the hilt. Evidence all to that came into public court. Mr Kendal said he asked for some specific proof in support of Mr George's objection with regard to the St. Julian Street property, and was now. told that he read something in the papers some time ba.ck. These particular houses, added Mr Kendal, were not mentioned, and he main- tained that Mr John still owned them. Before he (Mr Kendal) answered the objection he said Mr George must give him some specific proof of same. Mr George-l have no documentary proof. Revising Barrister—It is only surmise on your part. Mr Lyons said that Mr John was on the rate- book. The Revising Barrister said he would allow the vote. Mr George objected to the claim of four brothers—Major Walter McKenzie Levett, the Rev. Thomas Prinsep Levett, the Rev. Robert Kennedy Levett, and Mr George Arthur Munro Levett, who each claimed a vote in respect of a quarter undivided share of the freehold house, "Rosemount," Heywood Lane, Tenby. These claims, said Mr George, had been put in very recklessly, and he had returned to him marked gone away the form of objection addressed to Major Levett at Packington Hall, Lichfield, He (Mr George) asserted that Major Levett actually lived on the premises — Rosemount — now claimed for. Mr Kendal—Major Levett is not living in Tenby he is staying here. Revising Barrister (to Mr George)—You have sent the objection to the place of abode, and he now seems to have left it ? Mr George—Yes. It is the address given in the claim, not in the list. Mr Kendal said he would ask, in order to get on with the business of the Court, that Mr George should first of all state the ground of his objection. He added that Major Levett had called at the office of Messrs. Stokes and given instructions for these claims to te made. He was in Tenby on the previous day, staying at "Rosemount," for which he (Mr Kendal) believed the Major's sister (Miss Levett) was on the register. Major Levett had these claims filled in under his own instruc- tions. Mr George—I have objected, and I ask for proof. There are four claiming for the same property. Revising Barrister—I think you are entitled to proof in such a case. Mr Kendal—Will you adjourn the case for one of them to attend? (To Mr Thomas)—Will his sister come ? Revising Barrister—You might put a dozen people on; I must have some proof. Mr George—Major Levett is now residing at Rosemount," Tenby, the property for which he is claiming. Mr Kendal—That is entirely denied. Will you accept the Overseer's word that he is not living there, but that his sister lives there and is on the register ? Mr George—Who pays the rates for "Rose- mount? Mr Lyons (the Assistant Overseer) said that. Miss Levett was on the list as occupier of Rose- mount," whilst Major Levett always sent him a cheque for the rates. Mr George—But here is the fact that four are claiming for the same property. Revising Barrister—I shall strike them all out unless I have satisfactory proof that they are entitled to a quarter. I cannot say more than that. Mr George—Thank you, sir. Mr Kendal again asked the Barrister to adjourn the case to some other Court. The Revising Barrister agreed to do so, either to Pembroke or Narberth. Mr Kendal said he would try and get Major Levett to attend. Mr George-l ask you not to take any hearsay proof. The cases then stood adjourned to another Court. Before the Court rose Mr Kendal said he would ask that Overseers should not reprint the owner- ship portion of the register without instructions as had been done in the past. Without instruc- tions they altered and left out names. There was no need to reprint, as the Clerk to..the County Council was bound to supply as many copies as were required, and Overseers must insist on having what they wanted. Mr Lyons — Are you alluding to me, Mr Kendal? Mr Kendal — No, I am alluding generally throughout the county I am not finding fault with the Overseers at all. Mr Lyons said he was very pleased to hear what Mr Kendal had said on this matter. Revising Barrister—I will mention it. After the revision of the County lists the Court rose.

"BREEZY" COMMITTEE MEETINGS. MORE "HOLE AND CORNER" WORK. The first committee meetings of the Tenby Corporation after the vacation took place in the Council Chamber last Thursday afternoon under the chairmanship of the Mayor, and were of a somewhat breezy character. After the reading of the minutes of previous committees, the following letter from Mr J. Preece James, architect, Tenby, withdrawing his application to lease the land in South Parade was read :— Frogmore, Tenby, August 19th, 1910. DEAR SIB,—I am obliged for yours of the 9th inst., but seeing by the local papers that after receiving my application for a lease of the ground in question your Council by a majority confirmed the recommendation of the Committee, that the plot be left as an open space," and also that work for that object is being carried on at the site, it would only mean a waste of my time to prepare plans for the proposed building, which, under the oircumstances, would not receive favourable con- sideration. Please, therefore, consider my appli- cation as withdrawn.—Yours faithfully, J. PREECE JAMES. G. Lort Stokes, Esq., Town Clerk. A Councillor at once remarked that he did not believe Mr James' offer to have been a genuine one, when he (the Councillor) was im- mediately described by another in language more forcible than polite as a stranger to the truth," and that he knew it Pandemonium followed for the next few minutes, the indignant member who had re- pudiated the suggestion of his colleague de- claring that the piece of ground had been laid out, kerbed and channelled, and at that moment railings were being fixed round it, although no sanction from the Council as a body had been first obtained for the work. A large sum, he continued, was being spent by the Borough Surveyor with the connivance of two or three members of the Corporation who would persist in doing things in that hole and corner fashion, and consequently were the curse of Tenby. The Mayor called upon the unruly member to resume his seat, but this he firmly refused to do, and proceeded to declare that special meetings of the Council had been called to examine a bit of falling rock on the South Shore, or inspect a rusty railing on Victoria Pier, but here was a large sum of money being expended without any provision whatever being made to ascertain where it was to come from. He indignantly declared that he was not going to sit in that Council Chamber as a blessed tigure-head, and he should insist upon an expla- nation from the official who had carried out this work, or the members who had presumed to givo him instructions privately. Matters having simmered down somewhat, the following letter was read from the Local Government Board, asking that a list of Tenby charities should be sent them :— Looal Government Board, Whitehall, S.W., 20th August, 1910. SIR,—I am directed by the Local Government Board to advert to your letter of the 9th instant, applying for an Order under section 33 of the Local Government Act, 1894, conferring on the Town Council of Tenby powers with respect to parochial Charities. The Board request that they may be informed by reference to the sub-sections of section 14 of the Act what are the particular powers of a Parish Council with respect to parochial oharities desired by the Town Council. The Board also wish to be furnished with a statement of the Charities to which the powers desired would be applicable, showing whether any of the Charities are of an educational nature. I am at the same time to request that one of the enclosed forms may be filled up and returned to the Board.—I am, Sir, your obedient Servant, J. S. DAVY, Assistant Secretary. The Town Clerk, Tenby. The Town Clerk stated that he had furnished the list requested. Another letter from the Local Government Board, of great importance and referring to the South Parade Improvement Scheme, was then read, the same being as follows :— Local Government Board, Whitehall, S.W., 2nd September, 1910. SIB,—I am directed by the Local Government Board to advert to your letter of the 30th July last, with reference to the proposals of the Town Council of Tenby for the improvement of Upper Park Road and South Parade; and I am to state that, if the cottages in South Parade are Cor- porate property -to which the Municipal Corpora- tions Act, 1882, applies, the Board's approval of the appropriation of the site partly for street widening and partly as an open space will be required under that Act, and a. further memorial applying for such approval should be submitted after compliance with the provisions of section 236 of the Act. The Board should at the same time be furnished with plans, in duplicate and on tracing cloth, showing clearly by distinctive colours the parts of the Corporate land proposed to be appropriated for street widening and the open space respectively. With regard to the proposed application of the proceeds of the sale of part of the Lower Wind- mill Field towards the cost of the improvement, I am to state that the Board are not at present aware of any sufficient reason for departing from their usual practice of requiring recoupment. As regards the proposed application of the pro- ceeds of the sale of surplus land acquired under the Public Health Act, 1875, I am to point out that section 175 of this Act requires that the sale proceeds Bhall be applied in discharge of principal moneys borrowed by the Town Council. The Board have no power to dispense with this re- quirement.—I am, Sir, your obedient Servant, NOEL T. KERSHAW, Assistant Secretary. The Town Clerk, Tenby. The member who had previously objected to the carrying out of this work declared this letter to be proof positive of the mess into which the Town Council had got themselves. They had actually laid out a site before ob- taining the necessary permission to pull the houses down. It was decided that the Town Clerk should consider the letter and report on same to the Council. It was agreed to support the recommendation of the Llandrindod Wells Urban District Coun- cil that an application should be made to His Majesty the King to fix next year's Coronation in June, so as to avoid inflicting injury upon the season of the various seaside resorts. A small committee was appointed to consider the question of the sick-pay now given em- ployees of the Corporation, with a view of making more satisfactory arrangements in future. The request of a member that opportunity should be given for openly discussing the selection of a Mayor for Tenby for next year was not favourably received, some members declaring that a meeting for the purpose was always held after November 1st. To this was given the retort that the Mayors of Tenby were not selected in open meeting, but in sly corners. Following this it was agreed that the Borough Surveyor be called upon to report as to from whom he received instructions to lay out, kerb and channel, and also provide railings for the plot of land in South Parade. With the assistance of the Borough Ac- countant the question of arrears of rent due from various tenants was next discussed, and in all cases the Town Clerk was instructed to take the necessary steps to recover the amounts due. Tenders for renting the Moory Park from September 29th, vacated by Mr W. Wall, were next opened, when it was found that Mr H. Watkins and Mr J. Mabe each tendered L21 Mr David Harrison, L20 and Mr W. H. Thomas, j316. It was agreed by a majority to let the land to Mr H. Watkins at JS21 per annum. [Owing to pressure on our space the report of Monday's special Council and Committee meet- ings is held over till next week.-ED. T. 0.]

BAKER'S BOY'S HALF-HOLIDAY. At the Tenby Police Court on Monday morning, before the Mayor and other magistrates, Albert Brookman Stote, baker and grocer, Frog Street, Tenby, was summoned at the instance of Mr J. Hilditch, His Majesty's Inspector of Factories, Swansea, for a breach of the Factory Act on August 31st. Defendant did not appear, but was represented by Mr G. Meyrick Price, solicitor, Tenby, who informed the Bench that his client pleaded guilty, but was unable to attend as the Inspector had in- sisted upon the attendance at Court that morning of the boy in connection with whom these pro- ceedings were taken. Mr Stote also wished him (Mr Price) to apologise to the Bench for his absence. Mr Hilditch, addressing their Worships, said that the present proceedings were taken under section 26 of the Factories and Workshops Acts. The Mayor thought that as the defendant had pleaded guily the Bench did not want to hear the case. Mr E. Laws (a magistrate) thought they should hear the evidence. The Mayor—We don't want Acts of Parliament. Mr Hilditch said he did not want to unneces- sarily press the case, but should just like to give the facts of it. The section under which the pro- ceedings were taken provided that all young per- sons (under the age of eighteen) were to be given a half-holiday or short day each week, and in the present instance Mr Stote had elected to take Wednesday instead of Saturday. At half-past five on Wednesday, August 31st, his (Mr Hil- ditch's) colleague, Mr Mead, visited the defen- dant's premises and found a boy (Benjamin John) at work, whereas he should have left at three o'clock. He (Mr Hilditch) understood that this kind of thing was rather common in Tenby, and his Department wished their Worships to assist them in putting it down, so that these boys should have their short day. Mr Leach (a magistrate), enquired as to the age of the boy, and was informed that he would be sixteen next month. Mr Hilditch explained that a young person was meant one up to eighteen years of age. Mr Farley (a magistrate)—If this is, you say, a common thing in Tenby, why is this only the first case ? Mr Hilditch replied that he had not been very long in the district. Mr Farley thought that was a very bad admis- sion on the part of the Inspector. Mr Hilditch—I am informed it is I cannot say any more. Mr William Henry Mead, one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Factories, having been sworn, stated that on Wednesday, August 31st last, he visited the bakehouse of the defendant at 5.25 p.m., and saw a boy at work there. Mr Stote came into the bakehouse just after his (witness's) arrival. At witness's request the boy signed a declaration (produced) to the effect that he had worked on two previous Wednesdays in particular, and also last year regularly. Mr Meyrick Price (crosi-examinining)-Have you visited these premises on a previous occasion ? Witness-I have just joined this district. Have you heard any complaint ?—No. The boy was not actually working ?—Yes, greasing tins. Was Mr Stote on the premises ?—Yea. I think the boy was only greasing tins to hear what you were saying. Of course you didn't know that; and he was not actually working at the time ?—Yes, he was greasing tins when I went in. Yo.u have never heard any complaint before about him ?-No. Were the premises clean and everything in order ?-Yes, otherwise. Mr Price, addressing the Bench, said his client was very sorry that this thing had happened, but during the busy time in August his client had really no time to look into the regulations. With regard to this boy, he was very fond of work, and Mr Stote had difficulty in getting him off the premises. He had asked him (Mr Price) to apologise for him, and request that the Bench would deal leniently with him. The Mayor remarked that the maximum penalty was JE5, but the Bench were not going to inflict that. Mr Stote would be fined Is. and costs (5s. 6d.), his Worship mentioning that the leniency displayed was because of the fact that it was the first case of its kind which had been brought before them.

TENBY DISTRICT NURSINO ASSOCIATION. To the Editor of the Tenby Observer. Sm,—With regard to the report and statement of the Tenby Nursing Association for 1910, supplied to all donors, and passed, as I understand, at the annual meeting held on 31st August last, I find a slight discrepancy. The receipts total JE129 9s., but on deducting the former balance in the bank, viz., JE56 16s. therefrom, the remainder consisting of subscriptions, nursing fees, proceeds of dance, sale of aprons and flowers, offertories and collecting boxes should apparently be Jb72 13s., yet the list of subscriptions, etc., in detail gives it as JE73 13s. 9d. Neither of these sums is however correct, for the list when added up is found to total JE72 lis. 2d., thus if the balance in the bank is correctly given there would seem to be a deficit of Is. lOd. unaccounted for. Apparently then the aocounts have not been very carefully made up or audited. Perhaps unusual difficulties or the absence of some influential member of the com- mittee accounts for the annual meeting being held at the end of August instead of in July. I am, sir, yours, etc., I Tenby, September 14th, 1910. A, Subscribes.