Hawarden Rural District Council. Shotton Bridge: Who Shall Bear the Cost? PLEA FOR RE-CONSIDERATION. "Unfair to Place the Charge on the District Alone." A meeting of the Hawarden Rural Dis- trict Council was held on Friday last, Mr. A. F. Davies presiding. SYMPATHY. Mr. J. Millington moved that the Council should express their sympathy with Mr. William Newton, the surveyor, in the be- reavement he had suffered by the death of Jxis brother; and also their sympathy with liim in the serious illness of his wife, with the hope that she would have a speedy re- covery. Mr. W. Gillam seconded the proposition, which was carried. SURVEYOR'S ESTIMATES. The estimates of the surveyor for the en- suing year were as follows Manual labour, £ 1,673; team labour and material, F-840; improvements, including Castle-street, Caer- gwrle, £ 150; repair of bridges and cul- verts, £ 120; trade bills, £ 130; steam roller, £ 200; total, £3113. THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF WALES. The Clerk (Mr. Hugh G. Roberts) stated that a letter had been received from the National Library of Wales, asking the Council to make a contribution out of their funds. The Chairman I suppose we can make a contribution if we wish to do so? The Clerk: Yes. Mr. John Jones: I think we had better wait until the Disestablishment Bill is passed and see whether the Library benefits by the endowments. I propose that. The motion was seconded. Mr. E. Mousdale moved an amendment that the Council should give a subscription of two guineas. It would do some of them good if they had a chance of getting into a good library. There were thousands in Wales who would value the opportunity of using the National Library as a great privi- lege. lie thought it was a grand thing that the young men and women of Wales should have that privilege. Mr. W. Gillam seconded. Mr. J. Millington remarked, in reference to what Mr. Jones had said as to disestab- lishment, that the benefits would only come in gradually. The amendment was carried by six votes to five. ELECTORAL DIVISIONS. The Clerk read a letter from the Flint- shire County Council, stating that applica- tion was to be made to the Local Govern- ment Board for sanction to a proposal (1) to increase the representation of Rhyl by one member; (2) to divide the Dyserth divi- sion into two parts, giving one representa- tive to Prestatyn and one to the combined portion of Meliden and Dyserth; (3) to sub- stitute for the existing Saltney and Queens- ferry divisions, at present represented by one member each, four new divisions, to be known as Sealand, East Saltncy, West Saltney and Shotton. Other applications were under consideration, but the Council, having regard to all the circumstances, were unable to approve any further alteration of existing divisions. The County Council asked for the Rural Council's approval of the proposed scheme. The clerk remarked that there was still a marvellous disparity between some of the districts. Mr. John Jones proposed that the Coun- cil express approval of the scheme. He said the alteration to the Saltney and Queensferry division ought to have been effected a long time ago. Mr. Mousdale seconded the motion, which was carried. THE SHOTTON BRIDGE QUESTION. In accordance with notice of motion, Mr. E. Mousdale moved that the charge in con- nection with Shotton bridge be put on the whole of the Union. Mr. Millington said it was a question whether it was fair to go on with that dis- cussion, seeing that there were so few members present. Mr. Mousdale said it was not his fault that the members were not present. Notice had been given of his intention to move the resolution. Continuing, he said that it was only right and proper that the charge should be put on the whole of the area. When they considered the rateable value of their district, and how they had assisted in carrying out schemes in other parts of the Union it would be most unfair to try to place the chaige on their district alone. He asked the Council to reconsider the matter. Mr. John Jones, who seconded, said that a great deal of the money earned at Shotton was spent in ether parts of the Union. They did not grumble when they were asked to assist improvements in any othe part of the Union, and they thought it hard that they should he asked to bear the whole of this charge. He was sure the ratepayers would kick. This necessary improvement, for which they had been agitating for years, would benefit not only the people of Shotton but people from all parts of the area, and he hoped that the Council would decide that the cost should be borne by the whole of the Union. Mr. R. G. Roberts thought it was very I hard that he or any other ratepayer should be asked to contribute to such an object. When the railway company were given per- mission to close the level crossing, it was on the understanding that they should make provision for foot passengers to go over it. Why the public should be called upon to help them to make that provision he was at a loss to know. He considered it was very unjust that the ratepayers in that district or any other should be asked to contribute. If the provision which the company had 1e W"IR aot. adequate, and they thought they were being asked for something more than they should be called upon to do, in that cilie lie thought Messrs. Summers themselves should pay some contribution in older to make the extra provision. It was their workmen who wanted the slope in- stead of the steps. As a ratepayer he strongly objected to being called upon to 1 contribute to something for their benefit solely. No one who was not interested in some way with these works could get any benefit. He objected to it on that ground and also on the ground of the standing or- ders. It was hardly in order that the ques- tion should come up that day. The Clerk said that Mr. Mousdale gave notice at the last meeting that he intended to move the resolution. In other respects he did not think that it was in order. The I part in question had never been adopted as a public highway. It was not in the juris- diction of the Council. Some time ago he attended a meeting at Messrs. Summers' works, and came from there in company with Mr. Mousdale, and when they crossed the bridge they paid a half-penny. A toll had to be paid, and therefore it was not a public highway. Mr. John Jones said he did not want the resolution to go to the vote that day, be. cause it would not be satisfactory. There were not enough members present. He ask- ed the clerk to obtain a copy of the lailway company's Bill enabling them to c-lcse that level crossing. He said they were in the dark now, and did not know what they were talking about. After further discussion the matter was deferred.
Hawarden Petty Sessions Thursday.—Before Messrs. T. It Probert (presiding), H. Watkinson, W. H. Fox, A. F. Davies, J. Viekers, J. Millington, J. Jones, R. S. Gardner and W. Fryer. CONDOLENCE. Before the business of the court com- menced, the Chairman said he should like to mention the loss sustained in the Court through the death of Mr. Herbert Jones, solicitor, who had practised there for some time. He was a young man of great ability, and it was a loss to their neighbours and to them. He moved that the clerk write a letter of condolence to the parents and family. The resolution was carried in silence, all standing. NO LIGHT. Robert Williams, of Saltney, was sum- moned for riding a bicycle without a light at night. The civse was dismissed on pay- ment of costs. P.C. Elliott proved the case. TICKETLESS TRAVELLER. John Maxwell Ffoulkes, of Queensferry, was summoned for travelling on the 28th inst., on the London and Nortti-Western Railway from Chester to Queensferry with- out a ticket, and with intent to avoid pay- ment. Mr. Allmack, of Euston, prosecuted on behalf of the company, and said that Mr. Williams, the stationmaster at Queensferry, and a porter were collecting tickets from the passengers on the 11.15 p.m. train from Chester, the last train on the Saturday night. The defendant came through with the other passengers, and when asked for his ticket he said he had not come down with the train, he had been waiting for a pal. He replied that that could not be, seeing that there had been only one man in the station for some time. He followed the defendant down off the station. He saw him a few days afterwards, and he then told him he had travelled on that train, and said that a man named Rogers could tell him that he purchased the return half. Detective Williams, of the railway police, Chester, corroborated, and said the defen- dant told him he had lost the return half. Mr. I. J. Williams, stationmaster at Queensferry, also corroborated. The Bench decided to fine defendant 5s. and costs, including witnesses' fee. They hoped it would be a warning to him in future. CASES IN BRIEF. Wm. Morris and Thomas Denman, of Shotton, were charged with being drunk and disorderly at Shotton on Wie 10th. P.S. Dempsey proved the case. Morris was fined 5s. and costs, and Denman 7s. 6d. and costs. Benjamin Doyle, of Hawarden, was fined 5s. and costs for disorderly conduct on the 11th inst. Thomas King, of Saltney, was charged with being drunk and incapable on the public road. He was fined 5s. inclu: costs. I
25 YEARS REPUTATION V^vFOR COU6HS.COIDS.SORE THROAT E!" Storcroffi THROATiCHCSTCURE 17^ ™ \~s Thc RAPID Rtwern; k)
Holywell County Court. SPORTING RIGHTS DISPUTE. "Civil War" Among Rabbits. Monday.—Before His Honour Judge Moss. A DOCTOR'S FEES. Application was made by Mr. Kelly (Mr. F. J. Gamlin, Rhyl) that fees due to Dr. Eaton Lloyd, Rhyl, for attending Iorwerth Ellis, Gwaenysgor, be paid. Mr. Clement Hughes, Prestatyn, who ap- peared for Ellis, said he was going to ob- ject as the application was entirely out of order. Mr. Kelly said that was his first opportu- nity after the compensation proceedings. His Honour: The real objection is the schedule of the Act. Mr. Kelly said he wished to know whe- ther the sum awarded was intended to in- clude the medical attendance. His Honour: That I cannot tell you. Mr. Clement Hughes: We say it is due from the Talacre Hall Quarries Coy. and not from my client. His Honour said as a rule these things were dealt with when the lump sum of com- pensation was settled. Mr. Kelly: We don't wish to go against the man—we are reluctant to do so. We would rather go against the company. We thought you would have taken the medical fees into consideration when you made the award. His Honour: I sanctioned the award. Both sides seemed satisfied The doctor ought to be paid somehow. How do you say the Quarry Company are liable? Mr. Kelly: They sent him to the hosjiital and paid his hospital fees, but did not in- clude the medical attendance. Dr. Lloyd sent in a bill to the Colliery Company, but they ignored it they never denied liability. He sent in the bill again at the end of the half year. Later on they repudiated liabi- lity. His Honour: Did they call the doctor? Mr. Kelly: Dr. Griffiths was called in, but he sent Ellis to the Alexandra Hospi- tal, Rhyl. Air. Hughes said he would not stand against paying Dr Lloyd, and he would ad- vise the man to pay a reasonable fee to Dr. Lloyd. Mr. Kelly: The trouble is due to the Tal- acre Hall Quarries Co. ignoring the appli- cation, otherwise a claim would have been put in. His Honour said it would be a shabby thing to leave the doctor unpaid. It was perfectly clear that a sum of money paid by way of redemption of a weekly one could not be attached by order upon the specific sum itself. It did not say that the man was not liable to pay, and that they could not recover but he did not go into that question. All that he could do was to say he had no power to make any order as to the money. No doubt, after what he had said, the Quarry Company and the man would arrange. He did not say who was liable. Mr. C. Hughes: If my client agrees to the payment of a sum will you consent to the money being paid out of court? His Honour: I cannot do it without giv- ing it to him. I cannot make any order as to attachment; the Act is so very speci- fic. In refusing the application, his Hon-, our suggested that the parties might ar. range it between themselves. Mr. C. Hughes: I dont wish to say any thing as to costs. His Honour: I should not grant it if you did. SPORTING RIGHTS DISPUTE. An action was heard in which Alexander Eccles, of the Feathers Inn, Holywell, sued Charles Brace, of Pwll Melyn Farm, Holy- well, for the return of 30s., the amount paid in respect of a permit to shoot rabbits on the land at Pwll Melyn. The actual amount claimed was 27s. 6d., credit being given for 2s. 6d., which was stated to have been returned in kind. Mr. Clement Jones was for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. Kerfoot Roberts defended. Opening the ease for the plaintiff, Mr. Clement Jones said he bought certain rights of shooting at Pwll Melyn for 30s., and he received the following permit and acknow- ledgment of the amount paid from the de- fendant Clias. Brace. "Pwll Melyn, July 31, 1913. This is to certify that I, Charles Brace, have given permission to Mr. Eccles, the Feathers, to shoot rabbits on land in my occupation. Received El 10s., Charles Bra ce." Acting upon that authority, about a month or two later plaintiff went to Pwll Melyn to exercise his rights of shooting over the land. A few days after- wards he received from Mr. Isaac Taylor, of Coleshill, the following letter :—"Oct. 9th, 1913. Dear Sir,—I am informed Mr. Charles Brace has let you the shooting over Pwll Melyii Farm, but I must at once in- form you that he has no power to do so, and if you attempt to shoot on this farm you will render yourself liable to proseeu- tion for trespass in pursuit of game. I have rented the game from Mr. Brace for the past few years and paid an annual rent; he has not served any notice to de- termine the tenancy, so it is pretty plain that if he has attempted to let to you he had no power to do so, and you have no right to go on the land. Apart from the fact that you cannot take this shooting, I cannot believe that you would wish to go and shoot pheasants where they are pre- served by others. But I shall certainly have to claim damages from you if you at- tempt to do so. If you have paid money to Mr. Brace and he has taken it the sooner the better he returns it you." Plaintiff acknowledged the letter and afterwards went to Coleshill and had an interview with Mr. Taylor, who informed him that he had taken the whole of the shooting, game and rabbits from Mr. Brace. Plaintiff in- formed Brace, and nsked for the return of his money. Later Brace Rent a cwt. of potatoes, and plaintiff took them in part payment. Defendant promised to return the remainder as soon as possible. Plaintiff gave evidence in support of the opening statement that he arranged with the defendant to take the shooting for 30s. He paid the money and went twice on the land. Mr. C. Jones: If it is correct that de- fendant let the rabbits to Mr. Taylor, he would have no right to let the shooting to anyone else. Plaintiff: That is what I have been given to understand. Mr. J. K. Roberts: The rabbits were never let to Mr. Taylor. Plaintiff added that he arranged to ac- cept the repayment in potatoes or anything else. By Air. Roberts Defendant said he would gine him next year's shooting if lie would accept it, and told him he could give a fortnight's notice if he had another tenant. Defendant told him he had full permission to go on the land but lie (plaintiff) could not go in face of that letter from Mr. Tay- for. Defendant did not say his daughter took the money in his absence, and that he should return it to Mr. Taylor. Mr. J. Kerfoot Roberts: You had two days' shooting? Plaintiff: A couple of hours—do you call that a day's shooting? You had a good shoot?—A couple of rab- bits or about that. In the letter it 6ays, "I cannot believe you would shoot pheasants where preserved by othert," ?-- Yes. Had you seen Lee, the keeper, before you had that letter from Mr Taylor?—I believe I did. Did you tell him you had the shooting?— I may have. He told you you had no business to go on the land, and had no right to shoot Did he ask if you would shoot a pheasant, .and did you say you would?—I may have said so when he asked so many questions. Had you a licence to kill game?—No. I had not, and I know all that. Mr. C. Jones: Have you seen others shooting there?—I have not seen, but I have heard from Brace that they had others. Air. Clement Jones said he should like to call Mr. Taylor with regard to the shooting rights. He had served him with a sub- poena OIl Saturday morning. The action brought as a result of Mr. Taylor's letter, and he ought to be present to justify what lie stated therein. Mr. J. Kerfoot Roberts: His gamekeeper is here. Air. C. Jones replied that he hadn't sum- moned his gamekeeper. He would be re- luctant to ask his Honour to fine Mr. Tay- lor, but he would suggest that the case be adjourned in order that Mr. Taylor might attend. That was his case, barring Mr. Taylor's evidence. Air. J. Kerfoot Roberts, for the defence, said apparently the action was the lesult of the letter. Plaintiff had told Lee that lie had full permission to shoot pheasants. Lee immediately reported the matter to Mr. Taylor. Permission had been given to Mr. Taylor to shoot the pheasants or other game on the land. His Honour: Do you suggest that anyone will take a shoot and let someone else shoot the rabbits? Mr. J. Kerfoot Roberts: Lee will tell you the rabbits are reserved. Had Eccles not told Lee a deliberate lie that he had per- mission to kill pheasants he would not have been interfered with. Thomas Lee, gamekeeper in the employ of Air. I. Taylor, said he made arrange- ments with Brace to take the shooting of Pwll Melyn. Rabbits were reserved. On October 9th he saw Eccles, who told him he intended to kill the pheasants. He made the arrangements with Brace at the request of Mr. Taylor. Brace agreed on the same conditions provided he had the right to the rabbits. Air. J. Kerfoot Roberts: Did you before October 9th see Mr. Eccles?—Yes. I said "What about Charlie Brace's shooting?" "Well," said Eccles, "What about it. He has given me permission to kill game on his farm." "Game," I said, "You know it means pheasants, etc.?" Eccles said, "I have got the right to do it." "Would you do it?" I asked, and he said, "I have got the right to do so. Here's the paper." Mr. Roberts: Did you read the paper? — Witness: No; he didn't let me read it. You reported to Mr. Taylor, and in con- sequence lie had the letter read out ?—Yes. Had lie not mentioned a word about phea- sants would anything further have been heard from Mr. Taylor?—No, nothing at all. Is there a receipt for the payment to Mr Brace?—Yes. Do you produce it?—No. Were the rabbits specially reserved in that receipt?—I cannot say. You have said they were?-It was an ar- rangement that they should be reserved. Mr. Brace wanted the rabbits. Is it customary?—Yes, at Penybryn and also at Tyddyn Ucha we take the game and they have the rabbits. Mr. C. Jones Have you shot rabbits over this .Iit(]?-No. Air. J K. Roberts: I object. His Honour: It is very pertinent. Air. C. Jones: You have never shot rab- bits on Brace's land? —No. Air. C. Jones: Is the game disturbed by rabbit shooting?—So long as they don't kill the game I don't mind so much. Charles Brace, the defendant, said lie let the shooting rights for game to Mr. Isaac Taylor, the rabbits being reserved. Mr. Lee asked him if Mr. Taylor should continue the shooting of game over the land. He re- plied that so long as Mr. Taylor reared the game he would let him have the shoot, but would reserve the rabbits to himself. He let the shooting of rabbits to Mr. Eccles, and gave him a receipt for 30s. Three gentlemen came with Mr. Eccles. They paid Mr. Eccles 10s. apiece, and when Mr. Eccles paid him he said, "You may as well give a receipt," and he did so. He never stopped Mr. Eccles going on the land. He had full permission to go there for the twelve months. Mr. C. Jones: Have you let the shooting rights to Air. Taylor?—The game rights. I I wouldn't let it until the rabbits were re- served to me. I Was there any agreement on either side?— By word of mouth and I received the amount I for the shooting rights of game. What amount?—I don't know that it is right to answer that. Is it the first occasion you have let the rabbit shooting?—Yes and the last, too. I am very glad to hear it. Why had you not let it in previous years?—I have only been in the farm 1 years. In further examination, witness said he did not send the potatoes in part payment. He sent them when he was sending to the mill. He should have charged him 3s. Plaintiff had brought the thing Oil by show- ing Lee a false paper of the shooting, which he (defendant) had not given. Plaintiff had not told him he had had a conversation with Air. Taylor about the shooting. Air. C. Jones: Are you aware that plain- tiff had only a gun licence?—I don't know what he had. I know that lie and others went out shooting and fired about 50 or 60 rounds of cartridges, and I saw them with two rabbits (laughter). I didn't know what they were doing or what they had, whether one or two guns, but I thought there was "civil war" going on the way they were shooting (renewed laughter). Defendant said he did not send the pota- toes in part payment of the 30s. His Honour thought Air. Taylor should be present, though he did not know how he was to help the plaintiff. The case was adjourned.
AFFAIRS OF A CONNAH'S QUAY BUILDER. The question of who was entitled to take the assets was decided by his Honour Judge Moss at Chester County Court on Thursday in the case of Joseph Williams, builder, The Hollies, Connah's Quay, who had twice been bankrupt. The question arcse on an application by the Official Receiver (Air. LI. Hugh Jones). His Honour, having been addressed by the Official Receiver and Mr. Eustace Jones (who opposed the application) said it seemed that Jos. Williams, with his partner, Will. Hughes was adjudicated bankrupt on the 21st May, 1901, and for four years after that, according to the bankrupt's affidavit, he worked as a journeyman mason in the building trade at and about Connah's Quay. After that, he began trading as a builder again oil his own account, being at the time an undischarged bankrupt. On September 16th, 1913, a receiving order 11 a creuitor's petition was made against him in that court, and on the 17th September he was adjudi- cated bankrupt. The estate had been rea- lised in the second bankruptcy, and the Official Receiver had made certain payments out of the assets, and he had in his hands a balance of £79 5s. 2d. He asked that the payments he had made out of the estate should be sanctioned, and that this balance of £ 79 5s. 2d, should be transferred to the credit of the estate in the fust bankruptcy. Mr. Jones opposed on behalf of some of the creditors in the second bankrutcy on the ground that the creditors, or some of them, had knowledge of this, and stood by, allow- ing the bankrupt to trade. His Honour (continuing) said if the whole of the creditors, or if the trustee in the se- cond bankruptcy, knew of this, then, ac- cording to the authorities, the creditors in the first bankruptcy would be debarred from ] claiming to have the property in the second bankruptcy transferred to the estate of the first bankruptcy so as to form the assets, and the property would be divisible among the creditors of the second bankruptcy. It was contended in this case (his Honour con- tinued) that the creditors did know. Clearly the Official Receiver as the trustee of the second bankruptcy knew nothing at all about it, and it had never been decided in terms yet that if the creditors of the second bankruptcy knew, and the trustee did not know, that the property should be divisible among the creditors of the second bankrupt- cy. He (his Honour) would be inclined to hold if the case arose, that if the whole of the creditors knew—if it was proved to his satisfaction that the bankrupt was trading as an undischarged bankrupt—to his mind it would be quite clear that they could not stand by, and take advantage of the assets; the creditors of the first bankruptcy would be deprived of any share of any assets in the second bankruptcy. That was not the case here. A substan- tial body of the creditors obviously were ignorant of the debtor's trading. It was true that there might be local creditors to u large amount who might have seen this man carrying out work in, and about, the neighbourhood of Connah's Quay, but, as the Official Receiver pointed out, Tie had been working as a journeyman mason for four years, and he (his Honour) had no evidence whatever which entitled him to say that at a given time all those about Connah's Quay must have known this man was working as a contractor and not as a journeyman mason. If the sec5TlS lot of creditors were making this claim on the ground of the first creditors' standing by, and seeing this man carrying on business as all undischarged bankrupt, it was for them to prove it, and he had not a tittle of evi- dence to support it except the affidavit of bankrupt himself. But giving Mr Jones credit for all the bankrupt said, it still left out a substantial number of people who did not know of the bankrupt's conduct, in- cluding the trustee. That being so, he did I not think he had brought himself within the authority of the quoted case where the doc- trine was laid down that if a man who wa6 a creditor stood by, and saw the bankrupt trading, or the tiustee stood by, that then they could not take advantage of their own laches, and that the property must be divi- sible among the creditors of the second bankruptcy. In this ease the rule applied, he thought, that all property after the act of bankruptcy, and until the bankrupt's dis- charge, became the property of the trustee in bankruptcy for the purpose of being divided among the creditors in that bank- ruptcy. There must be an order in the terms of the Official Receiver's application.
LOOKERS T"Za°"° = LTD. = 134, Foregate St., CHESTER. For High-class CARS ON HIRE. BODY WORK. REPAIRS (Ford Experts). Agents for- LANCIA, stocks held of HISPANO SUIZA, TYRES GREASE, STRAKER SQUIRE, < SPARES, OIL, t SWIFT and n PETROL, Delivered Free within Five Mile FORD CARS. radius. i-— Special ity-M ai n ten ance of FORD Delivery Vans. ESTABLISHED 1833. EDWARD ELUS WILLIAMS, The Cross, MOLD, General Furnishing, Buildert' and Manufacturing Ironmonger, IRON AND STEEL MERCHANT, Cutler, Brazier and Tinplate Worker, Begs to announce to the Public that he has taken over the Business carried on by Mr. W. P. Jones (with whom lie was engaged for upwards of 30 years), and hopes by strict attention to all orders entrusted to him to merit a continuance of their favours. AGRICULTURAL and HORTICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS by all the best makers. CUTLERY, AMMUNITION, PAINTS, VARNISHES, BRUSHES, &c. IF YOU WANT THE BEST in PIANOS SB- or any other Musical Instrument, go to RICHARDSON'S, Bridge Street Row, CHESTER. The Oldest Firm in. fSnglaxid. Telephone 230. J. PARKER JONES, 2€ou(fe Wurni&her and llph o icf terer, °HEAPEST HOUSE IN THE CITY FOR ALL KINDS OF Furniture, Carpets, Floorcloths and Linoleums, Bedsteads and Bedding, Bassinettes, Gocarts, Wringing Machines, &c. GOODS DELIVERED BY EOAD OR RAIL. ONLY PIANOS SB- or any other Musical Instrument, go to RICHARDSON'S, Bridge Street Row, CHESTER. The Oldest Firm in. fSnglaxid. Telephone 230. J. PARKER JONES, 2€ou(fe Wurni&her and llph o icf terer, °HEAPEST HOUSE IN THE CITY FOR ALL KINDS OF Furniture, Carpets, Floorcloths and Linoleums, Bedsteads and Bedding, Bassinettes, Gocarts, Wringing Machines, &c. GOODS DELIVERED BY EOAD OR RAIL. ADDBESS— 121, FOREGATE ST., CHESTER. W. MAHER & SON, 34, Bridge St., CHESTER, AGENTS WALL AUTO-WHEEL, SUNBEAM, HUMBER, B S ROYAL ENFIELD, & WOLF MOTOR CYCLES, 24 guineas. BICYCLES FROM £ 4/10/0 TO £ 15/15/0. We have a large stock of the above makes to select from. TYRES AND ACCESSORIES IN STOCK. Motor Cycles and Bicycles Repaired by Experienced Workmen. TELEPHONE 510. CATALOGUES ON APPLICATION.