Symud i'r prif gynnwys
Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

4 erthygl ar y dudalen hon



NOTES ON PASSING EVENTS. THE ALBION COLLIERY DISPUTE. The workmen employed at the Albion Col- liery came out on strike on Monday, thus bringing to a decisive issue the dispute as to the identity of the seam of coal worked. The dispute originated some three months ago, when the men asserted the belief that the seam worked was six feet, and not four feet as alleged by the management, and for which they were paid. In order to decide this point the dispute was referred to Messrs Beith and Foster Brown. The latter, however, declined to act, and Mr Beith is understood tD be of opinion that the seam was 6ft. The miners' district requested Mr Galloway, Cardiff, to act instead of Mr Foster Brown, but mean- while the men gave a month's notice, which expired on Monday. A mass meeting was held on Friday, when it was decided that unless Mr Galloway's decision be received, work should be suspended on Monday. This has now been carried out. It is rumoured that Mr Galloway's decision has been received, and is in favour of the employer's contention that the seam is identical with that known as the Aberdare Four-feet. -0- TUB TIMBERING QUESTION. A strike which threatened to assume most alarming proportions has thie week disturbed the Rhondda Valley, and disappeared like a phantom of the night. The management made a deduction at the Ton Colliery of the Ocean Company on Saturday on account of the lessened labour of the workmen in regard to timbering since the new Miaes Act has come into force. The men objected, struck work, waited upon Mr Jenkins, Kstradfechan, and at the end of the second day obtained the concession they asked. A dispute which would probably have spread to other eollieries has thus been averted. -0-- COMPENSATION TO PUBLICANS. This has been the leading topic in Pontypridd during the week. Mr Lenox's remarks at Monday night's meeting of Con- servatives and the decisions of the Judges in London on the same day, have been pretty freely canvassed, and, as we report ia another column the view expressed by Mr Lenox, we will here quote Mr Justice Field's remarks on the case of Sharp v. Wakefield, which was a licensing appeal. The facts were that at the general annual licensing meeting in September last William Ridding applied to the Westmoreland Justices for the renewal of the licence of the Low Bridge Inn, Kentmere, and the application was re- fused. Against this decision there was an appeal to Kendal, and it was contended that the justices were not entitled upon the ap- plication for the renewal of the license of a bouse against which there was no complaint to enquire into the question of the wants of the neighbourhood, and to refuse the re- newal upon the ground that the house;was removed from the police super- vision, and that the necessities of the neigh- bourhood did not require the licence to be coutinued. The court of quarter sessions, however, upheld the decision of the justices below and from the decision at quarter sessions that matter cime before their lord- ships by way of further appeal. I --0- MR JUSTICE FIELD AND MR JUSTICE WILLS. Now, let us come to the word- and to the testimony. Mr Justice Field, in giving judgment, s*id that the question turned upon the construction to be put. upon the Act of 1828. He had always understood that the justices had a very large and wide discretion, and he was surprised to hear it said that this opinion was absolutely wrong, because modern legislation had altogether altered that law, and therefore the with- holding this licence was not within the competence of the justices. It, was said that the Act ot 182S limited the discretion of the justices to this To consider whether the applicant for the licence was a proper person and the premises were also proper for the purpose. Section 9, however, said that they should have full power to decide touching the granting, withholding, or transferring of any licence and also to de- cide npon the fitness of the person. He said that he saw no reason, either npon the old that he saw no reason, either npon the old statutes or the ne statutes, or upon the old cases or the new, to throw the smallest doubt upon the proposition that in granting a licence, whether a new one or one by way of removal, the justices had absolute dis- cretion, that was, power unfettered so far as the discretion was concerned, and whilst the power was not exercised corruptly or arbit- rarily. He thought, therefore, that it was competent for the justices below and for the justices at quarter sessions to withhold this licence in the way that they had done.—-Mr Justice Wills concurred, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.



[No title]