The Glamorgan Gazette

THE PORTHCAWL REST. The following subscriptions have been re- ceived from various clubs and workmen's com- mittees this year towards the Porthcawl "Rest" -Gilfah Goch Constitutional Club, £ 1 Is. London and North Western Railway Servants, Crewe, £1 Is.; Dowlais Oddfellows, £2 2s.; Employes Electric Light, etc., De- partment, Cardiff, £2 126. 6d. Workmen at Dare (Ocean Colliery), Treorky, tlO lis. 7d; Employees at Cardiff Post Offices, JE4 12s. 6d; Blaenavon Workmen's Fund, C2 2s.; Trede- gar Workmen's Fund, JE5 os. Merthyr Fores- ters' Club, £2 2s. Employees (G.W.R.), Tondu, £1 Is.; Abergavenny Hospital Fund, £1 Is. Pontycymmer Constitutional Club, £ 1 Is. Newport Oddfellows, C3 3s. Employees Borough Tinworks, tl 18s. Id. Workmen at Jaibach Tinworks, £ 6 6s.; Dunraven Consti- tutional Club, Penygraig. £3 3s. Ton Indus- trial Co-operative Society, Ton Pentre, JE2 2s.; Good Shepherds' Lodge, Bridgend, El Is. Employees (G.W.R.). Pontypool Road, £ 2 2te. Royal Oak Benefit Society, El lis. 6d. Aberkenfig and District Friendly Socie- ties' Council, £5 os. Tvlorstown Conserva- tive Workingmen's Club. £.5 os. and Cym- mer Workingmen's Club (Porth). tIO 10s.

A STORY FROM BRIDGEND. A striking story is the more striking and also the more convincing when it receives the best guarantee of all—the guarantee of time. We in Bridgend will all agree that this en- dorsement of the experience of a neighbour is full of good hope for all of us. "It was over three years ago that Doan's Backache Kidney Pills did me such a lot of good, and I have been better ever since," says Mrs. C. Palmer, 36 Mackwortb-street, Bridgend. "If ever there is the least sign of the old complaint coming back, I take a dose or two of Doan's Pills, and I am soon all right again. I can confidently recommend the medicine." When Mrs. Palmer was cured by Doan's Pills, she made the following ctatement "I shall be Dleased for the facts of my cure by Doan's Backache Kidney Pills to be published so that others may hear of so reliable a medi- cine. Doan's Pills have proved excellent in my case. "I suffered with kidney disorder for a long time; the worst symptoms being severe Dains in my back and round my loins. Giddiness troubled me a great deal, and some days my legs and feet swelled so much that I could scarcely get about; I could not get my boots on. my feet were so swollen. After taking Doan's Backache Kidney Pills the swellings went down, and as I persevered with the medicine, the pains in my back left me. I have derived great benefit from Doan's Pills, and I can well recommend them. (Signed), C. Palmer." Doan's Backache Kidney Pills are two shil- lings and ninepence per box (six boxes for thirteen shillings and ninepence). Of all chemists and stores, or post free, direct from Foeter-McClellan Co., 8 Wells-street. Oxford- street, London, W. Be sure you get exactly the 6ame kind of pills that Mrs. Palmer had.

Agemts requiring additional copies of the Gaeette," can obtain them bv writing early to OlD Offices, Queen Street, Bridgend.

BRIDGEND BOARD OF GUARDIANS. THE PROPOSED NEW BOARD ROOM AND OFFICES. NEGOTIATIONS FOR A SITE. SPENDTHRIFT TURNS ECONOMIST. The Ven. Archdeacon Edmondes presided at the meeting of the Bridgend and Cow- bridge Board of Guardians on Saturday, and the vice-chair was occupied by the Rev. H. Eynon Lewis. RELIEF STATISTICS. The Clerk (Mr. R. Harmar Cox) reported that during the week ended January 19th, 1.150 outdoor paupers had been relieved at a cost of £1.59 7s. 4d., compared with 942 at L128 6s. 2d. during the corresponding period of last year. In the weak ended January 26th, 1,209 outdoor paupers were relieved, at a cost of L170 18s. 5d., compared with 936 at E132 10s. 3d. last year. The number of vagrants relieved iniho week ended January 27th was 160, and in the week ended Feb- ruary 2nd 119, the total for the fortnight being 279. The Chairman What a atriking change has taken place since the tramp wards were com- pleted. ARCHITECT'S FEES. Mr. Philip Thomas, the architect, wrote confirming an arrangement made with the Workhouse Alterations Committee to charge 5 per cent. for the preparing of plans, speci- fications, bills of quantities for the additional buildings, and the superintending of the works. On the motion of Mr. J. 1. D. Nicholl, the terms were accepted. POOR LAW CONFERENCE. Mr. Nicholl moved that two representa- tives be appointed to attend the Central Poor Law Conference, and that their reasonable expenses be paid. He believed that the qualification to be a representative of the Board should not. be ability to afford it. (Hear, hear.) Mr. T. L. Roberts seconded the motion, which was carried. Messrs. Michael Davies and T. J. Job were appointed representatives. NEW OFFICES. Mtf Nicholl moved that the recommendation of the Workhouse Alterations Committee that the Board offer 1;1,500 for the land to the north-west of the Workhouse, be adopted. He said that Mr. Treharne, Sir Arthur Mack- worth's agent, had written the Board offering to sell the land which measured la. 2r. 21p., for £1,750, but the committee thought £1,500 would be sufficient. It was believed that in a short time it would be difficult to get land near the town, as Bridgend would no doubt be considerably developed during the next 30 years, and in correspondence with this, the price of building land would1 naturally in- crease. It would', therefore, be a good in- vestment by the Board to purchase the land in question. The primary object in acquir- ing the land was the erection of board-room and offices. The Local Government Board had decided—and he agreed with their deci- sion—that no further buildings should be erected on the land already possessed by the Guardians. Colonel J. P. Turbervill seconded. Mr. Edward Edwards (Ogmore Vale) op- posed the motion. It was very extraordinary that a piece of land of that size was necessary for offices and boardroom; a very much smaller site would meet the requirements. Ir. Nicholl had stated that the site would be useful, or necessary, if the Board deoired" to make any further extensions. There should be some decision first of all with re- gard to the carrying out of such extensions. There had been a considerable extension lately—in fact, the new buildings were not quite completed yet-and he had honed that the Workhouse Alterations Committee had come to the end of its tether, and that the Board would now have a little peace. As to the proposed offices, he understood there was a feeling in favour of the scheme, but the Board had never decided that offices should be built, and this should be done before the committee need negotiate for the purchase of a site. It was most extravagant to spend LI,500 in acquiring land for which there was no present use. The Chairman You do not proposei an amendment. Mr. Edwards: I move that the question be referred back to the committee to consider the advisability of purchasing a smaller site. Mr. Franciis Cox (Maesteg) seconded. Mr. Nicholl urged the members not to support the amendment, because, though the committee did not contemplate any further extensions immediately, they must pre-pare for the future. It was hoped to get a loan for thirtv vears, and before the expiration of that period the Lnion would have enormously increased in size and weaHh. Mr. Edwards's statement as to the Board having come to no decision that offices and board-room should be built was not correct. Not only was there practically an unanimous opinion that new offices were required, but the Board' had passed plans for such buildings on the east side of the nresent buildings. The Local Government Board would not approve of these, however, and no further erect loiia-w oul d be allowed on that site. The amendment was defeated by a large majority, and the motion was carried. COLLECTOR'S SALARY. Mr. T. Hargest (Blaengarw) moved that the salary of Mr. Richard Thomas, collector of poor rates for the parish of Llangeinor, be increased from L120 to E150 per annum. The increase was recommended by the vestry, which had taken into consideration the fact that Mr. Thomas's salary did not favourably compare with that paid in other parishes in the Union. The salary was fixed 11 years ago, and since then there had been a remark- able increase in the rateable value of the parish. In 1895 the rateable value of the parish was £ 31.800, and in 1905 £ 43,000. Rev. David Phillips (Newcastle) seconded, stating that Mr. Thomas was an excellent officer. The Chairman There were several members apparently anxious to second the motion, and it may be a relief to the Board to know that they will not have to pay a penny towards the increase in salary. (Laughter.) Mr. T. C. Jones (Pontyrhil) supported the motion, as it would' be a charge on the parish. As a supporter of the principle of Home Rule, he thought the vestry's recommenda- tion should be confirmed. (Laughter.) The motion was carried nem con. ASSISTANT NURSE. Miss E. A. Alden, Newport, Miss Ada White, Caerau. and Miss Therza M. Rees, Pontycymmer, appeared before the Board as applicants for the post of assistant nurse. Mr. T. J. Job (Ogmore Vale) moved the appointment of Miss Rees and' Mr. Michael Davies seconded. Amendments by Mr. J. Edmunds (Caerau), seconded by Mrs Howells (Maesteg) that Miss White be appointed, and by Mr. D. H. Price (Kenfig Hill), seconded by Mr. Edward Ed- wards, that Miss Alden be appointed, were defeated. The motion was then put and carried. SERVICES FOR TRAMPS. The Misses Leach, Revs. David Evans and D. S. Jones, and Mr. W. E. Williams, wrote asking for permission to conduct religious ser- vices amongst the casuals in the wards every evening. On the recommendation of the House Com- mittee, the application was granted. CURIOUS DIFFICULTY. The Chief Constable wrote that a Mrs. Ed- wards (wife of Samuel Edwards, gamekeeper to Mr. E. Tudor Owen, Ash Hall, Cowbridge) was alleged to have attempted to commit suicide by shooting herself with her husband's. gun and afterwards jumping out of the win- dow. She was conveyed to the infirmary the same day by her friends. Being a female the infirmary authorities refused to allow con- stables to watch her, and two wardresses were engaged to do so, at a cost of 96. 6d. a day, which was still being incurred. There appeared to be no precedent for his action in the matter, and he invited the views of the Board on the situation as to the source from which the money would eventually come. The Clerk gave it as his opinion that the Board was not liable, and on the motion of Mr. Nicholl, he was directed to reply to that effect.

If you have any difficulty in eecuring the I Gazette," write to the Head Office.

PENYBONT RURAL COUNCIL. DRAINAGE OF PARC GWYLLT. DISTRICT COUNCIL'S SUCCESSFUL OPPOSITION. The fortnightly meeting of the Penybont Rural District Council was held on Saturday, Mr. Griffith Edwards, J.P., presiding. There were also present: Mr. Thomas Rees (vice- chairman), Mr. J. 1. D. Nicholl, J.P., Revs. H. Eynon Lewis and R. Johns, Colonel Tur- bervill, Messrs. Edward Hopkin, L. G. Jones, Howell Williams, D. H. Price, T. J. Davies, T. Peuhaie, T. Butler, W. Morgans (Sker), D. Thomas, and Ed. Morgan, with the clerk (Mr. R. Harmar Cox), the medical officer (Dr. Wyndham Randall), and other officers. CWMFELIN SEWERAGE. A letter was read from Mr. G. Lipscomb, agent to Miss Talbot, stating that there would be no further delay with regard to the land required by the Council for the outfall works at Cwmfelin. He proposed to visit the site at an early date. Mr. Nicholl was informed by the clerk that. no application had yet been made to the Local Government Board in the matter. The Council would have to submit an estimate of the cost with the application. ABERKENFIG ROAD. Sanitary Inspector Watkin J. Davies re- ported that Park-road, Aberkenfig, was in a deplorable state, and Mr Edward Hopkin said there had not been the slightest improvement during the past month. It was almost a miracle that no accidents had occurred there. The Clerk to the Parish Council suggested that the Council should send a deputation to inspect the road, and Mr. Hopkin thought this would be a desir- able course, so that the deputation might re- commend some course to the Council. Mr. Nicholl did not see any earthly use in sending a deputation to inspect the road, as they were all agreed as to its unsatisfactory condition. Replying to Mr. Hopkin, the Sanitary In- spector said the road was in all unsatisfac- tory condition, and the Clerk said the Council might serve a notice to abate. After further discussion, the Clerk was directed to write the owner again calling his, attention to the unsatisfactory and danger- ous state of the road and warning him that unless he put the road in order the Council would take steps to put the Private Streets Act into force. COUNCIL AND AGRICULTURE. The Secretary of the Central Chamber of Agriculture wrote urging the Council to en- force with more zeal the Acts to prevent adul- teration. Mr. Nicholl said that so far as this county was concerned, the matter lay in the hands of the County Council. PORTHCAWL WATER SCHEME. The Clerk said he had received formal no- tice from the clerk to the Porthcawl Council with regard to their proposed water scheme. The Council had decided to offer no objection to the laying of the pipes in that district. Mr. Butler asked the clerk what the posi- tion of the Penybont Council was in face of the fact that the Porthcawl Council were taking water from that district. The Clerk: It is not our property. Mr. Nicholl 6aid he understood that the brook which the Porthcawl Council proposed to dam was the dividing line between the Margam district and the district of the Penybont Council, and that the brook was supplied partly from the Penybont- side. In. the event of a row with the Garw Water Co. the water might be required for the supply of Kenfig Hill and Pyle. Could the Council safeguard themselves in any way ? The Clerk said he believed the water be- longed to Mias Talbot, but the Council could object to the scheme. In the formal notice it was stated that the Porthcawl Council had a/cquired water rights "in the parish of Mar- gam." Mr. Nicholl moved that the Porthcawl Council be asked whether any of the proposed works were in the Pe-nybont district and to forward a copy of the plans. This was agreed to. UNSATISFACTORY WATER. Dr. Randall submitted the certificate of the bacteriological examination of a sample of water from the Heolycue Well. The analyst's remarks were: "Very unsatisfactory water, showing evidence of sewage contamination. P.S.—You must not send' in any more samples of this water. It is always unsatis- factory." (Laughter.) The Chairman could not understand how the sewage contamination could take place. The Inspector said the inhabitants seldom used, the well now. It was resolved to send a sample of the Llechclawdd water for bacteriological examin, ation, and to ask the owner for the terms upon which the inhabitants might use the well. A certificate of the examination of a sample of water from the Brooks Well, Wick, showed it to be of doubtful purity. There were numerous animate forms in the water. Mr. Nicholl thouht the well was full of impurity at present, and the Council should have it cleaned, covered in, and a pump fixed. The suggestion was adopted. PARC GWYLLT DRAINAGE. The Secretary of the Local Government Board forwarded a copy of a letter which had been addressed to the clerk to the Committee of Visitors of the Glamorgan County Asylums with reference to the committee's complaint that the Rural District Council had made de- fault in the provision of sufficient sewers for the hamlet of Coity Higher. The letter to the committee stated that the Local Govern- ment Board, having considered the report of their inspector, Major Norton, who con- ducted the inquiry at Coity, together with the evidence given at the inquiry, were of the opinion that the case was not one in which they should make an order under section 179 of the Public Health Act. The Chairman expressed batisfaction with tho decision of the Board', and said it was a victory for the District Council. Mr. Nicholl said it reflected1 credit on the clerk for the way in which the proposal of the Committee of Visitors had been opposed. MEDICAL OFFICER'S REPORT. Dr. Randall, in his report for the quarter ended December 31st, 1905, stated that the deaths registered were 63 exclusive of deaths "not belonging to the district," and these, on an estimated population of 15,986, gave a corrected death rate of 15.76 per thousand per annum for the quarter, as compared with 19.77 in the preceding quarter, 25.40 in the corresponding quarter of 1904, and 1.54 above the average rate for the last ten years. There were twelve deaths from the chief zymotic diseases, giving an annual rate per thousand of 3.0, as compared with 1.50 last. quarter, and 1.38 above the average rate for the laot ten years. Seventeen deaths under one year were registered, being equal to an annual rate of 110.46 per thousand births, compared with 85.17 in the last quarter, 120.96 in the corres- ponding period of 1904, and 18.21 below the average rate for ten vears. The births re- gistered numbered 29, being equivalent to an annual rate of 32.28 compared with 29.57 in the previous and 32.13 in the corresponding quarters, and 4.38 above the average for ton years. The prevalence of notifiable diseases per 1,000 of tho population was .9.75 com- pared with 7.26 in the previous, and 18.29 in the corresponding quarters.

IN GREAT DEMAND. Marvellous Success: vTHE COLTSFOOT LUNG ELIXIR." Prepared from great Lung Healing Balsamic Plants. Is the most successful remedy of the day. It quickly Cures COUGHS, COLDS, BRONCHITIS, &c. Testimonials from all parts of the country. Put up in bottles at 1/li and 2/9 each. Sold by all first- class Chemists, or post free from Inventor, MORGAN W. JAMES. M P.S., Manufacturing Chemist, Llanelly, South Wales. M.W.J. first took up Chemistry at the Llai> dovery College Laboratory, afterwards studied under Professor A. P. Luff, M.D., F.R.C.S., D.Sc., F.I.C., St. Mary's Hospital. London, Consulting Chemist to the Government Home Office. 1987

STOURTON DIVORCE CASE. RESPONDENT'S ADMISSIONS. DECREE NISI GRANTED TO THE WIFE. THE SUIT FOR RESTITUTION DISMISSED. In the Divorce Division on Friday (before Mr. Justice Bargrave Deane and a special jury) the hearing was continued of the cross- suita in Stourton v. Stourton, Mr. A. J. Stourton asking for a restitution of conjugal rights, and Mrs. Gladys J. Stourton seeking a divorce on the alleged ground of cruelty and adultery, which her husband denied. Mr. Priestley, K.C., and Mr. Glazebrook were for Mrs. Stourton; Mr. Duke, K.C., and Mr. Bayford were for lr. Stourton; and lr. Belloc was for parties interested. Mr. Stourton, further cross-examined, said: I may have carried Miss Matterson's portrait in my pocket-book. I never knew my wife had been to my pocket-book. I do not know what. kind of photograph it was. I have not got in now. I never had a stamp- size photo, of Miss Matterson as stated by my wife. tone never spoke to me about it. Mr. Priestley Then do you suggest that it is an invention of hers ? Respondent Entirely. I was in my dres- sing gown when I went into the ladies' bed- room at Cirencester. I was only in the room the once I have stated, and I am prepared to contradict Kate Beard if she says she saw me more than once. The maid was there. Do you think it was a proper thing to do ? -Tha.i. has nothing to do with it. There was no harm in it surely. It was done as a joke. You do not see any harm in it?—None at all. I should not have done it if I had thought there was harm. The ladies may have expostulated with me, but I don't re- member. As to the alleged rudeness of Miss Matterson, my wife said had had a squabble with "Shrimp," and she seemed rather an- noyed. Did you not say to her it was her d-d jealousy certainly not. I didn't think she was jealous. I did'nt think she had cause for jealousy. It was not because my wife knew Atiss Matterson was to be in York- shire that she refused to come there. I think she preferred' to stay and play hockey where she was. I took Miss Matterson to the farewell dinner given to my brother. Did you ever kiss Miss Matterson?—No. I wa nt, you to be careful?—I am. Yet you loved her and called her "Darling." Do you mean to tell the jury that you never kissed her?-No, and she never kissed me. Was there plenty of opportunity?—Heaps. And you abstained ?-Yes, certainly. I have had my arm round Miss Matterson at dancing. Never in a cab?—Never. Did your wife tell you vou always seemed to care for another woman ?—Never. CARED FOR ANOTHER. But it was a fact that you did care for an- other woman ?-Y e; but she didn't mention it. Do you think you were such a master of yourself that you were able to conceal it from her?—Yes, certainly. My wife did not beg me to love her. I certainly did not say I could not be faithful to one woman. But you were not faithful to one woman ?— In what way ? You loved another woman ?-Yes. Do you call that being faithful to your wife ?—Yes. But it was not in your nature to be faithful to one woman?—Yes, it was. It is nonsense to say I fold my wife to lead her life and I would lead mine. When I went to Birching- ton it was to see Mr. Micklethwaite on busi- ness. He had coal mines, and he wanted money to work them, and I succeeded in get- ting the money for him. From your meth-er-in-law?-No. My bro- ther saw Mrs. Thomas about the money ad- vanced to me. I did not ask him to go. My brother said, "Why don't you ask your mother-in-law to help you?" and I replied, "No., she has been very good to me, and I would sooner go smash than ask her for more." Your wife had been good to you as well? -Yes. THE E21,000 A GIFT. She was a good, affectionate wife?—Yes. Mrs. Thomas never said to me she could not bear to see my wife unhappy. I call the L21,000 a gift from my mother-in-law. But you pave her security. Did you ever know securities given for a gift?—I gave them voluntarily. But how can a women in her senses give a man without a penny L21,000 and not call it a gift ? My mother- in-law was a very rich woman. My wife and all were very pleased. I did not call my wife a fool when she asked me about repay- ing what I had borrowed. It was an amic- able conversation. I never prompted an in- vitation to be given to Miss Matterson, to visit where I was visiting. I could not give up my rooms at Curzon-street to stay with my wife at the Grand Hotel. When I heard that Miss Matterson was going to be married it was rather a shock. I did not expect her always to keep single for my sake. Does she know of this case?—Yes, she knows of it very well. Well, as a fact, she has not been married to the gentleman she became engaged to. The Judge: Is it broken off? Respondent: Yes, she broke it off after this case was brought on. By Mr. Priestley: I did not tell my wife that I loved Miss Matterson. I said I was very fond of her. I did not tell my wife that a gentleman came down and in four days proposed to Miss Matterson. In fact, I had no particulars except that she was en- gaged. I never said it was all over and asked my wife to take me back. Be careful.—I am careful. I tell you I did not say that I had battled with myself for two days and two nights. I was getting a lot of medicine from Lowes at the time, and I may have had a sleeping draught. When at Wheatley did you write to Miee Matterson saying you admired Lady C. Will you tell me who Lady C. is, because I don't know. I did not write to Miss Matter- son saying I admired any lady. Did Miss Matterson tell you she had got a bottle of phanaticine to poison herself?—No she never told me that at any time. That conversation, I tell you, never went. on. Did Mies Matterson say if you ran away with her. she would work for you?—No. Mies Matterson never sobbed in my presence. J did not ask my wife for sympathy. When _n I say she said she was fond of somebody she made the statement voluntarily. WIFE'S ALLEGED CONFESSION. Is it a fact that you asked her if there was not a certain gentleman?—No. I never named anyone. I told her I had been fond of Miss Matterson, and she said, "I also have been folnd of someone." It is an invention of Miss Moody to say any lady visited me in Curzon-street. I always found Stipplehill, the butler, a trustworthy man. I think he believed he had seen what he thought in the letter at Dublin, but he admitted he had made a mistake to me. I did not press him, but I was angry. Is Mies iWatterson here?—No, she is not. You say none of the E21,000 went to personal expenses. Here are: "Tailor, 2183; cigars, £ 93; jewellery, R112; polo ponies, £ 550?— Yes. The Judge: Why are you going into this? Mr. Priestley: To show his credit. He said that none of the E21,000 went in per- sonal extravagances. The Judge: It it a very small point. I do not think it is a question that will affect the jury on a question of cruelty. Respondent, further cross-examined, said When I went to Doncaster for the St. Leger my wife did not ask me to occupy her room. I occupied the next room. Re-examined': There was never any depar- ture from the proper form of correspondence between my wife and 1. When I wrote to my wife the letter beginning "My own, own baby," it was an honest letter. I had no idea my wife had made up her mind to leave me. When I was said to have been in a ladies' bedroom, my sister was there. You said you had not been unfaithful?—I meant it in the ordinary sense. I do not suppose you try to justify now your affection for Miss Matterson ?—No. When did you last see Miss MattersonP- At the polo tournament in August, 1904, and the last communication I had from her was when she wrote saying she. was engaged, and I wrote congratulating her. My marriage settlement was to end in case of bankruptcy. DEAD WIFE DEFENDED. Mr. Duke said Mr. Hunt was in Court, and desired to give evidence. Mr Henry Hunt said his late wife had been a relative of the respondent. They had known each other from childhood. All the family called each other by their Christian names. Mr Duke Had you ever any reason to com- plain ? Witness Never. And you came here for the purpose of de- fending your wife's memory?—I did. Did Mr. Stourton's acquaintance leave any unpleasant reflection?—Not the slightest; and I should like to say that, so far from there being any impropriety between my wife and Mr. Auberon Stourton, I did not even consider there was affection. It was the or- dinary relationship existing between mem- bers of the same family, and I may say- The Judge You had better say no more. I feel very strongly, and I think the jury do, that this lady's name ought never to have been introduced. The jury signified that they agreed. The Judge It ought to have been dropped as soon as Mrs. Stourton had given her evi- dence. I think it a great pity you should ever have been called. Witness I wished to come here. Mr. Basil Thr-ogmorton said he had been very friendly with Mrs. Stourton, and she had never complained or given a hint that she and her husband were not on good terms. MISS MATTERSON'S BROTHER-IN-LAW. Mr. Micklethwaite said: I am the brother- in-law of Miss Matterson. We were all friendly with Mrs. Stourton. We called each other by our Christian names. We all called my sister-in-law "Shrimp." My wife gave her that name long ago. I was particularly struck by the friendly terms of the Stourtons at Birchington. Mr. Stourton had all his meals with us. Mr. Stourton always break- fasted with me. Mr. Duke: It is suggested that. he was in bed at the hotel down to various hours in the morning? Witness: I cannot understand that at all. Is it consistent with what you saw of him at your own house?—I should say certainly not. The morning was generally spent on the sands with the children. Respondent and Miss Matterson were almost invariably there. I do not remember any morning he was not there. We had another visitor to the Bungalow. Mr. Priestley asked witness to write down the name. Witness: Oh, there is nothing secret about it. It was Mr. Webster. He stayed, too, at the Bungalow Hotel. I remember Mies Matterson receiving a letter from Mrs. Stourton inviting her to Paxton. I objected to her going at first, but after seeing the pressing nature of the invitation my opposi- tion broke down. Mr. Duke Why did you prefer she should not go? Witness: Well, I had come to the conclu- sion that she and Mr. Stourton were more fond of each other than I thought was good. That came to my mind the Christmas before. After that I did not invite Mr. Stourton to my house. After luncheon Mr. Micklethwaite, con- tinuing said: I was not at Cirencester, but after my wife came home I was made aware of the incident of respondent going to the bedroom. From the account I had I at- tached no importance whatever to the inci- dent. I have heard the account given by Stipplehill, the butler,. as to the letter in Dublin. A REFINED GIRL. What were Miss Matterson's characteris- tics for refinement and sensibility or absence of these ?-Shc is a particularly refined girl, and to my mind such a thing- Counsel: I must not ask you that. Witness: Well, she was particulary refined and she resented anything coarse that might be said in her presence. She is not here, a.nd I will write down where she is. This case was originially fixed for December 6th to December 20th, and she left England on De- cember 22nd. Mr. Priestley: You do not suggest she could not have got back for this trial? Witness: I do. She could not poeeibly get back in time. What was it that came to your notice that led you to the conclusion that they were fonder of each other than they ought to have been ?—Well, I saw him look at her once. I did not like the way he looked at her. It was at Broughton Grange in 1903. Did you speak to him about it?—Yes. Did he tell you that he was in love with her?—He said it was nothing serious. I spoke to her and she said the same'. Mr. Duke D did she ever tell vou she was in love with him?—Witness: Never. The Judge: The hotel people say he stayed' in the hotel after 9 in the morning. Can you say anything as to that? Witness: No; it is entirely contrary to what I remember. I think I saw the re- spondent come into breakfast, but if he had come in with Miss Matterson it would not, I think, have impressed itself upon my memory. This concluded the evidence. The Court then adjourned till Monday. CONCLUDING DAY. Mr. Duke, K.C., on behalf of the respon- de-nt, Mr. Stourton, said that the matter stood before them now in a different light to that in which it appeared when the case was opened by Mr. Priestley. They had' opened to them a case of persecution of a wife by her husband for practically the whole of the married life, with the result that her health had broken down, and,then there was an al- legation of misconduct that was not the case now. On the evidence of Mm. Stourton her- self the case as to cruelty was of the vaguest description. Vagueness amd uncertainty in the proceedings in that court were the Strongest possible indications of the absence of a real case. There was only a vague kind of suggestion of physical violence. It was said that on one occasion the husband gave his wife a push, and she stumbled against the table and hurt herself. Could it be found that that was treatment which made it un- safe for her to live with him, or which threat- ened to impair her health ? The medical evi- dence which was produced proved nothing, and as to the alleged course of ill-treatment to which the petitioner said she was sub- jected. here was a lady who said she had lived in a purgatory of insult, oppression, and ill-usage, and if that were so she would, no dbubt, complain to her mother, who might be presumed to have remonstrated! with the husband. When Mrs. Thomas was called, however, all that she spoke to was that she had complained to him of his City ways, and begged him to GIVE UP HIS CITY WAYS and confine himself to hunting, polo, and country sports. The evidence showed that Mrs. Stourton had lived on terms of affection with her husband down to 1904, and that the real reason why she left her husband was not the danger of her health through his treat- ment, but because she said that he had oon- fessed to an improper affection for Miss Mat- terson. He contended that that showed that the charge of cruelty was an after-thought, and that was the reason why there was no ordinary evidence to support the charge of cruelty. Coming to the question, of miscon- duct, counsel said that attention had, been drawn to the absence of Miss Matterson as a witness. The fact was that if this case had been tried in December last she would have been in England, and might have been called as a witness. If Miss Matterson were in England, instead of being on the other side of the world, it, might be a matter of the gravest doubt on her part and on the part cf her relations whether she should involve her- self further in the affairs of Mr. and Mrs. Stourton, from which in the autumn of 1904 she supposed she had finally cut herself apart by her engagement to another man. It might be sand that Miss Matterson's further hurt herself. Could it be said' that de- pended upon her being cleared of his charge? In a sense that- was true, but, she was not a party to this litigation, and it might be said1, on the other hand, that even if she were, and jointly denied with Mr. Stourton the misconduct, their joint denials would' have only the effect of one denial. The jury could not decide this case on speculation as to Miss Matterson's absence. If Miss Matterson were there, and denied on oath any misconduct, the other side would ask whether the jury could expect anything else than that, she would deny what Mr. Stourton had denied. The case muet not be DECIDED ON SPECULATIONS; it mUSt be dtecided on the facts. It reefed with the accused1 to establish and prove be- yond a reasonable doubt that misconduet was committed. The case as to misconduct at Lancaster Gaite was incredible. They were asked to believe that while the mistress was in the house, with servants coming in and out, these two people had so far forgotten elementary decency as to commit misconduct in the drawing-room. That was the charge. He submitted that it broke down of its own weakness. As to the alleged misconduct at Birchington, they had no evidence that Mise Ma-tterson was ever inl Mr. Stourton's bed- room. If she had been there the, person to prove it was the chambermaid, but the cham- bermaid was not callled because the fact was she could not prove anything, and not be- cause any expense had been spared, or of any scruple about getting worthless evidence. The only evidence they had was the vague and unsatisfactory statement of the landlady 4nd book-keeper of the hotel. As against their evidence, he placed that of Mr. Mickle- thwaite, who said that Mr. Stourton break- fasted at his house at the time the other wit- nesses said1 Miss Matterson called for him at the hotel. Counsel dealt a.tl some length with the incident of the letter which the wit- ness Stribblehill said' he had seen, and which-, he alleged, was in the handwriting of Miss Matterson to Mr. Stourton. He submitted that Stribblehill's evidence was not reliable, a.nd that it was extremely improbable that a lady of refined instincts and feelings and of education should be found writing filth and sending it through the posit, and it was also unlikely that Mr. Stourton would have left such a letter about. He asked them to be- lieve Mr. Stourton when he said' that no such letter was written to him. As to Mr. Stour- ton's alleged confession to his wife that he had committed misconduct, counsel urged that the wife's statement. on that was contra- dicted by the fact that the next day she went out, with her husband hunting, and by other oircumeltances. MR. PRIESTLEY'S REPLY. Mr. Priestley, K.C., in reply, said he would remind the jury, at the outset, that Mr. Stourton had admitted1 that his wife had been a truthful woman and an affectionate wife. If that were 60, was it likely that she should have invented, this story? Mr. Stourton's acquaintance with Miss Matterson- began in 1900, and from that time there was ample op- portunity for misconduct. One significant fact in the case was that marital relations be- tween respondent and' his wife practically ceased in 1901. Another significant part of the case was that at Cirencester Mr. Stour- ton went three times into the bedroom where Miss Matterson was. Whatever conclusion they might come to, that fact- showed the sort- of man Mr. Stourton was. He did not think thait it was very creditable, even in country homes, for a gentleman to go into the bedroom where two ladies were and hurl a pillow at them and say, "Get up." He in- vited the jury to come to the conclusion that Mr. Stourton was on such easy terms with Miss Matterson that he hsd loot all sense of self-respect. He submitted that this inci- dent was of importance as indicating the re- 'lations existing between Mr. Stourton and Miss Matterson. He asked the jury to bear in mind the number of occasions on which these two people had met and had the oppor- tunity of being alone. As to the visits to Lancaster Gate, misconduct was not alleged. All that was alleged in these pleadings was that Mr. Stourton visited Miss Matterson there. What he (Mr. Priestley) said about that was that the two were SO DESPERATELY IN LOVE with each other that they could not keep apart. They were love-making there, tiiat was all. Then they were constantly writing to each other. After that came the viBilJ to Birchington, and it was perfectly obvious that the attraction for Mr. Stourton there was Miss Matterson. At Birchington they were sometimes alone all day, and sometimes were in other people's society. Possibly they hoodwinked Mr Micklethwaite as to their relations, but the servants observed that they were on terms of affection. The land- lady and the book-keeper even thought they were an engaged couple. if Miæ Matterson did not actuatiy go into the bedroom she had the run of the hotel, but it was admitted by Mr. Stourton that she was only in his room when he was strapping up his box. Did they think that was the only time she was there? What he was seeking to impress upon the jury was the extraordinary familiarity be- tween these two people, which he contended was only consistent with an improper rela- tionship. The landlady and, the bookkeeper of the hotel said they called each other "dar- ling" and "dear," and Mr. Stourton himself admitted that at Birchington there were op- portunities for misconduct. At night he left Mr. Micklethwaite's house with Miss Matter- son to see her home. Was there anybody to see where they went? They had it in evi- dence that he returned to his hotel late at night. He asked the jury to accept the evi- dence of the landlady and the bookkeeper of the hotel as independent and trustworthy. Then there were the incidents of the visit to Broughton Grange. The fact was these people were like moths around a candle— they could! not keep away from one another. Their conduct was such that even Mr. Mickle- thwaite then became alarmed. Mr. Ptiestley next dealt with the evidence as to what took place at the interview between Mr. and Mrs. Stourton on the occasion of the alleged con- fession, when, said counsel, Mr. Stourton was in a state of anger, rage, and disappointment because Miss Matlterson was going to be mar- ried. He asked the jury to accept Mrs. Stourton's evidence on that matter. As to Devonshire-street, he submitted there was evidence that a lady visited Mr. Stourton there. Having referred to Stribblehill's evi- dence, which he asked the jury to accept, and to the evidence about the blotting-pad, Mr. Priestley said the absence of witnesses in this case was most- remarkable. Miss Matterisoin could have been here. By the Act of Parlia- menita lady charged with misconduct with a 'husband had the right to interfere in the suit, but, so far as he knew, Miss Matterson took no steps for that purpose. If she could not have been here her evidence could have been taken on commission. He thought he was justified in saying that it was thought best that she should not be here. Counsel next dealt with the question of alleged cruelty. He reminded the jury of the evidence as to the husband telling his wite to get another man to take her out, that it was noticed by friends, servants, and others that she looked worried and unhappy, that- she was fre- quently crying, that she had complained to her mother of his neglect, that she had im- plored him to care for her, and that he had said to her he could not be faithful to one woman. He denied that, but the fact was true, said Mr. Priestley, that he was not faithful to one woman in his heart at least, but as faithless as could be. He submitted that the cruelty was proved, and asked for a. verdict for his client. It was a quarter to four when counsel fin- ished, but as the jury wijgbedi to conclude the case, his Lordship proceeded' to sum up. JUDGE'S SUMMING-UP. Mr. Justice Bargrave Deane, in1 the course of his summing-up to the jury, said that un- corroborat-ed evidence of eitner of the parties was not accepted' in that court. If the evi- dence was corroborated they had to see who were the people corroborating it, and it was important to observe that the onus of proof was on the person making the allegations, and the jury had to be convinced that the husband had been guilty of the acts alleged. Deailinig first with the alleged cruelty, his Lordship said it had been stated that early in the married life the husband told his wife he had married her for money. If that were true—and he doubted if the jury were satisfied of thalt-was that cruelty, or did the husband not say it in a foolish, joking way? Then, on a subsequent occasion, i't was stated that he said to his wife, "Do vou suppose I should have married an old hag like you?" The jury had to. ask themselves as to whether he said that in a nasty way. They had also to consider whether he was likely to have said it to a young and attractive wife in a serious manner. Could they find a man guilty of cruelty for such a thing as that ? Cruelty did not consist of words said in temper, but it must be an intentional course of procedure with the object of d'oing harm or injury. It was perfectly possible on both those occasions that what was said, was not with the inten- tion of hurt,ing the wife. Assuming he used the -Wordis attributed to him on those two oc- casions, could! anyone say that it was cruelty ? For two i-caxs after that petitioner and re- spondent lived happily together. Then came an occasion, in June, 1898. when the wife said she want,-d her husband to take her out, and he told her to get someone else to take her. But was it to be said that that was cruelty ? It looked as if every conceivable little item had been got together in this case to pile up something which could establish an ACCUSATION OF CRUELTY. By adding noughts to noughts, they got no- thing. When they got a series of little no- things they looked about to see what was the object of putting all this noosense before the jury. It was stated that throughout her married life the wife had suffered from sleep- lessness, and was izefting thinner. If that were 90, why had they not had a single doctor to give them evidence of that on whica they could rely. The only doctor called was one who saw Mrs. Stourton ten months after she left her husband. Dealing with other items, his Lordship said it was alleged that the hus- band had flirted with a young lady who was invited to the house. He did not know that. it had ever been laid down what was a proper course of conduct for a married man to pur- sue with regard to other ladies. He had never heard it said that a married man iva,3 not to have an affection for any other woman but his wife. They all knew that there were cases of men who had had a strong affection for some other woman or women. He thought that a man should never allow any other woman to come between him and his wife so a-s to alienate his affections, but he did not think that any woman had a right to say that her husband should net have an affection for any other woman. An innocent affection which did not diminish the affection between husband and wife was not necessarily an improper affection. But had a. woman a right to allege it as cruelty on the part of her husband if he had an honest, genuine, and proper affection for any other woman but herself. He could not lay down the law on the subject. There was no law about it. It was ordinary common-sense. He did not: think the jury would be prepared to say that a man should not have an affection-he meant, a proper, honourable, and legitimate affect iou-for another woman other than hie wife. IMPROPER, BUT NOT ILLEGAL. MnJ. Stourton said her husband flirted with another woman. That was improper, but it was not legal cruelty. However, the wife complained! of it and that was one of the many things that added up a series of noughts to try to make out a long-continued course of cruelty. His Lordship next dealt with the evidence in detail, and in the course of his observations referred to the evidence as to Mr. Stourton going into the bedroom where Miss Matterson was. Assuming that the story was true, it was, no doubt, on im- proper thing for a man to do, but it was to be remembered that Miss Matterson had her married sister with her. Mr. Stourton be- haved in a ridiculous manner on that occa- sion. He was sorry to say that in these days people were more lax in their ideas as to propriety. But we must take things as we 'found them, and if they found people sky- larking in this wa,y they had to take that into account in considering whether the evidence of it had very great weight on the issue of misconduct. As to Mr. Stourton and Miss Matterson walking together when visiting a friend's house, his Lordship remarked that- if no married man was to go out for a walk with a girl we should be left in a very uncomfort- able position. Commenting on the question es to whait took place at the interview be- tween Mr. and Mrs. Stourton prior to the separation, his Lordship asked if the husband admitted then that he had been living with dther women what did they think would have been the wife's action ? Did they think she would ever have spoken to him again ? She said she made up her mind to leave him. but oould not do so at once owing to the.illness of the child. But she associated with him, and the next day went out hunting with him, and she admitted they were on perfectly good terms. A TEST OF LEGAL CRUELTY. This threw a good deal of light on the ques- tion of the alleged past cruelty, because one of the teste of legal cruelty was that it was condu-ct on the part of the husband of such a character that further cohabitation was im- possible on her part. When they looked at the matter from that aspect, it was difficult to see that, a case had been made out of what was called moral cruelty, and there was only one instance of any physical violence, when it was alleged the husband pushed his wife. His Lordship referred at considerable length to various decisions on the question of what was moral or legal cruelty. Coming next to the question of misconduct, his Lord- ship said there was undoubtedly a strong mutual affection existing between Miss Mat- terson and Mr. S'tourton. The question was whether thalt resulted in misconduct. There was very little evidence beyond the mere fact that they werei constantly meeting. If there was an immoral paffiion, and there were opportunities they might infer miscon- duct,. What evidence was there of anything' immoral in the intimacy of these two people? The worst inBtallooallte-ed was that of the letter spoken of by the witness Stribblehill. If there was such a letter from Miss Matter- sou to Mr. Stourton containing such an ex- pression as the witness said he read, then there could be no doubt of the relationship between these people. The auestion wa& whether the jury thought Stribblehill and the other servant could be believed on that sub- ject. Other inoidiemts im the case were dealt with in eMail, and 'his Lordship, in conclu- sion, reminded the jury that they must not let their svmpa-thy for either of the parties influence them in their decision. The jury retired to consider their verdict at ten minutes past six. VERDICT. Returning into court at five minutes past seven, the jury found that Mr. Stourton had been guilty of cruelty and misconduct, and' on this the decree nisi for the dissolution of the marriage was granted to Mrs. Stourton, with costs, and the custody of the child. The husband's suit for institution of con- jugal rights was dismissed.

Port Talbot County School. ADDITIONAL ACCOMMODATION NEEDED At. the annual prize distribution at Port Talbot County School, Mr. Edward Davies, J.P., presiding, the headmaster, Mr. Barry, presented a satisfactory report. The num- ber of pupils was treble that of nine years ago. So marked was the increase that they had been obliged to turn the kitchen and laundry into class rooms, and still the accom- modation was insufficient. He should like to see new schools erected with better accommo- dation and playgrounds. Mrs. Llewellyn, Baglan, distributed the prizes. The Rev. z! P. Williamson proposed and Mr. Edward Davies seconded, a vote of thanks to Mrs. Llewellyn, and that lady brieflv replied. During the evening an excellent musical pro- gramme was gone through. Principal suc- cesses;-—Senior certificates, Central Welslx Board, Eciward Jones, Martha Thomas, Evan Lewis, Price, Vivian Jones, Ivor Nicholas, Katie Daniel, Annie Jones, John Williams, Edith Brooks, Lettia Eaton, Winnie Jones. Junior certificates, 13.

"WOULDN'T BE WITHOUT IT." A Chesterfield Woman Says Mother Seigel's Syrup is the Unfailing Family Medicine. For years now Mother Seism's Curative Syrup has kept me in health, and I wouldn't be without it on any account. These are the words of Mrs. Charlotte Dearsley, of 7 Albion-street, West Park, Chesteifield. They form the opening sen- l6tter that she wrote on August loth, 1905, to the proprietors of Mother Seigel's Syrup. Let us look for a moment at the facts upon which this high opinon of a well-known medicine is founded. "When I was thirty years old (now some ™ rty-r/ear? a§°)' and after>" says Mrs. Dearsley, "I suffered terribly from in- digestion. Food, of whatever kind and no matter how small in quantity, used to afflict me with such, violent pain that I dreaded to eatv I vvas hardly ever free from headaches, and became dizzy with their long continu- ance. Want- of food, and inability to digest the little that I forced myself to eat, pro- duced flatulence, another source of pain. In brief, I was a victim of indigestion, with all its attendant miseries. In this way I continued to suffer for several years, being unable in all that time to meet with any medicine, or any system of treatment, that afforded me the least relief. At the time I was induced to try Mother Seigel's Curative Syrup, I had abandoned all hope of a cure. But it is just there that I was wrong. What so many other medicines had failed to relieve Seigel's Syrup cured. It eased my pain at once; and thereafter I im- proved rapidly and was soon restored to per- fect health. "From that period until now I have rarely ailed anything, and have had no serious ill- ness. On such occasions, a few doses of thei Syrup never fail to set me up again. At times, all take it in our house. It our family medicine—the best and most reliable remedy known," I