The Sun.
London, England, 1870-01-21 00:00:00

THE JUDGES' CIRCUITS,

The Judges met on Thursday morning ana arranged
the spring circuits as follows :
Home.—Chief Justice Cockburn and Mr. Justice

:eating.
Northern.—Mr. Justice 'Mlles and Mr. Justice Brett.
Western.—Lord Chief Baron and Mr. Justice Hannen,
Midland—Mr. Justice Montague Smith and Mr. Baron

Cleasby.
Oxford—Mr. Baron Martin and Mr. Justice Lush.
Norfolk—Mr. Justice Byles and Mr. Justice Blackburn,
South Wales—Lord Chief Justice Bovill.
North Wales—Mr. Baron Chaunell.

TIIE GUNPOWDER EXPLOSION LN WALES.
The inquest touching the deaths of Evan Havard and
',he little child Leek, who lost their lives by the late ex-
olosion of gunpowder in Brynmawr, was opened on
Wednesday afternoon before Mr. E. J. C. Davies, coroner.—
Evan Jones said: lam assistant to Mr. David Watkins.
grocer. Last Friday evening I was helping Pickford's man
to unload some oats at the lower warehouse in Well-street,
when the deceased, Evan Havard, came in and took a
candle and lighted it. I asked what he wanted the candle
for, and he said that he was going for some powder, which
was kept in the upper warehouse. I told him it was
too dark to go for powder, and to go back and tell them
to come next morning, as Mr. Watkins had a rule
to prohibit us taking a candle to the powder-house.
lie put the candle out and put it back on the window.
I believe he went to the powder-house. The first thing I
saw afterwards was the fire coming out of Libanus Chapel
yard. I was blown off my feet by the force of the explosion.
I went down to the shop, and there met Mr. D. Watkins,
and told him that something had happened to the powder.
I went back and saw all the place blown to pieces. There
were some sacks burning. I am not certain how much
powder was in stock, but I knew there were four barrels,
which would contain 100 lb. each when full, but I do not
know how much was in them at the time. We kept three
sorts of powder. There were only four barrels in all.
We keep the keys of the warehouse in the shop, and
anyone in the shop could take the keys and go to the
warehouse. We also kept some powder there weighed
in pounds. The candle was left with me. I did not
see the man that day lighting any matches, but I saw some
on the shop floor, but cannot say where they came from.
There was no paraffin kept by Cr. Watkins. There were
some empty barrels above, but none below. I went to
the warehouse the day before for some bran, but did not
notice how much powder was in stock. It was at the end
of December we had some powder in last. We had in then
ten barrels, half-a-ton in all. Empty barrels were kept to
put a quarter of a hundred in, if required, but we always
get it in 1001 b. barrels. The inquest was adjourned.

THE BRIDGWATER ELECTION COMMISSION.

MR. LOVIBOND'S CASE.

In the Court of Queen's Bench on Thursday the rule
calling upon the Bridgwater Commissioners to shew cause
why a mandamus should not issue calling upon them to grant
a certificate to Mr. Lovibcnd, the solicitor to Mr. Kinglake,
indemnifying him from the consequences of the evidence
given at the hearing of the Commission, was argued at
great length.
The Attorney-General (Sir Robert Collier) shewed cause
against the rule. He said the Commissioners were a quasi
judicial body, to whom the Legislature had entrusted
great powers and considerable confidence, because it gave
to them the same powers as judges of assize,
such as summoning and compelling the attendance
of witnesses, and committing them for contempt; and, in
fact, they were constituted in the same way as judges on
election petitions. The question he should deal with was
whether a witness was bound to answer a question which
criminated or tended to criminatehim. It involved difficult
points of law and fact. The law says where any witness
shall answer any question put to him by the Commis-
sioners which criminated or tended to criminate him, he
shall be entitled to receive a certificate. He should con-
tend that it was in the discretion of the Commissioners to
give or withhold such certificate, and their determination
would be final.

Mr. Justice Blackburn went with the Attorney-General
as far as the exercise of discretion was concerned; but he
had doubts as to whether the Commissioners' determina-
tion was final and conclusive.
The Lord Chief Justice : Do you go so far as to say that
if a witness has answered satisfactorily the substance of

the questions put to him, that he is not to be indemnified,
a 9 at common law, for something merely incidental that,
in the opinion of the commissioners, may not be satis-
factory?

The Attorney-General submitted that if a witness
refused to answer a simple question, it was in the discre-
tion of the commissioners to grant or withhold a certia-

cats.

The Lord Chief Justice: But in this case the great pur-
pose of the examination of Mr. Lovibond was tending to
criminate him.

The Attorney-General: Whether the question tends to
criminate is sometimes a matter of fact and sometimes a
matter of law, and requires a judicial discretion. The
commissioners have exercised that discretion, and it is not
competent for this court to review that discretion.

The Lord Chief Justice—lf lam right in the estimate
of Mr. Lovibond's evidence, it comes to this—That,
although Mr. Lovibond has abundantly admitted the
question of bribery, and answered most frankly, yet be-
cause he refused to admit that Mr. Kinglake was, in his
opinion liable for the bribery—he having given the fullest
evidence on the general bribery, and merely resisting that
conclusion—he is to be refused a certificate. In such a
case it is difficult to say that the decision is to be final.
The Attorney-General: The Court has expressed an
opinion in the cue.

The Lord Chief Justice: I have put it hypothetically;
nut I have expressed my individual opinion on that part

of the case.

The Solicitor-General followed on the same side as the
Attorney-General. He assumed that the discretion of the
Commissioners had been wrongly exercised; and in that
assumption, he still submitted that discretion was given
by the Act absolutely, and at all events this court by
mandamus had no power to review the discretion so
exercised.

Mr. Henry James briefly supported the rule.

The Lord Chief Justice said tha rule must be made
absolute. There were two questions—one of fact and the
other of law. The first was whether Mr. Lovi-
bond had answered the questicn so as to en-
title him to the certificate; and, secondly, whether
the Court of Queen's Bench had the power of calling
upon the Commissioners by mandamus to give
him that certificate. Taking the latter point first, if there
had not been any new language imported into the new
Act, his lordship agreed that they had no power to
revise the Commissioners' decision ; but they were
of opinion that the rule should be made absolute.
The new Act gave power to the Court of Queen's
Bench to reverse the withholding of a certificate. The
mandamus could not issue to the committee of the House
of Commons, because that body had ceased to exist, and as
the Commissioners were still in existence, the mandamus
must necessarily go against them. As to the question of
fact his lordship thought there was no doubt ➢lr. Lovibond
was entitled to a certificate ; at any rate to make the
rule absolute, so that the law may be still further con-
sidered on the return of the writ. Expressing his own
individual opinion his lordship considered that Mr. Lovi-
bond had been most unfairly and unjustly treated by the
Commissioners, who seldom gave him an opportunity of
answering any question put to him. His evidence was
given frankly and freely, and so as to entitle him to a
certificate. The conduct of the Commissioners was most
irregular and uncalled for, and they, therefore, granted a
rule. The other judges agreed, and the .Attorney-General
intimated that he should appeal.

The appeal of the Rev. James Kelly was proceeded
with on Thursday, and at the adjournment of the court he
had not concluded his opening. He contended that the judg-
ment of Lord Penzance was opposed to morality, and that
evidence had been wrongfully excluded. This latter
meant that letters of- Mrs. Kelly, written twenty years
no, expressing her contrition for accusing her husband
wrongfully of an improper connection with a female
fliend were not received as evidence. At the trial Mrs.
Kelly said she should never have written them had
not her husband said that to regain his confidence she
must do so. As to refusing his wife the Sacrament, the
rev. appellant argued that as a clergyman could refuse
a stranger who was not in a position to approach
the Holy Table, so a fortiori he could his
wife when he knew that her circumstances stood in the
way of her receiving it in a right frame of mind. Mr.
Kelly also argued that the doctor's evidence did not chew
that his wife's ill-health was due to his ill-treatment. The
book that Mr. Kelly forbad his son to read, as it was cal-
culated to "stimulate the passions of youth," was, we are
tcld, none other than Vumas's ". Three Zasketeert," and
ktuttninetlaile ow of much