SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXV, Issue 57, 7 March 1903, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Fiuday, Cth March, 11)03. —Before HU Honor, Mr Justice Conolly. CRIMINAL SESSION. THE TbJAL Foil MUHDKtt COSTISUBD. OAS-: F)U THE DKFBSCi. The tri tl f W'.ibec Smith, s'anding clnrged with the mu'der of one Georga Thomas luc, tvas cjutin'jei on Friday morning. Mr Wes'on opened the case for the defence. Mr T. S. Weston siid he intended to make hi* openiug address exceedingly nhort. IL.i wou'd c .11 several wi'neseee, two of whom woull give evidence that the witne-H Brandon was at Honey* fie'd's on the eyeing and not at Moiuroa at nl. He calle d Willtam Ho eyfi Id, a farmer residing at T-itur iuiiika, abou 1 ; 13 miles from New Plymouth, and 10 or 11 miles from Mo u r o<. Knew one Bran* don, a witness in ttiis case. He was in my s-rvice uti lOih December as a g< neral farm hand. Milking was bit tuiiu work. A young fellow n*m?d Best wan alu > in my employ. On the 1 Oth I gave Brandon a cheque for £4 10a, £3 we for himself and 30s for Beat for W'ges I gave Brandon leave, and as far as I ki.ow he went to New Plymouth. I lent him a bovse (a mare), saddl i and br die Ha left my houu betwe°n rine and half-past. The mar# was return'd to one on the afternoon of tba 11 h between 3 and 4 o'clock. Brandon returned with it. He bad i tea with mys <!f and wife taat evening, Best wis also pre a n*. I was put out with Brandon for nod returning on the morning of the 11th in time for milking. Brandon remained ic my services from 10th Novembr to sth January. He had his meals regularly with me and my family. It was the L 2nd January that I firtt heard Bran* ; don kuew anything about the Are at # Mo uroa. O i the 2nd Jamvy BranI don b,-ought a "b)ke " with Lim to my place. He had none to my knowledge bhfore th's. I whs in his but ■ occ s'onally but saw no " byke " then nntil that time. '' To Mr Kerr: I fixed the date because I had to get the oiks that day, and siw him ojme in the gite as I was doing i*. I know he got the hone on . the lO'.h bt cause I gave him a cheque that day. ' Have not looked up the date, but I rtmemher attending a _ a wedding on the same day;! know also bo.-uee I had his cows ard my e own torn lk, I had a card sent me for I, the wedding. I have nit got the card with mo or the butt of my cheque book. Cantot say where Brandon was that night after 7 to half-past; met bim next moruing between 5 and 6 o'clock.

Tu Mr Weston: Brandon hid no wag<g due. Tbe butt (f the ch que produced is the one, The date November 10th is an error, it should b&vt been December lOib. The pzevicus cheque, Novimb.r sth, is blsj an error, and bhould havd been Dicembar. I wi ot« November by m'stake. Edwatd Beat, farm labour> r, living with bis father at Stoke, Nelson, said last year he wes in service of last witness (Honeyfuld). Went there on the 25th August, and left on the 31*1 December, Did milking and general work on the farm. Generally started milking about 5 o'clock in the morning, and ft ur in the afternoon, Brandon

was also in Mr Honeyfitld's servioe. He assisted to milk night and morning tegula ly. Brandon came early in

November. Brandon and I slept night after night together in tbe aame room. We both bad cur meals with the family. We lay close together; his

ftei would be close to my head. Bnn* don got some money for me from tineytield on the 9th December. He 'old mo he was going into town to get mail iei. He wanted me to be best man, but I refueed. He said the hdy wi'S worth about £3OOO. Tbe Monday following Brandon did his milking; tint vv s tliK 10th D ctmber. He l»ft tiiu liiim on the 10 h to go to New Plymou h. Ten thillings of tbe 30* ha got from Homyfield for me was kit oun, the XI ha returned to me. Hoard him »sk Mr Honbyfield for a horse,and tbo horse was gore wben Igot b<ck. He iGtutxed on 11th December about a quarter to four in time for milking. He returned on horseback on tbe same hone he went away on. I saw him from one of the bottom paddocks where I was working. He assisted me to milk that afternoon. Had ;ea with him at Hooeyfidi's the cam* evening. We retired to tbe hut together to sleep and we conversed before going to sleep. He wanted me to go in f o partnership with him'as priva'e detective. He said it was woith 10s a <<ay and we could go on with our other work. He spoke of Sycamore and said he was bis first c>u-ia. We turned iu between 11 end 12 o'clock. He was there next morning. He could not h;ivj left th«» hut without my knowing it as it was imp tfsi'ie f< r him 0 do so. I have not the slightest in tores* in this cas<t and never saw &c----jused till saw bim walk into tbe biz yesterday. Brandon never onoo re'erred to the fire at Moturoa during the three we?ks I remained there. B f re wo turned in on tbe of the 11th Bruidoi referred to Sycanor.'sboat. He wanted me to go in vitli him over tb» boat, saying wr c;uld jni a diz d, only it would be e^rly hours in ill- mortiog, and I rtfus'd to 1 j so. Ho told ma he had two daughters in Now Plymouth, one 15 and tbe ochi r t etwoon 16 nnd 17 years of age. On his > turn on the 11 h he told me ■e had married a lady ou the previous •ay at Now Plymouth. fu Mr Kerr: Cuncot say whtn 1 vas fiiht t-paken to about this case; it >s throe or four wrek* since I first heard (f it. I fix the date when Brandoo went to iNew P.ymou'ii because I give bim the order and'h> thing-i he had todjfor m-'. Th« order was:" Tatai-dimaka, 9 h Daoeiub r.— Mr Hou yfi Id, De.r Sir, —Please give Mr Biaudon 30*, and chuge the sauio to me." 1 fix tbe date i) 'u.inse he gave uia the XI aud a baocb I i.sked hita to get for me. We plt-ascd .<uishlv. s what hour we went to b d. Br ndon and 1 occupied separate bunks in the hut. I t-leirp fairly sound, I mi sure he could not have left tin hut without my knowing it. Mr WiSton lilt; sp'kj to rue about 'hocase. Hairy Charles Oariington, a carpenter, siid ha was iu pirUrisiip with Br n lon for about a fomijjhr, i oiii the 27th of December, 1902, liil tome time in January. Just: fer we j iuiid togethir ho produced a book nut asked me to copy out some writing •ihou: his visiting Motur.a. I suggts'ed cornc;.ionn, which were in«dt>. Syiattuie was present when the letter produced was signed. Mr Kerr h.'.J no questions to aik, '•'r Wvston i>at<] iio Jwdsowrclii!) t witnee.sss, hut would not- call them, but ivly oa the <'vu!cuco as b.fore the [Cmlinwd on page ■#.)

iOwrt. fie then proceeded to address the jury, and said while they mu«t feel imy sympathy wiih the sufferings of, 'the deceased, at the same time tisey had ; a grave rtsponsibility regarding the - prisoner in the h„x. No doubt th< . learned judge wo .l J tell thrm that t hn_\ had nothing to do with the effect o! their verdict-. Thi?, howevt r, did nni relieve them of thi grave rtspynsibilit; asregatds the pr'souer. He wished it mpress his thanks to the It arned Judge. ~ tile Grown Prosecu'or. and th-j attehtion given by thi jury to tin case. Mi Weston went oa to deal with the po9 ; tion of accu3'H?, and s.id the leirn.d Judge would toll thi ai whether th. accused was guily of murder or not. His Honor: That is s?. Mr. Weaten, continuing: Tee jury had, therefore, to decide the prisonei'i - fate. li. was do uso for them locou Oder it a case of mere manslsughtc and think they could seid bim up for t>

few yean. In law they had to decide if he Were to be hanged or not. Mr. Weston went on to refer to the evidenca regarding Ilcj's tent and i s Condition, and reviewed the evident of the vari-.us witnesses, and said then Was absolutely no evidence to show how the fire occurred, as Ince wi-s found on the beach with his clothes on firo, but how they came on fire or how ho got there no one knew. The doctors' evidence waa most important, and the) had seen tbe two pairs of drawers wore by the deceased and the marks of fire en them, and heard the doctors d;scribe the injuries inflicted on him by the fire. Mr. Weston then prccaeded lo argue that the fire occurred in the inside of the tent, and was caused be the deceased himself. He argued that he awakened from sleep, and probably g >i up to pet some food, taking off some cf his clothing, and went to sleep again leaving bis candle burning, and by tome manner upset it, setting fire to his clothes and tout. He reviewed the evidence to show that there could be no doubt that be had altered his clohiog since be first lay down. He thought it probable that the fire burned inside the tent for some time, until the admission of the air recalled deceased to consciousness and a sense cf pain. If this was not so, where were the clothes ? Gould they give credence to Brandon's evidence? While he wished to' be charitable, he conld not ask them to attach any value to that evidence. He went on to review thai evidence of Brandon to show how

valueless it was, and how comple'ely it • wiu contradicted by witnesses Hon-y----field and Beet. Ha had no hesitation in saying that Biandon was never at ttotnroa on the nigh?; of the 11th. leaving ou!> the evidence of Honoy field and Best, Brandon's evidence was oil worthy of b lief, and be neat: on t;show how impo sible it was for him to 8?e accused at the distances which wcr.< shown to exist on the plan before the Court. Brandon himself bad admitted that he had lost sight of the man he claimed to be watching, and h>, considered it was iinpossible f r him to again pick op a perron or an ohj ct a' such a distance. The Lamed counsel then dealt with the eviJ-nce of Brandon regarding h : s bicycle, yet he had no seen anything of the fire cr h?ard any of the outcries it caused, and this was in the face of his evidence th%t he bad heard the accuse! miking seriou* threats against the onfortanate deceased. He should say no more about this witness, but leave him in the hands of the jury, being certain they would place a true value on his evidence. The learned counsel then went on to del with the remainder of tbe evidence. No doubt they would be told they mast consider the evidence of Constable Mc Rae, acd the statements made by accused to the cots'able, bat they must j consider' the position in which prisoner was placed and the natural desire of an uneducited man to put himself right whn placed in such a position, bat he would call attention to the neglect of the Crown to call Constable Lind, who was said to have been present, to corroborate the evidence of Oonßtable Mcßae. They had neglected to do this, and be asked the jury to Arawtheirown conclusions. The learned ooansel then went on to show that the threats of the accused against the de-ceased-had reference to bis intention to take legal proceedings against the deceased, and there was nothing to show that -he had anything more serious in his mind. He dwelt on the character of accused, and held there was nothing to justify the contention that be went near Ince's tent that night. No doubt they would b3 told that it was strange that ths fire should occur eo soon after he want, but this was one of those remarkable doitcidcnts with which they were often biought face to face and could not account ftr. Referring to the German's evidence he held that it was not an admission but a denial. The words " Nobody seen me do it" were capable of two interpretations and he claimed that they were rather used aS'an indignant denial. He held that tbe want of evidence of nccured's move meats beyond the little bridge was sufficient to raise a doubt, of which the prisoner was entitled to the benefit. In conclusion te impres»ed upon tha jury the responsibility of their position. Ha asked them to aoisidec that a life once w; s gene bfy<j-ud recall and tint if thf-y had any doubt thry must give the prisoner the benefit of it.

Mr Weston occluded an earnest and eloquent addre-p, after nearly an hoar and thirty miimtes. Mr K'rr, -after ruforrin-; to the f icts, said what the jury h\d to do was to decide whether the five was caused by accident, or by accused. He th< n went on to refer to the evidence. D aling with the thto: yof accident, ho quoted the evidence to show tli it the decensed was most careful of lire, and did no' emoko. The learned Counsel then went on to dwell on. the of malice on the part of accused towards decaaafd, threaten to drown him. Accused's » whole attiude was ho.-.tils and vindictive towards deseas d, for right up to within twenty minutes of the time of the fire, he had made known his infcontion of doing injury to deceased. His last intention, as txpreswd to Myers, was to go down and "fix Dummy up. As regwds the absence of Oons'ab.'e Liud's ovidonco, why did not counsel for the accused put Constable • Lind in the box if he was able to contradict OonsfciUii; Mcßae? With rag rd to JJrnndonV evidence, tbe case tor the (Vown v;r. quite 6trong enough ■.vi.hoat it, and hwas at ;i leas to cxpl tni whai uivtsvu Brandon hid in iiivi&g eiiv-J- ovidiiiti.'. as ha had nothing to guv. by r. He would simply leave tha case tin the hands of the jury, feeling certain they would do what was just and ri^ht. * Mr Kerr's address lasted thir'y minutes. Hi« Honor raid ho woulr; cLfe. l.lz summing up till after lundi. SUMMING UP. His Honor tLon summed up the bo the jury, Alter reviewing the t'ae 12

of the case, he explained to the jury the !aw of murder as bearing on the case. The points to be considered might btaken ss three. (1) Was luce's death caused Ly five, (2) Was the fire accidental or wilful, and (3) If wilful was it cauted by the prisoner. These points -vere, however, narrowed down to one, lamely, was the fire wilful, and, if s>, lid the pris.ner c:.uso th") fire. Dealing wiih the medical evidence as boarng on the point as to whether the fire •ras accidental or wilful, Dr Lsatham had stated that the burns were either caused by intense heat for a short time or lesser heat for a longer period. No loubt, li.ca was asleep at the time of the lire. It was remarbablo tint th; nody was ro ex eosively burned from he ankle to the groin. Dr McClelsnd's evidence indict d thus it was p.issibls the fire was 1 cal. From Turner's evidtnc? it was apparent that the pain had thoroughly aroused Ince. There was no evidence that Incß had either a fire or a light in or near his ten 4 ; on that night. Had Ince not me' his death and the charge had been one cf arson he would have been able to throw light on the outbreak. The theory that Ince lit* a candle was mere conjecture. No evidence had been given as to what became of the blankets and deceased's ■rousers, and the absence of that evidence favored tbe theory of the defence. If the jury thought the fire was accidental, there was an end of the case against the' prisoner at once. It was for the f rosecution to make out the contrary. The evidence, almost as a matter of cours3 in murder cases, whs circumstantial, and the jury would therefore have to weigh it very carefully. It had been shown that there was ill-feeling bstwean prisoner at d Ince. Simpson's evidence rather tended to the prisoner's favour, as i ; > showed that pr's mer was more inclined to settla his differences with Ince b7 legal than by force. Oa the other land, there was evidence that prisoter assaulted Ince, and threatened to drown him, and this showed ill feeling existed. His Honor then pointed out that prisoner, after leaving Myers' hut went off in the direction, at all events for a short way, of Ince's teat. Several witnesses testified to threats made by the prisoner, who was stated to be a blustering sort of person. An important piece of evidence was that prisonei" had said "Nobody saw me do it." It was for the jury to place their own construction on the statement.

Mr Weston asked his Honor to put tha matter as he (Mr Weston) wished it put—that the statement was either one tins would ba nwda by an innostnt man or otherwise.

His Ho or said that the jury would deal with the statement as they thought b:S\ Reviewing Constable McUie's evidence as to what pris ner said to him when atresed, his Hor.or said there was sjme force in the c intention of the learned Counsel for tho prisoner that the words made use of wore foolish s'atfcmonts made in time of excitement and consisting of a tissus of lie*. That was practically the c.isa. If Brandon's evidence was true i'. nude out a vory strong case against the prisoner. But the question of its veracity was ons for the jury to decide. Referring to the signed agreement between Brandon and Sycimora His Honor pointed out the peculiar fact that it had net bjen signed until long aftenvards and intimated be would have more to say on that matter. He then went through the evidence in detail commenting on the discrepancies and contradictions. Could that man's evidence be true ? It seemed absurd, bnt the jury could form their own opicion. It seemed to him that ths agreement was got up, and tbe case for the accused was that ,Brandon was not there. The counsel for the Crown pwet cally threw this witness over wheu he siid his case was strong enough si hout that witness. His Honor considered there was a c.ise against the prisoner, but the prosecution would have had a stronger case had Brandon's evidence not baen given. If Mr Hoceyfi dd's evidence was to be credited, it was not possible that Brandon could have been at Moturoa on December 11th at all. Mr Best's evidence corroborated that of Mr Honeyfield. The case stood thus : With Brandon there was a tolerably strocg case, but without Brandon there was a cas°. The responsibility of the prisoner's life rested with the jury, and if the/ had any doubt, or were satisfied, that the fira was accidental, then the prisoner should be given tho benefit. Otherwise, however painful it might be for them, they must do their duty. VERDICT. The jury retired at 3.10, and aftsr an sbsence of an hour and ten minutes returned into Court with a verdict of " Net Guilty." No evidence was offered in the charge of aisw, of which accused was a'so acquitted and l discharged frjm custody. SENTENCE FOlt FORGERY. Robsrt Ibell was brought up for sentence, having pleaded guilty to forg-ry, Mr Cliule Wesxn urged that the prisoner bad a wi'e and child, and thai having to provide the confinement expenses i f his wife offered a mo ive for the offence. Oarstab'o MclU-gaye tvidenca that pris.n.er was oa probation ftom Auckland for a s«rail-r ollt-nc •• Ho fiiid prisoner wai a stru-jg ; ii>g working man. His IL'n jr reminded p■ i~o>:er that he had been warred .',t Auckland that if be cofiiui-.t-d another oflenco tho Auckland c jiiviftion v ould go against him. His Ho»or thou so'iteneed the priso'jtr ;o two years' impri-?ou;n-nt with hard labour. LUVII, HUSINESS, CLAIM FOR 1,1 mr, AMD SLANDER. Rev 15.n. Hut-son v. Robert McKinnon Morrison, This was a claim for £3OOO damiges i'.ir alleged slander a'jd libul. i'li B:irti;i (llaweri) appoiwd for tho p'liatdF, and Mr 0. S>muel, with svhom was Mr Malone (Stratford), appeareJ for the defendant. Tiie following jury were empanelled : —Mes-rs Nvshir., C. Wills, J. HopkiiF, J. Wzst, F, W. Newman, F. floskin, A. Kowc, (J. Hunt, W. F. Ualdwiii, H. Hotinor, R. G;oss, A. G. Tatto l "'. Mr F. W. No-vmm was elected fiii'ouiaii. Mr ti.-ii-t.r.-. in opuuiug his case, said it V'i"-■ >! . c ion \>y a Piosbyteriau ly against < i . v , i;;; - ..cm. Thy ■ y-'f •"-■'iM •-u that bej' >■''• .i.... Jourt wi'h j- u iiU'i . i:; !er .« awuiij-.r tl dia thiugs b&ou broujj,h-j fo a pass. The iut»grity of a clergyman's t'i.pctat!i>u wa - i of fqual importance with lii.it of juJ;:3 J , nd high cfficoin of ,s atv. He'lid n ■ 'ind that a cl'ivynnn iho'ild ru,. into | Court on the sl-ghttjat provocati-.-.!!, -iu, ■ after a long couriiß of gystauiaii'* ti mis[lepreeenUtioD, the aiatiwwtisdiffuroK, |anJ. a 'jlsrgyjuii atiO.

but to come to a Court of Law and \ viarticite his character. After refe.-ing! to Mr Huron's career. Mr Barton t-aiii that in tho course of his din's minis-; taring, he pr- acbed a sermon in favourof prohibition, and while inferring to a case of robbery ot Stratford, in .which it wag shown th.t the culpri's we o diunk, plain'iff went on to mention that dtfendant, who was deputyMayo', and other leading townsman were setting a bad example by being in hotels after hours. After this sermon on tha way home plaintiff and defendant h>.d strong words. Other sermons of like nature f-.- llowed and on diff rent 00--casions, such as meetings of managers of t-.e church, and in personal conversations Mr Morison made use of offensive expressions towards plaintiff aDd impugning his veracity. Tha fir»t occasion of slander was on 30th July, the second being in October. A complaint by three of the managers against defendant's conduct was inquired into by the elders who decided against defendant, and he retaliated by making charges in writing against plaint ff He then cilled John Irvine, living at Stratford, and an elder of the Presbyterian Ohurch there. His Honor said ho did not know what an elder was, Mr Samuel intimated that if there was. a domestic tribunal recognised an i set up by a church, communications by members of the church to th-it body were privileged. His Honor was not aware that any domestic tribunal had a legal status that carried with it privilege as to evidence given. Mr Samuel quoted an authority oo the point. He 'admitted that if there was a sland'-r by an outsider thi remedy would ba at luw, atd that th) evidence given by members was only privileged provided no malice was shown If is Honor took note of Mr Samuel's point and, in reply to Mr Barton, said thit»if malice was shown of course the plea of privilege would not apply. Mr Samuel applied for leave to amend the plea so as to allow privilege to be expended to all coun's. His Honor declined to allow such an important alteration, unless Mr Birton consented. Mr Birton objected, whereupon Mr Simuel intimated ho would rely on the denial. Tbe examination of John Irvine was then proceedsd with by Mr B-rfcon. Witness s.nd Mori.s -n spoke to him in Fenton-street, Stntford, in July or August, and -.iccusad plaintiff i f t.-eing untrathful- Could not givo thi precise words, but the (ff : et w,;s thai; plaintiff wis untruthful, inconsistent, and utterly unfit to be a minister, and that he (defendan*) bad s'opped contributing to tha funds, and would continue to do so a'" long as plaintiff wathe minister. Defendant had been one of the managers of the church from shortly after the time plaintiff was appointed until about two years ago. No disturbance took place between defendant and the managers until about three years ago, when, at a meeting of tbe management committee, at ths house of defendant's brother, exception was taken by one of the managers as to plaintiff's preaching, and defendant spoke in a very contemptuous way of plaintiff's preaching. Could not remember the exact words, but the effect of the remarks was that if plaintiff preached better sermons the church would gather in more money. Mr Samuel: In fact, that plaintiff did not draw well. (Laughter.) Witness: Yes.

Hb Honor: I thought you were

going to give evidence of malice. Th sta'ement referred to certainly showed no malice.

Witness: Remembered a burglary a' S'ratfotd in which certain young men were inculpated.

Mr Samuel: The accused Wfra acquitted, and I hope my learned friend will be careful not toparpetrate another 6lai dor.

Witness: Plaintiff, in a sermon preached after the burglary, referred t.e tbe members of the Borough Ocunci* leaving their meeting, going into ar hotel after hours, and drinking, pointing ont the bad example thus shewn to the youog.T peaplp. Could no-' say whether the manager's meeting wasbefjie or after that sermon. At a meeing immediately before tbe new church was np:nrd, about two years.ego, ther. was some u iple'Sintness over thg sea' letting, defendant accusing pMntiffof doing contain things arid cert.in other t hing-*, find called plaintiff a humbug. Uis llji.or: Did he explain after wards that the statement was made in a P ckwickiansonse. (Laughter.)

Witness: It was made in an offensive way. As a congregational me-. ting 0.-er the church collection aud pay icg the money in to the bank, plaintiff made a statement to which defendant re'orted " That's a l'e." Defendant looked as if he thought plaintiff was a liir. Was prtssnt at a meeting of the presbytery at Hawera in January last, 0 enquire into a charge made by r o , fendaut against plaintiff. Defendant! stated at tint meeting that plaintiff offered to fight him, and that Mr

Mackay was of the stme opinion as himself that pkint'ff should be removed from Stratford 1 ,

that this evidence had go bearing on the quesion of' malice. His Honor said he saw no evidence cf malice. *l6 was n't m tlice to (peak disresp. c'.fully of a man. It was evident that for some yeirs pas'; defendant had held a very por opinion of Mr Huteoo. However, counselcould go on and try the patience of the jury.

Witnes: Did'not.think that di feudant ccmplaiiud at the interview, whtin he slid that plaintiff was untruthful, of a statement that the plaintiff bad charged defendant and tt.ree others with banding with the publicans to drive plain'iff out of Stratford. I Mr Samuel: Did defendant give any reason for saying that plaintiff was untruthful ?

Witness: I did not encourage him

His Honor: Do you mean to cay that defendant came up to you and said "Mr Hutson was unttuthful," without preface. Witness: He brought up the question of his trouble with plaintiff, but did not allude to Mr Lilley'a matter. At a teachers meeting Mr Lilley's raa'ter was brought up, and dt fondant postponed his proposed motion of thanks to Mr Lilley untit the matter settled. Was quite certain that defendant did not allude to these troubles during the conversation referred to. Was not a member of the No-license party, but plaintiff was. Plaintiff up to the last three years frequently preached on prohibition matters.

The Court here adjourned to 7 p.m. On resuming, the cross-examination of Mr Irvine was continued. Messrs E, O. A more, of Ngaire, and John M.;ukay, of Stratford, also gave eviden e, which we have to hold over.

At 10,15 His Honor asked Mr Barton how many more witnesses he hat?, and Mr Baitou replied five. His Honor suggested that they had bad enough of it for the night, in which the jury concurred, and the Court adjourned to 10 o'clock this morning.

Worms undermine Children's Oonsti<iatioas. Use WADE'S WORM FIGS In bixes.— A.'H'