Symud i'r prif gynnwys
Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

14 erthygl ar y dudalen hon



ABERYSTWYTH COUNTY COURT. TUESDAY. (Before Homersham Cox, Esq., Judge.) There were 20 adjourned summonses, 80 new plaints, and 12 judgment summonses set down for hearing. ACTION AGAINST A SEA CAPTAIN. Curran r. Danes.—Mr A. J. Hughes appeared for the plaintiff, a draper and outfitter, carrying on busi- ness in Queenstown, and the defendant (for whom Mr J. J. Atwood appeared) is captain of the brig Hermia. The action was brought to recover 231. odd for goods supplied to some of the crew of the Hermia Mr Hughes in opening the case said it had been sent down from the Court of. Queen's Bench, aad the facts were as follows :-In May, 1870, the Hermia, Captain Davies, came into Queenstown, and one day the defendant came into the plaintiff's shop and asked for the loan of an oilskin coat to enable him to go off to his ship in the roads, the weather being very stormy. A coat was lent him, and in two or three hours he returned the coat with thanks, stating that he was going to Dublin for orders. At this second visit a conversation arose between Mr Curran's manager and the defendant about supplying the crew with goods. Defendant said he might, and that he would pay for the goods when the port of of discharged was reached. Subsequently four of the crew came and had some clothing &c.; and when the captain r. turned, the following order, signed by the four men, was handed to him :—"Please to pay Mr Thomas Curran the amount annexed to my sig- nature, and debit the same to my account." This was the usual custom at Queenstown and the mooey was deducted by the captain from the wages of the men at the port of discharge. His Honour suggested that the case was one which came under the statue of frauds, and Mr Atwood said he had several objections to take when the proper time came. Mr Hughes then proceeded with his evidence. Mr William Smith, an assistant in the plaintiffs shop at Queenstown, was first called, and he said that in May, 1870, defendant came to the shop to borrow an oilskin, to go off to his ship, as it was rough weather. In about two hours* time he returned the coat, and then witness asked him where the ship was from ? He said "from the Brazils." Witness then asked if he might give the crew anything they required in the way of clothing ? Defendant said, "Yes, give them anything in the way of clothing, and I will pay the account when I get to the port of discharge.' He was then going to Cork, and before his return four of the crew called and had goods to the amount of about 231., signing a form as was usual. Mr Atwood asked to see the form. The witness said be could show one similar to it. Mr Atwood: That will not do; I want the original. Mr Hughes: It is in your possession, I should think, as it was given to the captain, and I call upon you to produce it. Mr Atwood: I know nothing about it, I have never seen it. Examination continued When the defendant re- turned to Queenstown, witness introduced him to Mr Curran, and told him that he should have 5 per cent, as is usual at Queenstown, for his trouble in remitting the money when they reached the port of discharge. Cross-examined: He did not ask the men how much money was due to them, because he had pre- viously enquired of the captain how long they had been in the ship, and that enabled him to judge how much goods he should let them have. The men were brought to the shop by one of plaintiff's "runners," and he let them have goods merely because they said they belonged to the Hermia. One of the men had a watch, and all of them had a shilling apiece, to buy matches and soap, which were not sold in plaintiffs shop. The bill was given to the captain about two days after the men had had the goods, and he was then told that he should have 5 per cent. for stopping the money and remitting it to Mr Curran. Re-examined Thiee of the men were foreigners, but one, David Sykes, was a Scotchman. Some six or seven months ago witness met one of the men on board a barque in Queenstown harbour, and in course of conversation witness said he had not had the money from Captain Davies of the Hermia for goods supplied to the four men and the man to whom he was talking, named Park, said the captain Stopped the money from the men, and it ought to be paid. He further intimated his willingness to come from Hamburg, his port of discharge, and give evidence with reference to the case. Mr Norval Macleod, in the employ of Messrs Oakley, Selkirk, and Co., warehousemen, Glasgow, deposed that in June, 1870, he, at the request of Mr Curran, called on the defendant and asked for this money. Defendant never denied owing it, said he would pay it to me; but ultimately he said he would settle with Mr Curran at his own convenience. Mr Atwood said he thought the plaintiff was out of court upun his own evidence. lie objected that the agreement spoken of was within the 4th sec- tion of the statute of frauds. The Judge ruled that the objection was fatal to the case, aud fVUDd for the defendant. Mr Hughe £ gave notice that he should appeal against this decision. A FRIENDLY SOCIETY CASE. David Hughes, mariner v. John Beynon, secretary of the Bortn Friendly Society. Mr J. 11. Ruveubul for the plaiunff, aud Mr Hugh Hughes tur the defendant. The action was brought to recover £13, the amount of subscriptions paid to the Burth Friendly Society, and the defendant pleaded inter alia the statute of limitations, and that the plaintiff did not beloug to the society. .No evidence was given, but a long argument ensued between the learned gentlemen engaged in the case and his Honour. Mr Ravenhili quoted largely from the Friendly Societies' Act kiS & 19 Victoria) c. 63, and section 8U, and went on to say that the society bad not published any accounts since 18t>a. The defence was that the plaintiff was no longer a member of the society which was about being dissolved, and that he couid not recover. His Honour held that the plainiilf was entitled to a share of the money realized when the club was dissolved, and said his first step should be to get himself reinstated as a meuiber, which could be done by takiug out another summons. Mr Ravenhili submitted that his Honour had power to amend the particulars, but he declined to do so. in giving judgment his Honour said the action was brought to recover the amount of subscriptions paid by tne plaintiff to the Borth Friendly Society but it now appeared that he was willing to share equally With the other members. The dissolution of the society had not yet taken place, but was contem- plated and the only possible way by which the plaintiff could iorce on the dissolution of the society and the distribution of its lurids would be by getting himself reinstated a member, aud then obtaining the eousentof ifve-sixths ot theinewbers, or else by taking such other steps as were provided by the mies or the Act of Parliament governing friendly societies. Now Mr Kavenhillhad asked that the pai ticulars might be amended, so as to allow the case to go on, but he (the judge) had decided that he had no power to comply wuh the learned advoca e's request; and he presumed that after he had given that intimation, the plaintiff would not think it worth while to call evidence. Therefore, no evidence being called, he was compelled to give judgment for the defendant. Mr Kuveuhili: VII, but 1 should like to put the plaintiff in the box, your Honour His Honour Then you compel to say that I do not think the plaintiff has the slighest shadow of a shade of a chance to recover upon the plaint, and what is the use of going on ? You have pt evoked me to such a strong expression of opinion. Mr iiaveuhnl: It is no use of going on, your Honour, after that, but you will alluw the plaintiff to tiie a fresh plaint for the purpose of being rein- stated a member of the Society ? His Honour: Oh yes, and 1 shall give no costs in this case. A COUNTY COURT OFFICIAL REPRIMANDSD. Mr Atwood said be had a complaint to make against an official of the court; at least he was hardly an official, but be meant Morgan Evans, one of the sub-bailiffs. This man went to his (Mr Atwood's) client, who was a defendant in a certain action, to serve a notice of trial of the case, and he said what was a great falsehood, viz., that be (the learned ad- vocate) had thrown over the case, and taken the case of the plaiiitiff-that he had played the defendant false, in fact. Evans also said that the defendant could not trust him, and had better employ another solicitor; and he believed Evans even named an attorney. The man who had done this was Morgan Evans who was now in court, and his client was presi-nt to substantiate what he had stated. Mr Abraham Rowlands (Mr Atwood's client) was then questioned by the judge, and said that the i bailiff advised him not to go to Mr Atwood, but to some one else. The Judge (to the sub-bailiff); Did you advise him to go to some one else ? The sub-bailiff: He told me that Mr Atwood had been engaged for him in another case, and that he had been sued for costs by Mr Atwood, and I said he had better go to some one else. Mr Rowlands: Morgan Evans told me that Mr Atwood had undertaken the case of the other side. The sub-bailiff: I did tell him to go to Mr Jones, instead of Mr Atwood. The Judge Then you have done a most improper thing. Your duty is to serve the processes of the court, and not to give advice about solicitors; and I hope, lor your own sake, that you will not forget that in future. I repeat, it is your duty to serve processes, and not to give advice. The sub-bailiff: I am very sorry if I have done wrong. CUTTING DOWN DAMAGES.—JURY CASE. Powell IJ. Richards.—The plaintiff (for whom Mr A. J. Hughes appeared) is Col. Powell, of Nanteos, and the action wos brought to recover 20/. from the defendant (whose attorney was Mr Atwood) for damage done to a mare, dog-cart, and harness, on the ;31st October last. The first witness was Mr David Williams, farm bailiff to Colonel Powell, Nanteos. He said that there was an arbitration at the defendant's farm on that day. Defendant rented Cwmhwylog farm from plaintiff, and being about to leave, a valuation of crops took place. The valuers did not agree, and with the consent of all parties the dispute was refer- red to Mr Richard Morgan, of Aberystwyth. They met at the Talbot Hotel, and all three left in witness s trap for Cwmhwylog At Penparkau he had some words with the defendant, who struck him, and left the trap. He had been fined for the assault. After the assault witness and Mr Morgan drove on to the farm. Mr Morgan went and had a look at the straw and manure, and witness stood by the house with the horse and trap. While the umpire was looking at the hay witness took bis horse and trap into the road, and proceeded towards Aberystwyth, having pro- mised to pick up Mr Morgan, who was to take a cut across the fields, on the road. He was in the trap, and the horse walking quietly along when he met Edward Richards, the defendant, who laid hold of the horse's head and ordered witness to "come down out of the trap." Witness refused, and after an altercation the defendant began to kick the horse, who plunged violently, and broke the harness, ultimately upsetting the trap, and breaking one of the shafts, as well as breaking the tread of the iron step. Ultimately the mare ran away towards Cwmhwylog. The defendant was about half drunk. When the mare was got home he found she bad a cut above one of her hoofs, and there were two swel- lings on her belly all these injuries he thought the result of kicks. She was in her stable for eight days, and when she was taken out to work she was very timid and frightened. She continued nervous for some days Cross-examined Edward Richards left Aberyst- wyth with witness and the umpire, but was very dis- agreeable, and left the trap at Penparkau. The valuation at Cwmhwylog was made in the defendant's absence Witness asked Mrs Richards to take part in the valuation, but she refused. Witness was there as agent for Colonel Powell, and valuer too, and held the measuring tape while two stacks were measured. He did not interfere in any other way. The valuation amounted to about 2001 and the calculations were not completed for a day or two after the umpire went over the farm. When the defendant came up, he did not complain of the unfairness of making the valuation in his absence, and he did not say it was not fair for witness to take one end of the tape measure. Did not use his whip to the defendant until he began to kick the mare; then he struck him over the arm to make him let go the horse's head. Did not lash him in the face. In addition to being fined by the Aberystwyth magistrates for an assault, he was fined by the Llanilar magistrates for ill-treat- ing the mare, and also for a second assault upon witness. Did not know the mare's age she was "aged," and might be more than 12 years old Could not tell a horse's age after eight years. Never knew anything the matter with her before she was kicked by the defendant. She was out at grass all last summer, but that was not because anything was the matter with her. The harness was not new, but it was in good condition. Evan Rees, who repaired the trap, said his bill for doing so was los. Thomas Hopkins, a lad employed at Mr. Pell's farm, Glanystwyth, said that on the day in question he saw the defendant kick the mare driven by the first witness eight or nine times. Afterwards the defendant met him in the Belle-vue Hotel yard, and said he should have a sovereign if he would "tell them that he did not see anything." Cross-examined: Was examined before the Llan- ilar magistrates, and then said that the mare was kicked eight or nine times. Mr. Atwooj read the evidence given by the lad at Llanilar, and it appeared that he then said the horse was kicked six or seven times. On being asked which was right, he could not say. Mr Hughes remarked that there was not much difference in the two statements. William Evans, saddler, Aberystwyth, said that his charge for repairing the horse's harness was 3/. 15s. 2d. Harness of that description when new was worth about 61. William James, a labourer employed on the Nant- eos estate, corroborated the bailiff as to the injury sustained by the mare, and said that she was away from work eight days. For some days after being put into work again she was very nervous and restive would not stand still unless someone was at her head. Cross-examined: Did not know the mare's age. He remembered her for the last 12 years, and when she first went to Nanteos she was broken in. This concluded the plaintiff s case. Mr Atwood stated that he did not intend to call any witnesses, but should merely address the jury on the reduction of damages. In the course of a somewhat lengthy address, he said that Colonel Powell was a gentlemen respec- ted by all to whom he was known, and he (Mr At- wood) could hardly believe that he knew anything of this action. Mr Hughes said he had been instructed by Capt. Phelp, the agent. Mr Atwood continued, and said he regretted that Col. Powell had allowed his name to be used in such a trivial matter as this. In dealing with the facts of the case, the learned advocate said that when the defendant was leaving Cwmhwylog the arbitrators called in to decide what he should receive as out-' going tenant differed, and Mr Richard Morgan was chosen umpire. Now would it not have been fair- play when a person was called in to decide between cwo parties that both should have been present, or at least represented ? Richards was not at Cwm- hwylog when the umpire went, his wife refused to attend, and during defendant's absence the bailiff and Morgan made a valuation. Mr Hughes: No, no. Mr Atwood- said he would put that right. The farm bailiff had said that he did not interfere except in holding the tape while a rick was being measured. But he (Mr Atwood) maintained that was a very improper proceeding, though he did not mean to say that they actually did anything dishonest. He did not say that the bailiff did anything wrong, but he might, by shortening the measuring tape, have deprived defendant of lot. 15L or 20/. in amount, for a few feet would make a considerable difference. He did not say that the farm bailiff in the interest of Colonel Powell would do such a thing, but he might, and be should not have interfered. The defendant met Williams as had been stated, and being very angry he did catch hold of the mare's head, but he (Mr Atwood) could not believe that he really ill-treated the poor dumb animal until Wil- liams lashed him with the whip, and tried to drive him down. Then he did kick the mare, but surely great provocation could be pleaded in extenuation. The jury would remember that the defendant had been fined already in connection with this affair, and he asked them only to give moderate damages in this case. With regard to the mare no price had been put upon the injury she was said to have sustained, and he would suggest that they should leave her out of the question altogether. The Judge, in summing up, said there could be no doubt that the defendant kicked plaintiff's horse, and caused damage to the mare, her barne-s, and the vehicle to which she was attached, and he had been the subject of four sorts of legal proceedings. He was first fined for assaulting the bailiff at Aberyst- wyth, then he was fined for a second assault on Wil- liams, at Llanilar, and next he was fined for cruelty to the mare, which was proceeding number three, and now he was brought into the County Court to pay for the damage done to plaintiff's horse, harness, and trap. What the jury had to consider was the amount of damage plaintiff had sustained, and it became a mere question of figures. His Honour then went into the question of damages rather minutely, concluding with a warning to the jury that it was them who had to assess the amount, and they need not be guided by what he had said unless they thought fit. The jury then retired, and after a rather lengthly deliberation in private, returned into court with a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 4/. The court rose about half-past 5 o'clock, and his Honour intimated that he should sit at 10 o'clock on the following morning, adding that when he said 10 o'clock he meant it. WEDNESDAY. His Honour took his seat a few minutes after half- past 10 o'clock, notwithstanding his intimation on the previous evening that he should sit punctually at 10 o'clock. AN APPLICATION. Mr Atwood addressed his Honour and said that in the case of Arthur Johnson Hughes v Elizabeth Evans he appeared for the plaintiff, and had an ap- plication to make to the court. His Honour would remember that the action-one of ejectment—was tried some four months ago by Mr Gibbons, deputy judge, who found for the defendant. Then at the November court his Honour granted an application by the plaintiff for a new trial to take place to-day. The plaintiff had prepared accordingly, and brought witnesses a great distance—one from Gloucester, and others from places a good way off-but at the last moment he (Mr Atwood) received a notice from Mr Stapleton Cotton, the defendant's attorney, that the case had been removed to the Court of Queen's Bench under a writ of certiorari. Now be submitted that under the circumstances he was entitled to the costs of the day The Judge You only had this notice yesterday? Mr Atwood Yes, only yesterday, at 2 30 p.m., but still I assert that I have a right to costs, because the notice ought to have been served not yesterday, but five clear days since. After quoting the Act of Parliament bearing on the subject, the learned ad- vocate said that a copy of the notice was received by the registrar on Sunday, and at any rate he ought to have received one on the same day. The plaintiff had incurred costs-serious costs he might say-and he had a right to have these costs paid. Mr Cotton said it would be somewhat ungracious and most unfair to grant such an order as the plain- tiff's solicitor applied for! When the defendant had a verdict in her favour, costs were given her, and they were taxed at once, but they had not been paid. When his Honour granted a new trial no order was made as to the defendant's costs, and she was put to a serious amount of inconvenience in consequence. As to the witnesses which Mr Atwood said had been brought from a long distance, they ought to have been produced at the first hearing of the case. The Judge That may or may not be, but the plaintiff is entitled to bring fresh evidence. Mr Cotton Just so, sir, and as there are costs now due to the defendant which have not been paid, set those off against these costs. Plaintiff is no worse off than the defendant is, and she has been deprived of costs which she was ill able to incur. The Judge Why not have given notice in time ? Mr Cotton Notice was given to the registrar in dU6 time, but I rather overlooked Mr Atwood, being busy. and when I went to his office on Monday evening, after my arrival from London, to serve the notice, I found it shut up. I went again yesterday morning, but found no one there, and was obliged to defer the service until later in the day. The Judge Well, you must pay the costs of the witnesses. Mr Cotton submitted that it was a hard case for the defendant. Her own costs remained unpaid upon a case where she was successful. His Honour did not see how he could mix up the two matters. Mr Cotton Reserve these costs, your Honour, as the others have been. Mr Atwood: We are put to expense through laches on the other side through their neglect. Mr Cotton I admit it. I say how it occurred. His Honour repeated that he should allow the costs of the witnesses from a distance. Mr Atwood then applied for his own fee, and said that the plaintiff was fighting a beggar to clear himself and others from a vile stigma which had been put upon them. Mr Cotton: Don't prejudge the case, sir, pray. I have made no revelations whatever. The Judge I give the costs of the witnesses from a distance. Mr Atwood Very well, your Honour, but I hope you will give me my own fee. After some further conversation, the judge said he would. Mr Atwood said he had just obtained a copy of the affidavits upon which the writ of certiorari was obtained, and the one made by Mr Cotton contained what he could not help saying was a libel upon the registrar ot the court After stating that to the best of his judgment and belief the case would not have a fair and unbiassed trial" if it was tried in this court, Mr Cotton went on to say, and I have every reason to believe that a partial jury will be sum- moned to try the case." For his part, be should be very happy to try the case without a jury, and leave it to his Honour. The Judge Now, I presume your motion is at an end. Mr Atwood Yes, your Honour. ANOTHER APPLICATION. Mr J. H. Ravenhili reminded his Honour that at the last court he applied for some money paid into court in the suit of John Evans r. John Jones by the defendant to be banded over to the defendant. He should be glad to have his Honour's answer to the application. His Honour said Mr Ravenhill might have the money. He had consulted the two judges who had heard both the trials, and was willing to accede to the application. Our readers will remember that the plaintiff in this case is a draper in this town, while the defen- dant, a cooper, lives at Trefechan. The action was brought to recover the cost of goods alleged to have been supplied to the defendant's daughters; and after three hearings, two of which were before juries, the verdict remained with the defendant, and the money appfied for was the costs of the first trial, which had been paid into court. The court rose at half-past 3 o'clock.


[No title]





[No title]



[No title]



Family Notices