Llangollen Advertiser Denbighshire Merionethshire and North Wales Journal

LLANGOLLEN COUNTY COURT. This court was held on Monday week, before his Honour, Sir Horatio Lloyd, judge. WALTHO V. HURLBATT. Mr. Wynn Evans said he was glad to inform his Honour that an arrangement had been come to in this case, plaintiff agreeing to accept £ 50 in addition to the j628 15s. 7d. paid into court. The case was accordingly withdrawn, and the judge made an order for the payment of the amount in court. IMPORTANT CASE CUSTOM OF THE COUNTRY J. C. EDWARDS V. EYAK JEFFREYS. The plaintiff, Mr. J. C. Edwards, Trevor Hall, as landlord of the Dolydd Farm, Cefn, Ruabon, sued defendant, formerly a tenant of the said farm, for the sum of £ 50, damages for trespass and illegal removal of a quantity of wheat and straw grown on the farm, and removed by defendant after the termination of the tenancy, contrary to the custom prevailing in such cases.—Mr. McConkie, barrister, Liverpool, instructed by Messrs. Richards and Sons, Llangollen, appeared for plantiff, defendant being represented by Mr. Wynn Evans, solicitor, of Wrexham.—Mr. McConkie in opening the case said that defendant became tenant of Dolydd Farm in March, 1891, at X135 a year. He retained possession of the land till March 25th, 1894, and quitted possession of the buildings on May 1st of the same year. The following September he entered upon the land, and removed half the crops of wheat from a certain field, together with the straw, the said wheat having been sown by him in the month of January preceding. He also broke two gates, which were valued at 10s. each. The contention set up by plaintiff was that as defendant bad not sown the wheat before the end of the pre- ceding year, he had no right to the crop. The only point therefore to be decided was the custom of the country in cases of this kind.—Mr. Wynn Evans said that in order to shorten the case as much as possible, all the facts connected with the tenancy, the entry upon the land, and the removal of half the crop would be admitted, and thus the question would resolve itself simply into one of custom. He read a letter received by defendant from Messrs. Richards and Sons, solicitors to plaintiff, warning him that if he entered upon the land he would be treated as a trespasser, and offering him £ 12 as compensation for the expense he had undergone in laying down the crop. The following evidence was taken :—Thomas Hughes, farm bailiff, in the employ of plaintiff, said he had bad thirteen years' experience as farmer on his own account, and he therefore knew about the custom of the country in regard to the removal of the crops by an out-going tenant. The custom is that the out-going tenant must sow his wheat before the 31st December, before he is entitled to half the crop. If this is not done, he has no right at all to his crop. The value of the half- share of this wheat crop which was obtained on this land on the 27th September last was as follows :— 125 measures at 3s. 4d.; 22 seconds at 2s. Gd. six of thirds at 2s.; total, R24 3s. 8d.; straw, 7 tons 14 cwts. at P, 4 half-ton loose straw, Z 3 total, R-56 9s. 8d. The damage done to two gates was assessed at £ 1, which made the total claim £ 57 9s. 8d. This was the value of the half-crop which was got by plaintiff, the other half being taken away by defendant.—Cross-examined by Mr. Wynn Evans He ascertained the value of the portion of the crop which was seized by defendant by the value of that portion which fell to the share of plaintiff, which was £i56 9s. 8d. Plaintiff had neither sown nor done anything to get the crop. The field was about nine acres, and the average crop of wheat was 30 to 40 measures per acre. He (witness) considered this a gnod d^op. Four pounds a ton was then a fair price for straw. He had given more for some about that time. With regard to custom, he had known persons sowing in January, but not when they were leaving the farm. No such case had ever come to his kpowledge where an out-going tenant sowed in January.—Re-examined It was a very good crop, for it is a sewage farm.—John Humphreys, in the employ of plaintiff, gave evidence in regard to the sharing of the battens in the field 924 in number.-John Jones, foreman joiner in the same employ, said he valued the damage done to the two gates at 10s. each. They had gone beyond repairing.—Wm. Griffiths, butcher and farmer, Chirk, said he had had twenty-five years' experience as a farmer, and he lived in Chirk parish, about four miles from Dolydd Farm. They knew well the custom of the country in that district. It was that the out-going tenant should sow his wheat before the 31st December, and then he is entitled to half the crop. In his experience he had never known an ou t-going tenant who had sown in January. Wm. Jones, Plasmadoc Farm, said he farmed 170 acres he had been connected with farming all his lite, and bad been bailiff for the New British Iron Company for twenty years. The custom was when there is an agreement he must sow in the year previous to the year at which he leaves the farm. If he fails to do that he (witness) thought he is not entitled to any of the crop, that is his experience. He had had a little experience of this custom when he took his present farm, with an eignt-acre field. He went in on February 2nd., six acres of this field was sown in December by his predecessor, but he had failed to finish it, and had left the other two acres unsown. When he came to settle up he bought his predecessor's share of the wheat, and he did not pay for the straw, for it was given him. When he lived with his father at Gronwen Farm, he remembered that he and the neighbours used to work night and day to finish the sowing before the year was out. His father told him that was the custom of the country. He (witness) considered that the value of the wheat and straw made by Hughes, the bailiff, was a fair one.—Cross-examined: He could not tell whether there was an agreement in the cases he alluded to. He never knew of a case in his neighbourhood of this kind. He considered £ 12 a fair price for compensating defendant under the circumstances for ploughing and for the seed. Daniel Owen, Gwernydd Farm, said that in January, 1894, defendant came to him for the wheat for sowing. He asked him what he wanted with it, and he said he was going to sow it at Dolydd. He (witness) told him it was too late, as it ought to have been sown in the autumn, or he could not claim his right to half the crop. Two or three days after that he bought the wheat. He told him he ought to have sown it in the old year. He heard his father say many times that this was the custom. He had had experience of that at the Nant Farm, and at Groesiolyn and Gronwen Farms.—Cross- examined He could not say whether there was an agreement at Croesiolyn.—Kenrick Kenrick, Tan- henlle, Ruabon parish, said he had forty years' experience, and was well acquainted with farming matters. Tke custom was for an out-going tenant to sow before the 31st December, and then he was entitled to half the crop, and in other cases, two thirds, according to the state of the land. He never heard of a case being tried of this kind, or a claim being made. He left the lower farm in a bad state because he knew that if he sowed after the old year was out be could notclaim.-Jno. Taylor, Rhosmadoc, near Wynnstay, said he lived about two and a half miles from Dolydd, and he was well acquainted with the custom of the country. He quite agreed witoh the evidence given on this point by the previous witnesses.—John Evans, Graig Farm, Ruabon, and William Bridden, Fron, gave similar evidence.-Edward Evans, Llandyn Farm, Llan- gollen, said he had lived in this neighbourhood five years, and now farmed 212 acres. Before that he lived at Llansilin. He remembered a case in Llansilin, in which Mr. Sides, of Nant Ganol, had the assistance of all the teams in the neighbourhood to finish the sowing before the 1st of January.— Cross-examined He saw Jeffreys, the defendant, at Ruabon Station on the 11th February last, and remembered talking with him about this case. He (witness) might have told him then that he did not know the custom of the country, as it changed so often. He could not say whether he had been talking about this with the farmers since then. It was not after the 11th February he had become acquainted with the custom of the country, as he knew it before.—W. Parker, agent to R. M. Biddulph, Esq., Chirk Castle, said that the witness Bridden occupied a farm on the Chirk estate exactly on the opposite side of the river to Dolydd. The custom is that an out-going tenant is obliged to sow wheat before Dec. 31st, or he is not entitled to any portion of the crop.—Cross-examined He had been agent for seven years. Hehad never seen acase where a man had sown in January. It is the custom of the country. He had never had a specific case in which this matter had cropped up for decision.-Thomas Jones, Brynmelyn, Llandderfel, a farm of twenty- five acres, said he had had thirty-three years' experience of farming, and as a valuer of farm lands in Merionethshire and Denbighshire. He was very often employed as appraiser between farmers and farmers. His experience was that custom differed in different localities. For instances, in Edeyrnion district the wheat had to be sown before Nov. 30th, while in Penllyn the custom was to sow it before Nov. 12th. He had not had experience of the custom in the "district of Llangollen parish. He thought it strange they allowed it to go so far ss the 30th Dec.—Cross-examined He had never seen anybody trying to sow after the stipulated time. In the absence of an agreement the land would remain idle if the out-going tenant failed to sow within the stipulated time.—W. C. Hughes, Fennant, Ruabon, said he was a farmer and land agent. He quite agreed with the evidence already given, and considered that £12 was a reasonable sum to allow defendant for the experience he had undergone in the sowing of the crop.—Cross- examined He had never met a case where this question had cropped up, and this point raised.- Griffith Hughes, Fron Farm, in the parish of Chirk, said he had never known anybody who had sown after the 30th Dec. who had tried to claim the crop. —Cross-examined Had never known a farmer who had sown in January, and a case in which this points had arisen. He (witness) was father to plaintiff's bailiff.-Capt. Best, Vivod, a retired captain of the Royal Navy, said he had heard the evidence already given as to the custom prevailing in this district in regard to the sowing of wheat, and he agreed with it, and he had some time ago embodied that custom in his agreement with his tenants.—Cross-examined He had never known any dispute about it. About eight years ago he took some trouble in ascertaining whether this was a custom, and on the advice of Major Birch he inserted a clause in his agreements embodying the custom.—Mr. R. S. Richards, solicitor, said he was agent to Major Tottenham, of Plas Berwyn, who owned some thousands of acres in this neighbourhood. He produced a blank form of agreement adopted on that estate which showed that wheat is not to be sown after Dec. 31st.—Wm. Davies, Llysfasi Farm, near Llanfair D.C., gave corroborative evidence as regards the custom. -This closed the case for the plaintiff.—Mr. Wynn Evans, for the defence, said that in this case they had a large body of evidence of a directly contrary nature. He, however, had the advantage over the plaintiff, inasmuch as he was able to call three or four gentlemen who would say that they had sown in January and appropriated half the crop. The principle is that the man who sows is the man who reaps. The whole of the evidence called for the plaintiff was merely negative. He quoted Woodville in support of the doctrine that an outgoing tenant was allowed to re-enter the farm and carry away crops sown during his year of tenancy, and contended that the custom was merely the one that was in vogue in South Lancashire, as quoted by the schedule in the report of the Central and Associated Chamber of Com- merce. There had not been a title of evidence to prove that a man who had actually sown seed in January had forfeited his claim to a share of the crop. He had called the attention of nearly all the witnesses to that, and not a single instance had been given, and he contended that one case in which wheat had been actually sown in January and the tenant had got his share was worth the evidence of dozens of witnesses who said that they would probably lose their claim if they sowed after Dec. 31st.-The following evidence was then given —John Hughes, Top House, Marchwiel, said he was well acquainted with the custom of the country. The out-going tenant could sow up to February 2nd, at 12 o'clock. When he was leaving Cornish Hall he sowed in January and took half the crop. The land belongs to the tenant to the 2nd of February. —Cross-examined Cornish Hall is in the parish of Holt. He was under no agreement; he got half the wheat and half the straw. The custom is different in different parishes. There was but little difference between Marchwiel and Ruabon. It was the custom on Lord Kenyon's estate.—James Lloyd Thomas, farmer and magistrate, said that when he left Plas-yn-Rhos Farm in 1876, he left one field unsown until January, owing to the bad weather. People told him not to sow then, as he could not claim any of it. He consulted his lawyer, who after seeing his lease, said he might sow until Feb. 2nd. He did so and nothing was said about it, for he got his share.-George Parker, Marsh House, Farndon, Chas. Price, Ridley Wood, Wrexham, Thos. Fearnall Royton, Wrexham, and Ed. Morris, Grove Farm, Marchwiel, corroborated this evidence as to the custom prevailing in their respective neighbour- hoods, and gave instances in their own experience of the custom being put into practice.-Ed. Evans, Bryn Graffydd, Ruabon, bailiff, and Ed. Evans, Bronwylfa, said he knew of two or three cases where the out-going tenant had sold his portion of the wheat by public auction after it was sown in January. He lived about five miles from the Dolydd.—Job Leak, Gwersyllt, and J. C. Roberts, Higher Berse Farm, corroborated.—J. W. Evans, Marchwiel Old Farm, said that was the custom in Mr. Piercy's estate, of which he was agent. He had many instances where that custom had been observed.—Cross-examined He referred to Marchwiel and Wrexham parishes, which bordered Ruabon.—Mr. Wynn Evans said that customs were not confined within a ring fence.-Frank Lloyd, auctioneer and valuer, Wrexham, stated that he had an extensive experience in Cheshire and Denbighshire, and he found that customs did not differ at all in this wide district. An out-going tenant can sow up to the 2nd of February. He bad no doubt whatever about it. He had been dealing with scores of farmers in Ruabon parish, and in all cases it was always taken for granted that the 2nd Feb. was the last day. He knew that was the case, because he took this into consideration when he was making the valuations.—Cross-examined He had no experience of Merionethshire, but it was so in all the cases he had come across in Denbigh- shire, and all farms of any size in Ruabon parish had been valued by him. That was the custom on all the estates between there and Nantwich. He felt confident in saying that he had made most of the valuations in that district for the last twenty- one years. He could not give a case then in which wheat was sown in January in Ruabon parish, because he had nothing to do with the sowing," but in all the valuations he always calculated that the tenant had full possession of the farm up to Feb. 2nd. The sowing of wheat did not come within his course of business. The custom in Ruabon and Wrexham parishes was the same. He would challenge the other side to name a single farm in which full possession was not allowed to Feb. 2nd. That rule was usually put into the agreements, and in all matters relating to sales and the letting of farms the matter was continually brought under his notice. He knew well that this was the case on the estates of Sir Watkin, Mr. Simon Yorke, Sir Gresley Puleston, Lord Kenyon, and others. Winter wheat meant wheat that was sown up to Feb. 2nd, and spring wheat that sown in Feb. and March.- Evan Jeffreys said he was tenant of Dolydd Farm up to the 25th of March, 1894. He sowed two fields of wheat in January, 1894. He always thought he could do so to Feb. 2nd. He started cutting on the 23rd Aug., and finished Sept. 11th. The crop was divided by Mr. Hughes, the bailiff, and himself by putting a stick each in every other mow.—Mr. Hughes told him he had been instructed to say that he (defendant) was not to cart any of the wheat from the field. When they went to carry they found the gates locked against them. On their demanding admission, the gates v. Ere unlocked, and they entered. But they were locked again, and they refused to let them out. Thereupon he (defendant) put one of the horses to the gate, and pulled it open. He (defendant) did not get the quantity of wheat and straw that they say he did. He had spent a great deal of money on the land, as it was full of thistles whm he went there.-This was the end of the case, and his Honour said he would consider the evidence, and let the registrar know the result in a week or so. A LONG-STANDING DEBT JONES Y. ROBERTS. William Jones, Llangollen Mill, sued Rd. Roberts, of Brynffynnon, Rhewl, for £ 34 lis. 3d., balance due for goods supplied during a great number of years.—Mr. C. W. Richards was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wynn Evans for the defendant.—Wm. Jones, the plaintiff, in giving evidence, said that as defendant did not pay what was due. and that being a rather heavy amount, he had arranged with him to pay interest on that amount. Several items of interest had been put to his credit, and he understood it. — Trevor Lloyd Jones produced the books.—Mr. Wynn Evans argued that creditors are not entitled to charge interest on such accounts, and cited cases in support of his contention.- Defendant denied having ever agreed to pay interest he was only paying his debt.—His Honour gave judgment for plaintiff for £ 30. to be paid in monthly instalments of £ 1. LASH Y. HUGHES. Plaintiff, J. E. Lash, architect and surveyor; Temple-row, Wrexham, claimed from Robert Hughes, watchmaker, Llangollen, a gold watch, or the sum of 15 guineas, the value thereof.—Mr. Wynn Evans was for the plaintiff, and Mr. C. W. Richards for the defendant.—Mr. Wynn Evans in opening the case said that his client sought to recover a gold watch, or its value, 15 guineas, which defendant had promised him for finding a customer for a certain piece of land situated in Abbey-road, Llangollen.—Plaintiff said that in the year 1892 defendant approached him as to finding a customer for the piece of land, and ultimately agreed to pay him a commission of two and a half per cent., provided he could get 5s. a yard. He further promised of his own accord to make him a present of a gold watch. The commission had been paid, and he had written more than once for the watch, and asked defendant personally, but without effect. He told him once that he had not then had the money for the land, but he did not repudiate the claim. —Cross-examined by Mr. Richards The watch was first mentioned at the commencement of the job. The land was sold in Nov., 1893. The conditions were that if the land was sold for 5s. a yard, I was to receive a commission and a gold watch there was no other condition. The watch had nothing at all to do with the commission. He did not get his commission until the land was paid for. There was no condition as to getting a cash purchaser. The promise of a watch was defendant's own offer.- Wm. Pryce Evans, coal and slate merchant, said he introduced plaintiff to defendant in connection with this land, and they went over it. He (witness) distinctly heard plaintiff say If you can sell the land for the price we agreed upon I will make you a present of a gold watch." Mr. Hughes was asking 5s. a yard for it. He (witness) had been trying to sell it himself many times. He had heard the mention of two and a half per cent. before the watch was mentioned.—Mr. C. W. Richards for the defence said that the conditions laid down by defendant were that if plaintiff could find him a cash purchaser he would give him a gold watch. In Nov., 1893, plaintiff introduced a purchaser, but not a cash purchaser, for defendant was not paid for six months after. After defendant had been paid for the land he paid plaintiff the commission as agreed.-Robert Hughes The defendant said that plaintiff came to him and said that Wm. Pryce Evans had told him he had got some land for sale. He told him he wanted cash for it. Wm. Pryce Evans wanted him to sell the land on some terms which builders had, which meant that the payment should be deferred until the building was so far advanced that they would be able to obtain a mortgage upon it. He said he did not like that system. When they were talking together in' the Bridge End, no one else was near. He was not on the land with Lash, Bird, or Wm. Pryce Evans. The only promise he made as to the watch was on condition that he should bring a cash purchaser. He sold the land on the 25th Nov.. 1893. Cross-examined He had been talking to Wm. Pryce Evans about the land many times. He bad received two letters from plaintiff for the watch, but he put both in the fire, as he did not think it worth his while to spend a penny stamp upon the thing. He preferred spending £5 in getting the case fairly tried in court. He never was on the land with Wm. Pryce Evans, and if anyone said he had been, it was not true at all, and he should say that he had been dreaming. They were on their feet ready to leave the Bridge End when Wm. Pryce Evans came in. Cross-examined He did not bring me a cash purchaser.-His Honour said he was of opinion that this was an honourable engagement that ought to be fulfilled. As to the evidence, he pitted plaintiff against defendant, and they were quite contradictory. He, therefore, relied entirely on the evidence of Wm. Pryce Evans, and he could not help believing that his version is the correct one. He did not know the value of a gold watch such as the one he believed was promised by defendant, but he thought he would be safe in assessing the value at half the amount of the claim, A promise is a promise, and it ought to be fulfilled. Judgment would, therefore, be given for plaintiff for seven guineas. ROBERTS v. RICHARDS CLAIM FOR DAMAGE. The plaintiff, Benjamin Roberts, landlord of the Australia Arms, Trevor, claimed 35s. from Thomas Richards, grocer, Bridge-street, Llangollen, damage caused by plaintiff falling over a sack truck belonging to defendant. Plaintiff said that on the 21st January last he and a friend were hurrying to catch the 9 23 p.m. train, and when he came opposite defendant's shop he came in contact with a sack truck, which was right across the footpath. He tore his trousers (produced), and also sustained inj uries which necessitated his consulting a doctor, who charged him 21s. for attending to his injuries (bill produced). Defendant denied negligence. He said that he had hold of the sack truck at the time,, but plaintiff seemed to be in a great hurry to catch the train, and did not look where he was going. Two witnesses having been called, judgment was given for plaintiff to the amount of 22s. INSOLVENCY. George Jones, grocer, and carrying on a small business in Dee Mill-lane, Llangollen, applied for an administration order for the payment of his creditors at the rate of 5s. in the pound. Thorny Richards, grocer, objected, and said that the appli- cant kept a small shop and had run up a debt with him. He also freely indulged in luxuries of all kinds. His Honour commented severely upon the defendant's conduct in getting into debt, and wish- ing to get out of it by paying 5s. in the pound. An order would be made for tke payment of 10s. in the pound. The court sat until about 4 30.