The Cambrian News and Merionethshire Standard

ABERYSTWYTH. COUXTY COURT. FRIDAY, OCTOUER 19TH.—Before his Honour Judge Lewis. I Oncn r. Era))*.—'Thomas D. Owen, shopkeeper, Trerddol, sued E. Evans, Commercial Hotel, of the same place for £5 for trespress on a wall, and applied for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the wall. The defendant contended that the aetion was birred by statute. Mr A. J. Hughes appeared for plaintiff and Mr W. P. Owen for defendant. Mr Owen stated that plaintiff and defendant were leaseholders under the Bishop of St. David's and it had been agreed that Mr F. R. Roberts, the agent, should go up to Trerddol and try to settle the matter. Mr Hughes said his lease which included the wall was granted before the lease, was granted to defendant, and Mr O.ven said defendant contended that the wall was also in his lease. The Judge replied that a grantor could not derogate from his grant. Mr Owen under the circumstances applied for adjournment, but as plaintiff had telegraphed at once saying he would not abide by his father-in-law s agreement to refer to Mr Roberts and had'broughtdown his witnesses, his Honour said he'would take the case later on.—After adjournment, the Judge consented to adjourn tfi the next Court, with power to add a third party, costs reserved. Bankrupto/.—Mr R. Jones Griffith, Dolgelleyf applied for an order of discharge in the matter o Edmund Robert Evans, grocer and wine merchan t formerly carrying on business at Barmouth. The Official Receiver stated that the debtor commenced bus ness on £200 bDrrowed money he kept no books of account, was aware of his insolvency in 18S6, but continued in business until June 1888, contracting debts in the meantime, and then absconded to America. He was also alleged to have been of intemperate habits. Mr Jones Griffith stated that debtor's pre- decessors opened a business of the same character and took all his customers. The debts were trade and not personal debts. Some friend told him of the serious consequences of not keeping books of account, and he j bolted off to America.—The Judge having the debtor put into the box, and asked why he went to America, he replied a friend of his, Mr Robeits, then station- master at Barmouth, said it was a serious matter his not keeping books of account. In reply to furt her quest ons by the Judge, the debtor said he paid £-17 10s. rent, and his household expenses were t2 5s The Judge thought the debtor had not spared himself but the debtor said the £2 5s. included wages for servants at a lodging house. He had a wife and one child,-The Judge granted discharge on debtor con- senting to pay which he did. All E.rarrsion Trip.— Joseph Morgan, Tymawr, Pontrhydfecdigaid, sued the Cambrian Railway Company for the recovery of 5s. 6d. money over- charged or overpaid for an excursion ticket. Mr Hugn Hughes appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Cor- field, Company's solicitor, for the Coinpmy. Mr Hug'hes stated that though the case was a small one, a large principle was involved. The plaintiff was a relieving officer, and was directed by the Aberystwyth Guardians to go to London to enquire into a case of settlement. On the 21st September, there was a three md live day's excursion to London. The plaintiff was tinder the impression that the train went at 6.20, but found at the enquirv office on arrival at 6.15 that the train went at that time, and that he must look sharp to catch it. He accordingly rushed to the booking office, asked for a three day ticket, threw down a sovereign, received the change, and got into the train. He then found that he had got a five day ticket, and that instead of having 9s. he bad 3s. 6d. change only. Having to go to Bridge End on similar business at the end of three days, he returned at the end of the three days, and when arriving at the ticket collecting place, he was taken to the Booking Offices more like a prisoner than a passenger. The Station Master said he thought plaintiff had asked for five day ticket and treated him civilly. Mr Morgan was examined and said there was nothing on the tickets to show the length of time for which they were available. It was only on seeing another ticket that he noticed that the lines across it were different. Plaintiff complained that he was treated in a disgraceful mannner on his return.—The Judge said plaintiff could bring an action for assault and plaintiff said he intended doing so. He was also detained from the fair.—By Mr Corfield Did not come in from Pontrhydfendigaed by the 6 train in the evening, but by the midday. The bill said 6.20, but the Enquiry Clerk said 6.15. A notice might be under his Dose at the ticket hole saying that pa3sengers must examine their tickets and change before leaving, for mistakes could not afterward be rectified. He knew it was his duty to examine them, but his mind was occupied by the thought of catching his train. Did not complain to anybody after finding the mistake, though the ticket was nicked twice. —The Judge suggested some compromise, but Mr Cortield said his instructions were to fight the case. WE Thomas Roberts, booking clerk, said the plaintiff asked for a five day ticket. He had an opportunity of acquainting the company with the mistake at Bow Street. The Judge gave judgment for the defendant company, observing that an equitable remedy having been sought, it was necessary that plaintiff should exercise due deligence in acquainting the other party at the earliest possible opportunity—Defendant said he did not find out the mistake until he was off the Company's line and in London, but the Judge said he did not do it even then.—Mr Corfield, askiug for costs, observed that it was not the first case the Company had had to do with Mr Morgan.—Mr Hughes replied that on the occasion referred to Mr Morgan and others booked to Carnarvon eisteddfod, found no train at Glandovey Junction to take them on, and the Company had tc piy dE7 or £8 in consequence.—The Judge dtclined to give certain costs urder the General Act, but gave the usual cost". A Servant's Claims.— Mary Jenkins, Troedrhiw- newydd, sued Thomas Thomas, fanner, Neuaddyrynys for Ss wages due. Mr W. P. Owen appeared for plaintiff, and Mr A. J. Hughes for defendant.—Judge- ment was given for defendant. A Patnter' Claim.—G. H Pemb-rton. painter. Great Darkgate-street, brought an action for £17 lis Jd agiinst A. Joinson, hairdresser, Pier street, balance claimed for work done and material supplied in paintiug and decorating the shop and two rooms. The Defendant counterclaimed for i:20 for beach ot contract. Mr A. J. Hughes appeared for plamt ff. and Mr W. P. Owen for defendant. The Judge asked if the parties were foreigners, aud Mr Hughes replied that they were Englishmen who had come to live in Ab-r ystwyth. Tie Welsh, added Mr Hughes, had the character ot being litigious but in that case the parties were litigious. Mr Hughes then stated the facts of the cas •, and added there was a oounteicLrni which, the defendant's solictor stud, was for defective work, but he asked that that counterclaim should be struck out as being vexatious. — HU Honour said the plaintiff would have to be paid quantum meruir, alaI the counter claim was struck out -The Plaint,Œ weut into the box, said the claim was for painting, plumbing and decorating defendant's premises in Pier-street. The present claim dated from February. 1893. "nt ill particulars from time to time, and iu Ma'ch lS9-t- received on account of f32 14s 4d leaving the present cla m due.—The question then arose whether an item of £10 ,id could be brought into the action, It was for hot water apparatus, and had been paid, hut it appeared thtt some £2 odd had been charged fer extras which f'.imed part of the account sued for. In reply to Mr Owen, plaintiff said he did not receive £10 1,3 6tl before work was done. Itwaspiid months after. —Defendant wassworn and said th» r.Mr Pemberton called ou him about a Friday, said he was short, and asked him (defendant) to oblige him with a cheque. Defendant pointed out that decorating hdies' room was not in the contract, and on plaintiff wri'ine it in, the cheque \18 siven. It was about a week before the work was '■■lie. The work developed after- ward. Plait tiff' produced bills which had been pasted together, and Mr Owen said they measured 6 feet 3 inches. He denied that he had put in beer barrel piping He h- d nothing to do with the beer barrel. —The Judge asked Mr Owen to state definitely what he complained f, when lie replied that the piping was defective defective paper put on three rooms an\1 joints in cylinder defectively put in. There were also overcharge?. Mr Owen stated that he would go in for quantum meruit, leaving the question of counter claim for a fresh action.—In continued cross-examination, plaintiff denied that the wall paper was old stock of Mr Thoma- Hugh Jones, but new paper selected by defendant fiom pattern. Did not strip off the old paper as was usual and proper if people would pay for it. Defendant did not want to pay much for it.— Plaintiff, on being taken through the various items. stated that lif had done the work properly and used proper materials He said he should be very much surprised if what he charged f48 for had been valued at £:2; There only one leakage. The first time he complained was iu August of this year, and he (plain- tiff) made it right and did not charge for it. A nail or something had been driven in.—The Judge asked for a list of c\ n'racts, amounts, and datea,and plaintiff sent for his contract book. While it was being sent for a letter from defendant was put in dat"d March 6th, 1S84, in which he said he could not oblige him (plaintiff) 'unt- he (defendant) got the money from a partkeyjar source. Before that letter wss received, particulars of charges had been gone over by defen- dant.—In reply to Mr Hughes, plaintiff stated that defendant had selected a job lot of paper at 2s. which if crd.reo would have cost him 3s. a piece.—In reply to the Jurl-e, plaintiff said he received no letter from defendant complaining of the work.-R. Peake, who att-r ded under a subpeeana and said he had not to plaintiff on the matter, said Mr Joinson asked him to look over the work 10 March or Aprih He v. nt over the work, handed in the totl, andcame J to within 10s. of plaintiff's charges. He did not know is he went on what Mr Pemberton's charges were. Mr Joinson had not called him as a witness.—Cross- examined Mr Joinson showed dampness, but whether it came from pipes or not, he could not say. Defen- dant showed the cylinder. Said the front shop hai been papered by twenty pieces and had had to be made up by patching. Defen- dant did not say one room had to be re- papered.—A. Perry, painter, &c., concurred with Mr Peake, and Mr George Jones, who said he was refused inspection on Wednesday, had read the bills and con- sidered the charges moderate.—Cross-examined The charge of 9W. per hour for plumbers' work was very low. The London price was Is Oid. Did not think men I at Aberystwyth were paid so low as 5d. to 6d. per hour.—Mr Owen said that 25s. a week made 5d. per hour, and Mr Hughes said one could not get a good plumber in Aberystwyth for 25s. a week.—Mi Pemberton said he paid one man 9d. and another Sd. an hour.—Mr Thompson said he usually charged 9d. for a man, and 3d. for apprentice, Is altogether and plaintiff said that was his charge.—The contract book was then produced, and Mr Owen said it proved that the £10 odd was paid about a week before the job was finished.—For the defence, Mr Owen called George Hollier, Clifton, who said if the work was done as bad as it was done, and Bristol prices charged, its value was £22. The lead pipe appeared to be too thin, and there was a leakage in the S bend. It would cost 1/6 perhaps, to repair it, but the leakage mignt not have been apparent at once. The laminated paper had not been put on with copper tacks but with ordinary paste, and the result was that it was now hanging in a bladder. —Mr Pemberton said he charged a total of £1 3s. 6d. only for paper, labour, and copper tacki.— On being asked by the Judge about the pipes, witness said plaintiff ought to have provided a pipe strong enough for a bath in addition to the present appliances —The Judge asked if the piping was not sufficient for present appliances, to which witness said it was, but was of no practical value.—Mr Hughes, telling witness not to act as advocate, he said he had been engaged, and must do his best for his client. (Laughter). Continuing, witness said of the workmanship that nothing was good. The shop traps used were not in- tended for the purpose. The idea was wrong The paper used was 12 years old. The paper was put on badly. The joints of paper underneath and finger marks showed. -The Judge If you were proprietor of a shop and saw it being done in that way would you not have stopped it?- Witness: Yes, but everybody is not so fly. (Laughter).—In reply to Mr Hughes, witness admitted that a brother of his was in Mr Pemperton's service at Whitchurch, and was not in that service Dow.-Defeiiciant was then sworn, and said that on the following morning after the work was done, and before the plaster was put on, there was a leakage, but plaintiff said it was sweating which would work itself right. He covered it up with plaster of Paris and sea sand. About three weeks atter, saw another joint dropping into the room. Called plaintiffs attention to it, and his reasons always were that he was too busy. He repaired the leakages, but they burst out again. He paid the £13 because plaintiff was so insulting in his language, and so threatening in his manner that he (defendant) thought he might issue a writ. Showed plaintiff paper which had to be got to cover his defective work, and said he would hold him liable for it. The cylinder also leaked The paper in the gentlemen's and ladies' room was completely spoiled. It was scandalous. Did not agree to the patching of the paper. There were 13 patches on one square about 3 x 12. Called attention to it. As the plaintiff said he would prepare the walls, took it that the old paper would be removed.— Mr Hughes produced the plaintiB's bill, and said no charge had been made for preparing the walls.—In continued cross-examination, defendant said he had paid £ 1 13s. 3d. for re-papering, aud £ 1 for painting front room, &c.—The Judge haviog asked why defen- dant had refused inspection, defendant said he had to consult his solicitor. After he had done so he consented.—By Mr Hughes He refused inspection on a previous occauion because plaintiff had refused arbi- tration. Was prepared to swear that Mr Perry sat down in the ladies' room and waited until Mr Peake had finished, and then coincided with what Mr Ptake said. On being asked why he had sent to Clifton for a man, defendant said he wanted an independent man. He believed that Mr Peake would admit that he made the remark that not only was the work bad, but if he had had the contract it would be many pounds cheaper.—Mr Peake said he had no knowledge of having made that remark, and Mr Perry, standing up on the opposite side of the Court exclaimed, "We really must protest against the untruths this man speaks."—The Judge That is the privilege of a witness. By Mr Hughes: Could not say that the pipe plaintiff put in was better than the old ones taken out.—T. E. Morgan, architect, thought the dampness to arise from leakage. The paper was patched. 'He valued the whole work at JE29 or 930 as against 948. The pipe produced as being of the'same kind as that put in was not hot water pipe. Hot water pipe was about 7lbs to the yard. That produced appeared to be about 51b. It might have been heavier than the one replaced. His was a guess estimate against Mr Peake's detailed estimate.—The Judge having asked the cause of the leakage, witness said he could not tell. There was a rather abrupt bend.—Roderick Williams, builder of 45 years' experience, said he was cal'ed in by Joinson in June 1893. Knew the wall, and did not know it to be damp. The pipe put in was all right.—Mr Owen remarked that Mr Peake said that his valuation was 931 7s. 6d. for the whole work which was £ 17 less than Mr Pem- berton's charges.—On going over the items far hot water apparatus, Mr Peake valued the work at fl3 against £10 14s. charged by plaintiff, but it appeared that plaintiff had charged JE2 10s. extras. \Vitness admitted that the pipe put in was suitable for hot water.—J. Searle, plumber, on the other hand, said a sample of pipe taken from the actual work was not suitable. Tne pipes had bsen leaking since July, having split in consequence of not being of proper quality or thickness.—The Judge then said he would direct inspection by plaintiff in order to obtain a piece of the pipe.- Witness, in reply to Mr Hughes, ad- mitted that he repaired the pipe for Mr Joinson in the evening while engaged during the day by Mr Perry. Was dismissed by Mr Perry for taking jobs on his own account, while engaged by Mr Perry, and was not ashamed of it.—The Judge, in giving judgment, said he relied upon Mr Peake, a respectable tradesman who had not come into Court to do his best for his client, hut who was called in without know ng that he was to be a witness, and did not charge for it and had given his evidence in an honest aud straightforward manner. The defendant had acted foolishly. He had stood by and allowed what he thought to be bad work to be done. Taking Mr Peake's valuation at 931 7s. 6d. and deducting E25 paid on account, judgment would be given for plaintiff for £6 7s. 6d. Morris r. Batten.—William Morris, currier, North- parade. for whom Mr A. J. Hughes appeared, sued William Bitten and Son, Hereford, leather merchants, for f9 15s. for goods sold. -.J uùpment was given br the amount claimed by cousent. Referred.—A case in which Ellen Davies, Twrgwyn, Penuwch, was plain iff, and Mary Beyston, Cross Foxes, defendant, for 98 lb. 9d. was referred to j Mr Joseph Davies. A < '/aim for Fitting* —Eagle Foundry Co. sued W. Wemyss, Lion Hotel, and Thomas Jones, blacksmith, Cambrian-street, for zC14 14". for work done and material supplied.—Mr Hugh Hughes appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr A. J Hughes tor defendants.—It appeared that in 1892, when Mr Wemyss was running his coach, he let Jones have a building near the stables as a shoeing place, and it was alleged that Jones had fitted up the piace with material obtained from the Foundry, and that Mr Wemyss had sub- stituted his name for that of Joues. Jones was put in the box and admitted th:it he rented the place from Mr Wemyss, and Mr Wemyss said he had given Jones £10 for the listings.—Juogimnt was given for the amount claimed against Jones. Claim jor Work.—The Eagle Foundry Co. sued Wm. Morris, currier, North-p<rade, for 1:3 Is. 6d. for work done and materials, and defendant counterclaimed JEIO for damages for breach of c ntmct to repair an engine and work it tor 12 days.—Mr Hugh Hughes appeared for plaintiff, and Mr A. J. Hughes for defendant.— Thomas Ellis, manager, the b .k engine was repaired and worked for sev n days. Mr Morris then went to the Foundry aid asked for a ccrtain man. That man, however, was e on a contract, and on witness telling Morris tit,.t he ooukl have one who had been driving the engine, g >t into a temper, said Go to hell, and take the b Foundry with you, and went away.—For the de'eecc, John Morris, in the employ of defendant, said he went to the Foundry and asked for an engineer to wrrk the engine, when Mr Ell,s said he could not give rme. He went on to talk about some contract t.l Mr Morris prevented the Foundry getting Did not kno.v what time Mr Morris went to the Foundry nor what time he came back. After he returned, ;e went to the Providence Foundry.—Wm. Morris, the defendant, said Mr Ellis agreed to drive the bat k cutting enuiue one day a month for 12 months, and before agreeing to drive it said it must be repaired, which was agreed upon. In October, went to the Foundry, when Mr Ellis said that he (defendant) had sent a ji.b at the harbour worth having out of their hands, and t'oat he would send a man when it was convenient. Deendant denied that he sent the Manager of the Foundry to a certain place. It wa?, he said, totally untrue.—The Judge said plaintiff's statement was c insistent and straight- forward, and gave them the v^'ict.