Papurau Newydd Cymru

Chwiliwch 15 miliwn o erthyglau papurau newydd Cymru

Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

39 erthygl ar y dudalen hon

THE ACTION AGAINST THE SWANSEA…

Newyddion
Dyfynnu
Rhannu

T The feU&wvtg appeared m our Second Edition f Saturday as THE ACTION AGAINST THE SWANSEA HARBOUR TRUSTEES. In the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, )n Thursday (before Mr. Justice Kekewich), tha ibove case was beard. It was an action brought y Mrs. Tennant, who is the owner of consider- able land in the neighbourhood of Swansea Har- oour, against the Swansea Harbour Trustees, to obtain the specific performance of agrements dated respectively the 30th of April, 1874, and the 16th of July, 1878, by which the trustees acquired a quan- tity of land at Port Tennant belonging to tne plaintiff. Mr. Hemming, Q.C., Mr. Pollard, and .Mr. Beaumont were counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Rigby. Q.C., Mr. VVtrmin^ton, Q.C, and Mr. Christopher Jnaies represented the Swansea Eur- bour Trustees. lr. Hemming, Q.C., in his opening statement, said the action was commenced in September, 13S3, primarily for the purpose of obtaining speci tic performance of certain agreements dated the 30tii of April, 1874-, and tiie IStU ;>f July, 1373, so far as they were then unperformed, and which were agreements by which Mrs. Tennant sold iand to the Harbour Trustees upon which they intended to execute-and, in fact, had executed-large har- bour works. At the time when the action was commenced the trustees were in default for not paying a sum of £ 15.000, the purchase-money for the land. Shortly after the action was com- menced there was n motion for an Injunction, j which resulted in the payment of the £ 15,COO. BO- that the most important part of the -relief nought by the action had been decided, and it was hoped that what remained of the action would have forthwith been settled. This, however, was not the case, and it. therefore, became necessary that the suit should go on, notwithstanding the payment of the money sued for. In order that the matter might be inteiligibie to his lordship, the learned counsel stated ie would have to give the cot some information as to the topography of the place. Part of the iand belonging to Mrs. Tannant was held under a 'ease from the Earl of Jersey, another part was held under a lease from the Duke of Beaufort, and the remaining portion of the property "as freehold. At the time that the first agreement was entered into the dock known as the Prince of \¡E" Dock and various Dther works were n-"t executed, but the greater part cf the dock was covered with water. The Prince of Wales DOCK was authorised i.1 1674, and ;be state of the land then was as follow. There Was a small bay called Fabian Eay, out of which -an a cut ending in an roohng space, which was a private haroourknown as Port Tennant, from which I g s Mrs- Tennant enjoyed considerable advantages in the shape of toils. When the Swansea Harbour Trustees proposed to make their docks they required to take a large quantity of land belong- ing to )Ir. Tennant, and to aosorb and destroy :be old Port Tennant. In consideration of their being allowed to do this. Airs. Tennant bargained that she should be given equivalent advantages in the new dock to called the Prince of Wales Dock, and immunity from special dues or toils. This was conceded by the Harbour Com- missioners, and --mder the two Acts of Parliamen* o'etr-.ined by them such stipulations WP., provided for by the agreements he (the '.earned counsel) had recently referred to. The agreement of 1874- recited that Mrs. Tennant should continue liable to pay the whole of the "entaand royalties she had covenanted to pay to :be Duke of Beaufort, but that the Harbour Trustees were to indemnify her for any sum she lad to pay vc-r EFD per annum. There was a further recital that, whereas lrs. Tennant, under her Jea,-e with the Duke of Beaufort, had to pay a royalty of £ d. per ton on goods which passed over the Tennant Canal, she should continua to pay such royalty, with the proviso, however, that with regard to any goods which passed over a certain wharf she had acquired she should pav the royalty, but, should be indemnified for the same by t;e trustees. As a matter of fact, the Harbour Trustees had acquired ail the interest of the Duke of Beaufort, so that the proviso as to the ld. royalty did not very much apply. The trustees, however, contended that the ld. was payable, not only in respect of that part of the canal which passed through the Beaufort property, but upon all goods that passed over the canal which ran through the Manor of Kiivey. WillI regard to the .wharf, Mrs.Tennant stipulated that she should have a lease of the property for a term of 1,000 years at a pepper corn rent, and that she should have the land right up to the edge of the quay, the trustees, how- ever, being at liberty to use the road running be- tween the wharf and the water's edge. Although this lease had been aga'n and again asked for, it had oever been forthcoming, and the grievance of the plaintiff was that the defendants claimed tiie right to moor vessels at their pleasure right opposite the plaintiff's wharf, which, of course, made all the privileges granted to her in consideration of what he had done nugatory. The trustees' reply to this was that, although they claimed the right, they had not so moored vessels. 'Then the plaintiff complained that the trustees were levying against the plaintiff tolls upon goodj shipped into barges for shipment upon vessels moored off the wharf, whereas they agreed that the plaintiff should be at liberty to ship directly from her wharf to vessels opposite it free of tcU. If this was permitted great damage would ensue to plaintiff. What she wanted was that she should be permitted to ship in any way most convenient into vessels off her wharf; The trustees had charged a rate of 4d. per ton upnn copper ore and 2d. a ton barge toll upon goods at this wharf, and this the plaintiff •strorgly objected to. They had attempted to levy a 3d. wharf due, but this had hitherto been success- fully opposed by Mrs. Tennant. The further hearing of the case was adjourned until Friday: SECOND DAY'S PROCEEDINGS; In tha High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, fcn Friday, the hearing of this case was resumed. fcn Friday, the hearing of this case was resumed. Mr. Hemming, Q.C., Mr. Pollard, and Mr. Beaumont again appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. ldgby, Q.C., Mr. Warmington, Q.C., and Mr. C; James represented the defendants. Mr. Jennings, the plaintiff's solicitor, called and examined by Mr. Beaumont, said he had acted for Mrs. Tennant in 1874 since. He had perused, on behalf of his client, the agreement of 1874 'which was scheduled to the Act of that year, and which was prepared by Mr. Thomas, the solicitor to the Harbour Trustees. He went to the Prince of Wales Dock in July last, and saw there two tables of rates to be levied on shipping posted up cut- aide the offices of the Harbour Trustees. The office was in the town of Swansea. He pro- duced copies of the rates so posted UD: He saw the table of rates only outside the Harbour Office, and not posted up in the harbour in "a conspicuous place," as required by the Act. Mr. Arthur Williams, the assistant manager of the Tennant Canal, said he had known the working of the eanai for fifteen years. He knew Port Tennant before it was taken over by the Harbour Trustees. The charges orI foreign copper in the town tl.,a, or North Dock, were 4,d. a ton, and 2 British copper 2d. a ton, and there was no charge for barges. The same charges were made in the South Dock. In the Prince of Wales Dock, how- ever, besides the foregoing rates, there was an extra charge of 2d. on barges. He had had to complain of vessels not discharged at, Tennant's Wharf being moored opposite that place. In consequence of the charge of 2d. a ton on turges, customers of the Tennant, Wharf carried thir Ç(oods by rail, and the consequence was that the Tennant Canal lost some of the dues that, would otherwise have come to t. Mr. A. C. Hadland, a manufacturer of Swnnsea, said his works were en the banks of the Tennant Canal, which he had used for rather over 30 years for the purpose of the carriase of ores. He had never paid a barge rate in either the North or South Dock, but in the Prince of Wales Dock he had had to pay 2d. per ton barge rate. Tiie result of this was, as far as he was concerned, that lie now seldom used the canai, preferring to cart the ores. and thus avoid the barge rate; He had paid barge ratl-s, but under protest. Cross-examined: If there had not been the .addi- tional charge of 2d. per ton for barge latas he ihould have continued to use the canal, as it was more convenient than carting. Mr. Henry Ward, in tiie employment of the Cape Copper Mining Company, in London, produced a lumber of accounts showing that the company lad been charged for discharging ores in thw Prince of IVales Dock 4d. per ton, but there was .0 charge for barge rates; There was, however, a !ha,-gg made of 3d. per ton for wharfage, but this .be company had refused to pay, and thev now •etained £ 463 on that account nendin^ the "result )f this action. The companv claimed also to leduct 2id. from the 4{ù; per ton they had paid on ;be copper ore. This was the plaintiff's case, which Mr Pollard proceeded to sum UP; Mr. Rigby, Q.C., then opened the case for the Jrustees, observing that the case was one of con- jiderable importance, but he should try and cur- 5ail hi3 remarks as much as possible. He should first direct the attention of the court to the ques- tion as to what were the actual rights of the parties. 3e contended that not a single sixpence had been prer demanded from the plaintiff by way of rates, >11 that was asked of her being the tolls due by her linder the leases, bv means of which she was jenant of the property under the Earl cf Jersey md the Duke of Beaufort. These tolls amounted to 4d. per ton for every Swansea weigh of coal that should be shipped to sea from the Manor of Kiivey, and fd. per ton upon certain goods bassing over the Tennant Canal, or any part thereof. The harbour dues were quite another thing, and were levied upon the traders using the harbour accommodation, and not upon the plaintiff. The bargain made by the agreement scheduled to the Act of 1874 was that Mrs. Tennant should pay ttt per ton upon the goods passing over the canal, and whether that was fair or not he had nothing to do with. It was the bargain made at the time, and Mrs. Tennant must pay accordingly. Adverting to the wharf which it was contended by the plaintiff had been granted to her free of tolls, he argued that only a right of easement bad been given her, and he argued that the trustees had a perfect right to moor vessels opposite the plain- tiff's quay if they found it unoccupied by any 7essel waiting to discharge at the wharf. Se observed that the dock belonged to the trustees, subject to the conditions laid down by Act of parliament, and all the plaintiff had acquired in it was an easement of a more or le?s limited character. With regard to the toll charged for shipping into barges, he pointed out that the trustees had not granted the plaintiff the use of the dock free, except in so far as she was entitled to have a singie hne of ships lying along- side the quay, and that, therefore, if barges were used for hipping or unshipping purposes the rate was properly leviable, because the ships could and Should discharge directly on to the whirf. I The learned counsel had not concluded his observations at four o'clock, when the further I beating of the case was adjourned until Saturday. THIRD DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. In the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division prfOIC Mr. Justice Eiekewich), on Saturday the further hearing of this action, which is brought by Mrs. Tennant, the owner of a large qU1.Dity of iand close to Swansea Harbour against the Swansea Harbour Trustees, to obtain the specific performance of two ngreements, dated the 30th of April, 1874, and the 16th of July, 1878. by which the trustees acquired a considerable amount of land at Port Tennant, Swansea, was resumed, Air. Hemming, Q.C., Air. Pollard, and Mr. Beau- mont represented the plaintiff, whilst Mr. Rigby, 11 Y. Q.C., Air. Warmington. Q.C., and Mr. C. James appeared for the defendant. Mr. Rigoy. Q.C.. having concluded his opening of the defendants' case, Mr. Warmington, Q.C., called, in support therpof, Mr. Charles William Baker, the steward of the Manor of Kilvey, to give evidence as to the boun- dari" i:iat manor. Mr. Hen-.itwig, QC., for the plaintiff, objected I to such eviUiino. ¡-.ping given, on the ground that the witness did not speak from his own know- ledge, but from report, or, as it was legally termed, he wanted to give evidence of reputation.—After considerable argument, during the course ot which a number of authorities were quoted on both sides for and against the evidenca being admitted, his Lordship decided to accept the evidence.—Witness then said, in reply to Mr. Warmington. that he produced a map (which was handed to the judge;, which, showed the boundaries of the Alanor of Kiivey. Cross-examined by Mr. Hemming, Q.C.: He did not know the customs of the Manor of Kiivey, but did know its boundaries of his own knowledge, He had not had occasion to sen.rch up the rolls of the manor, and, therefore, did not know what thp customs were. The Tennant. Canal passed through a portion of the Manor of Kilvey. This being the only evidence called on behalf of the Swansea Harbour Trustees, Air. Warrington suairi.-u up their case. He said his clients were not there as plaintiffs, they were not suing for harbour rates or dues against Mrs. Tennant, or her traders, but were there simply as reversioners under the old lease of the Earl of Jersey, and under the agreement of 1874. If the trustees had been suing for rates or dues, the ques- tion of the proper publication of the rates would perhaps have had to be considered. But that was not the position at all. lrs. Tennant was the suing party, and his reply to her claim was that what the trustees had done had not been a breach of the Act under which they were incorporated. If the barges which the plaintiff said should not be taxed were to be exempt they must be placed in one line or tier close n the wharf, according to the agree- ment, and no spread aii over the dock. It was obvious that if the plaintiff was to be allowed to have as many barges free of tax as she chose lying alongside the ships moored to her wharf, she might occupy with them almost the entire dock. This, of eourse, the trustees could not submit to, ns such a procedure would amount tr> the plaintiff having the entire use of the Prince of Wales Dock. All the plaintiff had it the east end of the Prince of Wnies Dock was an ordinary right of easement, and there was nothing in the agreement of 1374 which prevented the defendants from mocring vessels opposite to plaintiff's wharf, if it was not occupied by any ship discharging cargo on her premises. As long as the defendants did nothing to obstruct the plaintiff in the exercise of her right of easement no complaint rould be made against, them, and,as a matter of fact, no such com- plaint bad been made. Ail tiie plaintiff had said was that if the defendants did moor vessels oppo- site her wharf she had a right to remove them, but she did not contend that the trustees had com- muted any such act. Mr. Hemming. Q.C., then replied on the whole case He said his client prayed t.)r the specific. erfor- mance of the two agreements in their entirely. He also asked for a declaration tiiat the defendants had been in default, in not granting the plaintiff a l-3ase of her wharf, as they agreed to do, that the rates which had been levied were excessive in amount, and that all rates that, had been demanded were illegal for want of proper publication. The plaintiff further asked for an injunction to restrain the defendants from mooring vessels against the quay opposite her wharf, and for general damages for the wrongs they hnd done. His Lordship reserved his judgment.

1-'-LOSS OF A CARDIFF-LADEN…

! DARING BURGLARY NEAR BRISTOL.

ACCIDENTS IN THE FOOTBALL…

MURDEROUS ASSAULT ON A POLICE-OFFICEH.…

Advertising

! THE TITHE AGITATION. I

A PLEASANT REXr AUDIT.

iTWENTY-ECVK PER CENT. IiEDUC!TION…

I'CRICKHOWELL.

IMONTGOM RHYS HIRE.

A CHESHIRE CLERGYMAN'S BALANCE-SHEET.

LLANGELER. !

CLYDEY, PEMBROKESHIRE.

LL AND YFR [OG, CARDIGA NSHIRE.

ST. i >AYID'S.

LLANEGRYN.

LLANFAlH NANT-Y-GOF.

---SUNDAY SCHOOL FESTIVAL…

A BISHOP'SEXPI':RIEC¡': AS…

FIRE AT A GLASGOW OIL WAREHOUSE.

---------. ALARMING FIRE AT…

AN EXTRAORDINARY WALKING FEAT.

I NAVAL VOLUNTEER ARTILLERY…

SWA.VSE. OL BOARD.I

DEATH SENTENCES RESPITED.

LOCAL COMMISSIONS.

FOOTBALL.

I N-. GNOTES.

BILLIARDS.

TRADE REPORTS.

THE WEEK'S MARKETS.

GAZETTE NEWS.

Advertising

Family Notices

Advertising

AN UNWELCOME VISITOR.

THE GllAlN TRADE.

Advertising