Papurau Newydd Cymru

Chwiliwch 15 miliwn o erthyglau papurau newydd Cymru

Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

15 erthygl ar y dudalen hon

CARNARVON COUNTY COURT. !

Newyddion
Dyfynnu
Rhannu

CARNARVON COUNTY COURT. Tuesday. — Befo;e his Honour Judge Horatio Lloyd. | A CARXARVOX SHIPPING DISPUTE. n this case, the plaintiff, James Williams, master mariner. Moriah-s ju ire, Carnarvon, sued Capt. John Huberts Anglesey Inn, Carnarvon, for the sum of £W 4s. balance of wages (lllL a.- ma-ter of the schooner Emily Wynne" from May to November, ISS.o.—Mr. Allanson was for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. T. Roberts for defendant, who had a counter claim fo- £ ■< ll. tjl., in re^pact of money received by p'aiutiff >n behalf of the defendant and not ac- counted for, but which plaintiff claimed to be en- titled to retain, they being moneys received as freights for overplus cargo and a gratuity of one guinea on a cargo from the Tyne to Edord- The plaintiff, James Wil iams, said that in May, he joined the Emily Wtjnns, defendant's ship, as master. When he returned to Carvarvon after a voyage to Guernsey, he lodged his accounts and vouchers with defendant, the balance due to him He received on account, the defendant keeping the books, stating that he wanted to go over the additions therein. There was then no dispute as to the items. On the next voyage he went to Kirkwall, and on his return, the defendant said that he intended laying the ship up. as the times were bad. The balance due to plaintiff <n that, v oyage was £ 1 odd, the total balance now due bein^ £lOb. He (plaintiff) never received any money on account from defendant except the £2. He claimed that he was entitled either to the freight of overplus cargo, or to the gratuities received.— Cross-examined—witness said that he agreed with Capt. Roberts to take £4 4s. a month wages as master on the first voyage, but, when he went to Kirkwall, his wages were 1'4 10s. a month. There was no agreement whatever ns to the gratuities or the freights of overplus cargo. Plaintiff was then examined at some length by Mr. Roberts as to the accounts. He admitted having received a sum of from Capt, Roberts, in addition to the referred to, He had given credit for the in one part of his account, but it did not appear in the account when balanced. He had always been in the habit of re- ceiving either the gratuities or the freights of over- plus cargo, but there was no agreement between liim and the defendant as to what he was to receive. — Mr. J. T. Roberts said that the defendant claimed several sums which had been received by the plaintiff. One was a sum of Os. 6d. received by him as overplus freight at Portsmouth; 9s. at G uernsey £1 lis. 6d.. part of overplus freight received at Kirkwall. In the latter port the plaintiff received £J Os. n,J, overplus freight; but although he now claimed that he was entitled to such moneys, he had actually givrn credit to defendant for HI< retaining the remaining £1 lis. (id., which defendant now claimed.—Examined by Mr. Roberts as to his accounts, plaintiff .admitted that an item of £t 2s., which he claimed as moneys paid for pilotage was also included in a broker's bill. Another item of 2s. charged for pilotage was a gratuity which he had given.—Mr. J. T. Roberts, in his address, sail that it was not the custom for masters of vessels to be allowed either gratuities or overplus, unless it was specifically stipulated in the agreement and charter party, and as the plaintiff had acknowledged that no such special agreement was ever made between him and the defendant he could not recover any such claim.—Capt. John Robert-, the defendant, said the owner invariably took the overplus whether there was a gratuity or not. James Williams received £1 5s. wages per month nett. He himself (witness) had been captain or foreign-going vessels for many years, aid during all those years he never had any overplus granted Iiirr«. He had never been in such trouble and liumbug before.—Cross-examined by Mr. Allanson you have told us, Capt. Roberts, that you never had a dispute with anyone about any of your vessels; now, is it not true that we had to issue an execution before a captain, who was our client, could get his money from you?—Witness: What do you say, what do you mean?—The question was repeated, lilt the witness made no audible reply.—Several questions put to witness were met with very un- gracious replies, which led Mr. Allanson to ask him whether he was sober then or not. — Witness: Are yon sober, I should like t.o know. Never mind, I shall have something against you by and by (loud laughter) Captain Williams, Uxbridge-square, said the owner always got the overplus, and was also entitled to the gratuities unless there was a special agreement to the contrary.—Mr. Ellis Roberts, broker, Port- dinorwic, said ho had had the management of vessels for some years. The overplus invariably be- longed to the owner, and so did the gratuities, un- ions there was an agreement to the contrary.—Mr. Mlanson, for the plaintiff, said that no evidence had been given against that of the captain. The plain- tiff stated he always received the overplus or gratui- ties, and Captain Roberts' evidence was of no use as against the plaintiff's, and indeed the first moment that Captain Roberts went into the box he told an untruth, for he swore he never was in any trouble of this before.—The plaintiff's accounts were care- fully gone through and several items were crossed out by his Honour, who ultimately gave a ver- dict to the following effect: —The plaintiff's claim of would be reduced to £8 18" the sums of £1 2s. and 2s. charged for pilotage and 2s. error in account being disallowed. On the counter claim his Honour allowed defendant £5 Is., namely, £1 which he paid the plaintiff, Os. Gd. overplus freight at Portsmouth, £1 lis. Gd, part of overplus freight at Kirkwall, and 9s, overplus freight at G aernsey. CLAIM FOR RENT. Mes srs. Griffith Jones and Son, auctioneers, Car- narvon, claimed from Thomas Williams, Clarke- si reet, the sum of 9s. 7d. in respect of rent said to be due for No. 10, Castle Ditch, Carnarvon, from the 29th May last to the 12th August last.—Mr. J. T. Roberts appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Allan- hon on behalf of the defendant.-Griffith Jones said lie remembered defendant coming to him on the 17th Hay last asking for the house in question, which he liad taken a great fancy to. Witness wanted £14 a year as rent at first, but ultimately consented to take and to make some improvements in the liou.se. Defendant took it by the year, and witness agreed to put a new oven in the house, and paint it outside and a little inside, and also to give him a quantity of paperhangings for the wall. Defendant made no complaint about the house during the time he was there, but his wife told him that business was very bad there, and that £10 a year was quite enough for the house. On the 12th August last, defendant's wife came to plaintiff's shop and with.out any more ado, threw the rent upon the counter, and went ont growling.—Cross-examined: Neither the defendant nor his wife came to him on any of the days following their first occupancy of the house to Complain of it. Defendant's wife told him, on the day she gave up the keys of the house, that the drains were out of order, and that the house was not fit to live in, but at the commencement of their term of tenancy, she praised the house very much.— Several witnesses were called on behalf of the plaintiff's, and among them Henry Parry, Chapel- street, and Mr. Rogers, the inspector of nuisance for the Carnarvon Corporation, who testified as to the state of the drains. The latter said he never was cent for by defendant's wife to inspect the drains, hut he had seen them, and they were, to all appear- ance, in good condition. with the exception of the tap. On beinjf cross-examined, witness .-aid there was an open drain outside lite house, which could have been put right quite easily, and as long a" that lasted it would render the house rather bad for habitation.—Judgment was given for the plaintiff. RELATIVES QUARRKLIXG. Griffith Williams, Fron Chwith. L-anddeiniolen, sued Youlk W. Foulkes, Bryn yr Efail, Llanddein- iolen, for the recovery of a sum of £24 13s. 8d., fur theep sold and for meeting a bill upon Messrs, Pugh. Jones and Company's Bank, Carnarvon, which bill amounted to £13 I:2s,-The defendant presented a counter claim for £12 Is. 6;}c1 which was made up of several sums alleged to be due for the use of defendant's hay-cutting machine, for meat supplied by him from time to time, and also for the value cf two sheep found dead on plaintiff's field.—Mr. J. L'ryn Roberts appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Allanson for the defendant.—It appears that Grif- fith Williams agreed to sell defendant an unlimited number of sheep at 17s. each from off the field, as they became fit to be slaughtered. He rented land at Treborth, frim Mr. Richard Davies, upon which land he grazed the sheep, and the farm bailiff at Tre- horth, Richard Thomas, paid him a Certain sum for allowing a number of his own sheep to graze there- on. When Thomas's sheep became ready for sale, I.e -'ced Williams to sell them along with his own, •which Williams did, and plaintiff also became surety to Thomas for Foulkes, who had bought the sheep, a bill upon the bank being executed. This bill, when it became due, was paid by Williams, and now formed a portion of the claim which he brought against the defendant.—For the de- fence, it was urged that .Foulkes never autho- rised Williams to pay the bill, nor even to become his surety, and that Williams paid the hill at the bank in order to add to the other lia- bilities of the defendant, and so to make a grand sweep upon him for the whole amount. As to the c venter-claim, two of the sheep which defendant bad r-xed upon were found dead upon the field before he took possession of them also a quantity of meat had been supplied plaintiff by defendant, and lastly defendant's hay-cutting machme had been j engaged by the plaintiff during two or three differ- ent seasons.—It trarnpirdd tint the said hay -cuttin machine belonged to the defendant and his fat her, and therefore this last charge could not be included in the counter-claim. -His Honour said that he was satisfied that Williams was mixed up in the sheep transaction, and that he paid the money on behalf of the defendant, which would give defendant ground of action against Williams.—.Judgment was therefore given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, y¡¿., £21 1:;3. 8:1., and al- > for the plaintiff on the counter-claim. SMALL CASKS. J. Owen shop-keeper, Carniel, Lliudwrog, sued Ann and Kvan Hughes. Vroudirion, Carmel, for a sum of money said to be due for goods supplied to the defendant, Ann Hughes, during her previous husband's lifetime. Tie male defendant, when he married her, got a houseful of furniture with her. — Judgment for the defendant with no costs. The same plaintiff sued Robert Lloyd, Brynteg, Carmel, for los. for goods supplied.—Judgment for plaintiff for 10s.—Mr. Allanson appeared in both E.i Iv" I'M KNT CASK. Richard Owen, Braichdrygwr, Llandwrog, sought to eject Humphrey Williams, Snowdon-streer, Peny- groes,from the house jvhicli he occupied.—Mr. Carter appeared for tIt. plaintiff, and Mr. C. II. for the defendant.—Tnis was an adjourned case partly heard at the previous court, and was of a very peculiar nature, [t appears that a man named David Owen bought the house in question some years ago, giving a promisory note for the purchase money. This promisory note was signed by Owen and Hum- phrey Williams, the present defendant, the latter thereby becoming a party to the note. D. Owen died in January last without having paid the promisory note, and Richard Owen, the present plaintiff, be- came his executor, and in that capacity sought to get possession of the house in Snowdon-street by ejecting H. Williams therefrom. The latter claimed the house as his own, his uncle having bought it for him, promising to pay the purchase money a" soon as convenient, but he unfortunately died in January last, leaving the purchase money still unpaid. The case having been partly heard at the last court, his Honour then decided to adjourn it and suggested that the solicitors to the parties should do their ut- most to get the matter settled amicably.— Mr. Carter now said that shortly after the last court a letter was sent to Mr. C. II, Rees, defendant's solicitor, offering the house to defendant if he would only re- lease the plaintiff, Richard Owen, from all liabilities in connection with it, or else allow him to remain in the house as tenant upon the usual terms.—Mr. C. j H.Reessent a. reply to the effect that defendant should remain in the house as a tenant pending the settlement of the case by arbitrators, but as the sum which defendant claimed for improvements which he said he had effected upon the house was con- sidered to be too high the arrangement collapsed and the case had to be proceeded with.—Hum- phrey Williams, the defendant, said that David Owen was his uncle, and had purchased I the house some years ago for him from one Robert Williams, As far he understood, the was bought for him. The conditions of the sale were that David Owen was to pay for the house at the end of two years. Witness was under the impression that he was the owner, and that his late uncle was to pay the purchase money. From the time the house was bought until 1885, witness paid all the interest on the money, and also the rates and taxes upon the house. He had altered and improved the house, and had spent about in doing ,0. He spent this money upon the house believing it was his own. The plaintiff offered in settlement for the improve- ments carried out by him, but he did not consider that that sum was sufficient. lie did not he lr a word during the lifetime of his uncle that lead him to think that the house was not his own. He did not know why his uncle did not pay the purchase money —Cross-examined He paid JM 10s. a year as inter- est upon the purchase money. No one ever asked him for rent, and his uncle never said a word about rent to him.—His Honour said there could be no question as to the ownership of this house. It was clear, to his mind, that plaintiff's brother. David Owen, bought the house, and most likely he told defendant he could go and live in it and pay the in- terest on the purchase money, and that lie could have the house by paying for it by instalment or otherwise, he (D. Owen; iu the meantime, allowing the purchase money to be outstanding upon a pro- missory note, thus making the defendant pay in- terest upon the purchase money in lieu of rent. The note had not as yet been paid, and the house not having been expressly bequeathed to defendant by his deceased uncle, tha executor had a. right to claim possession of the house as it had not been paid for by Williams. He would therefore enter judgment for the plaintiff. CLAIM FOR INJURIES: Q'JARRKLSOMK tJUARRY- MKN". William John Foulkes, Veliu Bach, Dinorwic, sought to recover £4 from J. Daniel Williams, Yelin Vawr Cottage, Dinorwic (both quaivymen), as com- pensation for injuries received at the hands of the defendant.—Mr. Allanson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. C. H. Rees defended.—Mr. Allanson, in his opening address, said that the claim was made as compensation for injuries received at the hands of Williams, who brutally assaulted plaintiff whilst the two were on their way to the quarry on the morning of the 4th August last. The quarrel arose out of an affray respecting the bad conduct of William's child, who damaged plaintiff's garden, and other- wise annoyed Foulkes. — The plaintiff said that on Thursday, the 3rd August last, he overheard defendant's little girl teli her mother that he had beaten her. He thereupon went to de- fendant's house and contradicted this, but the mother told him that her husband would give him a jolly" good thrashing the following morning. Next morning he started to the quarry along a road different from the one he usually took, in order to avoid any unpleasantness, but before he got to the qnarry he met defendant and the quarrel and as- sault took place. On meeting they first of all had a conversation, during which defendant accused him of having cruelly beaten his little girl. This con- versation soon led to the assault, defendant trying to strike witness with all his might with a bludgeon which he carried, but witness managed to avoid the ¡ blow and picked up a stone, which he placed in his pocket. Defendant told him to put down the stone and use what had grown with him." Plaintiff having done this, was again violently assaulted by defendant, who rushed at him, upsetting him, and throwing him down, and he rolled down a steep de- clivity covered with sharp pieces of stones, for a distance of twelve to fifteen yards. Witness lost all consciousness for a while, but when he came to him- self, he found defendant pulling away with all his might at his hair, but ultimately Williams went away leaving him lying on the ground. From that place he went to the Dinoiwie Quarries Hospital, where his wounds were dressed. lie continued to visit the hospital for a month, less two days, and was out of work during the whole of that time. He was out of work from the 4th August until the 31st August, and all through the injuries done him in the assault by the defendant. He usually earned about £4 a month, and would probably have earned that sum that month had he been working. Cross- examined The reason why he went a different way to his work that morning was that he had been told defendant intended to waylay and assault him. He did not beat the girl at all. J. D, Williams had a bludgeon in his hand when witness met him. He was quite sure it was not a hammer, but to all ap- pearance it was a heavy bludgeon. He did not defendant to put the hammer down and fight like a man, neither was he the first in the fray.—Dr. Hughes, of the Dinorwic Hospital, did tell him it would W no use his bringing a case against defen- dant into a court of iaw because he would not re- cover damages — J. G. Griffiths, Llanberis, said he noticed defendant starting to his work on the 4th August, about ten minutes before plaintiff. If he wanted to go to work as soon as possible he would have been half way to the quarry before plaintiff started. J. J. Foulkes said defendant had told him on the 2nd August that it was a very good thing for • plaintiff he was net at home on the .Saturday pre- vious, for he would have half killed him. He said he was "sure of him'' and that lie "did not care what he did when his temper was up and would not mind the consequences. Dr. Thomas, of the Dinorwic Hospital, described the wounds found upon plaintiff. There was one lacerated wound two inches long on his face, and several oth-rs of smaller dimensions, which could not have been caused by a man's fist.—Other witnesses having been called, Mr. C. II. Rees characterised this as an absurd and paltry case, and eon!ended that the affray was a fair s(a:id-up fight in which the pla'.ntiff found himself inferior to the defendant in the "noble art of self- defence," and consequently sought consolation for his wounded feelings and bruises in the county court. He had bsaten a little girl eleven years of age most unmercifully, and the next morning plain- tiff and the defendant (the girl's fat her) came to- gether on the road to the quarry, and had a eonver- sation before the sciifHe took place. Plant iff told defendant to put down the hammev which he car- ried and they would fight it out," and thereupon the fight began. Both fell on the ground, defendant falling under plaintiff, but afterwards plaintiff managed to get up and renew the attack, and the two rolled together down a steep declivity. When plaintiff told Dr. Hughes, of the Dinorwic Hospital, what had occurred, that gentleman advised him not to bring an action in a court of law, for he believed he would not recover any damages.—The defendant, J. D. Williams, said he had the handle of a eledge hammer in his hand on the morning of the 4th August. He was taking it up to the quarry to be used. He corroborated Mr. Rees's statement, and I said that when the fight was over, and he liadstartel away from the scene of action, plaintiff challenged him back to fight him once more. As witness would not turn back plaintiff said "he would be sure of him again.Cross-examined: They rolled down t >gether, and plaintiff was pummelling away at him as hard as ever he could all the time. Plaintiff was never unconscious dur- ing the whole affray, but on the contrary, was rather too much alive (loud laughter).- Several wit- nesses were, called to give evidence on b-h-dt of the defendant, one of whom said that the first thing he saw on approaching the battle ground that morn- ing was Williams's head disappearing down the mountain like anything (laughter).—His Honour remarke 1 that this was solely a question of damages He did not entirely acquit plaintiff from all blame, but it was quite clear that the defendant was the aggressor. Defendant apparently nursed some little resentment towards plaintiff on account of a quarrel respecting the children, and he perhaps waylaid him and the fight ensued. He would give verdict for plaintiff for two guineas and costs on that amount. —♦

ELECTION OF COMMITTERS. !

A VACANT V.,

THE VOELYDON FERRY.

THE MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.

THE QUEEX'S JUBILEE : OIU)EFi…

CAMAUYON HARBOUR TUUSf.

ACKNOWLEDGING PUBLIC SERVICES!…

Advertising

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING| IN ELEMENTARY…

LATE S.HOP-HOUS, A -r HOLYHEAD.

THE AX.TI-TITITE WAR.

CHARGE OF HOUSEBREAKING NEAR,…

LORD DENBIGH AND THE, IfOPE.

[No title]