Denbighshire Free Press

Saturday's Proceedings. Upon resuming on S-tur'ay morning, the ,first witness called W,u. Mr William Nun- rierley, of Keuiirk, Ellesmere, who aaid he farmed nearly 1,206 acres of land, and had had about 4:1 years' experience iu seeding own botn temporary and permanent Pasture. In 1834 he was awarded the prize ■of the Royai Agricultural Society tor the best managed dairy farm. In July he had inspected Ystrad Farm, and in Cae Glas field found an excellent et-o,) of gouti quality -hay, estimated at over two tons per acre, in first rate condition and there was every prospect of good permanent pasture. The tenant was fully entitled to C2 per acre as | Specified in the lease; probably more. Cae Ryegrass was of beautiful herbage and grazing well. Tue claim made by Messrs Taylor and Ellis wzts a very reasonable i one; if anything, it was a very low price; he based this e^i^ste upon what he actually saw grooving on th) farm. Cae Ardd had an excellent crop of good (juality clover. 0.-10 Walk had an excellent crop, Worth over JS2 an acre, and he had never seen a better lot of seed in his life. The <samo remark applied to Cae Mawndir. After endorsing what bad been said by .witnesse as to other fields, he said the tenants were a riply justifisd in making the claim they had done. Cross-examined: Witness said he had Jkoo-va seeds at 15i per acre turn out into iboaatifal pasture. Most of tne fields ap- peared to be well treated by the new tenants. 10 his opinion about 100 acres of 'hay would be a fair proportion in a farm of this kind. I 111At this stage Mr Bankes asked whether -the other side COLlld lot niru have a cipy of certain letters widen they had promised to give him. Snrely lie deserved that, con- aiderafcion at their hands ? Mr Graham I don't know. I think you deserve no consideration whatever. You ,refused us permission to go over the farm, but if you indicate what letters you want yoo can have them. EVIDENCE CIT MR FRANK LLOYD, WREXHAM. Mr Frank Lloyd, the well-kuown auotioneer and valuer, Wrexham, was next called. Mr Graham I ùo:¡'t think there is any need to introduce Mr Frank Lloyd to ycu, Mr Umpire. The UtJlpire: No. I don't think so. Examined by Mr Graha n Mr Fra ik Lloyd said that under the tenancy of Messrs Taylor and Ellis he was in the first Instance acting for both Col Hughes and the tenant in tne matter. As a matter of fact he actually found Messrs Taylor and Ellis, and introduced them to Col Hughes, and made the valuation as between them. In the lease he was nominated as sole arbitrator in case any dispute arose, and .annually made an inspection of the farm with the exception of one year. In his opinion the farm was well farmed, and he believed that he told Mr Francis that; it Was worth 5 s an acre more at the termina- tion of the tenancy than when Messrs Taylor and Ellis entered into possession. Indeed be did not thiok he would be far wrong if he had said 10j per acre more. Mr Graham: You were the arbitrator approved of by Col Hughes ill the Witness Yes, and at his own su^ge^non. And you communicated to him your opinion of these people's farrnili,, ?-'Yes. Mr Francis came to mo and we discussed it &t tea in my house in the course of a private conversation, and to my surprise that matter privately mentioned was made use of as shewn in an affidavit. That affidavit was in connection with an action taken wnich went to show that you were an improper person to act as arbitra- tor?—Yea. that I prejudged the case. The whole thing ar.jse Irom a private conversa- tion, and wuich, in my opinion, was a very mean thing to do. And because you gave your opinion in a Private conversation to Mr Francis of these People's farming, JOIl were objected to as arbitrate.- ? — Taat is o. As to the- quality of the permanent pasture, did you inspect all tne fields ?—I was asked ano.it 12 months ago, by Mr Taylor, to go over the fields, and point cut anything that, ought to be done, that hfld not been done, and my opinion, generally, I of the pasture, and it I would advise as to whether some of the fields should be ploughed up. I sail they were excellent pasture, and trial; it would be a pity to .plough any of thmn up, as it would depro- -,ciate the vilue of Una farm, and that it, would be better ;ot! Ooi Hughes to pay the tenants e2 Per afcre. That was iu June of 'last ye.ir, aud the consequence was that there WAS no laud to sow in wheat. other- wise they would have ploughed up 50 acres. That course was adopted 00 Your advice because the pasture was so good ?-Yes no man has got better pasture, and no man can find a better. It is not to be found He had a casual h,ok at the farm in Fobru- ary last, and he called the attention of Mr Brown, ot Ridley Hall, and other gentlemen to a field of clover, and asked them if they had ever seen a better. In reply to Mr B.mkes, witness said that when Mr Franch called at his house there happened to be no u. e in the ollice, and he was invited into the house. There was not the slightest intrusion on Mr Francis' --part. And you expressed views on that occa- sion which were put in an alliJavit by Mr Francis ?—Yea. And a motion was made in court to remove you as art arbitrator (-Yes. And you consented to an injunction to remove you as an arbitrator as you had formed t*. bias?—I knew nothing at all about the injunction until the day before it was coming OD, and I could not go up to London otherwise I would have done. Mr Graham remarked that the action Was not brought against Mr Lloyd. but againat Messrs Taylor and Ellis to prevent; Tthem having Mr Lloyd as umpire. Mr Lloyd was not a party to the action. Proceeding, witness said the affidavit was allowed to go by unanswered, but this was not bis riinit. As to the farm there was no better iarm in tlui Vale of Civyd nor in England than Ystrad when it was taken by inicisr-i Taylor and Ellis, and he could not describe it as laud merely farmed on the surface. And were Messrs Taylor and Ellis then good farmers should not say they were bad ones. Were yen of opinion then that Mr Ellis knew nothing about farming ?—I don't think so. Mr Taylor was an ordinary good farmer. Witness, proceeding, admitted that he had written a letter, on 13th January, 1901, to toe following effect: "I am rather afraid that it will be a difficult task to take the farm oil Mr Taylor's hands, as lie knows absolutely nothing about farming, un-i :seems to be altogether in a lUaddle about; it." -=" Now," remarked Mr Bankes, is that letter consistent with tho evidence you gave just now t .at Mr Taylor is a fairly good farmer?—T. at was six yean ago, an ( unaay things have happened since. Mi- a I Taylor had a good tutor after that- Ho took the farm on his own, in 1900, but had I a little help afterwards. ]ie-exam'mtd by Mr Graham, witness said it was his honest opinion that the farm was worth [}4 per acru more when he men- I tioned the fact to Mr Francis. If Col Hughes had the farm in the same state ns it was seven years ago it would be <iidiui;lt to get anyone to take it; iii-stituoh that people did not so much nowadays require ploughed farmR, because milk r nel mutton were the staple commodities in the market, nrid pasture was required for this purpose. It would be impossible to farm Ystrad now as Col Hughes farmed it. and make money on it. While in pasture it could be Jet a hundred times over. Speaking as to the engagement of Mr W Ravenseroft by Messrs Taylor and Ellis, witness said he spoke very seriously to the tenants, a? Col Hughes was cri,ss to him a'JO ut t»><* farm. The result ot this was the etnu»:eii;ent of Mr Raveryscroft, and the farm improved in consequence. Mr Taylor had been use-l to n smaller farm, and could not manage Ystrad very well. However, it was afterwards so nanaged that it im- proved, and was left in good heart and good condicion. The land was perfect for dairy purposes, but the buildings were not very well adapted for the same purpose. There was not a better dairy farm in Wales or England. In a conversation with Col Hughes, the letter told witness that he was vt-ry pleased to be able to lot it as two firms during his lifetime, us the tenants were more likely to stay there. WORKMEN'S 'EVIDENCE. Richard Hughes and Job Jones, two men who bad been employed en the farm, were called as witnesses, au i speko as to tne manure on the farm and the rotation of the crops. This closed the case for Messrs Taylor and El IN. OPENING THE CASE FOR COL HUGHES. Mr Bankes then proceeded to open the case on behalf of Cot Hughes, and said the case was one ot considerable importance, because if tilt) claims made out were allowed it would tend to inereaso similar claima of tenants against landlords in the future. It was not his wish with regard to the professional witnesses called on the other side to in any way attack them, because they might genuinely and fairly consider that this farm did look well, but the really important tniur. to be looked at in a case of this character was how did the farm look now in comparison to what it looked whan tlus tenants entered into possession. Upon this point he should call witnesses who knew the farm well in 1893, and who saw it in later years, during 19031-5. These people saw the depreciation there, and were consequently in a far better position to judge than those who only saw it in 19)¡. 'I'hr", was not a single independent, practical agriculturalist in that room or out of it who could say that this farm was not in the highest state of cultivation, and indeed the best farm in the Vale of Clwyd when lot to Messrs Taylor and Ellis. In giving evidence, however, Mr Taylor went ont of his way to say that the farm was not well cultivated; that it was only cultivated on the surface, and admittod that he claimed on its improved state now as compared with its condition when he took it. Counsel had not the slightest hesitation in saying-tbat when Mr Taylor asserted that it was only half cultivated when he took it, he was stating what was absolutely false, what he knew was false, and what every agriculturalist there knew was false. That being so they must look with a great deal of suspicion on ilia evidence on this as well as on other points. Counsel thought that serious attention should be called to his evidence. A number of figures had been put in a3 shewing the crops consumed, the manure put down, and so forth. These figures had been put before the Umpire to save time, so that he might consider them at his leisure. Connsel had taken up that list, and there saw it stated that in 190G 92 acres were in hay. Part of Col I-la,ties' case was that there was too much of the farm in hav, and that the tenants kept between 127 and 130 acres in hay. The I list only shewed the number of acres in hay as 92, but Mr Taylor had to admit in evidence that there was 125 in hay, exclu- ding roots and vetches. The Umpire should consider this somewhat seriously. It was not a mistake of three or four acres, but one of 35 acres. It was incredible that anybody should make such a mistake as this, namely, that there hhould be 127 acres in lay, whereas the list handed in giving the numbers 92 only. This being so all the other evidence given by Mr Taylor should be scrutinised very carefully. Another matter waieh desired calling attention to was that when he put it to Mr Taylor that Cae Ardd was in hay in 1904-5-t» he said he was not sure. After lunch time Mr Taylor re-appeared, and said it was not hay but pasture. After humming and hawiug a great deal Mr 17aylor made a statement to the effect that in 1905 CAe Ardd was entered as being under hay, but un looking over the list i was found that the entry had been altered and written over in pencil. Such boing 30 how could one help infering that after ooasultation with someone or other Mr Taylor had come to the conclusion tnat it would not look well to have the fieid in hay three years running, and that it was oh nged accordingly Mr Graham; I hope yon are not going to suggest that I PUT it in or reflect upon me, Mr Bankes? Mr Bankes: Certainly not; I do not relict upon you. We ail I-U, Mr Graham as a thorough y reliable ",a.. Continuing, Counsel said Mr laylor was shuffling about in regard to tho matter before the lunch interval, but afterwards he stated that tbe field was io pasture in 191)5. Suuh were instances, things counsel desicod to say about Mr Taylor, his evidence, and his conduct as to the lease. Under this the tenants Qoterod into a covenant to keep in repair the buildiriS8 and cottages on the farm, but he was in a position to prove, and it was not disputed, that during the seven yars of their tenancy the tenants had not spent a single farthintc on place. It was true that Col Hugbeswas put to £ 121 expense in this direction which represented whole of the amount spent there, and when Col Hughes did a little about the plice be- fore his daughter's marriage, Mr Taylor thought he was absolved from doing what he had covenanted to do under the agree- ment. Such a statement could only be stated to bp made in the Denbigh Lunatic Asylum to be accepted (laughter). It was most absurd to tHuk that when a tenant had to repair a place once in seven years I that the landlord would do it for him. But as a matter of fapt Co!. Hughes only painted a few railings iu front of the house, and it was a most extraordinary thing that Mr Taylor should go into the box and state that there was no need for him to do t.ho work because the landlord bad done it br him If Mr Taylor thought he could get out of his obligation by stating that Col Hughes made up the cottages ho was very lu,uctl mistaken, and it would be an abso- lut., falsehood to say so. As to tho raannro counsel admitted that a small amount was carted a«ay, but was surprised to find that the price of cbh had been put at 3'1 61 per load; a valuation varying from Is 2I 0J would be auiple. With regard to the permauent pasture tie desired to make tin's obssrratiju. When Col Hugbos got tho farm on his hands be attempted to get tenants in all directions. He decided to diville the farm into two parts. II, took ) the new tenants over the fields in question, but they declined to take the n as per- manent pasture. Together with the valuers the new tenants would be called its wit- nesses, and they would sav that not one of I these fields could be considered by the u its permanent pasture. The value of per- manent pasture was what it represented itself to be to the incoming tenant, anc1 counsel thought he would be able to estab- lish to the Umpire's full satis-faction that the fields in question were noc permanent pastures that any man could be expected to take over as such, consequently in each case they would have to become arable land. Dealing with the reconversion of the cottages into a farmhouse, Mr Binkes argued that although Col Hughes had agreed to pay for certain things he was not responsible, because no plans had been Kubmitted to him consequently the altera- tions had not been approved of by him There could not be any claim against, the land- lord unless they obtained his consent and approval to a plan. The claim of A:10 as to theaporting rightshad been exaggerated ten times over; the whole of the water works did not occupy more than three quarters of an. acre, and this would not rent more than 9d or a lit per annum, ac- cording to the amount paid oy the tenants themselves. Cut Hughes had at all times been anxious about the tenants' method of cultivation of the farm, nud as would be proved in correspondence he early in their tenancy had had reason to complain, and had to call in Major Birch, Mr Henry Williams, Mr John lvallett and others to inspect and report. Concluding his re- marks, Counsel stated that Col Hughes had to i-pcud something like £400 on the farm buildings before he .ould lot it in two holdings, there was to be a decrease iu rental of £ 28 in 0 I per anuum for 14 years; rental of C28 in 0 I per anuum for 14 years; and a: allowance of £:30 a year fur three years to the tenants of Ystrad. Such were some of the facts that he would prove in evidence to be givun during the hearing of the case. COL HUGHES' EVIDENCE. Col Hughes baid he farmed Y strad for 40 years, and in 1883 took the first priza of the Denbighshire and Flintshire Agricul- tural Society for the best ettitivate(I farm. In 1898 it was visited by the British Farmers Dairy Association. Ha went in for close cropping, and used a steam cultivator a great deal, and ploughed to a depth of nine or ten inches. From IS to 20 tons of green stuff was continually raised to the acre. During the tenancy of Messrs Taylor and Ellis he had frequently ob- served the treatment of the farm, aud the root crops were certainly not very clean, and daring the tenancy he asked Major Birch and his son to see to it. This would be in 1901, and Mr Henry Williams, of PlasywarJ, saw it in 1902, and both were cal ed in specially in 1903. The reason he sent for these gentlemen was that Cae Glas was in an awful statf, and he desired to have professional opinion about it. During the tenancy he did his best to encourage the tenants. It was suggested by Mr Frank Lloyd that they improved the farm by 5s per acre. What do you say ?-To the coiitrary. Do you mean to say that they depreci- ated its value by 5s per acre?—I do; that at least. Proceeding, witness said he believed the manure to Cae Glas was carted from Llwyn Farm, and as regards the claim for laying that field down in permanent pasture, it was an impossible one. As to the condi- tion of the field when they got it, there could be only one opinion, and with regard to Cow Hay Field he did not objact to the claim, because it was the usual thing. As to Cae Glas, that field was perfectly clean for the tenants, and fifty acres had been laid down in permanent pasture; the seeds for which were ordered by Mr Lloyd, and paid for by witness. The selection of the seeds was left to Mr Lloyd, and witness was perfectly satisfied with them. As regards the cultivation of Cow Hay, he always considered it very much wrong that a field should be mown four times in three years in the year 1903 it was mown twice. He recollected the fact perfectly well. Mr Graham: Was it good husbandry to mow this field four times in thiee years ? Col Hughes: Dreadful, Continuing, he said that Llwyu Park was very dirty. On one occasion Messrs Taylor and I Ellis bad 60 men, and witness gave in- structions to his head woodman to send 8 men to assist in the hay and Hfterwards in the turnips. Tnis was in 1904. The field was now quite a different one to what it was at the end of claimants' tenancy, and this he attributed to the basic slag that Mr Armstrong had put on it. He would have considered it an insult to any- one to ask them to take this field as permanent pasture. Speaking of Cae Ardd, Col Hughes said the seeds in this field were put down by him in 1900, and he were for one year, and believed it was only grazed once in seven years, as the seeds were temporary seeds only. It was certainly not a field which he could oiler to the new tenant as permanent pasture, and as a matter of fact it bad been let as arable. In regard to Cae Pella a claim of £ 26 was made against him tor permanent pasture. The now tenant and himself did not consider it permanent pasture, and it was ploughed np at once. Cae Mawndir, in respect of which £ 29 10s was claimed, looked beautiful, but it was not pasture, and could not be let as such. It was let as arable, and was arable. Col Hug les said that cottages so often referred I to were originally a farmhouse, which was ma.Je into four cottages and a laundry and in the lease it was provided that he should pay half the cost if they were re- converted into a larmhouso, on condition that a plan would be submitted and ap- proved of by him. He had no plans, how- ever, and he was not askei to agree to I anything being done except to have a bath, lavatory, and range put in the house. He agreed to pay half the cost of taese, aad there had been no suggestion that he should pay hair share of anything else. Mr Banker: And there is nothing to justify a claim of zCl75 in respect of this work, or anything like it?—No. What would be a liberal estimate for the three-quarter acre shooting for the two years ? I ignore that claim altogether. May I take it that they would not get 10d for the sport in t -o year.-i ?-No. Let me ask you about the division of the farm. Would it be easier to let it as one or two? In two. If it were in the state I left it I would get more rent for it in two. I And it was necessary to spend a lot of money on the farm before you could let it? —Yes. The cottages and buildings were in a very bad state, and £ 120 would not out thelll right. Tais was owing to a breach of the covenant by the tenants. In regard to the allegation made that he had painted the railing-s, and used tar, &c., and done work which the tenants had to do, he denied tho tratti of that assertion. AH he did. was to paint a little around the house. The tenants had certainly not I I carried out their covenant in regard to repairing fences round Llwyn. A great deal ot money was being spent ou tJelU ( now. He claimed £ 14 in respect of this, whilst new ioaees, which were uecessary j for the proper cultivation of the farm, and j this cost 1- 21. This, however, he did not ciaira. £ 40 had to be spent on altering the buildings at Llwyn. The farm house had to be altered very considerably, and not a soul had been in it for bix months The cost of tnilll had been put down at ROO, but XIIO would not cover it. I Having spent all this mnnpy on the Vlac. were you able to get £ 700 a year foe it a before ?—Not quite. There in an annual loss of JE28 4 on it, I believe ?-Yek;, it is equivalent, 1 believe, to the district rate. And water was taken to this farm, I .believe, at a cost of about £UO?- Ye. These farms are now let for 14 years at a decrease of £ 28 14s a ye-ir in rental. Is that it ?-It is so. And in addition to the decreased rent for the 14 years, you agreed to allow the y L, Ystrad tenant £ 30 for three years?—Yes. Generally speaking, what wa-i the state of tne farm in regard to dirt when Messrs Taylor and Ellis went out?—They cleared a portion of Cow Hay field, 13 acres. It was thoroughly well cleaned, and I wrote to Ravenseroft to say how thoroughly it was done. That brought a splendid crop of oats last year. Bit as to fanning gener- ally, there is a good deal of dirt in it. Would it involve a good deal of expendi- ture to put it in a good state?—It would. Was the farm, in your opinion, farmed on alternative principles of husbandry? They did not do that in your opinion?—Cer- tainly not. My valuers reported as to Cae Mawr, tor instanoo, unfit to put seed in." In the year 190ü you wrote letters which wero read yesterday in which you con- gratulated them on the state of one or two fields. How came you to do that?—Because the clovers in Cae Mawr and Cae Ardd wore exceptionally good. At the time the clover was visible, and I wrote the letter. Why did you write the letter at all ?- They paid their rent, and at my age I did riot want to change the tenant. I wrote to them, and that is the sole reason. You did not mean to onvey the idea that the farm as a whole was wuii treated? -Certainly not. COL HUGHES CROSS-EXAMINED. Col Hughes was then crons-exauiined at length by Mr Graham. Since leaving London 40 years ago he said he had farmed Ystrad as a dairy farm, and had taken a great deal of interest in it. His method ot farming was to get as much green stuff out of the farm as he possibly could. In some instances he took three crllp" oil' it in a year, but this was not done as a rule. When letting the farm to Messrs Taylor and Ellis he did not know ho.v much manure they had paid for, and could not say whether the quantity was 1,500 tons or not. Ho had, however, had that quantity made in one year. The question of manure be had entrusted to Mr Frjuk Lloyd, and could not say whether he received :3.. GJ per load for it, which was not fresh. As to whether the manure of cake-ted cattle was worth more than Is 6 1 per ton, as a practical farmer he would say that Is 61 was not enough, but this depended upon whether they were two-horse loads or not. Mr Graham What do yon consider a fair price per cubic yard for the manure yon saw there ? Witness I cannot go further than 2s Ga. Was it very much worse than the manure for which you got 3s 6d?—A great deal of it was. Did you find feeding stuffs to the extent that these men did?—Yea, every year. Did you make a profit on this farm Yes. It paid its wav. Did you tell Mr Taylor that you didn't ? —I don't know, I am sure. I made none during the last year. When you decided to give up the farm, was it a considerable time before you got a tenant ?-No. I did not try anyone Didn't you tell Mr Frank Lloyd when ho found these tenants that it added some years to your life ?—I daresay I did, because I was unwell at the time. Why did you make that remark ?-Be- cause, as I told you, I was unwell at the time, and I had a great deal on my mind. Was that the reason you accepted two men who you now say knew nothing about farming ?-No. Why was it then ? -Because they came forward and were willing to pay the money, and on Mr Lloyd's recommendation. It was a very big rent, was it not ?--Not as it was then. But it was a very good rent?—It was a good rent. Such a rent all you could not get from anybody else ?-I won't say that. You don't dispute it ?-Well, I left it in Mr Lloyd's hands. But I am quite sure Col Hughes doesn't place himself unreservedly in anybody's hands. It was a good rental?—Yes. And was that the reason wtiy you were unable to maintain the rent when these people went?—No, the farm had gone down, was worse. I suggest to you that the reason you could not get the full rent from the new tenant was because you had been charging too much ront before ?—I don't admit that. You kept a careful eye on these men all the timo ?-I knew what was going on. I went about a great deal. That is not my question. My point is that you kept a careful eye upon them (l- Well, I never kept a book. I knew nearly by heart what went on. What rent did yoa charge yourself ?- £700, loss rates and taxes that came to £ 130. It is in the hooks. Will you be good enough to she? me one of these books?—No, not now. I am not called upon to produce books. Will you bring me one when next we meet?—No, I don't see why I should pro- duce these books. Very well, then. You wrote these men, did you not, when you thought that some- thing was going wrong ?-I wrote to them whenever I saw the least improvement. I am not speaking abjut improvement. I am speaking about things that you did not consider an improvement ? — i don't think I did. I spoke to Mr Taylor about one or two things. You started in 1901 by writing Exouse me mentioning that the thistles were not cut" ?-7-Ye3. And upon another occasion you wrote saying that leaves were choking a culvert? —I dare say I did. On an average you went over the place once a month ?—Oh yes; more than that. Did your opinion remain the saiie during the tenancy that these men were incap- able ?-I have not said that they were incapable. I did not consider them up to the work. When Ravenseroft was tuore things went better. 11 Were you satisfied with the farm in bis time ?—Not thoroughly. He was another man's servaut, and I did not like to speak to him. But your opinion of them up to the seventh year remained the :;a.:ne Vl'ry much the sa ne. And at the end of lOOfi you thought they were not up to the work for a farm of that sort?—No; but I think then they had improved. Do you think they or the farm had improved ?—Tne farm had not improved. Did not Mr Taylor write to you on more than one occasion that he would bo happy to carry out, any of your suggestions according to the lease?—Ou several occa- sions they said to mo We shall be g ad to do anything according to the terms of our lease if yon point it out." I ask you from 1903 down to the time they left, will you ahow any letter in which you complain of them or of anything which was a breach of covenant, or that which was bad farming or anything of the sort ?- [ tuiuk I wrote to Mr Lloyd. I am asking you from your own recol- lection can you point to any letter during he last three years of tne tenancy in 1 ,hi(-h you complain of their mode of cultivation or anything of that bort ?-No, I I dpn't think so. Not only did you never make a complaint of that kind, but on the contrary those are your words in a letter on 5th January, 1900—"I have gone over the ground so far as it was necessary, and I wish to con- gratulate you upon its state now." Did you write those words?—I withdraw nothing: I said. I went over with my man Morris, and I wrote congratulating them on the clover. But you also wrote I wish to congratu- late you upon its state now, and especially on the seeds in Llwyn Park. They do yourself great credit ?—Yes, I did write I that. Was that true or untrue?—True. Absolutely true ?-Yes. "T,ien in June, WOC), you congratulated your tenants, against whom you have counterclaimed nearly C i-00, on the state of the farm. Is that so?—If I did so I don't withdraw it. Then tell row what they did between the 5th of Juno, 1903, when you congratulated them, to develop tho counterclaim of nearly £ 200 'f—My counterclaim refers to the cultivation through and through. And Col Hughes was, in 1906, a gentle- man who by observation was able to judge of the cultivation generally. What en- abled you to put forward this counter- c!aim. In ether words, what happened?— A great deal happened. Cae Glas has cowie up as dirty as possible, and Cao Mawr was too dirty to put seeds in. We were talking about the general nfcate of the farm. We left in November, 1906, you know, and I want you to say what happened between the time you congratu- lated them and the time they left the farm, to enable you to make up this counter- claim ?—On each field I am able to shew my figures. Is it not a remarkable coincidence that the counterclaim is just f2 mote than the c'aim. What object had you to make up your counterclaim in that way?—I had no object. I went on merits. -Bit is it not a curious fact, the slight diffeience in the amounts ?-It may or may not be. I went on its merits. You have already told us that, but is it not a curious fact that the counterclaim consumes the claim?—It may be or iu may not. When did you first intimate to these people that yon were going to send in a counterclaim'r—I could not send in a counterclaim before they sent in a claim. I am quite aware of that, Col Hughes ?— I did not intimate to them. And none of your letters showed that you ha-< any grounds for complaint ?—No. Very well. Now tell me this. You have several times in the course of your answers to me sheltered yourself behind Mr Frank Lloyd. Who got you your tenants ?-I do not approve of tbe word sheltered." He got my tenants, and was paid for it. No doubt, and you had snch confidence in him that in the lease prepared by your own solicitors it was put in that he should be the sole arbitrator between you and the tenants?—That was Mr Lloyd's own doing to put it in. 0 Did you object to it?—I agreed to it then. It was your own solioitor, you know, Mr Francis. Now will you tell me, is it a fact that you gathered later on that Mr Lloyd's opinion was that these men had improved the farm ?-I heard that when Mr Francis returned from Wrexham. It is no matter when it was. You heard that Mr Lloyd was of the opinion that these tenants had improved the farm ?—Mr Francis told me so. And was that why you objected to a man you had agreed to arbitrator between you ? —In one way, because I considered that Mr Lloycl was advising them and not me, and therefore I think he was wrong. On the contrary, you have just told me that you left everything to Mr Lloyd time after time. You said that whenever you had complaints to make you made the-a to Mr Frank Lloyd ?-I told Mr Lloyd in 1901 about these seeds. I ask you, Col Hughes, was it not when Mr Lloyd was your trusted assistant, and gave you an honest opinion that the farm had improved, that you objected to him acting as arbitrator in the way approved of ?-Not quite in that, way. He was taking them by the hand, and leaving me out in the cold. But he didn't take them by the band and leave you out in the cold when he made the valuation between you, did he ? —No. Continu- ing, he said he was not responsible for the scutch removed by the tenants from Llwyn Park, but said he laid down a part of it in seeds. If there was a network of scutch there, which he did not for i, moment admit, he did not complain of the tenants ploughing it up. But Mr Bankes did so yesterday. Now tell me, why did you not permit our witnesses to I go over these fl-,Ids ?-Becsti" they went by stealth. They went before I was asked. Did you object?—I was not asked. I ask you, did yoa "objeot ?--I did object, certainly. Did you threaten them with an action for tre,ipa,s?-Yes, I did. Is that fair between man and man, that we were not allowed to go on the farm to get our evidence? I ask you, sir, as an honest man. is it fair ?-I think they ought to have come straight to me. I was not asked, and was not given time to consider my answer. We will see whether you were asked or not. Counsel then proceeded to read several letters between Mr Aueurin Q Evans, aud Col Hughes' solicitors, in which the former asked for per- mission to inspect the farm. In one letter it was pointed out that Col Hughes had no right to threaten the witnesses. Mr Bankes Everyone now admits that they should have been allowed to go over it. Mr Graham (to witness) Do you now admit that permission was asked -1 say that they should have gone in the spring. But do you consider it utterly valueless to go over the farm in July ?-Not utterly. Mr Bankes But they did go, Mr Graham ? Mr Graham: Please do not interrupt (to witness). Without your permission —Yos. They ought to have come to me. Goodness gracious, how many letters were written to you asking for that permission. That is how you serve these men that you say you had such a desire to do everything tor. How is the farm now ? —The dirt is all there now. Cae Glas cannot look worse. I am asking about the farm as a whole, not two or three dirty spots? It looks all right. Then the farm as a. whole looks all right ?— Yes. This year has been an exceptional, and such an extraordinary one that it makes the farm lock well. The question I am putting to you is Does the farm look well"?—Yes but not without exception. How did it look when they gave it up ?— Well, it was not looking well in the spring. W.-is it looking very bad ?-Not very good according to Welsh farmiug. Fair?—Yes. Because you value this farm so much, do you expect it to be given up in an extraordinary condition, or are you content with average condition ?-I am expecting good condition. But this farm is the a^ple of your eye, you know. It, was given up in a fair tenant-abfce condition, Vias it not,?—Not what they got it in. Mr Graham That is not the point. Mr Ba,nUes That is the point, Mr Graham, if I m ty say :o. Mr Graham I don't agree with you then (To witness) Was it giveu up in a fair tenant able condition ?-It is an exceptional farm, uoi an ordinary one. That is not my question. Was it given ul in a fair tenantable condition?-I shall no answer that question. I am going on what ii was when given up to them. I Mr Graham Perhaps you will take a note of 1 that, Mr Umpire: that Col Hughes will not answer the question.—(To Witness): How j many acres of the farm do you say are dirty ? -I should say there are about fifty acres. Cae Glas especially. I Anywhere else?—In Cae Pella there are a lot of docks and thistles. The hay also, I believe, shows signs of weeds. I, Referring to the conversion of the cottages into a farmhouse, witness said this was pro- vided for in the lease,.and he had no desire to shelter "-a word to which he again objected —behind the fact that no plana of the altera- tions were sent him. What he did he did openly, and there was no need to' be sheltered." Mr Graham Then, openly, do you consider it fair to reap the benefit of the reconstruction or reconversion of the cottages, which you anticipated with the lease without paying for it?—I do Dot consider it fair. They were j bound to do the work, but I paid all I was asked to do.—Continuing, he said he would ] have to carry out certain alterations in Llwyn if Messrs Taylor and Ellis had not done so, when letting it to the present tenant. As to ¡ Llwyn Park, the condition of the pasture there I was now excellent, but he contended that he ought not to pay for part of it as permanent pasture. Mr Graham When the division took place it was necessary was it not that each farm should have as much pasture, and as much arabie land as possible ?-Yes. And the division you were able to make left Llwyn without sufficient arable land ?-It left it without permanent pasture. Was it not the reason when a field of pasture was ploughed up there, that the tenant would have no arable land without it?-Certainly not. The field had to be ploughed up, because the tenant could not leave it down. One way you arrive at your counterclaim of nearly .£700 is that you had to convert farm buildings at a cost of £ 40. Do you want to saddle this expense on mv clients, when you had to do the work in order to let the farm as two holdings ?—I do not. Mr Graham: But that is Mr Bankes' one way of making up the counterclaim. COL. HUGHES RE-EXAMINED. Colonel Hughes, in re-axamination by Mr Bankes, maintained what he had previously stated in his evidence in chief, and said that when the cottages were let to Messrs Taylor and Ellis they were in a habitable condition but since then they had been greatly neglected] MR. R. E. BIROH'S EVIDENCE. Mr R E Birch, P S.I., St Asaph, was the next witness called. He was he said agent for the Kuthiu Castle estate of Col Cornwallis West the Cayley estate; and other estates. He 1 farmed between three and four hundred acres himself, as well as many acres for other people to whom he acted in the capacity as general adviser. As regards the Ystrad Farm be had known it practically all his life, and had been over it in Col Hughes' time on several occasions. When Col Hughes gave up the farm to Messrs Taylor and Ellis, witness did not think a cleaner or better farm could be found in England. He visited it on three occasions in 1901—once in Aujrust and twice in October. Mr Bankes: What was the general state of the farm then as compared with what it was when let ? Witness I was astonished that it could get into such a state in so short a time. Was it clean then ?—No. It was in a terrible state. Did you see the root crops ?-Yes. They had neither been singled or cleaned. Did the farinsliew traces of good farming ?- No, it did not. Did you see the farm again, comparatively recently ?-I did not see it again until April of 1907. I had then a copy of the claim, and went over it with a. view of preparing a counter- en claim if there was to be one. The farm had distinctly decreased in rentable value. Speak- ing as to the manure, he said he had.measured what he feund there, and it was examined thoroughly. He could not say whether any of it had since been removed. As to the perma- nent pasture in Cae Glas the field was certainly not fit to lay down, and he could not possibly see how the claim made in respect of ic could be sustained. He should like to find the tenant who would taka it as permanent pasture; he certainly could not advise any tenant to take it as such. Witness then dealt with the fields in question, and the rotation of crops in them, and corro- borated-the evidence related in connection with them by Col Hughes. Neither in Cae Ddu, Cae Ardd, Oae Mawndir, or Cae Rye Grass, was there what could be called per- manent pasture; and as regards the latter field it had received bad treatment, and was certainly not good farming. As to the farm it would be better in this country to divide and let it in two. If the farm had been handed back to Col Hughes in the same state that it was when the tenants took it, it would com- mand the same rent as it previously did. Cae Banadl, when hj saw it, was, so far as a portion of it wis concerned, in a terrible state in April, and would require some time to bring it back to the same state of cultivation that it used to be in. Witness then referred to the condition of each field, and gave his estimated amount of the money necessary to be expended on them before they would be in a similar good condition that they were when handed over to Messrs Taylor and Ellis. Exclusive of any- thing for buildings, &c., the amount estimated was about E525. Following upon the examination of Mr Birch, the Umpire asked Mr Graham how long he would take to cross-examine the witness. "Quite an hour," remarked Mr Graham, because he is more or less Col Hughes' sheet anchor." The Umpire remarked that as the examina- tion could not be finished in time for him to catch his train, it had better be adjourned to the next hearing. It was so decided, and the adjourned hearing was fixed for 10 a.m. a.t the Queen Hotel, Chester, on Saturday, October 12th.