Papurau Newydd Cymru

Chwiliwch 15 miliwn o erthyglau papurau newydd Cymru

Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

14 erthygl ar y dudalen hon

--ST ASAPH COUNTY COURT.

Newyddion
Dyfynnu
Rhannu

ST ASAPH COUNTY COURT. IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS. I His Honour Judge Koratio Lloyd sat at St. Asaph on Friday, Mr Fred Sission, Registrar. I having dealt with the undefended actions entered. There were no cases of public interest to occupy the court, but the Judge gave the following judg. ments in actions previously heard. The Validity of an Ejectment Notice. In the case of Mellidsw v. Margaret and John Jones, Rhyl, Mr Roe-Browne being for plaintifl and Mr Wm. Davies for defendants, His Honour said that this was an action for ejectment, to recover a house and premises known as No. 78, Vale Road, Rhyl, the renter's holding having been, as alleged by plaintiff, determined by a notice to quit, and the question before the court was whether the tenancy had been actually determined by a proper notice. On the first of May, 1878, the premises were let to the female defendant, then known as Margaret Williams, but who shortly afterwards became the wife of John Jones. From that time until May, '84, the rent was paid to Mr John Davies, a solicitor at Denbigh, and he gave receipts in the name of John Jones, he so far being treated as tenant. Upon Mr Davies giving up receiving the rent in 1884, it was from then to 1886 paid to trustees, of which plaintiff was the representative. His Honour believed that on all occasions the rent was paid to Mr Davies by the hands of the vife, but at any rate the receipts were made out in the husband's name, he then being treated as the tenant. But under that state of things the notice to quit was served on Margaret Jones, and her husband was ignored though receipts for years had been given in his name, he was now treated as a nonentity. He (the Judge) had to consider and decide whether this was a good notice or not. It was argued that the notice was sent to the defendants as joint tenants, but he could not see that in this case there was in fact any such relation between the husband and wife. The question was who was the tenant, and how the tenancy had been affected by the marriage Having reviewed a case quoted for the plaintifl, His Honour said he could not see that it had any bearing on this action. It had been also argued that the wife was her husband's agent, and that a notice served on an agent was good notice. But she was not an agent in the proper sense of the word. Service on an agent would do, and often- times that had to be done, as the owner was inaccessible. But here the notice was not only served on Margaret Jones, but also made out in her name. In an action for ejectment it must be shewn that a prcper notice had been given, whereas inlthis case he held that the notice was informal and inoperative. The action failed, and verdict would be given for defendant. Mr Browne asked what about costs. The Judge said it would in this case, as in the two others he was about giving judgment in, have to follow the event, as he saw no reason for deviating from the rule. Mr Browne said it was a hard case, as his client had received no rent for some years. The Judge replied that all would have been at an end had a good notice to quit been given. A Right of Water Case. In this action J. Evans, Pentre Mills, Rhuddlan, claimed nominal damages of £50, reduced by consent to 40s. and costs as between £ 20 and 150 from John Pritchard, Aberkinsey farm. Plain- tiff claimed that he was entitled to the full supply of water in a certain stream, except so much as would flow through three bore-holes of lAinch diameter each, whereas defendant was alleged to have raised a floodgate and drawn more, to the detriment of plaintiff's interests. Mr Alun Lloyd was solicitor for plaintiff, and Mr Ed. Roberts for defendant, each being represented by counsel, and the case heard at a. special court held on the 22nd ultimo. Having reviewed the circumstances, His Honour said that the evidence was very strong and almost conclusive, Defendant's own evidence seemed to put him out of court and it was impossible not to observe the painful manner in which his witnesses had deserted him. The only way in which defendant could claim more water than came through the three holes was by c? shewing some prescriptive rights gained to entitle him to a greater supply. But the evidence had shewn that he could not have gained any such right. There had been interruptions in the extra flow of water, and the drawing of it had never been exercised as a right. But he (the judge) would put it on a higher ground even than that. The floodgate had not been in existence a sufficient time, It had been shown that it was not erected until 1869, and the interim was less than the required time to bring in prescriptive rights. On all grounds defendant had failed to 11 shew that he was entitled to more water than came through the three holes, and then plaintiff must be entitled to the rest. Therefore he (the judge) felt bound to enter judgment for plaintiff r, for the amount and costs agreed to. The Groyne Case.—Judgment for Defendants. In this action, heard at Rhyl, (Mr W. Davies being for plaintiffs, and Mr Ed. Roberts for defendants, each being represented by counsel), His Honour said that the Cobden Steam Flour Mills Company, and owners of the s.s. Leven, claimed £50 damages from the Rhyl Improve- ment Commissioners, by reason of defendants' servants and workmen neglecting to erect properly a certain groyne on the beach, and to set up certain perches or buoys, such neglect having caused the alleged damage to plaintiff's vessel on the 17th of April last. An amended claim was made, whereby detendants were charged with neglecting to maintain and continue to set up perches. This was a case in which obviously there was a deal of feeling introduced into matters which, however, had but little to do with the real merits. It was apparently a vexed question at Rhyl, as to the expediency of erecting this groyne, and it was mixed up with the question of drainage and damage to the sea shore-matters with which he had but little to do. In their wisdom the Commissioners had erected this groyne, and he must take it that they were right. At any rate they were not seriously challenged, if they had done the work properly and the thing managed after- wards in such a way as not to become a nuisance. The groyne was there, and the Board of Trade had sanctioned it on certain con- ditions. But in March or April 40 yards or more of the groyne were washed away, including the perch at the end and the neglect complained of was that it had not been put up again, to indicate sufficiently to vessels the exact position of the structure, and that its absence had caused the damage on this occasion. On the other hand the defendants said they were not guilty of neglect, having done the best they could under the circum- stances and having regard to the nature of the elements. They also said that whatever neglect they were guilty of it was not the cause of the accident, but that really it had been caused by the contributory negligence of plaintiffs. In proof of this they pointed out two or three matters :— that plaintiffs had no right to go out of the port on ebb tide, that they did not take the precaution of putting lights on such perches as were up, and he would have to decide whether the perch on the west side was up at the time. If it were stand- ing, it would be conclusive against plaintiffs, as a light on that would have removed everything. His Honour then at considerable length, reviewed the most salient points in the evidence. The Captain shewed how the accident had occurred, and he (the judge) thought he was light. The vessel had touched on the west side, it was backed, and the propeller caught on the groyne. It required but very little knowledge to see how it had happened. Plaintiffs shewed that if No 4 perch had been put up, and another perch on the groyne, they would not have touched on the west bank, and nothing would have happened. The Commissioners said that if No 4 was not up they were not the parties liable to maintain that perch, plaintiffs' reply being that that was all the greater reason why the Commissioners should see that their own perches were properly maintained, and that if they were up the captain could have done without No i. In conclusion the judge said that he could come to no conclusion other than that No 4 perch was up, and that decided the whole question. Even if there had been any difficulty in putting a light on that, there could have been none in putting it on No 3, which was clearly there. He held that the primary neglect was on the part of the master or the pilot, or of both, in not putting up proper lights on the perches before they went out. The evidence had also shewn that they had no right to go out at ebb tide; and having done so, that it was more imperative still that the lights should be put up, He held that there had been contributory negligence, and that the accident was caused by it, and not by defendants. Plaintiffs failed, and judgment with costs would be entered for defendants. I

FUNERAL OF THE BISHOP OF ST.…

Advertising

-.--_-_-----_-FLINTSHIRE COUNTY…

[No title]

RHYL CHURCH NRWS.

Advertising

[No title]

[No title]

----APPEAL BY THE REV. ROWLAND…

RHYL DISTRICT.

ST. ASAPH.

LLANDULAS.

RHUDDLAN.