Papurau Newydd Cymru

Chwiliwch 15 miliwn o erthyglau papurau newydd Cymru

Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

5 erthygl ar y dudalen hon

----.--------ASSIZES. ; -,,-----,,---,------""---------",-",,,,-,../"","

Newyddion
Dyfynnu
Rhannu

ASSIZES. CARNARVONSHIRE. These assizes were opened at Carnarvon on Saturday, before Mr. Justice Grantham, who, before the Court opened, attended divine service at Christ Church, when a sermon was preached by the Rev. Mr. Wil- liams (the High Sheriffs chaplain). His Lordship was accompanied by the High Sheriff (Mr. R. M. Greaves), the Under Sheriff (Mr- Casson), and a number of police, under the charge of Deputy Chief Constable Harris. In charging the Grand Jury, of which the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. J. E. Greaves) was foreman, his Lordship remarked that this was the first time he had the privilege of coming to Carnarvonshire to assist them in the administration of justice, and it gave him great plesure to find that the country was so free from crime. He hoped that it was not merely an exceptional circumstance that, passing through the northern part of the Principality, as he was doing, be should find in every county scarcely any crime. At Dolgelley he though he should have to try the ladies, there being so many of them pre- sent in court (laughter), Again, in the county of Carnarvon he was gratified to see that there were only two or three prisoners, charged with offences of a comparatively light nature, and this, to him, compared most favourably with his experience in English counties, where he was accustomed to try some eighty or ninety prisoners at the same time. BIGAMY. Mary Elizabeth Davies, 34, of Conway, pleaded guilty of marrying John Twist while her former husband was alive. John Twist, 34, also pleaded guilty to aiding and assis ting the other prisoner, by making a false entry, to the effect that she was a spinster. Sergeant Griffith, who had known the female prisoner while stationed at Conway, gave her an excellent character. He added that her former husband was a drunkard, and conducted himself brutally towards her, and on more than one occasion she had been obliged to seek police protection. Mr. Charles H. Darbishire, one of the Grand Jury, also volunteered to bear testi- mony to the good character of the male pri- soner, who was in his employ. The Judge observed that both the police and the Grand Jury seemed to have con- spired in favour of the prisoners, and the circumstances of the case were such that he was inclined to enter into the conspiracy (laughter). The prisoners were ordered to be imprisoned for two days, being therefore immediately discharged. MANSLAUGHTER. Francis O'Toole (22), an inmate of the Conway Workhouse, was indicted for the manslaughter of Evan Davies, an old man seventy years of age, who at the time of his death was also an inmate of the workhouse. It seems that a slight disagreement occur- red between the prisoner and the deceased as to putting out some fires. Deceased gave prisoner a slight kick, whereupon the latter retaliated in a similar manner, inflicting'in- juries which resulted fatally in thirteen days. When first charged by the police the prisoner admitted having given the kick, but said he thought the deceased had his side to him at the time. Mr. Trevor Lloyd (instructed by Mr. Por- ter) prosecuted, and Mr. Theobald (instruc- ted by Messrs. Nee and Gordon Roberts), at the request of the prisoner, undertook the defence. The jury found the prisoner guilty, but recommended him to mercy on account of the provocation he had received, and the Judge gave efiect to the recommendation by sentencing him to one months' imprison- ment. ACTION FOR SLANDER. Before his Lordship and a common jury, an action was heard in which Owen Owen, a farmer, residing at Cwmdyli, Beddgelerc, claimed from William Roberts, another farmer, residing at Bwlch, damages for al- leged slander. Mr. Honoratus Lloyd (instructed by Messrs. Carter, Vincent, and Mostyn Ro- berts) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Herbert Williams (instructed by Mr. Thos. Roberts) for the defendant. The allegation was that at Pengwryd Hotel, which was then occupied by the plaintiff's mother, the defendant, in the pre- sence of several people, said that he had lost two rams, and that they had been stolen by the plaintiff, adding that John Evans, a Llanberris butcher, had informed him that he had the horns polished up. This state- ment the defendant repeated on two other occasions. The defence on the pleadings was that the words complained of were not published, or, in the alternative, that, if spoken, they were privileged. Counsel argued that the state- ment was not slanderous, being, as it was, but a simple repetition of a story told him by the butcher, and it imputed no dishonesty to the defendant. The jury found for the plaintiff, damages five guineas. MONDAY. A TRANSACTION IN BANK SHARES. Henry Roberts, accountant, Bethesda, claimed from T. J. Hughes, chemist, of the same place, the sum of iT75, being the amount of a call which the plaintiff had had to pay on thirty shares which he held in the National Bank of Wales, and which he had sold to the defendant on the 19th of June, 1894. Mr. J. Bryn Roberts, M.P. (instructed bv Mr. Twigge Ellis), appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. J. Griffith (instructed by Messrs. Jones and James) for the defendant. Mr: Roberts, in opening the case, said that the defendant, at the time he bought the shares, told the plaintiff that he intended to re-sell them. The latter asked the defendant to give him something to show that he had bought the shares. Thereupon the defen- dant wrote a memorandum, dated the 19th of June, 1894, as follows: Fro-,n T. J, Hughes to H. Roberts.—I hereby certify that I have this day bought 30 shares in the National Bank of Wales, and in the evem of a call being made I undertake to meet all responsibilities on these shares.' That day the defendant paid £3 15s. for the shares at 8s. 6d. per share. Nothing more was heard from the defendant with regard to the mat- ter until August, 1896, when a call was made upon the plaintiff who took the notice of the call to the defendant. The latter, how- ever, declined to pay the call, stating that the plaintif" i had given him to understand that no call would be made. The plaintiff was called, and said that he became a shareholder in the National Bank of Wales in the year 1890. He bought the shares for £520. He received dividend for three years, the first being 10 per cent. In May, 1893, the Bank sold its assets, &c., to the Metropolitan Bank. When the Na- tional Bank of Wales came to .grief, he sold his shares to the defendant for 2s. 6d. each. A blank form of transfer was produced, and sigised by the witness. The defendant said that he had no inten- tion of making use of the transfer at the time, as probably he would be able to re-sell shortly, whereupon ths defendant drew ou | he undertaking referred to by counsel, and ilso paid him-' £ 3 15s. Witness heard lotting further about the matter until a call vas made upon him in August last year. Some days after the receipt of the call he ;ook it to Mr. Hughes, who, upon seeing the lotice, smiled and said he would have nothing to do with it, adding that he would spend all he had before he would pay the all. The Judge I am afraid if he spent all he 1e had he would have nothing left to pay ;he call (laughter). Witness, continuing, said that the defen- lant charged him with having deceived him, .nasmuch as he knew that a call would be nade. Witness denied that he knew any mch thing. The notice was left there, but ;he defendant said that it would soon be re- ;urned, together with the scrip for the shares. The defendant was a shareholder in the bank at the time he bought witness's ,hares. The defendant had also bought a aumber of shares from the Rev. John Jones, Bethesda. Cross-examined by Mr. Griffith, the wit- iess said that he understood from the de- fendant that the Rev. John Jones had paid the call made upon him. Witness's wife knew that he was the holder of these shares, and was uneasy about them, but it was not true that he gave that as a reason to the de fendant why he was desirous of disposing of the shares. Witness admitted that at the time he disposed of his shares he had some tear that a call would be made. The Judge: That's quite evident, other- wise no man would think of selling Xio shares for 2s. 6d. each. Mr. E. J. Griffith said that the defence was simply that at tie time the shares were sold, the plaintiff was repeatedly asked rwhy he sold, and whether he had any informa- tion as to a call about to be made. The plaintiff replied that he had no such know- ledge, and, acting upon the faith of that re- u presentation, the shares were bought. The defendant being a chemist could not be ex- pected to know as much about money mat- ters as the plaintiff, who was a bank accoun- tant. The Judge: If the defendant knew that these shares were a drug in the market he would know something about them (laugh- ter). Counsel, proceeding, said that the Rev. John Jones, manager of the bank at which the plaintiff was accountant, attended a meeting of managers at Llandudno, and ob- tained certain information about a call to be made. This information Mr. Jones ten- dered to the plaintiff, and in a fortnight afterwards the shares were sold to the de- fendant. If the jury were persuaded of the truth of this statement, they must irresis- tibly come to the conclusion that the plain- tiff was in possession of information which was not accessible to the general public. The undertaking given by the defendant was drawn at the request of the plaintiff in arder to satisfy his wife, who was uneasy about her husband's liability. The defendant gave evidence corrobora- tive of the foregoing statement, after which he was cross-examined by Mr. Bryn Roberts a.s to his experience of financial businesses in which he was interested, including one or two loan discount societies. The Judge With the usual terms of 5 per sent per month interest, I suppose ? (laugh- ter). Mr. E. J. Griffith objected to the defen- dant's connection with other matters being inquired into. The Judge I bslieve, Mr. Bryn Roberts, you have asked enough to show that this gentleman knows his way about in financial matters. To the defendant: Why were these shares ;tdd at half-a-crown each unless there was the risk of a call ? The defendant I cannot tell you. The Judge I thought not. The defendant: I would not have minded the risk if only the truth had been told me. The Rev. John Jones, manager of the Metropolitan Bank at Bethesda, spoke to a meeting of managers which he attended at Llandudno, at which the general manager gave it as his opinion that a call would be inevitable. This information witness im- parted to the plaintiff, but he had particu- lar reason* for not making the same gene- rally known. Witness sold his own shares in the National Bank of Wales to the defen- dant, and also paid the call which was after- wards made. Mr. Bryn Roberts then submitted that there was no case of fraud proved, and the Judge also ruled that there was no evidence of such fraud as was an answer to the action. The jury found for the plaint iff for the full amount. CLAIM TO AN ANGLESEA PROPERTY. Before the Judge and a special jury, an action was brought by Mr. Richard Jones Edwards, Bunker's Hill, Russell County, Kansas, against Edward Hughes, 3, New Street, Menai Bridge, and Ellen Williams, Clwtglas, Penmynydd, to recover the pos- session of a farm called Brynteg, Llandeg- fan, which was in the occupation of the de- fendants, and a declaration of title was also claimed in respect to certain other. proper- ties in the possession of the defendants. The plaintiff-claimed as the heir at law of Thomas Edwards, who lived at Brynteg up to July, 1895, when he died intestate. The plaintiff, who was the eldest son of the de- ceased's only brother, John Edwards, was a resident in America, but had frequently visited his grandfather's home at Brynteg. The defendants were his cousins. It was intimated that for the defendants the ques- tion of legitimacy would be raised, and that it would also be contended that the plain- tiff was not the man who visited Brynteg ten years ago. "Mr. Bryn -Roberts, M.P., and Mr. Trevor Lloyd (instructed by Mr. R. Jones Roberts) were for the plaintiff, and Mr. Honoratus Lleyd and Mr. E. J. Griffith, M.P. (instruc- ted by Mr. S. R. Dew), for the defendants. After the close of the plaintiff's c, se, a con- sultation took place between the judge and counsel. His Lordship, in directing the jury to find for the plaintiff, who had agreed to accept the verdict in this case without costs, said that th* plaintiff had taken a very proper C3, course in proving his legitimacy, whilst at the same time the defendants were quite justi- fied in costing the claim. Judgment was accordingly entered for the plaintifi. ACTION AGAINST A MEDICAL MAN. Before the Judge, without a jury, the hearing was opened of an action in which Mr. S. R. Dew, solicitor, Bangor, sought to recover from Dr. Gray Edwaras, also of Bangor, expen- ses incurred by reas n of the alleged negligence of the defendant as a medical man. The case is creating a large amount of local interest and there was a large attendance of medical men belonging to the distrect. Mr. Honoratus Lloyd and Mr. Bryn Roberts, M. P., appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Marshall, Q. C., and Mr. E. J. Griffith, M. P., for the defendant. in presenting the case for the plaintiff, Mr. Lloyd said that on the 41 h of October, 1895, a boy, tix years of age, son of the plaintiff, was taken ill. On the following day the defendant was caUed in, and stated that the child suffered. from a sore throat, and suggested that he should be poulticed and fed upon slops. Be j ilso ordered that the child, who was then sleep- ing with a nurse and some other children, should be removed to another room. These iastrucbions were carried out, but no improve- ment was noticeable. On the following day, the defendant again called, and continued to do so for several days, but the child's parents were not satisfied that he made any progress. On the 8tli the child seemed to be in a very distressing state, its mouth being open, the glands inflamed and swollen, the head rigid, and the skin discoloured while there was also an offensive discharge from the nostrils. In spite of what the plain tif fregarded as the serious character of the illness, the de. fendant at each visit gave assurance that it was neither dangerous nor infectious. A trained nurse was engaged, and as the patient still con- tinued in a bad state, the plaintiff insisted upoa consulting another medical man, Dr. Williams, of Holyhead, who was an old friend of his. He came to Bangor on the llth, but prior to his arrival the boy was dead. Under the circumstances, Dr. Williams did not go to the plaintiff's house, but from the symptoms described to him by the plaintiff, he expressed the opinion that the child suffered from diph- theria. The plaintiff was terrified by the news, being aware that no precautions had been taken further than that three or four days previously Dr, Edwards had sent one of plaintiff's children out of a certain room in the house. There were five children in the house at the time, three of whom were sent to another house in the neighbourhood. The day after the death of the child, the plaintiff and defen- dant met the sanitary inspector of the borough when- the defendant stated that the child suffered from a malignant sore throat and not from a disease which required notification. A day or two afterwards a oixirnoriths old baby of the plaintiff sickened frogi an affection of the throat and died on the 12th November from laryngitis, coupled with bronchitis. Two daughters of the plaintiff were also taken ill, and were pronounced by other medical men, who were summoned, to be suffering from diphtheria, and similarly a servant girl became ill with the same disease but these cases were not fatal. In the month of April, the plain- tiff heard of a certain conversation which had taken place between the defendant and Mr. David Owen, a solicitor, in the course of which it transpired that on the day the boy died antitoxin, a remedy invariably used in cases of diphtheria, had been administered to him. On the strength of this, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant, complaining of the want of precaution exercised by him, an allegation which the defendant indignantly denied, and he also communicated with a medical man, who had seen the patient on behalf of the de- fendant, as well as with the trained nurse who was in attendance, with the view of ascertain- ing the course of treatment adopted, but his efforts were utterly futile- Counsel explained that the action was not brought to recover damages in respect of the death of the boy, but rather to recover expenses, estimated at jE75, incurred by reason of the want of pre- caution on the part of the defendant to safe- guard the other children. After a lengthy hearing, lasting until Thursday, the Judge, in delivering his verdict, said he failed to see that the plaintiff had proved that the child died of diphtheria, and that there was negligence in the precautions taken by the doctor, with the knowledge that he had or was expected to have as to what the child was suffering from. He was sorry to say that he thought that the ca¿,e origina- ted from the too hasty statement made by one of the witnesses, but he did not think that Dr. Wil- liams, of Holyhead, the witness in question, inten- tionally did what he had done. Charges of a serious nature had been made against not only the defendant, but also against Dr. Farley, who were accused of having surreptitiously administered what some thought a dangerous antidote in cases of diphtheria. To his mind there was absolutely no foundation for the charges. Judgement was entered for the defendant, with costs. -u-

7T A RHYL AUCTIONEER'S BANKRUPTCY.

---_.----ABERGELE.I

DENBIGH, FLINT,' AND MERIONETH…

.. TOWN COUNCIL MEETING.