Symud i'r prif gynnwys
Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

9 erthygl ar y dudalen hon



ABERYSTWYTH. COUNTY COURT, FRIDAY and SATURDAY. Before Thomas Humphreys, Esq., Deputy-Judge. Richards v. Herbert—William Herbert was sued by John Richards to recover n3, the value of a stack of corn. £ 1010s. had been paid into court. Mr Hughes, who was for the plaintiff, said that both parties were farmers, and in October the plaintiff sold off his stock by auction the defendant buying a stack of corn for £ 13.—The defendant pleaded that he had been taken in, as the better part of the stack had not been through the machine. Three witnesses were called to prove the peculiar construction of the stack one of them putting £ 10 as a very high value, and smother valuing it at £ 7-The plamtiff saiS that he had no intention of selling the com, when he stacked it, and could prove that the stack was a good one, but unfor- tunately his witnesses were forty miles away. In answer to the Judge, he said that he was ayearly tenant, but had only a fortnight's notice to quit. His landlord wanted to sell the farm, and gave him £ 50 as a bonus to quit.—His Honour held that it was a clear case of fraud, and gave judgment for the amount which had been paid into court. -Mr Hughes asked for costs, but the judge declined to ATIQW Jones v. Manchester and Milford Railway Company.— William Jones, butcher and dealer, Tregaron, sued the Manchester and Milford Railway Company fo* the recovery of damages for injuries caused to pigs. Which had been delivered to defendants for carriage, lhfe damages were laid at £11, and. the flowing jury were empanneled to try the case Messrs Isaac Morgan, William Evans, Thomas Oliver (draper*, Thomas Thomas (painter), and James Jones, Llwynglas. Mr Crealock was for the plaintiff, and Mr David Lloyd, Lampeter, for the Railway Company. When the jury had been sworn, Mr Lloyd said that he objected to the jurisdiction of the Court I he action was brought against the ^Manchester and Milford Hailway Company, the ground of action being a question of the camagt of pigs from Lampeter to Pencader. The contract had been entered into at Lampeter, and the pigs were delivered at Pencader, both places being in the Carmarthen or Newcastle Elnlyn circuit. The question, howevei, "would be as to the residence of the defendants ■; did they reside or carry e» business in the Aberystwyth circu* and within tifae Jurisdiction of this court ? He 1 contended that they. did not, the directors resided in London, where the offices of the company were, and where the secretary lived. At Aberystwyth they hada joint station with the "Cambrian Railway, and an official to manage the traiftc. This he contended did not constitute a residence of the defendants. He quoted Shields v. G.N.R. Xftd Addison on the Law of Tdrt." He called Mr Edward Hamer, in support of the- fOA&L--In answer to Mr Crealock, Mr Hamer stated that at each station the head offices of the company were .Announced.—His Honour Saicl that he held with Mr Lloyd as to the juris- diction Of "fee court the case might M well have been brought in Zeotland.-Mr Crealock said that his client wasa podtman, and it was rather hard that he should be defeated napon a technical point of law. He suggested that the'f oint should be waived* but, Mr Lloyd declining acquiesce, the case w«ts struck out, and Mr Crealock sai he should commence proceedings de novo. Fear v. Manchester and Milford Railway Company.— ,I Frank Fear fishmonger, Aberystwyth, sued the Man- chests and Milford Railway Company for the recovery of 1-21 '18. the value of » cask of herrings. Mr Raven hill was for the plaintiff; the Railway Company were represented by Mr David Lloyd.—In December last the plaintiff sent a cask of salt herrings, "on spec. consigned to Mr Evan .'Davies, at Llanybyther, on the Manchester and Milford line of railway. The consignee declined to take the her- 'rings i*, because they had not been ordered, and the 'her- rings, being perishable goods, were sold by private auction for 10s.—Mr KaVenhUl contended that the plaintiff should have received nptiee that the goods were to be sold.—His Honour gaoe judgment for the defendants. Hughes v. Rogers.—This was a jury case, the plaintiff being Mr Richard Hughes, of the Globe Inn, Market- street, and the defendant, Mr J. W. Rogers, draper, Little Darkgate-street. Mr Atwood was for the plaintiff, Mr Crfalock tfor the defendant. The claim was for R-0, for electro plate and other articles detained by defendant. Mr Atwcuodsaid that in August, 1867, the plaintiff lent his sister, itrs Jones, who was then keeping the Globe, 2418 11a, to extricate her from pecuniary fetobarassment. This amount was secured by a bill of sale, dated August 23rd, Subsequently Mrs Jones married a Mr Newattj-^and two or three months ago, Mrs Newall, being pressecffcy creditors, applie«t-to-Mr Rogers for assistance, and pkSged with him the articles which formed the sub- ject of the present action, in consideration of a loanof a sum of money. The bill of sale was a genuine bill of ssle, and had formed the subject of enquiry at the Bank- ruptcy Court, Bristol, and also in this court, and its validity had been there established. The action was bronght for the recovery of the articles, which they were willing to receive back, but failing that they sued for the value of the articles.—Plaintiff, who is a joiner by trade, said that the articles were comprised in the bill of sale, and included the family bible, watches, a clock, weather- glass, concertina, draughtboard, pier glass, «ad various pieces ef furniture. He had demanded them from Mr Rogers, who refused to give them up unless the money, 217, was paid which he had advanced to Mrs Newall.— In cross-ex&miination b-, Mr Crealock, witness said that his sister was the widow of John Jones, son of the late Jólm Jones, <wetfechmaker. The father left A will disposing of his property, but witness knew nothing of the probate. Mr Cratlodk said that tifee will lay at <he root of the bill of saie, and he must apply for an adjcmrciment of the case for the production of a copy of the will. He had written to his proctors to procure a copy of the will from Doctors' 'Commons, but, unfortunately, they had sent down acopy of the will of another John Jones, watch- maker.— The case was adjourned, conditienally that at the next ooinit it -should be tried without a jury. Jowoasd Another v. K-Acebone and AnWher.-This was a jury case, in which Mr Crealock was for the plaintiffs, Richard and-John Jones, who sued Charles Kneebone and WillSam Mitchell to recover £ 40, due on'account of a sum of £ 70 payable for the saie of an interest in a take-note.— Mr Hughes was for the defendants, and pointed out that by the agreement- a man of the name of Thomas Pryce ought tt hare been joined as co-plaintiff, he being a co- partner in the agreement.—His Honour held with this, and Pryee declining to be made a eo-plaintiff, a nonsuit wacentered, Mr Crealock stating that he should bring the case undef the Equitable Jurisdiction Act. Williams v. James.-Griffith Williams, grocer, Goginan, sued Mr John James, of the New Railway Establishment, a shareholder in the Himant Mine, to .recover S3 7s. 7d., forymateri"nd goods- gwplied to the mine. Mr Atwood appeared for the defendant.—Mr John-gilvanus Williams, secretary of the Hirnant Mining Company, said that Mr James's name was on tite books of the company as a share- holder holding 136 shares. No agreement had been signed by ."Mr Jamas, but witness understood be was a contribu- tory. from ~a conversation he had with that gentleman. Witness's wife had paid the calls on behalf of Mr James's shares, to the amount of £ i> and more. -Mr Atwood handed a letter to witness, who admitted that it was in his hand- writing. The letter was dated November 24th, 1869, and admitted that Mr James's name had been entered upon the books Without any express authority irom that gentle- man.—Mr James said that he had never been a share- holder in the eompany. The secretary liad offered him some-shar-ea, and he said that if they wese very good he would considertthe matter. He heard nothing further about the matter until he received the summons from the County Court, .and, writing to the secretary about hip b £ ing a shareholder, received the reply which had been read. by -Mr Atwood. -His Honour said there must be a nonsuit, and allowed1 the eoste. Rowlands v. Richards. 88ault. 011 Saturday the Court was engaged for a long 4ime in hearing a case, in which Wm. Rowlands was the plaintiff, suing Edward Richards for £49 18s. 6d., damage for assault. A jury of three, of which Mr Cars well was the foreman, was sworn to-try the case. Mr Hughes wa# for the plamtiff, and Mr Atwood for the defendant.—The plaintiff is a cattle dealer living at'Cefnllwyd. In December last he met the de- fendant in Aberystwyth, and they started home together about nine o'clock at night. At Trefechan they made a short stay, and after leaving there and traveling for a minute or two, defendant, according to plaintiff's account, struck plaintiff a violent blow in the face; Plaintiff ran to a neighbouring farm called GwasWlin. A medical man was sent for next day and plaintiff remained under his hands for a 9fortnight. He was prevented from eing to England With some cattle, and estimated his loss, by being laid up inconsequence of the blow, at £ 49 18s. 6d.— Ann Richards, of -Gwasfelin faarm, said that the plaintiff,came to the farm with his face covered with blood. He re- mained there ail night, leaving between seven and eight o'clock next morning.—Dr Rowlands, surgeon, practising at Goginan, said that he was-called in to attend the plain- tiff onOthe mornillg of December 7th, twelve hours after the assault had been committed. He was lying in bed and bleeding from the nose, the bridge of which was fractured. There was a swelling about the right eye, which was bloodshot. Witness attended him for a fort- night, and his bill amounted to £6 10s, He had a violent headache, which might have resulted in inflammation of the brain. In cross-examination witness said be could Fnot say how the injury had been canted; by a blew, or by a fall against a hard.aubstance.-Dr Pughe, Aberdovey, F.R.C.S., said that theuncle of the jflaintiff came to him on the night of December 8th, and -at his request he vicited plaintiff the following morning. The bone of the nese appeared to be crushed, as from a blow. He com- plained of the head ache. It was possible, but hardly probable that the injury could have been caused by a faU. His charge for the visit was two guineas.—The defence was that the injury was the result of accident; that the plaintiff, who was drunk, had fallen when going home, and had thus damaged his nose. The defendant and other witnessas were called in support of this theor. -The jury found-for the defendant.






[No title]