Symud i'r prif gynnwys
Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

7 erthygl ar y dudalen hon

County Court.

Newyddion
Dyfynnu
Rhannu

County Court. Thursday, March 21st, before his Honour Judge William Evans. A BORTH CASE. In the case of Jenkin Jones, plasterer, Tyrol house, Borth, against Mr and Mrs Tibbott, for damages for pulling down scaffolding. Mr Geddes Smith applied for a further adjournment owine to the illness of Mrs Tibbott.—Mr A. J. Hughes said that he had no objection to this course with the usual costs of course.—His Honour granted the application. OWEN V RICHARDS. Owen Owen, Nantcwtta, Llangwyryfon, farmer sued John Edwards, 35, Regent-street, Treorky, collier, for the sum of £5 13s 9d, for the mainten- ance of a child,—Mr W. P. Owen, who appeared for defendant, said that so far as he was concerned he coiild not see that the defendant had any defence to the action. The defendant was not present.—The plaintiff and witnesses attended.— Mr A. J. Hughes said that defendant had wired asking that proceedings should be stayed, and he would send the money, but no money had come to hand.—His Honour gave judgment for the amount claimed with costs and allowed the defendant 14 days in which to pay. MORGAN AND MASON V. THEOPHILUS. Ann Morgan, Padarn Villa, Llanbadarn. and David Mason, Blaendolau, farmer, sued John and Morgan Theophilus, carriers, Llanbadarn, for the sum of L7 10s Od for alleged trespass on lands at Blaendolau, Caellwyndu, and Dolfawr.—Mr W. P. Owen appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr A. J. Hughes for the defendants.—-Mr Owen stated that upon going to see the place in question that morn- ing he was followed by Morgan Theophilus and abused. Defendant declared that he was not coming down to the Court, and abused him and all connected with the law.-His Honour: It shows that he has not won many cases so far.—Mr Owen He has won one. There is no doubt that this is a mere quibble. My friend has written to the mother which is the same thing, and now it is sug- gested that the main defendant has not received any notice.—Mr Hughes said that he had told his friend the position exactly, and he had rather piled up the agony, and but for the fact of that unfor- tunate meeting that morning they would have found him in. a different frame of mind. He had not seen the man, who no doubt thought he was entitled to be'served with astimiiions, ifi., Hono_ur: We can take him a step further in his law and teach him that service of summons upon him is not ibsolutely necessary.—Mr Hughes: I cannot possibly go on with the case to-day, but I am pre- pared to pay the money into Court,—Mr Owen; Ind I must have protection—I must not be noltsted.—His Honour then adjourned the hearing intil the next Court, the money to be paid into Jourt, and costs of the day to fall upon defendants ind a summons to be served. HORSE TRANSACTION. John Jones, Peithyll, sued W. Davies Jones, merchant, Exchange, Capel Bangor, for the difference between £ 35 5s anil £ 24, being the difference between the price of a mare bought by plaintiff from defendant and the amount it realised at a sale by public auction. A jury was empannelled in the case consisting of Messrs J. Brenig Edwards, David Ellis, Little Darkgate street, Randolph Fear, John Garner, and D. J. Lewis, Great Darkgate street.—Mr Stanley Griffith Jones appeared t:) for plantiff and Mr A. J. Hughes for the defendant.— Mr Stanley Griffith Jones stated that the plaintiff was a gentleman of means residing at Oswestry and formerly staying at Peithyll, and the defendant was a shopkeeper at Capel Bangor. He did not know whether it was Mr Jones's hobby or not, but lie occasionally bought horses which were sent to Messrs Frank Lloyd and Co. to be sold at Crewe. In October last plaintiff then living at Peithyll, went to defendant on the 8th where he saw the mare for which defendant asked £37. Defendant declared the mare to be perfectly sound and a bargain was struck at £36 10s. Although it had been agreed that defendant was to keep the mare until it and other horses were sent away to Crewe, n vertheless, defendant made a counterclaim for the animal's keep. On the occasion ot the sale no one was pre. sent besides plaintiff and defendant except defend- ant's servant who was attending to the horse and could not have heard all the conversation. A week later plaintiff and Miss Cromie went to Capel Bangor when defendant again said the marc was perfectly sound in every respect. Plaintitf gave a cheque for £36 10s and the bargain was closed. About a week still later, however, plaintiff's man, < Hodge remarked, Why the mare is lame." De- j i t'endantimmediately replied,"The mare is not lame; she is perfectly sound." On the 7th November, the mare was sent off to Crewe and in (lefelldant.s presence Hodge said at Crewe, Why, as I told you, the horse is lame" and defendant replied, "Ob, nJ; certainly not." Mr Stafford, who examined horses at Crewe before they were sold, found that the horse was certainly unsound and would not give his certificate. The horse was put up for sale unwarranted and was not sdd. It was accordingly returned to Aberystwyth and after the defendant- bad been asked to tak" it back. sold it by public auction for i.24 12s Sd. Mr Jones, addressing the jury, said he could not imagine anyone buying a horse without having a warranty or having it examined tor sonndness.- the Judge remarked that that was very good sense, b;it not the common practice.—Mr Jones added that the horse was suffering from splint and other unsoundness. The total claim by plaintiff, added Mr Jones, was S22 10s, including P,12 5s differr-nce between purchase price and sal? price, £ 1 13- 6d auctioneer's fee, carriage to Crewe and back, &c. The defendant counterclaimed L-8 5s tor the !:< ep of the mare as well as of a horse which was bought at the same time and found to be sound.—John Jones, the plaintiff, said the defendant guaranteed the horse as being perfect." When Hodge said the mare was lame, defendant said, "No, it was her way of going."—In reply to the Judge, it was stated that the cheque was given a week after the sale and the horse kept afterward until the beginning of November by defendant.—In reply to Mr Hughes plaintiff would not admit that he was a good judge of a horse beyond the general claim to that know- ledge which all men made. He had bought and sold several horses. He had the mare out three times and no (loubt said it was a good-looking mare. Might have said, Le. me have it at a reasonable price, as it may lead to further dealings." Heard that the mare came from H. P. Edwards, butcher, but did not know it was bred at Drynrodyn, Borth. He did not know that the price was agreed upon on the first occasion. Could not say what was said about the horse which was bought at the same time. Nothing was said about the horse when Miss Cromie was there. Took Hodge there to examine the mare and took the horse afterward. Could not say, as a man of business why he did not get the warranty in writing. Took seven horses to Crewe and sold none. There was a reserve,—Mr Hughes: Well, you are a man of business as we all know. -Plaintiff: Well, thank you. (Laugbter.)--In continued cross-examination, plaintiff said he wrote on i the 10th November saying that the mare went lame and asked defend- ant to take it back. Defendant replied that, the pony did not go lame when shown at Crewe and saying be was overcrowded and could not have it back. On the 15th plaintiff again wrote saying he wanted defendant to take the mare back, return heque, and be friends. Could not. say why in orrespondence he had not mentioned warraifty ntil the matter got into the hands of Mr Hugh [ughes, solicitor. Did not know that the mare ras purchased at Tregaron fair by her original wner at £ 32.—Mr S. Griffith Jones: If he is a ool we are not responsible.—Mr Hughes: But you .0 not suggest that Mr Edwards is a fool in horse esh ? There was not a better judge of horses in Lberystwyth.—Plaintiff, in further cross-examina- ion, did not think he ever gave a warranty.— te-examined: Defendant said both horses were )erfectly sound. Miss Cromey, now living at her mother's vicarage near London, went with Mr fones in October to pay for the mare. Paid a small ount in the shop and went out to look at the lorses whicn were brought out. Mr Jones asked if hey were in perfect order, as he wanted them to ook well in the sale, and defendant replied, "Yes, ;hey are perfect in every respect and in perfect jondition." Took a letter to defendant about ;he 15th November after the failure to sell the mare. Defendant refused to take the animal back, remarking that it was not child's play, she said "You know you said it was perfect," to which he made no reply.— Cross-examined: She accompanied Mr Jones in his walks and went up to Capel Bangor and was not particularly interested in the horses.—Henry Hodge, the groom; said the brown mare was trotted before him and he noticing that it was lame, told defend- ant, who replied that it was not lame; it was a way she had got in going. Did not hear plaintiff say anything to defendant as be (witness) was looking after the horse. Also noticed that the mare was lame at Crewe.—Cross-examined: Had six years' experience in a gentleman's stables. When he told his master who was with him at Capel Bangor that she was lame, he said nothing.— Mr Stafford, M.R.C.V.S.,Northwich, said he received instructions from Mr Frank Lloyd's secretary to examine Mr Jones's seven horses. Examined them by numbers and found that a brown mare which was described as a bay mare bad a splint on the near fore leg and the off foreleg was contracted in the foot, and there was atrophy or wasting in the frog. He told the groom to trot it and he noticed that it was lame in the foreleg. He con- sidered it permanent lameness. The value of the mare was twenty-eight or thirty guineas. Its age was against it. Examined the mare again at Aberystwyth in February and confirmed the opinion he formed at Crewe. The unsoundness must have been there a month or six weeks before. —Cross-examined: Would stake his reputation that the mare had atrophy in the frog to-day. If he was told by Mr Williams, of Dolgelley, and Mr Jones, of Towyn, that there was no sign of con- traction of the foot or atrophy of the frog, he would still say and pledge his oath and reputation that in his opinion there were contraction and atrophy. A horse with a splint might be accepted as sound with that exception-By Mr Hughes: The disease might have developed between the 8th October and the 7th of November, but he thought it was of longer standing than that.—Richard Hugbes, F.R.C.V.S., Oswestry, said be examined the mare at Aberystwyth on the 23rd February. She had a splint on the inside of the near fore leg, an alteration in the conformation ot the off fore foot.—Cross-examined Technically the mare was unsound, but to all intents and purposes it was sound. For the purpose of sale the mare was unsound, but practically she was sound.—Richard Charles Davies, groom in the employ of the plaintff in November, said the mare was lame and Mr Williams told him that he could tell Mr Jones that she was lame in the off foreleg.—Cross-ex- amined Had offered £ 28 for the mare as he wanted her "for a gentleman t» breed."—This being the case for the plaintiff, Mr Hugbes* asked if any case for damages had been made out.- Mr Hughes called Mr Jones, the defendant, who said he gave Mr Edwards E30 for the mare when she was not as good as when sold to plaintiff for £36 10s. Plaintiff went to him and wanted to buy three horses, but he (defendant) said one was not suitable as it was in foal. To his recollection, nothing was said about a warranty. The mare was in good condition when sold. When Miss Cromey came nothing was said about sound- ness but he said he would keep the pony for him- self if it was quiet and not afraid of steam.—Cross examined Had heard all that had been Aid on the other side, and he heard a great deal of what never occurred. Plaintiff and Miss Cromey did not ask him about a warranty.—The Judge said it was peculiar that defendant never gave a warranty and yet expected a warranty from other people, The plaintiff accepted delivery after Hodge was said to have called to the lameness. Plaintiff was put upon enquiry and yet did not repudiate, but ac- cepted delivery. Plaintiff did not repudiate until ifter failure to sell at Crewe. He (the Judge) questioned whether there was anything to go o the Jury. There was also the question whether :he defects did not arise after the sale. when the nare belonged to the plaintiff.—The jury, having jxpressed a wish to hear Mr Jones, veterinary surgeon, Towyn, who, having been called, said he examined the mare on the 16th February when she was sound. The hoof was well formed, the atrophy and the other defects were not present and the splint was not unsoiin(Iness.-Crois examined: His evidence was in opposition to the evidence of the other experts. There was no thrush, no con- tracted heel, and no atrophy. With the exception of the splint, there was no unsoundness and no evidence of lameness. Would stake his professional reputation on that.—Mr Wynne Williams, Dol- gelley, said he exatiiiiied" the mare en the 8th March and found her ^sifund. He could not find nothing wrong, The off-hoof was normal and there was no lameness.—-Cross-examined Totally disagreed with plaintiff's surgeons. If she was suffering from those things on the 23rd February, she might be better on the 8th March. There was no thrush or atrophy. Thrush often caused lame- ness.—The jury found for the defendant and de- fendant withdrew his counterclaim.

Board of Guardians.

Advertising

Licensed Victuallers' Banquet.

.THE NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS.

Advertising

-----.----CAPEL DEVVI.