Papurau Newydd Cymru

Chwiliwch 15 miliwn o erthyglau papurau newydd Cymru

Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

7 erthygl ar y dudalen hon

ABERYSTWYTH.

Newyddion
Dyfynnu
Rhannu

ABERYSTWYTH. County Court. On Thursday, April 25th, before His Honour Judge William Evans. ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE. The adjourned case of T. D. Owen, Tre'rddol, who sued Jane Jones, widow of Richard Jones, also of Tre'rddol, for £13 odd for goods supplied, came on for decision. Mr Vaughan Edwards (from the office of Mr Hugh Hughes), was for the plaintiff, and Mr William Davies (Messrs Smith, Davies & Co.), was for the defendant. The Judge at the previous Court, referred the case to the Registrar for enquiry as to the estate left by the deceased. Mr Edwards now formally made appli- cation for judgment, as against the estate and for payment of the amount by weekly instalments of 5s.-His Honour gave judgment according to the application. A DISPUTED WILL. In the case of Ann Mariah Lewis against John Stephens, Mr A. J. Hughes appeared for the plain- tiff, and Mr J. S. Pritchett (instructed by Mr W. Jones Hughes), for the defendant. Mr Hughes, in his opening statement, said this was a remitted action from the Chancery Division of the High Court. Unfortunately, it was a family dispute. The plaintiff is the wife of David Lewis, Gelli- dywyll, near Devil's Bridge, and she was natural daughter of sister of the defendant, John Stephens, of [Troedrhiwsebon, Cwmrkeidol. The action was brought to recover P-100 due to plaintiff under the will, dated May 22, 1879. of John Stephens, father of the defendant. The real question at issue was, who purchased the farm called Troedrhiwsebon. upon which the amount claimed under the will was a charge. John Stephens, the elder, had been in possession of Troedrhiwsebon Farm, which was a part of the Gogerddan Estate, for many years. In 1875 he interviewed Mr Fryer, the agent, and on the 28th July of that year, an agreement was entered into for the purchase, but as to who exe- cuted that agreement—whether it was John Stephens, the elder, or John Stephens, the younger —he (Mr Hughes) could not say at present. On the 27th November, 1875. an agreement was entered into between father and son, which was to the effect that defendant was to inherit and have possession of Troeirhiwsebon after the next crops had been harvested on condition that he paid £200 sterling at the time of taking possession of the farm to his father. The conveyance by the Gogerddan trustees to the defendant was dated November lltb, 1875, and he (Mr Hughes) sub- mitted that that conveyance bad been drafted by the defendant's solicitors, submitted tothe vendors, and excepted, but there was a delay in completing the purchase. And he would suggest that the reason for this was that John Stephens had not the £ 750 to purchase the property, and he borrowed J:40, and that Z400 formed a portion of the E750 paid for the property. This P,400 was got by John Stephens, the younger, and fill OT abSut 27th December, 1875, the purchase was completed by him. The plaintiff was now 32years of age, and until eight or nine years ago worked as servant at Troedrhiwsebon. John Stephens, the elder, died August 9th, 1879, and the agreement of 27th November, 1875, was never carried out. His widow continued t. occupy the farm until August, 1899, when she also died. For some time before her-death she was in a feeble condition, and find- ing the responsibility of the farm too great for it, she sold the bulk of it, on nine months' credit. Within a iew days of the expiration of the credit she died, whereupon the defendant took possession of the sale books, collected the whole of the money and possessed himself of whatever personal estate Mrs Stephens had. Defendant lived on at the farm for some years after his death, and afterwards married and left home. In the terms of the will of John Stephens it was evident the old man considered he had an interest in Troedrbiwsebon at the date be made his will, and ignoring the legal estate being in his son, relied upon the understanding that existed and was continued between himself and son according to the agreement of 1875. By his will, John Stephens, the elder, bequeathed the farm of Troedrhiwsebon after the death of his wife to his son John, his heirs, and assigns, with the house and property, on condition that he paid P,100 to his daughter Maryaret, and P,100 to his grand-daughter, Ann Maria Powell (the defendant.) Of this docu- ment, the defendant was perfectly familiar, and he gave effect to the will in so far that he allowed the late Mrs Stephens to continue in possession of the farm up to the time of her death.—The Judge said the agreement of November 27th, contemp- lated that the property was really the property of deceased. If that was so, could it not be assumed that he paid the full purchase money.—Mr Prit- chett My case is that the defendant found the whole of the purchase money.—Mr Hughes said whether the mortgage was negotiated by the de- fendant for his own personal use or on behalf of his father he was unable to tell. But he thought it was common ground that at the time of the pur- chase in 1875 the late John Stephens had in his possession a sum of over C350.ITr Pritchett said it was not common ground. The real question was where the P.350 came frt)rii.Alr Hughes replied that even assuming defendant paid this Z350, he paid it under the terms of agreement of 27th November, 1875. Defendant acted as agent for his father, and the extent of any equitable interest thefather had in the property should be entitled to charge so much as interest would bear in favour of plaintiff.-Plaintiff was then called, and gave evidence in support of the claim. She said she had beard her mother say that John Stephens (the elder) had sold the sheep to secure P,350 toward the purchase of the farm,—Mr Pritchett. for the de- fence, pointed out that the title deeds of Troe lrhiw- seboti were in the name of the defendant, an.1 he became personally liable for a mortgage of P,400.- Mr Hughes now put in the agreement with the Gogerddan Estate for the purchase of the farm. which he said was made out by himself, and was made with John Stephens, the father.—John Stephens, the defendant, was then called. He said the sum of £ 400 was secured on mortgage for the purchase of the farm. and he (defendant) provided the balance He got P,150 from a Mr D tvid Davies. P,70 from his wife, and £40 from his brother. Healso had "90 himself, which he had earned by hauling lead ore from the mines. After he left the farm, at the time he got married, he agreed to allow his mother to remain in possession, she promising to pay the interest on the amount of the purchase, and also to lend him assistance at Pantmawr. whither he had gone, wi-e-i he required it. His father bad not procured E350 by selling sheep. The sheep belonged to his brother, who sold them, and devoted the monev to his own purposes In cross-examination Mr Hughes put in a document, bearing defendant's signature. Defendant, how- ever, said he did not rf-member having signed it, although he admitted the signature was very much like bis own. The document was signed a few days before the farm was purchased. It stated, My son, John Stephens, at present residing with me at Troedrhiwsebon. is to inherit and have possession of the farm of Troedrhiwsebon, at present my property, after the next crop has been harvested, and I have a house ready to remove into as dwelling for myself and wife." He used his father's horses for hauling, and was allowed to have all the money he earned that way. He also worked on the farm but received no wages for that. He did not. think of adrling" junior" to his name when be paid the money into the bank. He was quite certain be had a sum of zC90 on deposit in the National and Provincial Bank in 1875. which he took out to pay the deposit in connection with the purchase of the farm. He was not aware of his father's will until about six months ago. His mother was engaged in an action at Aberystwyth County Court in 1897. He then instructed the solicitor on her behalf. He did not know anything about the will then.—Rev Edward Stephens, vicar of St. John's, Tonvrefail, Porth, brother of the de- fendant, said he purchased the farm. He was not particular whether it was for himself or his brother. His brother paid the deposit money, He lent his brother two sums of £ 20 a short time after the sale, which had not been repxid. He was also surety for his brother for P,150, the note for which was renewed in 1881.-Cros.examiner1 by Mr Hughes: Witness said he was not aware of the will until these proceedings. He had heard of a will, by which he thought his brother John was to receive £ 150—Ellen Stephens, wife of the defend- ant, proved lending her husband £ 70, which she had received from her mother. This sum was devoted to the purchase of the farm.—Thomas Powell, Pencarreg, brother of the p-evious witness, said he remembered his mother giving £70 to his sister. He understood that the money was to be nsed in purchasing Troedrhiwsebon. Frances Jenkins, Blwcca, said she remembered defendant's mother telling her after her husband's death that her son was the owner of the farm, he having come into it because he and his brother purchased it.—Evan Davies, Minrheidiol, formerly servant at Troedrbiwsebon. said he had heard the late Mrs Stephens sav that John, her s;n, was the owner of the farm.—His Honour, in his judgment, said he could find no beneficial interest in the testator as far as Troedrhiwsebon was concerned at the time of making the will, and would give judg- ment for the defendant.—No costs were applied for. EXTRA SERVICES. Elizabeth Atkins, laundress, sued Miss Rhodes, of Caerleon House School for ZI 9s, wages due.—Mr W. P. Owen, who appeared for the plaintiff, said she was employed by Mrs Newton, the defendant's sister, as laundress for a ladies' school at the wages of Zl per week. On the 23rd February she was usked to act as nurse for two young ladies suffering from German measles, and for ten days she acted j in that capacity. During that time she bad to stay up with the iw > imalids every night, and had to keep the tires goi!;g. bue now asked for the sum of 14s 6d in addition to her wages, for the nursing, and for the extra coal biiriit.-Defeii(lant bar. paid 13s 3d into Court.-Aliss Newton, who appeared for the defendant, said plaintiff occu- pied a cottage, which was used as a sanatorium in case of any infectious disease at the school. It was understood that plaintiff was K> act as nurse in such cases, and the week's Jwashing was then sent out to the laundry.—Plaintiff said she washed for four girls during the time she was nursing, Miss Newton said all the washing except that of the two girls who were ill was sent out to the laundry.- The judge said there was nothing in the plaintiff's engagement that she was to act as nurse, and he would therefore give judgment for another 10s in addition to the 13s 3d paid into court.

A Welsh Nurse at the War.

Cardigan Entire Horse Show.,

Llandyssul Horse Show.

LLANWNEN.

Advertising

Cardiganshire Main Roads Committee.…