Papurau Newydd Cymru

Chwiliwch 15 miliwn o erthyglau papurau newydd Cymru

Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

17 erthygl ar y dudalen hon

lI\1v~ FAMILY DISPUTE ABOUT…

Newyddion
Dyfynnu
Rhannu

l I\ v FAMILY DISPUTE ABOUT PROPERTY. At the Montgomeryshire Assizes held in Welsh- pool on Tuesday before Mr Justice Pickford, Samuel Griffiths, of Ivy House, Penybontfawr, brought an action against his nephew, David Jones, of 57, Crown-street, Earlstown, for a declaration that he was entitled in fee simple to a dwelling house and premises situate at Peny- bontfawr, and known as Ivy House, together with the right of way thereto. Plaintiff also sought an order for delivery of title deeds of property which were in possession of the defen- dant. In the pleadings defendant claimed that under the will of his grandfather the property in dispute became his after the decease of plaintiff and plaintiff's wife. Mr Trevor Lloyd was instructed by Messrs liOngueviile and Co., of Oswestry, for the plaintiff, and Mr Colt Williams, instructed by Mr Martin Woosnam, was for the defendant. Samuel Griffiths, of Ivy H rnse, Penybontfawr, said he remembered building a cottage on land that belonged to his father in the year 1860, and the date 1859 was engraved on aotone in the house. He himself supplied the materials for building the house; the stone he had from Char es Jones' quarry. He remember some of the people who had helped him to get material. Maurice Roberts was the only one left. He and his wife had lived in the house since 1860, and he had never paid any rent or given any acknow- ledgment of the debt. There was another tenant, a Mrs Watkin, who had paid rent to him. She afterwards went to Tynywern, which belonged to Lord Powis. The only arrangement he had made with his father was that he was to have the house if he built it. His father died in 1888, and after his death he saw by the will that the house was to go to the defendant after his death. When he saw that he consulted his solicitor, and his son on his bahalf wrote to the executor of his father's will. Mr Colt Wiiiiams said that he would not admit that the letter over came to his client. Mr Lloyd: You knew that the property was mortgaged by your fa her. Witness: Well, how could he mortgage it when I had it (laughter). Mr Lloyd: Well, he did mortgage it. When did you first hear of this mortgage ?-Soon after his death. To get up to Ivy House he had to come along the road through an opening in the back. Cross-Examined by Mr Colt Williams He was working for his father in the same trade, as a joiner now and again. He bad no workshop of his own but used his father's workshop. It was not for some years afterwards that he had any workshop of his own. He had built the house on his father's land at his own expense, and got the money from his father-in-law and mother-in-law. He had borrowed .£50 from them He had to get stone from the quarry to build the house with. He paid X2 for getting the stone. He did not pay tor the haulage of the stone, nor his father. John Roberts had not helped to get the stone out of the quarry. He was not working in the quarry with John Roberts either. The timber he got from Pwlliago, and this he used for the spars of the roof. His father also was in the habit of having timber from Pwlliago. The do-rs and window frames he had from Lockwood, of Chester. He got slates from Bibby's quarry, and his father also dealt there. Mr Colt Wiiiiams In the year 1862 your father I borrowed X150 on the very house which you say you had built?—How could he have had the money when I built the house His father never legally turned the land over to him. And he never nsked his father for the < deeds of the land. His father had told him several times that the houses were for him. He was on very good terms with his father at the time. He was nTer rough with his tongue and threatening to his father. Did you know that after your death or your wife's death your father willed that the house was to go to your nephew ? -That is the cause of it now. He was disappointed but did not say that he was going to break the will to Mr David Jones, at Llanwddyn waterworks. Up to his father's death no repairs to the house were paid for by his father. During those years he was generally working wih his father. David Jones had never worked an hour for wir.ness. He once put some posts up near t.) Dwid Jones' house. David Jones did not pull them up, but he had taken them up hiaiFqlf because they were in the way when he took his horse and cart round. He had net laid claim to the house before because he could not afford to do so. Jane Griffith, wife of the last witness, said she remembered the building of the house. Her husband used to work at the house by night as well as by day; and witness went there to live before it was half finished. Cross-examined She did not remember whether her husband helped his father with other houses. Elizabeth Jones said that in 1865 she went to live at the cottage adjoining Ivy House. Samuel Griffiths and his wife wtre living in the house then. Her husband always paid the rent to Samuel Griffiths. When she went to the other cottage he paid the rent to Thomas Griffiths. Maurice Roberts, a labourer of Llangedwyn, said that in 1859 he was employed by Squire Thomas He was engaged to carry stone for Ivy House by Samuel Griffiths. He had some money to get a drink from Samuel Griffiths, that was all. Samuel Griffiths paid him the money for the tolls. Cross-examined: He know that Samuel Griffiths was working for his father. This concluded the case for the plaintiff. David Jones, a nephew to the plaintiff, and the defendant in the action, said in answer to Mr Colt Williams, that he lived with his parents at the Railway Tavern. He afterwards went into service as a labourer, and came home at week- ends. In 1876 his father died in Birmingham. He woiked for his grandfather at the trade until he got married in 1883. His uncle (tqe plaintiff) was working most of his time for his grandfather as a paid servant. His grandfather had had Ivy House put in order several times. Robert Jones was the mason employed, and his grandfather paid him. He afterwards worked with Samuel Griffiths (the plaintiff)" at Llanwddyn Water- works. He remembered the death of his grand- father, and the reading of the Will. His uncle told him when at Llanwddyn that he would break the Will He had twice torn up posts which had been put in his land; the second time he threw them in the river. Since his grand- father's death he had done repairs to the roof of the house about twelve or fourteen years ago. He had also within the last five years done some repairs to the cottage which adjoined Ivy House. XR« L J i 1 i ] I a I 1] C P f f I t t o d d 1J V a a t ( < of < liuiuuHl oi loot truveueia tiuao can ai Borden Workhouse is much greater than it waa I. twelvemonth ago. Last Wednesday it was re- :ported that during the previous fortnight 277 men, 11 women, and 8 children had lodged in the 'casual ward, a total of 296, against 192 last year. For Chronic Chest Complaints, Woods' Great Peppermint Core. 1/11,2/9.

NEWTOWN

BERRIEW.

SARN.

CAERSWS.

[No title]

( W EJLiSHPOOL.

CARNO.

Sequel to an Explosion at…

| gafcfcenrttttg I g)bitttarp.

MACHYNLLETH

| TREFEGLWYS.

I LLANIDLOES.

LLANFYLLIN.

MONTGOMERY.

Farmer's Wife Slandered.

Advertising