The Welsh Coast Pioneer and Review for North Cambria

(Continued frcju Page 2). a^]^JainS' Witness kept the accounts, and from the'6 6r' Was ^'a^e!n' by the ad'vooate through; p •, various amounts supposed to have been J1,. 'as totereist by the -mortgagors to tifoe ;ee(viaS year 1902. On one sidle of the p .^er were t'he receipts, some of which were L We. ain^' s'oine q4 £ which., 'according -to the book, ■' ort"0* P'a':c^5 an'd on other side the amount ^heqU;es paid.to MTs Hughes. v'ntness could not say -whether some of the \^s were trust accounts. de ,H.UM,:1J,HR'EYS: Nothing should go on the P^ans unless it refers to Trust monies. Wle t n'0t Charged witih anything else. ^1* ROBERTS I ■am quite prepared to- elimi- r ,e in these books iw'hiic'h does- not lti0 ,trust accounts, but how can you c ^Unt tor a cheque for ^"87 if you only put s 31,11 itemis down. 'The depositions 'will get fflixed! up that no one wull ibe aiblie to' make fc TK 'r tail of St'hem- Pr'aot k acc0UBi:s ^or I9°3> ad'ded witness, had jj 11 entered up, ana the 'ledger Co retained of rnonev received after the end of ^5 ROBERTS Mrs Huigh(es had no money s n, V; *he end1 of Apnil? "ntn-ess: Very possibly not. CLERK Where did vou write this book P from? I a jy^ness Mr Jones would sometimes give me lS*> at other times I would write it up from 1 t sc^:edule of investments. this point the court adjourned for luncheon, hi rkIesi™ing, witness saad the 1-ed'gier produced' "een partly kept by Mr Rolberlts and himself, e se!condl ledger was mostly kept by witness, P same remark applied t'o t'he third ledger, led exception of one or two- ac'counte. The gears showed the account's as between, the endants and their clienlcs. Witness got the from the counter-foil's of recieli'pt ani'dl beeclu? hooks.. All the money received was to Co *0' credit of the firm's banking ac- d>efni" Those were his instruction's from the ^ndlamts, and he carried them out. ll jfn'eSS Pr°d.'u,celd. the will of the late D.avid1 6s showing a gross personalty of £ 18,342 a 90, and which was .proved in1 Septemlbeir, 1890, Well as the draft account of the receipts, ^PWdulture, and investments of the saidl David p Sales;' 'estate. From t'he endorsement it ap- bu+rf^' a's 'w'^n'ess had made seven; copies, _for whiat purpose he could not say. a itn«ss examined a number of draft eom'vey- ah°eS anc^ mortgage's, somte o'f which had been: ^ve'616^ ^n' r'e:sP,eict t:0' the name. The alter at ions m,a^,e hy witness, but he had forgotten all Ha Uit !t^'ei11, With respect to on>e of itihiese, the t^ie' ori-g1™ mortgagee seemed to- have in. pencil, .and the endorsement now "O;w-e,n WiilMams anld others to Owen d Jones, Esq." Humphrey's Cross examines. 'W'a r°Ss~examin;e'd Out of the 13 years witness Cq s. with the defend'ants he had bad absolute tv r°'i of a'lll the tbooks since 1896. Mr Jones yeaer ^Wterfered' with the cash account from that xjj UlP to the present. All monies received by tlj^endant were brought to. witness, who p.a.id iinnlto the ibank. Cheques were mo sidy by witness, but .not all of them. it 'broadly, the defendanits niever hid 'c.a'.sh 'transactions from, jlo q?- No. eXa ,Xvas some years since the defendants had tv ^ed t'he cash account. saiir! rrin:g lto ^e Tyngwern Estate, witness there were some people w'hb expected lega- StMs late, David Hughes. There were eW, r€,si'duary legatees under the will. About of jf11 years ago he rememibered Robert Hughes, oilal ^,n:r:;u hr.o and Deganwy, getting into fin an- ^f>h?ifficul'ties, an(^ '^le defendant Jones bought /2 s interest under the will. If his share was it was reasonable that he could not frtQ °ut of the estate after having received .it thlern th.e defendant. Mr Jones furither assisted of enieficLary by lending hi-mi money on a bill rert,' e' and generally financing him. Witness :wh ernbered John Pritcbard, a residuar-y legatee, ty'ete als'° §ot init0' idifficulties, and w!h'ose; debts {,hQ .P^id off by jones, at the rate: of 20s in 0^ *=• He, therefore., took an a'bsolutDe assngn- share under the will of ^2,600. c0lfteT the circumstance's, not a penny would °'U!t the estate. aiwSi e,njdant advanced 'money to David Roberts, c0ul,er legatee, upon his s'hiare, but witness t)av- n'°t say how much. He also advanced CcT Hughes :some money. Witness could! ^tn°Ut 11 ow much if he had access to the books. Hi0ness believed defendant advanced some 'b'Ult to "t.hiose people who expected legacies, ^frs S°'slt. 0> them, were postponed until after aQyjtirruS'he's' death. He could not say whether l-;rra -1:nS wiafe due to 'the defendant on those hiIe3'k ^^hiard Roberts, Llandudno, had ^'50 sh-are, and Mrs: Roberts, Pen'machino, had Mr ,anoe- Ts fl^uS'he,s, the widow, received ^3,000 in in th, eT .eir huslband's deaith, Mr Jones was Ije habut of investing her savings for her. in. fL '^t know there wias ^15,000 standing ^Ugh'6 j'N^rth and South, Wales Bank in Mrs of es naime. He had no idea of the amount ^■eiid '^t^e. He could not say whether the SagiQj, aT11^ had ever 'given notice to any mioA- ,'N^aS?B-up the Pri,ncll'Pal- ;ia a 'WallJams, you have been long enough utlili:&eS° 'C:ltior':s; office to know that we often es an CII, draft by simply altering fche name? h It a fact that it is .done i'n soores of T>, 'Yes. P A"ere s n'° point in :tlhat, at amy riate. '1>^P0infElRTS: wasn't the point at all. °f Is?0j5'tTwas that the mortgage was- in favour "When, ,ar-d -not in favour of the trust. in you received these monies you were Vv'aS: not Qe O'f in'formanig Mr Jones. It -N:a I riece-ss'ary, ;or part of your instructions? "^Qu ca.rn.e Z1?1P^y entered them in vour book as they Of —Ye, that is all. si 'Mr "wf-6'- ^ere :^s nothing against youi in 510 for a ^ros. Neither Mr Jones or I think N0 S A. FOMENT. Cooked Accounts. TO-ttx-es accounts were made up alt duffer- • ha -J, Jones ever l-aad you. to believe hlaveaS c'0'°^1:n:a these accounts? Of course, iievpn- m:^nci 'Of j"our own. n*^hoSie 'rearnt of such a thing. a?ed qu.;+iCCcmn!t,s 4hat you prepared were pre- t, e'S j ^'d'ependientiy of him. n?'e'strneTi+U3S^ 10 miake -them from the list of aUl<l nloa.s 'always (anxious that Mrs Hughes 's> hekeplt waitin.g for her interest? An^j '3l* H.. 0 -r^'61 itiioTtp16 Prfr9S! on several occasions some ^ca-xijawt °aS0;Es for payment of their interest? ^id yojj say that. ever see any letters?—No. D'o you mean to say M.r David. Jones leaned over the dock, and spoke to hiis dciicibor. Mr HUMPHREYS Did nolL -one of these people, have to go in for a second mortgage, be- caClI:e his was in arrears wifh hd-s inil,ere,s)t-j,ohn Wynne, of Eglwvsbach? 'Witness': I did not remiemher for the moment. I do now. Mr HUMPHREYS And do you not know of another inistiance, when; I'las Twrwg was ;6ioo in arrear? Witness I can-not .say what the amount was. Mr HUMPHREYS Is it not a fialott'ha{ in order to keep faith with Mrs Hughes, Mr Jones paid her dividends w'hether he received them or not? Witness Thar is so. Mr HUMPHREYS In faClt, nearly twojt'hc,rds of the interest was not pa-id, so that Mr jone-s was sacrificing His own pocket tto- pay Mrs Hughes her income regularly? Witness Yes. Mr HUMPHREYS Do you know that a great many of ithe mortgagtsis are. in arrear? Mr ROBERTS You had better nla.me them. Witness There was David DavlÆs, Penmach- no. Mr HUMPHREYS You can tell me generally whether (there are aiot thousand's oif pound's owin'g to. the firm. Witness could n;ot stay exactly, but he knew there was a lot of monley out. vlr DAVIES proceeded to cross-examine the witness on behalf of Roberts. Diea'liing with the interest in arrears, asked the advociatte, do you remember on one occasion going to Mr Roberts and. telling Mm that the interest of Mb-ses Roberts had not been paid for s:omle time? Witness Yes, I d'o. Do you know whether Mr Roberts wrote to M'oses Roberts? I canniot s»ay that. Oan you say whether within a few day's off this conversation ,rOse9 Roberts came to the office wiit'h a letter? I c'annot rieri ember. With that exception, did you ever c,on,sult Mr Roberts in any way about ,the Tyngwern Estate ? --No. Did you see ÔJrs IIu.ghes%o:mi.ng to the office? —Yes. And she invariably saw Mr Janes?—Yes. Can you remember any items entered in the cash-book byrMr Robents after Apriil, 1896. I don't think there are any, bult I should like to look at the book first. The Firm's Financial Circumstances. Do you ever rem-mihCi.' the firm being in financial (Difficulties? No. I did not—-notuntil lately. How late? Six months ago? Wruen ,there was need to draw 'a cheque to pay people was thlerÐ tauy hesiitafci'on on the part of the- firm in doing so--No. Did you ever siign--ch,e,ques? Yes; I had permission to sign cheques up to ,610. And did you ever exercise' that -permlis'snon:?— Yes, sir. You were in the employment of David Jones "before Mr Roberts joined him?—Yes. Were you the cashier?—No. From- the time whein you first -went to Mr David Jones, was lit not the practice in the office to pay all monies- received inlto the firm's bank- ing iaccou:nt?- Yes. Mr Jones- wduld receive: all the monlies him- self?—Yes. What was the firm's turnover a,t the bank in the half-year? Would it be far short of £ 50,000. I could ndt say. Well, you have the hank-book? This advocate, :tonk up the. bank pass-book. "I am taking tlhe. figures for six month,s," he said, "'ending December, 1901, .and find a turn- over of £ '14,654. Mr ROBERTS But that wouiM include the balanice brought -forward from the previous half year. Mr DAVIES Of course, it would. Mr ROBERTS Then, it was not the turnover for the half year. Mr DAVIES Well, taking it generally they had a large: turnover? WTtnes's-: Y es. RE-EXAMINED by Mr Roberts. Was it not because the bank was pressing you to reduce thle overdraft that you went to M,r Roberts about Moses Roberts and Mrs Hughes' ,irre S. I went to Mr Roberts because there was a left of money due f-ro!in, .Icsrzs Roberts. Who- attended to the conveyancing?—-I did. I mean- which of the principals ? Oh, Mr Jones. So ithaie whelther it was tru.stt estate work or not, whose handwriting woul-d' you expect to find in the draft? Well, Mr Jones'. You staid you -did niolt remember the firm being in financial difficulties? No, nfot until reteenfdy. •• Had yoiv-%ny. reason to doulbt theiir finanicial status?—No. Had you any opportunity of kinowing it? Yes; I always had access to the bank pass- book. It was practically in my charge:. k,n, answer to the Bench, Witness said he occa- sionally would put the pass-book on Mr Joares' table. Sometimes Mr Roberts would ask for it if he' wanted to look up some iltem. The -witness- then retired, having been, in the boxjfor the igreatter parit of the day. THOiMAS W ILLIAMS. Taniy'berl'lan, Gon-way, said' he purchased' -his farm nine years ago for £ 750. The defendiants actled for !him ;n the purchase. Witness got an advance of £700 to pay for the. property from the defendants. Witness ifo.rmerly had some- houses in Conway, bult he sold .them, after he purchased the farm. Mr James Porter -actedi for the 'buyer, who- gav-e hli'ITl' ,445 for sfhem. "T,r Roberts (adtleiti for wiilt- r-es.is, a-ndJ the ttramsacidon took iplace in Mr Porter's office at Co-mvay. Thie, cheque- for the purchase nvoaey was handed, t'o Mr Robemtis, ^400 was to go towards paying oN the mortgage on' the farm, and he -paid 6io for CiOSltS -and abou't for interest. A of Z300 was, there- fore, left on the fa rm. buildings. Witne.S' subse- quently ha-di a fuliither -advance of between- £200 and ^300 from, David and Margaret Owein, Fes- itlinio'g. Thaic mortg-age was n,o,t jrn: exAstembe at pres-ent, as he palidi ilt .off through Mr A. O. 'Evans, Denbigh. Witness owed no mlonley alt BE to. -David' Jones <o,r Thomas Wiilliams, the trustees of the Tyiigwenn Estate, and rehia.i pi,Cl no interest tiC) -thiem for seven, or eight years. Breach of Promise Reminicenses. AMU-iTMG CR'OSS-Ev4 viT\'ATIO — ^I<r HUMPHREYS proceeded to cnoss-e^oamine the witness on. behalf oif Mr David Jonle's. He gave hiis- answ-ers in Welsh, which were inter- preted by P.C. Ellis. Do you nioan to say that you owe nothing at all tfo Me'ssrs Jones and R-obents? ■' ■■ Isay that I owe •therm amtytthing. There was a, breach -of promise -actiion brought against you,?—Yes. And the plaintiff wasawardeid £100 damages? —Yes. And the c'osits of the o-ther slide amounted to alboult £120? I could, not say; I never had t'he bill. Did you know -that Messrs David Jones and Roberts' costs amounted to over £ 100? -No. I did- not, because I hav-e nloit -recelived an account, allhoughi .asked .several tiinnes for H. Not havinlg received any account, are, you still prepared to- say itfhat you don't owe the defend- ants any money-? Witness (smiling) It depends upon what -the law say-s. (Laughter.) Mr HUMPHREYS I see. you are a careful man. (Laughter.) There as an account of £320 that I hrave just given, you now. Oh, indeed. Suppose Jones- and Roberts put what is due from you, to them. down: as due from the Ty- gwern Estate. Do you .mind whether you owe it t-o tlhe Tygw-ern Estate or to the defendants? Witness (cautiously) That is a matter to be looked; into. Mr HUMPHREYS Well, you really are cau- tious. (Laughter.) "I believe," cOnltJinued. the advocate, "you were money after the termination of your I had paidwhafr I had for niy place. And. the bailiffs were put 'Ïln.? anay one came. (Lauigihter.) Careful mam' again. I don',t ;care whether it was one. or IP wo. The fact remains that tn-ere was a -warranfr on. your goods, as 'a result of the ■action ? Witness: The case was 'heard 'on Thursday,' and the! bailiff was seen o-n- Saturday. (Mu-cn laughter.) Mr David Jones and the Bailiff. And whlalt did you do when- you saw the bailiff ? I went to Llanrwst, and saw Messrs David Jone-s and Roberts. (Laughter.) Antii -what diid they do ? They sent the bailiff away. (Daughter.) Weill, (do jyou -think the bailiff >We.nt away without money passing fromi M-r pones' pocket? The wiiitness answered iru a jocular fashion, Which caused Mr Humphreys -to exclaim angrily "This man, your worships, ils fencing, and he mnslt be cautioned'. He. is playing wiith a very serious- question, for this is undoubtedly a s-enibusi matter for David Jones, lanid af this wit- ness chooses- to brinlg a breach, of promise action, and plays the fool in, t'hait case, he is not going to pl-ay the fool he-re." Mr Pettit: Quite right, the man muslt -answer the questions properly. Mr HUMPHREYS Do you know Who, paid the tfuKl costs1 to clear the, bailiffs out of your h o u s e, David Jones, I suppose. And tit was not 2s 6d that senft him: .away, was ift ? No. I suppose not. At tlbe time the bailiff was put in, the costs had not -been' taxed.? I know the bailiff demanded Cioo, at least thlat is what was on Ms. paper. That was simply damages:? £ 100 for the damages and 6i0 for the bailiff's costs. Bult -the cost's of the action were mot included in (iihiat ta-moant? Wiiitness- dlicfcn't answer. "So-- that," -continued Mr Humphrey's, fat'-t remains that nearly £ 400 was paid- on yo-ur behialf. They were taxed .after the bailiff went -out, -and Mr David- Jones- pa,id them on youir behalf. Cross-exammed by Mr DAVIES, witness said the nego-ciators for the sale of his property were sometimes cairrie-d out at Conway, by Mr Jones, and sometimes by Mr Roberts. Takes the Entire Responsibility. At this point Mr Humphreys made am important statement. His client, Mr Jones, wished him. to say that hie ,took upon, himsellf the er/dire reLspons-iibility of the negotiations in con- nection with the Tyngwern. Estate. Mr Roberts, hris, partner, had .absolutely no control over the matiter at, all. iNi-i J-omes wished him to rriake. that statement in open court, and it would probably .save his friend, Mr Davies, asking any more questions on. the point. He should, Hike that put down. on, ijlhe deposition's. Mr ROBERTS You can-not have that put on thie deposition's. Mr Davies- was told to proceed, and he con- tinued]. Hel said the- point he wished to em- phaisti'se w'as that thie firmi hiad, an offic-e at Con- Way, which was visited- by Mr Robertas every F'riOday, aindi that it was the most natural thing in1 the 'world' fo.r Mr David Jones to say to his -partner, "Iif you are- going to- Comwlay toO-day carry thorough the, completion of this conivey- ar.'ce." ThlaJt- wa-s the poinlt which he. desired to make, dn. his cross-examiniat-io-n. An argumenit took place- a's to whether Mr Humphreys' statement of his client's wilillingness to assume r-elsponisibility -could Ibe -admitted upon' the. depositions,. Mr ROBERT'S said that if Mr Davlid, Jones liked to go the box and! be cross-e'X'am-inedf up-o-n it, it would be fall rigiht, Otherwise, it could aiot go down. Mir HUMPHREYS 'sa)id be. made the statement for the .satisfaction of hi's friend-, and lliOt for t'he prosecution. The CUE'R'K lit may shorten the proceedings. Mr J. PORTER, head of the firm of Messrs Porter and Amplhlett, solicitors, C-o-ntwiay, pr-o duceid- -a -r-hlequ!e, for £445, which he paid; over on be'haiif of a client t'o. Messrs David Joines and Roberts in. May, 1895. lot was made. payable to the defendants' firm, andi endorsed by Roberts. Wiltneisis- also -acted! for Dr. Whiit-eihead in. the purchase of Glanywern- Farm, at Mochdre, and gave a cheque for 6855, balance of the purchase money, to R'ob-erts, whose' firrmi were adtinio- for the Tyngwern Trustees. The. cheque was en- dorsed by Roberts. Questioned as to the euisit-omi -adopted by his firm sin their (ban-king trainsacitlioms, witness said it wia's ifheir invariable -pracitalcle, to pay t'he cheque init-o the bank, ded'u'c-t their costs, -and forward the balance to ifheir client. Tn-aft itransacticin would take plaice th)2 sa-me afternoon!; in fact, the. same- hour. In the caSie c)if a -trust -account he woulla place the cheque for the purc,ilase-,m,on,ey to the. credfflt of his awn banking acoounit, and then, draw out ,a -cheque less the costs, anld pay it iin the trust account. Mr ROBERTS: The- same -afternoon, of I course? Witness Oh, certainly, the entire transactioin .11., would lie, completed that afternoon. At six o'clock, the court adjouTllied until Thursday. Mr Joii-es wa's detained; in. custody, and Mr Robert. was admitted to the same balil as before, f econd Day's Proceedings on Page 16.