Symud i'r prif gynnwys
Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

7 erthygl ar y dudalen hon



CARMARTHEN COUNTY COURT. I This court was held on Monday, before T. H. Terrell, Esq. We report the only cases of interest. Taylor v. Harries.-This was a jury case, tried by Mr John Jones, Cwmburry; Mr Henry Davies, Bre- menda Mr Henry Harries, King-street; Mr Richards, Moelfre and Mr J. Evans, King-street. Mr Davies, Carmarthen, for the plaintiff, and Mr Lewis Bishop for the defendant. The plaintiff is William Henry Taylor, a groom with Major Hill, and formerly ostler at the Boar's Head Hotel, Carmarthen, and he sued Mr W. Harries, a commercial traveller, living at Carmarthen, for Y,6 2s 6d, for taking care of his horse while at the Boar's Head. Mr W. H. Taylor, the plaintiff, said that in December, 1866, he was ostler at the Boar's Head. On the 16th of that month the defendant agreed, in the presence of Mr John Olive, in the bar, to give him 2s (;d a week for looking after his horse, which was at livery at the hotel, and his trap, saddle and bridle. The horse re- mained in charge till July, 1867, when he went out to grass, and remained out till the end of August, when he was brought back to the stable, and remained there till November 27, 1867. During that time, plaintiff attended to the horse, and when absent, a helper, to whom he paid 9s a week attended to the horse for him. Plaintiff received several sixpences for washing the trap, and on several occasions, he received Is 9d or some such sum for singeing and trimming the horse. He never received anything on account of attending to the horse. Had often asked defendant for something on account, but defendant wanted to quarrel, and on one occasion threatened to give him something he would not like (laughter) and on another occasion, when asked for money by the plaintiff, he said that he was out of collar" (laughter.) Had never asked him for payment again till he sent the bill, in January, 1869, because there was always a bother about it. By Mr Bishop-The agreement with the defendant was made on the same day as he went ostler to the Boar's Head. Plaintiff had no wages from Mr Olive only had what he could get from people who brought horses to the stable. Mr Mclvett's horse was there. He attended to it, and received 3s 6d a week; by con- tract. He charged defendant for the time the horse was out at grass, because he had a great deal of trouble in catching him whenever defendant's friends wanted the loan of him. Defendant often lent the horse to different parties. [Plaintiff produced several account books in which he had been accustomed to enter his receipts.] Defendant with the horse and trap was away sometimes for a week but not often. When he was away the other things had to be kept in order. The defendant took the horse away from the Boar's Head, because he was badly kept; but he could not expect him to be well kept when he would not allow him corn. Several persons used the horse by defendant's leave. Mrs Olive used him. Did not charge for those occasions. Very likely the horse came in from grass about the end of October. When plaintiff agreed to take charge of the horse, defendant said he had been paying the previous ostler, Morris, 3s 6d per week, which he thought was too much and offered 2s 6d, which plaintiff accepted. [Plaintiff here put in a memorandum which he said he made at the time the agreement was made but some erasures had been made and the writing re- written.] Defendant distinctly promised to pay 2s 6d a week for looking after the horse, and 6d extra when- ever the trap went out. Every horse coming for the night paid commercial pay-Gd per horse and trap, and 3d for cleaning the harness. When training Minossa, plaintiff received 3s per week, by contract. By the Jury—When other parties had the loan of defendant's horse, they gave me something. Mr John Olive, of the Boar's Head Hotel, said the defendant agreed to pay 5d per feed of corn, and Is 6d per night for hay did not include anything for the groom for attending on the horse. He corroborated the evidence as to the agreement made between plaintiff and defendant; but could not exactly say it was on the same day as the plaintiff went to the hotel as ostler. It might have been it was in the same week. Had heard plaintiff ask for something for looking after the horse defendant said he would give it him another time. During the earlier portion of the time that the horse was under plaintiits care defendant was in employ. By Mr Bishop-There was some talk between plain- tiff and defendant about something being given for extra work. When in employ, defendant was often away for a week, sometimes longer. Sometimes he took the horse and trap, sometimes he did not. Knew nothing of the ostler's charge for other horses. The ostler received no wages, but had what he could get. The defendant's horse when out at grass, was often used he came in from grass about the end of Septem- ber or the beginning of October. [Mr Bishop proved by an hotel bill, that the horse came in at the beginning of October.] Witness had the entire control of con- tracting with the servants of the hotel. By Mr Davies-Defendant always paid the ostler for grooming the horse, before plaintiff's time. The defendant was then examined, and said that he never made an agreement with the ostler for any fixed sum, that his agreement with Mrs Olive, when he first put his horse there in 18G5 was not to give anything to the ostler, but what he pleased. He paid 2s 9d a day at that time. By Mr Davies-Did not give the previous ostler 3s 6d a week, but just what he chose. Could not tell how much, exactly. Did not know that plaintiff only had what he could get from persons frequenting the hotel. Did not know, as a commercial traveller, that it was a custom at hotels for the ostler to have just what he could get. Knew there were fixed charges for the ostler, sometimes, and if he did not pay the ostler personally, he had to pay it in the bill. Was not out of employ during the greater part of the time, plaintiff took care of his horse; was not behind hand with pay- ing Mrs Olive. Mrs Olive was compelled to sue him before she could get her money from him. By Mr Bishop—Refused to pay Mrs Olive, because his horse had been misused. Was out on his journeys for nine weeks, and the horse was out at grass for another nine weeks and three days. The judge told the jury that if they thought the plaintiff was paid by fees instead of wages, and that there was an agreement between plaintiff and defen- dant, they must find for the plaintiff with the full amount claimed; but if they thought anything ought to be deducted for the time the horse was out at grass, they could do so. 0' The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for 15. DAVIES v. LEWIS.-This was another jury case, tried by Mr Rees, stationer, and Mr H. Howells, who replaced some jurymen excused. The plaintiff, Mr William Davies, Nantcwnlle, farmer, sued the defendant, Mr Evan Lewis, John's-town, butcher, fortio Is 6jd, the balance of an account for some sheep. Mr Snead for the plaintiff, Mr Davies for the defendant. The dispute was whether the sheep were sold for 2 jd or :3id per lb. and the circumstances were these. About November, 1868, the plaintiff sold Mr Philip Lewis, a butcher, at Carmarthen, 20 sheep at 31d per lb.; but as the plaintiff was not at home when the purchaser went to weigh them, he threw up the bargain. The same sheep were afterwards purchased by the defendant; and the plain- tiff swore that during the higgling, he declared that he would not sell them cheaper than he had sold them to Phillip Lewis, previously, viz, 3td per lb. The bar- gain was made partly at the field, and partly at the Black Ox, Abergwilly, in the presence of a man named Daniel James. The defendant swore that he agreed for 2id, and wrote his pocket-book, Bought of Mr Davies, Pantcwnlle, 20 sheep, at 2d per lb. that the plaintiff said the name of his place was spelt wrong, and altered it to "Nantcwnlle;" that the whole of the bargain was crossed out, and re-written by defendant, and handed to plaintiff, who said" Quite right, Lewis." Daniel James corroborated this. On the other hand the plain- tiff swore that the writing had only extended as far as Pantcwnlle," when he interrupted the defendant in his writing, and said that the place was spelt wrong and it was urged by Mr Snead that the price of the sheep, 21d was written in afterwards, and crossed out again, in order to evade the claim. The plaintiff also swore that the book was not handed to him after the bargain bad been re-written, and that he never did say that it was all right. Daniel James and the defendant both swore that when asked to throw something back, the plaintiff said that the sheep were cheap enough at 21d, and he would not give anything back. Mr Snead asked Daniel James whether plaintiff did not say that he would sell the sheep at the same price as he had previously sold them to Phillip Lewis, viz., 31d; but the witness did not answer the question. But he re- membered the defendant, saying, Never mind what Phillip Lewis has offered;" what will you sell them to me for," and the defendant replied 2yd per lb." It was proved by Phillip Lewis, the man who bought the sheep first of all, that from the time that he bought them till the time the defendant bought them, sheep had gone down, and were about as low as he had ever known them—It was contended by Mr Davies that it was entirely a question as to whether the plaintiff agreed to that contract written in the pocket book, or whether he did not. Mr Snead denied that the plain- tiff ever agreed to the contract of 2-4 1d; but supposing he did, he w as an old man, obliged to wear spectacles, and the price might have slIpped his eye, a figure 3 sometimes being made by men of the defendant's posi- tion, something similar to a figure 2.The Judge said it was entirely a matter of contract; it was true that the plaintiff had defective sight, but he could see plainly enough that his farm was spelt wrong, and the inference was that he could have seen the figure quite as plainly. The question for them was did they believe the whole of the contract was written in the presence of the plaintiff, and accepted by him.—The jury retired for a few minutes, and gave a verdict for the plaintiff, for the full amount.—Mr Davies applied for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was in direct opposition to the evidence oral and written, and also,, as it seemed, in opposition to the opinion of His Honour.—His Honour took time to consider, but said he was not at all satisfied with the verdict.

[No title]