Hide Articles List

22 articles on this Page

AGAINST RELIGIOUS EQUALITY

COLWYN BAY EDUCATION ! AUTHORITY…

CARNARVON BOROUGH SESSIONS

I I I BEAUMARIS PETTY SESSIONS

RICHES AND POVERTY.

[No title]

PENMAENMAWR URBAN COUNCIL

PRESBYTERIAN BAZAAR AT COLWYN…

Advertising

COLWYN BAY. !

,CONWAY

LLANDUDNO

Advertising

[No title]

LLANFAIRFECHAN.I

LLANRWST.

MONTGOMERY SHIRE HORSE i

[No title]

FOOLING WITH A GUN j .--I

RIOTOUS SCENE AT ! LLANERCHYMEDD

GWYRFAI RURAL COUNCIL

ANGLESEY WILL CASE

News
Cite
Share

ANGLESEY WILL CASE ACTION AGA-EJSr AN EXECUTRIX. At the Menai Bridge County Court, on Twy. day, before his Honour Judge Moss, John Jones, IBodede,ni,j sued iMargaaleJt jjonasf, ot Sam, Pwllheli, as legal representative of Owe* Hughes, late of iMeini iGwynion, Anglesey, now deceased. The plaintiff for whom Mr R. A. Griffith (instructed by IMr Davifl of 'Bangor) appeared, waa the residuary tegatee of Owen Hughes. tithe latter's widow was tenant for life, and now that she was dead, the plaia- tiff sought to recover the residuary estate, valued at £.500. It was. saidl thait the estate consisted of farming stock, and that some tame prior to the death of Owen Hughes it was valued at £167. The widow farmed the place for two years longer, and in 1899 the stock WM sold .for£500. Jt was also said1 that at the time the stock waa valued at JB167, it 'was represented to be worth more. The defendant was represented by Mr J. T. Roberts, Car- narvon. iSeveral witnesses having been called to de- pose to the state of the farm shortly before Mrs' Hughes's death another witness, Thomas Jones, Bodedern, said th-at some eight years ago he offered £400 for the stock in question. Thomas J. Williams, the present tenant, of Caeau Gwyn ion, said that he purchased the stock for JS500 when entering upon the tenancy. He estimated that about £100 was. in respeofr of goodwill. Mr Roberts submitted for the defence thwC according to the terms of Owen Hughes's wilt the stock was an absolute gift to his wife, sub- ject to a number of legacies, the estate to be freely enjoyed by her during her lifetime. His Honour pointed out that she must not get rid of or reduce the estate. He held that it was only a life tenancy. Mr Roberts argued that the plaintiff was only entitled to the abount at which the asta>t« was valued for probate. Whatever increased value had accumulated between the testator's death and the sale was due to the expenditure by Mm Hughes of her own money. Mr John Griffith, of !Bryn Farm, LTan- fiirisgaer. who made the probate valuation of £167. and the vacation for sa.le, explained that the difference in the character of the stock and the time of the year acoounted for the difference in the amounts. He would not say that it would have been possible for Mrs Hughes on a small farm to have mado. a. profit of more than JB300 in two and a half years, but she miinrht- have chnn^ed the character of the stoic. -R-eplving to his Honour, the witness said that he frenuentlv valued farms. It was probably true that valuations were made lower for pro- bate rrarpases, as every small item was not then included. After further hearing has Honour decided that the total value of the estate, as going to the Tesidua-rv lecr-at^e, was £425. less debts. hut, out of this £130 must be deducted, and judgment was accordinely entered for the plaintiff for £29-5, each party to pay its own cosfa.