Hide Articles List

14 articles on this Page

PEMBROKESHIRE ASSIZES.

THE TRIAL OF PRISONERS.

CIVIL BUSINESS.

News
Cite
Share

CIVIL BUSINESS. JAMES V. SHAW. In this action the plaintiff, Mr Owen James of Cardigan, sued the defendant, William Shaw, for £ 387 17s. on a bond of £ 250, with interest. Mr Abel Thomas appeared for the plaintiff. The de- fendant did not put in a defence. The jury re- turned a verdict for the plaintiff with costs. THE ALLEGED TRESPASS AT BARN LAKE. This was an appeal by the Great Western Rail- way Company against the decision of Justices Cave and Wills given in the Court of Chancery in the above case. The case had been heard several times before the magistrates at Haverfordwest, who ulti- mately convicted the defendants. The defendants afterwards carried the case to the Court of Chancery, and the decision of the magistrates was quashed, Justices Cave and Wills deciding that the magis- trates had no jurisdiction. Several witnesses were examined on behalf of the defendants to prove that they had frequently used the-path in question, and to further show that the road provided as a sub- stitute by the company was at various states of the wind and tide not available, and even dangerous to those who tried to use it. Justice Manisty in giving judgment said it had been established beyond all doubt that people were in the habit of going in boats across the pill and landing at whichever place they wanted to go to. It was, to his mind, quite clear that previous to the passing of the company's act of 1852 the public had a clear right to pass over this pill. The question to be decided was whether the defendants were trespassers over the plaintiffs' land or not. He (his lordship) was clearly of opinion that they were not. It might be that the company as Mr Asquith had said, would, if they constructed a bridge so as to give all the Barnlake people a means of getting to the Neyland side, hereafter have the case re-opened, because if the other roads were public, and they only made provision for the public to cross one, it would be within the power of any unscrupulous person to cause the company annoyance at any future time. He (his lordship) could not, however, believe that the public would be such fools as to go and endanger their lives by going over the other places where there was no bridge. The company had not made any provision for the public excepting the public landing slip, which he (the learned judge) was clearly of opinion could not by implication be held to be a substitute for the paths leading from Barnlake Pill.âJudgment for defendants, with costs.

[No title]

LOCAL AND OTHER NOTES.

PEMBROKE TOWN COUNCIL.

;SHOCKING FATALITIES AT ABERCARN.

THE ACCIDENT TO A BALLOONIST.

Advertising

Family Notices

TOWN COUNCIL.

TENBY V. PEMBROKE.

.TENBY V. LLANELLY.

RAILWAY ACCIDENT NEAR WHITLAND.