Hide Articles List

13 articles on this Page

THE RUSSIAN COMMISSIONERS'…

CORN, t-c.

CATTLE.

MISCELLANEOUS.

LONDON PRODUCE.—SATURDAY.

TRADE INTELLIGENCE.

REVIEW OF THE BRITISH CORN…

[No title]

THE BISHOP OF EXETER AND THE…

TRAFFIC RETURNS.

[No title]

ABERYSTWYTH.

News
Cite
Share

ABERYSTWYTH. PETTY SESSIONS, WEDNESDAY.âBefore J. Matthews, Esq., Mayor, and John Da vies, Esq. Chimney on Fire.âMr Richard Morgan, of Great Darkgate-street, was summoned for permitting his chim- ney to take fire.-Sergt. Evans said that on Tuesday evening, the 8th of this month, he saw the chimney on fire. He believed it was quite an accident.âThe de- fendant was fined 2s. 6d., and costs. Transfer of Licence.-fâMr Evan Williams Vaughan, of the Mason's Arms, Bridge-street, applied to have the licence of that house transferred from his wife, in whose name the same had been taken out before her marriage, to himself.âThe application was granted. Larceny. -A little girl named Anne Evans, aged twelve years, step-daughter of Richard Evans, shoemaker, Port- land-lane, was brought up in custody, remanded from the previous Friday, charged with having stolen a piece of beef from the shop of Mr Cornelius Roberts, butcher. The accused pleaded guilty, and their Worships taking a lenient view of the case, fined her 5s., including costs; in default to be imprisoned for seven days. COMMISSIONERS' MEETING, TUESDAYâPresent: The Mayor, who presided; Messrs J. P. Jones, Charles Hackney, T. H. Jones, J. Williams, John Jones, E. Ellis, J. J. Atwood, B. Hughes, J. Jones (Commerce House), Dr Williams, Dr C. Rice Williams, Captain C. Bassett Lewis; Mr David Lloyd, assistant clerk. The Lighting of the Town.-When the monthly bills came before the Board, a discussion took place on an ac- count of 26, sent in by Mr Siviter, for repairing the public lamps.âMr J. P. Jones thought that the charge was too high, Mr Siviter having been content with a payment of 25 in previous years. No contract had been entered into with Mr Sivitej, and he proposed that the sum of 25 be paid in discharge of the claim.âMr Ellis suggested that Mr Siviter should have the opportunity of attending the Board, in order to offer some explanation. This sugges- tion was agreed to.âMr J. Jones (Great Darkgate-street), said that he had been at the trouble of going round the town and examining the lamps. The result of his en- quiries was that he found about ninety-nine out of every hundred were damaged, only two lamps out of the whole lot being complete. Many of the tops were of tin, and not of copper as they should have been, and they were therefore comparatively worthless. Then again, after the five lamps which had been ordered by the Lights Commit- tee had been erected, the Board would not have a single lamp in reserve. There were ninety-nine lamps, in which 127 large panes of glass were broken, and 154 small panes. -Mr T. H. Jones said that many of the lamps were cracked by the wind, and in his list Mr Jones had doubt- less included the cracked as well as the broken panes. At the time he (Mr Jones) held the contract for the repair of the lamps, it would have cost him B20 to replace those panes which were cracked.âThe Assistant Clerk said that there were no lamps in store, but that the Public Lights Committee had ordered a stock.-Mr J. P. Jones proposed that a contract be entered into for the repair of the lamps, and tenders invited. âThis proposition was seconded by Mr J. Jones. -Capt. Bassett Lewis thought thatgreaterprecautio. should be exercised in capturing offenders who amused themselves with smashing the lamps. In a certain town with which he was acquainted a custom prevailed of fining a person found smashing a lamp to the cost of all the lamps broken since the last conviction, and the result was that instances of such wilful damage were few and far be- tween.âMr Ellis thought that when the contract was made a clause should be inserted, by which it would not be necessary to enter into a new contract if additional lamps were erected during the time that this original contract was running.âThe Mayor said that some time ago the propo- sition had been mooted, that more handsome lamps should be provided for erection upon the Terrace.âThe Assistant- Clerk said that patterns were lying at the clerk's office, but no decision had been arrived, at by the committee.â Mr D. Williams proposed that the patterns be brought before the Board at their next meeting, and suggested that new lamps should be erected on the Terrace, and the old ones consigned to other parts of the town where they were needed.âThe proposition was seconded by Dr C. R. Williams, and carried. Receipts and Expenditure.-Dr C. R. Williams asked whether a balance sheet shewing the receipts and expen- diture of the Commissioners for the past year would be shortly published.âThe Assistant-Clerk said that by the provisions of the Local Government Act, such statement was not necessary. On the 12th of March a summary of the account would be prepared by the clerk, and if further information was required, the books of the Commissioners should be inspected.âDr Williams would prefer to have a printed statement.âMr J. P. Jones also thought that a printed balance sheet should be issued, and Dr C. R. Williams gave notice that at the next meeting he should move that the accounts be printed. Applications. -Mr Atwood called attention to the desira- bility of havingthequickset hedge running parallel with Plas Cerrig cut and dressed. The cost would not exceed 40s. The surveyor was directed to report upon the same at the next Board.âAn application was also made by three carters, asking that they should be allowed to have a share in the cartage of stones lled by the town. One cart was employed by the Commissioners, and the services of three other carts, which belonged to the same man, were also used, and this the applicants contended was unfair.â Upon the motion of Mr B. Hughes, the question was de- ferred for a fortnight. The By-Laws.-The Assistant-Clerk produced the re- vised copy of the by-laws, which had been altered in accordance with certain instructions sent by the Secretary of State. The sopy would have to be returned to London for approval.âMr J. P. Jones hoped that as little delay as possible would occur, as the by-laws were badly wanted. COUNTY COURT, TUESDAY.-Before A. J. Johnes, Esq., Judge. The cause list contained 87 original hearings and 5 judgment summonses. Lewis v. Evans.âRichard Evans, Henblas, Ystrad- meurig, was sued by John Lewis, cattle dealer, Tregaron, to recover £ 2. Mr Hughes, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Atwood for the defendant. When the case was called on, Mr Atwood suggested that the matter should be referred to the arbitration of Mr Thomas, the deputy registrar, and this suggestion was agreed to by Mr Hughes. Theophilus and Wife v. Morris and Wife. -In this case Mr Atwood appeared for the plaintiffs, John Theophilus and Magdalene his wife, who sued the defendants, Morris Morris and Jane his wife for the recovery of = and interest, a legacy left to the plaintiffs. Mr Crealock was for the defendants, and the case was heard before a jury of three.âIn opening the case, Mr Atwood said that the wife of the defendant, Jane Morris, was the executrix under the will of her father, deceased. By this will, dated July, 1861, the daughters of the deceased were left a legacy, Jane being appointed sole executrix.âMr Atwood having put in the probate of the will, his Honour asked what the defence was.âMr Crealock said that the defence was payment; the probate of the will and the executrix- ship of the co-defendant he admitted. For the purpose of clearing up the case it would be necessary for him to go into the original history of the family. John Evans, of Blaencarrog, had three daughters, Jane, who was married to the defendant, Magdalene, who was the wife of the plaintiff, and Mary, who married a Mr Hughes. Each daughter received a marriage portion of RW, and in 1860, Magdalen intermarried with the plaintiff, who is a butcher by trade, living in Aberystwyth. Between the date of his marriage and the time of the testator's death in October, 1863, Theophilus had received on account of his wife's portion the sum of £33, and by the will, the bequest of = was specially stated as the balance of the marriage portion. By a codicil of the will Jane was appointed the sole executrix, and by the body of the will two trustees were appointed to see that the provisions were properly carried out. The father was buried on October 7th, 1863, and, according to custom, on the return from the funeral the will was read in the presence of the family. Some two or three days after the funeral, Magdalene, who was then living with her husband in South Wales, somewhere near Merthyr Tydvil, asked Jane to give her some document to show that she was entitled to the JB27. They went down to a public house, the Three Horse Shoes; and a clerk known as "Jones Bach" was called in, and assisted in drawing out the document. A note of hand (produced) was then signed by Jane Morris, engaging to pay £ 27 with legal interest, the note bearing date October 12th, and the attestation of Mr David Jones. Magdalene and Jane then went home, and Magdalene asked Jane to retain a portion of the money until she should call for it. In about twelve months afterwards- in the November of the following yearâMagdalene called upon Jane, and requested to have some of the money which had been left in her hands. At that time Jane was not in a position to pay the money, and she and her sister Mary applied to Captain John Clayton for payment of a sum of money which was due to the estate. This money was paid to them, and they then sent for Mr Owen, one of the trustees appointed under the will, to come up and seetheiwpaid. Mr Owen came to the house, the money was handed to him, he counted it, and then gave it to Magdalene, who returned the note of hand to Jane, who kept it and now produced it. Magdalene again asked Jane to keep a portion of this money, and she retained £13 or 213 10s., and this sum was repaid at various times. He relied upon the payment of the legacy, which had been made to Mr Owen, and by him to Magdalene, and contended that any subsequent dealings which had taken {>lace between the sisters had nothing to do with the egacy, which had been paid by the sum handed over through Mr Owen to Magdalene. Mr Francis and Mr Owen, the tJtwttees appointed under the will, unfortu- nately died last year, but he would prove by collateral evidence that the money had been paid through Mr Owen, and it was a somewhat remarkable coincidence that no claim should have been made until after the death of these gentlemen. He called Morris Morris, the defendant, who said that he was the hus- band of Jane Morris, a daughter of the late John Evans, Blaencarrog, and a sister of the plaintiff, Magdalene Theophilus. He remembered about twelve months after Mr Evans's death, Mr Owen, a trustee under the will of his father-in-law, going upto Blaencarrog. Witness was ploughing, and saw Mr Owen go to the house and return. The two sisters had asked witness to call upon Mr Owen to come up and settle money matters between them. âCross-examined Never heard of Magdelene having any mortgage of JB180 upon the ship John James," of which Captain John Clayton was the owner. Did not know that Magdalene had lent her father £40 on an I.O.U. He had heard of Jane and Mary, the sisters, lending money to Capt. Clayton, but he did not know what amount; his wife, he believed, advanced 260. Was not present when the will was read.âJane Morris said that she remembered her sister Magdalene coming up to attend her father's funeral, and being present at the reading of the will. A sum of 227 was left to Magda- lene, and in about a week afterwards Magdalene said that she must have a note of hand for the amount, as, if she had nothing to show for the legacy, there would be no living with her husband. They then went to town and called at Mr David Jones's, the Three Horse Shoes, and told Mr Jones their business, Mr Jones sent for his namesake, the clerk, who wrote the note produced, which the witness signed, and gave over to Magdalene, who took it away after David Jones had witnessed it. Her sister remained with her about nine days longer, and then returned to her husband at Merthyr. In about a year afterwards Magdalene came to Blaencarrog, and in her presence witness paid the trustee, Mr Owen Owen, LW, which she had obtained from Mrs Clayton, on account of a debt which was due to the estate from Capt. Clayton. Her sister Mary married in Christmas, 1864. and the money was paid about a week before. She handed the money, which was in gold, to Mr Owen, who counted it,- and then handed it over to Magdalene, who counted it, and said that it was right. Magdalene then returned witness the note of hand which she had given her for the 227. Witness was the sole executrix under her father's will, and amongst his papers she found a receipt for = from John Theophilus to her father. After the payment of the 227 Magdalene went home, and lent C8 10s. to her sister Mary Hughes, and left in witness's hands 213 10s. until she should send for it, and she was to have it as she required it. Before Magdalene returned home she repaid her J62, to pay Thomas Lloyd. At different times she repaid her sister, and in September of last year she paid her the final balance of 22 at the request of Richard Williams, whom Magdalene had sent to her.âMr David Jones said he was connected with the late Mr John Evans. Shortly after his death Jane and Magdalene came down to his house, and there the note for 227 was drawn up and witnessed by the witness.âThomas Lloyd, butcher and farmer, said that five or six years ago Magdalene Theophilus owed him 22. She sent for him to Blaencarrog, and there paid him the money in the presence of Jane Morris, from whom she had obtained it.-Cross-examined: Did not know that John Evans, the auctioneer, had been selling Magdalene's goods just before, and that this money was part of the pro- duce of the sale.âRichard Williams remembered in the course of last summer taking a message from Magdalene Theophilus to her sister, asking for payment of f2. Wit- ness went to Jane Morris, who borrowed the money from witness for tbe purpose of paying Magdalene.âMaiy Hughes, sister of the wives of the plaintiff and the de- fendant, said that she was married on December 9th, 1864. Just prior to her marriage she was living at Blaen- carrog, and remembered Mr Owen coming to the house to see Jane Morris pay Magdalene. She saw Jane Morris reckon 227 to Owen Owen-who received it from Jane Morrisâand then reckoned it to Magdalene, who kept the whole, and gave the note produced to Jane Morris. In a few days after this occurrence Magdalene lent her 28 10s. in the house of Mr Evans, the auctioneer-witness giving her a note of hand, which was witnessed by Mr Owen Owen. This money she repaid in about four months. Towards the end of last monti Magdalene told witness that she was going to receive the money in the will. Wit- ness said, Have you not had every penny ?" Magdalene replied that she had, but would recover it again, as bor- rowed money should not be accounted for in the will.- Margaret Owen, daughter of Mr Owen, Maenhelin, Llanddeilon, said that her father was trustee under the will She remembered her father being sent for to go up to Blaencarrog, and upon his return he told witness that Jane had finished paying her portion to Magdalene.âMr Jenkin Morris, a son-in-law of Mr Owen, was called to prove the same fact.âThe Rev. James Evans, vicar of Llanddeilon, who prepared the codicil to the will, and an- other witness, were also called on behalf of the defendant. This closed the case for the defendants.âMr Atwood ad- dressed the jury on behalf of the plaintiffs, and called Dr Evans, who deposed that he was brother to co-plaintiff and co-defendant. Each of the sisters had received the sum of 960as a marriage portion. Magdalene's share had been paid. Shortly after her marriage his father con- tracted a loan with John Theophilus for 240, and a balance of £1919s. remained unpaid.âHis Honour said it was useless calling upon'more witnesses, and proceeded to sum up the evidence. He said his opinion was that the sum of £ 19 19s. was included in the £ 27 which was left to Magdalene Theophilus as a legacy. There must therefore be judgment for the defendant, with costs. Morris v. Etwns.-This was an action brought by Mr Richard Morris, currier, as executor of the late Daniel Jones, draper, deceased, to recover the sum of 92 17s. 10d., from Mr Richard Evans, tailor and draper, Great Dark- gate-street, being amount due to the deceased for goods sold.âMr Wm. Morris said that the books of his late brother-in-law, Daniel Jones, showed that the above sum was owing from the defendant, and related a conversa- tion which the defendant's wife had with his father. The defendant said he had never been in the late Daniel Jones's shop, and he never became surety at his shop for another man, and that he was himself selling goods of the same description as the goods alleged to have been pur- chased at Mr J ones's shop, and therefore it was not likely he should have gone there.âMr Richard Morris said he could only go by the books, and asked the defendant if there was a Richard Evans, tailor, in the town besides himself, when the defendant replied in the negative.âMr Morris further stated that he had a conversation with the defendant's wife about the claim. She knew about it, and expressed her regret that her husband should be called upon to pay for another man who had the goods.â His Honour not being satisfied with the plaintiff's proof of the claim against the defendant, who persisted in sta- ting that he was never at the shop, gave judgment for the defendant, and allowed him costs for the day. Equity Case.-Edwards v. Edwards.-The plaintiffs, Martha Edwards and Ellen Edwards, infants, by Morgan Da vies, late of Honora, their grandfather and next friend, brought this suit against the defendant, Phoebe Edward% of Queen's-road, the widow of the late James Edwards, mariner, and stepmother of the infant plaintiffs, praying as follows-" That James Edwards, their father, was at the time of his death possessed and entitled of personal estate that letters of administration were duly granted to the defendant, and that she had possessed herself of the personal estate of thesaid deceased; that the plaintiffs were two next of kin of the said James Edwards, and that the whole of the personal estate of the said James Edwards did not exceed in amount or value the sum of £ 500, and that an account might be taken of the personal estate of the said James Edwards, deceased, that the same might be duly administered under the decree of the Court, and for such further or other relief as the Court might think oJ fit." Mr Atwood, who filed the plaint, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr F. R. Roberts, supported by Mr J. W. Ravenhill, defended.âMrs Edwards, the defendant, was examined as to the assets left after her husband and the amount of his liabilities at the time of his death. She said that one of the children lived with her. As the lia- bilities of her late husband amounted to j653 5s. 2d. she had not been able to pay for the administration. She pro- duced a valuation of her husband's effects by Mr Smith, auctioneer.âAfter some further remarks by the learned gentlemen present, the case was referred to the registrar to institute an enquiry into the affairs between the parties, which enquiry is to take place on the 16th day of March next. R. Hughes v. J. W. Rogers.âMr Atwood for plaintiff, and Mr Crealock for defendant.âThis was an adjourned cause, and was an action in which the defendant was sued in detinue for certain goods which the plaintiff claimed, of the value of EM. The goods were claimed under a bill of sale. It appears that a John Jones, senior, of the Globe Inn, Aberystwyth, who made a will which was proved on the 22nd of May, 1865, bequeathed all his pro- perty whatsoever and wheresoever unto Edward Mason, upon the trusts therein mentioned, under which his wife Elizabeth Jones, was to receive out of the income of the property 220 a-year during her life and his son John Jones 7s. a week during his life, out of the proceeds of the business at the Globe Wine Vaults. The testator directed that his wife should have the control and manage- ment during her life, and after her decease his daughter- in-law, Anna Maria, the wife of his son John, should during her life, have the control and management of the said business, and subject to the before-mentioned trusts, upon trust as to all his property for his grandson John Thomas Jones absolutely, the son of the said Anna Maria Jones. Some time back A M. Jones was in difficulties, and applied to the defendant for the loan of 218 10s. which she secured by depositing certain articles (being those now claimed by the plaintiff) with him. Previously to that transaction A. M. Jones executed a bill of sale to the plaintiff for 2418 10s. with a proviso for redemption. The goods which were detained by defendant and the subject of this action were alleged by the plain- tiff to be included in the bill of sale to him from his sister, A. M. Jones, but he admitted on cross-examination that the articles had been the property of the late John J ones, and so devised in trust as aforesaid. Mr Crealock's contention for the defence was that under the will it was clear that A. M. Jones, who mortgaged the property, had no right whatever to it, and that it was clearly the property of her son, J. T. Jones, and he, through Edward Mason, the executor, was the proper person (if any) to claim it; that consequently the articles claimed by the plaintiff could not have passed under the bill of sale from Mrs M. A. Jones, as she took no interest therein under the will, and that the property devised by such will was at the present time vested in Mr Mason, the executor and trustee therein named in trust for the grandson of the testator, n-nrt from whom the defendant had received the articles now in his possession as security for an advance made to him by defendant. In support of his case, Mr Crealock called a servant, Susannah Morgan, who had for some time lived with John Jones, the testator, and who proved that the articles now in the defendant's possession had been the property of her late master, the testator.â The defendant, Mr Rogers, was also called and proved that tbe articles in his possession had been delivered to him by the grandson of the testator with his mother's knowledge as security for a loan made by defendant to the grandson. -His Honour held that as Mr Rogers appeared to have received the articles from 'M. A. Jones and her son subsequent to the date of the bill of sale given by M. A. Jones to the plaintiff, and with some knowledge that the bill of sale had been given, he made the advance at his own risk, and his Honour gave a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, in default of the return of the goods themselves.

[No title]