The Welshman

WHITECHURCH. On Wednesday, the 3rd inat., the foundation stone of the new church for the parish of Whitecburch, was laid with great solemnity by Mrs Yardley, of White- church House, and the day being fine, a great number of people came to witness the proceedings. On the occasion the Rector read an appropriate office and delivered a short address both in English and Welsh. Among those present we noticed the Misses Yardley, Mrs Colby of Fynone, Mrs Colby and the Misses Colby of Pantyderi Miss James of Pantsaison, Mrs Chapman, Miss Chapman, Mrs Thomas of Wbitechurch, the Rev T. Evans, vicar of Eglwyswrw, the Rev T. Rogers, rector of Llanfihangel, Penbedw, &c., &c. The land- owners connected with the parish and others are worthy of all praise for the valuable aid they have rendered in improving Church prospects in this parish. A large sum is still wanted to complete the undertaking, and it is earnestly hoped that the proceeds of the Bazaar now proposed to be held at Cardigan on Wednesday, the 24th, will make it op.

will is "David Evan." Yon add "Walter" to it. Mr Bowen said Walter" appeared in the pedigree. Mr Bowen then put in the will ot John Rees Walter, of Llettygibby, the nephew of Walter Evan, and the son of his sister Gwenllian. It was only corroboration that Walter Evan was the son of Evan Walter, and that this Llettygibby property came from the Rees's. The Judge—The name here is John Walter, and you don't want to go higher up than John Walter, except that you have thrown upon you the obligation of show- ing that the present claimant is the right heir to John Walter. You need not go higher up than is necessary. Mr Bowen next produced the will of John Walter, father of Walter Evan, who was described by his father as one of his sons, and the brother of Mary Evan, the great-grandmother of the claimant. The Judge- You have got to show that that Walter Evan was the nephew of John Rees. Mr Bowen—And son ot Evan Walter. His mother was Jane Rees's sister. Mr B. T. Williams produced the will of John Rees, which was dated January, 1735. Mr Bowen read it. Testator gave to his sister, Mary Rees, Tynyfron and Llettygibby, in the parish of Llangibby, with the exception of one small close, Bwlchydwr, which was charged with 10s. per annum in favour of his two sisters, Anne and Gwen. Rees, respec- tively, payment to commence eight years after the testator's decease after the decease of Mary Rees, the lands of Tynyfron and Llettygibby, with the exception of the close aforesaid, were to go to the testator's nephew, Walter, Evan, the son of my sister Gwen. Rees, and to the heirs of his body, lawfully begotten, for ever." The Judge—What does that show ? Mr Bowen-It shows that Walter Evan is the son of Gwenllian Rees, who was the wife of Evan Walter. The Judge-It may be so. Gwenlliaa married Evan Walter. Mr Bosen-Yes, and he leaves her the property by her maiden name which is a very common method in this country. The Evan Walter, her husband, declares Walter Evan to be his eldest son The Judge I can understand that Walter Evan, in the second line of the pedigree, may be the son of Evan Walter but how does that prove the declaration filed ? Mr Bowen-Evan Walter marries Gwenllian Rees, sister of John Rees, and John Rees leaves to Walter Evan, the son of his sister, and whom he calls his nephew, this very property of Llangibby. Elizabeth Walter died without issue, and to prove that, we put in letters of administration. Mr John Owen, managing clerk to the late Mr Lewis Morris, solicitor, Carmarthen, produced the letters of administration granted to John Walter, of the effects of his sister, Elizabeth Walter. Mr Bowen—She is described as intestate. The docu. ment is dated the 1st of March, 1826, and it shows that she died without issue. Mr H. Allen-Letters of administration alone will not show that. Mr Bowen-He is described as her brother and as one of the next of kin. Mr Owen produced the certificate of burial of John Walter, the person named in the will of Mrs Nichol. It certified that John Evan, alias Walter, of Dollwff, was buried June the 10th, 1830. Mr Bowen-He is the man whose heirs we have to look for. The Judge-So you say. A double date having occured on one of the documents, Mr Bowen accounted for it by the fact that it was made during the change of style. Tbe Judge said he remembered a similar occurrence in a Welsh case which was not discovered by the two able counsel engaged in the case, but the Vice-Chan. cellor discovered it. Mr Bowen said the case referred to was one relating to a portion of this very Masycrigau property. The Judge-I do not wish to try that case again. I never look back to it with pleasure (laughter). Mr Bowen-We have no certificate, now, till we come to the third line of the pedigree. David Morgan, who died suddenly by a fall, aged 65. Then comes the marriage certificate of Daniel Richards and Elizabeth Morgan. The Judge-That is the claimant's father and mother. Mr Bowen said that was so. They married on the 2nd of July, 1813, in the parish of Llangibby. The husband was described as of the parish of Trefilan, and the wife as "of this parish;" married by bans. Then came the certificate of baptism of the claimant, dated Oct. 21, 1815. David, son of Daniel and Elizabeth Richards, farmer signed, Thomas Evans, Vicar. The Judge-You must identify them because they are of different parishes at present. Mr Bowen-You see, my lord, she followed him to his residence. The Judge-Well; perhaps she did (laughter). Mr Bowen next produced the certificate of the death of Elizabeth Richards, the claimant's mother, dated the 8th of Nov. 1865, 77 years old. Next the Certificate of the death of Daniel Richards, the claimant's father, dated Nov. 11th 1867 be died at Llansantfread, aged 82. His parish is Llanbadarn Trefeglwys. Next came the certificate of the death of Jenkin Morgan, claimant's uncle, dated Dec. 6th, 1861, aged 67 next came the certificate of the death of Thomas Morgan, another of claimant's uncles, who died 29th of February, 1864, aged 62 next came the certificate of the death of claimant's great uncle, Thomas Morgan, who died March 31st, 1829, aged 75 then came the certificate of the burial of Elizabeth Walter) John Walter's sister who died June 17th, 1816, at Llangibby, aged 81. The Judge said these certificates must all be proved. It was all very well for learned counsel to say-" This is the certificate of burial of so and so who was the claimant's grandmother," but they must be proved. Mr Bowen said they were all authentic copies. Mr John Owen cross-examined by Mr H. Allen: I have been managing clerk in Mr Lewis Morris's office for some years. We have worked a claim on this estate on behalf of Evan Davies, and we have brought a writ of ejectment against the tenants of this property on his behalf. It has been discontinued by an arrangement between the parties. The writ was entered about two years ago, before we knew of the present plaintiff. It included all the tenants. The present claimant came to this country about 18 months ago. Evan Davies is no relation of the present claimant. Evan Davies is in court now. He told me that be had been to America, too. I knew Mr Jenkin Davies and Mr Nicholl. Llangibby is about 24 miles from Carmarthen. Our businesi was earried on at Carmarthen. We bad some work to do for Mrs Nicholl when her brother, Capt. Bowen Davies, died at that time we bad the rentals and documents in our office. I did not know that the rentals were handed over to the proprietor of Llwyn- madoc, and I am almost positive they were not. 1 do not know of my own knowledge to whom the rents were paid after Mrs Nicholl's death but I have heard that Mr Bishop got the tenants to attorn to somebody. This ppdigreewhich you hand to me must have been sup- plied from our office. More than a year before these proceedings began, 1 should say. By the Judge I cannot say who gave it. I believe it was given to Mr Bishop, the solicitor. I cannot say whether it was given to convince Mr Bishop that Evan Davies was entitled to the property. 1 don't know any- thing about the arrangement between the late Mr Lewis Morris and Mr Bishop. Mr Allen-There are considerable variations between this pedigree and the one put in from the late Mr Lewis Morris's office to-day (laughter). Cross-examination continued The letter which you hand to me is in the late Mr Lewis Morris's hand- writing. Mr Bowen-It is headed "Davies against Davies" and has nothing to do with us. Mr Allen-But he was the attorney on the record when this writ was drawn. The Judge-I don't know that, I only know that the witness's late employer was employed by Evan Davies, and perhaps he wrote a letter for him. How are you going to get it in evidence P Mr Allen-He is the attorney for the present claimant; yet a year ago, he wrote a letter to the gentleman who instructs me, Mr Bishop, claiming these very estates on behalf of another claimant, and making certain allegations in respect of the title. The Judge said if the late solicitor bad claimed in respect of all the people in Cardiganshire, the jury had to deal only with the present claim. He did not wish to say anything against a man who was dead, but it did seem that the gentleman who had begun the present claimant's case had been willing to take up the case of anybody who claimed the estate. Re-examined by Mr Bowen: The writ issued on behalf of Evan Davies was discontinued because as soon as we saw the pedigree of the present claimant we knew that the case of Evan Davies could never be carried on The Judge-Very well; then one of them was ex- tinguished (laughter). David Richards I am the claimant in this action. I am 65 years old. I left this county for America, about 24 years ago last April. I returned here 18 months last Christmas. My mother's name was Elizabeth, and my father's name was Daniel Richards. Before my mother married, her name was Elizabeth Morgan. She had two brothers, Jenkin and Thomas. Jenkin Morgan was never married. Thomas Morgan was married. I remember when he died. I was in this country. He had no children. I had two aunts, Sarah and Magdalene. Sarah is dead. She never married. Magdalene is dead and she never married. I have heard my mother say that her father was David Morgan. I have heard her say that David Morgan s father was Morgan Davies. I have heard my mother say that Morgan Davies, her grandfather, married Mary the daughter of Evan Walters. She told me, I think, that her grandfather had four children. Elizabeth, the oldest, Rachel, David, and Thomas. She told me that her uncle Thomas Morgan died. I was at his wedding before I went to America. He had no children. I I never heard her say that her aunt Elizabeth was married. She said that Rachel was married, and had a child, who was Thomas Jones of Tyle's wife. My mother used to say that my grandfather bad a brother Thomas, and that Thomas was the eldest. I have heard my mother say what Evan Walter's family con- sisted of. She said that Evan Walter was the father of her grandmother. She said that Evan Walter had had some children-six children I think. I only heard the name of two my great-grandmother and John Walter's father. My mother, told me that her father, David Morgan, married Sarah Jones. I didn't want her to tell me that, I saw her. My mother said that John Walter was wrong to signed these places off to Maesycrigau, and they ought to go to David Morgan and his children after his death that John Walter was a cousin of her father. I asked her why he would not be the same name as she was. She said that Jack Walter was the son of Walter Evan and that her grandmother was the sister of Jack Walter's father. By Mr Alien Before I went to America I married. I cannot give the date now. It is 27 or 28 years ago. I went to America 3 or 4 years after I married. I did not live with my mother after I was married. My mother died during my absence from tnis country. My mother told me so often about these things. She never advised not to go to America, because this property be- longed then to Jenkin Davies or Mrs Nicholl. I don't know which. I heard my mother say that John Walter was the last Walter that had it; and she said that John Walter had no sons. I could not tell how lately before I went to America, my mother told me about the family. She told me when I was young and I remember it, now I am old. I knew I was a relation of the Walters, bat the property was gone to Maesycrigau then. I did not know I would live then. While I waS in America I was in Ohio, only during the time I was in the war. I had letters from home from time to time. I did not hear of Mrs Nicholl's death until I came home. My mother died some time after Mrs Nicholl's di5ath, but she never let me know a word of that important event, Mrs Nicholl's death. My mother had never told mp that in the event of certain things happening I should be entitled to the property she thought Junkin Davies had it for ever. By the Judge I was a farmer in America. I farmed 160 acres. My mother never let me know that it was probable I should be heir of this property. Mr Bowen pointed out that at this time the claimant's uncles were alive, and therefore it was barely probable that he had any chance of becoming heir. By Mr Allen: I was from 16 to 25 when my mother told me these things. When I came home from Ame- rica I called on Mr Bishop, the solicitor, about my claim, and he took down my account of my pedigree. I cannot remember that he told me that I had left out several male ancestors whose claim came before mine. I recollect one thing he said: that was that he did not know anything about me till he saw me. I don't exactly remember that Mr Bishop said that the male ancestors whom I had left out had left children. I don't remember then, saying, I don't know, I have been trying to find out about them, but I cannot find out anything about the children." I am old now, and cannot remember. The Judge—You are old, it is true, but the property you claim is enough to make an old man feel young again. You have come a long distance to establish a claim. The Claimant-I did not give Mr Bishop a pedigree. I showed him John Rees's will, and he said he never saw it till I showed it him. My mother told me which was the eldest son and eldest daughter of Rachel Walter. Mr Bowen-The will shows that. The Claimant-I do not know exactly what I talked to Mr Bishop. Maybe I said I would collect what evi- dence I could and bring it back to him. I asked him in Lampeter how he could stand at the day of judgment if he turned this property to another person. I did not tell him I would make it worth his while to help me. I said he would not be worse if he helped me. I never said that if he would advise Miss Thomas to give up the property 1100 wotild be of no account. I did not say that if Y,100 would be of any use it would be worth his while to help me. Maybe I did talk about him advising Miss Thomas to give up the estate. I don't remember Mr Bishop then saying that he could not advise her to do that until he had seen the pedigree I had promised him. Mr Allen—Didn't Mr Bishop turn you out of the office when you made that offer P- What offer Didn't he say to you, Leave the room, sir ?—Never. That you'll swear P—I'll swear it. By Mr Bowen I took Evan Walter's will to Mr Bishop, and it shows who were the eldest children. After he said I must get further information I con- sulted Mr Lewis Morris. When I went to America my uncles Jenkin and Thomas Morgan were alive. My mother could not write so she could not write to me while I was in America. During the time of the American war I had not much communication with anybody. My children farmed during the war. I enlisted of my own free will, and had a grant of 160 acres. I never go to that yet. Mr Bowen-Oh that's a good thing" to come (laugh- ter). By the Judge I think I did not tell Mr Bishop what my mother told me. By Mr Bowen I thought if I showed him the wills be would just turn and show who was the owner of the property but he didn't turn. I showed Mr Bishop the wills, and the old register of the chapel of Lampeter. Mr Bishop, senior, went with me to Lampeter to look at the took. By Mr Allen, put through the Judge: I never saw Evan Davies while I was in America, nor did I write to him. I did not know be was in America. By the Jury I received no lettirs from my family about the Llangibby estate, while I was in America. By the Judge I did not come home for this claim. I came home to see my married sisters, Elizabeth and the others. I thought to go back next spring. Anne Jones sister of the claimant, said—I am 46 years old. My mother was Elizabeth Morgans. I heard my mother say that her father David Morgans was the eldest son of Morgan Davies, of Llettigibby. She used to Rpeak of her father David Morgan's mother. She said that she was a religious woman (laughter). She said that Mary Evan was the wife of Morgan Davies, and the daughter of Evan Walter. She said that Morgan Davies and Mary Evan bad four children, Elizabeth, Rachel, David, and Thomas. She said that her uncle Thomas Morgan was a brother to her father, and that he died without children. She said that Evan Walter had six children, two of which were boys, one Walter Evan. She did not know the name of the other he died young without children. My mother said that Walter Evan was the father of John Walter and that John Walter was the son of Walter Evan. By Mr Allen: I am a widow. I married 18 years last January. My mother was with me constantly after I was married. She lived a quarter of a mile from me. I heard of Mrs Nichcli's death. I cannot write. I get somebody to write for me sometimes. I talked to my mother of the relation I was to John Walter. She talked about him him as long as she lived. She said IL??hat John Walter had signed the property to Jenkin Davies. There was a talk of setting the conveyance aside because John Walter was not in his right mind her father was walking about from place to place about it for years. John Walter died without children. Mother and I talked about John Walter before my brother went to America. I caused no letter to be written to my brother to America about Mrs Nicholl's death or about setting aside the conveyance. I had a letter from my brother in America, many times. I used to get somebody to answer the letters but not often, because I wrote jointly with my sister. After Mrs Nicholl's death, Mrs Thomas, Llwynmadoc, had the rents of Llettygibby. I never told my brother that they were receiving the rents. I knew that Evan Davies was claiming the property. I told my brother so when he came back. I did not write to him about it. I had a brother Joseph. I did not talk to Joseph about Mrs Nicholl's death. He has been in America 6 years last June. He came home since David came borne. Joseph Richards: I am the claimant's brother. I knew my uncle Jenkin Morgan. About the time of Mrs Nicholl's death, he came to me and told me to see about Llettygibby property and said that he was the right heir of John Walter. I asked him how he was the right heir. He said that his father had told him that Morgan Davies, bis grandfather, bad married Mary, daughter of Evan Walter, and that Evan Walter had six children, two sons and four daaghters; that all died except two, his grandmother (Mary) and Walter Evan that they all died without issue. He told me this in answer to questions. He said that Walter Evan had two children, namely, John or Jack, as he was called, and Betty Walters. When he told me this, I did not know what Mrs Nicholl's will was. I beard that the deed by which John Walter signed the property to Davies of Maesycrigau, was at an end. After I returned home from America I first heard of the disposition of the Llettygibby property. I came from America last April; and I heard of Mrs Nicholl's will in a few days after I got home. I talked with Jenkin Morgan about the pro- perty very often, my mother, Elizabeth Morgan, talked to me about the family many a time, She said her father was David Morgan of Llettygibby that my uncles and aunts were five children, three aunts and two uncles that David Morgan was the eldest son of Morgan Davies, who had four children that her grand- father, Morgan Davies, married Mary Evan, the daughter of Evan Walter that Evan Walter bad six children, all of whom died, except two (Mary and Walter). I heard my mother say that John Walter was cousin to her father. Cross-examined by Mr Allen I am about 40 years old. I went to America six years last June. I went to the State of Ohio where my brother was. I went to him for a visit. I was not farming. I was preaching the Gospel and teaching school. My uncle Jenkin died in 1861. I recollect his death. I saw him often. He first told me that he was the right heir as soon as he knew of Mrs Nicholl's death. I did not hear that Mr Nicholl was contesting his late wife's will. I don't know how I could hear that all the witnesses were taken to London in a great will case. I cannot hear everything, But I did hear that my uncle was the right heir. After Mrs Nicholl's death, I went to Maesycrigau to enquire about the property. I came home with the tenant of Tyle. I don't remember talking with the tenant of Tyle, who was to receive his rents. I told him that my uncle would be entitled to the rent. I said I had beeD at Maesycrigau about the property. According to justice, my uncle ought have had the rents. My uncle Jenkin died before I left the country then my uncle Thomas became entitled. Thomas lived three years after Jenkin but he died before I went to America. I did not do anything for my uncle Thomas Jenkin, my uncle gave it up entirely because it was too expensive. He said that, after I had been to Maesycrigau, Thomas never took any steps to recover the property. I wrote home from America pretty often. I wrote to my father while he lived, and to my sister afterwards. I wrote to the claimant who was in America with me. I heard from him in return. Sometimes I lived very far from him, sometimes not very far. 1 stayed with him two days when I first wAnt out. He knew that his uncles, Jenkin and Thomas were dead. I did not tell him about my visit to Maesycrigau and what I heard there. By the Judge I know he was my elder brother and therefore entitled to the estate but I did not tell him about the estate because we had given it up. The Judge-Then why did you take it up again ? I did not take it up He took it up. He did not come purposely to get the property up. I think that provi- dence brought him home to get this property (laugh- ter). Providence does that in many more cases than this. On the death of my uncle Thomas, my mother would be heir to the estate. My brother knew of my mother's death long before I went out. I was employed by the American Missionary Association. My brother did not assist me in any way. Mr Bowen here put in a deed of Fine and Recovery of the Llettygibby estate, from John Walters to Jenkin Davies, made in the year 1818, at the great sessions of the county of Cardigan. That deed showed that when Mrs Nichol died the heirs of John Walter would not be entitled in fee because John Walter conveyed the estate to Jenkin Davies. The cross-examination of Mr Allen tended to show that at the death of Mrs Nichol the claimant's uncle and his mother were entitled to recover but the deed of Fine and Recovery showed that they could not have done so. By Mr Bowen When I went to Maesycrugiau, I saw the Rev Mr Griffiths of Horeb. Then I left him and walked home with the tenant of Tyle. I told him that my uncle was entitled, but that he bad not got the title in his possession. William Morgan I live in Penlan-Goitre, and am a tailor. I am 83 years old. I knew David Morgan of Llettygibby. He was married His wife's name was Sarah. They had five children I think, -Betty, Jenkin, Thomas, Sarah the other one I connot recollect. I can remember it if you told it to me. It was Magdalene. Betty married but I don't know who. I was present at her wedding. I made his wedding clothes. Betty Walter had a brother John. She was never married. John her brother never married. Betty Walter lived at Tynyfron, part of Llettygibby. I went as a servant to Betty Walter of Tynyfron, and I slept at Lletty- gibby. I asked Betty Walter whether David Morgan was related to her. She said he was her cousin. I asked, how is it he is not David Walter instead of David Morgan. She said that the sister of her father Walter was David Morgan's mother. David Davies, of Llangibby: I have lived 50 years in my place, and I am 73 years old. I knew David Morgan and his wife Sarah. David Morgan died by a heifer tossing him. I knew his children-Elizabeth, Jenkin, Thomas, Sarah, and Magdalene. Old Betty Walter lived near. I saw Betty Morgan's children with her. They called her "aunt." By Mr Allen It is not usual to call all old ladies aunt in this country. By Col. Lewes-I have heard them say that I am connected with Betty Walter, but it is very distant. I do not claim anything. Mrs Jane Evans of Glandwr, parish of Llangibby I am 84 years old. I remember being a servant at Pentrellwni, and John Walter was lodging there. He used to say that Thomas Morgan, of Llettygibby, and himself were cousins. Thomas Morgan had a brother David. Mr Allen-John Walters was not strong-minded, was he ?—There was a little deficiency. One thing I saw him very strong in, and that was in his religion. Everything was provided for him, and Mr Davies, Maesycrigiau, paid for the lot. I heard no talk about the signing of Maesycrugiau to Jenkin Davies being set aside, because John Walters was not very strong in his mind. The Judge—Are you going into that, Mr Allen ? Mr Allen Oh, no, my lord. Mr Bowen-I am wiliing to go into it. my lord. David Evan Davies. of Llanbadarn-Trefeglwys, aged 63: I knew Sally, David l,ichards's grandmother. I heard her speak of the family. Jenkin her son said that one Mary Walter had married Morgan Davies, and he said something about Betty Walters, and that it was through that family that they came into the pro- perty. I heard him say so during 40 years. I used to do business with him, and every time we settled he told me about it By Mr Allen: He said that through Jack and Betty they would become possessed of the property and that it would be wrong if they did not have it. Mr John Owen, clerk to the late Mr Lewis Morris, produced a paper in the handwriting of the late Mrs Nicholl. It was found amongst her papers when her papers were distributed, after the suits were ended. Mr Allen said it was a paper to show the intention of Mrs Nicholl as to her property, and he objected to its introduction. The Judge-She made a will, and she could not stand by two wills. Mr Bowen handed it up to the Judge, and said that it contained the name of Morgan and was an instruction for the drawing of a will. The Judge said that before this could be admitted Mr Bowen must prove the relationship of Mrs Nicholl, Mr Bowen said he would do so. Sarah Benjamin, the sister of claimant, said her mother told her that her father was David Morgan; and that her grandfather was Morgan Davies, and that her grandmother was Mary Evan Walter; and that Evan Walter's father was Walter Evan. By Mr Allen I never corresponded with my brothers in America. I cannot write. Jane Evans, recalled I knew Jack Walter. He said that he was related to Jenkin Davies, Mrs Nicholl's father, but how near I cannot say. Mr John Owen, clerk, of Carmarthen, recalled-I knew Mr. Jenkin Davies and Mrs Nicholl. Mr Lewis Morris acted for her. I have heard Mrs Nicholl ad- dress Mr Jenkin Davies as her father. The Judge-It is a delicate thing to prove a pedigree by an attorney's clerk. You can go on as long as you like, but it is not a nice thing to do. Mr Bo wen My lord I will stay here and maintain that that paper, containing an indication as to Mrs Nicholl's wish about the disposition of her property, is receivable. The J udge-I will receive the document at your peril. Mr Bowen said he was agreeable to that course. lIe then tried to prove by documents that Mrs Nicholl was the daughter of Jenkin Davies, but in consequence of some reflections of the Judge, Mr Bowen said he would withdraw the document. Mr Allen submitted there was no proof that Atrs Nicholl was fully seised of the property, so as to enable her to devise. The Judge said there was proof that she received the rents that was proof enough to go to the jury. Mr Allen then objected that there was no proof that the claimant was descended from any legitimate descen- dant of Mary Evan, under whom he claimed his title. For instance, there was no proof of the marriage of Mary Evan, although it had been stated by some of the witnesses that she was called grandmother. The Judge said that at this distance of time, the proof was quite enough to go to the jury. Mary Evan had been called grandmother by the children. That was evidence that the woman was the grandmother and as she could not be the grandmother without a legal marriage no doubt there was a legal marriage. It was for the jury to say whether they would take this pro- perty away from the persons who possessed it, simply upon the hearsay evidence of the claimant, supported by members of the family. Mr Allen then objected that there was no proof of the marriage of Sarah Morgan, to David Morgan. Mr Bowen-It is proved by two witnesses. The Judge-One of the witnesses said that he was at the wedding, but did not know what the wife's name was. Mr Allen said he called no witnesses.' Mr Bowen then summed up his case. He said it had been objected that this was a stale claim. But if it was; if the claimant had been kept out of his property so long, was he to be kept out of it altogether? The fact that the claimant, on coming home, went to Mr Bishop, the attorney for the defendant, and showed what be believed was his title, proved that be had a good case. It had been suggested that the claimant, to-day, bad given a false story of his inter- view with Mr Bishop; but if it had been false, Mr Bishop would have been called to contradict it, and Mr Bishop was not called. The other side had not dared to examine the witnesses &s to the family connections all the examination used was Why did'nt you bring this action before P How long were you in America P" and such like questions. In fact, after the production of the wills and documents, his friends knew it was hopeless to shake the oral evidence offered. Mr Allen said that Mr Bowen had asserted with great distinctness and some vehemence that he had proved his pedigree but although the later parts of the pedi- gree were proved, early parts of the pedigree were very dim. In fact, the very fountain of the pedigree was faulty. The early portions could not be proved by documents, because the documents were lost, therefore those points had to be proved by witnesses—old people, who had heard their mothers or fathers talk about the connections of the family. The witnesses called were members of the claimant's family, and were deeply interested in the issue of this action. The defendant's title had nothing to do with the claimant's case. The claimant must prove his title if he had one. Descant- ing lengthily upon the improbability of the claimant's family not pressing their claim, although the uncles, mother, and the present claimant believed they were entitled to the estate, Mr Allen ridiculed the other claim of Evan Davies, set up against the same property, and manufactured in the same lawyer's office. In con- clusion Mr Allen read a quotation, showing the neces- sity of caution to be attached to oral evidence as to pedigree. The Judge told the Jury to dismiss from their minds the point that the will of Mrs Nicholl did not include Tynyfron. He believed that the will generally did include it. The case was peculiar. They had not to trace the pedigree of the claimant to the party last seised, as was usually the case, but they had to prove his descent from a subsequent owner, so as to bring him within the devise of Mrs. LN ichors will. Mrs Nichol left the estate to the right heirs of the late John Walter, "living at my decease." Those words would of course include the descendants of the right heirs living at the time of her decease. Now as to the plain- tiff and the defendant. There was no proof that the plaintiff or his predecessor had received the rents of this estate but there was proof that the defendant had received them. No doubt Mrs Nichols was fully seised of the property, as was proved by her agent, Mr Jones, of Maesycrigiau. The claimant sought to recover under the will, and in doing so he was riaht, because in any other kind of claim the Statute of Limitations might have intervened. As he claimed under the will, and as 20 years had not elapsed, that difficulty was got rid of; and it was all-important for him to show that Mrs Nichols was fully seised. But as the claimant had not received the rents of the property, it was necessary for him to prove his case entirely by pedigree and here the jury would recollect the quotation read by Mr Allen, as to the great caution to be observed in accepting oral evidence of pedigree. After referring to the unusual character of the evidence, his lordship said he felt boiaid to sav that the claimant had produced evidence which had made out his pedigree. But his lordship repeated that great caution was necessary in the matter, considering the time that the claim had been delayed, and considering, too, that the defendant had received rent. Mr Lewis Pugh asked whether David Evan Walter was dead. Mr Bowen said he was. Mr Brenchley—Is there satisfactory proof of it? The Judge—There are two certificates of it. He must have been very strong constitutioned if be lived till this time (laughter). Mr T. Davies asked whether the four co-heiresses of Walter Evan died without issue. The Judge-According to the claimant's account they did. The jury retired for half an hour and said they could not agree nor was there a chance of their doing so. The Judge said he was sorry for it, but they must try again. He encouraged them by telling them that the only remaining case was being tried by himself without the intervention of the jury, therefore they would not be required again, and could take plenty of time. Col. Lewes asked that the evidence might be read over, as that was the only mode of enabling them to agree. Mr Lewis Pugh said that he did not want to hear any evidence himself, but some jurymen wished to hear the evidence as to the marriage of Morgan Davies and Mary Evans. The Judge gave the jury a little explanation of the case, and they retired again for about half an hour, without being able to agree, and there was not the remotest chance of their agreeing. Capt. Parry said that every juryman bad taken a warm interest in the case, and had formed his own opinion and declined to alter it. Mr Bowen said that after that expression of opinion, he could not ask them to retire again. The Judge said that the complainant was a poor man, but as it seemed perfectly impossible for them to agree, he took their word for it, and felt that it was of no use to go on locking them up. LEWIS AND OTHERS AGAIXST FELIX. I This case was tried without a jury, by consent of both parties, it being understood that neither of them would move against the judge's decision. Mr B. T. Williams and Mr B. Francis William., instructed by Mr Barret Price Jordan, of Aberayron were for the plaintiffs Mr Bowen. and Mr Hughes instructed by Mr Thomas of Aberystwith were for the defendants. Elanor Lewis, Evan Evans, and Mary Evans were the plaintiffs, and there were about a dozen defendants. The plaintiffs sought to recover part of an estate called Hendre in the parish of Cilcennin, and the defendants defended the whole of the estate, except that portion called Rhos and Plasparke. Mr B. T. Williams said the question was one of parcels, and the case, owing to certain admissions, which were very creditable to both sides, would be much shortened. The question was whether the testator, by the language of his will, devised the pro- perty the possession of which the defendants defended. In 1778, the whole of this Hendre property was possessed bp the testator, David Evan, who made a will containing this important passage. I give and devise all that messuage, tenements and lands with their appurtenances commonly called and known by the name of Hendre, situate, lying and being in the afore- said parish and county, together with all and singular edifices, out-houses, and houses, ways, waters, water courses, slangs, pieces, parcels, and places thereunto belonging." To those words and places thereunto belonging," he (Mr Williams), drew special attention. The will went all to give this property to the wife of the testator Jane Evan and his daughter Elizabeth, spinster, jointly for the wife's life at her death to go to the sole use of the daughter for her life; after the daughter's death to the first and every other of her sons according to seniority and priority of age; in case she had no sons, it was to be equally divided amongst her daughters if Elizabeth had no daughters the property was to go to the testator's daughter, Mary, and her sons, or if there were no sons, then to her daughters. If Mary had no children, it was to go to his daughter Catherine with the same limitations as in the other cases. Then there came the ultimate devise And in default of issue [on the part of all the daughters] to my own heirs for ever." On the death of the testator, the whole property was possessed successively by his widow and her daughter, Elizabeth; and by Mary, the daughter of Elizabeth. On the succession of Mary, a question was raised whether the devise to Mary did take effect; and the question having been tried at Hereford in 1815, it was decided that the devise to Mary did take effect according to the construction of the will, as regarded the words and in default of issue, to my own heirs for ever." Elizabeth bad on child Mary, and the devise, was held to have taken effect. But a case was granted at Hereford, and Lord Ellenborough and the other judges on that special case held that all the children mentioned in the will took only a life estate, and consequently that all the children of the children also took only a life estate. After Mary's death, her two daughters, Jane Jones and Mary Morgan, inherited the estate as tenants for life. Jane Jones diid in 18-59, leaving her sou Daniel, one of the defendants, as heir- at-law, and Mary Morgan died in 1871, leaving her son, who was another defendant, and also heir- at-law. When these two women died, there were no children alive, consequently the ulti- mate devise to the right heirs took effect, and there was no doubt who those heirs were. The plaintiffs ad- mitted that the defendants, who were the representatives of Mary, were entitled to one fourth of any of the tes- tator's estate that was devisible, and the defendants admitted without troubling the plaintiffs to prove pedigree, which was very creditable of them-that the said plaintiffs were entitled to three-fourths of the estate, as the three children of the testator's daughters. Referring to past litigation, Mr Williams said that the plaintiffs had brought actions and recovered the prin- cipal farm of Hendre, but there were other portions of the estate, which were said not to have been included in the Hendre estate. During the testator's lifetime divisions were made in the property, and some divisions had been made since his death, and even recently and the question was whether, although they were divided from the principal farm of Hendre, they really did not belong to the Hendre estate, and whether the testator did not mean to include them in the estate when he made his will. The plaintiffs said that Hendre included the whole, and that the testator had the various divi- sions in his mind when he wrote the words, together with all and singular houses, out-houses, ways, waters, water-courses, slangs, pieces and places thereunto belonging." It was common in Wales for lands to have two names. A large mountain for instance, was called Hendre then as farming improved and population increased the land was divided, first into small holdings with cottages, and ultimately into several distinct farms with separate names, the old farmsteading and fields 3till going by the old name. Thus it was, as the plaintiffs contended, that there came to be places thereunto belonging" at Hendre. Producing a copy of the roll of the action tried in 1815, at Hereford, certified by the keeper of the Rolls, but which Mr Bowen did not admit, Mr Williams showed by it that soon after the testator's death, there were tenants of the Hendre estate and he would prove that Evan Price was the tenant of a farm called Bwlchydwr, the principal tenement upon which the defendants depen- ded also that another man was tenant of another farm called Mountain Gate. Consequently they had it as a matter of fact that the whole estate, including these and other farms, passed in 1815 to the devisees of of the testator, Jane Jones and Mary Morgan. And he would call old persons to prove that the parties named in the roll of the action of 1815 did live in the farms specified in the roll, and that they paid their rents to the husbands of the two women, Jane Jones and Mary Morgan There was one short way of settling the case and he challenged bis friend Mr Bowen to settle it in that way. If the defendants claimed under the will of the testator they were only tenants for life, and according to the limitation in the will the plaintiffs were now entitled. If, on the other band the defendants did not claim under the testator's will let them produce the anterior will they did claim under, and there was an end of the plaintiff's case. His friend Mr Bowen might laugh and his friend Mr Hughes might talk as loudly as he pleased but he challenged them both publicly to say how they claimed. He would produce the tithe map and the map of the Enclosure Commissioners, and although his learned riends might object to tte rception of those maps, ne again challenged them to point out a single allotment nade by the commissioners to Bwlchydwr as a separate estate. Had the case been tried before a jury, he could !Jot undertake to say what Mr Bowen, with his admir- tble way of managing juries, might not have been able to do but he waited with some curiosity to see what he .vould do now that the case was being tried before his lordship. Mr Bowen-I am not going to produce any will at all nor to admit anything. I am here to defend an action )f ejectment. The Judge said that the question was whether there was any property not called Hendre, but belonging thereunto;" for instance, common land enclosed and allotted to Hendre. If they could find such lands the words of the will "thereunto belonging" would operate upon them. Mr B. T. Williams then put in the will of the testator, and the office copy of the record of the judgment given at the action tried in 1815. He then called old men and women, varying in age from 60 to 90 years, who proved that when they first rem bered, various farms ad- joining Hendre farm were let to certain tenants whom they named, and that those tenan's paid their rents to Mr Jones, of Carnfoel, and Mr Morgans, of Pantynam- Iwch. They proved, further, that the tenants of Hendre farm itself paid their rents to the same gentlemen, who were the husbands of Jane and Mary, the testator's grand-daughters. Most of the witnesses said they thought adjoining farms were part of Hendre, because the rents were paid to the same parties as received the rents of Hendre; and other witnesses deposed that it was said that those farms belonged to Hendre. It was proved that at first Bwlchydwr was a small cottage with keep enough, as the witness thought for one cow, but the witness was told there was enough keep for two cows. It was also proved that there was a small common between Hendre and Bwlchdwr. It was elicited, however, on the part of the defendants that the buildings on these outlying farms looked old An old man named Thomas Williams said that when Evan Price lived at Hendre, Price's cattle grazed the liberty of Hendre, and on the common of Cilcenin as far as they liked but, he added, It was the liberty of other people too." He said that the Hendre cattle used to cross Bwlchydwr in order to get on the common, and they might have grazed in crossing, if they liked but he could not say they did. It was also proved that the tenant of Bwlchydwr went to live at Hendre and held Hendre and Bwlchydwr together. The Clerk of the Peace, Mr F. R. Roberts, produced the award of the Enclosure Commissioners, showing an allotment of Haminiog common made to Hendre estate in May, 1816, but there was nothing on the award to show of what the Hendre estate consisted. The Judge declined to receive the Tith Commutation maps, as they are well-known to be defective and it was admitted by the defendants that no allotment was made to Bwlchydwr as a separate estate. Mr B. T. Williams next called Mr Barret Jordan, the plaintiff's solicitor, who proved that during an interview which he had with the principal defendants and their solicitor, Mr Thomas, at Aberystwith, they alleged that only the farm of Hendre passed to the plaintiffs under the testator's will, and after that, Mr Thomas, the soli- citor, wrote a letter to the witness reiterating, in writing, that allegation. Nevertheless, a fortnight or three weeks ago, he (Mr Jordan) was informed that the de- fendants admitted the plaintiffs' right to Rhos and Plas- parke, two of the farms adjoining Hendre. The Judge said he did not think that the plaintiffs had any case at all, but as he was empowered to decide upon law and fact he would hear Mr Williams sum up. The plaintiffs, no doubt, were entitled to the estate called Hendre, but the further question arose whether anything beyond the lands of Hendre passed under the primary devise. He was rather disposed to hold, though he had very grave grave doubt about it, that there was evidence of ouster but as the clearest evidence of ouster was useless without good proof of title he would for the present dismiss the question of ouster. He must be satisfied of one of two things on the part of the plaintiff; one was that that the lands sought to be recovered were commonly called and known by the named of Hendre," and the second was that those lands, &c., were thereunto belonging that was belonging to Hendre. Until one or other of those propositions were made out, the plaintiff did not come within the devise. Mr B. T. Williams said be felt the responsibilities of his position for two reasons; one was .that from his knowledge of the county he felt that the case, to him- self was perfectly clear the other was that as his lord- ship seemed unable to regard it in the same light as he (Mr Williams) did, it must be owing to some defect in the advocacy. The Judge said that was not so. He followed Mr Williams perfectly. And he might say now, that even at the eleventh hour, he would consent, upon the agree- ment of both parties, to allow an appeal from his decision on a point of law. Mr B. T. Williams suggested that, in case the Judge thought the plaintiffs could not recover anything but Hendre, a non-suit should be entered, so that eventually, the case might after all come before a special jury of the county of Cardigan. The Judge said he would willingly enter a nonsuit if the plaintiffs desired it. Mr B. T. Williams, commencing his address, said that they had the fact that in 1778, when the testator made his will, there were certain places "belonging" to Hendre. It was common in this country to let out from the large estate small farms, and Mr Bowen, who was a landowner in the county, knew it. The Judge-But there is no evidence of that. One great thing in your favour is that the rents were all paid on the same day and at the same place. Mr B, T. Williams still ventured to submit that the proper meaning of places was small farms, such as those the existence of which on Hendre had been proved by old witnesses. One great disadvantage of conducting this case was that the will was made nearly a century ago. Now, if he had bad to deal with a matter of public right he could have called evidence of refutation got in old mpps, &c., but in this case he could not do so; and it was impossible to call persons who were alive in 1778, and who could tell the general relation of these farms to the estate of Hendre. The consequence was that he must address to the Court a great deal of argu- ment founded on inference. The old witnesses, some of whom were unwilling witnesses, bad proved that Bwlchydwr, Glanrhos, and all the other farms were at first very small holdings, attached to the farm of Hendre. That was quite consistent with the will of the testator. The fact was that now these small places had became large firms. The next point proved by the record of the action tried at Hereford in 1815, was that Evan Price and others were the tenants of Bwlchydwr and others farms adjoining Hendre. In corroboration of the evidence on the record of action, was the evidence of the old tenants who rembered Evan Price and other tenants occupying Bwlchydwr and the other adjacent farms. The Judge said that one important fact was that the son of one tenant of Hendre, after occupying Bwlchy- dwr, left Bwlchydwr and lived at Hendre. Mr Williams added that they had the still more im- portant fact that at last the son held Hendre and Bwlchydwr together. The action at Hereford proved that in 1815 it was considered that the whole of the premises formed part of the Hendre estate, and passed under the will of David Evan. The Judge said that action raised the question whether the devise to the right heirs took effect. Mr Williams asked, supposing the plaintiffs in the action tried at Hereford, had wished to recover the farm of Hendre alone, what would they have done? They would have brought an action simply against the tenant of that farm. But what did they do as a matter of fact ? Why they included in the action of ejectment, the tenant of Bwlchydwr, and the tenants of tbe other farms adjoining Hendre. The Judge—There is this point in yottr favour, as regards that action, of ejectment—that they included as defendants persons who were not tenants of Hendre farm. Mr B. T. Williams-Your lordship has put the point perfectly and I need not say another word about it. But the action at Hereford also showed that the plaintiffs got possession of the estate of Hendre with the surrounding farms, under the will of David Evans- they had held that possession, under that will until last year. And the present plaintiffs now claimed the same property under the same will. If tenants for life were to hold property for almost a century and then decline to give up more than a portion of their inheritance, (because the Statute of Limitations operated) unless it was conclusively proved that every separate field was included, when the will was made, in the estate devised, what became of security for property ? The Judge said the right heirs were clearly entitled to something and that the Statute of Limitations would not run against the right heirs during the existence of tenancies for life. Mr B. T. Williams said that if the Statute of Limitations did not run, the estate would be divided between the four daughters. He and his friend represented three of those daughters, and if the estate went to the testator's heirs at law, they were entitled to their shares as much as if they claimed under the Will. He next desired to call his Lordship's attention to the award of the Enclosure Commissioners in 1816. The parties in possession of Bwlchydwr, made no claim for right of common in respect of Bwlchydwr yet if Bwlcbydwr was at that time an independent property, it bad a right to an award, and the tenants and owners would have looked to it. The case of the defendants was full of inconsistencies. If their present contention was to be maintained, the defendants at the action tried at Hereford, had only a life estate in Hendre, but a larger estate in Bwlcbydwr because although the tenants foi life then existing, were dead, their representa- tives now claimed to he entitled to it altogether. They were therefore, placed in this position—that in 1816, when they apparently had a right to claim a property in which they had a larger estate than a tenancy for life, they did actually claim for a mere tenancy for life, and for nothing more In the award of the Enclosure Com- missioners, the estate to whieh the allotment was made was called the Hendre etate and the old witness showed that the Bwlchydwr cattle had liberty to graze npon the Hendre common. How the defendants did explain the latter iact, except upon the theory that Bwlchydwr formed part of Hendre. Mr Williams concluded by urging that the concurrence of evidence was strongly I in favour of the plaintiffs. There was a question which affected costs, and that was with regard to the two small places Plasparke and Rhos. The Judge decided that ouster had been proved. He went on to give judgment. He felt the responsibility of his situation quite as much as his learned friend, Mr Williams, did. Considering the antagonistic remarks which be (the judge), bad felt called upon to make before Mr Williams began his address, Mr Williams had had a very arduous duty to discharge, and be felt bound to say that that duty bad been discharged with great candour and great ability. He was glad to feel that the responsibility which rested upon himself (the Judge), did not prevent his verdict for the defendants being turned into a nonsuit, if the learned counsel should so elect. He must at once state that the plain- tiff's could not take a verdict for part of the premises and a nonsuit for the rest. But after he had given his opinion upon the case, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs could consider whether he would elect to take a nonsuit or a verdict for the whole and make known his decision at Carmarthen. The plaintiffs sought to recovered these premises as the right heirs of David Evan; and having proved themselves to be the right heirs, they could only recover the premises sought to he recovered, provided those premises were "commonly called and known by the name of Hendre;" or pro- vided they were places thereunto belonging." He was of opinion, dealing with the parol evidence that there was no proof that the premises sought to be recovered were commonly called and known by the name of Hendre. There were some facts which might lead to a suspicion or a belief that the testator believed they belonged to Hendre, and those facts, contained in parol evidence, seemed to accord with the written admissions. As to the action tried at Hereford in 1816, be could not take, for the pur- poses of this present action, what might be supposed to have been the facts stated in the special case granted upon that action, for in those days, which were shortly before he was called to the bar —and not long before-a plaintiff, if he sought to recover land in two parishes, and could establish his title to an inch of land in one parish, was entitled to a verdict for the whole of the land sought to be recovered in both parishes. That rule, however, was found to be inconvenient, and a limitation was laid upon it. The real question determined by Lord ellenborough in the Court of Queen's Bench was whether the right heirs were entitled to sue at all. It was not supposed they were entitled to say what was the quantity; they were entitled to recover, but it was whether the life estate had been so displaced that the right heirs were entitled to come in and recover by ejectment. Taking the facts stated in the special case as true, he could not come to the conclusion that they showed that the lands then dealt with were "commonly called and known by the name of Hendre or that it showed, in a way that he ought to act upon, that the lands then in the possession of the defendants were lands belonging" to Hendre. Giving all possible weight to the evidence conveyed by the award of the Enclosure Commissioners and indeed to all the evidence, he must hold that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover in respect of Plasparke and Rhos, with a ver- dict for defendants for the remainder but the learned counsel for the plaintiffs could elect, at Carmarthen, whether he would take a verdict for the defendants or a nonsuit. This ended the busines of the Assize, and the court rose at ten o'clock on Wednesday morning.