WREXHAM COUNTY COURT. I|1860-02-04|Wrexham and Denbighshire Advertiser and Cheshire Shropshire and North Wales Register - Welsh Newspapers Online
Hide Articles List

19 articles on this Page

[No title]

LOliD DUN GANNON AS A LEGISLATOR.I

SUMMARY.I

I 1 PAUPERISM OF SHROPSHIRE…

[No title]

R.OUOUGH M'AG; OF RATES' COURT.

WREXHAM COUNTY COURT. I

News
Cite
Share

WREXHAM COUNTY COURT. I SATURDAY, JAN. 28— Before J. L. Winston, Esq., .11 -la^gL1. This was the fourth (lay for the Court to sit, and the whole of ths day was occupied with the case IIOSKELL V. HUGHES, I which was an action for damages laid at :1210, brought I by Mr Ruski/11, of Upper Glascoed, against Mr Hughes, of Lower Glascoed. Mr bwetenham appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Wyatt for the defence. From the opening address of the former it appeared that the de- fendant, ou the 21st of March, 1859, entered upon afield in the possession of the plaintiff with a plough andteum and ploughed up about half an acre of the land. Pre- vious to February, 1859, the defendant was tenant of this land, but this tenancy, it was contended on the part of the plaintiff, expired on the 2nd of February, as will be shown by the following evidence. Mr Benham was first called. He said I am the owner of a farm called Bryn Glascoed. It is near to Mr Roskill's farm, called Upper Glascoed. Previous to February, lSof, Mr Hughes was my tenant. I gave him notice to quit in 1853. I did so in 1857 first, but he objected, and I accepted his objection to prevent any quarrel. The first or second Monday of August I gave him notice-it was before the third. Mr Johnson is my agent. I gave him notice personally. (Notice read.) Cross-examined—I did not read it to him. I told him I was willing to take him on a fresh lease. I gave hIm the notice on a Monday-it was either the 1st or second of August. It was about two o'clock. I wrote to Mr Hughes on the 5th of June suggesting new terms. (Let- ter read.) Subsequent to this I had some correspond- ence with Mr Johnson relative to the re-letting. (Se- veral of the letters were here read.) I never heard of a written agreement before I bought the farm. By Mr Swetenham.—Mr Hughes has paid me rent for four or five years. 1 never authorised Mr Johnson to keep Mr Hughes on the old tenancy terms. Mr Johnson was next called. He said that in January, 1859. I was appointed agent tor Mr Benham for Lower G lascoed farm. I received a letter on the 5th, asking me to arrange for setting the farm that Mr Hughes was about to quit. Mr Benham recalled, and read a letter of the 24th of June, 1859, instructing Mr Johnson to get another tenant unless John Hughes would pay an increased rent. Mr Johnson's examination continued. 1 saw Mr Hughes atter leeeiving that letter, and ho asked me to draw out an agreement. I did so, and after looking it over he said he would not take the farm on that tigree- Dlent. Thii was on Thursday, 3rd of March. Mr Ros- lill after this came to see me when I was ill in bed. The letter was in the bedroom on the day, and I offered him the farm. He said he would take it, but he would not if John Hughes and I could agree. I pressed John Hughes to take it in the Market Hall. I said the farm is let unless you take it. He said I am much obliged to you, but I cannot take it on those terms. I then wrote to Mr R skell telling him he was tenant of the farm. (Letterread.) John Hughes came on Saturday, the 19th or Monday, the 21st of March. Mr Lovatt was present part of the time. I was talking to him. Hughes said he had seen Mr Roskell and he (Roskeli) said he was willing to give up the farm to him, and he was willing to take it on the terms proposed. I said I could not inter- fere any more as Mr Roskell was the tenant of the farm. He appealed to me and said sball I send my teams on the farm. I replied, if Mr Roskell is agreeable I have no obj ection. Mr Hughes returned me the agree- ment now produced, but I don't remember when-U. bigmd. I have bad considerabl e experience in flrming. Supposing this field laid down in grass it would be a great injury and annoyance to plough it. By Mr Wyatt-I was to get an agreement from John Hughes to frame the other by. I had not had the agree- ment from John Hughes when I wrote that letter. I I don't know when 1 showed the agreement to Mr Ros- kell. It was subsequent to the 21st of March. On the 22nd I weal to Mr Hughes saying Mr Roskell was ten- ant unless he liked to re-let to him. Hughes gave the agreement up at the Wynnstay Arms. Edward Lovatt was next called. He said he was 11. I ir T • clerk t(i m r jonnson, was WHO iur Johnson when the agreement was given to Mr Hughes. I had written it. There was a question as to rLp tirs. Johnson gave Mr Hughes to understand that the tenant found the ma- terials for all alterations. In the same room on the 21st of March I was present again when the agreement was given up by Mr Hughes. He said it was not sufficient. it was mentioned that Mr Roskell would take the farm. 'i I was also present when Mr Hughes told Mr Johnson Mr Roskell had given him permission to continue the tenancy. Mr Roskell called-I am the owner of Upper Glas- coed. It adjoins Hughes's farm. I received this letter dated 9th March, 1859, stating Hughes was shuffling and offering me the farm. I sent for Mr Hughes after and showed him the letter. I advised him to agree and wished him to retain it. I offered to lend him money if he was anxious to purchase. 1 said I thought I could manage the thing. In pursuance of these letters I took possess- ion of the farm on me totn ot March, 1859. I showed Mr Hughes the letter in confidence, and told him I thought he was very foolish. He told me Mr John. i son had let him the land. I said he had better not let me catch him nor Johnson there. This was before the 21st of March. I remember seeing the plough in the field I had taken from Mr Johnson, The horses wee coming out of the field; the plough was left there. They were Hughes's horses. They had plonghed haif an acre. On the following morning 1 went to Hnghes's house. I said I suppose you have seen your plough broken ?" He said" yes., I I said do you know who broke it ?" lie said "no,"and I said I did," and added "it was fortu- nate the man and horses were notthere." He said nothing, is one of those men who are very quiet. It was not a stubble field. There had been barley or oats the season before. I don't think the ploughing did much harm, except to one's feelings. The field is no value to me for agricultural purposes, only as a grazing land. The loss was very trifling. Rather have given 210 than have had it ploughed certainly. Mr Hughes took his half of wheat when he left in the autumn, 1859. It was after I took ¡ possession. Cross examined- -1 don't know the date I knocked Mr ¡ Hughes down. Before that quarrel I had not given Mr I Hughes any notice 01 this damage. After he brought the action for the a-sault I took these proceedings. I took possession on the 18th of March. I merely walked up and down. There were no gates to lock. I did not tell Mr Hughes on the Friday, Saturday, nor Monday, that I had not taken the land. Mr Johnson read the agreement to me before then in the Wy nustay. It was before the 21st of March he did so. By Mr Swetenham—Remembered Mr Hughes taking his stock and implements off the farm on the 2nd of Feb. His cattle had trespassed there since, but they were al. ways taken off by himself or his man. The assault was not connected with this trespass. Mr Wyatt then replied for the defendant to the plaintiff's case, and urged that the action was quite un- founded, and wanted no encouragement as the plaintiff admitted in his cross-examination, that he had sustained no damage whatever, and that he had never treated the grievance complained of as one, until three months after it had happened, and not then until after Mr Hughes, the defendant had been obliged to bring an action against him for unwarrantably knocking him down. Mr Wyatt in arguing observed-I say that the plaintiff can only bring this action if the tenancy between Benham and defendant Hughes had been legally determined between the 21st day of March last. In 1857 and 1858 the relation of landlord and tenant subsisted between Benham and Hughes, of Bryn Glascocd hrm-then did Benham get rid of this, before his supposed letting to Roskell ? I contend not. Hughes entered on the Bryn Glascoed lands on the 2nd day of February, and on the house and buildings, and a boosey pasture on the 1st day of May. Benham in Auguit, 1857, gave Hughes a notice to quit the said land' and also the house and buildings, on the 2nd day of February, 1858,-he de- livered it to him himself, saying he did not wish to re- move him, but only to put him under an agreement in writing, which Hughes was willing to give. Benham did not read the notice to the tenant, nor did he read it on delivery, therefore there was no acceptance then by the tenant of the time of quitting being correct. The question then arises, is this notice to quit on a specified day, not being the lait day of the year good? In Doe D. Williams v. Smith Adolphus and Ellis, 350 it is decided that where different parts of the demixed premis- es were entered upon at different times, that notice should be to quit at corresponding periods, or, at the ex- piration of half, a-year from the delivery of this notice. Therefore if this rule be not overruled, Benham's notice is insufficient, and Hughes's tenancy undetermined on the 21st day of March last. But as his friend Mr Swetenham had put in a letter of Hughe's the defen. dants to Benham, dated 17th day of March, 1857, say- ing.—farms are usually given up by the custom of the country on the 2nd day of Frebruary, he probably in- tends to contend that as the tenan' has given the land- lord a wrong time of entry, and quitting he is bound by it, and cannot object now to the error. Mr Wyatt went on to observe, that the tenant had not done so, he has merely in reference to the suggested terms for a new lease, informed his landlord what the usage is, he does not on a distinct application by him to know his time of entry, say it was February 2nd, and thereby mislead him. Whereupon a notice is given him, if that were so the tenant is estopped trom objecting that his tenancy commenced another time. Under the case of Eyre v. Lambley," 2 Espmape. All the tenant says by the custom, tenants give up farm's on February 2nd, not that the time his tenancy began was then, but I w. show by the tenant that after this 17tth March he saw Benham and told him his times of entry were February 2nd, and May 1st, Mr Wyatt, said if this train of reas- oning is correct, the defendant's tenancy was not deter- mined on the 21st March, and Roskell had no title to bring an action tor tiespasi. In another view of the case, the defendant Hughes had a good continuing title to the pos-j -lion of Bryn Glasoocd, on the 21st my of -11-irch. Ever, suppose t.e notice to quit to be good, which I deny, Hughes did not surrender possesion cf tLe lands on the 2nd day of February, he kept his cattle on to the 21st {1.,y of ManL. Johnson the agent never went down to ie_eive or demand possession on the 2nd day of Febmaiy, but as is dhuwa by the landlord and the agent's letters to Hughes between the 5ta day of January," and the ISiS, a negotiation wa* set on foot, for a fi e-h Lasc, and it was clear defendant Hughes v a s rtmain"d oa J) implied consent, under sce'l circumstan- cc. And if ever the notice t3 quit was good, he ilaghcs wan, at any rate, a tenant at will to Benham, from tl.e 2nd jiy of Februiry, and could not be cj cted without a _n JY °, .r ct.ru¡ry, and cou. ilùt be cJ:d:; \Vt ,¡lh a previous u.:ui:.n'i of j ossession, or something equivalent, and an entry for the [moose of resuming possession. or reports,—It is true, Mr Wyatt observed, that Mr J-;I;r.son sn. 3 he wrote to Roc- kell oil Friday the 18t dav of March, to take possession ot the 1;13,11 Glascot d land at once, and ti.at Roskell said he walked with his man into the fields on Saturday the 19lh, but he locked novate. Did no act to signify 1- 1 J on the lan(I L(-) t t l-' TenatiT7 nis entry oy ii,nba,ll,i oider. the land to lenatir, I eo as to determine the tenancy at will, and under a vin- dicative action of this sort I eoutend in the face of Johnson's letters up to the 22nd March last, t-at noth- ing ihort of an overt net by the landlord manifesting and giving the tenant notice cf his intention to resume possession could satisfactorily have de,-eriiiine I Hughe's interest up to March the :,Ils-. As Mr Swetenham seemed to think the acts of the tenant subsequent to the 21st day of March, sufficient, as a party to treat and set up the notice to quit as good. Mr Wyatt aid he re- lied on the  and YOIIn" 141 lied on the case in "1 M'OeIand and Younge. HI, which appears to decide that an iosumeient notice to quit, though appended to, would not determine a tenancy or operate as a surrender, on the expiration of such notice. Lastly Mr Wyatt said this case involved a ques- tion of title and deprived the court of jurisdiction—to which observation the judge said he felt that all through the case. Th first witness called, was John Hughes, who said I was tenant to Mr Benham at Lower Glascoed. Mr Swetenham objected to Mr Hughes's evidence. He would undertake to say that his honour would have to strike it all out of his notes, Mr Hughes continued I entered on my tenancy on the 2nd of February, I entered on the land and build- ings on the 1st of May following. I had some conversa- tion with my landlord before he bought the farm. I told him my time of entry on thj land was the 2nd of Feb- ruary, and the house on the 1st of May. The notice to quit was given me—I cannot tell the day, it was between two and three o'clock one afternoon. He did not read the notice-l put it in my pocket. He said he did not wish me to leave the farm-he wished me to take a new lease I saw Mr Johnson on the 17th of March in the Market Hall. I did not give the land up. There was a differ- ence about repairs. He told me that Roskell bad taken the farm on the Thursday, after that I saw Roskell on the Friday following—the 18th. I told him what had passed between me and Mr Johnson, and he said he had not taken the farm. I said I was for going on with it. He said he did not want anything to do with it, I then went to see Mr. Johnson, on Monday the 21st of March. Told him what had passed between myself and Mr Haskell-that Roskell would have nothing to do with the farm. I told him that I was anxiou3 to go on with it. He said if I did not like it Roskell would. I gave up the agreement to have it signed by Mr Ben- ham. He was making a little alteration in the terms, When I went back I ordered the team to go and plcugh half an acre of oat stubble. It was not laid down with clover the year before. It was not in permanent pasture. The grass was goou for nothing, that was on it. I went up to Mr Roskell. He asked me where I was that morning ? I said I had been with Mr Johnson. That I had arranged with Johnson to go on with the business. He said he would let me and Mr Johnson know different. There were 3 horses ploughing. The Dext morning Air Roskell came. He asked me did I know who had broken my plough, I said no, and he said he did. On the 2nd day of February, I neither saw Johnson nor Benham. Did not withdraw my things from the farm. I was in poseession till the 22nd March I gave up the land on the 22nd of March. I remained in the farm because I was in treaty altogether, (letters put in shewing this) after reading a letter on the 22nd from Mr" Johnson I gave it up, and left the house on the 1st of May. I never saw Roskell interfering on the land, had no cattle on the land. Cross-examined I have paid rent to Mr Benham, when Mrs Williams was in the farm many years after Mr Benham purchased. I paid the same rent when she was in as after she left. She paid me rent after Mr Benham purchased. I did go to Mr Benham to wish him to get Mrs Williams to go from there because she could not pay rent. I got rid of her myself not Mr Benham. She was my tenant I re- member viewing this all, CuMenL from Mr Johnson. I re- member taking it back. I did not give it up when 1 took it back, Mr Johnson told me in the Market Hall that Roskell had taken it. I never told Mr Johnson I would not take it. Some dispute here took place about a letter, dated March 17 1859, in which Mr Benham said he was nut willing that Hughes should have the farm again on the same terms." Thu answer to this letter was amongst the papers put in, and notice had been given to produce the letter itself, but Mr Wyatt said lie had never seen it. Mr Swetenham thsn replied, alter which His Honour said he should take time to consider his decision.

ANNUAL MEETING OF THE WREXHAM…

WREXHAM BOARD OF GUARDIANS.I

[No title]

RUABOTF PEITY SESSIONS.

[No title]

SALES OF LEAD ORE AND BLENDE…

Family Notices

[No title]

-. EXPEDIXIONT

-'-..-LATEST MARKETS.

[No title]

Advertising