Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Wrexham and Denbighshire Advertiser and Cheshire Shropshire and North Wales Register

The copyright status or ownership of this resource is unknown (images for 1854-1900 with thanks to the British Library).
Hide Articles List

7 articles on this Page

Advertising

- -I AGGRAVATED ASSAULT ON…

COUNTY MAGISTRATES' -COURT.I

WREXHAM COUNTY COURT.—WEDNESDAY.

News
Cite
Share

WREXHAM COUNTY COURT.—WEDNESDAY. Before H. Vaughan Williams, Esq., Judge. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. There were a number of committals on the sum- monses after judgment for periods varying from three to seven days. GRIFFITH V. OAMIiELL. Mr Glascodine said this was a case in which he was appointed arbitrator, and, after going over to Bangor, the "defendant had agreed to pay £ 10 in addition to what he had already paid into court, he (the arbitrator) ruling that the costs ehonld he divided. BREAKING WIKDOWS. vAL'iiUAN V. MASSEY. In this case Mr Price Yuuglutu, brewer, sued tne defendant for Gs., amount of damage done by breaking the windows of a house occupied by a teuant of his durmg a quarrel.—His Honour said the tenant was liable for repairing the windows.—Mr Vaughan said as it was his property, he thought he coulcl recover.—His Honour said he must be in possession to recover. The action ought to have been brought in the name of the tenant. There must be a nonsuit. [ SPOONER V. CUDDY. I This was a case of disputed measurement in brick work executed by John Spooner for Michael Cuddy. The persons engaged to measure being Mr Jones, of Fairfield, and Mr Huxley, of Market-street. His Honour analysed tke measurement very closely and par- ticularly, and found only 9s 61 difference in the money value. The defendant admitted owing 10s 61, while the amount claimed was only a pound. His Honour said it was impossible where two men differed in their measurement in that way, to judge correctly between them, and gave judgment for 15s. I WILLIAMS V. DAVIES. I This was a claim made by Robert Williams, upon John Davies, of Sutton Green, for 13, balance of wages, for which he put in a very clear statement. Mr Davies put in a very different statement, showing lie owed the plaiutiff nothing, but failed to show any agree- ment. His Honour gave judgment for 8s. DAVIES V. EVISON. I This was an action brought by Thomas Davies, a labouring man, against Thomas Evisou, of Eyton. Mr Sherratt was concerned for the plaintiff, and Mr Acton for the defence. Mr Sherratt said he had advised the plaintiff not to appear. Mr Acton applied for costs on behalf of Mr Evisou, which were allowed. DAMAGE BY ASSAULT. HIGGINS Y. HANMER. I ow-r" 'I I Bernard uiggins, labourer, brought an action against Thomas Hanmer, Turf Tavern, for the recovery of £ 3, damages alleged to have been sustained by an assault. Air Acton appeared for the defence. Plaintiff said de- fendant employed him OLe Monduy to carry some coal in. When he had finished defendant asked him how much it was, and he said he would leave it to him. Then if you leave it to me, Hanmer replied, it will be nothing. He then asked defendant would 3s be too much, to which Hanmer replied 11 d- you, do you think I'm made of money, I shall not give you a d- halfpenny." His sister then gave him Is 6d and said her mother would settle with him on Saturday. He took the Is 6d and came out, when the defendant came with a dog that bit him in the thigh. Then he got a stone up to hit the dog, and defendant hit him. The stone missed the dog and went into the house. He went down the road, and defendant came after him with a constable's staff in his hand with which he hit him more than once, giving him one severe blow across the eye, in consequence of which he had to be attended by Dr. Davies. In cross-examination plaintiff said he was from half past eleven to half-past five getting the coal in. Admitted having been imprisoned three times. twice for assault, aud once for drunkenness. Plaintiff called a witness who at first refused to be sworn, hat being in the box his Honour compelled him. His evidence was more damaging than otherwise to the plaintiff. Defendant denied seeing any dog there at all. but admitted making use of the staff. The servant girl also said she saw no dog. The judge said the only point of doubt in his mind was as to the legality of nsing the constable's staff, the story of being bitten by t Ie dog he did not believe. Taking all the ether cir- cumstances into account, he thought there ought to be judgment for the defendant with costs. EJECTMENT CdSE-SHACKLETON '11. DODD AND PRICE. This was an action of ejectment brought by Robert Shackleton against Mary Dodd and George Price, of Summer Hill. Mr Sweteuham, instructed by Mr James, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mrs Dodd said she had retained Mr Pugh to defend, but at eleven o'clock that morning she was informed by one of his clerks that he could not come. Mr Swetenham said that the plaintiff by that action sought to recover possession of a cottage and garden, situate in Upper Gwersyllt. They claimed as assigns • of the mortgagee. Robert Dodd, the husband of Mrs Do Id, now deceased, was the possessor and owner of the fee pimple of the cottage, and George Price married the daughter of Robert Dodd. On the 15th of August, 1868 he mortgaged the premises in fee to Ed. Dodd, and the mortgage deed contained power of sale, which he would read (Mr Swetenham here read the clause). The money was never paid back, and the premises were sold in accordance with this power. His Honour asked Mrs Dodd how she still claimed the premises, when the old lady became very demon- strative, named a legal gentleman who had wrongly in- formed her, and finish d by saying that she was sure her husband never signed the deed produced. Edward Dodd (brother of the deceased Robert Dodd) was then called. He said he was a gardener residing at Bootle. Lent his brother, Robert Dodd, sixty pounds. Saw his brother put his cross to a certain deed. Believed the deed produced was it. Kept the deed as his brother never paid him back. The place was sold by auction by Baugh and Jones. Delivered up the deed to Baugh and Jones. Some difficulty arising here as to whether the deed produced was the one or not, the old man only being able to swear, he believedlit was, Mr Thomas Jones, of tne firm of Baugh and Jones, was called, and swore to its identity. They delivered it to Mr Allington Hughes. A rich scene followed in the shape of Mrs Dodd putting Edward Dodd through a severe cross- examination. His Honour told the old woman very mildly that she would be obiged to give up the preiises. Her late husband had borrowed money upon them, which was iaever paid back, in consequence of which the premises had to be sold. The plaintiff was now the owner, and she would have to leave in fourteen days. PIERCE V. BAXENDELL. I inis was a jury case, Deing an action Drougnt by Mr Isaac Pierce, tanner, of this town, against James Baxendeil, of Manchester, h,ttter, for the recovery of JE45 Is, alleged to be due for a quantity of rolled leather. The case had been twice adjourned, and excited a good deal of interest. Mr Swetenham, instructed by Mr Jones, appeared for the plaintiff, and Dr. Penkhurst, of Manchester, for the defendant. The following persons were sworn on the jury :—Mr James Davenport. Yorke-street, foreman; Mr John Gittins, Hope-street; Mr Huden, Madeira Hill; Mr William Evans, Regent-fctreet; and Mr Angel Jones, Fairfield Terrace. Mr Swetenham, in a very lucid opening speech, oc- cupying nearly an hour, gave a good outline of the facts, pointed out the legal bearings of the action- quoting various cases in point, and read a most voluminous correspondence that had taken place be- tween plaintiff and defendant, both of whom appear to excel as commercial letter writers, the style of the plaiutiff being, however, the more vigorous of the two. Several telegrams were also read, showing that the senders were men of business habits. The facts of the case are mainly the same, whether narrated by plaintiff or defendant, differing only in some slight details, whereon, in point of law, however, often hangs a tale. One peculiarity of the case was, that defendant pur- chased the goods before he ever saw them. He called upon Mr Pierce, when he incidentally learut that he had some goods at a railway station in Manchester, he agreed to take them on certain conditions, but after see- ing them he wished to return them, but it was alleged on behalf of the plaintiff that defendant had in effect re- sold the goods, thus exercising dominion over them- that in fact there had been a delivery and an accept- ance. The plaintiff was the first witness called. He said- I remember Mr Baxendell calling at my place of busi- ness on the 10th of September last. His foreman, Mr Grenville was with him. He said he wanted same rolled leather, and I showed him a lot comprising 74 dozen. He said he wanted about fifty dozen. On the way to the warehouse Mr Granville, with whom I was pretty well acquainted, asked me had I not a lot of 53 dozen lying in Manchester. I said I had in a crust state—that is simply tanned. They had been dressed by the person I sold them to, who was a very ex- perienced leather-dresser. Mr Baxendell heard this and made same inquiries about the lot. I said they were in perfect condition when they left my warehouse. I had not seen them since they left the warehouse-how they were dressed, therefore, I could not say. I made no further representations abont them for a certainty than that they were my tannage. I had sold them pre- viously for cash to Michael Edwards, who afterwards was not able to pay for them. I told defendant that the goods were at the Liverpool Road Railway Station, Manchester- I told him also that he had better have the 74 dozen in the warehouse, which he looked at, but he said that was too large of a lot. He said the Man- chester lot would suit him best as to number, and he seemed to cling to the Manchester lot altogether. He asked me the price of the Manchester lot, and I said 18s per dozen. He asked me would 1 take 17s. I said they were worth 18s. He then put the matter in this way:-Let the fixed price be 17s, and if they turn out well 1 will give you 17s 6d. I agreed to this. I had sold a portion of the same lot before to a man named Hugh Price. Several letters and telegrams were here put before the plaintiff, one telegram complaining that the goods could not be obtained from the station, another stating that they had been received, but in a very greasy and bad condition, and wishing the plaintiff to send others. One letter was read in which defendant stated that he did not charge plaintiff with any mis- representation as to the state of the goods, but c unplaiu- iug that he was awkwardly situated, as he had sold them to another person. There was a ctl eliue in the »*:irket immediately after the goods rere soll.-Cross- examined by Dr. Penkhurst: There was a decline of 5s per dozen. I did not send others as requested by Mr Baxendell, because I must have sold them at 14s per dozen; besides, it was utterly impossible to send them to reach Manchester by ten o'clock next morning, after the time I received the telegram. I said something about the goods. I said the same person had shaved them. I said the same person shaved them that shaved those he had seen in the warehouse. I said he was one of the best workmen in the trade. I said that they were finished by an experienced man, and they ought to be finished well. I did not say the goods in Manchester were equal to those I had shown him in the warehouse. I said they were equal when they were in the crust. I did not first suggest to Mr Baxendell that he should buy the goods that were in Manchester. It never entered my mind to offer them to him. The price was definitely fixed. It was 17a per dozen. There was no doubt about the size of the skins. I think I did tell Mr Baxendell that the skins were rather larger. I did not agree according to size. He sai 1 he would give me 17s 6d if they turned out well. Mr Baxendell did not say he would purchase if the goods were, as represented, equal to those in the ware- house. I said to Mr Baxendell, You had better buy the goods you see, because buying those in Manchester will be like buying a pig in a bag." I remember the telegram stating that the goods were greasy, and asking for others to be sent. The reason I did noWsend them was I had had enough of him-he might have served me in the same manner again. Mr Swetenham said he had two witnesses who would speak to the quality of the goods. He did not know whether it would be necessary to call them, and he was anxious to shorten the case. His Honour replied that he did not think from the cross-examination that defendant was going upon the ground of quality. Dr. Penkhurst: Oh, yes, we are. His Honour: You want two strings to your bow. Dr. Penkhurst: My friend is master of the ship now, let him steer it where he likes. Mr Swetenham then called Michael Edwards, who spoke to the goods being in perfect condition when they came to his hands, and the same when they left them. He had asked 18s 6d per iluzen for them in Manchester. Joseph Teens said he shaved the skins that were sold to Michael Edwards. They were a fair run of skins, and were well shaved. Considerable discussion followed between Dr. Penk- hurst and his Honour as to whether there was any case for the jury or not. His Honour asked was it not the duty of the plaintiff to return the goods as soon as he found out they were defective. Dr. Penkhurst said it was not. All he had to do was to intimate that they were not according to contract. Mr Swetenham agreed to that, but contended that the goods had been delivered and accepted. He quoted several cases- one of the sale of hay. A second of the sale of a horse, where no money was paid, but the pur- chaser took the horse out of the stable to show him another person, after which the purchaser tried to re- pudiate the contract, but he could not although there had never been a delivery. He was held te have ex- ercised dominion over the horse. His Honour read from a letter of Mr Baxendell's of the 20th of June, where he says thatMr Pierce was very well aware of him having effected a sale of the goods already, and thus made himself responsible for the de- liveiy of them to his customers, and said he thought the.e was a case for the jury. Dr. Penkhurst then addressed the jury on behalf of the defendant. He said they had purchased from the plaintiff roller leather, which the plaintiff repre- s ited to be equal to certain goods then in his ware- house. The plaintiff had entered into a contract to do two things-firstly, that the goods should answer the description of what is termed roller leather; secondly, that they should be in a merchantable and saleable con- dition. He admitted that they did not charge the defendant with wilful misrepresentation-if they did they would have taken the case into another court. The question for them to consider was whether it was roller leather, and whether it was delivered in merchant- able condition. The defendant bought by description, but when delivered they were not in the condition they were described to be. After quoting some cases, which his Honour did not consider bore upon the ease before them, Dr. Penkhurst called James Baxendell, who said: I carry on business in Manchester as a leather dealer. On the 10th of June I saw plaintiff, and entered into conversation with him about some roller leather. I wanted to buy about twenty dozen. I looked at a lot, and offered 17s. per dozen for them. Plaintiff objected to break the lot. He then said he had a quantity of skins lying in Manchester. I believe it was he who first suggested this Manchester lot. He said they were the same erast leather as those in the warehouse, and he had sold them to Mr Michael Edwards, who had had them dressed and sent to Manchester for sale. I said I did not like to buy goods without seeing them-it would be like buying a pig in a poke. He said they were dressed by the same workman as those I had seen, and finished by a first-class workman- They ought to be even better than the other goods in the warehouse. I said I would take them if they were as good as he represented. I asked him several times over was he sure they were equal to those in the warehouse. He said they were, and ought to be better. He said they were larger skins than those just seen, and he ought to have a larger price for them. He said he ought to have 17s. 6d. per dozen for them. I agreed to give him 17s. I requested to have immediate delivery. Roller leather is sheep or lamb skiu prepared for covering small rollers in cotton spinning, or for drawing yarns. For that purpose it must be dry, a clear, bright finish on the grain side, and perfectly free from grease throughout. These goods aid not come up to time. I did not get them till the 19th. I pressed for them because I had made several sales of goods, which I could not supply without my regular supply coming to hand. My course of business is to get as many orders for goods as I can and supply them from wherever I can. As soon as these goods came I bad them opened immediately, and found the great bulk of them were not fit for use. I immediately telegraphed to Mr Pierce. By the Judge: I cannot say that I had sold these identical goods to any particular person. Cross- examined I did not sell these very goods. I tele- graphed for them because I wanted them to supply my customers. Mr Swetenham read from the letter of the 20th yon were so well aware of me having effected the sale of them already." Plaintiff: That refers, if you understand grammar, to-. (Laughter.) The Judge There is nothing like grammar. I sup- pose it is going to be now. (Great laughter.) It used to be there was nothing like leather. (Great laughter.) Certainly we hava bad enough of it to-day. (Loud laughter. ) Mr Granville, formerly a manager in the employ of the defendant, was next called. He said I accompanied Mr Baxendell to the yard of Mr Pierce. He looked at some goods in the warehouse and liked them, but Mr Pierce would not sell part of the lot. Mr Pierce in some way or other left Mr Baxendell know that he had some goods in Manchester, and Mr Baxendell wished to know something of their quality. Mr Pierce did say the skins in Manchester were larger than those in the warehouse, the person who bought them had sorted them from his general stcck. Then he suid they had been shaved by the same man who shaved those in the warehouse, and finished by a man who served his time with the lata Mr Morris, of Wrexham. He said they were equal if not superior to the goods in the warehouse. I have seen these goods subsequently. They were in the goods warehouse at the Wrexham railway station, in Novem- ber last. Many of them were very grea3y.-Cross-ex- amiDed: I remember the price was to be 17s and 6d more if they proved remunerative. I don't remember saying it was Mr Baxendell's fault. I think both sides are to blame. His Honour appeared pleased with this remark and called the attention of both sides to it, the advocates apparently not having [caught it owing to the noise in court. Three other witnessed were called for the defence, but tbeir evidence bore very little upon the points at issue. Mr Swetenbam then replied, his speech occupying above half an hour. He contrasted the manner in which the witnesses gave their evidence on the re- spective sides, and noted the readiness with which the plaintiff gave his evidence compared with the defendant, the memory of the latter on many points appearing to be very treacherous. There was one question the defend- ant had never asked-Were the goods properly shaved ? Therefore they may take it for granted they were. That led to one great point-dwelt upon by his learned friend-that the goods were sold by description. They certainly were, but it was a very limited description. It onlv extended to the shaving, and that was not dis- puted. There was no doubt the goods had been de- livered and accepted, for the plaintiff first telegraphs ta say they were greasy, he then sends to say he has sold them. Perhaps the secret of the whole affair was to be found in the fact that the markets were going down. His Honour then summed up in a very able, pains- taking and impartial manner, after whicli the jury ex- pressed a wish to retire. Their consultation occupied about a quarter of an hour, an(I resalted iu a verdict for the plaintiff, the trial having occupied nearly live hours and a half. The court rose at half-past six, and was a"jv u.d to j teu o'clock oc Thursday morning. THURSDAY. His Honour took his seat soon after ten, and was oc- cupied nearly the whole of the day in disposing of the re- mainder ef the cases, for the reporting of which the space at our disposal is very limited. The first case called on was rx,A MINSHALL V. LME. I m, i • 1 xne piaintin in this case was Mr T. E. Minshall, agent for colliery plant, &c., and the defendant is a mining engineer, residing in Cornwall. Mr Swetenham, instructed by Mr James, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Acton for the defendant. A mass of correspond- ence, the reading of which occupied nearly an hour, formed the opening of Mr Swetenham, from which it appeared that the plaintiff in his capacity as agellt for Colliery plant, had been the means of introducing to the defendant a person named Garside, who was in want of an engine, and which resulted iu the former seliin" to the latter an engine for £ 1,050, on which, Mr Minshall, as agent in the transaction claimed a commission of five per cent. This the defendant declined to piv on the ground as allege!, that he knew only Mr Garside in the matter. Mr Minshall in one of his letters to the de- fendant states that the commission was t.) be added to the price," but at a certain sta-e of the negociations handed over his client, Mr Garside to the defendant, to deal with him personally. Mr Garside went over, saw the engine and purchased it. His Honour at first was of opinion that the claim should have been brought against Mr Garside, as the person who La i originally employed Mr Minshall to obtain the engine for him WÍlen Mr Swetenham citell a number of cases in support of the opposite view. One strong point set up on the side of the defence, was the custom of the country, but his Honour said the case would have to be decided solely by the evidence relating to this particular tran- saction, after which Mr Lome was called in the box, and in the course of his examination said he would have added JE50 to the price he asked Mr Garside as commis- sion due to Mr Minshall, only he knew Mr Garside had been looking at another engine of a similar class in the neighbood, that he could have obtained cheaper than L- 1,100. His Honour then give judgment for the plaintiff. ACTION AGAINST THE RAILWAY COMPANY. I George Gryliam, a dentist, carrying on business in Cardiff and Manchester, brought an action against the Great Western Railway Company, for t5 9s., damages alleged to have been sustained by him. Mr Sherratt appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Acton for the company. It appeared that plaintiff left Shrewsbury on the 11th ivist., by the 6-50 train in the morning for Wrexham, where the train was due at 8-18. On arriving in Wrexham the train overshot the platform, and plaintiff being in a delicate state of health, and having two heavy boxes of instruments to carry, was unable to get down, and consequently was taken on. At Gresford he informed the guard of his predicament, and the guard told him he had better come on to Chester, and come back with the next train, which did not stop at any of the intermediate stations. He did so, and reached Wrexham about ten o'clock, where he had an appointment with a commercial traveller, whom he met with some time before at the Raven Hotel, Shrews- bury, and had arranged to supply him with some teeth, for which he was to have E4 8s. He searched for the traveller, but failed to nnd him, and never heard of him since. In consequence of this delay he was prevented keeping an advertised appointment in Mold, whereby he lost some customers. In order to make up as much time as possible he hired a vehicle, for which he paid 21 Is., these two items together making up the claim. Plaintiff said he might have attempted to get out sooner only a clerk on the platform lifted up his hands and told the passengers not to get out till the train was put back. This clerk was called, and stated that only one carriage had overshot the platform, and the passengers began to rush out before the driver could back the train. His Honour made some severe remarks on the officials, contrary to the strict orders of the company, allowing such things to be done, but agreed with the advocate for the defence that it was strange plaintiff had not made a more diligent search for the man who gave him the order, especially as he admitted he knew the address of the firm for whom he travelled. He should not allow the whole claim, but would give judgment for jE2. I ACTION FOR DAMAGES.-ROGERS V. PETERS. This was an action brought by Richard Rogers, butcher, against Thomas Peters, farmer, for the re- covery of f,16 5s., damages arising out of breach of contract, by his not supplying defendant with 50 sheep according to an alleged bargain. Mr Acton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Sherratt for the defence. Plaintiffs story was, that he went to defendant's house on Wednesday, the 18th of November, to fetch some lambs, and bargained with him for 50 sheep for 26s. each and half a sovereign out, when he paid him f6 on account. Went for them on the following Tuesday, and asked of the sheep, when defendant laughed at him and said, What sheep ?" and when he asked him for the money, he said, "What money?" His profit on a sheep was 10s. A witness, named John Thomas, corroborated part of this evidence, and stated in addi- tion that the defendant, at Ruabon Fair, on the 20th, said he would give him half a sovereign if he could get Rogers to make the bother up, and confessed thit he did sell him the sheep. Defendant said he had qeold the sheep to Mr Lee before plaintiff came to him, but Mr Lee had not fetched them on Monday as he stated he would. When plaintiff came to him he said, "Will you let me have those sheep," and he said he would on condition that Mr Lee did not fetch them. Plaintiff pushed six sovereigns into his hand. He did not want to take it, but he said he would leave it for the first privilege of having the sheep. Plaintiff promised to meet him in Wrexham, on Thursday, the 19th, but he did not do so, and he looked for him everywhere in Wrexham where he was. In the evening he wrote him a note to tell him that Mr Lee had fetched the sheep, and in Ruabon Fair the next day (Friday), John Thomas told him that he had heard Mr Rogers read this note. He had offered six sovereigns back to Rogers, but he did nothing but swear at him, a! d refused to take them. Defendant called a man, named Evan Davies, to corroborate his statement, as to what passed between him and plaintiff. He called Henry Peters, to prove that he saw him writing the note in his shop, and called Robert Peters, to prove that he saw him ofivr the money to Rogers. His Honour, who appeared much perplexed with the evidence, wished Mr Lee to be sent for. When he came he said he bought 50 sheep from Mr Peters, but he could not fetch them on Monday, and he sent a message to say so. He could not fetch them ou Tuesday, he was too busy, so he fetched them on Wed- nesday. His Honour gave judgment for plaintiff, damages JE6 5s.

WREXHAM BOARD OF GUARDIANS.…

IPOLITICAL -NEWS.

BOROUGH MAGISTRATES' COURT.…