Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

10 articles on this Page

WREXHAM COUNTY COURT. I

News
Cite
Share

WREXHAM COUNTY COURT. I WEDNESDAY, DEC. 21sT. I Before His Honor, Judge Sir Horatio Lloyd. I • 11 BROTHER AND SISTER. I r' S"ed her brother, Richard Davies, for ;E39. illr Wynn Evans appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Cartwright for the defendant, Mr Evans stated that the plaintiff and defendant were the children of a man called Richard Davies, who was a butcher, residing at Rhos. He died, with- out leaving a will, possessed of freehold property, which Was mortised. The property was sold. and  mortgage had been paid. there was a balance 4 5s 9d due to the bcIe,e f=ththere ewas a balance of *±I1ia43 *5s 9d due During the last e?ht years of her father's life, the plaintiff naa IOOKCU alter him and had done the house work. After his death, the plaintiff saw her brother, and told him that she would claim half-a-crown a week. He stated that he would pay her claim as seon as the real estate had been realised. The defendant had not yet, however, met his sister in any way. The plaintiff and Mr John Jarvis, shopkeeper, Rhos, gave evidence. In defence, Mr Cartwright contended that there was not the slightest foundation for that action. No attention was paid by the plaintiff to her father, in faet it was a matter of complaint by him that she never did anything for him. The defendant, his daughter, and several neigh- bours gave evidence, and His Honor dismissed the case without costs. ACTION AGAINST THE WREXHAM STEAM LAUNDRY "I. r1 air i nomas Longstaffe sued the Wrexham Steam Laundry for 9s. Mr R. J. Kendrick appeared for the company. The plaintiff said that a pair of curtains were sent to the steam laundry to be cleaned. They were sent with the things belonging to a gentleman, who lodged at his house. When thev came back they were damaged, and were torn in several places.-For the defence, Mr Kendrick pointed out that the curtains were not received by the company from the plaintiff, but from a Mr Slater. Then on the book given to each customer there was a notice to the effect that lace curtains were onlv cleaned on the understanding that the company was not responsible for any damage. This was the rule all over the country. Mr A. F. Newton, manager of the com- pany, gave evidence, and his Honor gave judgment I for the company. COOK AND ROXS V. A. NUTTALL. in this case Mr Wynn Evans appeared for the Bifuntitfa, and Mr Hopley Pierce for the defendant.- ?ir Evans said that the case was remitted from the High Court, and was for £100, the amount of a guarantee given by the defendant. The plaintiffs were corn merchants at Ellesmere, and the defendant was a pawnbroker, &c., at Wrex- ham. About 1885 Mr T. Manley, brewer, Wrexham, had an account with his clients for malt supplied, and at that time he was indebted to a con- siderable extent. The plaintiffs informed Mr Manley that they could not supply him further unless he could get security. Mr Manley thereupon obtained a guarantee from the defendant in the following terms: I hereby agree to become guarantee for a supply of malt to Mr Thomas Manley, not to exceed £ 100." At the latter end of 1886 Mr Cook, to whom the first guarantee had been given, took his two sons into partnership, and. as the first guarantee bad not been stamped, Mr Manlev was written to and asked to get the guarantee renewed. Mr Manley did so, and it was upon the second security, dated November 13th, 1886, and which was in exactly the same terms as the first, that the action was brought. Mr Manlev was at that time indebted to the extent of JE152 Mr Manley was further supplied with malt, and now owed over £ 2o0. He understood that part of the defence to the action was that the guarantee was not a continuing one, and only secured a specific supply, and that as soon as malt to the value of X100 had been supplied and had been paid for the guarantee terminated. Mr Evans quoted cases to show that this was not so. Charles Cook. member of the firm of Charles Cook and Sons, Ellesmere, gave evidence, and bore out Mr Evans' statement He said he would not have allowed Mr Manley to go into debt as he had, unless he had had the guarantee from Mr Nuttall. Mr Nuttall had never asked for the guarantee to be returned to him. C. W. Cook, a member of the firm, said he saw Mr Nuttail before proceedings were taken. Nothing was said by Mr Nuttall about the conversation being without prejudice. Mr Nuttall said it was hard lines upon him, and offeredX50 to clear the account. By Mr rierce: He removed three pockets of hops, supplied by them, from Manley's brewery, before the sale. He did not take over the business. Mr Manley wanted him to do so. He bought goods at the sale, and gave Jb25 for them. He did not put a. man named ¡ Queensbridge in possession. Thomas Manlev gave evidence as to the securing of the guarantee from the defendant. He gave Mr Nuttall an insurance policy on his life for XIOO. Witness used to pay the premiums, but had unfor- tunately allowed the premiums to fall behind, and the policy had lapsed. By Mr I'ierce Mr Cook promised to carry on the business. It was thought at the sale, that Mr C. W. Cook was buying the things in order to carry on. A man named Queensbridge said he was working for Mr Cook. He collected book debts and paid them over to witness. He might have paid Mr Cook about kgoo from the date of the giving of the guarantee by the defendant. For the defence, Mr Nuttall said that at the time Mr Manley got the second security from him, Mr Manlcy owed him about £ 70. He had in his possesion, as security, a policy of X200, on Mr Manley's life. He distinctly understood, when he gave the guarantee, that as soon as Mr Manley received malt, value XIOO, and paid for it. the guarantee was at an end. His conversation with Mr C. W. Cook was without pre- judice. He was desirous, knowing the uncertainty of the law, that there should be no litigation. By Mr Evans: He always understood that when Mr Manley had paid S-100 the guarantee was can- celled. He had not inquired from Mr Manley as to how he stood with Cook and Sons. Mr S. Aston, auctioneer, stated that he valued the goods at the salc at Mr M?niey's Brewery at £ 100. ?ho only realised under E40. There was no com- petition. His Honor said, as far as he could gather from the authorities, the guarantee was a continuing one. He could not understand the action of Mr Nuttall, if he considered all liability was ended, when 1100 had been paid. If he had thought so, he would surely have ascertained how matters stood, and have demanded his guarantee back, when he found that ClOO had been paid. Yet, nothing was done for six years, until application was made by the holder of the guarantee for payment. It was practically an un- defended case. He would give judgment for the plaintiff, with costs.

WHITCHURCH. i

Advertising

OUR FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.

BRYNMALLY WORKMEN'S BENEFIT…

THE TONTINE SOCIETIES.

[No title]

I 1ST V.B.R.W.F. I

CEFN AND RHOSYMEDRE.-

Advertising