Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

13 articles on this Page


Cambrian and Aherystwith and…


iLorai information.




COUNTY COURT. Tuesday, 28th February, 1865. A. J. Johnes, Esq., the judge of the court took his seat a little after ten o'clock. The business was unusuaHy light, and was con- cluded in one day, at an early hour. In the ordinary course Of buriness, the least im- portant cases were heard first. There were several of those, but scarcely one of them occupied more than five or ten minutes. The first case of any importance was that of Mr. Thomas Jones v. Lewis Williams. Mr. Hugh Hughes appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Vaughan for the defendant. The case had been adjourned from the last court for the production of further evidence as to the genuineness of the defendant's signature upon a certain order for timber, in compliance with which the goods had been supplied by Mr. Jones. The defendant asserted that the signature to the docu- ment in question was not his. One of the chief witnesses called for the plaintiff was Captain Boundy, sworn Witness was a captain of a mine, and lived close to defendant. He hlld been there eight years. He had to do with defendant every month, in taking receipts, &e., and was ac- quainted with his writing. (Document here placed in witness's hands.) Witness was certain that the name attached was that of the defendant. It was written in his presence before other witnesses. It was an order to pay money but had denied it in the mine. Mr. Vaughan objected to this evidence, and the jndge having consulted Mr, Davies' county court practice rules, held that it was not evidence. Edward Lewis was called, but could not swear positively to defendant's signature. John Jones sworn: The writing was rather like defendant's; but could not swear that it was his. Isaac Benjamin swore to signature. Mr. Hughes said that Jenkin Jones, a tenant of the defendant had been subposened to prove the de- fendant's writing, but had not attended. Mr. Vaughan said that bis defence was, that there had been a contract between the parties, and that contract had been fulfilled. Hev. Lewis "Villiams sworn: Witness is a clergyman of the Church of England. He lives near Denbigh, where he has been for some time. Witness was present with his father and Lewis Jenkins when the settlement was made. Mr. Jenkins had £10 allowed him out of his rent for hanging bell of Wesleyan chapel. To witness it seemed to be a contracl. Jenkins said at the time that he hr.d a bit! to pay Mr. Jones for timber. [A document was here placed in witness's hands] The writing at foot was very like that of defendant's father. It seemed to witness to be more an imitation than his genuine signature, because the letters were smaller; but they certainly were very like. Could not find out any 01 her dif- ference, except it might be a steadier hand than that which his father wrote. The Judge: What was the arrangement made? Witness: It was the recognition of a previous ar- rangement. Witness had not heard of it till that time. The parties asked witness to make an account. Mr. Thomas Jenkins was making out account of rent, income tax, and other things. Witness assisted to make out account. Believed that sum was put down by Mr. Jenkins. Cross-examined by Mr. Hughes: Witness could not say where the account, referred to was. It was taken down at the meeting. On that, account there was a balance from Thomas Jenkins. Witness's memory was fresh as to the amount in question, but he did not remember any other of the items. Jenkin Jones might have been present on the oc- casion Witness could not remember. Could not say who else was present-there might have been others, but witness could not say. (Several docu- ments signed with defendant's name were placed in witness's hands.) Could not say the signatures were his father's handwriting. T IPJ were very like his writing; but unless witness had seen him write them he could not say. He seldom wrote so small as some of them; but he sometimes wrote smaller than at other times. Mr. Hugh Hughes briefly addressed the court. He said that his client, Mr. Jones, had in accordance with an order signed with the defendant's name, and there was everything to show that that signature was genuine, supplied those goods to the defendant. Plaintiff had sent in his bill for those goods so sup- plied every Christmas. Defendant admitted that he never called on Mr. Jones, as, even were his denial of the handwriting true, an honest man would have done. It was his duty to do so, and yet he did it not. He allowed the matter to hang over for six years, until Mr. Jones was forced to bring him into court. When Jenkins brought the order, upon which Mr. Jones supplied the goods, the former was in good circumstances; for in the months of March and April, in that very year, Mr. Jones had been supplying Jenkins himself with timber. Now Jenkins had sworn positively that he saw Williams sign that order which he now repu- diated, and another witness had corroborated that evidence. The conduct of defendant himself ought to prove that the order was genuine. If we have satisfied your honor that the signature is genuine, we have proved our case. As to the evidence of the younger Mr. Williams, it was, to say the least of it, very singular. How that young gentleman could manage to carry the insignificant item of £ 10 in his mind for such a length of time, and forget every thing else, both persons and figures connected with the making out of the accounts, was strange beyond all precedent. The learned advocate said that the evidence for the plaintiff, as well as the conduct of the defendant in the transaction, had proved the plaintiff's case beyond all doubt. The Judge said it was a great hardship on the plaintiff certainly, but he felt constrained to give judgment for the defendant, Thomas Owen v. Thomas Jones. Mr. Vaughan appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Atwood for the defendant. This case had been adjourned from last court for the production of further documentary and personal evidence. Mr. Vaughan put in a cheque, which he argued was sufficient evidence. Mr. Atwood insisted that Mr. Davis onght to be produced. Mr. Vaughan replied that the production of the cheque was all that was required. Mr. Owen was sworn: Witness saw Mr. Davies since the County Court last time. Judge What has Mr. Davies to do with it ? Witness: He was under the same company. The original debt was 51/. Witness could not say what the costs were. Mr. Jones had asked something about 60/. Calculated the whole amount, and Mr. Davis gave cheque for it. The Judge said that this was merely a repetition of the evidence given last time. As no further evi- dence could be given then, he should give judgment for the defendant. Mr. Vaughan said he would rather be non-suited. The Judge said that could not be, as there was evidence onboth sides. Judgment for the defendant, and costs.

[No title]

[No title]




[No title]