Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

24 articles on this Page





,"-'','"II'",.i-v j " COUNTY…


II'" i- v j COUNTY COURT, ABERYSTWYTH. Tuesday, 19th January, 1869. Before Thomas Humphreys, Esq., deputy-judge. His honour took his seat on the bench about n o'clock. The earlier 1o..tion of the day was, as usual, taken up in healing undisputed and unimportant cases. INTERPLEADER oAlm. William Letrit v. John Hughes. The good 4. the value of which was in dispute, were claimed by \Ir Edward Hughes. Mr Hugh Hughes appeared for the defendant, and Mr Crealock for the claimant. An informality or misunderstanding existed as to the delivery of the bill of particulars. His honour directed the case to stand adjourned to the following court. i ni O /» TROVER. E. J. Gregory v. C. Green. Mr Crpalock appeared for the plaintiff, and stated it was an action brought for two dogs, value for Ill., which, sincp the action was brought, were returned to the plaintiff at Cheltenham. The only question now was one of costs. Charles Green, sworn: Witness sent the dogs back last Tuesday, from the Trawscoed station. They arrived that night in Cheltenham. This is a swindling affair; that's what I call it. The dogs could not help arriving there that night. [The conduct of the witness bere became humorously yiolen t] Here, your honour, is a letter [letter handed inj. Judgment for 1/. 2s. Od. costs. Mary Davies v. Isaac Evans. Mr Crealock appeared for the plaintiff. Mr Hugh Hughes for the defendant. This was an action brought for balance of 4I. 2s. 6d. on account for goods sold and delivered. Mary Davies, sworn, examined by Mr Crealock Witness sold the defendant a cupboard, value 21., and 2 cwt. of hay. Mr Hughes said there was nothing about hay in the particulars. Witness: Sold wire and poles for 7s 6d. at an auction six years last May. Sold a calf also, about a wppk before May. Judgment, for plaintiff for part of the amount claimed and the usual allowance for witnesses. JURY CASE. Page v Hall. Thomas Lloyd, sworn I reside at Welshpool, and am agent for Page, brewers, &c., Ironbridge. On the 31st March last I asked my employers to send ale and beer (No. 3) to defendant On the 6th April defendant wrote to say that it was muddy and I bad. [Letter read ] I came here about the 7th or 8th of May. The beer arrived about the 2nd April If beer is tapped directly it will be muddy. B beer ought not to be tapped for a fortnight, and the ale about nine days. It was called No. 3 Ale, 36 gallons. I saw the defendant in May. when Mrs Hall was excited. Asked him to go with me to the station to tap the beer, and if it was not good I would send it back, but he would not coine 1 asked Mr Williams. who worked for Mr Hall at the time. Went to the station, and we tapped the beer. Allsopp's store clerk was also present. We plugged two barrels, and tried the third, separately. The bitter ale was not qu'te so clear as the others, which were nice and drinkable. The others also tasted the beer. Mr Williams said it was rather weak. After examininu- themltook some mild ale inaglasstoshow the de- j fendant. Subsequently I wrote to the firm. I have seen defendant several times since. Crnss-examinfd Mr Hall gave orders for the beer. Don't remember there being any talk of send- ing the goods back if they were not good. When I went to the station I do not remember being asked what they were to do with the beer. Itappedthei three barrels the bitter was not quite clear. The others were perfectly clear. The beer ought to be clear in nine days. John Mellings, sworn I have dealings with the firm of Page. I remember Mr Lloyd bringing me some ale about the 8th May to taste. It was mild ale, and in a nice condition. Cross-examined by Mr Crealock Don't know where the ale came from. Mr Lloyd puts up at my house. Henry Mitchell, sworn I keep the Nanteos Arms. Had two barrels about the 8th March last, called X, and found it very good. Cross-examined by Mr Crealock The number of one was 1,357. Don't remember the number of the other. Went to the station about the 8th May to taste my own ale. I was not preseot when the ale in question was tasted. Roderick Williams, sworn I went with Mr Lloyd to taste the ale, in May last. It was clear. Examined I saw them draw the beer. The three were clear, but there was a difference in one—it was not so clear. Jane Hall, sworn I remember Mr Lloyd calling in March last. An order was given, on the terms that it was to be returned if it was not good. Took it to the cellar nearly a week before we tapped it. We tapped only one, and seeing that it was muddy we sent it back to the station. We kept it for about three weeks. Mr Lloyd said the beer would be good after a time. He said he would send us better beer. [Sample produced.] It was taken out in three weeks' time before the barrels were returned to the station. Cross-examined by Mr Atwood The beer had no strength. I mentioned that to Mr Lloyd. Did not draw this bottle full. Roderick Williams told me when he came back that he would not sit down to such beer as that. Thomas J. Jones, sworn I keep the lerminus Vaults. Remember going to the station last August to taste some beer for Mr Hall. Tasted the beer ot each barrel. The bitter was the best the other was clear, but tasteless. I would not take that beer to my house for any money. Cross-examined The shed was not the proper place for the beer. Robert Ellis, sworn I am clerk in the goods station. Remember barrels of beer arriving on the 2nd April for Mr Hall. We undertake the delivery to the house. They were sent back to the station in three or four weeks afterwards. The traveller called upon me on the 8th May to taste the ale. I asked him if they were to be returned, and he said 1 should know afterwards. I tasted the beer when Jones went there. One was clear, and the other dark, with a bad taste. Cross-examined: Two casks were clear, and the other dark. John Campbell, sworn I am clerk at Allsopp's storehouse. Was at the station when the beer was tasted, and tasted it myself. Two were pretty clear, and the other muddy. They were not up to the mark. James Richard Corbett, sworn I am clerk at the railway station. Conduct the correspondence. I remember in the month of July writing to Ironbridge station to know what to do with the barrels. We kept them on hand. according to the Ironbridge in- structions. Mr Hall said he would take the two casks that were good. I wrote to Ironbridge, and had an answer stating we couid deliver the three, but not two. Walter Rogers, sworn I remember tasting some beer at Mr Hall's. It was the oddest thing I ever tasted. I did not see it after it was taken down to the station. J. J. Griffiths, sworn I remember being taken down to Mr Hall's. I saw the barrels tapped in Mr Hall's cellar. The beer was muddy, and very weak. [ tasted it before it left the cellar. It had not im proved at all. Tasted it in about three months after. It was improved in colour, but not in taste. Cross-examined Proved having written several letters to plaintiffs. I was satisfied at first it was not fit to drink. It was exactly the same taste as at first. Robert Ellis Mrs Hall sent the barrels to the station with the intention of returning them, and afterwards told me that I was to keep them till tbe traveller came, that she had heard from the house Verdict for the plaintiff in the price of one barrel. Col. Powell v. Capt. Jenkins Mr Hugh Hughes appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Crealock for the defendant. This was an action brought to recover the sum of 10/ being four years rent due to the plaintiff. David Edwards, (woodman.) sworn I was in the employ of Col. Powell in March, 1802. I know de. fendant. I let land to him for Co) Powpll in 1 Sfi:.o at a rent of 2l. 10s. a year, and a promise of a lease. He took possession on the 25th March of the same year. It was a small field. I have been asking him for the rent, and he promised to pay when he would get his money from the Mine Company. Cross-examined by Mr Crealock: Col. Powell and Capt. Phelp were present at the time of letting. I do not remember whether they referred to the map. The house was not in his letting. The lease was to be for 21 years. It was for the purpose of building. He was to have a £ of an acre. Only the field was mentioned. I remember having a conversation with the defendant at a public-house as to the rent. He said if he had the f of an acre he would pay the rent. I do not remember his saying that the agreement was for | of an acre. Cross-examined bv the defendant Know the place well. Nothing but the field was let, and be (the defendant) knew that well. Capt. Jenkins, sworn I had a conversation with Col Powell with respect to the taking of this land. Capt Phelp was not there. I took a piece of land v.hichwas referred to at the time on the map. I took possession of a of an acre. I was to have it for 00 years. I paid the rent whetr-first applied to. Col. Powell premised me I should have the rest of the land. Irefused to pay the rent because they would not give me an agreement. Cross-examined by Mr Hughes; I knew the piece ofground, I took from them of au acre. I told Griffiths I would pay if I should have lohe, whole land agreed for. Thomas Davies, sworn: I remember the conver- sation between the defendant and 'David Edwards. David Edwards asked Jenkins if he was going to stand to-tis bargain, artd Jenkins said he was if he should harie the f, and that he was willing to pay rent' for the land be hid'. J. G. Williams, (Glo'ster Hall',) sworn I made the map [produced.] Judgment for the plaintiff, with costs. Wednesday, 20th January, 1869. His honour took his seat on the bench at 10 o'clock. M W'L OIL; WILL CASE. I" John James v. David James. Mr Atwood appeared for the plaintiff. Mr C. T. Woosmna (Newtown) for the defendant. This case stood adjourned from the last court, for the production of further evidence. Mr Woosnmu addressed the court for the defen- dant. He saiii the sou" of John James had left bith, and a meeting of the family was held to consult as to the making of,a will and providing for his future maintenance. It was there arrallaerl that the defen- dant was to take charge of him, and his household goods and ready money to be divided amongst bis other children This in verbiage was testamentary, but .it really.was in the opinion of country people in presenti. A document was prepared byoneJones, u writer, purporting to be the last will and testa-* ment of John James. All the parties were in the room, in whose presence it was read over, al1d as th^ old man could not write, his son, the p'aintiff, gfgiied it for him, and it was-duly attested; andthis was the document which the plaintiff, claiming to be heir-at-law, came here now to upset. About p years ago the old man died, and this will was.acted upon, and the defendant was in possession, and remained quietly so until this action was brought, five years after the old man's death, and when the witnesses to the will were all dead. David James, sworn, examined by Mr Woosnsm Witness is defendant in this case, and son of John James, of Alltglais. In 1859 there was II mcc-ting of the family to settle father's affairs. It took place in the Unicorn, in this town John James, the plaintiff, William James, Richard James, a. sister, father, myself, Hugh Jones, a farmer. Lewis Morris. the landlord, Jones, the. clerk, and. Lewis Lewis, shoemaker. My father had to chouse with. M'hiuh of his children he would goto live, and he chose me, who undertook to maintain him, and bury him, and for that the house and field was to come to me for ever. The other children were to have 41. each. and Jane the sister 5L Jones, the writer, was there to I write the will between us, and I was to pay one sovereign to bar the claims of the other children. A paper was drawn out by Jones.the clerk. It was read out to witness's father by Jones, who wrote it. John James, the plaintiff, signed it at the request of my father, who could not write. It was witnessed by Hugh Jones, as trustee, and that he was to pay the money. Cross-examined by Mr Atwood Witness and the other parties were at the Unicorn for a long time Went there in the morning, and left in the evening. They were there two hours, in the parlour. It was a will Jones was told to prepare, as my father did not wish anyone but me to have the property My brothers and sister were present all the time. They saw and heard as much as I did, and made no objec- tion. I was to find my father in keep, for which I was to have the house and field Father gave each ofthem4<andwitnessgaveK.ext.r!ttobartheir claims. That ll. was then and there paid. It was given to Hugh Jones, because he was the trustee to pay the other money. Father said he was going to give 16i. The plaintiff said something about 20/. He asked father where the 20/, was gone, but did not get an answer. Nothing was said to Jones, the clerk, abollt 2M. There was no money then paid in the room, but the plaintiff received some money before he returned to Birmingham. Hugh Jones acted as trustee. P.tidHughJonusU.t.obttrthe others from the property some time after. This meet- ing took place in the summer 0f 1859- Father died about four years ago. Part of the 1(;[. was in the bank, and the remainder elsewhere. On my father's death a letter was written to the plaintiff in Bir- mingham, to inform him of it. Received no answer, but got the letter back from the Dead Letter Office. Neither of the brothers came to the funeral..After the funeral there was no formal reading of the will. Remember about two years ago getting a letter from Mr Atwood. asking under what document I claimed. No one had a right to ask me any question. Could not read the letter, and did not show it to any one The messenger explained to me the purport of it. I have not got that letter, and had it not a month ago. In the following May an action was brought in the court, and I employed Mr Roberts, and the action was dropped before the court. I have con- formed to everything in the will. Father had household furniture, which were divided between Richard and Jane James. That was soon after the making of the will. Jones read the will in English and WeLh in the presenee of all. The plaintiff signed father's name to the will, my father being unable to write. John signed at father's request. It was next signed by Hugh Jones, as trustee. No one else was requested to sign, and no one else did sign, to my knowledge. I was in the public house when all this business was being done. There was no ale brought in—nor drank there at all tiil after :he will was written and signed. The will was kept by Hugh Jones after it was signed. Did not see it again till after the testator's death. Jones, the clerk, was sober at the time—as sober as you (laugh- ter in court). Lewis Lewis was sober. Did not know he was called King of the Cobblers," nor that Hugh Jones was the King of Clarach." To the judge Jones, the clerk, wrote this will in the room that day. To Mr Woosnam: My wife generally opens my letters. David Lewis, sworn, examined by Mr Woosnam Witness is son of the late Lewis Lewis. shoemaker, of this town. I have seen the will in question [will placed in his hands]. The signature of my father is in my father's handwriting. b Mrs Jones (widow of Hugh Jones), sworn, identi- fied the will as being a document given her by her husband, sealed up, and I gave it to the wife of David James, the defendant. Mr Atwood then addressed the court for the plain- tiff, and argued that on the evidence of the defendant the will breaks down, because he says that only the plaintiff and Hugh Jones signed the will, and it bore oth r signatures, which were not appended in the presence of the testator. His honour did not feel satisfied that the defen- dant understood the question put to him. The defendant recalled. To the judge Saw John Jones and Hugh Jones sign the paper, and no one else After the will was written it was read. Then it was sealed up. It was read before and after it was read by John James. Lewis Lewis and Lewis Morris were witnesses. Lewis Lewis signed his name. I saw him sign it. The judge Why did you not say so before. The witness Because I did not understand. Saw John James, Hugh Jones, and Lewis Lewis sign it, and no one else. Am certain of it. his honour said he was bound to take the attes- tation clause, stating they signed in the presence of each other. John James, sworn, examined by Mr Atwood: Witness is the plaintiff, living in Birmingham. Was at the Unicorn in June, 1859, with my brothers andsistprs. [Will handed witness ] Thesignature John James is not my writing. Certain of that. Don't know whose writing it is [ The witness here wrote his name on a separate piece of paper, and his honour compared it with the signature to the will]. Witness was at the Unicorn from about eleven till two. There was beer drank by every one there. There was a paper written by Jones, the clerk. It was an arrangement where my father was to stay. He was a very old man, close upon 80 when he died. ■ \1)" sister, Jane, lived wilh hilll for years. 8he re- mained with him till she was to get married. There was a bit of money to be divided amongst us. I had my share about a year after that. Don't remember anything about Ii. to be paid to Hugh Jones. Jones, the clerk, wrote out a paper, folded it up, but I do not know what they did with it. It was not signed by any one there. Lewis Lewis came in about I o'clock, and remained there all the time after. Did not hear the paper read out. It was not sealed in my presence. My father was not asked to put his mark to it, nor did my father ask me to sign it for htm* Heard of my father s death about 18 months after it occurred. Did not see the paper signed by any one. My sister Jane was present. So was my brother Richard. My uncle, Thomas James, was there. He is bedridden, being nearly 90 years old. Cross examined by Mr Woosnam Don't know who sent me the 41. Wrote a letter acknowledging it to Hugh Jones. Merely that. Did not say it was under the will. Jones, the clerk, wrote out the agreement. I did not see anyone sign it. I dare say that was the regular routine way of business. The paper was not explained to my father. The judge Who told Jones what to write ? Witness My father told hun be wanted to remain at Alltgluis. All the directions given were by my father. Mr Atwood What directions did you hear your father give ? Witness: He was a great age. He said he wanted to live with my brother at Alltglais, or rather my brother to live with my father. It was not said that the defendant was to have Alltglais after my father's de9th. That signature is not in my writing. Richard James, sworn, examined by Mr Atwood Witness lives in Trefechan, and is a labourer. Is brother of the plaintiff and defendant in this action. Witlless was present at themeetingattheUnicorn. The object of the meeting was to make arrangements hat his fat her should remain at Alltglais. Jones, the clerk, was to draw up a paper to this effect, and my urother, the defendant, was to live with my father, rent free, during his lifetime. There was 110 money divided that day, but it was between us all. My father had his own furniture, which was to be divided between my sister, self, and brother David. '-L' That division did ta:1,e place. Juries wrote ^oirife- thing there that my brother was to maintain my rather at Alltglais while he lived. I did not see my brother John signing any paper. I did nut see John Jones or Lewis Lewis signing any paper. Jones read the document be had written in English. We had some beer there before commencing the business. Jones was drunk before we left,' and Lewis Lewis was in drink before he came into the room. Cross-examined by Mr Woosnam I am not con-' cerned in this matter. It was not of much impor- tance to me what took place at the Unicorn. It was some time before the last court when I was asked about this fuatter by my brother John. I had not met my brother for years before then. By the judge I believe I received my share of the raoney-from Hngh Jones, of Tanyfoel. Jane Evans, sworn I am the wife of Lewis Evans, Tailor, and a daughter of the late John James. I was present at the meeting at the Uni- corn. Lewis Lewis was not in at first, but he came in afterward- It was agreed that my father was to remain at Ailtglais during his life. Previous to my marriage I lived with my father, and kept house for him. When I left my brother went to live with my father. The object of the meeting was to arrange as to who was to live with my father. It was not said where Alltglais was to go to after my father's j death My father had some money, and it was mentioned how that and his furniture was to be dis- posed of. What furniture he had was previously divided. Saw Jones, the clerk, writing. Wrhen he finished writing I don't know what was done with the paper. Did not see James James or anyone else, save Jones, the clerk, write on the paper. No one could have signed the paper without my seeing them. I did not see my brother John for more than a year before thr last court. Cross-examined by Mr Woosnam No one signed the document after Jones wrote it. Don't know what became of it. Had my share of the furniture and money. This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr Woosnam addressed the court for the defen- dant. Mr Atwood replied for the plaintiff. His honour summed np, and dissected the evidence | at considerable length, and pronounced Judgment for the defendant, wrth costs. In delivering judgment, his honour ssid he was satisfied that John J'ames, the plaintiff, did sign the will for b's father., He was satisfied that that was the signature of the plaintiff from comparing it with other signatures of his. Upon the witole, the will had been proved to his honour's satisfaction. [■ Mr Atwood applied to have the will impounded by the registrar. His 'honour refused to hear the application.


[No title]

j¡.,\,,',.. '"PHTTY SESSIOTSS,…



[No title]



[No title]







[No title]



[No title]