Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

10 articles on this Page





[No title]

&itiP{)iita EiitrHisjnrrr.




Glamorganshire Summer Assizes.'.


Glamorganshire Summer Assizes. (Continued from our last.) FRIDAY. His lordship entered the Hall at nine o'clock. MORRIS versus BARNES AND OTHERS. In this action Messrs. Yiughan Williams and Richards appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Evans, Q.C., and Mr. Wilson for the defendants. It was an action in replevin brought to try and determine a right of common. Mr. Vaughan Williams applied to the court for a post- ponement, in consequence of the absence of Mr. Randall, of Oldcastle, Bridgend—a most material witness —who had not arrived at Cardiff, being probably detained at home by ill health. This application was supported by an affidavit put in by Mr. II. Morgan (the plaintiff's attorney), in which he stated that a few days ago he saw Mr. Randall, and that he then appeared extremely ill. He had taken the utmost pains to procure the attendance of Mr. Randall since his (Mr. Morgan's) arrival at Car- diff, and bad sent an express messenger for him, but the messenger had not yet returned. His lordship, after hearing Mr. Evans in opposition to the application, decided that the cause should stand over till the next assizes for this county-the plaintiff to pay the costs of the day. DOE DEM. LORD AND A NR. versus KINGSBURY. [s. J.] This was an action of ejectment, in which Mr. Evans, Q.C., and Mr. Yaughan Williams appeared for the plain- tiff; and Mr. Chilton, Q.C., and Messrs. Wilson and Nicholl Came appeared for the defendant. Mr. Richards held a watching-brief on behalf of certain parties inte- rested. By Mr. Evans's opening speech it appeared that this was an action brought by Mr. Arthur Owen Lord, an officer in the army, and who was descended from a family of the name of Matthew, who had at one time large pos- sessions in this county. His claim was resisted by Mrs. Kingsbury, the defendant, who claimed to be entitled not only to the soil of a farm called Forchammon, near Aberdare, which she possesses, but also to the third of the minerals under that property. This action was limited to recovering the one-third of the minerals which Mrs. Kingsbury claimed the other two-thirds belonging respectively to Colonel Gwynne Holford and Mr. Curre, of Itton Court, Monmouthshire. In order to make this claim clear and intelligible, it was necessary that he (Mr. Evam) should give the history of the family from the year 1747. At that time a lady of the name of Grace Matthew and Edward Matthew her son were in posses- sion of large estates in the counties of Glamorgan and Brecon; and in that year [1747] Edward Matthew was about to be married to Mary Popkin, of Swansea, the daughter of Robert Popkin. Six days previous to the marriage, which took place on the 16th of December, 1747, a marriage settlement was made, comprising these large estates, between Grace Matthew and Edward Mat- thew, her son, on the one part, and Robert Popkin, Howell Gwynne, and John Carne, trustees in that set- tlement, and Mary Popkin, the bride, on the other part. Mr. Evans then stated in detail the provisions of that deed of settlement, which was drawn in the usual man- ner, and provided that it was expedient that a settlement should be made on the bride, and that the estate therein mentioned should be settled in the blood of Matthew. It then proceeded to settle, as far a3 any property in Gla- morganshire and in the parish of Aberdare was con- cerned, to the use of Edward Matthew for his life afterwards it proceeded to preserve contingent remain- ders then to secure a jointure to the wife in case she survived her husband; then to Thomas Popkin and John Matthew for the term of 500 years then to the first and other sons successively of that marriage, and in default of sons to daughters. Should there be more than one daughter they were to hold the property as tenants in common in tail. The issue of the marriage was three daughters—namely, Rebecca, who was born in 1751 Maria Eleonora, who was born in 1753; and Eleanor, who was born in the year 1759. These three children became entitled as tenants in common in tail of the estates. The eldest daughter, Rebecca, married Mr. Curre, of Monmouthshire, who was now represented by her son, William Curre, Esq. the second daughter, Maria Eleonora, married Thynne Howe Gwynne, Esq., ofBuck- land, Breconshire. now represented by Colonel Gwynne Holford and the third daughter, Eleanor, married Mr. Hugh Lord, from whom the present claimant was des- cended. The youngest daughter, who married Mr. Hugh Lord in the year 1778, had five children, the eldest of whom, born in May, 1779, lived only a few days. The second son, Hugh Lord, under whom the plaintiff clai med possession, was boin in 1780. In 1796 he went out to India, and continued in that country till 1829, when he died there. In 1806 he married, and in 1807 his son, Hugh Frederick Lord, was born. He died without issue. His other son, Arthur Owen Lord, is the present claim- ant, and was born in 1809—came to this country in 1825 -and has continued here ever since. In the year 1788 the person who married Mary Popkin died; but six months previous to his death it was agreed that the pro- perty should be divided into thirds between his three daughters. Mr. Gwynne and his wife had a third Mr. Lord and his wife had a third Mr. Curre and his wife had a third. That took place in 1788. Subsequently, the three owners of the estate parted with the possession of the surface, but (Mr. Evans said) reserved to them- selves the right to all the minerals under the property. The defendant, who was in possession of the surface of one of the thirds, claimed that she had bought the minerals also but it would appear by the deed of partition that the right to the minerals under the estate was ex- pressly and entirely reserved: they were within the pro. visions of the marriage settlement. Several witnesses were then called, who were nearly, if not all, members of the family of the plaintiff, and who deposed to facts relating to the life and death of Mr. Hugh Lord, in India. The plaintiff's case havingbeen concluded, Mr. Chilton, Mr. VY ilson, and Mr. Nicholl Carne entered at great length upon arguments of a perfectly technical nature, and then submitted that an action of ejectment would not lie for minerals which had not been opened and that the plaintiff was clearly barred by the statute of limitations, as he had not shown any possession whatever of those mines subsequent to the year 1794. There was conse- quently a prima facie case that the mines belonged to those who were in possession of the surface during that period. The learned judge reserved these points for argument and decision in the court above, stating that the deed pro- duced on behalf of Mrs. Kingsbury, the defendant, by her counsel, showed a clear conveyance, not only of the sur- face, but of Major Lord's third share of the minerals and a verdict for the plaintiff was then taken, subject to the opinion of the judges in the court above. Attorney for the plaintiff, Mr. White for the defendant, Mr. Davies. TAYLOR v. CLAY AND ANOTIIER.-[S. J.] In this case, Mr. Chilton, Q.C., and Mr. Davidson, appeared for the plaintiff; and Messrs. Yaughan Williams and Benson for the defendants. It was an action brought by the plaintiff, Francis Augustus Taylor, to recover compensation by way of damages for non-fulfilment of a contract by the defendants, R. Clay and It. Gillman. The declaration stated that by a charter-party made early in the year 1843, between the plaintiff, who was there described as the owner of the ship Jane, and the defend- ant, it was agreed that the said ship Jane should proceed to Port Talbot, in this county, or so near to it as she possibly could go, and there to take on board a cargo of coal or culm, which she was to deliver at a certain port in Spain on payment of freight;—that the ship Jane, after arriving at Port Talbot, was not loaded within a reason- able time, and was moreover not loaded in her regular turn. The defendants pleaded that they did load her within a reasonable time after her arrival at Port Talbot, and that she was loaded in her regular turn whereupon issue was joined. It was further pleaded by the defendants that during the voyage to Port Talbot the vessel received such damages as rendered her unfit to take the cargo upon her arrival, and that such damages were the result of want of skill and vigilancc Oil the part of the master of the ship, who was also the plaintiff in the action. The plaintiff, in his replication, denied that any accident which took place was attributable to him and that question, with the two former, was also brought before the court and jury for decision. From Mr. Chilton's opening, and evidence adduced by him on the part of the plaintiff, it appeared that the Jane, having sailed from London in pursuance of the terms of the charter-party, arrived at Port Talbot on the 10th of March, and went into the floating harbour on the 13th, three days afterwards. At the time the vessel sailed from London, she was perfectly sea-worthy, but on the voyage down channel sustained a very trifling injury. On arri- ving at Port Talbot, the Jane, in accordance with the rules of the port, took on board a pilot, who,'Of course, was in the absolute command of the ship. The harbour- master, in directing the order in which vessels should enter the dock that morning, permitted one or two ves- sels to enter out of their turn, and pnfairly kept the June waiting in the cut. Shortly the order was issued by him for the Jane to enter. A small vessel named the Nautilus entered the lock first; then the Jane followed; and then a vessel called the Thames. "While entering the lock the Thames overtook the Jane, and both vessels got so firmly jammed that all efforts then made to separate them proved ineffectual. By the opinions and statements of the plain- tiff's witnesses, the accident was wholly attributable to the conduct of the harbour-master in ordering the Thames to move on immediately, or nearly so, after he had directed the Jane to enter, and in not interposing to pre- vent the Thames to haul in so fast, especially as, being on the spot superintending every thing, he might easily per- ceive, from the rapidity of the Thames' advance, that a collision was inevitable". When the vessels got jammed they were partly outside the lock gates, which conse- quently could not be closed and, therefore, when the tide receded, they were left without support, resting upon each other and the walls of the lock, and thereby the Jane sustained very considerable damages. On the fol- lowing day they were separated, and entered the float. To recover compensation for such damages this action was brought, as well as to recover compensation for the delay which the accident occasioned. It was brought against the defendants but it appeared, and, indeed, was admitted, that the real defendants were the Port Talbot Harbour Company. Mr. Vaughan Williams, for the defendants, censured the plaintifffor bringing the action against the defendants, when it was evident that the proper course would have been, in case any party, besides the plaintiff and his crew, were to blame, to have brought it against the Port Talbot Company. He then called a host of witnesses namely, the harbour-master, the dock- men, and one or two others, who stated that the accident waa most entirely to be attributed to want of care and energy on the part of the master and crew of the Jane, who behaved in the most unseamanlike manner-who were most sluggish in their mgvcmeuti-aud who, when the accident was about to take place, in direct contraven- tion of orders issued by the harbour master and pilot, con- tinued to haul the vessel instead of heating her in. If the mas-ter and crew of the Jane had acted with alacrity the accident might have been averted. In summing up his lordship said-" There are in this case three issues in an action brought on a charter-party of agreement, by which the defendant undertook, within a reasonable time after the arrival of the vessel at Port Talbot, to load her with a cargo. The vessel having arrived the accident occurred immediately and before they had commenced loading her, and which accident rendcied it necessary that the owners of the ship should get her repaired before anything could be done in the way of loading her. Those repairs necessarily took up some time but as soon as it was reported that the vessel was in a fit state to receive a cargo, the defendant furnished her with one, which was properly put on board. On these two issues the defendant, in my opinion, is entitled to your verdict, because it was impossible to put a cargo on board, when the vessel was not in a condition to receive it. However, to prevent any new trial or unnecessary expense to the parties, it will be well if you assess dama- ges as if the party were entitled to recover in case it should turn out ultimately that the plaintiff was entitled to your verdict upon these two issues. Damages are claimed for the delay at the rate of C3 per day, which will amount to about £ 12G. That sum would be a reasonable amount of damages if the plaintiff were enti- tled to recover at all, because one of the witnesses stated that the ship never received less than C3 a day for delay. But gentlemen, the question which we desire to have your judgment exercised upon is the question of the third issue. The third plea alleges that the vessel was under the care and management of the captain of the ship and of the crew and that they, in the act of bringing her into harbour, mismanaged the vessel—conducted her with want of skill-with want of due care and attention and that the damage occurred from that circumstance. On the evidence adduced you will have to state whether you are of opinion the accident arose from the misconduct of the captain and his crew in not duly performing the orders given to them by the harbour master, or whether the harbour master is to be considered accountable for the accident." His lordship then read the evidence to the jury, and left the three questions to them for decision. The jury, after retiring for some time, re-entered the hall, and said—"We find a verdict for the defendants on the three counts." Attorney for the plaintiff, Mr. Willis; for the defend- ants, Mr. William Llewellyn. The court rose at half-past nine-haying sat twelve hours and a half. SATURDAY. His lordship entered the Hall at nine o'clock. DAVIES versus LUCAS. [S. J.] In this action Mr. Chilton, Q.C., and Mr, Nicholl Carne appeared for the plaintiff; and Messrs. Vaughan Williams and Benson for the defendant. It was an action of ejectment brought by John Lucas against David Davies to recover possession of a few acres of land situ- ated near Swansea, in a locality known generally as The Cockett." The real plaintiff in the case was, Mr. Chilton said, William Chambers, of Llanelly House, Esq. The details of the case are perfectly uninteresting. At the close of a most protracted investigation, it appeared that the defendant, who is a man in humble circumstances, had, during the last 40 years, exercised a greater number of acts of ownership upon the piece of ground than the tenants of Mr. Chambers, and, consequently, the iurv returned a verdict in his favour. Attorney for the plaintiff, Mr. Brown; for the defend- ant, Mr. J. J. Price. The court rose at half-past seven, having been occupied throughout the day with this paltry, tedious, and most uninteresting cause. On Sunday forenoon, the learned judge, high sheriff, and retinue attended Divine service at Saint John's Church. The members of our town council preceded his lordship, in accordance, we understand, with an-ient custom. The sheriff's chaplain read the service, and also preached from 12th chap. Matthew, v. 49 and 50, "And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." The sermon was a most excellent one, and was ^in- attentively heard by a crowded congregation. After Divine service the learned judge returned in the same state to his lodgings. (To be continued in our third paye.)