Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

4 articles on this Page

HAVERFORDWEST COUNTY COURT.

News
Cite
Share

HAVERFORDWEST COUNTY COURT. [BEFORE H. R. B.VGSHAWE, ESQ JUDGE.] L John Rees v. Emma Tucker Edwards, of Sealyham, and others.-This was an action brought to recover £50 for damages, and had been adjourned from the previous court. The bill of particulars filed by the plaintiff set forth that the defendants did on the 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th of March last, unlawfully enter and unroof a cer- tain dwelling house and barn at Ford, in the parish of Hayscastle, in this county, then in the occupation of the plaintiff, and remove and injure furniture and other pro perty belonging to the plaintiff. Mr Lascelles, instructed by Mr A. H. Lascelles, o! Narberth, appeared for the plaintiff, Mr Hughes, of London, instructed by Mr \V. Davies, of Haverfordwest, was specially retained for the defendants, who pleaded not guilty. His Honour read the evidence given by the plaintiff at the previous hearing; the plaintiff on that occasion de- posed that he lived five or six years at the premises, which he held under the late Mr W. Edwardes, the father of the defendant, Miss Edwardes. He paid X105 rent under a verbal agreement that he should hold for Williams's life, who occupied the neighbouring premises. On the faith of that agreement he laid out money. All the defendants, except one, Charles, came to his house: Miss Edwardes said to them, 'Go on and pull every stone down.' He asked her By what authority?' She did not produce any paper or authority. There was in the house his wife and tour children, and furniture. The defendants began with the store loft, and took off the root. They tore up the floor of the bedroom. The defendants or some of them took the furniture, and put it out into the road. This occurred on the 16th of March. Two children went to a farm: Miss Edwardes's tenants were afraid of her, and would not take the children in. His wife and baby—twelve months old-could not remain in the house; she got no bed that night, and was nursing the child. When they went away, he took his bed back and put it into the servant's room, the roof of which had been removed by the parties. They came back on the 18th: on that occasion they used saws and hatchets: they took down the door of the barn in which the furniture was plared; John Thomas in the presence of Beynon turned the furniture out of the barn into the fold. The next day, the 19th, they took the chimney. Charles threw Hones down the chimney, and then the bed was taken away, and put up in the hall. This was between ten and eleven o'clock at night. Charles and the rest of them came in, and ordered the bed to be removed. They said they would take the bed, and did do so. The stones fell where the bed had been: four men continued from the Wednesday till Friday, and threw stones and water at him repeatedly. The plaintiff was now re-examined by Mr Lascelles He deposed: My furniture was thrown into the street. I next saw my furniture when I came home from Haver fordwest I saw it in the fold. I was obiiged to leave the house on Thursday about half past ten at night. I was forced to go into lodgings with a gentleman Mr Edwards, of the Commercial Inn, at Ford. I took lodgings there for myself and two children. I remained there only that night. I was forced to go to my rela- tions, the Priscilla family,-my wife's family. I left my furniture on the road. I have seen it since. Mrs Edwardes sent the furniture down. John Thomas brought them down. He is in the employ of Mrs Ed- wardes. Mrs Edwardes lives with Miss Edwardes of Sealyham: her cart conveyed the furniture: and put it down in the street at Colby Scott, about six miles from Ford. I was forced to take a house there, because I did not like my family left over the country. The furniture was sent without my authority it was three weeks after I bad seen it turned out of my house. It had been left in the road: it was worth nothing to me: it was broken, and a lot was missing it had been exposed to the weather in the meantime. The Judge: Did you see Mrj Edwardes's cart? Witness: I did not. The Judge: How can you say that you saw it? Plaintiff: My wife told me. The Judge: I am afraid I must strike that out. Mr Lascelles: It has not been objected to. Cross-examined: Part of the furniture was removed from the barn and put into the road: the furniture taken from the rooms was put down in the street near my house. I did not remove the furniture from the fold. Some time afterwards it was brought by Mrs Edwardes's cart to where I was living. Mrs Edwardes is not one of the defendants. Her husband was my landlord. I did not take the farm from him at Michaelmas, 1857 as tenant from year to year. The farm was let to me on the terms As I said by a man named James George. That was in Michaelmas, 1857. He let it to me for Mr W. Edwardes. Mr Hughes: On what terms was it let to you? Mr Lascelles Was there any paper? Plaintiff: There was not: I took it during the life of Mr James Williams of Ford, my neighbour. I paid my rent first of all to Mr W. Edwardes, of Sealyham. I paid ;£105 a year: I paid my rent half-yearly, at Michaelmas and Lady-day, in the usual way of the Sealyham estate: I can't say how many years! paid my rent to Mr Edwardes. I think he has been dead four or five years. By the Judge: I paid rent to several persons after he died. I paid it to Mr John Thomas, who was agent for one year. I don't know for whom he was agent. I paid it to Mrs Edwardes, I think, for two years myself: I have the receipts at home.—[A receipt, signed by John Thomas for the Trustees, and bearing date the 22nd of May, 1861, was here put in.]—I paid rent to Mr H. Phillips, the auctioneer. I was forced to make an assignment, and Mr JPbillips paid it for me. I directed him to pay Mr W. Owen, one of the Trustees. Somebody told me that he was a Trustee. My solicitor, Mr Mathias, would not let me pay the rent to Mrs or Miss Edwardes, but only to the Trustee. The Judge: When was rent paid to Mr Owen? Plaintiff: Last March was twelve months,-before the 25th of March, 1862. Mr Henry Phillips hAld a bill of sale, and by my direction be paid rent to Mr Owen. Cross-examination continued: I have not paid rent since 1862. No one has asked me for rent. Mr Hughes: Well you swear that you have never been asked ? »~El&U«tiff: I will swear that I have not been asked. The TuHgel Areyou quite sure of that? Plaintiff: I am quite sure of it. Mr Lascelles: You don't answer for Mr Phillips? Plaintiff: No, sir. Mr Hughes Was notice to quit served on you on the 8th of March, 1862 on behalf of Mr W. Owen? Plaintiff: There was. Mr Hughes here submitted that the question of title arose, and that there was proof of a yearly tenancy. After some discussion, His Honour observed that if the learned counsel could prove to him that there was nothing said about the life of Williams: and that it was a simple tenancy from year to year, he should hold that he had evidence before him of conflicting claims. Mr Hughes said that he should call James George to prove that. His Honour said that if be understood Mr Hughes cor- rectly he had witnesses to prove that, and it did not appear to him (the Judge) that he should exceed his duty by stopping the examination. The counsel might reserve the examination on any other part of the case, and let the examination as far as related to the question of title be disposed of first, and then the examination upon the rest of the case might be taken. Mr Hughes approved of the suggestion of the Judge. The re-examination of the Plaintiff was then proceeded with he said I took the farm for the life of Williams, who is my neighbour. Williams holds his farm for his own life. The reason was this: I was to have it for Williams's life, that at his death all the land might go together, that a change might be made. Mr Edwardes told me that the land was intermixed right through each other. I understood from Mr Edwardes I was to have it for Williams's life. On that agreement, 1 laid out money on the house and farm. My improvements have been valued at je45. Mr Hughes: I'll now pursue the course suggested by your Honour without prejudice to the cross-examination. James George: I live at I was in the em- ploy of the late Mr W. Edwardes, of Sealyham. In Michaelmas 1857, I let the farm of Ford to the plaintiff. There was nothing in writing. The terms of the letting was by the year. The rent was £ 105. At the time of letting there was nothing said to me about the plaintiff having a lease. Mr Edwardes sent me down next day to tell John Rees that he must take it for the term of James Williams's life. Rees told me that be would not take the terms. That was all he said. I did nothing in consequence of that. Mr Hughes: I now apprehend that there is clear evi- dence of a letting by yearly tenancy the day before. Mr Lascelles: Are you aware that Rees saw Mr Ed- wardes after that? Witness: I have nothing to say about that. I don't know that Rees saw Mr Edwardes. Mr Lascelles: Was there any difficulty about letting the farm to a third person? Witness: I had nothing to do with tt, Mr Lascelles: Do you koow- whether there was or n t? Witness: Yes: the same day this person took it of tm-, another person applied for it. Mr Lascelles: Don't you recollect that in consequence of that Rees applied to Mr Edwards on the subject? Witness: [ have got nothing to say. The Judge: Another person applied to take the farm ? Witness: Not to me. Mr Hughes: You don't know anything about it ? Witness: I had nothing to do about it. Mr Lascelles: It was not settled when you left Rees that day? Witness: He refused to take the terms about the farm. Mr Hughes here submitted that the question of title had arisen, which put the case out of his Honour's jurisdiction. A lengthy argument ensued, at the conclusion of which His Honour decided that he had no jurisdiction to try the case by reason of the question of title involved, the plaintiff claiming under an agreement that he. held for the life of Williams, and the defendant asserting that the plaintiff held under a yearly tenancy. Henry Evans v. John Young. — This was an action brought for the recovery of Y,2 damages, for assault and battery. The Judge, after hearing the evidence of the plaintiff, suggested that the parties should settle the case without the intervention of the Court. Mr James, on behalf of the defendant, expressed his willingness to acquiesce in his Houour's suggestion, and the plaintiff, having also concurred, the case was with- drawn, each party paying its own costs. John James v. William Edwirds.—This was a claim for a balance of a bill, Xi 15s 91. Judgment was given for the plaintiff, payment being ordered by 5s a month. Wtlliam Roberts v. Elizabeth Lewis -The amount of claim was zC3 15s 2d. The plaintiff was nonsuited. B. G. Phelps v. Henry John.-This was a claim for 15s 6d for money lent. Judgment was given for the plaintiff, payment being ordered to be made in a month. Messrs Harries and Palmer v. John Fitzgerald.—The plaintiffs sued for -02 10s for ale supplied. Payment ordered in a month, John Davies v. Phcebe Havard-The amount of claim was £10 10s. Mr Parry (who appeared for defendant) objected to the particulars, and the case was ordered to stand over to the next Court, the question of costs being reserved. Same v. Evan Owen.—The amount claimed was X.3 lis 8d. Judgment was given for the plaintiff; payment to be made in a month. Thomas J times v. James Harries.—The amount of claim was lis 6d. Judgment was given for plaintiff. Stephen Green v. George Hughes.—The plaintiff claimed .E3 Is 3d. Judgment tor the plaintiff. Same v. William Morgan.—The claim amounted to Xi 17s 6d, which was ordered to be paid in two months. Same v. George James.-The amount claimed was 91 3s fid. Judgment for plaintiff. Same v. Benjamin Morgan.-The amount of claim was £1 13s 4d. Judgment for plaintiff, with immediate execution. William Williams v. Peter Jones.—The amount of claim was £ 1 6s. Judgment for plaintiff. A. and F. Williams v Stephen Williams—The claim amounted to Xi 169 10d. Judgment for plaintiff. C. B. Marshall v. William Summon.-Tbe sum claimed was 15s. Judgment for plaintiff. Charles Mathias v. Thomas Gwyllim. — The plaintiff claimed XI 19s 6d for leather sold. Judgment for plaintiff. David Lewis v. Benjamin Williams. — The amount claimed was 129 JOd. Judgment for plaintiff. Same v. John James.—The amount of claim was 2s lOd. Judgment for plaintiff. J. D. Brown v. John Furlong.—Thi3 was a claim for t5 5s. Judgment for plaintiff. Richard John v. Thomas Griffiths.—The amount of claim was X2 19a lOd. Judgment for plaintiff. Messrs Greenish and Dawkins v. James Thomis.—The claim was 16s. for goods delivered. Judgment for the plaintiffs. Same v. Frederick Wootton.—The amount of claim was £1 8s 4d. Judgment was given for plaintiffs. William Sheldon v. Benjamin Haydtn.—The sum claimed was lis 6d. Judgment for plaintiff.

TENBY.

THE iONDON MARKET8

SOUTH WALES RAILWAY TIME TABLE,…