Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

3 articles on this Page

PEMBROKESHIRE SPRING ASSIZES.

News
Cite
Share

PEMBROKESHIRE SPRING ASSIZES. WEDNESDAY. CIVIL CASES. Meyriclc v Davies,— This was an action in. fcjestment. The plaintiff, proprietor of the Bush Estate, "brought the action to recover possession of a farm (xalkd Steynton Green, in the occupation of the defendant, who is a mer- chant residing at Haverfordwest. Tha case was heard before a special jury, composed of Mr C. H. Allen, Hayston Mr C. E. Bowen, Hatnstm&n; Mr John IBennett, Wolfsdale; Mr C. W. Oork, Crisborough Mr R. Carrow, Johnstone Hall; Mr R. P. Davies, Ridge- way; Mr W. J. Dunn, Saint Florence; Mr S. P. 'Williams, Lamphey; Mr C. û. Wells, of Tenby Mr C. T. Hayes, of AUeslon; Mr X. Peel, Denant, Mr N. A. Roch, of Paskeston. Mr H. Allen and Mr De Rutzen, (instructed by Mr Parry), appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Bowen and Mr Williams (instructed by Mr Frice), appeared for the defendant. Mr H. Allen, in opening the case, said that the claim Was made by the plaintiff, who was the owner of large estates in the neighbourhood of Pembroke, to recover some premises situated at a place called"Steynton Green. He had thought from Ms instructions, that the case would have been an ordinary case of a landlord who had given notice to quit to a tenant.; but he understood that his learned friends who defended the action would raise some conflict of evidence. There was one particular circumstance in th-e oase. which was that the notice to quit the farm of Steynton Green wsssent by post instead oftfhe more usual wayof delivering it personally to the tenant in possession. Something might be made of that by his learned friends, but if that failed, he was at a loss to discover what woeld be the defence to the case. There "Was no doubt the plaintiff was'tfoe proprietor, and there was no doubt the defendant was his tenant; and the jury 'Would hear what the evidence was in reference to the notice to quit, about which "be anticipated some conflict "would arise. The learned counsel then detailed the. evidence he proposed to adduce on the plaintiff's behalf, observing that it would be the duty of the jury to decide ■whether the notice to quit WAS a proper one, and of that he thought there would be'co doubt when the witnesses were called before them. < Edward Tracy, examined by Mr De Rutzen, de- posed I am a clerk to the Bush estate, the property of the plaintiff. The defendant was tenant of Steynton; Green. Mr "Clark is the agent of the estate. He gave me a notice to serve thereis aduplicate of it. It was posted: between the '19th and 23rd-not later than the 23rd. I am confident it was the 23rd in my own mind. The. notice produced is the Implicate. A letter was written by Mr Clark-and given to me. The notice was in it. I posted the letter in the pillar post office, in Water Street. I can't say positively when I posted it, but it was not later than the 23rd. I posted it about two t.)'clocL The signature of Mr Clark is to the notice. The letter was addressed to Mr Whicher Davies; but 2 can't say how. The letter was copied: I have the letter book here. Referring to the book, I find it was addressed Mr Whicher Davies, Haverfordwest. It has no date. A few days after it was posted, I received a letter from Mr Whicher Davies. It is in his cleriTs handwriting. Cross-examined by Mr Bowen: The letter I posted bears no date. I posted this letter in particular. I post a great many letters daily sometimes, and sometimes none at all. I have no memorandum on the back of the du- plicate showing when the notice was posted or that it was put m a letter. tI had on several occasions to write between -Mr Clarke and Mr Davies. This circular bears date ;13th of June probably it was sent a fortnight after the date. I did not care when so long as they had it before the diy of paying the rent. The envelope bears date 27th of June; bat you must not take that for comparison. I have commenced my 11th year in the service of the estate. There are negociations about a contemplated exchange of the farm. Mr Davies has had three cr four notices to quit the farm. Re-examined bv Mr Allen The circular was an or- dinary circular. There are 500 or 600 of the circulars to be sent out, and we are not particular as to the day. I posted the letter with the notice myself. 1 am quite satisfied I did not post it later than the 23r& The previous notices were given in consequence of arrears of rent. Mr Georgs Parry examined by Mr Allen I am the at- torney in this action. I came to Haverfordwest on the 3rd of October to see the defendant. I found him at his house I delivered him another notice in reference to another matter. I went to demand the premises:: he said he should not give them up. I asked him if he was a Michaelmas tenant, and he said he was. He said he had received the half-year's notice to quit, but he should not give up the premises because he was entitled to a lease. Between Haverfordwest and Pembroke there are two deliveries daily on Sunday there is one delivery. Cross-examined by Mr Bow«sn Mr Davies did not, in answer to my question whether he had notice to quit, say he h-adthree or four noiiceejof the kind. He said nothing of the kind. Tbi" was the case for the plaintiff. Mr Bowen addressed the jury in the defendant's be- half, and stated that the defendant was prepared to deny that he received any notice to quit, as asserted by the plaintiSF. The plaintiff's witnesses declared that the no- tice was inclosed in a letter which was sent by post. The duplicate of the notice which had been produced was a most singular document; for it seemed to be one of a, great many notices-not a copy of a particular matter, but words were struck out and alterations made to make it apply to the particular case. The endorsement on the back of it had no referenee to the notice itself, but ap- peared to be a memorandum made by Mr Parry for pur- poses of his own. He was not foing to suggest that the signature to the notice was not in the handwriting of Mr Clark, the agent to the estate, but it was most strange that that gentleman had not been called and examined for the plaintiff, and for evidence as to the posting of the document, they ,had to rest upon the defective memory of Mr Tracy. The case altogether was a most remark- able one. The defendant had held the farm for some years, and when it was let to him, by a gentleman who had ceased to represent the estate, certain things were to be done, which had not been done, and it was pro- bable that the meKer would be the subject of Chancery proceedings but with that the jury had nothing what- ever to d" for the sole question for them to determine was whether the defendant had, as he was entitled to have, notice to quit on the 29th of September. The plaintiff seemed to -doubt that it was sent in time, for Mr Parry, it appeared, had made a calculation to show that if the notice existed at all and was delivered a few days later, the number of days would constitute the re- gular number of lunar months. The calculation of Mr Parry Was of no use whatever, for everybody knew that by the custom of the country, a Michaelmas taking could only be put an end to by a notice received on tbe* 25th of March. He asserted that if Mr Meyrick's people in- tended to send the notice, it was never sent; and the only evidence in corroboration of their statement that it was sent to the defendant in a letter written by Mr Clark to Mr Davies, was the document put in in the handwriting of the defendant's clerk. But that letter commenced with the words, Your letter to hand this day,' and the date of it was the 27th of March, and it contained no reference to the notice to quit. The witness Tracy believed he posted the letter of Mr Clark on the 23rd; but if that bad been the case, if it had safely carried, it must have been delivered the same day to Mr Davies, for they had heard that would have been the case according to the postal arrangements. There was no doubt Mr Clark did write such a letter, because they had the machine copy of it; but the question was* whether his subordinates had carried out his instructions. The letter written by defendant's clerk referred to one from Mr Clark which was received on the 27tb, and he thought it strange that the jury should be asked to infer that it referred to the letter which the witness Tracy said he believed he posted on the 23rd. It did not ap. pear that those wore the only communication which passed between Mr Clark and the defendant; for he had befor. him a circular respecting rent which bore date 13th of June, and did not appear to have been posted till th< 27th, as was proved by the postmarks. That fact woulc enable the jury to form some opinion as to the regularity with which the estate office conducted the business. Mt farry stated that the defendant bad admitted re- ( ceiving the notice: the defendant would tell them that he had received three or four notices to quit, and that in his conversation with Mr Parry he referred to those notices, and that he did not tell him he had received notice to quit on the 25th of March. If the defendant had received the notice, it was not likely he would refuse to give up the farm be would be rather inclined to negociate. If persons relied on notices to quit, they must prove the service of them, and he thought when they heard the evidence of the defendant they would be satisfied that no notice had been received by him. The learned counsel was proceeding to comment upon the form of notice, and to argue that, even supposing it had been sent, it was not valid in law,' because it was not signed by Mr Clark as agent, when, His Lordship said he understood that the defence would be that no notice had been received, and observed that, if that was proved, it was not necessary to discuss whether it was valid in form or not. Mr Bowen said his case was that the notice never came to the hands of the defendant, and he should produce positive testimony to that effect. Thomas Whicher Davies, examined by Mr Williams: I am a merchant carrying on business in this town. I am a Town Councillor:'at the head of the poll last time. [ am tenant of the farm Steynton Green. I have never seen such a thhtg as a notice to qnit the farm frequent letters hare passed between me and the Estate Office. I did not admit to Mr Parry that I had notice to quit. I told him that I had had two or three notices to quit, but I did not believe I bad bad one for two years. Cross-examined by Mr Allen I went to pay rent before Michaelmas-day at the Estate Office. Mr Clark was there. 1 was not asked if I intended to go out pursuant to notices I said I was entitled to a lease and buildings. The election of councillors was in November: I went out and m cgain. I believe I was ill in bed on Snnday, the 24th of March. Mr Morris and my son did my business. 5 did not know myolerk, Mr Morris, wrote the letter. 1 told him many times that as I heard from Mr Clark that they were going to sell the place, I should like to buy the place if it were sold worth the money. Mr Morris would not have replied to a notice to quit without consulting me: it was too serious a job for him to undertake. I saw Hitchings on theroad near ray farm: ■ I never told Hitchings that I would not go out as I had an agreement. I told him to tell Mr Parry that it was not law, and that if I caught him there 1 should have him up. Robert Morris, examined by Mr Bowen: I am clerk to Mr Whicher Davies. I never received a notice to quit. 1;1 wrote the letter dated the 27th. We have searched for the letters referred to in it, but can find none. Cross-examined by Mr Allen: Mr Davies was ill: 1 had to go up stairs to see him he was lying on the couch. Sometimes I consulted him on business, but sometimes, when he was too poorly, I did the business myself. I don't remember there was a letter, but I conclude from the tenor of the one produced that there was a letter. I swear that I saw no letter containing a reference to a sale of tHe farm. I saw no notice to quit: I should have remembered the notice if I had ever seen it. Mr Bowen briefly summed up the evidence of the defendant. M/Allen replied, and His Lordship summed up the evidence, leaving it to the jury to find whether there was a notice to quit, and when it was received. The jury retired. After an abser.ce of some time, they came into court, and stated that they were unable to agree to a verdict. His Lordship remarked that he could not discharge them as they had not been in consultation long: enough. A juror stated they could not come to a decision. His Lordship enquired if counsel on both sides could come to any arrangement. The defendant peremptorily declined to entertain any compromise, declaring that he would have a fair win or iose.' His Lordship informed the jury that they must again retire and endeavour to agree to a verdict, informing them that the question which they had to decide was whether a notice to quit was received, and if so, he should ask them when it was received. Capt. Wells asked his Lordship to allow the jury a fire, as it was very cold in the room where ttiey de- liberated. His Lordship said that he could not grant the request, observing that they were to be kept without fire or light, candle light only excepted. If there was a more com- fortable room, he was willing that they should remove to it. Capt. Wells replied that the room was sufficiently com- fortable. but it was cold because there was no fire in it. The jury again retired, and after being in consultation for a short time, returned into Court with a verdict for the defendant. Mathias v. Child,-This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover damages from the defendant for injury alleged to have been done by the illegal levying of a distress by the defendant on the plaintiff's goods. The case was heard before a jury composed of the fol- lowing gentlemen: Mr W. H. Shield, Mr Thomas Skone, Mr R. Anderson, Mr John James, of Trenewydd; Mr Wood, Cilrhew; Mr Thomas Sandal), Mr J. P. Jones, of Sutton Lodge; Mr W. Williams, St. David's; Mr G. W. W. Harries, Mr John Williams, Solva; Mr J. Eyre, Cinnamon Grove; and Mr W. Gwynne. Mr T. Allen and Mr De Rutzen (instructed by Mr Lasoelles, of Narbertb) appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr Bowen (instructed by Mr J, Price) for the defendant. Mr Allen, having stated the case to the jury, called William Mathias, who deposed: I am the plaintiff in this action. I live in a cottage on Begelly Moor. I remember my father in possession of that cottage: it was part of leasehold property which he held from the Picfon Estate. My father died in 1«47. After his death my mother entered into possession of the leasehold property She remained in possession 10 yeilr,-until she died. After her death, I went into possession of this cottage, and have remained in possession up to this time. The pro- perty was divided between my brothers and sisters and myself. It was done by arrangement between ourselves: we bad two men to do it. I paid rent to Mr Philipps, the owner of the Picton Estate. On the 7th of December, 1866, I received notice of distress: it was served by Thomas Jones, a bailiff: he was acting for Capt. Child. Soitne days after that I remember Mr Price, the attorney, coming to me: that was on the 13tb. He came there to sell the things I had. He brought the auctioneer with him. They came to my house between three and lour o'clock in the afternoon. The sale took place about eight in the evening. The things were sold by auction. There were four people there. The things were sold for 30s. They were worth from X7 to £8, as second band things. It would cost me from £ 15 to X20 to replace them. They were sold in one lot. Mr Price bought them, and they were taken away from my house by Capt. Child's cart about nine or ten o'clock. Cross-examined I was offered all the things for 26s 6d. They afterwards made me a present of the bed, bedditur, and clock. I value the other things at from £ 15 to £ 20. I paid rent before Capt. Child had it. I paid rent about six years ago to the Picton Estate. The previons year there was a distress put in—in December, 1865. When that distress was put in 1 don't remember going to Begelly House with Thomas John I went up to Begelly House myself. I saw Capt. Child. I did not tell him I had come to put an end to the dispute, and that.I would take the place at R3 a year. Before I went to Begelly House I did not call upon Thomas John. and ask him to come up with me. John was in one room and I was in another. I did not ask Capt. Child to give me a memo- randum to show that I bad taken the place from him. Griffith Price was the bailiff. 1 did not see him the next day. I did not tell him I had taken the place from Capt. Child. I did not see him at all. I don't remember meeting Capt. Child about the summer of 1866, and his asking me to pay the half year's rent, and my saying it was a yearly tenancy, and I should pay at the end of the year. In December, 1866, I did not tell Thomas Joues, the bailiff, more than once that I had taken the house for £ eajr' would not pay him rent, because Capt, CMa ha? no right to the house. I did not tell Morgan, the auctioneer, that I had taken the house of Capt. Child. Mr Morgan advised me to go and pay the defendant the rent like a sensible man. I said I would not because the Captain had no right to the place. I don't remember that Morgan said to me that I ought to have thought of that before I took the place. I did not say I, took the place at X3 a year, and it was a mistake but it would make no difference. My wife was present. She did not say. I told him how it would be when he brought the paper home. I did not tell those persons I had taken the place if Capt. Child at X3 a year. When John came into the room at Begelly, I left it. Capt. Child did not say I had taken the place at t3 a year. Re-examined: I paid the rent to the Picton Castle Estate up to six years ago. Subsequent to that time the rent was collected by Eynon, who married one of my listers. There was no arrangement made by lawyers, We were eight, and used to pay the rent to Eynon, and he to the Picton Estate. That was up to 1*52. There had been. a previous distress in 1865, Bluou ceased to collect the rent because be took the land himself, and missed paying for it. My brothers and sisters are no; in possession or the land. Capt Child has got it. They went out, and Capt Child came in. I never agreed to go out. I was asked to do so by Mr Fred. Bowen: I refused. In 1861 ort365 my sisters went out, and Capt Child came in. The distress in the previous year was signed by Griffith Price, bailiff to the Picton Estate. I was not there when he came. My wife was at home. I had no cattle taken away from me. In 1865 nothing was taken away. After the notice served upon me by Griffith Price nothing was done. I said just now that the things were sold at the sale for 30s: they were offered back to me for 26s Gd, or anything I would give. I declined to have them back: I told Mr Price I would not have them. The things were taken up to Capt Child's house in his cart, I had never agreed before December, 1866, to be- come the tenant of Capt Child. — Mathias: I am the wife of the last witness I recol- lect the distress being put in by Griffith Price. No one came with him. I had not seen any one from Capt. Child: no property had been taken. Capt. Child was in possession of the adjoining land. There were no cattle on my land: there were cattle on Capt. Child's land They were not there when the notice of distress was given. The next notice was received in December, 1866, Jones brought it: he signed it in my presence at our house. Capt. Child never came to my house before or after the sale. I remember Mr Morgan and Mr Price, an attomev, coming from Haverfordwest. I did not tell either Mr Morgan or Mr Price that he had taken the house from Capt. Child. I did not say to Mr Moigai that I knew how it would be when my husband biought the paper. I never spoke about it. They sold the things Mr Price offered them to me for Id: I said I would not have them for a farthing. Cross-examined byMrFowen: My husband went up to Begelly House, but I don't know who went with him. He did not bring a piece of paper back. I don't remem- ber Mr Morgan advising my husband to settle the matter. He said that Capt. Child had no right to the liousc-.e I di.d not tell him that I knew how it would be when he brought the paper home. He did not say it was a mis- take on his part to take the house for £3. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr Bowen addressed the jury, stating the case on the part of the defendant. Mr T. Rule Owen, examined by Mr Bowen: I am a member of the firm of Messrs Goode and Owen. We are agents to the Picton Estate. I know the premises Capt Child became the tenant in 1864. He paid arrears of rent amounting to £ 45. We do not know the plaintiff at all. Cross-examined by Mr Allen We never had a tenant of the plaintiff's name. Rachel Mathias's name was on the rental; and after her, the executors of Rachel Mathias up to 1864. The plaintiff's name would not appear in the books. I did not authorize the distress in 1865 to be put in; it might have been done without my knowledge. It might have been done by my partner; but I don't think it is probable it would be done without my being aware of it. I think Capt Child's name first appears in Michaelmas, 1364. His name was substituted because Capt Child told us: the arrangement was made in our office. Capt Child told us he had made arrange- ments with the tenants, and had become the tenant of the whole. I believed he acted for the whole. There were arrears of rent before he came into our office, and he en- tered into an arrangement to pay the whole of tbem-- between ±40 and JE42 That was the principal induce- ment to accept him as tenant. I don't know the acreage of the piece held by the plaintiff. It is a very old taking. Capt Child: I am a magistrate and deputy-lie uteri ant of this county. I live at Begelly House. I took the pro- perty of the Pioton Estate. I remember the plaintiff coming to my house with a man named John. He said, 4 I am come up to put an end to this turmoil, and ifyour Honour pleasi-s, to take the house and garden for £ 3 a year.' I agreed to let him have it. As he was going out he said, 4 If you please, sir, will you give me a bit of paper to show the bailiff, or be will sell the goods.' I gave it to him. He told me he brought John as a witness. Cross-examined: He meant the distress by 4 turmoil.' Mr Goode threatened me with a distress: and it may be correct that I procured the distress to be put in. 1 will not swear that I did or did not authorize it. I did in- struct. Mr Lewis, the attorney, to pitt in the distress at Mr Goode's suggestion. The same evening-the 6th of December, the plaintiff came up to my house. The brothers and sisters gave me up the will of the mother, and I had entered into possession of the land. The pro- perty is about 11 to 14 acres. I came into possession by paying off the arrears and giving XI each to the persons. After I paid the money I turned mv cattle into the fields. I did not offer the plaintiff a 11. 1 never sent my nephew to make an offer to the plaintiff. I sent him to show the Bailiff where the plaintiff lives. I had not given orders to take the cattle off three days before. There are no cattle that I know of on the rest of the property. I had not arranged that the bailiii should call at my house that day: he was my solicitor's bailiff. My impression is that John was in the room all the time when the plaintiff took the house of me. The paper I gave the plaintiff was to the effect that I had taken him as a tenant. Griffith Price, examined by Mr Bowen: I remember serving the distress at plaintiff's house on his wife Cross-examined: I was instructed to serve the distress at the direction of Capt Child's solicitor. I called at his house by desire. Thomas Jones, examined by Mr Bowen: I levied the distress on the plaintiff's house. He told me he had to pay Capt Child X-3 a year rent. He said be would never pay it. Cross-examined by Mr Alien He said Capt Child had him up to make him pay the rent. James John, examined by Mr Bowen: I live at Begelly. I remember the plaintiff calling upon me to go with bim to Capt Child to settle matters, as the bailiff, Mr Price, was at his house. Capt Child and Mathias were in the room half an hour before I was called in. Capt Child said he had settled with Mathias. Phintift wanted a paper to put Price out of his house. I can't tell what be did say. Capt Child said he did not like him to be a landlord of his. He wanted him to be a tenant of his. Cross-examined by Mr Allen: He said that not once but twice. I heard Mathias say he would not become tenant he did not care for the land, but he would not give up the house and garden. He did not say that in his presence. I did not hear Mathias agree to become his tenant. Re examined by Mr Bowen: He told me he wanted Mathias to be his tenant at the Begelly Arms. He did not say that to the plaintiff in my presence. Mr R W. W. Morgan examined by Mr Bowen I am an auctioneer at Haverfordwest. In December 1866, I attended at Begelly Moor to value the distress. I made the valuation. I recollect telling the defendant to go and pay the rent like a sensible man be refused to do so, as the Captain had no right to the place. He said he had made a mistake in taking the place at C3 a year, but it would make no difference. I recollect his wife saying, 41 told him how it would be when he brought the paper home.' He was asked to show the paper which was said to be the agreement, and he refused. Cross-examined by Mr Allen: The plaintiff said be himself had made the mistake. I do not recollect that Captain Child told me that plaintiff had agreed to take the place for S3 a year. Mr Price, the attorney, might have told me of it. Mr James Price: I am a solicitor living in this town. I am Capt Child's solicitor. I went to Begelly Moor about the distress. I was there three or four hours, endeavouring to arrange the dispute. The plaintiff told me he bad taken the place at X3 a year, and I told him he ought to have made the dispute then. The plaintiff re- fused to show the piece of paper. ] heard his wife saying that she had told him how it would be when he brought the paper home. He and his wife repeatedly admitted they had taken the house of Capt Child at £ 3 a year they made no secret of it. This was the case for the defendant. His Lordship summed up the evidence. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, awarding him L7 as the value of his goods, and Y,5 damages, making altogether £ 12. William Williams, of St. David's, builder, v. John Robert Mortimer, of Treginnis.-This was an action on s- flontraot for £ 76. The defendant had paid J635 into Court, and pleaded not indebted as to the remainder. The case was entered for trial, when his Lordship inti mated that it was a matter of account, and suggested a reference. The plaintiff was represented by Mr Bowen, instructed by Mr Price, and the defendant by Mr B. T Williams, instructed by Mr John. A consultation took place between the professional gentlemen and their clients, the result of which was that the learned counsel I inforaued His Lordship that a teferenbe to Mr Henrj j Allen had been agreed upon, and the record was Witt* drawn. Since the withdrawal of the case, we been informed that the matter has been arranged by Mortimer paying a further sum of £ 50, and beings1' lowed a sum of £ 13 10s which he alleged the plaintiff had not given him credit for. THURSDAY. His Lordship took his seat on the Bench at half Past nine o'clock. Scale v. Jones and Morgan—This was an action fo* damages for false imprisonment. The plaintiff ailege" that the defendants went before the justices at Pembrol", and falsely and without reasonable cause laid an »»or* mation against the plaintiff that certain cattle had been stolen and driven away by the plaintiff. Upon this in- formation, the justices issued a warrant, and the plaID I d was arrested. He was brought before the justices, an no evidence being offered, be was discharged. w«, Mr Bowen and Mr De Rutzen, (instructed by Dunn, of Pembroke), appeared for the plaintiff; T. Allen and Mr Hughes (instructed by Mr LannioB) appeared for the defendants. D After the pleadings had been opened, the counsel both sides conferred and the case was arranged. If Mr Bowen, addressing the Court, said: This is fit. action which Mr John Scale, who is a highly respe\ able young man, brings against the defendant, wbo tl also a highly respectable gentleman, for recklessly Pn.1' ting the criminal law in motion against him. Hi» oV J object is to vindicate his character, and the defen^ having calmly considered the matter, is willing to a verdict against him and to pay the costs. wish to make a market out of the affair, and have agree to a settlement of the case on those terms. Judge I must say that I think the defendant done quite right in taking the course he has done; I think the plaintiff has behaved very well, too, i° cepting it. t A verdict was then entered for the plaintiff & damages and costs. t Mr Corke (on the Special jury) My Lord,-Wethl we are entitled to two guineas for attending here. Judge: For what ? Mr Bowen For doing nothing. (Laughter.) Mr Corke We have been in attendance three 4 Judge: What great injustice we do tothe C Jurywhogetnothing. This concluded the business of the Assize, and 00 Court rose. ding

[No title]

SOUTH WALES RAILWAY TIME TABLE^