Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

26 articles on this Page

,pMORGANSHIRE ASSIZES. '.

News
Cite
Share

pMORGANSHIRE ASSIZES. *KFFIAY—FIRST CùURT. CT**6 Yr. J lactase Grw-'inffi.) CUnt AGATNST A BAJSKXNG 1 %N COMPANY. ^&-AIT £ S BY HIE JUDGE. E>o» ul Banking Company (Liini. w:a.rtng of the CJUTO in. «»h:ch Mary L%J wife of a. builder at Pontypridd, TLI ULL 'E:R the name of Griffiths and Co., TAJR °F £ 257 from Lloyds Banking ^OR WOR^: done and mate- r WLUT LRT connection with the building >NTC? *N Fencerig-street, Pontypridd, *R Mr. Brynmor JONES, Q.C., 9, Kelly (instructed by Mr. W. R. !&• AL^PR'^D) appeared for the plaintiff, S Thomas, Q.C., M.P., and Mr. | (instructed by Messrs. Spickett r &. ^^YPRIDD) for the defendant oom- AW^OICAL evidence was GIVEN, and Thomas, for the defence, and (JW 2T J ones for the plaintiff, addressed S^FCFCH J^DGS summed up at eonsider- HE commenced by saying that it J*XA'T remarkable that in all the CASES V TRI°D AT those assizes there had Raaa*; ISSUES raised between the pax- V*0H KA<L, NO doubt, been downright K11* 8 6 OR ^IE °ther. In that case direct perjury committed, and J^°°D blinking at the seriousmess of CONTINUING, his Lord-lrp commented of people who, having failed in gone through the. bankruptcy- and before obtaining their 'PUT their wives forward as the person re-commenced on a. larger scale He thought it was A dishonest prac- SKS ]W U<* UPON the public. He did not C* anything to do with the case under WHAI was the position of the plain- 0^^? Her husband failed, and before NK KET his discharge he re-started as a BIT Before he was simply Da-vid Crif- he WAS Griffiths and Co. He 0T^|IP) was anxious to know who was the who was the "Co. but he had VWFCS^RTAIN. The wife, he was told, wae and David Griffiths might BE the wife knew absolutely nothing AND HAD not even appeared in WHICH she was plaintiff. SHE was JXJJ A nonentity AS far as tlie law wa.s Dealing with the evidence, his that the ease relied largely upon which had been, put in, in which V MADE to a "contract of £ 300." C> W^4°A,TEE were signed by David Grif- W^AN cross-examined about them, never saw the words "contract T*1" WOU^D not have signed the IT was for the jurv to decide whether V THE truth or not. but was it CJI A man of his age and experience 8EVERAL documents without reading C«C^GH? Mr. Jones, in his extremity, L'D that the architect, or someone j THE words in after the oartifioate YCT «jgned. That WAS a very serious S >A« F AR-F?E of fraud of the grossest kind— VC) for THE jury to decide whether it had VS TTJJ^ION. Personally, he could not I charge was true. In conclu- IV JV.HIP directed the jury's attention L'* °F corroboration of plaintiff's 6tory. LW shortly before one o clock, L R^TURR> into court until ten minutes THEN the foreman (Mr. Ace) STATED not agree upon a verdict. O- I understand you oonrld not VW^HL18 A grea.t pIty, for IT ^*11 mean FCVT 'E EXPENSE, and a good de:<I of time. VI.'VFOIV?- inquire into the difficulties, LIJF'TY08111!? there should be a JOT eider able SC'ME •0I?9 way, it is usual unless any J? ^CV-?3 ^VOLVSED, for the minonFV to con- R TO K_ E majority tliink. If not, it will t"tt t ue tried again, and the pL be" will considerable expense. It ;s better VR IVIIF P°SSIHIE. V°NI 1113,11 *• There IS very litt'.e chance, >TT,^ '8 A PI- NA^ J THINK ?«*<* go HACK. I cannot DISCHARGE I *H FW,'»-F?AUFL9 IT IS a matter M which it is FLKW there should lie a verdict. ML 'Q'I-F!? REtired, and, after an absence of i ^TURNED, when the FORONUN stated V>TI{R I FI(Treed upon A verdict for the • ^HOD to add vhat the piry did NNFR IDEA OI fraud or torjrerv on V^-A.N FT8ER*- Spickett, Lewi?, a NC1 Evans. V *H«"„?IR AFTERWARD Mr. Abel -Hinjnas VTOICV.RJI ^LIEN <!IE verdict was #»<*>» K^O AN appeal. state a case with a JLS* THIR'IN^HITO^ HE did not mind FCJW one—wrong ENTWI^' ve-dsct was a K5<! of THE JUry a.nd THJ' He AOUGFIT the L quite MFLTMSISTANT. TR ^ARKS tliev made ^<ZZTlie" F JRI ™C,3I REFEREE NR » -cither ^WJBETWOEN the PARTIES R 'I FEE ° asrreed WF FT FN-RT^N ^VS ANDVL,3' V$ £ ^LUT ^HT be DORA^UHEJ^ V' W' verdiot the verdict of the (W 1])^ he thought Mr. I H^MAS was entitled aud he would, therefore, state A TO RECOVKR POSSESSION °F A SHOP.. X- SICKENS.—This WAS an action M M^SRS. Spickett and Sons, Ponty- V^U'.I. R^0J:VER L>OWEI?FIION of A -'•HOP AT IR^L'DIR.JRA, Tonj'-pandy, new in THE C IF' of the defendant, a builder. Mr. ^>W;LIILTIFFLAFI, M-R' «PPTIARED FOR \V 3 1,6 defendant coi ducted his Thomas explained that the VT' ^1S WA> On the 20th of April, K,' OF entered into a leaee with the & f0R ^T^.EN for certain land at Tonv- HIFTJ R>7UDDING purpo^as. ILESNRE. Spickett ANd defendant -iiso obtained VWUIJ RF °F £ 1,750 from the Merthyr and J *5EJ) ^^FIT Building Society. H'1 failed JW ,v18 RE-tayments, and OP the 31tst |C' LB95. the sum of £ 63 8s. 6d. was R,6 EWIET> ON the 11th cf March, PROPERTY was sold to Messrs. Spickett, 1^J^INED possession.—The Judge held V'TY were the lo?al possessors of the therefore, entitled to possession. IVWJ) A verdict for plaintiffs, and allowed 'K "KE I1^ANT: May I have a week to get >\OV DRE: YO'- VISS0RY N0TE TRANSACTION. FW'H .HUEHES and Richards.—ITIIS wa3 a John Hnghos Jones, groc.?r, of SAMUEL Hughes and Henry J SLL^ » °F ^erndale, for THE recovery of V*I TI F^RORRII'SSORV note. Mr. D. Brytimor H.P., and Mr. IS. Hill Kelly (in- MR. W. R. Davies, sol cit ir, Pontv- T>TA^ for THE plaintiff. aLd Mr. S. VL '1 AND Mr. Arthur Lewis (in- Messrs Linton and Kenshole. of r TF. *°TIivi°r defendants. It was alleged T L? W7, ON THE strength of A note signed °A ^ENDANTS, the plaintiff was induced jvpNs ^RED Ridhards the sum of £ 100. NH 6 FCTI!0 WAS then A grocer at Ferndale, "SHED to go in for a public-house ^NSTEAD OF doing that he got into SS^ J?Eulties, and was now living in DI^^0R the defence it transpired that JFCJJW A NOT eign THE document, but that his Avritten by HIS wife. Richards VIN^ signed. bu4 said did so on VV^JJ^T^NDING THAT the document had been WHIH1 LIATV,8^116 HUGHES and another RV? FOT^^D Ann Edwards.—Judgment was MTK ^^DANTS.—The Judge expressed MR. Jonea, but said he thought he Uuprudently. SECOND COURT. VH 8 Mr. Justice Lawrance.) -heard case of Jenkins v. Merandez I AT the Crown Court on Friday.— Sarah Jenkins, sued Richard FCYJ?* Merandez. her brother, for money JV* ^NDERED at defendant's request, JV^F ? RESIDENCE, food and goods supplied, of ^RSE "Bounce and a P^NY, VJU Is., and damages for removing W?^ notice. Mr. S. T. Evans, M.P., V'> ^J ^R the plaintiff; Mr. Abel Thomas, VI VIUIERS MEAGER defended.—The CUT of a dispute between brother STAJHIW Plaintiff is ter.ant of a farm called »VT liv' ?EAR Neath, while her father and *KVC^IHTO. AT the Court Fann, Port Talbot, ^H' to A total of JES24 Is., ^°H defendant SET up a counter claim £ 190 of which was for the alleged *V(W^ W°J plaintiff of several cows *DEFENDANT.—Mr. Meager explained A! defendant, who was called and YAFT LENGTH. He said the unpleasantness MAA-RIAGE, in March, 1896. of about half an hour the into court with a verdict for the £ 221. They disallowed the AND the oosts, of course, followed ^,VALE COMPANY'S CLAIM, T S ^VE 'WAGONS loaded with sleepers ■i THE Vale of Glamorgan Railway HLVV IJ* WERE burnt, but there WAS some WIN they were set on fire. The TK^T5> (VJ^^D to the Brecon and Merthyr T})E S^PWIY, but as they H»d been passed I T? {^!? TO +K Company the latter were, ■ clearing regulations, respon- I RE,°°n and Merthyr. They, there- I V^V +IJ^ROM Messrs. Pethick, ihe oon- K Vr.LE of Glamorgan Railway, I? RFM HE^J.Y °' damages. No arrangement P^0K)E to the case was entered for WLANW>RGAN Assiaes, but cm Friday TK/1" Banks informed Mr. Justice ^EFEN I A SETTLEMENT had been arrived consenting to judgment for THE plaintiffs taking the was entered accordingly. Bailhaohe (instructed by VR^ ^D Sons) w-jre for the JftnC -^R^UR Levns (instructed by JJ NS, Barry) for the defendants.

C0URT-

OPTHALMIA AT ELY SCHOOLS.

. ANNUAL DINNER OF CARDIFF…

—.» EDUCATION AT LLANDRINDOD…

.. INSURANCE CASE AT MERTHYR.

Advertising

CARDIFF WATERWORKS.

.ST^ JOHN'S CHURCN. CARDIFF

CABDIFF CORPORATION OFFICALS.

. N.U.T. BAZAAR AT SWANSEA.

.---...,...---WINDSOR DOCK…

SOUTH GIATTGRCIIA^ CONSERVATISM.…

EAST GLAMORGAN CONSERVATIVE…

A CARDIFF BURGLAR AT BRISTOL.

Advertising

LICENSING QUESTION. I

------------------------MUMBLES…

CARDIFF CORPOIIATION AND THE…

SWANSEA COiRFORATIOX FINANCES.

. DOCTOR QUESTION AT MERTHYR.

Advertising

NEW RECTOR OF NEATH.

-----.----------NORTH WALES…

PENARTH MISSING GIRL,

ST. DAVID'S AFFILIATION CASE.