Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

8 articles on this Page

glfrtlmr & Jbetta.




ABERDARE. A correspondent writes :—In your account of the Rustic Sports at the above place on the occasion of the Prince of Wales's marriage it should have been stated, that the hurdle race was won by Mr. Morgan's Princess Alexandra." Mr. Watkins's Nell" passed the winning post first. but having gone round the hurdles was disqualified, Polly" and htttle Lady" were distanced. In the Pony race it should be stated also, that, Black Bess"—who did not start- was disqualified through being over the stipulated height, and not through having run the wrong side of the flags. FATAL OCCURRENCE AT THE GADLYS IRON WORKS. -An inquest was held by Geo. Overton, Esq., on the bodies of Thomas Williams and Joseph Jenkins, who were killed at the above works. It appeared from the evidence that the deceased with others were at work pulling down the bosh" of No. 2 blast furnace, when a large quantity of material fell upon the deceased, and they died on being carried home. The witnesses said they deemed the furnace quite safe. Verdict, "Accidental deaths." COUNTY COURT, MARCH 11. The sittings commenced on the above day, and were continued on the 12th, before T. Falconer, Esq. In the cause list were 23 adjourned cases, 880 new plaints, 59 summonses after judgment, and 7 scire facias total, 449. THE MARRIAGE REJOICINGS. During an interval in the business in the early part of the day, seeing the Rev. T. Price, Baptist minister, in the court, his Honour called to him by name and .said,—" You, I know, take a great interest in, and labour assiduously for, the promotion of moral and intellectual improvement. I-am induced to make a few remarks from the very gratifying im- pression left on my mind by the demonstration on the 10th. To see so vast a body of mechanics, labourers, colliers, miners, and other sons of toil shewing in attire and demeanour self-respect, and willing compliance with the rules of well regulated society, was indeed a pleasing sight-a sight in most delightful antagonism to what would have occurred in my more youthful days amongst such a multitude upon such an occasion. Then we should during the day have had brawls and fights, intoxication and de- bauchery at night all kinds of looseness and iniquity. On the 10th we saw a well ordered assemblage, en- joying their holiday with free hearts and merry countenances; the children of the schools a credit to their parents and teachers; and the whole a sure index to the wonderful progress of the adult and rising generation, under the auspices and christian supervision of men like yourself, who devote their energies and abilities to the social and intellectual developement of the flocks entrusted to their care. Mr. Price, in a few expressive words, thanked his Honour, and observed that he never heard the Na- tional Anthem to such perfection as when rendered by the multitude of young voices. 14,500 children entered at one gate of Abernant Park, and the scene on presentation of the Sunday School Bible to Mrs. Fothergill was truly soul cheering. IMPORTANT JUDGMENT REFERENCE FROM THE COURT OF CHANCERY. Isaac Donere Jenkins, executor of Thomas Mor- gan, against Gwenllian Richards, administratrix and widow of David Kowell Richards, formerly a miner, and John Jones. This was a bill filed in the Court of Chancery, January 6th, 1862. By an order made by Vice-chancellor Stuart, and by consent on the 27th day of June, 1862, it was referred to the Judge of the County Court, at Aberdare (T. Falconer, Esq.) with power to him to deal with the suit and the sub- ject matter thereof in the same manner as the judge might have done on the hearing of the cause, and it was ordered that each party might apply as advised. The cause came on for hearing at Aberdare in Jan- uary, 1863, when Mr. W. R. Smith for the plaintiff, and Mr. F. James for the defendant, were heard at great length. There were forty affidavits filed. His Honour in giving judgment said, considering that so far as the plaintiff is interested in the suit every personal object be could legitimately seek to gratify was obtainable in this court, it is to be re- gretted that these proceedings in chancery were in- stituted. The husband of Mrs. Richards died Feb- ruary 13th, 1860, indebted amongst other simple contract debtors to Thomas Morgan, since deceased, in the sum of XL31 18s. 6d. Of this sum she after- wards paid to the plaintiff the sum of £ 1. At the time of filing the bill the debt dble to the plaintiff was about .£20 18s. 6d. Mr. Richards, at the time of his death, was possessed of six houses situated in Mill-street, Aberdare, demised from the 25th March, 1828, for the term of 99 years. Of these leaseholds John Jones, one of the defendants, was the mortgagee for the sum of £ 169 16s., or say £170. On the 19th April, 1881, there then being due to the plaintiff, as executor, the sum of £ 20 18s. Oll., he sued Mrs. Richards, as -executrix de son torr,' and she pleaded plena administrant' of such goods as she bad- re- ceived. The C¡lU,.e was heard in the County Court of 17th May, 1801, and the brief minute of the judgment was to pay immediateiy as to the goods which were of the deceased and referring to a certain numbered form contained in the rules of court. On the 4th June, 1861, or seven days after the judgment, Evan Griffiths, a surveyor, gave a certificate of his valuation of the leasehold cottages to John Jones, the mortgagee, for the sum of £175, which sum of money be stated to be the ample value of the same, taking into consideration their very delapidated state. On the 18th June, 1861, or fourteen days afterwards, Mrs. Gwenllian Richards sold and executed a deed of assignment to John Jones of the residue of the said term of 99 years for the sum of £ 170. And berr; it is important to notice that the late husband of Mrs. Richards was the first cousin of <lobn Jones, and that he was the brother nf wife John Jones. The bill is filed in order that it shall be declared, that tbe release of the equity of redemption of the said leasehold was fraudulent and void, and that it may be delivered up to be cancelled. The rules of law affecting this cia-is of cases maybe illustrated by these authorities. If," said Lord Redesdale, there be two person;- ready to purchase—the mortgagee and another—the mort- gagor stands equally between them—and if the mortgagee shall refuse to convey to another purchaser the mortgagor can compel him, by applying the pur- chase money to pay off the mortgage. It can there- fore only be for want of a better purchaser he can be compelled to sell to the mortgagee. But courts view transactions of that sort even with considerable jea- lousy, and will set aside sales of the equity of re- demption, where by the influence of his incumbrance, the mortgagee has purchased for less than others would have given, and there are circumstances of misconduct in obtaining the purchase." (Webb v. R0rk, 2 sch., and lef, 673.) "So if one concert with an executor or legatee by obtaining the testator's effects at a nominal price, or at a fraudulent undervalue, or by applying the real value to other subjects on his own behalf, or in any other manner contrary to the dutv of the office of executor, such concert will in- volve the seeming purchaser or his pawnee, and make v him liable for the full value." Or as stated by Lord Cran worth, in the late case of Walker v. Taylor, in the House of Lords, (8 Jurist 684), "Where an executor parts with any portion of the assets of the testator under such circumstances as that, the per- son purchasing them must be reasonably taken to know that they were sold not for the benefit of the estate, but for the purpose of the executor selling and disposing of them for his own benefit, the result of that is that the purchaser holds the assets as if he were himself, in respect of those assets, the executor." And as regards the purchase of estates at an undervalue when the purchase cannot be sustained, the Court of Chancery in the case of Jones v. Ricketts (8 Jurist 1198), set aside the sale of a reversionary interest where the money paid was £ 200 and the value was £ 238, or a difference of £ 38. In the case of Foster v. Ro- berts (7 Jurist 480), a sale was set aside of a similar interest where the money was £ 370, and the value was £:100. or a difference of only £:30. It re- mains then in the case before me to consider the circumstances under which the sale was made. The legal rules which govern this contention are. clear enough This suit is not one for the administration of the the assets of Richards, and no order for the sc payment of the debt due to Morgan or his represents fives can be made in this suit. If the leaseholds were sold at an undervalue the defendants might have been made chargeable on account of their al. leged eoliusion, by a mere effectual process than that which has been adopted. The first question is, has the leasehold property been sold at an under- value, that is, simply sold at such a price as one per- son for special reasons might say he would give, or merely sold for something less than the sum paid for them, but whether within the fair limits of what'the courts have held to be a substantial difference of price regarding the variations of different valuations there has been a disposal of the property at an undervalue injurious to the estate which Mrs. Richards had to administer. Not, however, that mere valuation is at all times conclusive. There must be a discretion exercised in sales-there must be care and watchfulness, and there must be good faith. It may be difficult to ascertain the motives which urge the performance of various acts of life, but there are many disputed cases, the solution of which depends on the determination of what was the intention of the parties, (Phillips v. Bistolli, 2 B. C. 511), and it is constantly necessary to estimate the good faith or character of certain acts by the manner of their performance. First, then, as regards the value of the property. On this point the wit- nesses on both sides may be divided into professional and unprofessional persons. Mr.. Evan Griffith, a surveyor, valued the property at £ 175, and his valua- tion shall presently be examined in detail. Mr. Thomas Watkins, an innkeeper, values it at £170. Mr. Evans, a grocer, at £ 170, and Mr. W. Harris, an auctioner, at .£166. These speak for the defendants. On the part of the plaintiff, Mr. Morris says he is willing to give £24.0. Mr. Thomas, a grocer, puts it at £280..Mr. Williams, a grocer, at £ 220. Mr. John Jones, a grocer, at £ 240. Mr. Iienshole, at £25û. Mr. Gawn, at 230, which, in a supplemental affidavit, he says he would reduce. Mr. Jenkins, a surveyor, at £234, which sum also be would reduce. Mr. Charles, a builder, at £2;}0 or £ 240. Mr. Ro- berts, at £246. Mr. William Griffith, at £218, and Mr. Hall, at £ 238. This in a formidable array of valuers, but the number is very considerably reduced when the elements of valuation are sought for. In fact there are only four who express any particulars of their estimates, Yet it is not a fancy price which is sought after, but what may fairly from usual and recognised particulars of valuation be calculated as the price. Now it is admitted by all that the houses require repair. Mr. W. Griffith puts this expense at £ 27, as ah immediate outlay. Mr. Thomas Jones at from £ 40 to £ 50. Mr. Charles at X-12. Mr. Evan Griffith at ,£50. Mr. Roberts at £75, and Mr. Hall at £75. Secondly, Mr,. W. Griffith, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Roberts consider the annual gross value to be .±'31 10s. 6d., and Mr. Evan Griffith to be £ 31 4s. Thirdly, Mr, Evan Griffith puts the annual out- goings to be 1'6 4s., consisting of ground rent £ 1 3s. 6d., rates and taxes X3, and loss of tenants and poundage on. collection at £2. I should have thought something should be added to these items on account of annual repairs. Mr. E. Griffith makes the net income £ 25. Mr. W. Griffiths makes the outgoings amount to £4. Mr. Griffiths makes them to be 1'4 2s. 6d., and Mr. Hall does not specify them. Fourthly, Mr. Evan Griffiths values at seven years' purchase, Mr. W. Griffith and Mr. Hall at ten years, and Mr. Roberts at nine years. The sums of £ 25, £2ï 8s., or £27 10s. 6d. represent the estimated annual net income. Mr. Jones, the mortgagee, says the average net income has been zCI8 lis. Id. Mr. Morris, however, believes he has netted X30 a year. Thi-Jre is a dispute as regards the quantity «f the land valued and the quantity actually demised. The valuations may be most clearly expressed thus:- Mr. Evan Griflith. £ s. d. Sent 31 4 0 Outgoings 6 4 0 25 0 0 7 years'purchase 175 0 0 Mr. W. Griffith. Rent. 31 10 6 Outgoings 4 0 0 27 10 6 10 years' purchase 275 5 0 Repairs (immediate outlay).. 27 0 0 248 5 0 If in Mr. Evan Griffith's valuation his estimate for repairs of X50 is deducted, his valuation would be £ 125 and not £175. If his valuation is changed to 10 years' purchase, then deducting X-,50 for repairs, the result would be £ 200. But if the repairs are taken at the estimate of Mr. Hall or Mr. Roberts, the re- sult would be to put the value at X169 or £170. In the same way the estimate of Mr. W. Griffith, for- merly a manager here for the Ecclesiastical Commis- sioners, at £ 275, would be reduced to X200 by the deduction of J675 on account of repairs. His estimate is for the present value. The higher price in this case (above £ 175) arises from the estimate of the outgoings being at zC4 instead of X6 4s. The other estimates are these:— Mr. Hall. £ s. d. Rent. 31 10 6 10 years'purchase 315 5 6 Repairs 76 0 0 238 0 0 Mr. Roberts. Rent 31 10 6 Outgoings 4 2 6 27 8 0 9 years' purchase 246 12 0 Repairs 75 0 0 171 12 0 Mr. Roberts, however, states that the expenditure of £ 75 would make them as good as new, and then they would be worth £323. If outgoings of £6 for 10 years were taken from the estimate of Mr. Hall, the result would be £179. He takes repairs from his valuation, but Mr. Roberts has not done so, though had he done so at £75, the result would be as above, namely £171 12s. Mr. Hall, who is surveyor of the Board of Health, does not specify any outgoings. If £4 were deducted the difference would be Jess. On this state of facts I shall first take 10 years to be the proper, term of valuation. The second question will be, what is to be allowed for repairs ? This consider- ation is complicated by the surveyors, one of whom puts it in reduction of the present price, as Mr. Hall does, and some Treat it as an outlay productive of future increased annual value. If the rental will not increase from the repairs, then it must h", m reancuon or present price, as Mr. Hall has done, and my opinion is to this effect :-I adopt the higher estimates of Mr. Hall and Mr. Roberts for the full repairs of the property. There are six houses, and they are admitted to "he in a bad state of repair. The lait question is, what amount is to be deducted for annual outgoings ? Is it to be X6 4s. or X4: 2s. 6d.? The ground rents must be deducted. Mr. E. Griffiths has specified his estimate of this amount, and it has not been contested. The result is that the sale of the equity of redemption was not made at a price to authorise the cancellation of the deed of assignment. The affidavits in point of form are in the highest degree unsatisfactory in omitting a precise statement of the elements of valuation. I think an impropar course was pursued in the sale of the equity of re. dereption. So soon as the plaintiff failed in recover- ing in the County Court about £21 from Mrs. Richards we find her conveying tba equity of redemption by a private arrangement to the mortgagee. The person who comes forward to effect the sale is the mortgagee himself, and not a person fulnlling the duty of ex- ecutor. The price agreed on is fixed by the certifi- cate of Mr. Evan Griffith, procured by Mr. Jones the mortgagee, and it was not sought for by Mrs. Richards, who ought to have been protected by some person in. structing her on the safest mode of protecting the interests of the creditors of the husband. It is deeply to be lamented that so costly a process as a suit in Chancery should have been permitted in order to recover the sum of £21. It can oniy ter- minate in the distress of one or both of the parties. So long, however, as the law permits this game of beggar my neighbour" to be played, I can only call attention to the terrible consequences as they must be exhibited in the misery and loss of the winners as well as the losers in such a game. The setting aside of this deed of assignment would have put no money hy any order in this suit into the pocket of the plain- tiff. It would only be a preliminary step to the acquirement of that money which, even if the deed were set aside, might have been procurable by easier and cheaper methods than those which have been preferred. On the other hand, regarding the family connexion of Mrs. Richards and John Jones, and the violent baste exhibited on their part to conclude the sale, and to withdraw the property from any suit in the County Court, or from the claims of creditors, their conduct might reasonably suggest the greatest infirmity of good faith and honesty on their part. The decision, however, must be governed by the es- timate of the value of the property as explained in j the affidavits, and the bill must reluctantly be dis- j missed with costs.


Idietwrai flciu.t .



[No title]