Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

3 articles on this Page

NEWPORT COUNTY COURT.

News
Cite
Share

NEWPORT COUNTY COURT. The adjourned Court was held on Saturday last, at the Town-hall, before J. M- Herbert, Esq., Judge, for the purpose of hearing several cases which had been left over from the previous Tuesday. Among theui was an impor- tant reference case, a report of which we subjoin. Clalk v. Earl.-The plaintiff in this case is a painter and glazier at Newport, and the action was brought, as stated by Mr. Champ, who appeared for the plaintiff, to recover damage from Wm. Earl, the defendant, for a breach of contract, in leaving his employ without giving proper notice. Plaintiff, in his examination, said the de- fendant was employed at the rate of 18a. per week, and at the time of the alleged breach of contract he was em- ployed in painting a bridge on the Monmouthshire Rail- way Company's line that he left the work in the middle of a job upon which he was engaged, thus subjecting plaintiff to the necessity of going up to Crumlm to fetch a man to fill his place. He had hired the defendant by the week, and not by the day and when he left, he re- fused to pay him for the broken portion of the week defendant then summoned plaintiff before the magistrates for the amount of the two days' work beyond the time to which he had been paid and the magistrates ordered that the amount should be paid.—His Honour, aftei hearing the defendant's statement, came to the decision that as it was a weekly hiring, and the plaintiff had not paid weekly, he had committed the first breach of con- tract. His judgment must, therefore, be for the defendant. Ann Leonard v. Wm. Perren.—This was a claim of £ 7 odd, which was admitted by the defendant but it was sought to prove a set-off for cider sold by defendant to plaintiff. It appeared, however, that this cider had been brought back to Mr. Perren by the plaintiff, he stating that the men for whom it had been brought did not like it. Adjourned for the production of further evidence. Scard v. PhilLpotts.—Mr. Cathcart, who appeared for the plaintiff, stated that some years ago his client became lessee of a small farm called The Oaklands," in the parish of Malpas, under a Mr. Boyd that he subsequently assigned his interest in this lease to the defendant, Mr. Phillpotts, for the whole term, with the usual covenants on the part of the defendant to observe the conditions of the lease from Boyd to Scard. For some reason or other, however, Mr. Boyd declined to acknowledge Mr. Phill- potts in any way in the matter, and called upon the plaintiff Scard for the rent. He paid two years rent after assigning the lease to Mr. Phillpotts, and now sought to recover that amount from him. The plaintiff, being cross-examined by Mr. Champ, who appeared for the de- fendant, said he had applied to Mr. Phillpotts for the rent, but he refused to pay it: he distrained upon his goods for the amount. Mr. Phillpotts replevied, and a writ had been issued against Mr. Scard, at the suit of Mr. Mr. Phillpotts, for an illegal distress. This action is now pending. His Honour deferred his judgment to the next Court. Sir John Kerle Haberfield and others, assignees of Samuel T. Johnson, v. Samuel Homfray.—This action was brought to recover the sum of L37 9s. 9d., alleged to be due to the assigness of Mr. Samuel Thomson Johnson, tailor, Bristol. Mr. Johnson, who had become insolvent, had formerly been a traveller for Mr. Bremner, tailor, Bristol, and had, in that capacity, gone to Glenuske, the residence of the defendant, and*sold clothes to his son, Mr. Charles Homfray, for which his father had always paid. Mr Johnson. last year, after being nearly 20 years in Mr. Bremner's employ, commenced business on his own account, and on three or four occasione had sold clothes to Mr Charles Homfray, charging them to his father. The first order he took from Mr. Charles Homfray, at the King's Head, amounted to £7 12s. Witness saw Mr Samuel and Mr. Augustus Homfray on the day he took the order. On another occasion he obtained an order from Mr. Charles Homfray, amounting to JE6. There were subse- quent orders received and executed, the parcels generally being left for Mr. Homfray either at the King's Head, or Tredegar Arms Hotel. The plaintiff said that all the charges were quite reasonable he had seen Mr. Samuel Homfray, and presented him with the account for his son Charles's clothes he became violent, and expressed great annoyance at his son's extravagance. Mr. Fox, who appeared for the defendant, cross-examined Mr. Johnson at some length, with a view to show that Mr. Samuel Homfray had specifically requested Mr. Bremner not to supply any goods to his son without an order from him (Mr. Samuel Homfray.) The witness admitted that a letter had been sent by Mr. Homfray to Mr. Bremner, requesting him not execute a particular order from Mr. Charles Homfray, which, because of its high amount, Mr. Bremner had written to Mr. Samuel Homfray to know if he would authorise. He was not aware, however, that a general prohibition to supply goods to the order of Mr. Charles Homfray, was received by Mr. Bremner from Mr. Samuel Homfray —Mr. Lorenzo Augustus Homfray was called and questioned as to his brother's age. He said he could not speak to it, as he did not know it; he believed he might be about 21, but did not know his age. He had himself remonstrated with his brother Charles as to his extravagance in clothes but had not heard his father speak to him about it; his father bad told Mr Bremner that he was not to supply goods to his son without an order from him. —The Judge here remarked that Mr. Johnson, after receiving orders for so many years from Mr. Homfray, on account of Mr. Bremner, ought not to have supplied Mr. Charles Homfray with such an unrea- sonable quality of clothes as he had charged for, without his father's authority. Mr. James Bremner was called, and said that he had supplied Mr Homfray's family with clothes for 10 or 12 years. He once received information from Mr. Johnson that Mr Samuel Homfray complained of the items in a bill which had been sent to him. He received two letters from Mr. Samuel Homfray's sister, which be had destroyed In consequence of those letters, he told Mr. Johnson that he was, not to supply any more goods to Mr* Charles Homfray's order, without authority from his father. In 1854, the goods supplied for Mr. Charles Homfray amounted to £39 odd In 1856, the whole amount was £17 6d. From April, 1856, to Jan 1857, he supplied Mr. Charles Homfray with no goods. There was an item in the account for 1854, for cigars, which Mr. Samuel Homfray objected to. He had not supplied Mr. Charles Homfray with any goods since January of this year. He had refused to supply one order received through Mr. Johnson, but was then assured by Mr. Johnson that Mr. Samuel Homfray had authorised him to send any goods which his son Charles ordered.— His Honour remarked that he felt no difficulty whatever in the case, but if the plaintiff wished him to reserve his judgment, he would do so.—Mr. Champ said he should prefer it, and judgment was reserved accordingly. James v. Richard Town send.—This was a judgment sum- mons for non-payment of L2 6s. 61., for standing in the market on Wednesdays and Saturdays selling goods for defendant, also for cleaning his house from the 18th Oct. to end of Dec. 1856, with other items. Mr. Morris appeared for plaintiff, and endeavoured to show that the charges were not correctly stated, and that no money was justly owing to defendant 1 he plaintiff was called and said he was a green-grocer, having a stall in the market; some- times he employed the defendant, but he always paid her wages as soon as they were earned. She got into his debt, for which he sued her in the County Court, and subsequently obtained a judgment summons against her. The present action, it was attempted to show, was brought merely as a reprisal. The two judgment summonses were set off against each other, and 5s. a m,\nth ordered to be paid. Elizi Knight v. Wiiiam I homas -The plaintiff sued for :£5. Mr. Champ for plaintiff, and Mr. Owen for defendant. The money was for goods supplied, and the defence set up was that they were not supplied to Thomas, but to his wife. His Honour went through the accounts, and found that the debt amounted to more than set forth. The books had always been kept by the defendant, the plaintiff being unable to write. Judgment for plaintiff for full amount. IMPORTANT TO COLLIERY PROPRIETORS & SURVEYORS. Robert Smithy.Thomas ProtheroP* ice.—Thiswas an action removed to this court from the Court of Queen's Bench for adjudication by his Honour. Mr. Champ appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. R J. Cathcart for defendant. Mr. Champ opened the case, and said that the action was brought to recover E315 4s. 4d., E136 for work executed in sinking a pit, X-114 3s. 4d. for surveying and general super- vision of collieries, £:3b 13s. 4d. balance of salary for which work was executed, and the other item of JE77 10s. was considered due for breaking an agreement. He should prove that plaintiff was engaged by the year, and he was entitled to recover the charge for salary His Honour Where is your special account ? Mr. Champ said his Honour would have power to include it in the particulars. His Honour: You can't recover without a special account. Mr. Champ agreed to waive this item after some dis- cussion, and tbe case was proceeded with by calling James Temple Wightman, in the absence of Mr. Smith: I live at Llantarnam. Am z. colliery proprietor, and have works at Blendare. Know from my own knowledge what the custom is as regards the supervision of collieries. The custom is always to give three months' notice, or three month s salary. Witness looked over the particulars, and said he should require to give the subject further considera- tion before he decided on the charges being fair and reasonable. • Eobert Smith, the plaintiff, called: Is a mining engineer, living at Llantrissant, Glamorganshire. In the year 1855 remembered having some conversation with defendant. The conversation was relative to the management of his collieries. Mr. Price wished me to take the general super- vision of his col ieries for a fixed salary. I continued to supervise his collieries regularly for 12 months. Mr, Price paid me up to the 1st of January 1856, at the rate of 2311) per annum. He afterwards gave me a cheque for iio on account of the two following months, January and Febru. ary. After that he intimated that he should be obliged to do without my services, the coal trade not being good at that time I said I should require three months^ notice. It is always usual to give and take three months notice. I did some work in sinking a pit for defendant at Brynna Gwynion. I entered into another agreement with Mr. Price. He has one and I have the other, (agreement produced and put in). The agreement is not signed. I received a letter, dated May 20, 1856, from Mr. Price, in which he says—"I cannot lay my hand upon the agreement, but will carry it out in its integrity." After the agreement was entered into, the prices were reduced, on account of the work being less than was expected. (The particulars of the charges were read over, and affirmed by plaintiff.) He proceeded I hired a steam-engine of Messrs. Medwin and Hall, by special agreement. Mr. Price took the engine from me. and the bill for the carriage down from Padding- ton to Newport. I told Mr. Price I regretted hiring the engine, as I should not want it, and he said My dear sir, don't let that trouble you—I'll take it off your hands—it's just the thing 1 want" He requested me to send the engine back from Bridgend to Newport, and Mr. Price took the engine from ma at the Newport station. He paid 1;5 towards the carriage from Newport to Paddington. The engine was moved from the South Wales station by his order to the Western Valleys station. He promised to pay the hire of the engine to Messrs. Medwin and Hall. I had to pay the second half-year's hire myself. I was sued for it, and had to pay JE89. I also payed, in accord- ance with a second action, for the carriage of the engine back to London. I received a letter from the defendant, dated May 2nd, 1856, in which the latter said he was very hard up—his bankers were cross, and business not encou- raging and further advised me to keep out of the way of the bailiffs, and offer a composition to the creditors. After the receipt of that letter I came home, saw the bailiff, was served with the writ, and had to pay. Cross-examined by Mr. R. J. Cathcart: The portable engine contract with Medwin and Hall binds me for a twelvemonth. (The contract was put in and read, dated April 10th, 1855.) In the latter part of April, or begin- ning of May, Mr. Price agreed to take the engine. He was not living at Bridgend at the time it was sent there, and did not use it at all. I did not pay for the carriage, or any portion of the money with Mr. Price's cheque. Medwin and Hall did not draw upon me for the hire of the engine they wrote to me for the money. I did not give a bill for three months to Messrs. Medwin and Hall, for JE85. They refused to take my bill, or Mr. Price's. Mr. Price did not pay my bill and then accept my pro- missory note for the money. Mr. Cathcart called his Honour's attention to the dates in the accounts. The bill was due 17th July, 1855; and the promissory note was drawn on the 23rd of July, 1855, seven day after. Cross-examination continued I first acted for Mr. Price eight years ago. There are some arrears due for that period. Originally, there was no stipulated sum for what I was to do. The salary, when it was fixed, was P-310 per annum. I visited the collieries every week- sometimes twice a week. I kept no diary of my own attendance at the collieries. I was to report on the con- dition of the collieries. There were two pits at Cwmtillery, four levels at the same place, and one incline at Bed was. which I was required to survey. They were not all at work in January, 1856. To the best of my recollection they were all at work except a level at Cwmtillery. In the month of January I went to the Brynna pits, and spent three or four days there every week. I had the sa- tisfaction of doing that at my own expense. In the month of February I did the same as in January. I kept no account of the number of my visits to the collieries. I will not swear that I went to Bedwas during January and February. I cannot fix the number of times I was at Cwmtillery. I was there more than once. Mr. Price's pits were in a most deplorable and dangerous state, and I went very likely ten times. Mr. Price was afterwards fined. The first agreement (produced,) was never signed— I never could induce Mr. Price to sign it The document (handed up) was not prepared in the state it now is at the time the first agreement was drawn up. I never saw the alterations before. They were not made with my sanction. I was in two services at the same time prior to the agree- ment for £ 310 per annum. I was working for Mr. Price at the same time as for the Blaenavon Company. I was general mining engineer. I gave them three months no- tice at the end of 1855. During the time I was sinking the Brynna pit, in April, May, and June, I engaged men myself for Mr. Price. George Powell was my sub-con- tractor. He was paid by the yard. He engaged men to work for him- I know Evans, a shopkeeper. I did not authorise Powell to get goods from him in Mr. Price's name. I gave Powell a written order on Mr. Price for 22 At this time I don'c know how much I am indebted to Powell. Our accounts are not squared—Powell is waiting for the decision in this case before he is settled with. X6 ) has been paid to him in cash. I directed Powell to go to Mr. Price for money in my name. I was the messenger to pay 240 to Mr. Allen, an acquaintance of mine, and a sur- geon. I don't know why I paid the X40 to Mr. Allen. I had no receipt from him. This X40 was not a sum of money lent to Mr. Allen by request, and fplaced to my credit. Neither of us (witness and Mr. Allen,) owe each other a shilling. Re-examined The letter, dated 17th Feb., 1856, was received by me. (It expressed Mr. Price's satisfaction with the plaintiff, but stated that he was compelled to de- crease his expenditure. He also asked when Medwin and Hall's engine was to be returned, and concluded by say- ing I will leave the matter in your hands.') The moneys I paid to Mr. Allen for Mr. Price were given by cheque. Another letter, dated June 10th. 1856, expressed defend- ant's surprise that plaintiff's bill had not been paid. A letter of the 1st of March, 1856, was also put in and read. It charged the plaintiff with committing some blun- ders." and urged a careful expenditure for the future. Mr. Wightman was recalled, and stated that his general opinion was that the prices of Mr. Smith were reasonable. Cross-examined by Mr. Cathcart: The three months' notice is given whether the party is employed occasionally or continuously. I have given notice three times myself. I consider it my duty to give notice in conformity with general custom. Mr. Cathcart: Where services have been similar to those of Mr. Smith, can you specify any individual in- stance where notice has been given ?—Witness Not at this moment. George Powell, recalled: Was employed at the sink- ing of the Brynna pit, by Mr. Price. I have received three sums of Mr. Price, on an order from Mr. Smith. Witness mentioned the terms under which he was engaged, corroborating the testimony of Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith was managing and superintending the pit. Cross-examined I saw bim once or twice a -week at Brynna. I was sub-contractor to Mr. Smith, (terms of agreement mentioned.) I received three sums of money from Mr. Price, with which I paid the workmen. My men have bad goods of Mr Evans. I did not tell Mr. Smith I was going to have goods afterwards I did tell him I have rendered an account to Mr. Smith for the work done at the pit He owes me about j381. I never had goods from Evans upon Mr. Price's credit. I did ren- der an account in writing to Mr Smith—it was a letter, nothing more. It stated what was due to me, and re- quested payment. I and Mr. Smith have been together at Evans's shop. We have not been there more than once on that business. It was after the goods were had. Mr. Smith merely sat down, and did nothing. James Williams, sinker, Abercam, proved that he worked at the Brynna pit in the early part of the year 1856, and was stopped by an agent of Mr. Price. Cross-examined Mr. Smith was managing when I worked at the pit. John Col wall, engineer, Llantarnam Recollected the pit sinking at Brynna. Was employed by Mr. Smith. Did not work after March. The engine was not put up because Mr. Price's agent stopped the work. Cross examined Was stopped work in March. Powell did nothing after that. I was employed by Mr. Smith, under Mr. Price. William Spickett, manager to the carriers of the South Wales Railway Company. Recollected moving the engine from the South Wales station to the Western Valleys. It was entered in the name of Mr. Price. Mr. Smith ulti- mately paid me the money. This concluded the case for the plaintiff, and the Court was adjourned by mutual consent till Tuesday. TUESDAY. The Judge, J. M. Herbert, Esq., attended in pursuance of arrangement, at the King's Head, on Tuesdav even- ing, to hear the remainder of the above c-ise. No one was present but the plaintiff and defendant, and their respective solicitors, Mr. Champ and Mr. R. J. Cathcart. The evidence was of an intricate, and, in many instances, technical character, and the Judge was occupied in an attentive investigation for about five hours. Mr. Champ put in several papers to complete his case, and Mr. R. J. Cathcart opened the case on behalf of his client, Mr. Price. The first matter to which he directed the attention of his Honour, was with reference to the first count, which charged his client with having made a contract for hiring the engine, paying rent. &c. Thi's he denied utterly. He would prove incontestibly that no contract was entered into. The letter produced on the other side, addressed to Medwin and Hall, though bearing prima facIe the interpretation put upon it by plaintiff, he would prove to be written for a different purpose. After Mr. Price had undertaken tlie colliery at Brynna, he altered his determination, and determined to relinquish it,. and Mr. Smith then engaged to take it off his hands. With regard to the engine, Mr. Price merely acted as a friend or agent with Mr. Smith. It was let to Mr. Ken- nard of the Viaduct Works, at jC4 per week, and Mr. Price effected this arrangement to relieve Mr. Smith from his embarrassment He woul 1 call attention to the dates The contract was from the 10th April, 1855, to the 10th of April, 1856. Mr. Price fixes his visit into Glamorganshire on the 25th or 26th of April, and the engine, about the 5th of May, arrives at Newport. He read a letter from Mr. Smith to Mr. Price, in which the former, alluding to the engine, expressed his sorrow that the latter should have so much tronble with it, and re- commending that it be advertised in the Monmouthshire Merlin. In a subsequent letter, the plaintiff offered to give his bill for the hire of the engine for six months, and concluded—" but I am very well aware I am debtor to you for the hire for the first six months, which, as I said before, shall be refunded in a few months." He after- wards refers to the engine as the troublesome portable engine." In another letter he asks the defendant to be good enough to "arrange about the engine," for which plaintiff would give his promissory note. On the 10th April, 1856, when the contract expired, plaintiff wrote in tlJlimilar spirit. On the 24th of April, he says—" Will you have the goodness to settle this matter, and furnish me with your receipts and payments on account of the engine." Mr. Cathcart urged that the tenor of these letters fullv established the fact that no contract was en- tered into to which Mr. Price was a party. The plaintiff i jj" as a personal favour" and kindness," to lend v.« to pay for the hire of the engine, which from Medwin and Hall, solely upon 1." „ 'I T? • being under a written contract with IT ,all» Would, enter into a merely oral agreement with the defendant? Mr. Cathcart then pro- ceeded to another count. He>a letter from plaintiff to defendant sukse^enUo the hiring of the engine by Mr. Smith (dated loth May, 1855), in which the plaintiff informed the defendant that he had serious thoughts of commencing" as colliery agent and surveyor, and asking him to use his influence to ohtain an opening. Owing to this letter, some negotiations took place in the nature of occasional employment, but no contract for a period of service was entered into. In one pa.rt of the account two month's salary was charged at JE30 and in a letter, plaintiff'asked defendant to make some "offer monthly for surveying and mapping his collieries. The sinking of the Brynna pit was undertaken by plaintiff in this sense of occasional labour. Whatever is due is so quantum meruit. He and his man, Powell, left off when they found it was a losing concern, and the work they did was almost value- lesak With reference to the goods supplied, it was repre- sented that the shop at Brynna belonged to Mr. Price, who subsequently disposed of it to Mr. Evaus. The contract between the plaintiff and Powell was remarkable, inas- much as the former yielded up all profit which might accrue to himself. Letters were read from plaintiff, which expressed his control over the shop accounts, and over the men who worked at Brynna. Mr. Cathcart having made these observations, called the defendant, Thomas Prothero Price, whose evidence was substantially that presented by his solicitor in his opening remarks. The witness stated that he went to Bridgend with plaintiff relative to a pit there, and bad some further conversation with him relative to the portable engine. In both cases be acted as the friend of plaintiff, and was not concerned in any contract. With regard to the engine, he stated in answer to his Honour, that it was not adapted to his purpose, nor did he ever imagine that it would be. He solemnly swore that he never agreed to hire or borrow the engine on his own account. Regarding the work done by plaintiff in defendant's collieries, witness denied that a contract was ever entered into. Several overtures were mada by defendant, but no definite agreement was entered into. With reference to the S40 handed over to Mr. Allen, witness stated that plaintiff came to- him and represented that he had been much indebted to the Aliens in their better days, and wished to return them a favour. Young Mr. Allen was in need of X40 to enable him to pass through the hospital, and if defendant would ad- vance the money, plaintiff offered to become joint security with Mr. Allen for its repayment. Upon this under- standing the money was advanced. Witness knew nothing at all of Allen himself. The defendant was cross-examined by Mr. Champ at some length. He said he did not recollect whether any letters had passed with Mr. Kennard relative to the engine. There might have been some memorandum, but he did not know what had become of it. He did not take the engine to his colliery at Abertil:ery, on account of the difficulty of getting it conveyed, nor to Bedwas, because it was not sufficiently powerful. Before the en- giue was brought down to Newport, no conversation had ensued between plaintiff and defendant on the subject. He could not approve of anything which Mr. Smith had done for him. He did not think him an incapable man but he considered he had spent money injudiciously with regard to the Brynna colliery. Thomas Jones Price, son of defendant, was called and examined. He deposed that he paid the cost of the car- riage of the engine in account of Mr. Smith, and sent him the receipt. He denied that he had stopped Powell from working, Edmund Jones, manager for Mr. Price at Brynna. was called to corroborate the matters of business detail comprised in Mr. Cathcart's opening remarks. With re- gard to the Brynna pit, witness stated that be examined it in company with a Mr. Francis, and found it sunk in a very unworkmanlike manner—so much so that it was unsafe. To repair this jE31 15s. 9d. was required. The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Champ. His tes- timony went to show that Mr. Price bad performed several kinds of work at the Brynna pit, some of which were still in existence. David Evans examined. His evidence tended to show that the plaintiff and Powell were responsible for the pay- ment of the men who were sinking the Brynna pit. Cross-examined They always used to say Mr. Price ought to pay for the flannel used by the men in sinking the pit. It was al ways usual for the coal proprietor to pay for the flannel. Enoch jFrancis proved that he examined the Brynna pit with Mr. Jones, and found it in a too dangerous condi- tion to work at it. If the work had been properly done it would have stood. In cross-examination witness admitted that he had made a partial failure in sinking a pit some time ago. William Hubbakuk, who also examined the Brynna pit, said it was not a plan he should have adopted in sinking it." He saw that if the sinking were continued it would fall in, and he therefore stopped it. In cross-examination the witness admitted that the ground in which the Brynna pit was sunk was very bad. William Jones was called to prove the number of times Mr. Smith attended at the Abertiliery pit. Admitted in cross-examination that if any one bad come to inspect the colliery he could have done so without witness seeing him. Thomas Jones was called for the same purpose. He saw Mr. Smith once a week or once a fortnight. This concluded the case for the defence. Mr. Champ applied for leave to call other witnesses with reference to certain points, which His Honour could not allow. 4r. Champ then asked His Honour to amend the decla- ration in order to permit the item for salary, referred to at the first sitting of the Court, being inserted. His Honour said it would be desirable to get rid of the dispute entirely, and therefore Mr. Cathcart might have no objection to allow the amendment. His Honour added that he felt some little difficulty in deciding upon the case, as it was not one solely of accounts, the latter being alone the kind of causes the superior courts had power to send to him for arbitration. Mr. Cathcart said he had no objection to refer that point for separate adjudication, allowing the evidence already taken to guide His Honour to a decision. His Honour advised them not to adopt this course, and ultimately it was mutually agreed to leave the matter in His Honour's bands., His Honour deferred his award, and rose at a quaiter past eleven. INSOLVENT. — Henry Williams, maltster, &c., of CaerleOn-ttTtra-Poutem, insolvent, obtained his final order, being unopposed. j

TOWN HALL, NEWPORT.—SATURDAY.

BAPTIST CELEBRATION AT NEWPORT.