Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

4 articles on this Page





CIVIL CAUSES. Ibrjhes v. Roberts.-This was a common jury case, the plaintiff being a single woman named Jaue Hughes, living at Ty Cae, Bethesda, who 1-1 11 sued her cousin. John Roberts, for £65 and interest- less £1:¿ and £ 10 received on a county court act:on- —Mr Marshall and Mr E. H. Lloyd (instructed hy Mr John Roberts, Bangor) were for the piainti.f, and Mr Higgins (instructed by Messrs Allans In and Evans) appeared for the defendant.— Mr Mar- shall stated that the question the jury had to decide was whether the JL65 was handed over to the de- fendant with the intention that he should return it to the plaintiff, or whethttr it was a gift from the plaintiff to the defendant.—The plaintiff, Jane Hughes, said that whilst in service in London as a conk she saved up Y,6,5, which she deposited in the savings bank. She had given a promissory note for Y,50 and 140 respectively. In August, 1.871, she arranged to go to Liverpool to undergo an opera- tion. Defendant, who followed in a few days, came with her to the post office aed received the £ 05, saying he would take charge of them for fear she should lose them. He had paid her Y.1 oec: sionally. She received the last instalment last September twelvemonth. He always used to say that Y.12 was interest. She never gave him the £ 65. She lent John Hughes, a few years ago, Y,40, when he said he wa.s in difficulties. Hughes was put in the county court, and was ordered to pay in full.—Cross-examined by Mr Higgina My relief was stopped when I went to Liverpool. I had only been in receipt of relief for a few weeks. I received 3s 6d relief for twelve weeks, and re- ceived 4s for a few weeks. 1 have not kept accounts. I handel the money (£65) to defendant shortly before going to Liverpool. I was never turned out of any lodging. The defendant, John Roberts, is my cousin. I never sent for him, but he always came to see me when I had money. I was per- suaded to draw out the money. I did not give the £ 50 to defendant. I gave it to him to collect,- Robert Owen said he bo-rowed JE50 from Jane Hughes, and gave her a promissory note, which was ultimately charged to that of John Hugh Roberts, and he (witness) paid the interest on the second note. He also gave the third note to Jane Hughes, and he paid the interest.-The defence was that the £ 60 was handed to the defendant as a gift, aud there was a counter claim of £30.- The case lasted about five hours, when the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for 1-17. Action against the High-sheriff of AngleBey,-Ou Monday his lordship took his seat at ten o'clock, when an action was brought against Mr Robert ap Hu Williams, the High-sheriff of Anglesey, by Mrs Louisa Jane Roberts, late of Garnedd Wen brewery, Anglesey, and by whom she claimed £ «>0 damages, suffered by alleged wrongful and negli- gent conduct of a certain seizure and sale under a writ of fieri facias.—Mr Marshall and Mr Mal- colm Douglas (instructed by Mr Pughe, Llclll- dudno) were for the plaintiff, and Mr Higgins and Mr E. J. Lloyd (instructed by Mr Charles A. Jones, acting under-sheriff,) appeared for the defendant.-fhe plaintiff was stated to be a widow, and proprietor of the Garnedd Wja brewery. Her husband died on the 10th Feb., 1884, and she became his administratrix. For about two years before her husband's death and for some time afterwards, a person named W m. Williams occupied the Liverpool Arms, a fully- licensed house at Menai Bridge, and was tra- veller for Mr Roberts, and subsequently for Mrs Roberts. He got into debt, the result being thlt an action was brought against him, and ulh- mately a writ put into the hands of the sheriff, who levied for JE74 13s and jSl 10s costs. On the 2!tth September two bailiffs went into possession, and the sale, such as did take place, came off oil the 3rd of October. However, the bailiff allowed a number of articles of furniture to be removed, and the sale was not properly advertised by means of placards, &c., in the manner pointed out by the statute. The only way in which the sale wai made public was by employing a crier from Ban- gor, who spoke very imperfect English. Cer- tainly a sale did take place in one lot to a brother of the defendant, but counsel's instructions were, that before the sale took place, an announcement was made to the few persona who attended that the matter had been settled. In point of fact, the occupier, Mr Williams, together with his brother and the auctioneer, Mr Tnomas of Car- narvon, went into a room at the public-house, and there the bargain was made, and the goods were sold in one lot to the brother for £25, and Mr Marshall maintained that that was absolutely in contravention of the terms and spirit of the Act. With regard to the goods removed, the facts were that a neighbour named Owens, living at a public-house called the Ship Inn, and who seemed to be on terms of intimacy with Wil- liams, had a number of articles removed over the back wall to his own house, until the bailiffs left, when they were returned. Had these goods not been removed the sum realised would have been materially increased. Then, again, with regard to the things which were included in the sale to the brother of the execution creditor. According to the plaintiff's estimate, the articles were sold at considerably lower prices. As to stock, the returns, in answer to interrogatories, consisted of what seemed to be just a few remaining articles, but it would be proved in evidence that beer and spirits were sold and business carried on as it had been before. Under all the circumstances, he (Mr Marshall) submitted that the seizure and sale was most wrongfully and improperly con- ducted.—The plaintiff, Mrs Louisa Jane Roberts, was then called. She said she supplied William Williams with beer, and he was until August of I I last year a traveller in her employ. He was sup- plied with two or three kilderkins a week. He would make about half profit. She got an action against him and got judgment. Before the execution he offered £ 40 and to pay the rest by instalment.—Richard Roberts, town crier, of Bangor, stated that he remembered the sale at the Liverpool Arms in October last. He got bis instructions from Mr Thomas, auctioneer. He proolaimed the sale on one day- W ednesd ty. He was asked to go again on Friday. He went there but was met by the auctioneer, who stid the matter had been settled, so he (witness) did not cry the sale. When he did cry the sale lie did it at Menai Bridge.—By Mr Higgins: I got orders tirst of all to proclaim it on the day that I did aunounce it.—William Williams Hughes, Menai it. 1 1 1 Bridge, assisting his father in the coal trade, said lie remembered the execution at the Liverpool Arni3. He frequented the house whilst the sheriff's officers were in possession, and was sup- plied with drink by Mrs Williams. lIe got beer and whiskey as the case required. He stayed in the kitchen. The bailiffs were in the front par- lour. Witness saw a. number of articles taken away from the house to the Ship Inn, adjoining, including a feather bed, two mattresses, and some silver spoons. The articles were removed by Robert Jones, Menai Bridge, and another man, named Eardley. They were taken in the evening. The house was very nicely furnished, and a first- class trade was made. William Williams' name was still outside the door, and he and his wife still carried on the business. Witness was there about ten days ago. and the furniture seemed the same as before.—Elizabeth Leister said she was in the service of Mrs Owen, of the Ship Inn, until Christmas time. On the 2nd of October she saw things brought from the Liverpool Arms to the Ship Inn at the back. She assisted, at the wish of Mrs Owen, in taking them in. Amongst the things removed she noticed some bed clothes, a feather bed, bundle of fire-irons, pictures, spoons, and small articles. Mrs Owen said that a table removed was hers.—Mr George Frederick Felton, auctioneer, Llandudno, said that on the 3rd of October he went to the Liverpool Arms, Menai Bridge; was there about half-an-hour; took observation of the articles in the parlour, kitchen, bar, & and valued the whole at jMt 8s. He was told there were six bedrooms, which he had not the opportunity of seeing.—Rowland Williams, formerly tenant of the Liverpool Arms, said he left two years ago and sold the goodwill, licence, and fixtures, to William Williams for £ 55. In his opinion, the fixtures were worth about £ 23.—Mr Charles A. Jones, acting undor- sheriff, produced the auctioneer's valuation at ¡ C2,1 3a.—This was stated to be the case for the plaintiff, when his Lordship observed that the utmost they seemed entitled to was a. shilling damages.—After a deal of argument, Mr Joh11 Thomas, auctioneer, Carnarvon, was called, and said he received instructions to carry out the sale under the execution. lie made an estiroat. what amount the furniture would realise, whic^ was something like £ 15 or £ 16, but on the day the sale he made a detailed valuation (produced)' and sold everything for £ 25. There were about fifteen shillings received for drink, which were included in the £ 25.—Mr E. H. Owen, auctioneer* Carnarvon, also stated that he valued the furw' ture that morning, which he estimated at £ 21 2s 3d. -Mr Marshall again urged that the plaintiff W-10 entitled to damages on the ground of what he termed a bottled-up sale, but his Lords hip di*' agreed, as he considered that the sale was a pro' per one. and gave judgment for the defendallt with costs. Ellis v. Williams.—This was an action to reo cover possession of a piece of land atNevin.— J. H. Williams (instructed by Mr A. Owen) vrao for the plaintiff, Mary Ellis, the defendants beiog Hugh Williams and Jane his wife. The point at issue was the construction of a wall made M Mary Ellis, in 1840.—There was no defence, I judgment was given for the plaintiff, with the pr mean profits. Pritchard v. Pritcharcl.-In this action, W Marshall appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr ]Eli I Marshall appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hig' gins and Mr Williams defended.—Mr Marsha^ stated that Daniel Pritchard, who owned a sm^ p farm called Penoarn, died on the 11th of Sep- tember, 1843. and by his will he left a farm to blS two sons, his tenants in common, subject to tbj life interest of his wife. She died on the 30th June, 1856, when the two sons entered into P session. They agreed that John should let moiety on the farm to Richard, on the paymt'O in money of £ 12 a year, and also that John shouljj be permitted to take two cottages, to one of whicj1 Richard would otherwise be entitled. Richard' therefore, entered into possession of the whole v farm, with the exception of the two cottareø. y That was enacted upon down to the year 187" PI when John died. By his will he left to his Elizabeth Pritchard, all his interest in the Ian* Richard went on after his brother's death paying rent to John's widow, and she also had possession fo of the cottages. Richard died on the 12th Julie, 1881, and by his will gave all his interest to big wife, the present defendant. In Alichaelniosl 1881, the rent became due, namely, A;12 for the land, and that sum was paid by the defendant Shortly afterwards defendant took forcible pos' » ( session of the two cottages, which were at th^ time empty. She continued in possession uuti* the matter was determined by the County Court. y In Michaelmas. 1882, defendant offered ,£12 liS sei rent only, which plaintiff said she could not takft E8 as she was deprived of the use of the two cot" 1- tages. From that time to the present the defeO' ) dant had been in possession, and had paid J10 lie rent whatever. The plaintiff was executrix und^i the will of her husband, and therefore she claim^ two years'rent of £ 24, andt:12 damages use of the cottages during that period.—Mr HiW L< gins held that if there was such an agreement as pointed out by Mr Marshall, it would cease witb "t the death of the brother John.—The case occtf' } pied a long time, when his Lordship remarked that he could see all along that the defendaO4 was fighting a case when she knew that she was 1 liable to pay. He ruled that whether they 'i tenants in common or not, the defendant wao liable for rent or for use and occupation. Judg' I ment was, therefore, given for the plaintif for the full amount claimed up to the day of the t 1 His Lordship further ordered a declaration that ( the plaintiff should get possession of the two 1 cottages on the farm, which were claimed by tb' defendant. With respect to the costs, he directed that all the expenses of the trial, the pleadingg, and the hearing of the trial in London be paid b1 t the defendant; the costs of the County Court to be borne by each party, and the plaintiff to p >5 the costs of the summons under order 14. This brought the business of the assizes to close.