Hide Articles List

17 articles on this Page



Carnarvon County Court.


Carnarvon County Court. WEDNESDAY, before His Honour Sir Hor- atio Lloyd. ACTION AGAINST A SOLICITOR.— Mrs Margaret Parry, Cemlyn, near Pwllbeli, sued Mr liiohard Roberts, solicitor, and her sister, Margaret Griffith, Llethrddu, for the return of a certain deed and for damages for detention. The case had bean partly heard at the last court. Mr J. B. Allanson appeared for the plaintiff and Mr S. R. Dew for the defendant. In the year 1897 Mrs had borroyed JEoO, and paid it to Mr Arthen Owen, solicitor, Pwllheli, to ar- range with Mrs Parry's husband to release his interest in the marriage settlement be- tween her and her husband, and th point was whether Mr Richard Roberts could' re- tain the deed on behalf of Mrs Griffith until the R50 bad been paid. Mr Arthen Owen, who instructed Mr Allanson for the plaintiff, contended that the deed had been left with Mr Roberts for the specific purpose of gett- ing it stamped, and that he had written to him several times asking for its return. Mr Roberts took no notice of the letters, and the retention of the deed had caused the plaintiff a good deal of expense in conse- quence. For the defence Mr Dew said that the action had been brought simply to cast an odium upon Mr Richard Roberts, but he came out of it in a very creditable way. Mrs Griffith had employed Mr Roberts as her solicitor, and had always been satisfied in the way in which he had conducted her business. He maintained that a solicitor must safe-guard the interest of his client, by securing that which he is entitled and pre- vent him from prejudicing his position by entering into rash and foolish engagements. That was exactly what Mr Roberts had done, whe he refused to part with the deed until the £ 50 had been paid. Had he not taken the course he had and advised his client to retain the deed he would have been lacking in his duty.—His Honour: But there is a long correspondence in which Mr Ar- then Owen repeatedly asks for the return of the deed in order to get it stamped, and if that was so he failed to see how the solicitor was fulfilling his engagement by not having it stamped. When a bargain is made be- tween solicitors it ought to be kept. Mr Dew went on to say that Mr Richard Ro- berts received instructions time after time to retain the deed, and that on the 4th of March, although he knew Mr Richard Ro- berts was acting for Mrs Griffiths, Mr Ar- then Owen went to her and asked her to al- low him to conduct her case as well as her sister's, for whom he was already acting. Then Mrs Griffiths renewed her instructions to Mr Roberts to retain the deed. This proved that she had perfect confidence in Mr Roberts, and acquiesced in all he did, until, being paid her £50 she gave herself up to the plaintiff. He would also bring evi- dence to prove that plaintiff two days before the last court day said that she was not aware of this action, and had not authorised it, nor was she a party to the action. By the course which Mr Roborts had taken it was clear he had obtained the repayment of the 950, and he (Mr Dew) held that he iras entitled to judgment. — Evidence in support of the foregoing statement having been given by Mr R. Roberts, His Honour reserved judgment. CLAIM FOR £ 50. Mr J. H. Edwards, the editor of "Young Wales," as the execu- tor of his father sued Captain Owen Wil- liams, Portdinorwic, for a sum of £ 50 under a promissory note. Mr W. George ap- peared for the plaintiff, and Mr H. C. Vin- cent (Messrs Carter, Vincent, and Douglas Jones) defended. Mr George stated that the promissory note had been given for JE80, but plaintiff abandoned C30 in order to bring the case within the jurisdiction of this court. The signature on the promis- sory note was not denied, but Mr Vincent explained that the defendant was the mas- ter of the ship "Rheidiol Valley" owned by plaintiff's father, and for seme years the ship had been worked on shares, and in 1891 it was found that JE80 was due from the de- fendant, and an arrangement was made by which the late Mr Edwards agreed to ac- cept a promissory note from the defendant, but said, "You are to pay back the money if the ship pays in future, but if it does not I shall not ask for it." Of course the plain- tiff did not know of this arrangement be- tween his father and the defendant. There was, however, another account due from defendant to the plaintiff, of which E24 was owing, and this he was ready to pay. Judgment was entered for £ 24.

Holyhead Board of Guardians.

Agricultural Education In…

__--------------IA Minister…

The Public Houses of Dolgellau






Local Jottings. -


Valley Rural District Council.

Do Gamekeepers Poach?

The Girls' Friendly Society…