Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

19 articles on this Page

LIVERPOOL.—MYSTERIOUS MURDER…

Advertising

MONEY MARKET.

"""...-/"JV"', FROM THE LONDON…

LATEST CURRENT PRICES OF METAL.

..PRICES OF WELSH MINING SHARES.

LONDON CORN EXCHANGE.

.SMITHFIELD.

LIVERPOOL CORN EXCHANGE.

PROVISION MARKET.

LONDON SEED MARKET.

WOOL MARKET.

HOPS.

,.."-""'''''-............."-......,..,..…

'"""""""""""''-'''-'''-''''''''',-,",-".r,-,........"-.,,,-HIDES.

..............."""'""'.....,....r-.."'-.........__...........r,.-...r-COLONIAL…

WELSH MARKETS.

Family Notices

NISI PRIUS COURT, ....,

News
Cite
Share

This closed the case for the defendant, and Mr. Chilton acl. dressed the jury in reply, commenting with some severity on the character of the justification set up; and more particularly referring to tha evidence of Arthur Owen Davies, who, with Mr. Price and several other witnesses for the defence, did not escape a share of the sarcasm dealt out with no sparing hand by the learned counsel. "HLs lordship then proceeded to sum up the case to the jury and said if they believed the defendant's sole motive in writing the letters alluded to was for the benefit of the public, he would not be liable to the consequences of an action, for it was not to be supposed, with our many institutions, that a man should not be allowed to make a complaint against any mis- conduct or mai-adininistration, except at the risk of having to answer an action for libel for such complaint; but if they were of opinion that there was any other motive--aiiy private pique ta be answered by publishing these letters to Capt. Napier, then the matter assumed another form, and it would be their duty to return a verdict for the plaintiff. The charges com- plained of were contained in three letters to Capt. Napier, and there was another letter which would take away one defence on the part of the defendant, and tend to show that there was a pre-determination on the part of defendant. There was also another letter from defendant's brother, sent after proceedings had been taken by the plaintiff, proposing that defendant should make an apology in such terms as Capt. Napier might propose, and pay all the costs incurred by the plaintiff. Now t iere was something which appeared rather singular in this. The first letter sent by the defendant to Capt. Napier was here read by his lordship, who commented upon it as he proceeded, as he did on most of the letters in question, and the evidence of the different witnesses. After a short consultation the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff on the general issue. Damages £10. DOE DEM ROGERS V. PKICE.—This was an action of eject- ment under the following circumstances. The Rev. Evan Jones granted a lease on the 29ch of July, 18:35, to Thomas Thomas, of a certain farm, with the exception of the underwood. There is an express proviso not to cut any waste or destroy any trees, timber, saplings, or any uuderwoood likely to become timber. The action was not brought with a wish to break a lease, or because there was any dissatisfaction of the solvency of the defendant, who is Mr. Charles Price, brother of W. Price, Esq., surgeon, Pontypridd. The trees, however, were wasted, and the quarry was not worked in a husbandlike manuer. These acts, it was contended, had violated the conract. Mr. Grove and Mr. Chilton, Q.C., were for the plaintiff. The lease and assignment were then put in and read. Daniel Thomas was examined by Mr. Grove, in order to prove that some trees had been destroyed by the opening of a quarry on a part of the property. The path was four feet wide. In cross-examination he admitted that his father, who was originally the lessor, had opened the quarry, and that all the trees had been cut last summer by the plaintiff. Daniel Evans was examined to prove that he had seen un- derwood cut, and that cattle were browsing in the wood. Had bought all the timber last year. He was cross-examined by Mr. Evans, Q.C., and said there was only one underwood of three inches girth left after he had cut down the trees. Had broken down a wall in order to carry away the timber. Had bought all the timber, and taken it all away. A sapling is a tree that grows from the root. Thomas A ah ton (this witness was very deaf): Had seen Thomas Evan Thomas cutting from the underwood a good many of the trees would be cut down by the rubble of the quarry. There was no old quarry near that place they could not work the new quarries, without injuring the trees. Had seen the cattle also browsing in the wood. William Davies, timber valuer, sworn: Sapplings are run- ners from the root. We call them so till they are from 30 to .40 years of age. Price's people have cut a few underwood in the place. They were obliged to do it. Isaac Davies sworn: The quarry is about 500 square yards. TThs opening of the old quarry would not have done much in- jury to the trees. He believed the old quarries were better than the new. In cro.;s-examination he admitted he had seen cattle in the wood in the time of Thomas Thomas. It was necessary to go through the wood to go to the quarry. Mr. Evans, Q.C., addressed the jury for the defendant, and argued that no breach of covenant had been made out. The le.se provides for the opening of quarries and their working by all legal means. It was proved by the plaintiff's witness, that the defendant had done no more than was necessary for the working of the quarries. No evidence at all had been given in the remaining breaches of covenant. Mr. Nichol"Game followed on the same side, and endeavoured ta show that the very spirit of the lease provided for the work- ing of the qurrrv. His lordship said that the matter resolved itself to a point of 1 ,L W, and asked if they would go to the jury. Mr. Chilton wished to be heard, but the learned judge re- fused. Mr. Nichol Game continued, and quoted several cases to show that it was necessary to pay the greatest attention to the proviso of Lases. Mr. Chilton and Mr. Grove replied on behalf of the plaintiff. Mr. Evans, Q.C., replied to the legal points raised against the defendant.. Verdict for plaintiff, with leave for defendant to move for a new trial on some reserved points. WATTS and GRIFFITHS V. WHAPHAM. An action for;C52, due for a rick of wheat. Mr. Nichol Came stated the case to the jury. Mr. Morris, of Cowbridge, proved selling the stock of de- fendant's father in December last. Plaintiffs were at the sale they purchased two ricks of wheat, one for £41, and the other for £ 48. The note shown was given by plaintiff in part pay- ment. Richard Williams proved that the note was taken up by dc- ponent. William Griffiths proved that he had thrashed the wheat for the plaintiff. Had thrashed the smallest rick. Remembers .saeing defendant coming to the yard, and offering £ 50 for the rick. He hoircl n) more conversation. Whapham came to me to the barn, and asked me what they had given for thrashing tha first rick. I and his other man thrashed it for him after- wards. Mr. Grove addressed the jury, and contended that there was no proof of sale or delivery. His lordship summed up, and the jrry returned a verdict for plaintiff. Tne Court then rose. WEDNESDAY, JULY 19. His lords Yip took his seat at nine o'clock, when the fol- lowing ease was o,i. EVANS V. PPOTIIPRor,This was an issue sent down from the Lord Caancelior to try in this court, and related to the right of possession in three cottages at Merthyr. Messrs. Chilton, Queen's Counsel, and Thomas Allen, were counsel for the plaintiff; attorneys, Perkins and James. ■Counsel for defendant, Messrs. J. Evans, Queen's Counsel, and N. Carne; solicitor, Mr. Phillpotts. It appeared that in 1827, one Evan Richards, of Merthyr, was possessed of three leasehold houses Hear Jackson's bridrej these, it was alleged, on the part of the plaintiff, he parted with to his brother J enkyn Richards, for a considera- tion, and Jenkyn, who died in 1828, made a will by which he bequeathed them to the present plaintiff, James Evans. The plaintiff, on entering into possession, spent a considerable sum of money in repairs, and also in erecting- a substantial public-house in the place of one of the cottages. In this manner he spent £1:50, when the defendant brought his action of ejectment against him, on the ground that in building the public-house he had encroached upon his pronsrty. A document, purporting to be a receipt of money from Jenkyn Richard" to Evan Richard as the final instalment of the purchase money of the three cottages, was put in by Mr. Cailton, who called a witness named Traherne to prove the signatures. Mr. Evaus objected to the reception of the document, and afbr some discussion between the counsel his lordship decided, although, he said, reluctantly, that he could not re- ceive the paper in evidence. A good deal of documentary evidence, including the will of Jenkyn Richards bequeathing the property in question to James Evxii.,3, was admitted; and several witnesses were called to prove the identity of the two Richards; the period of their death; and also the fact that for several months prior to the decease of Evan Richards he had been receiving. paroohial relief, and this latter fact was urged by the learaed counsel for the plaintiff, as an additional reason for believing that Evan Richards had parted with his property, o.Itho i-h it was not actually conveyed, some time before to Jenkyn Richards. Mr. J. Evans addressed the juiy for the defendant, con- tending that there had been no transfer of the property by -sale or o&erwisla from Evan Richarda to Jenkyn -Richards' and that, therefore, he was not in a position to will it to the plaintiff or any other person. He also alleged that the pro- perty was intended to be left to Thomas Richards, one of the sons of Evan Richards and that Jenkyn Richards was only left in nominal possession, until Thos, Richards, who had been away for some time, should come forward to claim it. He called Joseph Richards, of Merthyr Tydfil, iron founder, the substance of whose evidence was, that after Evan Richards's death, Jenkyn Richards applied to him to know if he could give any information as to where Thomas Richards was to be found, as Evan Richards had left the little houses to him, and he (Jenkyii) had received some money (rent) which he wished to pay over to him. Mary Richards, wife of the last witness, gave somewhat similar testimony. Robert Jenkins: Lives at Merthyr; knew both the Rich- ards lodged near the premises in dispute about twelve months before the death of Evan Richards. They lived in these houses. He had conversation with Jenkyn Richards about the ownership of the houses; he said they were Thos. Richards. He had heard Thomas was at Bristol; he had received a month's rent for one of the houses, and would keep it till Thomas Richards would call for it. In cross-examination he admitted that he knew Mr. James Evans was in possession eight years ago, or more perhaps. W. Davies was sworn to prove that Jenkyn Richards had told him that Evan Richards was the owner of the houses in 1828. In cross-examination he did not know when the conversation took place. Daniel Davies had rented the small cottage next to the river, for eighteen months; paid rent to Evan Richards. Jenkyn Richards often happened to be in the house when I paid. That was in 1826 I went to the next house in 1827 rented it of and paid rent to Evan Richards till the last week he lived. After his death Jenkyn Richards collected the rent. Mr. Evans, Q. C., then tendered several legal documents which Mr. Chilton proved to be the counterpart of what he had already produced. Mr. Chilton replied for plaintiff. His lordship summed up, and said that the case for the decision of the jury was whether the houses were sold by Evan Richards to his brother Jenkyn Richards. It was re- markable that no claim had been made by the defendant for thirteen years. Several witnesses had spoken to admissions on the part of Jenkyn Richards, quite inconsistent with the notions of purchase. The jury returned a verdict in favour of plaintiff, giving him, we believe, the seventh favourable verdict in this case. HOLMES V. LEWIS.—An action for trespass. Mr. Richards opened the pleadings. Mr. Evans, Q. C., said that this was an action brought by Mr. Holmes, of Merthyr Tydfil, against Mr. Rice Lewis, of the same place, for false imprisonment. The circumstances were the following :—A Mr. Hales opened a public-house at Merthyr, the Crawshay's Arms. In a part of the house there was a snuggery" for the tradesmen to pass their evenings. The window was about eight feet from the ground. This window dissatisfied Mr. Lewis, and he built up the window with bricks, which rendered Mr. Hales' pre- mises uncomfortable for his customers. Mr., Hales requested some of the men on his premises to throw down the brick wall. Mr. Itice Lewis and Miss Lewis took Sergeant Wren to"Mr. Hales's, and ordered him to take several persons into custody. Miss Lewis pointed to Mr. Holmes as one of the men who took down the wall, whereupon, notwithstanding every protestation of innocence on his part, he was taken into the station-house in custody, and obliged to give bail for his appearance on the following Saturday, when the case was heard and dismissed. The learned gentleman called Mr. John Davies, builder, of Merthyr Tydfil, to prove that Miss Lewis swore to Henry Owen. The superintendent said that he had not seen him. She then pointed out to Mr. Morgan, Evans, and last of all, to Mr. Holmes. The su- perintendent gave the four in charge, and they were taken in custody at a quarter past ten at night. He was at Hales' before Mr. Holmes came in. He had not interfered at all with the window, but he sat down drinking his ale. The attack on the wall was before Mr. Holmes came in. Mr. Henry Owen was present when Mr. Holmes entered the room he took no part in pushing down the wall. Mr. Chilton addressed the jury for the defendant, and hoped the jury would not give the defendant a verdict, or if they did it would only be one farthing. He was prompted, he believed, by his attorney, Mr. Phillpotts, and he believed the jury would take care not to make his client pay Mr. Phillpotts, as he was quite sure John Holmes, the tailor, would not pay him. The learned judge briefly summed up, and said that the only question for the jury would be the amount of damages. After being locked up for nearly eight hours the jury returned a verdict in favour of the plaintiff, damages XI. This proved the great CLOSING case of the assizes.