Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

2 articles on this Page

CARDIFF COUNTY COURT.

News
Cite
Share

CARDIFF COUNTY COURT. The usual court was held in the Town-hall, last Friday. The following were the principal cases:- INJURY INFLICTED BY THE BITE OF A D3G. JAMES CHAPPELL V. SOLOMON MARKS.—This action was brought before the Court at the last sitting, but a technical objection having been raised by Mr. Phillpotts, on behalf of the defendant, which proved fatal, it was brought before his ho- nour to-day by Mr. Bird in another and different form. The first action was to recover the sum of X2, for that a dog belonging to the defendant had bit the plaintiff, a lad of about 13 years of age, causing injuries which were the means ot com- pelling him to keep his bed for seven weeks, and thereby incur- ring medical expenses to the amount of £ 1 3s. 6d., the remainder being considered as for necessary attendance in nursing, &e. The lad, it appeared, was passing the house of the defendant in Oct. last, and the dog, known to be the defendant's, flew at him and bit him in the leg. A witness, named Laxton, stated that the plaintiff was his nephew, and he (witness) had acted towards him for some time in the stead of a father, receiving all his earnings, and also maintaining him. He recollected the lad being injured by a dog one morning, whilst he (witness) was sitting at breakfast. He was brought home by a person named Rosser, and finding his nephew injured, directly he (witness) had finished his breakfast he called upon Marks to inquire into the matter, and the defendant (Solomon Marks) acknowledged to him that the dog was his, and that he kept it for the protection of his property, amongst which were many valuable articles. Rosser told him (witness) when he brought the boy home that it was not long since the dog had bitten an- other person. Witness told Marks that as he must be aware the dog was in the habit of biting people, it was his duty to keep it tied up. Marks then said that the animal belonged to his son. It was Dr. Evans that had attended the plaintiff, and the bill he sent in was for medicine, &c., from October 6th to November 26th. Mr. Phillpotts cross-examined the witness for the purpose of showing that the bill charged the expenses of the affair to Samuel Marks, the defendant's son, who, he contended, was the proper owner of the dog, but in this he failed. Mr. Bird then called Jane Rosser, who knew the dog to be a quiet animal if left alone, but was somewhat accustomed to get cross when interfered with by strangers, or when strangers went near it. On cross-examination she said that she could go near the dog herself, and had frequently done so without receiving any injury. She had also been told by Marks that the dog was his son's property. Father and son lived toge- ther. Mr. Phillpotts then addressed the Court at some length, al- luding first to the wording of the summons. He then con- t nded that the dog had been clearly proved by evidence not to belong to the defendant, but to his son and, therefore, that son being more than twenty-one years of age, his father was not at all responsible. Mr. Bird said that he was willing to abide his honour's deci- sion with regard to the wording of the summons, but with re- gard to the concluding portion of Mr. Phillpotts' defence, even allowing that the defendant was not (as he. Mr. P., asserted) the owner of the dog, yet the law upon the subject was so framed as to include not only the responsibility of the actual owner, but went on further to state that any person, encourag- ing or allowing a dangerous animal to lurk about their premises, was equally liable for an infringement of the laws which pro- tected society. His honour having overruled the first objection, considered the defendant liable, and gave judgment accordingly. Mr. Bird then brought his second action on behalf of the same plaintiff, and against the same defendant, for the sum of E3, because that his client had been prevented by the accident from attending to or transacting business. Mr. Phillpotts wished to know why Mr. Bird had not brought the action under the head of one summons, and thereby pre- vented the expense of a second. Mr. Bird said that at the last Court Mr. Phillpotts had chosen to overthrow his case upon the ground of a technical objection, and without at all testing its merits upon the facts as produced in evidence. He had, therefore, 111 his legal discretion, deemed I it the only prudent way under the circuihstances in which to proceed. Mr. Phillpotts said that he did not wish to dispute the fact of the dog having bitten the plaintiff, and that very severely, for which accident he felt sorry for both parties. He, however, would ask Mr. Bird why he had now sued his client for £ 3, when at the last Court the same items were summed up in the amount of £2 7s. 6d. Mr. Bird informed the Court that Mr. Phillpotts had, as he before stated, overthrown the case not on the ground of justice, but merely on that of legal technicalities, by which means his client had been put to some expense, which he (Mr. B.) consi- dered only fair should be repaid to them. Mr. PI) lipotls did not object to the £ 2 7s. 6d., and requested that the sum should be reduced to that amount, Mr. Bird at first refused, but upon some conversation taking place between those gentlemen, in which his honour joined, Mr. Bird submitted to the proposition of Mr. Phillpotts, and the case was settled. A RECEIPT FOR MONEY NO PROOF OF PAYMENT. MILES V. JONES.-Tliis was an action to recover £ 1, the ba- lance of an account. Mr. Lewis Reece defended. The plaintiff said that Jones formerly owed him £3 10s. 4d., to procure the payment of which he sent an apprentice in his employ. He got as much as E2 Os. 4d. of the defendant, but had given a receipt for JE3 Os. 4d., which was the cause of the dispute. He had frequently sent for Jones, and had called upon him for the purpose of talking the matter over, and he had repeatedly promised to come to some arrangement, but had as often broken them. The remaining 10s. was paid at another time. The apprentice explained the transaction. He went, as stated, to the house of the defendant for the payment of the debt. £2 and the odd 4d. was paid, leaving SOs. On receiv- ing it lie gave a receipt, and afterwards entered the amount he had taken into his master's account-book. It was when Jones was called upon for the remaining sum that Mr. Miles disco- vered the mistake. Mr. Reece cross-examined the witness very minutely respect- ing his business-like habits, for the purpose of showing to the Court whether or not it was likely so egregious an error could have been made. The receipt was then handed to his honour, and was for the jE3 Os. 4d. Mr. Miles said that he had every reason to believe the young man to be very honest, for he had had frequent proofs of his being so. The idea that it was an innocent mistake had been strengthened by the fact of the defendant evading all conversa- tion on the subject. His honour had no hesitation, under all the circumstances, in agreeing that it was a mistake on the part of the plaintiffs assistant, whom he hoped would be more careful in future. As such was his opinion, he should order the money to be paid. THE MAKRIED STATE NOT ALWAYS THE MOST HAPPY. JONES V. MORGAN.—This was an action to recover £ 1 16s, Id. for goods. Mr. Bird appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. L. Reece for the defendant. The plaintiff stated, in the year 1818 he kept a grocer's shop in this town, and supplied the defendant with goods. lie de- livered to him a bill for those goods on the 17th June, in that year, when he then owed him £ 2 IGs. Id. On the 25 th July defendant paid £ 1, and promised to pay the remainder as soon as he could. About six or eight months afterwards plaintiff saw him again, when he found that he had completely altered his mind, and refused positively to pay it-a vow he had not broken since. In cross-examination the plaintiff stated, that;" he was now a mariner, but formerly kept a grocer's shop, eat- ing-house, and beer-house, in Whitmore-lane, He knew the defendant's wife at that time, and she used to come to his shop for goods. Her husband (the defendant) told him once not to trust his wife with beer, which he did not do after he had been told not to. Mr, Reece alluded to the character of the plaintiff s house in terms of the highest censure. The defendant said that his wife was continually in the plaintiffs house. He had a little back room, where' she used to go with all sorts of company, but more especially with one in particular—a young man who had taken her away from him — when they used to go out and drink together at his (the de- fendant's) expense. On the 12th April she took away all her clothes from his house, and he then went to the plaintiff's house and told him not to trust her. Her conduct was very hurtful to the feelings of him (the defendant), who refrained entirely from intoxicating drinks, and had done so for the last 12 years. He could assure his honour that the debt was for cooked meat, drink, and extravagancies of his wife. This the plaintiff positively-denied, and produced his bOO)1 with entries in it, made against the defendant for groceries. He (the plaintiff) had never sold any beer to the defendant's wife after he had been requested by him not to do so. The .debt was not for cooked meat, but for tea and groceries. Mr. Reece Yes, as much as it was for an elephant or a tiger (laughter). His honour having looked at the case, considered that the defendant was liable. JAMES v. WYNN.—This was an action to recover the sum of £ 20. Mr. Bird appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Williams, of Usk. for the defendant. The plaintiff, who was a mason, stated that he had been employed by the defendant, who was a contractor for some houses at the Bute docks, and also for buildings at Treforest. He had kept an account of the work he had done for Mr. Wynn, which amounted in full to £71 16s. 8d., a portion of which had been paid, leaving a debt still owing of £ 21 J 2s., which had been reduced to the £ 20, to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court. He (the plaintiff) had applied for payment, but had been refused. The defendant stated that he did not owe the money to the plaintiff alone. There was another person equally concerned, ana he wished to avoid the probability of being sued again. He did not attempt to deny the fact of the work being done, but he certainly disputed the amount charged, He had a wit- ness to prove .that the debt was not due in full, and a surveyor on the part of the other workman. Jas. Haven had measured the work, and said that the charge was too much. A deal of conversation ensued respecting the matter, and his honour, seeing that it was a case which could be more comfort- ably settled between the parties than by himself, advised them to adopt that plan, and adjourned the action for that purpose. AN UNTHANKFUL DEBTOR. MARKS V. JENKINS.—This was a summons on a previous judg- ment, and a commitment would have been ordered had not the plaintiff interceded most strenuously on behalf of Jenkins that his honour would give him another trial. The defendant pleaded great poverty, and excused himself of work on the ground that he had a bad leg. The plaintiff denied the de- fendant's possession of a leg so bad as stated, and told the Court that he certainly limped a little always, but he did so to an extreme on that day. The defendant stated most positively that his leg was in a most dreadful condition, and challenged any medical man to state otherwise. His honour Is there any medical man in Court ? The defendant Here's Mr. Harris, who has seen me dress my leg he can tell in what state it is. His honour: Let Mr. Harris stand up. His honour looking at him, and perceiving that it was one of the bailiffs of the Court, said "Are you a surgeon?" (laughter). Mr. Harris No, sir. His honour: Then you may sit down what can you know about bad legs (laughter) ? Mr. Marks still interceding on behalf of Jenkins, his honour stated his willingness to suspend the order for commitment for a short period, to enable him to pay a portion of the debt, telling him that he had to thank the plaintiff for the leniency towards him. The parties then left, but before another case had hardly com- menced; a scuffle was heard in the hall, and two officers were despatched to bring before his honour the guilty parties. However, they returned without them, and, after receiving a hint of disapproval of such conduct from his honour, again started, and after a slight absence returned into Court with Messrs. Jenkins and Marks. His honour of course was anxious to know the why and wherefore of the disturbance, when Mr. Marks stated, under feelings of visible nervousness, that when he left the Court the defendant said something to him about having paid for some hair, and immediately lifting his walk- ing stick, struck him across the head. Of course his ire was somewhat excited, and an attempt was at once made by him to get the stick from his opponent, and a scuffle ensued but the knight of the bad leg proved stronger than expected, and Mr. M. found himself lying on the floor with his opponent on the top of him. The defendant, whether from fear of punishment or from over-exertion in competing with Mr. Marks, appeared almost incapable of breathing. He excused his conduct on account of the irritability of his temper, and hoped his honour would over- look it this time. His honour, however, did not exactly feel in- duced to permit a case,, not only of contempt to his Court, but also an outrage committed upon an individual who had been the means of preventing him (the defendant) from being im- prisoned, told Jenkins that he had rendered himself liable to a fine of £5 for this unheard-of conduct. The sound of the £5 seemed to render the lame man more sensible of his position, and he at once commenced beseeching his honour to show him every leniency—in fact, to overlook his conduct, which seemed somewhat to have a slight effect upon the charitable feelings of Mr; Marks, who once more commenced pleading in the behalf of his antagonist. This was listened to by his honour, who, ever willing to take the side of mercy, said that, as Mr. Marks had so kindly interceded for him, he would do what he could but he wished Mr. Jenkins fully to understand that he as judge could not allow such outrages as that which had just occurred to take place in any Court ever which he had to preside. He, however, would this time allow the parties to leave the Court—a permission which they immediately took advantage of. Several cases of summonses on previous judgments were dis- posed of by committal, and the Court, which disposed of many cases throughout the day of minor interest, broke up about nine o'clock.

GLAMORGANSHIRE EASTER QUARTER…