Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

5 articles on this Page



GLAMORGANSHIRE SUMMER ASSIZES. {Continued from our last,) NISI PRIUS. FRIDAY. His Lordship, Sir Jas. Parke, entered the Court this morn- ing precisely at nine o'clock and the cause suit was proceeded o with. WADDLE V. WADDLE.—This was an action between two brothers, for the purpose of showing whether or not the plain- tiff was entitled to recover the sum of £ 71 upon a promissory note, which the defendant held as purporting to belong to the said John Waddle. Mr. Chilton, Q.C., and Mr. Grove appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Evans, Q.C., and Mr. Benson, for thedefendant. The plaintiff in this case, is a master mariner, and the de- fendant a tradesman, residing in Llanelly. It appeared on the part of the plaintiff, that he used to, on his return from each voyage, adjourn to his brother's residence, and there remain until he left for sea. On his last visit in 1849, he had given moneys to his brother, amounting to 1:81. Previous to his leaving, he had received £ 10 back, which left an amount of £ 71 due, for which a promissory note made payable in February had been given, which note had never been accepted. For the defendant it was contended that the board and lodging of the plaintiff, which amounted to 78 weeks, had never been paid for, by which, at the rate of 15s. a week, a debt of £ 58 10s. had been incurred, and the balance of the amount, after deducting that sum, had been paid into court. Mr. Evans, in opening his case for the defendant, said that he did not, in point of fact, know who the real plaintiff in the action, was. It wan true that the defendant's brother was the party whose name had been used, but he thought it possible that this promissory note might have been made use of by the plaintiff, might have got into the hands of some jew broker of perhaps Blackwall, Poplar, or some other place, and now formed the present action against his client. The facts of the c,ise were Both plaintiff and defendant were sons of Mr. Hugh Waddle, of Llanelly, who formerly carried on business there as an iron founder. This gentleman became un- fortunate in business, and all his debts were discharged under the Insolvency Act. After this the plaintiff went to sea, and the defendant remained at home in business. When the plain- tiff returned from sea he used to come to his brother's house and there reside. The first instance occurred in IS'?- in that year he came and remained there, having meat, drink, and lodging during the whole summer. In 1846 he wer.tto asA, and did not return until 1847, when he again came to his brother at Llanelly, and was entertained as before, lie then again went to sea, and did not return until the month of April, 1849. He went as before to his brother's house, and after having every accommodation, together with what the house afforded, in the shape of food and drink, once more went to sea in. the month of December of the same year, w' "<! has been ever since. Now, on the part of his client, Mr. Evans did not deny that the promissory note, which had been put, had not been given by the plaintiff to the defendant, but said this, that the defendant was entitled to receive L-,n plaintiff for the board and lodging, meat and drink, "h h- supplied to the sailor during the years 1847, 1848, and >> r=>, for the time he remained at his house. That they were 'J-: to compensation it was clear, for was it to be supp'se -h«u man, who was not in good circumstances, could 1 brother who was, without having some remuner ile had no doubt his learned friend would tell the \.<;i rhc part of the plaintiff, that there was no intention o-li the ■ "f the defendant to charge his brother for what he eat au n :«nk during the intermediate time of his voyages, and whiili, h :> had before shown, was always spent at his brother s- it (Mr. E.) would soon prove such was not the case, lie v. show that a man by the name of Rogers, who was uL>.> a lodger in the house of the defendant, and who acted as his c,r-ra, had been requested to make a memorandum of the visits j which had been paid by the plaintiff to the fh-1 he might be properly charged with them. e/v-to s:< 1. ipitiion was a most extraordinary one. A given as a promissory note in December, and ,e embarked at once for sea, The note payable the 1 February, and on the 1st of March a letter comes "io r/f;j the payment of the £ 71 as due upon the dishonourer r A letter, it is supposed, must have been written to the solicitor ir London, who communicates with the defendant, thm him with an action, provided he should not send the nvrr-jy by return of post; and, almost as soon as a letter could have reached London, out comes a writ, upon the face of wlihh this ,a action was brought. Such conduct he would submit was very unbrother-like, and a parallel case between two brothers he never recollected having heard of, Witnesses were then called, who more min tt s i ne i the substance of the learned counsel's adlr th.2 letters which had been sent were put in and oiP-, dated the 1st of March, which purported, t,) m the plaintiff to his solicitor, requested applic i toney, but should the request be not complied with, a i \i.c:' one to the solicitor stating that he would sunnlvciic defendant with a "ticket of uneasiness" was attached, letters 'were then read, and only one of the t lo as being in the handwriting of the plain; had little or no reference to the subject matter of the a Mr. Chilton having replied, his Loi, up, and the jury returned a verdict for the deft ATTWOOD V. THE TAFF VALE HAIL COMPANY.—This was a case tried before a special jury, c p of the following geutlemen :-Griffith Llewellyn, Esq, Wixi. Esq.; John Garset, Esq. David Samuel, Esq. J, V, James, Esq, David Francis, Esq. Thomas Llewellyn, Fsn. T'. It. Woods Esq. Win. Llewellyn Powell, Esq. —lacson, R-q, W. Crompton Booth, Esq. Thomas Williams, Esq., tale.- -urn. Mr. Chilton, Q.C., and Mr. Davidson appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Evans, Q.C., for the defendants. The declara'-Or. ",c;; that the plaintiff delivered to the defendants 2,00° tto-j i iron, 4 to be kept in their capacity of wharfingers, fo: n, oil- sideration, until it should be required-that. J~e- canie the duty of the defendants to take it; that in consequence of the negligence a- I ooncliv-r of the defendants or their agents, the irc, .v.«Uy j damaged, and that plainnfliad thereby su. :t- ■ to t. amount of £ 2,175. Tir? rrfendants plead, ••• .eral' issue secoii(iii,, that did not v -•■ t.1.3 iron to be taken care of ia the manner der i.-w- the statute of I i the cause of a" i -ait'eue within six years. Mr. Chilton, Q.C., opened the case at SOl:' tile part of the plaintiff, John Attwood, Esq., fo;¡" A.i for Harwich, and one of the parties to the ce d case of Small and Attwood, and, although the eir :n: might induce the jury to imagine that his clieA d to litigation, he thought, that before the it of the case, they would be fully satisfied that in had used his utmost efforts to avoid a lawsuit. o Taff Vale Railway Company unquestionably comprised a large num- ber of honourable men perhaps, he was not going too far when hs said that, in their individual capacity, they were all honourable men. It, perhaps, numbered no member who would have resisted a claim of this kind in his own private business; but public companies and; corporations, taken in their corporate capacity, possessed no souls, no consciences (a laugh) and it was only because the Taff Yale Railway Company was like others of its class, a soulless creat-ire, that his client had been reluctantly compelled to bring this action. All that Mr. Attwood alledged was, that the company L A not performed their duty towards him as wharfingers. His lordship would explain to the jury the duties which the law required of wharf- fingers. On referring to Mr. Storey's book, he found that the duties of wharfingers were of a more stringent character than those of common carriers, and not P 1 i s > stringent as those of warehousemen. In 18,12, the made large purchases of iron in this county. He had ^uvr.iased consider- able quantities of the Pennydarran Iron. Company, Thompson and Foreman, and pother firms, and had brought it to Cardiff by the Taff Vale Railway. At that time iron was at a very low price, but subsequently it rose to a very high price. At that time the plaintiff explained very minutely to the then secretary of the company the accomodation he required, and the space wanted on which to deposit the iron. He took particular pains to tell him that he was purchasing iron of various kinds and prices, different sizes, &c., and that he required it to be deposited on the wharf so that the different kinds were to be properly assorted, in order that when any particular kind was required, it could be removed without difficulty. An agreeement was subsequently drawn up and signed by Mr. Burgess, ,the secretary, with the consent of the company. The learned counsel read the agreement, which was to the effect, that the company agreed to allow plaintiff to deposit any quantity of iron on the wharf at one penny per ton per month but if the iron did not remain more than six months, then the charge was to be 8d. a ton per mouth, the company to remove it in their carriages free of expense, plaintiff finding the labour. By this agreement it was obvious, continued the, learned counsel, that the railway company were bound to keep the iron in a manner to preclude its' being damaged and what the complainant complained of. was, that by the improper conduct of the defendants, he had sustained a great loss. It appeared that the wharf on which this iron was deposited adjoined the canal, and was on a level with it. It was composed of soft, new-made ground, and by the improper removal of the iron, it had sunk in the ground, and had been so exposed to the de- terioration caused by the weather, that, the greater part of it must be re-manufactured. It appeared that subsequent to the time the plaintiff's iron was brought to this wharf, a difference took place between Sir John Guest (then an influential director, if not chairman, of the railway company) and the late Marquis of Bute, respecting the renewal of the Dowlais lease. It be- came necessary that the Dowlais company should remove their iron from the Marquis's wharf, and they required the Taff Vale Railway Company to accommodate them with a wharf for their iron. In order to find a place for' the iron of the Dowlais Iron Company, they had deprived his client of his proper space. It appeared that Sir John's agent, Mr. Evans, likewise a director of the company, ordered a number of men to remove the whol of the plaintiff's iron, which had been assorted in various heaps, and it was piled in one large, ill-constructed heap, so as to occupy the least possible space. Mr. Attwood's agent visited the spot while the men were engaged in the removal, and asked them by whose authority they acted, but the men were instructed to answer no questions. He complained to the secretary who came out to make inquiries into the matter, but Mr. Evans told him to go into his office and mind his business. He, at the same time, told Mr. Davies, the plaintiff's agent, that unless he left the wharf, he would be thrown into the canal. Soon after- wards Mr. Attwood caused a notice to be served upon the com- pany, to the effect that he would hold them responsible for any loss or damage which he might sustain, consequent upon the removal of the iron. Mr. Chilton then read several documents, including correspondence between the plaintiff and defendants, on the application of the latter for payment of the rent for the use of the wharf: the plaintiff declined payment until his claim for damages was adjusted, but the defendants having a lien on the iron, plaintiff was eventually advised to pay. The sum, during the whole of these years, amounted to nearly £ 1,000. Evidence wa.4 then called in support of the case. Plaintiff's as-ent deposed to the facts opened by Mr. Chilton. Mr. Anthony Hill estimated the deterioration in the iron, consequent upon the removal into one large heap, owing to which it had sunk into the new-made ground, and become exposed to the action of the atmosphere and the water of the canal, at about 15s. a ton. He included in this the additional cost by the greater inconvenience of its removal. He had made an allowance for the natural de- terioration, which, under any circumstances, must have ensued, owing to the long period it had been permitted to remain on the wharf. Mr. Evans, Q.C., having made several objections of a technical character, which were overruled by the court, addressed the jury on the part of the defendants. He characterised the action as a most unfair and vexatious one, the ground of complaint being entirely destitute of substantial foundation, in 1843, Mr. Alt- wood entered largely into speculations in iron. Large quantities re deposited on this ground. It had been allowed to remain .'ii^re year after year, although, at various periods, ample oppor- tunities had been offered for his disposing of it at a much higher Nice than he hael paid for it. This ground in time became ex- ceedingly valuable, and was required for the accommodation of other traders. Mr. Attwood would not cause it to be removed, so Le company consented to its being placed in one heap, so as to occupy a smaller space, and he would show that the heap had been so constructed that it was less susceptible to the influence of the atmosphere and less liable to the deterioration than when left ex- posed in scattered lots, as originally placed. In this case the jury were called upon, in the absence of anything in the shape of data, to give an opinion upon a most difficult question. They were not asked what was the amount of the deterioration within the six years, but they were called upon to state what was the difference between the deterioration consequent upon the defendants' acts and the natural deterioration which would have taken place had the iron been left in its original state. At the conclusion of a very able address, the learned counsel called a number of witnesses in support of his statements. His lordship having summed up, the jury retired, and on their into court pronounced a verdict for the defendants. ,3 PitOTarILOE.-Tliis was an action in which John the plaintiff and Messrs. Protheroe and Richards -,iits,. and was for the purpose of deciding whether the ■. tiff did not possess a certain small tenement at Merthyr of t: Evan Richards, and also whether the purchase money had been paid. Mr. Chilton, Q.C., and Mr. Thomas Allen, ap- peared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Evans, Q.C., and Mr. Pullen for the defendant. This case has been so repeatedly before the public that it is totally unnecessary that we should enter into detail respecting its particulars. The facts of the case as gleaned from the learned counsel's opening are these In the year 1807 a lease was granted by the late Mr. Wyndham Lewis for 99 years to Evan Richards, at a trivial rent of one peppercorn per annum, provided he would build a wall at the end of the ground which would separate it from the river Taff, which ran close by. Evan Richards, it seems, built a small hovel there and occupied it for some time, but at length died, receiving at the time parish relief. Evan died in 82B and left behind him three sons. The property then came into the possession of Jenkin, who at his death be- queathed it to the present plaintiff, James Evans, because, as he said, he had conducted himself towards him (Jenkin) as a christian and a friend. It was left by will, which will was read immediately after the funeral of Jenkin Richards, and although many persons were present no one challenged the right of pos- session of James Evans. After taking possession he remained undisturbed until the year 1841 but, unfortunately for him, in 1835 he expended upon the property a large sum of money amounting from £100 to E200, in building a good comfortable public-house. The defendant, Henry Protheroe, is a man of wealth, and holds land immediately adjoining the property of the plaintiff, and in 1841 he brought an action of ejectment against James Evans, asserting that he had no title what- ever to the property he held. This was followed by i(!h have been duly noticed, and which the learned expi i.,ied at length, together with other matters, hav ■ °r'fore been published. Witnesses were for pla uliff, and after a lengthened cross-ex- L «. divers, who addressed the jury at great len.<r.. is', iiv.ri.ur carefully summed up, and the jury re- turned a vor.i::t for plaintiff, as regarded the right of posses- sion, and were also of opinion that the purchase money had beei-i paid. HOPKINS V. PRICE. Mr. Grove and Mr. Thomas Allen appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Evans, Q. C. and Mr. Pullen for the defendant. It appeared that David Hopkins, about 66 years ago, came in possession of certain land upon Coed-penmain Common, which he held up to 1836. Vim. Hop- kins, who survived his father, and who had been away from home in the army service, did not go to live with his father, when he returned, but built a house for himself upon the same spot of ground which he enclosed. The action was brought for an encroachment upon the common, and also as to his right of possession. It having been proved that he had held undisputed possession for a space exceeding twenty years, a verdict was given for the pliintiff; and with regard to the right of land, it was the opinion of the jury that no encroachment had been made.

[No title]



[No title]