Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

25 articles on this Page



CARDIFF COUNTY COURT. This Court sat for business, on Monday last his Honour JAMES WILSON, ESQ., presiding. The following cases were those in which any interest existed. JOHN MITCHELL v THOMAS HOWE.—This was an action to recover E 10 16s. for shoemakers goods, delivered in 1843. The defendant did not dispute the receipt of the goods but the charges made. It appeared that he had previously been a foreman in the employ of the plaintiff, and had been supplied by him at cost price, with a quantity of ready .made shoes and boots, cloth &c. A lengthened conversation ensued as to the charges made, and the defendant accused Mr. Mitchell of making them at a much higher rate than he did to customers, although pretending to allow him a certaiffdiscount, he being in the trade. The plaintifF admitted that the charges now were much lower than when the goons were sold to the defendant, and said that he had been compelled to con- siderably reduce his prices, "owing to the introduction of Free- a 'd er I trade." (Laughter.) There was an item for cloth, which the defendant also disputed, but this was contended by the plaintiff as being correct. He said that the cloth, 2 yards and 3 quarters, had been sent to a tailor by him, and that when the pieces were returned some of them hard been used by the defendant. He pur- chased solarge a quantity, as he was in the habit of bursting his trowsers" (laughter). The bill having been taxed by the Court it was decided that a reduction of only 4s. should be .made. His Honour then ordered the defendant to pay the sum of £10 12s. by monthly instalments. The defendant pleaded great poverty, and.' upbraided Mr. Mitchell, for his conduct, but he was silenced by another case being called on. Mr. Mitchell was leaving the court when we observed the defendant move towards him. He immediately turned back to his Honour, and complained that from Howe's conduct he was fearful of being insulted by him if he left the court. His Honour; If he does so, I will commit him. If you wish it let an officer conduct you from the hall. Mr. Mitchell, then left the Court, and hearing nothing more of the matter, we doubt not the irritable temper of the defendant was a little damped by the very proper course which would have been taken by his Honour, had he have acted as expected. During the examination it was with difficulty Howe could sufficiently keep his temper as to answer respectfully the questions put to him by the Court. ANDREWS v THOMAS.—This was an action to recover the sum of X4 16s. lOd. for shop goods. Mr. John Bird, appeared for the defendant. It appeared that the debt had been contracted in Sept. 184'8,by the defendant's wife, who;(as stated by Mr. Bird,) was addicted with a very painful and distressing habit. It was not for any requisites of life, but to satisfy drinking propensities. It was proved in evidence that notice had been given to plaintiff, by defendant and his friends, not to trust the wife with any goods. It was not until the bill had been sent in that defendant had the slightest idea the money was owing. The plaintiff denied that any such orders had been given to him, but he believed his wife had been told something of the sort. Many of the charges in the bill were for groceries, &c. In answer to a question from his Honour, the defendant said that he was in the habit of supplying his wife with money every week for the purpose of providing the house, with the articles for which he was now sued, and that there was not the slightest necessity for a half-penny of money to be owing. His Honour considered that sufficient caution had been given by the defendant and his friends to the plaintiff, with regard to allowing his. wife to have goods on credit, and therefore ordered judgment for defendant. JOHN MORGAN, V THOMAS LEivis.-This was an action to recover the value of a cask of beer, jE2. 7s. 6d. carriage included. Mr. Grover appeared for the plaintiff. It was shown that each party kept a public house at Newbridge, and the wife of the defendant getting short of John Barleycorn, had applied to the plaintiff to lend her i cask of beer, to help her to carry on her business, which she said she would return as soon as her supply came home. Not liking the quality of beer sold by the defendant the plaintiff would not agree to the exchange, and it was after- wards decided that the defendant should receive the beer, but instead of returning more in its stead to pay for it, Judgement for plaintiff. WILLIAM JOHN V WILLIAM GPEF-T.This action, was to recover the amount of E4 4s. for goods' sold and delivered. Mr. Grover appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. John Bird, watched the case on behalf of the defendant, The plaintiff is a quarry master, residing at Leckwith, and had supplied the defendant, who lives at Llandaff, with :the products of his quarry. Judgment for plaintiff. JOHN WILLIAMS, v THOMAS THOMAS.—This was an undefended action for £ 1 18s. 61d. for grocery goods, supplied to defendan who isla plastcr,!r residing in ihis town. Mr. Bird, appeared for t1.e plaintiff. Ordered to pay 8s. per mouth. INSOLVENTS. Hugh .Tones, Merthyr Tydvil, tallow chandler, descharged; Atto ney, Mr. Phj-lpott — David Clements, of Neath, saddler, discharged- Josiah Jones, of Swansea, discharged on biil-- John O'Connel, of Cardiff, bublicaD-Daniel Tiichards, of Cardiff, shoemaker, and William Atkins, of Cardiff, butcher, passed their ex mi \ations. Attoraeyfor the Inselvents, Mr. John Bird.








Priceperstone of Slbs. (to…


Per 8 lbs. to sink the offals.










[No title]

Family Notices


(From Friday's Gazette.')