The Weekly News and Visitors' Chronicle for Colwyn Bay Colwyn Llandrillo Conway Deganwy and Neighbourhood

Llanrwst County Court. AN EXTRAORDINARY ACTION. CHAPEL AUTHORITIES AND TRADES- MEN'S DISPUTES. REMARKABLE CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE. "A MISERABLE PERSONAL SQUABBLE." Before His Honour Judge Samuel Mo sis, on Friday. ROBERTS v. CYFFDY MINE COMPANY. Mr R. O. Davies, Fesibiniog, mentioned the case of Robert v. The Cyffdy Mine Company. Hie1 said he had given notice to the other side of his initentioini to ask for an inj unction-, but be had since received a letter from Mr George, who- Wasactimg for th-e defendants,, .stating that cer- talilri work waisi being done on the farm, which p-nabled him (Mr Davies) to agree to- an ad- jo-ucnimtent of -the case for a-not'her month. A WARNING TO LITIGANTS. One or two other applications for adjourn- nifewts having also been made, His Honour said he would very much like it 10 be iiin,der,s,tood that when a case had: once been entered, the conveni- ence of the Court, as well as that of parties. had: to be con-sicter-e-d. The result, of such applica- tions as these was that he h-ad nothnnig t-o do one day andl could not get through the work ait the wext Court. Litigants -must not play fast and lo-o-sie as they liikecl. In a case where hardship wight result he would always be prepared to consider a re-arrangement of things, but he de- clined to allow people to be always studying their own convenience. Mr T. C. Allard, Llanrwst, who- appeared, for the plaintiff ioi- a case that h.a-d been- entered, at this juncture, asked for a postponement of the 'hearing, on. account of the indisposition of his client. The Judge If you give- me a doctor's certifi- cate, I will. Mr Allard I have not bought one, but will Undertake to let you have one. The Judiee granted! the- request on that condi- tion. Mr James Porter, who appeared for the de- fendant in the case, observed- that if the Co-urt wa, I e ,at'sfi?e,?l? as to th,' illin-e,s,s -of the plaintiff then those were c-i-rcumstances over which they had1 no coinifcrol, and he could not see his way to ra-ise any -objection, provided' the defendant's co-sts we-re par'-dl. As -soon- as he had heard Plaintiff was ill he had used his best endeavours to save expenses, but there we-re -nevertheless a few expenses which could, not be- avoided. The Judge Any unavoidable -expenses you have -been -put -to you will be allowed. THE JUDGE'S GOOD HUMOUR. I"I,eitch,e,r 'Hi?,gh,es, gr,eeii.L,,7oceT. cc-tfr,,i-yin,- 011. 'In Station Rro-ad, 1.1a.!nirw?st, sti?e.d. Ro'? Wh,?tta-?,,k,,e:r;. T:re?friNv Terra,ciei, Tr,efr;,w, for '3s. iid., alle, ,ed to be value of ?, o,d,s ?suppli,-d ti 'DIfe?,id)?-,nt (t!(., plai?ntiff) Dii,d ),o'ou se,e 3-i,? 'I?g till?ese ti-,?iin?.zs? Plaintiff: I -re-mc-ii)ib,e?r ),-on having a,P'Pl,e. the pi,,ie- W-hat -el-se?—That is all that I remember. You c.an't speak of anything else?—Not very much. Mr Wihitta.ke-r Are- you willin-g to -swear that served, me with a pineapple on the 20th of May?.—I ^0i not ,say t.iia± I served' yo-u, but 1 ^as -there- when yo-u we-re sterved. I remember <1 he time very well, beoau-se I paid 5s. for the Pineapple, aind- sold- it t-o you for 4s. 6d. Laughter.) THK POLITE BOOK-KEEPER. Mrs Davies, an assistant at Mr Fletcher u-gihes's s'h-o-p at the time, deposed: th-at she 111 ust have- served defendant with the- articles-. The Judge Did he come for the things him- self? fitness I am not very sure of that. 'rh-e Did 3,oi- rr) 1111?e these entrie,s? 'Witine,ss "'be ,Tuci,e What are th,e,se alt?eratio,ns? Wit"S,s I changed "Wb,lttal?eT," :to "R. lzl. NN"hitta,k,er, Eisq. Defeln-r,iall,t: Will y,oli swear thit ?To,i-i suppl, ied I,n e with? Igth c)f a bun,c,,h of flowers costing 2S. on the according to the entry in Y'()Ujr boo,'? I'Vi?tin,es,s Ican't s)ay that I exactly remember What took place at -the time. You can't swear to any of these dates?—I cant remember well enough for that. You ■^u-st have had these things. D-iid not mv brother get things from your shop-?—They used1 to buy -at the shop. The Judge (to defendant) Did you live at the Eagles in- 1903? Defendant: AWAY ON HIS HONEYMOON. 1)roceedin, def?e?ndiant siaid that in tbos,e days bx<),tber was ?-,n,ow-n a!s Mr. Whittaker, "'4'e"-3 he was al-,7,,ayis kniown as Mr Roy Whi?t- taker* 01, th?e igth anid' 2oth of tne, month he was aw-ay?oc?nlhb 'honeymoon, so that dt was i?m- lpos's?ble have been p,ersonally sup- plie,d wi th th?e,,e, things, as s?u.ggest?ed. The Jlldg'e -M',Y Might h,avebe,en 'Ordered on YAUT b?ebialf t?o celebrate the r;eturni. (Loud la,ag-hter.) Defen,dant sa 'd, that tl-iesie thin,-s bad been, put dlo-. in his b,.tb, name, and, like, se,veral ID?heTs,, this bill agai(n, hiad, ico,me,to bi.,s, hand,s. I'll reply to the- Judge, q!efe-ndiant said he djid not know where his brother was. The Judge: How much of this d,ebt do you adimit? 1)"-fe?n,d,,a,n,t None at all. "Ttlier re,plyinu to the Judge, defendant said 11?'- Was not on, ;his b,o,nevmo,on d?urin?g all the ?'at'e? mentioned in the account. He wia?s m?aT- Tied in Llanr-v,,is,t Church on the 6th of May, lc)03, arlid, wa, th,23rcl. awav from the 6th until S,atuTday, The Tu,d?ge said he would give ju,di-,ment for Plaintiff fi rl""at f,,)r 6, s?ub?ject to the Registr?ar's c?on- hK).,I, -1 of the date as to the return from the yrnoo,n. tak, There sie,eimeid? to have, b,ee?n? a mis- T. -9()--ewhere. GRANGE ALLEGATIONS. 0,?ld Roberts,, Avond?ale, at on?etime proprietor "f the "Rh,ldle,gyd?d, for the sum of r6 's- 3d. i"etY for s gO?Od'S supplied to W*Iliam Davie, Mr Davies, Caie?r Blaidtd?, 'Festiniog. ,e dl-Ifendant c,ou,niterclaimed a ?sum a little Illild?e'T 1. r J'arn?e,s POTter (of tbe, firm of MessTs Por- ti??, Alliph,lett, & Jones) appeared for the plain- I "lid 'MT R. 0. Davies, Festin?log,, f,oT the PLAINTIFF'S CASE. Porter said that his cl?ient carri?eidion busi- I,s the? owner of a s)a.didlery e?stablishment T-1a;n,rwst was In March, 1-003. a set of harness lied? at the request of the defendant to I,r* lilli,am Da,vie,s, and there were other all ite sil such as h:ire of cycles,, repiairs,, &c., l?ai?int,ilff's b,ool?s againsit tli6 defend- lit I it *lie ain, que,s,tion? was with regard to ajn Cof 5s. for the s-ai,d hiarn,es?s. In this l?oln the main facts, were as foll-owsi:- D'avies, who was tben 1)]?ving at Ty,ny- 13,et,ws, -y-Coed, called at Mr Jones's sh,p, required? h;im to supply h.iini with a ,iet of but o,wiln(g to certain i,n.fo!rma,t.ion, then SIC ,'the P,os,sesSion of plainitl'ff, 'he de-clinie?d to do whereupon the defendant, William LI?oyd a friend o?f William D,avi?-es, called P, I"e a,-d said that if William Daivies, dii-di n,(:o tby be Would do so. 'He (Mr Po?17ter) saw tb,a,t Othe?r side had put ini a couinter-cl,aim, b' he would ask His Honoiu-r not to consider same, because it had! not been filed in proper time. Complying with the defendant's request, plain- tiff supplied the harness to William Davies. Peculiarly enough., the defeeid.ant, at this mo- ment, was, -as .a matter of fact, endeavouring to make -some financial arrangements with Davies, and in a very short time he blossomed forth as the holder of a bill of sale for DavieJSl'\s effects. How the matter eventuated he was at a loss to understand, but suffice it to. -say that uln due course defendant came into possession of the harness. He believed that defendant afterwards even sold it. A RIPPLE ON THE WATERS OF FRIENDSHIP. Now, when -defendant first came into the shop about the harness, he and plaintiff were very good friends, -but not long .after a little_ ripple unfortunately arose on the watera, and in dne course that ripple became a ,storm, and they were friends, no longer. Than s-aid- defendant to the plaintiff, "You remember that matter of Wil- liam Davie's-?" Plaintiff said "Yels." Defend- ant replied, "Well, I 'am having nothing to do with it." Plaintiff said "I am very much sur- prised how is that?" Defendant Wteint on, "Yüu have only got a verbal order from me; you have no order in writing." Thereupon iplainitiff said, "Very well, if that iis: what you are going to doi, I must take the matter to the County Count," and the, result was that case. Mr. Porter thought that when a man- called up- on a tradesman and requested him to. supply certain good's, saying that if the tradesman, was not paid he wioulld- take them" and then after- wards his ,anxiety to. redieem his promise, was ,not as -great a,3 his. facility ini making the pro- mise-, his Honour, would say that man was liable for the debt. His Honour Is some part of the claim ad- mitted IMr. R. 0. Davies said that defendant had filed a counter-claim, lbutt as a small amount owing by plaintiff to defendant had been- settled, the amount in dispute was really the- ^5 5s. for harness-, as Mr. Porter1 had siaid. "WITHOUT A BED TO LIE ON. 7 !1 ?ir T. R. Jones, the ?pla'n,tiff, coTTobofr,ated? the statement made by his, advocate. He had seen Mr. Roberts! several times concerning the trains- action. and Mr. Roberts- each time requested him to press, Davies- for payment. Mr. Roberts ga-ve him Da vies's' address', -and he had written to that a-dd'reissi, but without success. In ad- dition to what Mr Porter had stated with regard to a cenversatioim in Station-road1, plaintiff said defendant, in reply to his suggestion that the matter would have to be settled in, Court, made the following rejoinder "If you do I will make you without a bed to, lie on." The Judge: What was that? Plaintiff repeated the statement. The Judge Oh! Mr. Porter: He was- holding up the bogey of costs-, yo-ur Honour. Mr. Porter (to plaintiff) D-o- you kn-ow from your own personal -observation that the defend- ant, as a matter of fact, has had the harness- in own possession for a few days? Plaintiff: Ye-s-, trap, pony and harness.. Mr. Porter You dtam't kn-ow h-ow be- got them. Plaintiff: By a bill of sale. By Mr. R. O. Davies Have you got your ledger here ?—Y es. And is: this- your day book?—Yes-. Was this entry made in the day book at the time ?- Y e,s. Wberei is the item in the ledger?—I never enter siin,gle, transactions! in the ledger. In this day book you have "Davies), Ty'ny- co-ed," as. the purchaser of the harness-?—Yes. You have got on the- margin- "Roberts;, Avon- dale,, affair." Did you write that at the time?- No-, I did not do it at the time, sir. It was when. I was a littl-e bit in the present trouble that I put that down. You looked', for payment .in the first instance to Mr. Dalvies ?-Oh, yes. Mr. Davies (to- his Honour) Is there a case to reply to ? His Honour Had you given notice of plead- ing the Staltutel of Flrauds, the case need not have gone any further. Mr. Davies! ,sa,i-d that defendant was sued as a principal in t-h-is instance. If he was sued as a guarantor he would, then have pleaded, a special diefence. His Honour The particulars- -say that he is sued: as surety. IMr. Davies That is not so in my particulars. The Judge Those are the particulars filed in- to Court. Mr. R. O. Davies: It i-s- extraordinary that I should have one copy and there is- another before your Honour. I have- not got the same thing, your Honour. His Honour was understood to, say that he would certainly not let the statute defeat what was a moral debt. According to the, particulars before the Court the defendant was- siued1 aJSI a surety. Mr. Daivies contended that there was nothing in the form in. which proceedings had been taken which called upon him to. file a ,speoial defence-—nothing in. the face of the particular-s, upon which the claim was, made that day. "If you do that I will make you without a bed to lie- on," quoted the Judge. It was- per- fectly clear, he .said, that defendant knew he was going to be sued. Mr. Davies ask-edi the Judge not to give a de- cision oin a legal point, simply on the state- ment of the plaintiff, which he (the speaker) ,totallv denied. Mr. R. O. Davies (proceeding with the cross- examination. of plaintiff) Did, you some time ago assign everything to your creditors? You assigned1 all your property to- a trustee, includ- ing, of course, your book debts, did you not?— Yas. Have you had a deed signed by the trustee transferring the property back?—No, I do not think so. Then how are you able to sue to-diay?—Be- cause I had a right to. Mr. Daviesl -asikedl the plaintiff to peruise the dtocuime-mt and tell him what clause gave him such powers. He contended that under that arrangement plain-tiff could not legally proceed with s-u-ch a-n action. The Judge (after perusing the deed) said -h-e would not stop the, case -at that stage. Mr Daviesi (proceeding) Was not the question you put to Mr. Roberts- "I supplied Mr. William Davies with a set of harness is he alright?"— Oh, no. Mr. Roberts will swear that that was what you said?—It is not true. Was it Hot to enable you to get money owing to you from William Davies previous- to this affair that Mr. Roberts gave you an address?— No. How -soon- after you sold the harness dlO: you say Mr. Roberts became the- possessor of it?— About p..month later. Will you swear that in about a month after you s01dl, Mr Roberts did not come to you and tell you that Mr. W. Daviesi wanted him to buy the harness, -andi that you,, having told him that Mr Davies -had -not paid for it, he asked yo-u if yo-u wo-u-ld like him to- try an-d' retain the harness at the p-rucbase price? His Honour How was, he to retain it? 'Mr. Davies-: By paying this man (meaning plaintiff), and not Davies. Mr. Davies (to, plaintiff) Did, you sen-d a b;ll at -all fojr /the harness to- Mr. Roberts fro-m that time until this month-?—I told-, -ham person- ally. Very many times-?—Twice or three- times. I I was continually hoping to get the money from W. Davies. Notwithstanding your serious- financial diffi- culties, no -steps- were taken to recover this money ?—No. You re-ferrted to a conversation; with Mr. Ro- berts to the effect that he was going to, ruin you, or something like that?—Yes. That was in Now, did you suddenly approach Mr. Roberts one night -from behind -a, wall, when Mr. Roberts w-as returning horne, ?-No, sir. Did yo-u refer to so-me strained relations be- tween- Mr. Roberts andl his late wife? The con- versation had/nothing to do with that. Was that the time you said you knew some- thing about Mr. Roberts that would ruin him? Was that the time you threatened to- expose- him, make serious- -accuisati-oms -against him, and threatened to report his conduct with various women about the country?—I never said any- thing of the sort to him. He does not care what hie says. Did! you speak after this about the debt?—Yes, as late, as a month ago. And! the first letter .sent to Mr Roberts- was, in January, 1907?—Yes, the. first letter. The letter was read, and also dlefeindan-t's- re- ply repudiating the responsibility for the ^5 5s. MEMBERS OF THE SAME CHAPEL. Proceeding to cross-examine plaintiff as to some of the other business trams,aotionls that had t-ak-en place between the parties, Mr. Davies was informed by his Honour that the counter- claim was out of time. Mr. Davies -at this juncture- asked plaintiff as to bis suggestion to cliefendanit to have the dis- pute settled by thelchapel authorities. Plaintiff replied that as, Mr. Roberts- thought the matter should not go into- the County, Court hiel was perfectly willing1, Iboth being m'embers of the same chapel, that the chapel authorities should, settle the question. In further reply, plaintiff said that his "authority" in making the suggestion: wa,s Mr. Jones-, Anglesey House. Mr. Davies a-s-ked what had any lfriend of plaintiff to do with a dsputel of that kind, to which, plaintiff replied that all he had advised was that they should try ,andslelttle without go- ing to Court. ■Mr. R. O. Davies Is it not a fact that all this business has arisen- from some miserable person- al squabble >in, chapel ?--No, sir, Is it not true that Mr. RÜDelrts would never have heard of this only that this squabble- oc- curred and' you wanted: -to -try and subject him to s-ome indignity —No, sir. Is mot the real object of this action- to try and expose Mr. Roberts?—No, sir. Then why refer to chapel authorities?—Be- cause I would soonlersetltle -it that way. Mr. Dalle's was expressing his. great surprise j at the method of settling disputes suggested, wheii, the u?dige ob,se?rved tb,ait it wais? nioit a very .T I uncommon- one in this part of the country. Mr. Davies said that he -never heard of trades- men taking their disputes to -cha-pe-1 illl' that way before. I s?lio,ul,d say th,is ha,s been mv ex- The jud, perience not once), but a diozen or score- of times. Re-examined- by Mr. Porter Your composition -deed states that so long a's you paid your in- stalments- you could die-al with your property. Had you palid all instalments at the time you instituedi proceedings?—Ye-s. The Judge I think the trust having been das. chargedi, this deed, does- not prevent the plaintiff fpo,r,i suing. Mr. R. O. Davies: Your Honour will ob- serve that at the end it i-s- stated that ,the pro- perty has- tOo be reassigned, to the debtor. Thie, juci?Lz?e That is a -eTy technical poi int, a! nili? if nec,e,s,s,ar?,, T s?hould all?ow ?so,,rne latituide. I at first th?c),ughit thai the deed was s?'ill aliv,e..l The instalments- have been paid and the dieed is in his possession,. I shall not let that stop me. THE DEFENDANT'S VERSION. HELPING A FRIEND'S SON. W. Lloyd' Roberts, the defendanlt, deposed -that Mr. William Davies was a s-on of Mr. Davies, Cae'r Blaidd, Festiniog, with whom he used- to be -on very friendly terms. The father wa's a man- of considerable means, and. W. Davies at oln, trme occupied a very good posiÎ- tion in Bettws-y-Coed. As to the conversation with plaintiff about the harness, plaintiff told him that he had supplied' Mr. Davies, and asked if he, was all right. He' expressed; the opinion that he was-. He did not know that there was any doubt as to Mr. Davies's financial position at the time. Soon after Mr. Davies asked1 him to takte up his trap and harness. The bailiffs were, not itn- Mr. Davies'-s- ho-us-e. until etigbt months afterwards. Before completing any ar- rangement with Davies he called at plaintiff's sh-o-p and asked him. if he would have any ob- jection to- his borrowing the harness- off Davies. The upis-hot of it all was that ^20 10s. was paid to William Davie-s -for his turn-out, and it was not until quite recently that he had a bill from thle. plai:n:tiffindíioating that anything at all was owing. THE STATION ROAD INCIDENT. As to the Station-road- incident, defendant said he was returning home about 10.30 OTL a Saturday night when plaintiff s-prang from be- hind a wall and asked him, "What have I done to you?" afterwards' adding "Do you know I can ruin- you and, your family?" William Davie,s became bankrupt in October, 1903, and soon after that he left the country. He first heard about the account when' he got the letter about a month ago. He replied- denying liability for 'the ^5 5S., and as plaintiff owed him 16s. gd. he released- him from that debt to balance plain- tiff's bill for several 'small items, which amount- ed to I 60s,. 3d., giving plaintiff the benefit of the 6d. difference. .Mr. R. O. Davies (proceeding with the ex- amination1) Did! you ever at any time give- p,],a,in,tiff t,o u,nd?-rs?an,d thait you would see h' 'ITn paid thi,s; amount I-Ne\,er never. Had, T done- that I w-ouldi not have tried to- arrange with Mr. Davies. Mr Porter You mean that you would have kept yo-ur promise if you ha-d^ma-de one?—Yes. Aile you in the- habit of keeping your promise,s —As far as I know. Mr. Porter.