Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

10 articles on this Page

Dyffryn Dowlais Feud.


Dyffryn Dowlais Feud. Sieged FORCERY AND PERJURY I. By a Llantwit Farmer. SEQUEL TO A CHANCERY ACTION. I l> Joseph Morgan, 25 years of age, f utch<?r, Llantwit, son of Mr Thomas Morgan, Pontypridd, was brought up on a war- ajl" at the Pontypridd Police Court on Wed- :fKlay (before Dr R. C. Hunter and Council- Go wan), charged with committing wilful Corrupt perjury in the High Court of Justice j Rlj4 case heard by Mr Justice Kekewich, and » Wlth forging a certain document purport- !&tr an agreement for tire sale to him by Tho Howells, of the Duffrvn Dowlais llantwit Fardre. Mr Arthur Lewis, instructed by Mr David Rees (of the 06 °f W. R. Davies, Pontypridd),appeared Prosecute, arid Mr J. Bryant, solicitor,Ponfc- defaaea. n opening the case Mr ArthurSfcewis said c^large of perjury consisted of two allega- Ions, one of which was committed in the county Glamorgan, the perjury being in two affida- *ltst sworn to by the prisoner, a*d the other a Chancery action in London before Mr Jus- Kekewich. With regard to that part of cage he did not think their worships would able to convict the prisoner for trial in the .ounty of Glamorgan, and that being, it seemed to him, one of the strongest parts of the case, lie Proposed to ask the Bench to deal with the J^rjury committed in London under an Act of lament, which enabled them, if the evidence ucient, to commit the prisoner for trial Middlesex; if not, they had power to issue Warrant For his capture, and send the deposi- ns to some justice in Middlesex, where the 6»ce was committed to deal with it. The secutor, Mr Thomas Howells, was the owner tL> Duffryn Dowlais farm, and the defen- t WaS '€ssee' ^orms t'le lease being jja he was not to have the minerals, and Mr reserved to himself the right to use 'oonis in the farm. This was in 1895, and 1^^€rvrar^3 the defendant tried to persu- Howells to sell the farm, and it was allegation that Mr Howells had pro- to sell the farm to him that the proceed- bert were Taken. The first intimation that Al- *old Morgan alleged that Howells had ^litte^6 ^arm was csntained in a letter 11 Mr Bryant, his solicitor, last year. eotlrse lee Was taken of the letter, and in due iviiol ,faction was taken in the Chancery nton of the High Court by the now defen- .i.-Ce agaInst Howells for the specific perform- an agreement, which he said had been 'n^° 'n writing, before Mr Justice Kek»- the defendant alleging that in December, Howells had entered into a written agree- bf ft Se^' the farm for £ 2,500. In the course e evidence, which the defendant gave be- Justice Kekewich, the perjury upon they were now proceeding was commit- He (Mr Lewis) thought he would satisfy ^ench that the whole story told by th« now e»dant was a tissne of falsehoods from be- iii tng to end. -There never was an agreement by Howells. The defendant had sworn Court that Howells had signed an agree- for the sale of the farm at Duffryn Dow- it In December, 1896, and that ne had signed In the presence of Mr Howell's housekeeper. was called as a witness on his own be- and in reply to questions made the follow- Ih four distinct statements: -(1) That Howells IJO an agreement in the presence of his eeper; (2) that he (Morgan) handed back to"*™1 Howells> aiso in the Presenoe R 6 housekeeper; (3) that he handed Howells oIu'que °f £ 50 on the 18th December, 111 respect of the alleged purchase; (4) never paid any rent to Howells after I p agreement for the sale of the farm had entered into, and that a cheque for £ 20, Was undoubtedly paid to Howells on the pa k October. 1897, was not for rent, but in yoaent of monies borrowed and poultry pur- from Howells. These were untrue, and th 61106 wou^ 8'v€11 t° prove that each of ^"f'Ktitions was absolutely untrue. As to „ allegation that Howells had agreed to sell farm for E2,000, that would have been an j 1.1rd price, as there were minerals under the 1l1'n1. When the production of the alleged ^eenient was demanded in the Cliancery tlr.t Morgan stated that Howells had been him afterwards and said that his solicitor told him that he h ad no power to sell the j^rrn to Morgan, fchat he wanted the agreement it orc'er 8h°w it to his solicitor, and that ^*ould be all right. By that memis, so went °r"an's story, Howells got ]x>ssession of the R"ecrilent in the presence of his housekeeper, he (Morgan) had not seen it since. The ^sekeeper was not called in London to prove With reference to the allegation that a tb que for JE50 was paid to Howells by Morgan 0 counterfoil was presented in court, but not cheque, although it was called for. Defen- ^t then said he did not think the cheque was ever presented for payment, and that he did 4at Pay it through his bank. He was over- dnvm at the time, but it was after showing — agreement to the manager of Lloyd's Bank, 4"14 asking him if he would cash the cheque that gave it to Howells. Morgan also declared ^at the counterfoil produced was written upon *h« same day as he drew the cheque—December *8th—by himself, and when asked by Mr War- tington, cotinsel for Howells, if he could ex- Wain how it was he bad a counterfoil for the ^>0 purported to have been paid to Howells, Whereas the cheque was for a different. sum d paid to someone else (Messrs Marks and 'n), Morgan replied that he could not. There *as no counterfoil in the cheque book to tally lIiith the cheque paid to Marks and Co. What th9 prosecution alleged was that Morgan had fOrgotten to fill the counterfoil of the cheque to Marks and Co., and that he had fabricated the counterfoil, making it appear as if he had tien a cheque for L50 to Howells. Morgan ""ore that he had not paid a cheque for £ 20 Howells in respect of a quarter's rettt due in Starch, 1897. and that the cheque was in re- "Pect of sums borrowed from Howells and for !.Wlg purchased from 'him. Morgan had first ^Ued a cheque for P,26 to Howells, but subse- Iluentlv after a conversation between them. Morgan said "the cheque is too old; you can't get that cashed. I will give you another one." .The defendant took hold of the cheque, tore it ltp. and threw the pieces away. Howells had tiven a receipt for the £ 26, and although he bsequently made repeated applications for the ney he failed to geT it until September,1897, hn the defendant paid him JE20. Counsel d the notes of the evidence in the Chancery ^°urt respecting The matter, showing that when ™°rgan was asked where the counterfoil of the °heqne for the jS26 was he could not say. He (\QUid not say whether it had been torn from the book. and Mr Justice Kekewich remarked, "1 can see it has been torn out." He (Mr Lewis) added that Morgan first of all denied giving the cheque for E26, and afterwards, in order to bolster up his story, he (counsel) alleged that the defendant tore out the counterfoil of the cheque which he got back from Howells. Con- cluding. counsel pointed out that there was not a single blank counterfoil in the cheque book, nor a counterfoil representing Marks and Co., and that the counterfoil which the defendant had pwom represented the cheque paid to Howells did not tally with the cheque bearing the same number. Evidence was first given by Mr Bradshaw, clerk in the office of Mr H. Cousins, district registrar, Cardiff, as to receiving from the Chancery Court the documents impounded by Mr Justice Kekewich, and other formal evi- dence was given by Mr D. Roberts-Rosser, solici- tor, Pontypridd, and Mr G. R. Ingenlath, assis- tant to Mr James Towell, professional short- hand writer, 33, Chancery-lane. Thomas Howells, the prosecutor, corroborated counsel's statement, and denied that he had signed the agreement or received a cheque for jE50 as alleged. The cheque for jE26 was taken out of his pocket whilst in the trap by the de- fendant, who said it was too old to be cashed, and then tore it up. The defendant never bor- rowed money from him, and the only poultry he sold him was when he disposed of the farm to him. Under cross-examination, witness explained that the defendant wanted him to sign some documents, whieh he declined to do, and Mor- gan told him at the time that "Mr Spickett and Mr Brjant bad made the papers, and that Lloyds Bank made the agreement. He denied having released Morgan from a section of the Bankruptcy Act or having authorised him to sub-let the land. He stoutly denied having signed the agreement for the sale of the farm, or that he had tried to settle the case with Morgan between the issue of the writ upon him respecting the agreement and the trial in Lon- don. He further declared that he had not, either with John Evans or Charles Richards, accountant, tried to settle the case. Witness was closely questioned about the allegation to sell the farm for 22,000, and amid much laughter asked Mr Bryant if be thought he was such a fool as to sell it for that price, seeing that Mr Tom Taylor had offered him £ 12,000 for it before the time Morgan said he had bought it. Mr Bryant put in a document which purported that Howells authorised Morgan to sublet and plough any of the land, but witness denied having signed it, and added that he believed th- body of the document was in the defen- dant's handwriting. Replying to Mr Lewis, witness said that that document-which was very dirty and dis- coloured-was not produced in the Chancery Court, and that the action there was stopped by the Judge during his (witness's) evidence, and before any of his witnesses were called. Mrs Morris, Howell's housekeeper, said she had not seen Howells hand any document to Mor- gan, neither had she seen Howells sign any document. Evidence of arrest was given by P.C. Rees, who said that the defendant, in reply to the charge, stated, "I won't say anything now." Some of the charges were not gone into, and the hearing was adjourned until the 21st inst., bail being allowed in two sureties of £100 each, and the defendant in one of ;MOO.

Before the Licensing Committee.…

-"---Special Home Readings.

Presentation to the Late Secretary.


Ferndale Shop Assistants.



Temperance Topics.

------------A Hoek for Ladies.