Rhyl Record and Advertiser

RHYL COUNTY COURT. FBIDAY: Before His Honour Judge Sir Horatio -JLloyd, and Oliver George, Eq., Registrar. THE JUDGE AND MONEY LENDERS. Mr F. J. Gamlin made application to His Honour to vary the orders in a series of judgments against Thomas Marsh, farmer, Rbuddlan. Among others he asked that a debt of L30 due to a money lendea named Mr Baron Jacob Cohen, of London, should be made payable by infitalmeDts of one shilling a month. The Judge: At that rate' it will take about 51 years to pav off the debt. I think that even money lenders ought not to be expested to wait that length of time (laughter). How much money did the debtor get out of this 930 ? Debtor: XIS. The Plaintiff: I don't thiDk that is correct, but "1 bave not the particulars with me. The Judge: Oh, 1 think that would probably be about it (laughter). Plaintiff: I think he must have got more than .f is if the debt is £ 30. The Judge: No, I think that is about the pro- portion (laughter), You always prepare yourselves for risks you know. I think that I must arrange for the debt to be paid within 20 years, and that means 5s. a month. Plaintiff. I ask for my costs Your Honour. The Judge: If I give you costs they will be paid at the end of 20 years (laughter). Plaintiff :"What advantage then is to as to come here ? The Judge That is your own look out. Mr Gamlin You have made a pretty gJod thing out of him already. 0 Plaintiff (leaving the box) I don't know that we have. -FABMEBS AND HAEVKSTMEN A QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE. Robert Owen, farm labourer, sued Robert Morris, Hendre, Rhuddlan, for the recovery of 17s. 31. for wages. Mr Gamlin was for the plaintiff, and Mr R. Bromley, for the defendant. Mr Gamlin said that the plaintiff some years ago was » the employ of Mr Morris as a labourer, ani received 58. a week and his food. At harvest time this year, on a certain Monday, the plaintiff about 9 o'clock in the morning went to the defend- ait and assed him if he could givo him a job at the harvest, and be said he could find him II job until Saturday, and that be would give him the same wages as the other men viz.. 3. a day. The plaintiff worked that week, and ou Saturday he went b Mr Morris and received 3s. a day less a quarter of a day, which he did not work on the Monday when he was engaged. On the Saturday pkiniiff went to the defendant again and asked him if he was wanted next Monday, and was told that he would be wanted. He went there to work, and when on the Saturday he received his wages, two half days were deducted from his pay on which he was unable -to work owing to its being wet Plaintiff's con- tention was that he was engaged by the day, and defendant alleged that the engagement was by the week. On the Thursday in the third week the plaintiff went to the defendant 'O!)" B be anted to go by a trip to Manchester on the following Satur- day, and asked would it be convenieut for him to go, Defendant stid Yes you may go, provided you find a substitute." Defendant found a substitute and went to Manchester. When he came bick he \Egnt on Monday to receive his wagee, an he found "tmit the substitute unfortunately had not put in an appearacoe on the Saturday. Plaintiff asked Mr Morris for the wages for the time he had worked, and he said No, you were engaged by the week, and yon have unlawfully absented yourself from my service, and I shall not pay you." Plaintiff corroborated on oath Mr Ganliu's statement. Defendant sticl that when he engaged the plaintiff he told him he would engage him on the same terms as other men viz, 18s. a week, or 3s. a day. He did not deduct anything from the plaintiff's wages for wet days, but paid him the whole. He was away one afternoon burying a Telation with his permission, but he did not pay him for that. Plaintiff a day or two betore asked if he should go to Manchester on Saturday, and witness said he could not possibly do without him as men were scnice. Plaintiff offered to find a substitute, but witness declined. He, however, did go away, and witness in consequence hetd to work himself, instead of superintending the wcrk- raaen. In Cross-examination by Mr Gamlin witness said that one week there were wet days, amd on one half-day be sent the plaintiff home, but made no deduction from his waeres. Whether he finished tBs harvest in the middle of the week or not he always kept his men on to the end of the week. TJbonwe Pickering said he was employed in tho iarveat with Mr Morris. He remembered Robert Owen working there, and his going away one Saturday to Manchester. Witness was engaged by the vtek, and received SI. a week duriug the first portiou of the harvest, and 18s. a week during the latter park The Judge said it was not his experience that farmers engaged men during the day or they would have no hold on them at all, for harvestmen were here to-day or gone to-morrow, and the fact ihat plaintiff asked for leave proved to him that this was a weekly hiring. He gave judgment for the defendant. Mr Bromley said they did Dot ask fur costs. His dlient only fought the case on principle, and it was his intention to hand over the amount of wages in dispute to a charitable institution. THE DYSEBTH BENT CASE. The hearing was resumed before a jury con- sisting of Messrs E. S. Foster, T. Coxhead, R. Jolley, and J. Aidney, of the case in which Messrs J. T. Law, Wm. Schofield, Robert Smith, and the Dyserth Stone and Lime Company, sought to recover £.50, being 10 years rent of Paody Field, Dyesrtb, alleged to be due from Mr F. Roberts, The Mill, Dyserth. Defendant counter-claimed £ 25 as damages tor breach of implied covenant for ,-quiet enjoyment, damages for loss of heifer, and 'for 93 5s. rates paid. Mr Rutherford (instructed by Mr. Cope. Holywell) appeared for the plaintiffs' and Mr J. Pierce Lewin for defendant. The case for the plaintiffs which was beard at the last court was thit the defendant had agieed to take the field at a yearly rental of X,5, and it was contended that be signed a deed to that effect which -eatitained a clause stipulating that if any pol tion of dllle field was required for qua^ty purposes, defendant ~was to give it up and the rent reduced accordingly. That deed, however, had been lost. ^.Oefeodant in his evidence at the previous court aid he declined in the first place to give X,5 per annum and to pay the rates and taxes. Mr Ward -then told him to turn in and he would settle the matter. He was sure he had never signed an agree- ment. He had paid £ 8 lís. in rates, but had never -offered Mr Law XS. Mr Schofield did once tesk for rent, but he said he would pay Mr Ward. iNo oae else asked for rer.t, and a writ for £ 50 was eventuf.U isiued. In addition to taking away the garden and putting a lock 0:1 the gate of the field, Mr Schofield had a donkey in the fieid which chased the cow with the result that it died. That cow was worth | J6L5 A heifer fell i^to the hole dug by the q-,Qrry people and he lost £ 3 by it. There were several I holes doy in the field for the purpose of getting saad for bbilding purposes and he had been com- .palled to keep his cattle out of the field. Mr Pierce-Lewis said the defendant did not deny ■that lie was liable for rent, but not for 95 per annum, At Friday's hearing the examination of Mrs Roberts, wife of defendant was continued byMrPierce Lewis. Th3 witness said that effter J uly 1894, the ^u^d became dangerous for cattle in consequence of the deep holes that had been dug in the land to obtain -.saud for the buildmg of new houses at Ochr-y-Foel. Mr Law had not been near the place for six years, and all the rates on the land had been paid by her feusbatad. None of their cattle had been on t field since Easter 1897. Cross-examined: They did not give the land up because they did not know who it belonged to. She had often seen the donkey running after the cow. George Lewis, Ochr-y-Foel, said he lived opposite -the field in question and within a very short distance -of it. Previous to July 1894 there were in the field a lime kiln and a line of railway and also some sand holes. Those holes weie made after Air Schofield came, and paint works were also put on the field. Sines 1894 they had raised the walls to the hoick kiln and had dug more boles for raising and. The holes were dingerous to cattle grazing in the field. A portion of the hedge of the field was also taken down. He remembeted Mr John Schofield turning his donkey into the field, but he did not see it chasing the cattle. He would not give anything for the land for grazing purposes in its present condition. Previous to the company coming and making these holes and workd on the land he would huvo given 30s. a year for it. Cross-examined lie occupied two houses. He .did not know who owned one house. He had occupied it for four years and never paid any reut for it, but he paid taxes. He took it from a gaffer under Mr Schofield. He did not take it forcibly He made no agreement with Mr Schofield as to rent. He was asked by the gaffer to take it to look after it R-e-examined When the grfier put him into the house he sai1.i the hoase did. not belong to anyone (laughter). Sarah Lewis gave corroborative evidence. Further evidence of a similar character having pee,n given. Mr Pierce-Lewis addressed the jury for the <5cfonce and Mr Rutherford replied to the whole case on behalf of the plaintiff. The Judge in suming up the case to the jury said that the claim was for ten years rent, but as the statute of limitation was pleaded plaintiffs could only recover for six years from the date when action was taken. If the defendant had been disturbed in the quiet enjoyment of his tenancy, even though there was no agreement of tenancy there was a breach of the implied covenant, though he pointed out that the plaintiffs stipulated when letting the field that they were to take what part of it they required from time to time for the purposes of the quarry making the defendant an allowance accordingly. The jury gave a net verdict for the plaintiff for X25 3s. 3d., the foreman (Mr Foster) remarking that since the last hearing1 they had been to view the field. The Judge said he was sura the parties must be much obliged to the jury, fur he felt sure that the fact of their having seen the field must have been of materiil assistance to them in coming to their verdict. a The Foreman replied that it was. The Evans Litigation- ANOTHES ACTION"—BKMAEKAJJLE DISCLOSURES-SEVEIIE BEMABKS BY THE JUDGE. John Arthur Evans trading as the North Wales Publicity Association claimed of the Rhyl Bill Post- ing Company, of which his son John Thomas Daniel Evana is the manager the sum of zE49 damages for the removal by the defendant Associ- ation of certiiii advertising boards belonging to the plaintiff, for loss of contract?, the value of a wheel barrow taken by the defendant belonging to plaintiff &c. Mr J. Pierce Lewis, appeared for the plaintiff. Mr J. T. Evans said he represented the Rhyl Advertising Association for whose action he accept- ed full responsibility. He said he had written to his father asking1 him to withdraw the action so as to avoid briagiag unpleasant matters before the court. Mr J. Pierce Lewis said that was the first he had heard of that and he should like to hear the letter as it might open the way b a settlement. Mr J. T. D. Evans read the letter addressed to his father, in which be asked him before it went too late, to withdraw this ill advised action for if he was caUed upon to defend it, he would do so to the full extent and bring' conclusive evidence of the partner- ship existing between them prior to his (defendants') bankruptcy. He would ulso put.in letters in plain- tiffs own handwriting showingthat be never was the proprietor of any biil posting business in Rhyl. To prevent this be suggested that the plaintiff should withdraw the action and giva up his alleged claim to the advertising business in favour of his (defend- ant's) gwife and not set up any opposition. He hoped plaintiff for his own sike would show more discretion and not reject this offer as he did his peace proposals in August 1897. Mr J. Pier«e-Lewis said that letter contained no consideration whatever to induce them to withdraw the action and he hid no alternative but to proceed with the case. Tne plaintiff, he said, was the owner of the advertising boards mentioned in the particulars ot ciaim, and he feared from the letter which the defendant had just read that their title to those boards was going to be questioned by Mr Evans, though he did not quite gather who was going to claim them. Defendant said if be could not establish his wife's claim to the boards he would prefer that the Official Receiver should have them. Mr J. Pierce-Lewis said that implied that the defendant claimed that the business was his previous to his bankruptcy but in his public examination by by the Official Receiver he admitted that the whole of this business and everything belonging to it belonged to the present plaintiff and that he had nothing whatever to do with it. His Honour would alto remember that a short time ago an action was brought by the son against the father in which he claimed wages for acting as manager of this business for his father therefore he was stopped by his own action from claiming these boards as belonging to anyone else. This action Was brought for the purpose of recovering damages for the removal, and tor all they knewjithe destruction of these boards because they had never had them, and did not know where they were. They also claimed JE5 16s. for the loss sustained by the withdrawal of contracts. He was instructed that the defendant called upon Mr Morgan, Carrier agents iu this town, and asked him to deliver all parcels addressed to the North Wales Publicity Association to him, and in con- sequences of this parcels for billposting which should have reached the plaintiff were delivered to the defendant. Ahother item was 14s. the value of a barrow taken from the pkintiff's premises and found on the premises of the defendant. They also claim- ed rent for posters which the defendant had actually put on their advertising boards, and for which defendant had received payment from his clients, and that money they claimed should be paid to them. The great annoyance, however, hid been that the placards on the boards of the plaintiff had been from time to time covered over and interfered with by the defeudant's^ageuts pr his servants and they aske,cl His Honour in addition to awarding them the £ 49 damages claimed to also grant an injunction restraining the defendant from such acts in the future. Mr John Arthur Evans said he carried on business at Rhyl as the North Wales Publicity Association" and had done eo for many years. In March this year he had the several advertising boards mentioned in his particulars of claim. Two boards in Edward Henry Street had beeu removed by Mr Thomas Williams, Town Porter. He bad asked the defend- ant Association to return the boards which he valued at X15 4s. He had also some boards on the Monumental yard, near Gladstone Bridge. These he valued at JE8. He went there and saw a person in the employ of the Rhyl and District Advertising Association cutting down the timber and sawing away. He protested against it but they told him to clear away. Mr Evans, the manager of the defend- ant Association eame there and he (witness) appealed to him not to interfere with his propertv, and that if he had any legal claim to the boards to mova in a proper legal way. He said I don't mind, you clear away." Charles Hughes also said, If you don't clear away, we will let these boards fall on you." The same day boards were taken from Market Street, Crescent Road and Wellington Road, and he claimed altogether for the removal of the boards the sum of j639. He claimed for posters des. troyed and posters covered &c. by the defendant L3, made up of allowaneeB which he had to make to different clients. He had seen the servants oil the defendant over and over again covering posters and when he protested he was insulted and once threatened with violence. He claimed 25 IGs. in respect of loss or contracts which should have reached him, but which never did so. Some illustrated posters in Queen Street and Market Street were put upon a certain Saturday and on the following Monday the defendant's man Charles HughJ, covered them over with theatrical posters and he claimed 5s. in respect of this. With respect to the barrow he missed the barrow from his premises he made inquiries and subsequently found it at the back of defendant's house at 3, Paradise Street. He claimed 14s. for this barrow. He claimed 10s. by reason of defendant's servant having posted posters on his boards. He also asked for an injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with, his boards in future. He was sorry to say that the defendant was his only son. ihe Association represented by his son had ruthlessly torn away his advertising boards, and put their own boards upon the sites. He appealed to them to wait for the decision of His Honour in this case before proceeding further with their vandalism. Cross-examined by the defendant: He became possessed of the advertising business when agent for various steamship companies. He bought the timber for the boards himself. The first timber he had was purchased from Mr John Jones Williams, Market Street, for which he paid C ,IS. Defendant: Where did that money come from ? Witness It came from the pockets of your father. Asked by the defendant if he (defendant) had not transferred to him the sum of £ 50 on the 18th of April, 1894, wituess said that he must ask that of another witness. Defendant produced a letter book, and asked if he claimed the advertising business how was it that on March 12th, 1895, be wrote to say that the business was not his, but Mr Thomas Evans', son of Mr J. A. Evans, lato of the Herald, Carnarvon. Plaintiff asked that the letter book should be handed to him. This was done, whereupon he remarked, This is one of the letter books removed from my office." Defendant added he had several more similar letters leading right up to bis bankruptcy. He said "he was willing to confess that at the time of his bankruptcy he made certain statements in order to save a little out of the wreck. Cross-examination continued He (plaintiff) was the- tenant of the advertising site of Mrs Lunts field, and it was he who paid the rates. He received a letter from Messes Gamlin anWllhams requesting him to remove the boards from the sites. In the course of his further cross-examination, witness said that defendant in his f^^jjment of affairs had acknowledged having recera^Kptn him (Mr J. A. Evans) the sum of £ l^6S 3S|BHp Defendant: And it was so doubtfuT^mat the Official Receiver sejected your proof altogether. Plainqff I am merely quoting figures from your own statement of affairs. Defendant: And I am telling you the result of gkose figtfres. Mr J. Pierce Lewis: The claim of the plaintiff to the business was admitted by the Official Receiver. Defendant said if it would shorten the case he would admit that he caused the boards to be removed. A Clerk from the Bankruptcy Court at Bangor producedjthe file of the Bankruptcy proceedings of John Thomas Daniel Evans, and read the following questions and answers from the notes of the public examination of the bankrupt.—With reference to the North Wales Publicity Assaciation that associa- tion was your father's was it?-It has always been his.—It is his now ?-Yes.-Nobody else at all? No.—You, Thomas Evans and Co were managers of the North Wales Publicity Association ?—Yes.— Who paid the rents of the bill posting stations ?— My father did out of his own funds.—In whose names were the agreements ?—Possibly in our names as managers.—Thomas Evans and CJ. F-Yes.- Who received the money for posting on them ?—We received the money as manager, Thomas Evans and Co. transacted the business.—You told me on the last occasion you had no interest in the firm of John Arthur Evans and Son ?-No, I have none.— Although I understand that there was a banking account on which you drew?—On the authority of my father that is all.—I suppose you have not the pass book of that account with you ?-No it belongs to my father, I have nothing to do with it.—1 think you also told me you gave no authority to your father to put your name in the firm ?—I was not in the firm at all.-But your name was in the firm, it was Jbhn Arthur Evans and Son ?—I know nothing at all about that. But you know that it was so ?— I was not in the firm at all. Mr J. Pierce-Lewis (to the witness): Is there a discharge of the bankrupt on the file r- I Witness: No he has not applied for it. Edward Morgan, grocer, Vale Road, said he was agent for Messrs Sutton, carriers, London. He had received parcels addressed to the North Wales Publicity Association which he had delivered to Mr J. T. D. Evans, in consequence of a letter which he had received from that gentleman stating that they were expecting a parcel by Sutton, and thought it well to advise him of this in case they might leave it at their old place of business Station Chambers, as they had no connection with Mesers J. Arthur Evans and Co. The letter asked him to be careful to deliver all parcels addressed to Messrs Thomas Evans and Co., or the Rhyl and District Advertising Company to their premises in Wellington Road. Had he not receiyed that letter he should have delivered the parcels to Station Chambers. He had delivered two parcels to the defendant on the Mth of April and on the 26th of April. The name on the sheet was the Rhyl Billposting Company. W. McCann said he had put up two or three boards for Mr John Arthur Evans, and he valued them at fourpence to fivepence per square foot including timber, labour and fixing. Cross-examined: He was engaged to put up the boards by the plaintiff and had not seen the defendant with respect to the matter. In cross-examination the defendant produced to the witness a letter addressed to him in the hand writing of the plaintiff offering him certain prices for making and fixing the boards. That letter was signed John Thomas Daniel Evans." The witness admitted having received the letter and having written across it an acceptance of the terms mentioned therein. Defendant in stating his case said he was obliged to admit that he was in one respect a sinner. Whan he went into bankruptcy the first thought in his mind was how to save his father. He allowed that what he did was not correct, but he felt it was his uty. He could not put his proper books in for the simple reason that if ho did so he would draw his father in with him. He was very sorry that this matter had been brought into court at all, but his f *her having brought him there he was obliged to explain the whole facts to His Honour. He should like first of all to prove that his father could not have lent him £ 1800 as his income would not allow of him doing so. The Judge: We need not go into that. Who do you say this business belonged to ? Defendant: To Thomas Evans and Co. The Judge: If this letter to Mr Mc'Caoo is correct it follows that a gross fflpud has been com- mitted upon the Official Receiver. Mr J. P,erce-Lewis: The Official Receiver went very fully into the matter at the time and he ad- mitted the claim of Mr J. A. Evans to the business. Defendant: He did not. Mr J. Pierce-Lewis: In any event we became the owners of the owners of the business by agree- ment with the Official Receiver afterwards. The Jsdge (to defendant) Was this business called the North Wales Publicity Association your business P Defendant It was Your Honour. Hera is my cash book which will show it. The Judge What connection had your father with it ? Defendant He had nothing to do with it he was in my office and kept the books. The Judge And was it in that capacity he Wrote the letter to Mr McOann ? Defendant Yes, Your Honour. The Judge Having regard to what you hav» just e>aid, what is the meaning of the examination that has been read out by the clerk from the bankruptcy court ? Defendant: I admit I have sinned in that matter. The Judge By that you mean that you told that which was false ? Defendant Yes. The Judge Was yoar father aware of that ? Defeadant Yes, Your Honour. The Judge: Of course he must have been if what you say is correct, it was a conspiracy and fraud on the part of you both to defeat the Omcial Receiver. Defendant: I am sorry I have had to bring into court. But I felt my duty as the younger member of the family, to take the responsibility on my own shoulder, and if possible save my father. I am sorry that he should now try and press me down with the very thing I saved him with. Cross-examined by Mr Pierce Lewis: You told H;s Honour that your father was in your office as your tflerk P Defendant Yes; here is the cash book which will shew it. Mr Pierce Lewis: Did you not bring an action against your father to recover 30s. a week for acting as his clerk in respect of this very business ? Defendant: He told me to do so. I felt as he received the benefit from the business that I should get something out of it. Mr Pierce Lewis: Remember that what you have said is a very serious matter. Defendant I know it has been on my mtnd a very long time. Mr Pierce Lewis What have you done with the boards ? Defendant They are here to be sent to the Offiqfel Receiver if you like. Mr Pierce Lewis Have you sent them ? Defendant No. Mr Pierce Lewis: Have you intimated that to the Official Receiver. You said just now that you wanted to keep them for your wife. Defendant I feel that she is more entitled to them than anybody else, because her father has been very good to me. Mr Pierce Lewis Do you know that the Official Receiver compromised the matter, pl. tiff allowing his proof to go, and the Official Receiver conced- ing his claim to the business, he allowed his proof to go as quid pro quo for the business. We became the purchasers from that date if we were not the owners before. He handed the Judge a letter from the Official Receiver with mference to this, whereupon the Defendant said that when he got a copy of that letter, he was charged with having abstracted it. They now hand in the very letter whioh they say I have abstracted. Mr Pierce Lewis Who paid Mr McCann for putting up the boards P Defendant Probably he did, but on the 18th of April, I transferred 150 of my money to his account. Mr Pierce Lewis: What did you do that for ? Defendant: Because the money was wanted. Mr Pierce Lewis: In faot you tent your father JE50. Defendant: That is so, I can prove that, I lent it to him. Here is a deposit slip of J. A. Evans and Son. Mr Pierce Lewis: You were drawing on this very account. Defendant There is not the least doubt, we were partners in J. A. Evans & Son. Mr Pierce Lewis: I shall dtcline to cross-ex- amiry- the witness any further. The Jude If you were partners how came that letter to Mr McCann to be sent in the name of John Thomas Daniel Evans P Defendant When my father disposed of his business in Carnarvon he entered into a covenant not to practise as advertising agent in North Wales. Chester and Liverpool, jfor 2: years, and that being so he could not carry on the business, and to get <ffer it he carried it on in my name. SpThe Judge That is a fraud you know. Was he a partner with you at the time that letter was written to Mr McCann in 1894 ? Defendant: There is no doubt about It. The Judge (to Mr Pierce Lewis).: Do you thiuk in the interest qf the parties that it is wise to pro- ceed further in this case ? If you do I shall im- pound the documents and report to the Official Receiver. It has now assumed a very serious aspect indeed. Mr Pierce-Lewis: I cannpt stop it on my own responsibility.