Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

13 articles on this Page

----RHYL COUNTY COURT.

News
Cite
Share

RHYL COUNTY COURT. FBIDAV Before His Honour Judge Sir Horatio Lloyd and Oliver George, Esq., Registrar. THE ACTION AGAINST BlIYL SOLICITORS: THE JUDGE AND BHYL AIR. Mr R. Oldfield, coal merchant, applied to His Honour for a review of the taxation of the costs in the action brought by him against Messrs Gamlin and "Williams, and which resulted in a verdict for the defendant. JHe said that the action had het>n adjourned over four courts. At the second or third court it was adjourned in consequence of the non attendance of Mr Gamlm, and for that day His Honour had allowed him (Mr Oldfield) ten shilling a and sixpence. But the Registrar at the taxation of costs bad allowed Mr Gamlin at the rate of los. a day for three days, and his clerk 7s. 6d. per day. His Honour would remember that the evidence of the clerk was very uncertain and was in fact not required at all. He could not identify the clerk he saw at his (Mr Oldfield's office), and when he asked for the name of the clerk, the witness named a boy who had left his service a considerable time previously. He therefore maintained that the expenses allowed to Mr Gamnn 8 clerk ought to be struck out, also a portion of the expenses allowed to Mr Gamlin. The case bad been adjourned twice through no fault of his (Mr Oldfield), but through pressure of business in the court. gh The Judge: That happens every day in the week, and when a case is not reached at one court the costs of the day falls upon the looser. I under- stand that Mr Oldfield complains that a higher irate per day was allowed to Mr Gamlin than to himself ? Mr Oldfield said that was so and he reminded His Honour that if the case had been settled the vecond day, there would be no costs for the second or third days. The Judge said that everybody who went into r Case was not cached knew what •*»_ n e f.Uie as t0 costs. Ihe allowance of 15s. to jn analin, and 10a. 6d. to Mr Oldfield was accord- = o scale. With regard to the Clerk his evidence Was necessary as he proved the tender, Mr Gamlin And the delivery of the bill. Mr Oldfield He did not prove it. I never saw it, and when I asked him to whom he gave it he named the wronsr boy. The Judge He is a proper witness and is entitled to his allowance. You ought not to complain, for there are two witnasses who have not received any allowance at all. Mr Oldfield: No thanks to Mr Gamlin; they declined to take anything. The Judge: The costs were taxed down from taxation cannot interfere with the Mr Oldfield said he had next to apply for a new taiV ,6 gro £ ?d that he had ^^h evidence. The Judge: That is no ground. Mr Pamlin said that althlough the ground stated by Mr Oldfield did not entitle him to a new trial, he was willing to agree it. But people who played with fire must expect to be burnt. The Judge I will not agree to it then. Twenty- two thousand cases pass through my court in the course of the year, and if I am to have three hearings of a wretched little case involving a few shillings I shall never come to an end. I think there must be something in the air of Rhyl; people are never 8 w-3 J011 had discovered some evidence which after due diligence you failed to obtain in time for the hearing of the case, it might be a ground for making the application. But to state TVT fresh evidence is not sufficient ground. Mr Oldfield What I mean to say is tint I have learnt more since the last court. I am satisfied if I had another hearing, and bad the assistance of a thorough gentleman who understood the case that. J would be able to induce your Honour to alter your opinion. The Judge: I don't think so; I shall make no -erder. THE JUDGE AND AN ANGLESEY JURY. Mr Gamlin stated that he had been instructed by ■wire from Mr Fanning of Amlwch to apply to His Honour for an order to have a case to be heard at Xlangefni on the following Tuesday in which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were the plaintiffs, and the Parish Council of Amlwch, the defendants, tried by a jury. The Judge: The application is too late and I shall not grant it. As far as I can see by the papers it is a pure question of law. I can quite under, stand why thav want an Anglesey jury. Mr Gamlin: I only apply on the the telegram your Honour. ARE GAS FITTINGS FLXTUEES ? IMPORTANT CASE TO OWNERS AND PUBClIABERS OF PROPERTY. Mr bam Perks, as executor and trustee under the will of the late Mr Wynne, J.P., Tanllan, sued Mr A. L. Clews, Esmond House, for the sum ofjEo value of gasaliers &c. at Tanllan, Rhyl. Mr J. Pierce-Lewis appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr F. J. Gamlin for the defendant. Mr Pieroe-Lewis said the facts on both sides were admitted and the case involved only a legal argu- ment. Srme time after the death of Mr Wynne, Mr Perks caused the furniture at Tanllan to be sold by auction, but the gasaliers on the premises were excepted from the sale Mr Perks being of opinion that he was likely to get a better price for them from the person who became the purchaser of the property. On the 25th of October the property was sold by auction and Mr Clews became the purchaser of the residence, Tanllan and the contract Was signed the same evening. Some time afterwards Mr Perks approached Mr Clews with the object of coming to terms as to the gasaliers, but acting on the advice of his solicitor Mr Clews claimed the gasaliers as having passed to him with the property. They were, as he had stated, agreed as to the facts and the only question which His Honour had to decide was whether the chattels they were claiming were fixed to the freehold and as such passed with the freehold to the purchaser. In support of his view that they were not he quoted the case of D'eynoourt v. Gregory, which was a case with regard to certain tapestry affixed to the walls of the freehold. In that case Lord RomJey held that what was easily re- movable without detriment to the dwelling, and was not essentially part of the dwelling itself or of the architectural design was not a fixture attached to the freehold. These gasaliers could be moved with- out detriment to the dwelling and others put in their place. They were merely screwed on to the gas pipes and could be removed at any time without interference with the dwelling, or making any -alteration in the architectural design. The Judge asked if it was admitted that the gasaliers could be removed without detriment to the freehold? Mr Gamlin replied that it was. But their contention was that these gasaliers were chattels which passed to his client on the signing of the contract. He argued that it was the rule of law that the contract in such a case as this must include a condition as to fixtures, if it was intended that the purchaser of the property should pay for them, and in the absence ot any expressed stipulation to that effect such fixtures were held to be included io the contract of sale and accordingly passed over to the purchaser. If the plaintiff had intended that thebe gasaliers should be excluded from the sale, there exclusion should have been specifically Mentioned in the contract. That was not done, and consequently there could be no doubt about it that these things passed to the purchaser of the free- hold. The Judge: There was nothing mentioned in the contract as to the fixtures being taken over at a valuation ? Mr Gamlin No, nothing. Having quoted oases in support of the view that fixtures, except where specifically excluded in the contract, passed to the purchasers of the freehold, he said that the next question was whether these jjaaaliers were fixtures or not. As to that they had to rely on decided oases. art states that locks and keys of a house or the The6^6 parts. of fixed machinery pass as fixtures. The case, which, however, directly bore on the v. Ane-n '.S8ue was the nisi prius action of Sewell Justice Wi?i1D' iQ 1S6S ani tried before Mr purchased from M the plaintiff in the case premises in suf ^ersteiri the leaee o £ some Smamd.r Z S!'Z^T Flocadm, for the tho lease he also asaigS tn\ ,?°?rBaud W the premises. After Aire Z l ?xtvrC8 °U possession for some time, th<Ts, ii j ™ har fnr -C9^ r 0 8uperior landlord called upon her for £ _o rent which waa due by Angerstein. She declinod to pay th l dl r^ distrained. She therefore brought an action a-ainst Angerstein for the amount which she Waa to pay the superior landlord. Angerstein defended that action and counter-claimed tor four j?aaaiiers or chandeliers which had been left by him au the premises when the lease was assigned to Mrs Sawell. AngerBtein claimed no fer each of these. In giving judgment Justice Wills held that gasaliers 'Were part of the gas pipes and partook of their nature. They were as much part of the gas pipes as the mill stones were part of the mill, and they might be taken off without injur? to tae trea- hold, they were necessary to the enjoyment °t e gas pipes. Counsel for Angerstein applied tor a new trial but the Judge refused, but said he would consult some of his brother judges sitting the other courts. He did so, and on his return said that his view was confirmed by the other judges, and that if the gasaliers were exempted from the assignment under the leave they ought to have bean the subject of a separate agreement, as they formed part ()f the freehold. They were part of the premises just as much as the handle was part of the pump, The handle might be removed without injury to the pump, but without it the pump would be useless. Upon thatjaase Mr Gamlin claimed a verdict for his client. Mr Pierce Lewis having replied on behalf of the plaintiff. The Judge said he would take time to consider the points involved and would give his judgment in writing. THE AFFAISS OF DENDALL AND SON. A QUESTION OF LIABILITY. t> Mr J. S. Greenhalgh, trading as Greenhalgh and -tiobercs, Builders, Rhyl, sued Mrs Ellen Bendall, of James Edward Bendall late of 24 Queen Street, Rhyi, for the recovery of £ 36 12s. 8d. for woik done and materials supplied.—Mr J. Pierce Lewis appeared for the plaintiff and Mr F. J. Gamlin defended. Mr J. Pierce-Lewis said that the defendant was the lessee of the premises, No 24, Queen Street, and plaintiff had carried out certain alterations there for Mr Geary for converting them to premises for the purpose of a high class confectionery business. While engaged on these alterations the defendant instructed Mr H. T. Roberto, plaintiff's manager to do the work in respect of which they were claim- ing that day. The premises were taken by the wife for a confectionery business, and she was assisted by her husband in carrying on this business. When he received instructions Mr Roberts aeked who was to pay for the work, and Mrs Bendall turned round and said "I have the money and I will see you paid." The work occupied a period of ten months and consisted of several items, but the bill was not sent until the 28th of November last. No doubt a point would be made because that bill was headed Mr Bendall. The entry in the day book was "Bendall. Queen Street," and the Clerk who made the bill filled in the prefix '4 Mr on his own responsibility. The following covering letter, however, accompanied the bill ".Dear Madlim-We beg to enclose you an account for work done at Queen titreet for you. I stiall be glad to receive cheque for same as early a possible." It subse- quently transpired that Bendall had by this time left his wife and shop. His client tried to make the best of a bad shop and to get back the cash desk, which had cost £ 14, but was refused it, and the wife told him that it was her husband and not her who was liable for the work. Mrs Bendall, however, claimed the furniture as her own, and these she had since sold to Mr Joseph Evans, Auctioneer. She subsequently surreuded the lease of the premises to the lessor, and part of the conditions of her surrending the lease was that tho lessor should buy the fixtures and utensils on the premises. Mr Gamlin Nothing of the kiud; only fixtures. Mr J. Pierce -Lewis said that amongst the fixtures was a baking trough which was valued at Y,7, and which was made by the plaintiff. Part of the claim also was in respect of repairs to the furniture which was sold by Mrs Bendall, and for which she had received the money. Mr Gamlin: And in reapect of that we have paid j62 13s. 3d. into court. Mr J. Pierce-Lewis continuing said that as soon as they issued the writ Mrs Bendal communicated with her husband, and the representative of the Trustee under the deed of assignment came down and took possession of the desk which they tried to get, and sold it under the deed of assignment. They would prove that the husband left the business, the shop and everything as they stood entierly to the wife, and she haa said in her affidant that she her- self had closed the shop, inasmuch as she could not attend to it and to the family, and she denied her liability in respect to this action. But since the action had been remitted to that court she had admitted her liability with respect to some part of the claim, and had paid a sum of money into court. Mr H. T. Roberts, manager to Mr Greenhalgh deposed to making for Mr Gaary certain alterations at 24, Queen Street for the carrying on of a high class confectionery business on the premises. While engaged at this work he was approached by Mrs Beudall with regard to othsr work required to be done on the premises. He asked Mrs Bendall who was going to pay for it and she said, I have the money and will see that yon are paid." The husband was present when he asked the question. Amongst other work he had made some alterations to the counter in the shop and in respect of which a charge of X2 was made. This counter was among the fixtures which Mra Bendall had sold to Mr Geary. They repaired several articles of furniture. This furniture was sold by Mrs Becdill for S50. He had also made a baker's trough for which 17 was charged and that was sold to the landlord and the money was paid to Mrs Bendall. Cross-examined: He was first approached by Mr Bendall as to doing this work. H" did not know that Mr Bendall had deserted his wife. And did not know that Mr Bendall had left on the 12th of November. He believed be had been in Rhyl several times since then. He did not seud the bill in until the 28th of November. He was not aware that the Sherriff's officer had sold Mr Bendall's effects at 24, Queen Street; he had heard that morning that a receiving order had been made the other day at Bangor Bankruptcy Court against Bendall. It was not a fact that the eole reason why they brought this action against Mrs Bendall was because they thought they had a better chance of getting the money out of her than from her husband. When he sent in his account he had not heard that Mr Bendall had gone away or that the shop was closed. The bill was sent in a thoroughly straightforward and honest way. It was three or four days after he sent in the bill that he heard Mr Bendall had left. Re-examined: When Mr Bendall gave an order he always appealed to Mrs Bendall for confirmation she seemed to have a sort of a casting vote in the matter. The day book in which the details of the work were entered was here produced to His Honour when it appeared that the account had been originally entered in the name of Mr Bendall, and subsequently altered to Mrs Bendall. The witness admitted that this was done when they heard that Mrs Bendall was denying her liability. He knew that Mr Bendall was a sort of acting manager for his wife, and he had often applied to him for a payment on account. Bnt he put him off by requesting him to send him a bill in full when ha would give a cheque for the lot. Mr Francis Geary, Auctioneer, stated that he was the owner of the shop in Queen Street which he leased in 1897 to Mrs Bendall. He agreed to make certain alterations there to adapt them for the carrying on of a fust class confectionery business. These alterations were carried out by Mr H, T. Roberts on behalf of the plaintiff. When Mr Bendall left in November last he agreed to accept from Mrs Bendall a surrender of the lease and also io buy the fixtures on the premises. She told him that the fixtures belonged to her and that the furniture was also her property. Crofs-examined: Mrs Bendall was particular in saying when surrendering the lease, that she had nothing to do with the stock or the trade appliances; that the business was solely and entirely her husband's. Re-examined: Mrs Bendall said she would not interfere with anything connected with the business. She said there were a lot of debts owing by her husband, but at the time she did not know of any processes having been issued. Mr Gamlin, for the defence, said that the question at issue was a very simple one, viz., whether Mrs Bendall was liable for the account on her husband There was no doubt that when Mrs Bendall came to Rhyl she was a lady of means, and had a considerable sum to the credit of her banking account. She lived on the Parade here for some time, and it was ultimately suggested to her by her nusoand that he snould open a business In Rhyl as a confectioner, Mr Bendall had previously been in difficulties in Birmingham, and had paid his creditors there a composition. But that was no reason why he should not launch out in business on his own account in Rhyl. The landlord, however, thought it would be better to have the lease of the house in Mrs Bendall's name, and it was accordingly made in her own name. But she had nothing to do with the business. That belonged entirely to her husband, who had been brought up as a confectioner and baker. Throughout the whole of the transac- tions Mrs Bendall was a nonentity. It was Mr Bendall who ordered all the goods without interference from his wife in any shape or form. It was true she assisted her husband in the conduct of the business as a wife would naturally do in order to save expense. She was on the promises living with her six children, and during the time she was not engaged with her domestic duties she rendered assistance to her husband in the shop. He took all the money, and pocketed all the profit. From time to time he borrowed money from his wife, with the result that her private banking account was ultimately transferred to the name of Bendall & Son. By the end of September last year every penny of the JEo85 which Mrs Bendall had when stie came to Rhyl was gone, and Mr Bendall deserted his wife and went to Birmingham, and had not since contributed a penny towards the mainten- ance of herself and six children. The furniture belonged to her, and this she had converted into cash, and she bad been living on the proceeds eTer At the present time she had absolutely nothing, anct eren piajnti £ £ gucceaded in obtaining th'™611*' would only reap the air and get iiuBOing. would make no comment on the alteration of the name in the day-book from Mr Beudail to MrsBendall further than from the explana- tion of Mr Roberts that the reason for it was obvious. It was not until they issued their defence in the action that the alteration in the books was made, and yet plaintiff attempted to establish the liability of Mrs Bendall by producing the day. book which originally contained the entry Mr Bendall, and subsequently altered to Mrs Bendall. He thought it was a remarkable thing that although the bill was mad3 out in July, it was not delivered until November, some days after Mr Bendall bad left Rhyl, and knowing that he was in difficulties, they attempted to saddle Mrs Bendall with the account. Mrs Bendall in her evidence denied having re- ceived the covering letter with the bill on the 25th of November. The envelope enclosing the bill was addressed Mrs Bendall, the letter s having been added in lead pencil to Mr which was in ink. She gave the bill and envelope to Mr Gamlin who tore up the envelope as he said it was of no consequence inasmuch as the bill was in Mr Bendall's name When she first came to Rhyl she had about JE585 in the bank. Mr Bendall had had all this, she having lent it to him for the purpose of the business. She knew next to nothing about the business but her husband was a practical man, who was brought up to it. She bought the fixtures for the shop from Harrison and Shelton, Birmingham, and it was she who paid for them. The lease of the premises was in her name. The repairs and alter- ations which were the subject of plaintiffs claim were ordered by Mr Bendall. She denied that Mr Roberts asked her husband in her presence who was going to pay for them and that she said she had the money and would see he was paid. No such conversation took place, and no such question was asked. All the instructions to Mr Roberts were given by Mr Bendall. She bad heard Mr Bendall give Mr Roberts an order for making th. baker's trough telling him to make it in a certain way so that the flour would not slip out. All the instructions she gave ita Mr Roberts was to the laying of some carpets and the repairing of certain articles of furniture. She had been assisting Mr Bendall in the shop, bnt she was not in partnership with him. Mr Bendall left Rhyl on the 12th Novem- ber and she clolSca the shop two or three days afterwards because she could not continue the business. She went with her husband to Birming- ham and he was anxious that she should surrender the lease of the premises to her family. She, however, refused to do so. While she was away the children looked after the shop. They were left by their father without anything, and since he had left she had not received a halfpenny from him for the maintenance of herself or her children. Her husband executed a deed of assignment to a Mr Blackham and that gentleman came down and seized the goods. She was very careful in her dealings not to interfere with the stock-in-trade and utensils. Cross-examined: She had seen Mr Bendall in Rhyl on ithe 8th of December and had also seen Rhyl on ithe 8th of December and had also seen him at the Bangor Bankruptcy Court. When she sold the fixtures to Mr Geary that gentleman took hold of the trough and said this is a fixture." Mr Geary had paid her £ 12 for the fixtures. She had not heard Mr Bendall give an order for the alteration of the counter. The counter was among the fixtures sold to Mr Geary. She denied that she had given the fidal order for iall these things. Mr Bendall sometimes used to .ask her opinion as to matters. Her husband had no capital when he came to Rhyl. Mr Geary not being satisfied as to her husband's financial position asked that the lease should be in her name and she agreed. Mr Bendall paid accouuts in the neighbourhood from money in the shop, but when he wished to send money away by post he genarally borrowed a cheque from her. Mr J. P. Lewis said that husband and wife had evidently been playing into each other's hands, and the creditors had suffered all round. If there was nothing to be got ont of Mrs Bendall he could not understand why his friend should go to the expense of defending the action. They believed that Mrs Bendall had other means which might become available and hence they were anxious to obtain [judgment against her. She had actually received money in respect of some of the items in Mr Greenhalgh's bill. She had already paid L2 13s. 3d. into court, and in addition she had sold the counter to which work to the value of JE2 had been done by the plaintiff and the baking trough to the value of X7. He asked His Honour to con- sider the probabilities of the case. Here was a man who came to Rhyl without a penny piece. His wife, on the other hand, had plenty of money and it was she who entered into arrangements for leasing the premises, paying for the fixtures and financing the business generally. He therefore hoped that His Honour would decide that Mrs Bendall waa liable for Jthe money which they elaimed. His Honour in giving judgment said that on the main question he was disposed to take the defen- dant's view. There was a very great conflict of evidence as to who gave the order. Mr Roberts swore that Mrs Bendall had promised to see that he was paid. Strictly speaking, he doubted whether that promise was sufficient of itself to make her liable. But he gave that the go by altogether. The question was, did she say that or not, and he was therefore driven to dcide by considering the surrounding circumstances. If Mr Roberta was so very particular to get this under. taking from her before the work was done, he wondered how it was that he was not equally particular in entering the name of Mrs Bendall in the day book, inetsad of entering Mr Bendall on page after page, six times over. It was not until November lb98 that the bill was sent in, and it was not until action was brought that the name was altered to Mrs Bendall. That was a very important point when they came to consider the question as to whom credit was given. Mr Roberts said it was given to Mrs Bendall. If that wns so, he could not for the life of him understand why her name was not entered in the day book. The truth was, so far aa Mr Roberts was concerned that it waa only when he began to doubt the solvency of Mr Bendall that he took the present view of the matter. He (the judge) held that the credit was given to Mr Bendall and the action thecefore must fail. Some discussion ensued as to a baker s trough sold by Mrs Bendall to Mr Geary with the fixtures and which was made by the plaintiff. His Honour was inclined to think that this article, which Mr Gamlin said was disposed of in error (being a utensil btlonging to the husband's estate), ought to to be paid for by the wife, as she had disposed of it, but Mr Gamlin suggested that it would probably be claimed by the Official Receiver. Mr Geary remarked that the trough was in the nature of a fixture. There was half a year's rent due to him when the lease weK surrendered and, with the X12 he bad paid, he considered that the fixtures he had obtained cost him in hard cash close on ;CGO. His Honour said he would simply give judg- ment for the defendant, without costs, The trough was so mixed up with the other things in the surrender that it was impossible to separate them.

FOOTBALL NOTES AND JOTTINGS.…

Advertising

[No title]

RHYL LIFEBOAT.

GOSPEL AND TOTAL ABSTAINENCE…

"SPOTTING THE WINNER."

MELIDEN. -

rOETRY.' T- ....1'

[No title]

[No title]

Advertising

FOOTBALL NOTES AND JOTTINGS.…