Hide Articles List

3 articles on this Page



ST. ASAPH COUNTY COURT. I TBIDAY Before His Honour Judge Sir Horatio Lloyd, and Oliver George, > sq, Registrar. ADMINISTRATION ORDER. RobcTt John Jones, Bryn Felin, Dyserth, applied for an order for the administration of his debts which were scheduled at £21. He offered to pay in full by instalments of 6s. a month. Mr Pierce-Lewip, and Mr Bromley, who appeared for creditors appealed for a larger instalment, and the Judge granted an administration order and fixed the instalment at Ss. per month. THE ACTIOS AGAINST THE BHYL UBBÅ. DISTRICT COUNCIL. VBEDICT FOR THE COUNCIL. His Honour delivered judgment in the case heard at the last court in which a boy named John McEIro? sued the Rhyl Urban District Council for damages for personal injuries caused by a tram waggon on the shore running over him. Mr F. J. Gamlin was for the plaintiff, and Mr J Pierce- Lewis for the defendants. The Judge said that the facts in the case were not much a dispute. He must come to the conclusion that the boy was not himself concerned in setting the waggons in motion. The boy had been paddling and at the moment he was injured he was sitting on the rails lacing his boots. While there these waggons were set in motion, and came down upon the boy and hurt him. They had been set in motion by a lot of ether boys, and he was not prepared on the evidence to say that the plaintiff was connected with those boys. Therefore, so far as he was concerned, there was no contributory negligence. But the case involved other considerations. The Council were lawfully on the shore doing work within their power, and for that [purpose they had laid down temporary rails and had waggons there for the removal of material. At the close of they day in question, about 5.30, the waggons were taken up to the top of a slight incline. Three "waggons were attached to each other and tha two end ones were de-railed, whilst an iron bar was placed through the middle one to prevent it moving. There was no doubt about it that somehow or other these mischievous boys lifted the two waggons on to the rails and took the bar out of the middie one, and down they came and injured the bov while he was sitting on the rails. The law as to liability in this matter was far bettar laid down than he could express it. Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, had laid down in the case of Clarke v. Chambers that a m&n leaving in a public place, frequented by persons and among others children, a dangerous machine which might injure anyone who touched it, without taking any precaution to guard against such injury, was not only guilty of negligence, but negligence of a. very reprehensible character, and not less so because the machine was set in motion by someone else." There were several other cases of a similar character. Therefore the only question for him was whether or not these waggons were left in such a condition by the Urban District Council as was reasonably sufficient, having regard to the par- ticular consequences in this case, and havin rerd to all the circumstances and the liability of cbildreu. playing with them. That children were likely to play with them was proved by both sides, because persons had seen children trying to lift the waguous on to the rails. The question therefore was whnt was done reasonably sufficient to meet that particular consequence. He was told, and he would accept it as a fact, that each of these waggons weighed four Cwt. Two of the wagons were absolutely taken off the rails, and a bar was placed through the middle one. Bad the Council contended themselves by merely putting a bar through the middle waggon he thought they would have been to blame. But when he came to think that it was only children from whom danger might be anticipated, and that it would tak9 four men to lift one waggon on to the rail again, be thought, had be done that be would have calculated against any likelihood of children beinJl able to set the waggons in motion. But. said the plaintiff, You showed you were in the wrong. because the next day you put on a watchman." That was being wise after the event. They found, Contrary to expectation that children could lift the waggons on to the rails after they had been de-railed, and consequently took the very proper precaution of putting on a watchman. The question was what on the day in question, they ouzht to have done. Looking at the circumstances fairly, while regretting the injury to the bov, he really could not say that the defendants were guilty of any negligence in the way in which they had left the trucks. He thought they bad done all that reasonably could have been done to meet any reasonable contingency. He was therefore bound to decide in their favour. Having regard to the injury to the company, he supposed that they did m t HSIr for costs. Mr J. Pierce-Lewis: I think they will forego costs. Judgment for defendant without costs. MEDICAL CHA11GES. WHAT IS BEASOABLE ? Mr and Mrs Ward, of 27 St. Mathews lioad, Smethwick, Birmingham, were sued by Dr. T. H. Summerhill, Rhyl, for the recovery of £ G 16s. for medical attendance. Mr R. Bromlev was for the plaintiff, and Mr J. Pierce-Lewis for the defendant. The plaintiff said that last August the defendants were on It visit, to Rhyl, and be was summoned to attend their child who was suffering from scarletina. He paid foar visits to the child in Queen Street, and eleven to the Infections Hospital at Towyn, where the child had been removed on his advise. Cross-examined: He charged 5s. for each visit to Queen Street, and 10s. 6d. for each visit to the hospital. The first account he sent was tor JE6 63., but that was a mistake as be had omitted one visit. When he got in he was told that the defendant was a railway employer at Birmingham, whose wages were 27s. Gd. a week reduced by contributions to benevolent funds &c. to 25s. a week. He was not told that they lived in a house at 6s. per week, but was told that they had a Steinway piano (laughter). It was the rule in the medical profession to charge patients according to their circumstances in life. Mr Lewis pointed out that in Whitiakers Almanack it was laid down that the rule was where the rent of the house did not exceed £2.) a year, to charge from 28 6d. to 3s. 6d. a visit. The witness replied that a medical man could not be expected to go two miles and pay sixpence for the bridge for 3s. 6d. For special journeys they were entitled to special fees. Besides if it was a question of rent the defendants at the time he was called in, were living in apartments for which they paid jE3 3s. a week. He always got 10s. Gd. for each visit to Towyn Hospital, and this was the first time the charge had been challenged. He knew that the defendants had paid £2 :2". into court with a denial of further 'iability. Mr Pierce-Lewis, for the defence contended that the charge was excessive, and that it was laid down as a general rule that medical practitioners should charge their patients according to their circumstances in life. The scale to patients living in houses of £10 to £:25 a year rental, was from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. a visit, and when the patient was at a distance the doctor was paid a mileage of Is. Gd. per mile. The Judge: The rent basis tells rather against you, because the defendants were living at this time in Rhyl when rents were pretty high. Mr J. Pierce-Lewis said the basis should be the rent of the house in which the defendants previously resided, and which in this case was only 6s. Gd. a week. The Judge: Doctors, ws know, have a sliding scale. They charge what they can get. They realise that in some cases it is not much use charging 5s. a visit. Mary Jane Ward said she was the wife of the defendant who was a clerk in the employ of the London and North Western Railway Company. The rent of the house they lived in was Gs. Gd. a week. On the 17th of August they were residing in apartments in Rhyl, and she called in Dr. Summerbill to see her child who was ill at the time. He called twice on the first day as he was not sure on the first visit whether the child was suffering from a fever or not. They were staying at the time in Queen Street; three parties had joined together in the same room and they were each paying £1 18. a week. The child who was ultimately removed, to the Isolation Hospital at Towyn, and was ill for about a month. When Dr. Summerhill was called in she fully explained to him their circumstances, and he went to Dr. Lloyd to get the fees to the hospital reduced, and succeeded in having them reduced from Is. to IDs. Cross-examined Dr. Lloyd had been supaened that da.y to give evidence. She did not pay him, as the case had been taken out of their bands by a friend who considered the charge excessive. George Ward, the defendant explained that he was a railway clerk, in receipt of 27s. Gd. a week. 10 hia circumstances he thought that £:2 2s. was a reasonable sum to pay the Doctor, and that Sum he had paid into court. Dr. A. Eyton Lloyd, Medical Officer of Health for the district of Rhy, that the case was reported to him and the child was taken to the hospital. The fees were reduced from 15a. to 10s. a week. Cross-examined There was uo fixed rule with regird to medical charges. He was entitled to charge £1 Is. a visit if be could get it. The Towyn Hospital was two miles from town, and a doctur attending a patient there was entitled to mileage. The Judge: I will aak you a question Doctor, which both the advocates seem afraid of asking you and I can understand their hesitation. We know, of course, there are Doctors who charge enormous 1 fees in Hnvery Street. But having regard to the circumstances of these people, and the position of Dr. Summerhill can you say whether these charges are reasonable or not. Dr. Lloyd I think that upon appeal they might be modified. The Judge: That is as an act of grace on the part doctor ? Dr. Lloyd Yes, as an act of grace. The Judge said he would give judgment for plaintiff for £4 48. payable by instalments of 10a. a month. A PECULIAR SHOP BULK. The Star Supply Stores, High Street, claimed from John Taylor, Vanman, Gronant Street, the sum of 18s. damages for breach of contract. Mr F. J. Gamlin was for the plaintiff, while defendant was not legally represented. Mr Gamlin said that the plaintiffs owned a number of shops all over the country, and it was very necessary that their rules, a copy of which was conspicuously placed in each shop, should be strictly conformed to. Rule 29 read, "Managers and assistants desirous of leaving must give twelve days notice in advance to the Central Stores; notice on either side to date from the Monday." These rules were fixed in a prominent position in the establishment of the company at Rhyl, and a witness would swear that he had seen the defendant reading them on more than one occasion. Defendant was employed by the Star company as a warehouse man, at 18s. per week, and was engaged by the manager, and who on the 2nd of October gave the defendant 12 day* notice which would expire on the 14th of October. Defendant finished his work as usual on Saturday the 7th of Octo Jer and was paid, and was expected back on Monday to complete his work. He did not, however, put in an appearance, and on inquiries being made it was found he had gone tj some rival grocer. They therefore claimed one week's wages in lieu of notice. Mr John Hughes, Rhyl Manager, corroborated the above statement. Defendant said he was engaged permanently and was much surprised to receive notice. He denied that it was a 12 days notice but a week's notice, and he knew nothing about the rules. The Judge pointed out that the 12 days notice was only to be given in the case of an assistant or manager desirous of Jeaving, and not in the case ot the company desiring to dismiss either the one or the other. Mr Gamlin said tbat when the defendant was engaged it was expressly stated that 12 days notice would be required on either side. The Judge said they were moat peculiarly drawn up rules. Mr Winterbottom, general manager to the company, said he wrote the letter to the last witness tailing him to give 12 days notice to the defendant. The rules in question had been acted upon for the last 16 or 17 years, and they were always understood to men 12 days notice on either side. The Judge: You had better alter the rules by saying 12 days notice on either side, to save you any bother in the future. Witness continuing said he saw the defendant personally and it was explained to him that 12 days notice was to be given on either side. On Saturday the 7th of October, the evening before he left he saw the defendant and askad him why he had not done certain work and he said he was going to do so on the following Monday. The rlilesbad been in existence 25 years, and they had never previously bad any bother. The Judge said he was not prepared to say that the defendant had broken any contract on these Rsading the rules as they stood they involved only the usual weekly engagement, and only weekly notice on the part of the company. But in the case of managers and assistants desirous of leaving they had to give the Central Stores, 12 da, s notice. It seemed a rule on the face of it, framed in the interest of the employers who were to have a longer notica than the employee. There was nothing to prevent the employer turning a man out in seven days, but if the man left he must give j 12 days notice. That was the logical reading of the rules, and therefore he could not say that any rule was broken. Judgment for defendant without costs. A w ARRATY. AN ILLEGAL SUMMONS. Morris Wartski, jeweller 21 High street Bangor, sued Henry Parry Jones, butoher, Llanddulas, for recovery of £2 5s. being the balance due on a 9- carat gold chain. The plaintiff's traveller said that he sold the defendant a gold chain, but bad only received £2 5s. out of £4 10 due.—Mr Crabbe, solicitor, Abergele, appeared for the defence, and placed before the court a document received from the plaintiff by the defendant. It was as follows:- "Dèbt summons from the county court for this district. This is to give you notice that unless the sum due frum you to Mr Wartski, 21, High-street, Bangor. is paid within three days from the 26th day of July 1199, a summons will be issued froni the above county court for the rec0very of the 8um. with cost". Amount due, £ 2 5s." His Honour.—What right have you to send that at ail, or to put the words From the oounty court on the Witness.—I did not send it. It was sent out by tbe clerk. His Honour.—The Registrar will take care of that document I have spoken toMrWatski before about it, and I will not do so again. Mr Crabbe contended that the chain was sold under a warranty. Defendant and a witness gave evidence to the effect that the plaintiff's traveller guaranteed that the chain was worth £4 10s, adding that he would give defendant the chain if ib was not worth £ 10". Mr Llaw. Jones, jeweller, Abergele, said he bad examined the chain sold to the defendant, and found that it was worth from £2 5s, to £2 10s retail price. Plaintiff's Traveller—I do not think that that has anything to do with the case at all. His Honour.— I think it has. You sold a chain to the defendant for £4 10s It is nothing more or lers than a downright swindle. He has paid you qu to enough, and I give judgment for the defend- ant. Mr Crabbe.—I ask for costs. His Honour,— I will give costs in this owing to the notice sent to the defendant. A DTSEETH TRESPASS CAIE. Mr John Williams. Rossivn, Dyserth, claimed of Mr Robert Lewis, Cross Keys, Dyserth, the sum of damages for trespass. Mr Ellis Jones Griffiths, M.P. (instructed by Mr R. Bromley), appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr S. Moss, M.P. (instructed by Messrs Gold Edwards & Co., Den- bigh), for the defendant. The facts of the case were very complicated. The parties, it appear", are the respective owners of two fields which adjoin each other. The plaintiff being anxious to widen the road on whicb the fields abut, gave the St Asaph District Council a quantity of land to widen the road, and received in exchange for it 40 yards cf road waste, which he enclosed with a wa 1, which wall was also continued between the two fields on the plaintiffs side where the hedge and ditch (ormarly was. Defendant had takan down the wall, alleging it to be an encroachment upon the public rights, and also upon his land, he claiming that the ditch in plaintiff's field, ditch, in accordance with the presumptive rights, belonged to bim. Plaintiff, however, contended that the dittih was included in the admeasurement of the land conveyed to him by the Ecclesiastical Com- missioners, while the measurements in the convey- ance to the defendant did not cover the ditch, and that in reclaiming the roadside waste in exchange for other land, he had not enclosed any portion of the highway usually used by the public. It was further contended on the part of the plaintiff that even assuming that there was an encroachment, the defendant had no right or authority to take the wall down, but should have proceeded by means of the prescribed legal process. For the plaintiff Mr Grimsley was called to prove that the District Council and the Parish Council had agreed to the exchange of land, and Air R. E. Hughes was called to prove that the measurement in the plaintiff's conveyance covered the ditch to the centre of the hedge, whilst those in the defendants' conveyance did not do ao. For the defence witnesses who had occupied the field owned by the defendant stated that for 50 years they had cleaned the ditch in the defendants field and trimmed the hedge. His Honour reserved judgement. A STEP DAUGHTER'S CLAUI FOR MONEY LENT. Jane Jones, Holyhead, claimed from Roderick Jones, Abergele. the sum of £:20 for money lent. Mr E. A. Crabbe, who appeared for the plaintiff, said that in the year 1S03 Roderick Jones went to a farmn amed Bronheuldeg At that time plaintiff was in service and had money of her own. The wife of Roderick Jones canae to her for a loan of £20 as they were short of money for the rent and she sent the money in a registered letter. Her mother before she died, to prevent any dispute, wrote an acknow- ledge for the money, and the defendant, after the funeral said he could not then pay it, but would do when be sold the mare. The plaintiff said that no portion of the money had been repaid to her, and all she had received was a pig in lieu of interest. lhe defendant said he had repaid the money every penny during his late wife's life time. The pig was not given as interest but in exchange for a calf which plaintiff promised to send, but which s-he never did send. Her sister, who had judgment against him at the last court had .sld him up unjustly, and between them they had ruiiied him. Judgement was given for plaintiff. DISPUTE OVER A PIG STYE. William Mathews, West Street, claimed of Frances Lloyd Hughes, the sum of JE5 damages for the wrongful removal of a pig stye in a field in Warren Road. Mr Joseph Lloyd W8 for the plaintiff, and Mr R Bromley for the defendant The case for the paintiff was that he owned some pig styes ip a fleld in Warren Road, and on the defendant becoming a tenant of it, he agreed to continue the sub tenancy to the plaintiff at 12s a year. But after the lapse of two months be f r< iblv remoyed the pig stye without giving plain. tiff any notice wharever. For the defence Mr J. E. Edwards, Warren Road, w 8 c "lpd and proved serving notice to quit on plaintiff's wife in i month's time. The defendant said that as that notice was not complied with he had the pig stye removed. The .Judge gave judgment for the defendant without costs.