Welsh Newspapers
Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles
9 articles on this Page
Advertising
R H 7.f IE) N IE RHYDWEN JONES & DA VIES AFTER SEASON SALE OF FANCY DRAPERY GLASS AND CHINA GOODS. Comprising Selections from Leading Manufacturers. Goods Suitable for Presents Stocks in above departments marked at reduced prices, as we are anxious to make room for Autumn Goods. All purchases packed free. COLWYN EA Y RHYL LXaAITIDTTDITO Station Road, Tel. No. 67. 33 and 34, Queen Street Tel. No. 16. Mostyn-st. and Vaughan-st., Tel. No 106.
Rhyl Petty Sessions.
Rhyl Petty Sessions. THE QUESTION- OF CLEANING OUT OF THE RHYL CUT. A SURPRISE DOCUMENT PRODUCED. The Petty Sessions for Rhyl were held on Tuesday, before Mr Elwy Williams .(presiding) Messrs. Hazlehurst, T. Jones, T. J. Scoit, R. C. Enyon, Dr. R. Moreton Pnchard, and Dr Thomas. THE JiURY LISTS. .Mr. Arthur Rowlands produced the jury lists for the parish of Rhyl, and the Clerk pointed out that Mr. W. Elwy Williams was entitled to ex. emption, being over 60 years of age. Mr. Elwy Williams: Yes, I have never served on any jury other than the grand jury. Mr. J, D. Polkinghorne claimed, and was granted exemption, through holding the appoint- ment as shorthand writer under the Criminal Appeal Act for Quarter Sessions, as an officer of the court." THE STAR INN, ME LI DEN. Mr Joseph Lloyd applied for a temporary transfer of the licence of the Star Inn, Meliden, from Mrs Sarah Parry to Mr George Pierce, late of Rhuddlan. It will be remembered that some time ago the Bench granted a temporary authority to another tenant, but the police objected to the final trans fer, and the licence reverted to the original holder. The application was now granted, Supt. Jones describing Mr. Pierce as a very decent fellow."
^Cleaning of the Rhyl Cut,
Cleaning of the Rhyl Cut, A NEW DOCUMENT PRODUCED-LITTLE HEARD OF AWARD-THE OWNERSHIP QUESTION THE BENCH'S DETER- MINATION. On Tuesday, the Rhyl Bench, presided over by Mr Elwy Williams, were occupied for three i houts in dealing with the question of who is liable for the cleaning out of the Rhyl cut. Mr E. P. Roberts, butcher, Rhyl, was originally summoned at the instance of the Council whdl i, asked that he should be ordered to clean out a portion of the Cut with a view of abating a nuis- ance. It was explained at the previous hearing that most of the other abutting owners were agreeable to do their share of the work, but in order to place all the owners on the same foot- ing and make the matter one of compulsion, the Bench ordered that the whole of the riparian owners be summoned. The following is a list of the other defendants:—Mrs Rowley Conwy, Bodrhyddan Hall Mr. Llew. B. Evans, Whit- ford House, Rhyl Mr. Thomas Jones, 220, Vale | Road, Rhyl; Mrs Charles Jones, 1'en-y-coed, 'Rhyl; Mrs. M. A. Jones, Penrhewl, St. Asaph Mr Thoyii Williams, LIewesog. Denbigh: Ex- ecutors of the late Mr. Peter Mostyn Williams, < 31, Princes Street, Rhyl; The Vicar of Rhudd- lan, the Rev. T. H. Vaughar. and the Rhyl Ur- ban District Council. JUSTICES" CLERK OBJECTED TO. I On the coilsesbeing called, Mr A. Lewis Jones, f who appeared for Mt. E. tP. Roberts, asked what ,had become of the first case. He submitted that the defendant could not be brought before the court on two summonses for the same mat- ter, and that the first summons should be dealt with. The Clerk said the Bench would give their de- cision on the first summons when they dealt with the others. Mr. Lewis Jones then asked what course the Clerk proposed to take in view of the letter he had written to him. He wished to point out that in this case Mrs. Rowley Conwy was a defendant, and in the year 19C6 Mr Gamlin was acting as that lady's legal adviser. The question of the cleaning of the Cut came up, and Mr C-amlin advised Mrs Rowley Conwv in the mat- ter. No doubt Mr Gamlin made up his mind at that time as to who was. responsible, and he had written to Mr Gamlin formally objecting to his advising the Bench that day. The Clerk said he thought that the position taken up by Mr Lewis Jones was incomprehen- sible. In this case Mrs Rawlev Conwy and Mr Roberts were summoned as joint defendants, and it was natural that if he had and bias in his mind on the matter it would lean to his chent, and so he would advis, the Bench to dis- i-rr.ss the case, and in that way Mr Lewis Jones client would also benefit. He came to the court tfeat day with an impartial mind prepared to Advise the Bench. He then read to the Bench the letter which Mr Lewis Jones had written, and in that communication \fr Lewis Jones said fv hd talked the mntfr- nvilh M" — Gamlin) had only to say that objection might be taken to him as clerk because he was solicitor for certain matters connected with Mr Williams' (Llewsog) property, also that of the executors of Mr P Mostyn Williams. In fact he might be struck out from acting as clerk in almose every court if he had to retire when one of his ordinary clients came forward (laughter.) He wished to explain to the Bench that he had foreseen that the question of the cleaning out of the Cut would come before them, as in August, 1908, he was acting for Mrs Rowley Conwy as to having the Cut cleaned out under the Land Drainage Act of 1847. OBJECTION NOT SUSTAINED. There was then no question of the Public Health Act coming into the matter. Seeing that the question would come before the court he retired on August 18th from the position of legal adviser to Mrs Rowley Conwy on the question of the Rhyl Cut, and from then Mr Joseph Lloyd bad acted for Mrs Rowley Conwy. On the 3rd of December Wr Rowlands, as Town Clerk, wrote to him as Mrs Conwy's legal adviser, but he re- ferred the Town Clerk to Mr Joseph Lloyd. He had only to add that he that day was prepared to act for the justices as their clerk with a per- fectly impartial mind. Mr Lewis Jones said he felt entitled in view of the matter possibly going to a higher court, to take every possible objection on behalf of his client. The Clerk asked the Bench if he were to ad- vise them. The Chairman Yes. You can advise us on the points of law, and we will take care of other things ourselves {laughter.) The names of the defendants were then called over. Mr W Conwy Bell said he represented Mrs Rowley Conwy, Mr A Lewis Jones, Mr E P ( Roberts, Mrs M E Jones, and Mr Thos Jones; t the Vicar of Rhuddlan was present, and pdoof of service of the summonses was taken in each of the other cases, P.C. Rogers stating that he was informed that Mr Llew B Evans was ill in bed. Mr J Pierce Lewis said he appeared that day to conduct the case for the Council and he would point out that the proceedings were taken under the nuisance abatement clauses of the Public Health Act of 1875. It had been contended on the former occasions that the Cut was made by the Rhuddlan Marsh Embankment Trustees, and that the defendants had no interest in it. But as a matter of fact he (Mr Lewis) would prove that the Cut was never made by the Trustees. It was made by a gentleman of the name of John 'Mathews of Carnarvon, who was the Commiss- ioner appointed by Act of Parliament under the Enclosure Trust. It was made under the powers of the Act of George III, 47, and in rhe award made on April 24th, 1815, and by that Award (which he would produce in court) it was ordered that the Cut should be made and maintained 4ft. wide and 2ft. deep with sloping sides, and that the owners of the allotment should for ever clean, scour, support and keep in repair the Cut according to their respective allotment values as charged to the poor rate. A SURPRISE DOCUMENT. In fact of that he could not see what possible defence there could be to the case he brought forward. He submitted that the respective own- ers were liable for the scouring and cleaning of the Cut. So doubt additional powers were given to the Rhuddlan Marsh Embankment Trustees for the making and maintaining of certain works, but they were not bound to ex- ercise those powers, the word being "may" not "shall" or "must." The Chairman said the real question before
Advertising
n < Ann Insurant Coupon v/ith Compensation tlf Disablement.—See last page. Published August 16th, 1909. RAPHAELS ALMANAC; o&. 'riut • %C -If Bss > # v This Almanac has for upwards of NINETY YEARS Advised the FARMER, the GAKDENER. the LOVER, those in DOUBT or PER- PLEX' when and how to SUCCEED in EVERYTHING they undertake. In these TRViNG Tn.1ES it :s eve-nmore necessary than ever to consult RAPHAEL. LONDN: PUGLlSHZD 01 W. FQULSHAilACO.. 4 PILOSI* 9TBEZT, UJDOATI lULL. ,¡"
Advertising
BON MARCHE HIGH STREET, RHYL Great Clearance SALE. o Commences A ugust 2nd. All the China and Glass Department must be Cleared;
-:0:-NEW JERSEYS FOR THE RIIYL…
-:0:- NEW JERSEYS FOR THE RIIYL F.C. The Rhyl Combination eleven will appear in new jersey's on Saturday against Nantwich, their colours will be amber and white. Master Charlie Bray is the generous donor. It is to be hoped that the changing of colours will not interfere with form, and that we shall see another such contest as that at Belle Vue Grounds on Saturday
Advertising
I -'0'- ItTRl NO )H!wtB! N RSAUCE H| is very nice Jjm with cheese. Wouldn't it be E worth your while to try it ? j Special Exhibition Throughout this and. Next Week of Stylish li» & im-HONS AT THE PARAGON IN HIGH STREET We have prepared such an attractive display of Stylish Autumn Wear as must be of considerable interest to every lady of discriminating taste. NOTE ADDRESS- 64, HIGH-ST., RHYL, • Allen Jones & Co. Printed and Published by Arm? TIm, and 13. ■str**?
^Cleaning of the Rhyl Cut,
the Bench was as to the abating of the nuisance. Mr Lewis Jones said he agreed that if there was a nuisance it should be abated, but it was also a question who was liable. The Rev T W Vaughan, vicar of Rhuddlan, then entered the witness box to produce the award of 1815, but Mr Lewis Jones called for the Act of Parlia- ment under which the award was made. Mr Pierce Lewis said it was a Private Act, and very difficult to get hold of 95 years after it was passed. The Chairman It has taken twelve months to get hold of, and are we to allow this nuisance to go on until you get it? Mr Lewis Jones said he did not say that, but he did maintain that the Act should be produced as there might be something in it which would affect the award. The Act he had before him dealing with the Rhuddlan Marsh Embankment Trust was an Act later than that. The Clerk said that the Award under which Mr Pierce Lewis was proceeding was a deed under seal, and being over 40 years old all that was in it was evidence. The Vicar of Rhuddlan said he produced the Award, which was in his custody as Vicar of the (Parish of Rhuddlan. A MILD "D." The Magistrates and their Clerk then examined the Award and its maps, and a question arose as to where the letter D I" was marked on it, as the Award set out the drain as being so mark- ed. The Clerk said h ecould not quite make it out, while .Mr Elwy Williams said it was either a D or 10." (Laughter.) Replying to Mr Lewis Jones, the Vicar of Ij Rhuddlan said he was often consulted as to the Award by people from Rhyl, and the Award was always taken as conclusive evidence. He did not express any opinion as to the Award itself. He was aware that there was such an Act as the Rhuddlan Marsh Embankment Act but he could not say what its powers were. Arthur A Goodall the Town Surveyor testified that he had inspected the 'Rhyl Cut on several occasions and he had prepared plans and sec. tions, which he produced, shewing how it nad become silted. Mrs Rowley Conwy's sectiom had been cleaned out, but the water could not flow towards the Voryd because the section lower down had not been cleaned out and blocked the egress. The drain on the plan of the Award re- ferred to, was the Rhyl Cut. Mr. Lewis Jones: How can you tell? •Mr Goodall said he could identify it, although there was some discrepancy between the old plan which was made 95 years and a modern one, by various indications which he pointed out to the Bench who had both maps before them. He asked the Bench to particularly notice Mr Roberts land which could be identified by its size and positicn, and numbered Lot 30 on the Award and measured at 1 acre, 2 roods, and 36 perches. MERELY A QUESTION OF NUISANCE. The Justices Clerk read an extract from the Award concerning Lot 30 (Mr Roberts land) giving its position and boundaries and winding ] up—"and I hereby order and direct that the owners and occupiers for the time being of the last described allotment shall make and for ever hereafter maintain sufficient fencing on the Eastward, North West, and North East stated therein." The Chairman said they were anxious to know whether there was a nuisance in existence or not ? Mr Goodall further examined by Mr Pierce Lewis stated that the Cut was in a filthy condi- tion, and in his opinion constituted a nuisance, and was injurious to health. Opposite Mr Roberts' land he noticed a drain running from the slaughter house into the Cut and opposite the overflow was an accumulation of offal, etc. from the slaughter house and he also noticed a board a little lower down running from the banks of Mr Roberts land, obviously for the purpose of taking water from the Cut for swilling or other objects. When he last went there the hoard had been taken away. The drain ran well into the bed of the Cut. The whole length of the Cut was a nuisance, but not quite so bad in the other sections as that abutting Mr Roberts land. There was nothing injurious opposite the electric light works because everything was burnt there, but other parts the Cut were siltedup with mud and rank weeds. It had been neglected and the flow of water was insufficient, and the Cut be- tween Mr Roberts land and that of Mrs Rowley Conwy would have to be cleared to ensure a good flow. The water from above, could ,r-ot, pass, and there was a possibility of some of the rank water running back again. The Cut was at times stagnant through there not being a suffic- ient flow, Mr l/cwi.* Joan- There were slight discre- T");:r! l.r'1 hmfdr1 q; venr~. ",c.r WHO IS TO PAY? The Justices Clerk: They were better done then I suppose (laughter.) Mr .Lewis Jones: Yes. (To the witness) Would that account for the discrepancy of half an acre?—Things may not have been set out so exactly as they were. Mr Lewis Jones: Then the plan is incorrect. There is a discrepancy of half an acre.—I will not take your figures until I have checked it myself. The Chairman said the Bench were most con. cerned as to whether there was a nuisance or not? Mr Lewis Jones: We quite appreciate that, but the question is who is to pay for it? The Chairman :We will decide that. Mr Goodall in further cross-examination said that draughtsmanship was not quite so good in the old days as it was now. Mr Lewis Jones: I should think it was not. These plans are nothing to go by. After further croasjexamination the Bench asked Mr Lewis Jones what he was aiming at? Heireplied that he was endeavouring to settle the question of ownership. The Justices Clerk said that witnesses had a). ready shewn that Mr Roberts took water from the Cut and drained into it with a view of shew- ing ownership.. 0 Mr Lewis Jones questioned whether the drain referred to in the Award was really the Rhyl Cut. There were numerous drains involved in the Award. The Rhyl Cut was the main aqueduct. The Justices Clerk remarked that even if the Award had not been put in, prima facie he would have advised the magistrates to make an order to clean out the Cut. BENCH THAT "LEGALITIS." The Chairman later on said that the Bench were satisfied that Mr Roberts land was that referred to in the Award. They stated that to save furth- er trouble. Mr Lewis Jones said that the Bench were as- suming to be judges of title, and that Court had no jurisdiction. The Chairman replied that it did not matter a pin to them who was the owner. What they wanted to get at was who was responsible for the abatement of the nuisance. Mr Lewis Jones said that depended upon the ownership." The Chairman replied that they had better go to another Court. It was not for the Bench to advise them as to that. Mr Goodall further cross-examined said that he did not take the levels himself, but his assist- ant did. There were overflow pipes into the Cut, but no sewerage was drained into there. Ditches also flowed into the Cut. That was the reason why the Cut was there. The Cut above Vale Road Bridge was also in a bad condition and would be attended to next. Mr Lewis Jones asked what was the bad con- dition of the Cut? He had been there a few days ago. The Justices Clerk The magistrates have also been there. Mr Goodall stated that he had seen offal, etc there. Mr Lewis Jones How far does the tide come up the Cut? The tide never comes up. The floodgates are there to prevent it doing so. If it did come up the whole of that land would be under water. In further cross-examination wit- ness said that all the abutting landowners bene- fitted by the Cut in that their land was drained by it. He emphatically denied that the Cut relieved the Rhyl sewer to a great extent. He wished it did. Mr Lewis Jones: X put it that it does? Wit- ness (with emphasis) I say it does not. A BROAD ISSUE. The Chairman said he could not see what that had to do with the case. The question was whether the owners abutting the Cut were to clean it out or not? Mr Lewis Jones contended that it was inequit- able and unreasonable to ask the immediate owners to do the work, seeing that many other landowners received benefits from it. Robert Lowe, the Sanitary Inspector, said ho had complained about the state of the Cut and had served notices to abate the nuisance existing there on June 21st, but the nuisance still remain- ed. He confirmed Mr Goodall's evidence as to the cause of the nuisance. Dr Eyton Lloyd also agreed that there was a nuisance, owing to the silting up of considerable filth and vegetable growth. It had constituted a serious nuisance for years-and he was very glad action had been taken. He considered that the health of the public was endangered by it. Mr Lewis Jones asked if such a dangerous nuisance existed for years, why steps had not been taken to abate it before? The Doctor replied that steps had been taken an i tile hid cle-med renrr.ted-
^Cleaning of the Rhyl Cut,
into Court. Hundreds of nuisances were abated without coming into court. The question of ownership had nothing to do with him. His only object was to get the nuisance removed. The Doctor then gave similar evidence as the Surveyor as to the cause of the nuisance, and as to how it could be remedied if the whole length could be cleaned to ensure a sufficient flow. Alluding to an certain overflow pipe he described it aa the modern representative of an old ditch." Mr Lewis Jones said that seeing that there were no houses near the Cut he asked whose health could be threatened by the state of the Cut? Witness: What has 'become of Morfa Bach? He added that the latter houses would never have been built if the Cut were not there. Mr Pierce Lewis said there were other owners willing to do the work and considered it quite equitable. MR. CONWY BELL'S RETORT. Wm. Conwy Bell, agent for Mrs Rowley Conwy said he was willing to do the work, and had already done a portion of it. On May 19th they were asked by the Town Clerk to do it, and they at once said they were prepared to do their share. He produced a bill shewing that 98 roods had been cleaned out at 4s. per rood. The work had been done right to the boundary of Mr Roberts land, and they were still prepared to go on with it, but they could not proceed further until that portion abutting Mr Roberts land was seen to. On a previous occasion when the Estate volun. teered to do the work the other owners all agreed to pay their share, but some of them failed to do so. "So once bit, twice shy pointedly declared Mr Bell. Mr Lewis Jones Can you tell me how many acres of Mrs Conwy's land the Cut drains? Yes if you wll give me a week to work it out? (loud laughter.) The Rev T W Vaughan also said that he was willing to do his share as he had done in pre- vious years. Mr Conwy Bell here said he considered it a great injustice that they should have been sum- moned after they had done as such bf the work as possible. They could not do any more. The Chairman Perhaps we may help you to do it (laughter.) For the defence Mr Lewis Jones said it might seem a small matter but he submitted that in the future they did no, know what liabilities might accrue if they assumed the ownership of the Court. iWhat Mr Goodall had said about Mr Roberts taking a bucket of water out of the Cut now and again was not sufficient evidence of ownership. He had in Court a demand note made by the .Rhuddlan Embankment Trustees from one of the owners as recently as 1882 which shewed that they had maintained the Cut up till then. The Trustees said that they had no money and were not going to do anything, but he sub- mitted that a body with powers imposed upnn them by Act of Parlament could not shirk their duties like that. In Mr Roberts deeds as to the cleaning of the Cut, while the plan of the Award was incorrect. POSITION OF THE RHUDDLAN TRUSTEES r Pierce-Lewis said that the watercourse was I included with the land. I Mr Lewis Jones contended that it was only included as a general term, common in all con- veyance. Undoubtedly the coil in the Cut was vested in the Rhuddlan Embankment Trustees who repaired the outlet up to the present time and went all the way to Abergele. That the Trustees ought to do was to get a special Act of Parliament. They could not say that they were dead. The Justices Clerk interposing said that Mr Robertsdeeds shewed that his land was within 29 perches of the exact quantity stated in the Award and not half an acre out as Mr Lewis Jones had asserted. The deed also shewed that the watercourse was conveyed with the land. The watercourse was mentioned in both deeds before him i'" I Gamlin advising their worships in such a manner. He was jumping at conclusions. He denied that the deeds were only 29 perches out as com- pared with the Award. A little later Mr Gamlin accepted Mr Lewis Jones interpretation as to the measurements. Mr Lewis Jones as to the watercourse averred that such deeds always included the term in a general way. He quoted a High Court case sheving that there was a great difference between a natural and an artificial stream in connection with the question of riparian ownership, which did not apply in the present case because the stream was an artificial one and the fee simple had not been invested in his client. The Bench must be satisfied that the defendants were ab- solute owners before they ordered them to abate the nuisance. According to the Doctors evidence there had been a nuisance for four years and if it had been injurious to health why had not the Council taken action before? Why because they were not satisfied as to the ownership of the Cut. It was all very well to say that Mrs Conwy was willing to do her share. It was to her interest to do so, as hundreds of acres of hers drained into the Cua. THE DECISION. Mr Pierce-Lewis replied that under their Act of Parliament the Rhuddlan Trustees were auth. orised to carry out certain works but were not compelled to do so. Certain of the works had been done, but others had not. There was noth. ing in the Act to shew that the watercourse was vested in the Trustees. The Cut was there for the purpose of draining the land of the abutting I owners and for no other purpose. He submitted that on the law he had quoted the Beipcli were entitled to make the orders asked for. The Bench then retired and on coming back into Court again the Chairman announced that the Bench considered that they had power to make the orders asked for; that a nuisance did exist as was abundantly shewn by the Medical Officer for Health and other witnesses and they decided that the nuisance must 'be abated, and therefore made an order on all the defendants to abate the nuisance within twenty-one days. On Mr Pierce-Lewis asking for costs, the Chair. man said they would make no order as to costs except the ordinary court fees. It should be stated that the two Acts of Par- liament, relating to the Rhuddlan Marsh Em- bankment Trust and the bound copy of the Local Acts were allowed to be inspected and produced in Court by the consent and courtesy of Mr Edward George, of the firm of Oliver George and Co., Clwyd Street, Rhyl.