Hide Articles List

8 articles on this Page


ILlandudno Urban District…

...--.---.--Denbighshire and…


ILlanrwst County School.

..._._-Advance for Quarrymen.

A Penmachno Family Dispute.


A Penmachno Family Dispute. BROTHER AND SISTER IN THE COUNTY COURT. At the Llanrwst County Court, on Fri- day, before His Honour Judge Moss, an action lasting practically the whole 01 the day was heard, in which Mrs Winnie Evans, wife of E. Thomas Evans, Ty'ncoed, Pen- machno, claimed a declaration of Z349 13s 4d which was lying at the Banks at the decease of her father. The defendant in the action was a brother of the plaintiff, Griffith Hughes, quarryman, Voelas Ter- race, Capel Garmon. Mr Clement Davies (instructed by Mr J. D. Jones, was for the plaintiff), and Mr Twigge Ellis defended. Mr Clement Davies said that the deceased, David Hughes, had been a woodman on Lord Penrhyn's estate, and was of a very thrifty nature. He put money by in the Post Office savings bank until it reached 1,200, and then transferred it to the bank at Llanrwst on the 23rd January, 1903. Since that date the money had accumulated. When it reached Z298 14s 7d, he drew a cheque for the whole amount and paid back in the joint names of himself and his son, Griffith Hughes. Counsel detailed dates on which payments were made to the bank, and, on the day after the father died, he said that Griffith Hughes drew Cio out by cheque. The deceased was a widower, and lived at Ty'ncoed, and on November 1st he appeared in fairly good health, but died suddenly the following day. He left no will. He had five children, but one died in child- hood, and there were two now alive, the other two leaving representatives. The family were peculiarly brought up, because they were not brought up at home, but by various relations. In 1895, the deceased inherited ^50 from a cousin and £20 from another cousin. The plaintiff was brought up with an aunt until she was 10 or I I years of age. She then returned home and remained with her father. Later she got married, and her husband lived with them at Ty'ncoed. An arrangement was made whereby the de- ceased David Hughes agreed to pay the rent and also to pay for certain small necessaries, and about 6 years ago another arrangement was come to whereby he paid 8s per week for his board and lodging. With regard to the defendant, he had never, since the age of 4 or 5 years, lived at home. He was brought up by his grandfather; and only occasionally visited his father on Sundays. They were all on friendly relations with the deceased. His (counsel's) allegation was that the money was in the joint names for the convenience of the deceased only, so that, if he failed, he might have someone else to get it, and he was also anxious to escape the death duties, and he (counsel) also alleged it was done at the suggestion of the rnank. During his father's lifetime, the de- fendant never made a single attempt to draw out any of the money. The Judge Neither did the father. Mr Davies said the bank-book was in the possession of the father at the time of his death. On his death, the son was sent for, and accompanied by the daughter's husband they went up-stairs and looked through his effects, and found the pass book. He (coun- sel) contended that this was a trust and in- tended as a trust, and not in the measure of a gift. The plaintiff was called and corroborated counsel's statement. When a letter came from the bank, and they found that her brother's name was also on the pass-book. She asked her father whether he had willed his money over to Griffith, and he replied no, but that the bank had asked him to get his son to put his name, and added that Griffith should not have a halfpenny more than them. Replying to the Judge, plaintiff said her father's reason for doing that was that it would be convenient, if at any time he was taken ill, Cross-examined, she said she was on very good terms with her father. She denied that her father paid 10s per week for board and lodging. Her brother was a careful and sober workman, and she did not suggest that he was in need of money. Deceased did not pay the rent of Ty'ncoed in addition to the 8s per week. He usually deducted it. Evan Thomas Evans, husband of the plaintiff, corroborated. He remembered the letter from the bank, and repeated the state- ment of plaintiff. Witness accompanied de- fendant up-stairs on the death of David Hughes, when they found the bank pass- book, which defendant took possession of. Cross-examined, he said that defendant said the pass-book belonged to him. He had noticed the bank book in the drawer during the old man's lifetime, but had never noticed that Griffith Hughes's name was on it, until they found out when the letter from the bank arrived. Richard Davies, a son-in-law of the deceased, said he had worked with David Hughes for a considerable time. He asked witness's wife to allow her name to appear in the pass-book, but before anything could be done, she was taken ill and died. C ross-exaimined, he heard the old man say that Griffith Hughes was not to have a penny more than the other children. The reason deceased gave witness for adding Griffith Hughes, was tihat he believed there would be some heavy death duties to pay. John Roberts, Eidda, Ysbytty, also gave evidence of having a conversation with the deceased, in which he stated that it was not his intention of giving all his money to Griffith, and adding that he had a right to give the money to anybody he liked. Robert Williams, Rhianfa, Penmachno, gave similar evidence. This closed the plaintiff's case. Mr Twigge Ellis having addressed the Court, E. Jones-Owen, manager of the London, City and Midland Bank, was called. He knew the deceased as a customer at the bank. At the end of 1906, he had £ 298 to his credit, and he called at the bank and said he wanted to open a fresh account, wishing to add his son's name, so that in the event of his death, his survivors should have the money. Witness produced the ordinary forms, and added that it was necessary for the son to be present. In the absence of witness, the son called at the bank, and wit- ness then addressed a letter to him at Ty'ncoed, asking him to call and sign the (form. It was not true that he (witness) pre- vailed upon the deceased to get his son to join with him. Cross-examined, he said that the form gave nothing but the right to Griffith Hughes t, to sign cheques. He never suggested a joint "T r-ftirm t)ii" "jiiiiifiii T Griffith Hughes, the defendant, was called, and said that four years ago his father asked him to go to the bank and sign a form for a joint account. He did so, and his father said witness would have the same right to the money as himself. He went to the bank and signed the form. The deceased said that the opening of the letter at Ty'ncoed ceased, had willed tfee money to the son. The nLaintiff) was carryi°S orl because he (de- ceased had willed the money to the son The j sfl,1^ "Never mind, they will see none of it." At *he time he joined with his I father, he had £12 in the Post Office savings bank. Cross-examined, the defendant said he had never received any help from his father. The only reason he could give for his father leaving all his money to him, was, that he was the only son. He denied that it was for him to raise the money from the bank, and to share it amongst the family. Mr Clement Davies was about to address the Court, when the Judge said he did not want to hear him. Giving judgment, His Honour said he did not see for a moment how it was possible to doubt the evidence of those who had no in- terest in the money. There was not a tittle of evidence to show any unpleasantness in the family, and there was abundant evidence to show that he intended to treat them all alike. He decided that there would be a declaration that the defendant was trustee for the next of kin of the deceased. If there was any doubt about the next of kin, they could appear before the Registrar. The costs of the plaintiff would come out of the estate, and the defendant must pay the costs of the interim injunction, and the rest of his costs would be paid out of the estate.