Hide Articles List

18 articles on this Page

Sudden Death of Mr. FredI…

LLANRWS!

BETTWS-Y-COED.

LLANGERNYW.

TREFRIW.

ROEWEN.

Christmas Festivities at the…

..-.---Colw 'n"Fay I\¿p Year's…

-----........--.-LLECHWEDD.

._.--Quarrymen's Tribute to…

--( Conway Bridge Commissioners…

News
Cite
Share

( Conway Bridge Commis- sioners v. Jones. This case came on for further hearing he- fore Mi. Justice Eve in the Chancery Divisic 1 last week in the form of an adjourned sum- mons to be heard with witnesses. Mr. E. Clayton, K.C., and Mr. J. M. Cover (instructed by Mr. W. Thornton Jones, of Ban- gor) were counsel for the Commissioners, and Mr. P. Ogden Lawrence, K.C., and Mr. Owen Thompson represented Mr. I. \V. Hughes, solicitor, Conway, as claimant and as one of the respondents to the summons. The question for the decision of the Court was whether the 131 IGs. Id., balance in hand of Mr. Hugh Parry (Borough Account- ant), as Receiver appointed by the Court in the iccent action by the Commissioners against Mr. J. Lloyd Jones, the late lessee, should be paid to the plaintiffs or to Mr. Hughes. The amount represented the net tolls after payment of costs of collection taken at the Bridge from March 15th to 31st last, and it was claimed by the plaintiffs as applicable in part payment of the costs of action and appeal ordered to be paid by Mr. J. Lloyd Jones. Mr. Hughes claimed to be entitled to payment of this sum as mortgagee in pos- session under a mortgage dated the 5th March last. Upon the case being called on, Mr. Ogden Lawrence, K.C., said Mv Lord,-In this case I appear for Mr. Hughes, who is the mortgagee and respondent. Mr. Hughes has left himself in mv hands entirely in this case, and I have taken the responsi- bility of advising him not to resist the pay- ment, under the circumstances, of the whole of the monies to the Receiver in the action. Mr. Justice Eve To the plaintiffs. Mr. P. O. Lawrence Yes, my Lord, and he also submits to pay such costs as your Lordship thinks have been involved bv rea- son of the claim he made. 1 desire to state that I have advised him to do that because of his position there. He is a solicitor, and he is a member of the plaintills' Council, and the whole matter rests on a conflict of evidence between himself and the Borough Accountant. Under those circumstances, I have advfsed him not to put himself in a position to be examined and cross-examined. He was quite willing to adopt that view be- cause the Borough Accountant may have been mistaken. I ought to state this. 1 have investigated mv cliemt's other papers, and, whatever may be the outcome of the evidence between the two, he was honestly under the belief that he has sworn to, and that is borne out by a letter which he wrote to his London agents that night asking whether he was right in what he had done. It is un- fortunate that the matter was not put into writing, but it is quite possible that the Borough Accountant might have been mis- taken. I have suggested to him, considering his position as a solicitor there and one of the masters of the Borough Accountant, that he should not put himself in a position to be examined and cross-examined where there is a contlict of evidence on such a point, and also considering the smallness of the whole amount involved—I think it is only /130 and costs. It is sure to be published all over the district in which he practices, which will do him harm. Under these cir- cumstances, I ask your Lordship to disregard mv clients claim in dealing with the sum- mons to proceed and to do what your Lord- si ip thinks right in the claim that has been made as regards the costs. 1 approached n.y friend to say that there should be no costs, but he does not see his way to fall in with that, and therefore I leave it to your Lordship to do what you think right. Mr. Justice F ve: Have all the witnesses been brought up ? Mr. P. O. Lawrence I think everything is ready, my Lord. It was only this morn- ing that 1 asked my client whether lie would place himself in my hands. Mr. Clayton On the 23r(I May the Master made an order on the summons discharging the Receiver, and it was adjourned into Court. Mr. Justice Eve He ordered him to pay the balance to the plaintiffs. lr. Clavton To pass his account and pav the balance to us. That will be the order that will be now made. With regard to the costs, I ask your Lordship to give us the costs of and occasioned by this claim. Mr. Justice Eve It is a proper form, but in the hrst place it was adjourned into Court because the parties were not satislied with the Master they wished to come to the Judge, not upon the claim which ultimately developed, but that there was a claim that might be affected by the possession of the mortgage. Mr. Clayton I can tell your Lordship exactly how it stood. Mr. Justice Fve: Then Mr. Owen Thomp- son wanted to introduce some new matter. lr. Clayton On the 25th April we took out our ordinary summons to discharge the Receiver and so on, "and he brought in his account, which showed a balance in his hands uf -1-131 IC-s. Id. On the application before the Master, Mr. Parry filed an affidavit verifying his account as to the monies re- ceived b\- him, and on that occasion Ir. Hughes filed an affidavit, sworn on the 28th April, simply verifying the mortgage of the tolls to him, and stating the amount due to him 1131 10s., I think it was. That came before the Master on the 2nd May, and the hearing was then adjourned for some reason until the 23rd May. On the :2.3nl May there was before the Master simply the two affi- davits the one of Mr. Parry verifying his account, and the one of Mr. Hughes verifying his mortgage. On that occasion the Master decided he would make the order discharging the Receiver. Thereupon Mr. Hughes asked for an opportunity to bring in another affidavit. J'he Master pointed out that the evidence was closed, and declined to do that, and then it was adjourned to your Lordship. Mr. justice F.ve At that moment Mr. Hughes was not a party to the proceedings. Mr. Clayton He was not, my Lord. He brought in the a udavit on that claim. The summons was addressed to him because, on the application for the appointment of the Receiver, his London agents appeared and stated that he was a mortgagee, and therefore the summons to proceed is ad- dressed to him. and on that occasion he was not only a solicitor but a party to that appli- cation. Mr. 1 ustice Fve He was entitled to ask the Master to refer it to the tidge. Mr. Clayton On his claim to be paid out of the /131 Ids. lid., /133 10s.—that is to sav, the whole of it. Mr. Justice Eve Did the Master propose to make vou or Mr. Hughes pay any costs of that summons ? Mr. Clayton I do not think so, my Lord. I do not ask for any costs against Mr. Hughes prior to the 23rd May, but 1 ask for all the costs subsequent to that, including the ad- journment to your Lordship. 9 Mr. J ustice Eve Do you mean including that adjournment ? Mr. Clayton Yes, my Lord. Mr. Justice Eve: No. As a rule, in any f case Mr. Clayton I am not going to quarrel. When your Lordship understands the facts, I am not going to say anything more about it. Mr. Justice Eve: If there is anything in the matter 1 very seldom make a party pay any costs of coming to the Judge either in Court or in Chambers. Then you say that on that the whole matter was changed. Mr. Clayton Then the affidavit he swore in support of his, if I may so, new case, the present case, was sworn on the 1st July, but it did not come in fact before your Lordship until the 13th October. The Vacation, of course, intervened. I suppose there was not sufficiexlt time to get it on before the Vacation, and it -ame on shortly after the Vacation. That would be upon an adjournment to yours on the 13th October. In the meantime we had taken a copy of his aflidavit of the h-t July, and I am only sug- gesting that our costs ought to include that ffidait-beoin with that affidavit. Mr. Justice Fve 1 think, if you insist upon it. the attitude that he took was that there was a special arrangement under which he was in fact, as prior mortgagee, in possession before the Receiver went and there was a special arrangement by which that posses- sion was not disturbed. I think, if you in- sist upon it, and he does not appear now to support it--I appreciate entirely what Mr. Lawrence has said the amount is not large, and it is not the sort of dispute that one would wish to be engaged in—vou are en- titled to your costs occasioned bv the new case which was raised, that is, as from the 23rd May. 1 think Mr. Hughes should pav those. Mr. P. O. Lawrence Of course, after the 23rd NJ-,t\, -not including the 23rd May. Mr. Justice Fve: Not including the ad iournment ot the 23rd May. Mr. Clayton All costs after the 23rd May. [r. Justice Eve: \es. 1 suppose it is not an action in which they will be taxed between olicitor and client. Mr. Clayton: it is a litigation between parties —party and party costs. :\1;. justice f-.ve )es, party and party costs. I see by the Public -Authorities' Act that would not really be so. Mr. Clayton Of course, the costs of my clients inciude the witnesses. ir. 1 ustice Eve Yes. Air. P. 0. Lawrence Yes, the cost of bring- ing them un. Judgment for Commissioners accordingly. Our readers will recollect that the late lessee of the Conway Bridge tolls gave notice that he intended to levy an increased toll on vehicles, which he claimed he was entitled to under the lease granted to him by the Commissioners. As this proposal, if carried out, would he most detrimental to the pros- perity of the Borough of Conway, the Com- missioners, in the interest of the inhabitants, having failed to induce the lessee to abandon his intention, sought an injunction in the High Court to restrain him from levying these increased tolls. Upon that question coming before the Court, judgment was given in favour of the lessee. The Com- missioners, for financial reasons, were not inclined to appeal against this judgment, and were prepared to consider any moderate claim which the lessee might put forward to satisfy his claim for the loss incurred by him in not levying the increased toll for the period 1st April to 1st November, I90Q, which, by the decision of the Court, lie was entitled to levy. The claim put forward was /1,?00, and this was considered bv the Commissioners sg unreasonable that they immediately gave notice of appeal. As is well known, this appeal came before the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justices I letcher, Moulton, and Buckley, who unani- mously set aside the decision" of the Court below with costs against the lessee. This result justified the course taken bv the Com- missioners in resisting the action of the lessee, and undoubtedly saved the town from serious conse juence. i'he Commissioners incurred heavy costs in defending other rights, which,' we believe, amount to several hundreds of pounds, and we understand that these have not been paid by the lessee. In order to recover some of this money, they obtained an order to appoint a Receiver to collect the tolls before the expiration of the lease. The amount collected was n )t much, abjut J l:,(), and the disposal of this sum was the subiect matter which came before the Court' last week, when the Commissioners obtained judgment in their favour.

......--.-Eisteddfod Machno,…

Advertising

Carnarvonshire Golf Club.

Colwyn Bay and District Cottage…

- LLANELIAN.

Family Notices

Advertising