Hide Articles List

19 articles on this Page

........:. COMPANY MEETINGS.

—<-, +■ .Fishguard Market…

[No title]

i Fancy Dress Ball.

CUNARD CHATTER."

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

The Kecent Lecture: An Explanation

Advertising

FARTHIING DAMAGES AND INJUNCTION.…

News
Cite
Share

FARTHIING DAMAGES AND INJUNCTION. Verdict in Lianstinan Case, (CONTINUED FROM PAGE 4.) John Price, carman, 63 years of age, was the first witness examined on Tuesday. He had been in service when a boy with the Rev Mr Barham, of Trecwn, having been a groom in the stables, and having every day to take the letter bag from Trecwn to Llanstinan Lodge. He went both ways, but usually by Frourhydd Fach. He never used the lower road except to fetch letters. Once when on the road by Llanstinan Lodge witness met Mr Bowen, and knowing he was on a private road apologised, and Mr Bowen said Any time to you.' He never found the gate at Fronrhydd Fach locked. Margaret Davies, wife of David Davies aged 48 years, said she went to Lecterst-on and Trecwn. She used to fetch tbe children from N antgwyn, and she had never been stopped on the road. She used to go with her mother to the services at Fronrhydd by the road past Llanstinan Lodge. Cross-examined: She did not know if the farmers bringing mares to her husband's entire horse brought them through the Lodge-gate. David Bonvonni, master of Barham School for about 4 years, said that during that time he had used the gate through Llanstinan Lodge once, but was stopped by a woman who said it was a private road, and he turned back and went out by Bengal. Mr Thomas: Do you live on Mr Barham's properly ?—Certainly not. You are very glad you don't live on the present Mr Barham's property. You and he are not friends ?—We are the best of friends. Did he prosecute your son for poaching ?— He did not. Did the gamekeeperJ-Tbe gamekeeper did, but what has that to do with it. I appeal to his lordship that the question is irrelevant. His Lordship It is quite relevant. Witness: The gamekeeper did prosecute him. Mr Thomas and of course unjustly ?- Yes unjustly. Did he succeed in convicting him — He did. Still unjustly. Did that make you particu- lariy frierdly with Mr Barham ?—We are not bad friends. Fortunately or unfortunately you have been able to give evidence against Mr Barham in another case? -.NLo, sir, I don't think I have. Was there not something about some sheep in this court two or three years ago ?—There might have been. Did you give evidence against him on be- half of a Mr Hughes ?—If you were not so con- fused in asking your questions I might be able to answer them. Come, sir, answer the questions, and don't be so anxious in trying to convince us that you are clever. (Laughter). Hive you ever had the misfortune to give evidence against him ?—No misfortune whatever. Well good fortune then ?—You can put it as you like, but I have done justice fn the matter.- Have you given evidence in any other case against him or his tenants?—I may have done so. Refer me to the special case. No, I won't; it will do for me that you don't remember.—I have given evidence, but not against Mr Barham personally. You and your son have been rather fortunate as you would call it in giving evidence against Mr Barham. Was your son summoned by a tenant of Mr Barham as well ?—He was. What was that for?—My son was not sum- moned. That is a mistake. It was myself that was summoned. For what ?—Alleged trespass, not proven. (Laughter. Was it dismissed ?--It was. And you are quite on friendly terms with Mr Barham ?- Yes. I am sure you are. (Laughter). Witness further said, in answer to questions, that in one place there were the remains of a road.—"A man with discretion might find ouo out." (Laughter). Did you find it out ?-No. So you had not sufficient discretion to find out whether there was a road or not?--Per- haps not. Was there a road from the bridge up to the gate ?—1 should say there was no road. Have you ever seen the ordnance survey map of the place ?—Yes. And the surveyors had sufficient discretion to see a road?—They might have seen it. But they were men of discretion- (laughter) —and they did not try to be too clever. Other evidence followed. Mr Saukey contended that those who had used the road past Llanstinan had done so by tho goodwill and leave of the landlord, and not adversely and against his will. They were not dealing with the road as a public right of way but as a right of way for the ten- ants of the estates. Was it likely that the landlord was going to prevent his tenants using the road in visiting each other as they had been used to doing ? People using the road in going to services at Fronrhydd went in company with the lodge-keeper, and was it likely tha,t she would stop them ? Mr Abel Thomas contended that as the road had been used openly for the last 40 years by tenants they might presume that they had a grant of right to use it as a public road. He contended that the landlords had on several occasions tried so prevent the ten- nants using this road but had failed. It was quite obvious from the evidence that the land- lord would have stopped them using the road if he could. His Lordship said the way in which the law said juries might presume a grant was by proof of uninterrupted use for a period of 20 years before action is brought. What was the excise of an uninterrupted use? First of all, the use must be exercised notoriously, openly you must not sneak along by night or'when nobody was looking-that would not be any evidence of notorious user. Next it must be exercised adversely-that was to say, not by indulgence, not by leave or license, not trad- ing on good nature, but in the bold and un- compromising assertion of the right, Next, the user must be to the knowledge, express or implied, of the owner of the laud traversed or of his servants, and finally, it must be ex- ercised continuously. There must be no obvious period during which the exercise of it was dropped except that the people did not want to use it, but if it had been abandoned or dropped continuously, steadily for a period of a year, and that year acquiesced in, that was an interruption and one could not say that he had uninterrupted use. The plaintifls had goc to make out their case They were asserting this right and the affir- mative proof was upon them. If the jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs it should as- sess the damages, but in his opinion damage was infinitesimal, the real point being the assertion of the right claimed. After two and a half hour's consultation, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff with a farthing damages, Judgement was entered accordingly, grant- ing the right of way, and an injunction pre- venting the defendant from obstructing it. The defendant will also have to pay the costs, which are expected to be about £1,000 o CORRECTION. Mr Percy H Webb, solicitor, London, in- structed counsel for defendant, and not Messrs Eaton Evans and Williams, as incorrectly stated on page 4.

---------_-Undeb Ysgolion…

[No title]

Advertising

Advertising

HAVE YOU FRIENDS OVER IN PEMBROKE…

Advertising

NEW YEAR RE-UNION.

Family Notices

Advertising

[No title]