Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

11 articles on this Page


[No title]



BRECON, COUNTY COURT. This "court was held on Friday, June 22nd, before Judge Falconer. There was about 80 plaints en- tered for trial, but were devoid of public interest with the exception of the following:- GRIFFITHS & SON, timber merchants, v. THOMAS FARR.—This was an action brought to recover a disputed difference in a charge for hauling a quan- tity of timber from a wood. Mr. Gaines was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Bonnel Bishop for the defendant. Mr. Games was about to state the nature of the case, when Mr. Bishop applied to be allowed to pay the sum of £ 7 12s. into court, the defendant contending that that was the amount due by agreement, while the plaintiff's plea was that the work had been agreed for by day work. The amount having been paid into court, Mr. Games stated the case, and called Mr. J. Griffiths, who stated that he was a timber merchant, residing at Brecon on the 14th March last, the defendant employed his teams to haul some timber for him. (Complainant here enume- rated the number of days employed; but his Ho- nour did not think that he need do that-onlv refer to the dispute in the contract.) Examination continued—He hauled a quantity of the timber and received a sum of £ 14 odd, and when this work was nearly completed his (plaintiff's) men told him that defendant said when the job was done he had another job for them, and having told them where it was one of them went from, where they were then hauling over the hill to see the place; in a few days afterwards the men told him that Farr was not to have this timber, and he told Farr of it, who said that it was all nonsense, as he had bought them; in a few days afterwards they had some more conversation on the matter, and Farr wanted him to haul them for the same price as the former timber; he refused, as the road was a bad one, and h" had had some losses on the for- mer occasion by the breaking of a timber carriage, &c.; Farr then desired him to haul them and charge him as reasonable as possible, which he had, his bill being £9 16s. Cross-examined—He did not tell me what he was willing to pay; he only said that he would pay according to the timber; he never offered me any sum of money; remembers being in company with him in the Cock and Horse Inn, when Mr. Probert and Davies, the guard, were present; Farr and me had words; he called me a rogue. (His Honour intimated that he could not allow this to transpire in the present examina- tion.) Cross-examination continued—I don't know whether he opened his hand when he offered to settle with me; will swear I did not see any mo- ney he said he would settle with me, and I desired him to come to the office round the corner if he wanted to settle; there is a sum of 4s. in the pre- sent bill which my clerk omitted in the former bill; have offered to settle with him many times. His Honour said it appeared to him that it all turned upon two questions—Was the work done by contract or by day work. Mr. Bishop- Yes, your honour; I intend show- ing you that it was done by the former, by calling the defendant. Defendant was then sworn, and stated that hav- ing purchased some pitwood at Penpont, he agreed with Mr. Griffiths as to the haulage; Mr. Griffiths asked him 8s. a cord for hauling; he thought it too much and offered him 7s. Gd., but they ulti- mately agreed to split the difference, and it was to be for one lot 7s. 6d., and 8s. the other, for 40 cords; this was to be the agreement for all the haulage; he paid him a bill of X 14, and a part of what he was now charged with was in that bill; as a proof that it waa not day work, Mr. Griffiths's father had spoken to him and asked him how he could have taken his son in in such a manner as to get him to haul the wood at 8s. a cord, and if he had been present he would have charged him more; witness told him that he had some more to haul and he would make it out another way; after the haulage was measured he had offered Mr. Griffiths the amount he had paid into court three times, but he had refused it. Cross-examined—He did not put the money on the table; the money was in his hand; his hand was not shut when he offered to settle; the first lot hauled, in the £ 14 bill, was from Penygavn; the second was from ythe Park and the Dingle; William Price hauled a quantity from the Park at the same terms as Griffiths refused; he made use of a bad expression towards Griffiths, but begged his pardon the next day; after this Griffiths fetched the other lot from Pengavn wood, and he had offered him what was a fair price for so doing; witness got one man to do it for 6s. per cord, but he failed to fulfil his contract; he consi- dered that Price had as much trouble in hauling his lot of timber as Griffiths had perhaps Griffiths went to more expense from Penygavn and the Dingle. He-examinecl-Griffiths offered to fetch some timber a mile and a half further for the same price as he did the others. David Edwards deposed that he lodged in the same house as the defendant; he remembered hear- ing a conversation between defendant and Griffiths while he was present; it was an agreement for plaintiff to haul timber for defendant at 7s. 6d. and 8s. a cord from Penygavn wood; Griffiths came to Farr about it. Cross-examined—He was formerly a clerk to Mr. Griffiths; he had talked the matter over with Farr lately; he only heard a i Penygavn mentioned; he did not hear the Park or the Dingle mentioned. Mrs. Parry deposed that the defendant lodged with her; she remembered plaintiff coming to her house to see Farr; she heard a conversation between them about the hauling of timber from the Peny- gavn wood and heard them agree for the price stated by the last witness. Cross-examined—She didn't know where Penygavn wood was; she cer- tainly henrd the Park and the Dingle mentioned; Farr had not been speaking to her lately about the matter. (The Judge here said—Suppose you had; there is no harm in that. Witnesses seem to be afraid to admit having done so, thinking their evi- dence would be discredited. He would again say there was no harm in doing so, and he hoped wit- nesses would be impressed with this. Examination continued-That is all I have to say. William Austin deposed to having measured the timber in dispute, "which was 19 cords he did not inform Mr. Griffiths that he was going to do so; he heard Mr. Griffiths's father say to Farr that his son had hauled them too cheap at 8s. a cord, that he did not know the road; this conversation took place when the timber was being hauled. Henry Stevens proved having sold all the timber and never authorized any one to say that Farr was not to have it; in answer to his honour, he said that the timber in the three places was sold at the same time. Cross-examined—Penygavn is some little distance from the Park, and is a bad road; the Chapel Dingle is worse than that. W. Davies, guard, deposed that he was present at the Cock and Horse Inn when Griffiths and Farr were there; a dispute arose between them as to the settlement of an account; he saw Farr tender what he cansidered due to Griffiths; he had the money in his hand, openly; Griffiths must have seen it. Cross-examined—He didn't know how much the money was; he did not reckon it, but heard Farr say, Here is your money if you will take it." J. Probert, landlord of the Cock and Horse Inn, corroborated this, but heard Griffiths say, "I will not receive it unless I have the money in full;" Farr said that was not his agreement, holding at the time a bill in his hand. Cross-examined—He did not see any money with Farr; he did not de- posit it on the table or anything of the sort. By his Honour—Very bad language passed between them; he did not think Farr was tipsy; he had heard unpleasantness between them before. Mr. Games here addressed his honour at some length, and Mr. Bishop replied. His Honour having gone through the evidence, said that the evidence on the part of the plaintiff and defendant was of that nature that many reve- lations in so simple a matter may have been avoided. In snppsrt of the defendant's statement he had called witnesses to prove the offer of the amount on which the original agreement was made, as he considered, for the whole affair. The next point was, whether there was any separation in the price of the carrying at all after the payment of the £14. From the nature of the evidence he thought there was. The defendant should have kept better ac- counts.—He should give a verdict for the plaintiff for S7 16s., with costs.—Communicated.

'!"""....""'..---RIFLE VOLUNTEER…

IBRECON—200 yards.

HEREFORD— 500 yards. i

HEREFORD—600 yards. I

BRECON—600 yards. - I



I BRECùN-500 yards. I