Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

19 articles on this Page

If, GLAMORGAN ASSIZES.

News
Cite
Share

If, GLAMORGAN ASSIZES. I CIVIL BUSINESS. J t The civil business of the Autumn Assizes for F, the county of Glamorgan was resumed before Mr li stice Grantham and a special jury on Saturday. JJ AUSTIN V. PEARSON' AND SON. | This was an action brought by Mr A. F. Austin, jj ft shipwright and dock-gate builder, of Swansea, [' suing Messrs S. Pearson and Son, the well-known Ji contractors, for £ 174 for breach of contract. Mr B. F. Williams, Q.C., and Mr C. H. Glascodine appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Abel Thomas, Q.C.,and Mr Tudor Howell. M.P., for defendants, The case for the plaintiff was that he agreed with the defendants to build for chem at Port Talbot two pair of dock gates at £ 5 per week and a bonus JJ AUSTIN v. PEARSON AND SON. | This was an action brought by Mr A. F. Austin, jj ft shipwright and dock-gate builder, of Swansea, [' suing Messrs S. Pearson and Son, the well-known contractors, for £174 for breach of contract. Mr B. F. Williams, Q.C., and Mr C. H. Glascodine appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Abel Thomas, Q.C., and Mr Tudor Howell. M.P., for defendants. The case for the plaintiff was that he agreed with the defendants to build for them at Port Talbot two pair of dock gates at per week and a bonus of £75 on each pair of gates at the conclusion of I the work, but that when he was nearing the com- pletion of the work lIe was unlawfully dismissed, and not allowed to finish his contract. The k defendants, in reply, pleaded that there was no such contract the plaintiff was engaged simply a.s a yard foreman at £3 a week, the bonus, if any, to be voluntary, his employment being IIubject to a week's notice, and that he was ais- T missed for neglect of duty and insolent behaviour. Further evidence was given. i' Mr John Stephenson, eallad by Mr Abel Thomas, said he was agens at Port Talbot for I. Messrs Pearson and Son in September, 1895, and i was present when Sir Wheaiman Pearson en- faged Mr Austin. W hen the engagement was j made Mr Austin said he had been receiving £5 | & week, and Sir Wheatman Pearson said he j could not give so much, but would give a bonus of JE50 for each pair of gates if the work were done cheaply and well, and £í5 if the gates were very satisfactory. Later Mr Austin was told he I should have to make himself generally useful, and Asked to carry out the duties of yard foreman n connection with certain cargoes of timber, &c., eoming forward. Cross-examined by Mr Williams: As long a witness was there Mr Austin gave every satis- faction, and they got on very well together with- out any friction. What Mr Austin did he did well Mr Frederick T. Hopkinson, C.E., manager of the works, also gave evidence, stating that plaintiff did not obey superior authority, and was dismissed. He also discharged all the men in the shed. He did not know the arrangements that had been made between Sir Wheatman Pearson and Mr Austin. All he knew was that Mr Austin received £3 a week, and did not hear anything about the bonus. Cross-examined, he said he dismissed the other men because they could not go on without a. foreman. In a letter he had written, I am not sorry to get rid of him (meaning Mr Austin). He said so because he did not think Mr Austin had done his work well. Witness had never complained about Mr Austin before. Counselllond the Judge having addressed the jury, a verdict wa3 given for plaintiff for £100, and judgment was entered for that amount. ALLEGED BnEACH OF COVENANT. Mr Thomas James sued Mr Edwin Phillips and others for damages for alleged breach of con- tract, and in this case Mr b. T. Evans, M.P., and Mr John Sankey (instructed by Mr Richard Hill-Male, Pontypridd), appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr B. F. Williams, Q.C.. and Mr Rhys Williams (instructed by Messrs Walter Morgan, Brace, and Co., Pontypridd) for the defence. Plaintiff is the owner of the Red Cow Inn at Hopkinstown, near Pontypridd. Mr Phillips and the other defendants, Messrs W. R. Thomas and Thomas Griffiths, are executors and trustees of the late Mr D. LeTEhon. Plaintiff claimed possession of the house and premises. £110 damages for breach of covenant to rpair, and £25 mMnc profits. It was set forth that under a lease dated July 14th, 13S8, plaintiff demised the premises to Mr David Leyshon, the latter covenanting to keep the house a.nd premises in good repair, and also to well and sufficiently make good witfiin three months after notice all defects and wants of reparation. Defendants, as trustees a.nd executors, now re- ceived the rents and profits, and the breach of covenant alleged was that they had not, after notice, fully carried out certain repairs specified as necessary. In reply to these assertions defen- dants denied that there had been any breach, and eaid that in any case forfeiture had been waived. Expert evidence was given as to the condition of the building and the way in which the tenants had carried out the terms of the leate and kept the property. At the close of the evidence for plaintiff, and before defendant's case was opened the jury stopped the case and decided in favour of the defendants. The Court then adjourned till this morning. TO-DAY S LIST OF CAUSES. Lawrance and Others v. the Great Western Railway Companv.—Compensation for personal injuries. Myhill v. the Western Steam Trawling Com- pany.—Personal injuries. Evans v. Evans and Another.—Possession of land and property. (CASES DISPOSED OF.) South Wales and Liverpool Steamship Co. Y. Phillips —.Judgment for plaintiffs for £100 in a claim for £247. Llewellyn v. Morris—Libel. Verdict for plaintiff, 40s and casts. Davis v. Laccy—Compensation for personal injuries. Jttry disagreed and were discharged. Howell v. The Cymmer Glyncorrwg Coal Company, Limited, and Others-Dispnte ItS to agreement. Verdict tor defendants. Thomas v. Thomas—For possession of land at Merthyr.—By consent judgment for plaintiff. Milward v. Stbwe and Another-Commission.-V3r- diet for defendants. Talbot v. Leyshon and Others—Injunction.—Verdict for plaintiff. Strachan v. Taff Vale Railway Company—Compensa- tion for damage to engine.—Verdict for plaintiff. Groves v. th Dowlais ron Comp!\ny-Damages for personal injuries. Verdict by consent for plaintiff. Austin v. Pearson and Son—Breach of contract.— Verdict for plaintiff for flOC-claim £174. James T. Phillips and Others—Breach of covenant.— Vernict for defendants. GROVES v. THE DOWLAIS IRON COMPANY. TO THE EDITOR. SIB,—Referring to the report of the above a.ction, which appears in your issue of to-day. I find it stated that judgment was entered for £150 damages with costs. Inasmuch as the points which were raised in this case are extremely important as bearing upon local industries, I think it is right that this' statement should be corrected, since the Judge fully agreed with the contention of Mr Francis Williams that no such action lay as that framed by the plaintiff, and gave judgment for the defendants with costs. In case, however, that the plaintiff should appeal against the decision of the Judge on the point of law raised by Mr Francis William3, it was thotight expedient to get the damages assessed by the jury in order to ayoid the necessity of a second hearing if the plaintiff succeeded on his appeal, and the damages were accordingly fixed for that purpose at £ 150.—I am. etc., GWILYM C. JAMES, Solicitor for the Dowlais Iron Co. 52 and 53, High-street, Merthyr Tydfil, 4th December. 1897-

-------------_.___-THE BUBIAIi…

_----_------LATE LORD DORCHESTER.

MYSTERIOUS DEATH OF A CARDIFF…

---.-----------"------.-.-SMART…

----_--THE CHANCELLOR OF THE…

A DOWLAIS CHOIR LEADER GONE.

----SHEBEENING IN CARMARTHENSHIRE.

-'''!--THE CARMARTHEN STABBING…

-----------NEWPORT GUARDIANS.

[No title]

tTHE LONG-ACRE MURDER.

_+-'--------------AN ACTRESS'S…

---------_.-------THE DOMESTIC…

------------_-------ARE CHILDREN…

-------RAISING THE WIND.

Advertising

NOTES ON THE GAME.

SATURDAY'S MATCHES