Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

16 articles on this Page

Advertising

_-------___---A POLITICAL…

Advertising

Advertising

I TREHARRIS.I

The Treharris Fowl Case.

News
Cite
Share

The Treharris Fowl Case. SEQUEL IN THE COUNTY COURT. At Merthyr County Court, on Wednesday, before His Honour Judge Bryn Robert-, an ac- tion was brought by William Thomas Smith, a roadman in the employ of the Merthyr Cor- poration, who lives at 1 reharris, against Wm. Gibbon, his next door neighbour, to recover damages for malicious prosecution.—Mr. F. P. Charles was for piaint, Mx. W. R. Edmunds for defendant. Mr. Charles said that frotn July last year to February last the plaintiff was continually annoyed by the defendant's fowls trespassing upon his flower and vegetable garden. Plain tiff continually remonstrated with defendant, and warned him that if the damage done did not cease. he would take steps to protect him- self. On February 10th the plaintiff saw a fowl belonging to the defendant doing damage in his garden, and impounded it. Defendant's son was looking on at the time, and plaintiff told him what he had done. Defendant de- manded the return of the fowl, and plaintiff said he would return it if defendant would pay for the damage done. This the defendant declined to do, but went to the police, who advised him to take county court proceedings. Defendant issued a police court summons, and on the 16th of March plaintiff was charg- ed with stealing the fowl. Sir Marchant Wil- liams, however, held that there had been no felonious intent, and dismissed the case. Plain- tiff was put to expense and inconvenience, his reputation had suffered, and he suffered great anxiety, for which he asked damages. Mr. Charles said there was a counter claim, one item being the price of 72 eggs, or an egg per day. He thought a hen which laid eo regu- larly as that ought to be stuffed and put in a glass case.—Plaintiff having given evidence, he was cross-examined by Mar. Edmunds. He admitted he had the hen now. Defendant had complained that his (plaintiff's) fowls had also straved upon his garden. Mr. Edmunds contended that he had no case to answer, but Hh Honour said that malice was implied by the prosecution, and that had been proved in crosv-exrmination, as there had been some bickering about the fowls of both parties. There was malice both in fact and in law. Judgment was given for the plaintiti for to 12s., and the counter caJm was dismmed. Have you anything to Sol.I? Advertise in our want Columns and it is »» *» sold. "">•— 4. £ 4

Water Consumption at Merthyr…

Gellygaer and Merthyr Union.

FOCHRIW.

dowlais.

Dowlais Sensation. *

Advertising

Dowlais Catholic Schools Claims.

[No title]

Advertising

_-------___---A POLITICAL…