Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

10 articles on this Page







DISPUTE ABOUT BARLEY. John Thomas Lloyd, of Plas Meredydd, Gyffylliog, farmer, sued Evan Jones, Ty'nyr- eithin, Denbigh, and Rhiwbebyll, Llandyrnog, farmer, for the sum of S12 6s. Od. alleged to be due for 25 hobbets of barley supplied, and ,lso for empty sacks which the defendant had refused to return. The defendant coun- terclaimed for the sum of X16, for breach of contract. Mr. A. O. Evans appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Joseph Lloyd for defendant. In opening the case, Mr. Evans said plain- tiff met defendant at Denbigh, in March, 1898, and showed him a sample of barley which he had for sale. They could not then agree as to the price, but met again on the following Wednesday, when an agreement was come to, defendant agreeing to pay plaintiff 9s. 6d. per hobbet for the barley, the bargain being struck at the Cross Keys Hotel, Denbigh. As defendant was a stranger to him, Mr. Lloyd stipulated that the defendant personally accompany his cart to Rhewl, where plaintiff also would go with his cart, and take charge of the barley. At Rhewl the barley was to be taken from one cart to the other, and the money paid. The plaintiff kept faithfully to the arrange- ment, and went to Rhewl with two men. Defendant did not himself turn up, and the plaintiff was in some difficulty as to whether he would let the barley go or not. However, rather than taking it back a distance of five miles, he allowedidefendant's servant to take it. The defendant took the barley, and never wrote a word of complaint about it. At Ruthin fair subsequently the plaintiff asked for the money due from the defen- dant, and it was then that the latter com- plained for the first time in respect of the quality of the barley, and that it was not up to sample. Defendant also stated that there was wheat in the bottom of one sack, and plaintiff admitted that it was quite possible for a little wheat to get into one sack, as they had been threshing the day it was put in the sacks, and that a little wheat might have been in the threshing machine. Some correspondence followed, but defendant refused to pay the amount due. The plain- tiff had only one field, called Cae Sgubor, under barley in 1897. There were witnesses present when the threshing took place, and they would swear that the threshing machine was clean before threshing com- menced. There could be no question as to the genuiness of the barley supplied. Defen- dant was a considerable litigant, being often engaged in disputes of this kind in some court or other. It was very late in the day —in fact, after the case had been before the court two months ago-that defendant coun- terclaimed for damages. The plaintift was then called, and said defendant liked very much the sample of barley which he had shown him at Denbigh. They did not agree as to the price the first day, but on a subsequent day they did so, the price being 9s. 6d. per hobbet. He had never known the defendant previously, and had to inquire who he was before selling the barley to him. Some time after thebarley had been delivered, the defendant came to him, holding in his hand a sample of barley, which was full of rubbish, and also contain- ed some wheat. Witness denied that the sample shown by defendant had been sup. plied by him but admitted that there might have been & few grains pf wheat in the bot- tom of the säCká, M they were threshing On 1 the day they were filled. Defendant only complained of one sack. Witness left him, bub received a letter on the subject, and then arranged to meet defendant at Den- bigh. Defendant did nttfc turn up, and no one had seen him that day. When he did see him however, defendant told him that he had sold part of the barley the following day, aud had also exchanged a part of it with Mr. Lloyd, Plas Llangwyfan. Cross-examined The sample defendant showed me at Denbigh was full of dirt, and had never been supplied by me. It is no- thing like my barley. Ellis Jones, Penlan, said he was at Plas Meredydd when the barley was threshed. The ehgine was cleaned by the men in charge of it before the work was commenced, but there might have been a few grains of wheat,, in the barley afterwards. Cross-examined The dirty barley produced by defendant was not the barley threshed at plaintiff's farm when he was there. William Evans, Brynllan, Humphrey Davies, miller, J. Wilkinson, Caegwyn, Mrs. Lloyd (plaintiff's wife), John Edward 'Lloyd, and Griffith Davies, Llanbedr, gave evidence to prove that the barley raised and threshed by plaintiff was not of the same quality as the dirty sample shown by defendant. Mr. Joseph Lloyd, for the defence, said his client was not prepared tc., deny that the sample showed by plaintiff at Denbigh was the barley threshed at his place, but they did contend that the barley supplied to defendant was not of the same quality as that shown when the price was agreed upon. The sample shown was undoubtedly worth 9s. 6d. per hobbet, and suit- able for sowing, and subsequently for malting purposes. The arrangement between the par- ties was that the stuff should be delivered by a certain date; but on that date, defendant re- ceived a letter that it would be delivered later on. The defendant, however, had his fields prepared ready for seed; and as the plaintiff could not supply the barley on the day arran- ged, the defendant went to Mr. Lloyd, of Plas Llangwyfan, who had seen the sample shown at Denbigh by plaintiff, and borrowed 10 hobbets of barley, on the understanding that he was to repay them out of the barley to be sent by plaintiff. When the bulk arrived at defendant's place from Plas Meredydd, the defendant, un- fortunately, was away from home, and his ser- vant men at once began to sow it. The moment he found what kind of stuff it was, defendant stopped the sowing, and used no more of it. He subsequently sent a letter to plaintiff, offer- ing to pay the market value for the barley used, provided he would take back the unused sacks. The dispute between the parties was this, whether the bulk of the barley delivered to defendant was equal in quality to the sample shown. He (Mr. Lloyd) submitted that it was not. In consequence of having sown this in- ferior quality supplied by plaintiff, -defendant has sustained a serious loss, for which he coun- terclaimed the sum of £16. The defendant then gave evidence, and ad- mitted having agreed to pay 9s. 6d. per hobbet for the barley as per sample. Plaintiff did not send it on the date first agreed upon, and wit- ness had to borrow seed barley from Mr. Lloyd, Plas Llangwyfan, for the purpose of sowing. This he repaid out of the bulk which he received from plaintiff. His men servants began to sow the barley in his absence; but when he returned home, and went to the field, the men asked him what sort of seed barley he had bought. After examining it, he stopped the sowing immediately, and the remainder of the stuff was to be seen in his granary up to this very day. It was nothing like the sample shown him by plaintiff when he bought it. Cross-examined: There was a considerable quantity of wheat in the barley it also con- tained dirt and stones (laughter). He had not the reputation of being a cantankerous fellow, and had not been involved in a similar case before. John Roberts Lloyd, Plas Llangwyfan, said he saw the sample which the plaintiff showed defendant at Denbigh, and it was nothing like the quality now shown by defendant as having been taken from the bulk supplied by the plain- tiff. The defendant repaid him the ten hobbets of barley which he had lent him, and he sowed it before seeing it. It corresponded to the quality which the defendant alleged the plain- tiff had sent him. It was worthless for sowing purposes, but was worth 7s. 6d. per hobbet for grinding. Cross-examined Although he had sown the barley, he had not brought a sample of it to court. Ebenezer Lewis, a neighbour, and David Jones, servant in the employ of defendant, having given evidence, His Honour gave judgment for plaintiff on the claim, and the counterclaim. He allowed the costs incurred by plaintiff in a previous court, but refused to order costs in the counter- claim. THE POSSESSION OF A BONTUCHEL FARM. The next case was that of Mrs. Bremner, Ruthin, against John, Salusbury, Ffasiynau farm, Bontuchel. Mr. Joseph Lloyd, for the plaintiff, said Mrs. Bremner was the owner of Ffasiynau farm, of which she asked for possession. She bought the farm some time ago. The defendant in the present action was then, and even now, the tenant. There was an agreement between him and his former landlord; and the mere issue between them was, whether the said agreement was in any way departed from. They said no. They had served a notice to quit, but defendant did not leave. Mrs. Bremner was not in court, and the onus of proving that there had been no new teuancy rested with the defendant. I Mr. Evans said he objected to go to the facts that day if Mr. Lloyd intended to apply for an adjournment. The onus of proof was not upon them. The fact was, that the plaintiff was try- ing to get his client out with an insufficient notice. The agreement still held good, and the tenant was rightly in possession. After some argument, Mr. Evans objected to the agreement being put in, and the objection was sustained. The case was then adjourned, defendant's costs for the day being allowed. A LIVERPOOL « BUSINESS' MAN AND HIS FOWLS. James Garner, of Liverpool, who is also the owner of property in Llanfair, D.C., was sued by Catherine Watkins, farmer, Tanygraig, Llanfair, for the sum of 91 4s., alleged to be due for barley supplied to defendant's house- keeper. Mr. A. Lloyd Jones, solicitor, Ruthin, ap- peared for plaintiff, and stated that during de. fendant's absence in Liverpool, his house at Llanfair was kept by a servant, to whom the plaintiff hqd supplied the corn as food for the fowls. Defendant denied liability, saying that the house was tenanted be Miss Kegan, his sister- in-law, and she was the owner of the fowls. He had never authorised her to pledge his credit. His Honour said that defendant should have brought Miss Kegan as a witness, and psoposed to adjourn the case for that purpose. Defendant: I would rather pay the amount a jolly sight better than that. The Judge: Then there will be judgment for plaintiff for tee full amount, ti be paid in two monthly instalments.




[No title]

RUTHIN """"'--,-,r"",.........._....,,....-,-,-,,,,'...../-/,-/""",,-,_/'.....r"'-"'-