Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

12 articles on this Page

CORWEN. .-,,-",,,-,-',/---../y>.../"",----'J'/"--/--'\....---''---'''''/'-''-----/I_,r--".../',--,--.,-",-"



[No title]

RHYL. --........--


[No title]

^ iST^^APIL^






COUNTY COURT. At the Rhyl County Court on Friday, before his Honour, Sir Horatio Lloyd, Mr. R. O. Old- field, coal merchant, applied for a review of taxation of costs in the action brought by him against Messrs. Gamlin and Williams, solicitors, Rhvl, and which resulted in a verdict for the defendants. He complained that Mr. Gamlin had been allowed at the rate of 15s. per day for three days, and his clerk at the rate of 7s. 6d., whilst he (Mr. Oldfield) had only been allowed 10s. 6d. for the day on which the case was adjourned through Mr. Gamlin's non. attendance. He submitted that the allowance to Mr. Gamlin's clerk ought to be disallowed, and he had failed to prove the facts he deposed to. The Judge said the costs had already been taxed and reduced from £5 10s. to £3 9a., and the allowances were all according to scale. He, therefore, declined to interfere with the taxa- tion. Mr. Oldfield next applied for a new trial of the case, on the ground that he had received fresh evidence since the hearing. The Judge That is no ground. Mr. Gamlin said that although Mr. Oldfield had no grounds for applying for a new trial be was prepared to agree to it. The Judge I am not. There are 22,000 cases that pass through my courts in the course of the year, and if I am to have three hearings of a wretched little case involving a few shillings I shall never come to an end. I think there must he something in the air of Rhyl; people are never satisfied here. If you had discovered something since the last court, which you, after due diligence, failed to discover pre- viously, it would be a ground for making ap- plication. Mr. Oldfield: What I mean is that I have learnt something since the last court, and I am satisfied that if I had the assistance of a legal gentleman I could induce your Honour to alter your opinion. The Judge I don't think so. Mr. Gamlin: People who play with fire expect to be burnt. WANTED: AN ANGLESEY JURY. Mr. Gamlin stated that he had been in- structed by wire from Mr. Fanning, of Amlwch, to apply to his Honour for an order to have a case to be heard at Llangefni on Tuesday in which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were the plaintifts and tke Parish Council of Amlwch the defendants, tried by a jury. His Honour The application is too late, and I shall not grant it. As far as I can see by the papers it is a pure question of law. I can quite understand why they want an Anglesey jury (laughter). Mr. Gamlin I only apply on a telegram, your honour. THE OWNERSHIP OF FIXTURES. A case of considerable interest to owners of property was heard, in which Mr. Pierce Lewis represented Mr. Samuel Perks, of Dol- golwg, Rhyl, the trustee and executor of the late Mr. William Wynne, of Rhyl; and Mr. F. J. Gamlin appeared for Mr. Arthur L. Clews, the purchaser of a residence, Tanllan, Bath Street, Rhyl, which, as part of the estate of the late Mr. Wynne, was sold to Mr. Clews, by auction, by Messrs. Dew and Son, on the 25th of October last, at the Westminster Hotel. The contract was signed on that date, and after that Mr. Perks approached Mr. Clews as to the gasaliers, which the latter claimed as having passed to him on the sale. Mr. Pierce Lewis stated that the whole question was as to the law with reference to the ownership of gas- fittings, and as to whether these chattels were attached to the freehold, and should pass to the purchaser with the freehold. The advocate proceeded to argue that the gasaliers were re- movable chattels, and quoted several cases in support of this view. Mr. Gamlin, for the defence, conceded that the gasaliers might be removed without detri- ment to the place. He proceeded to mention several decisions which ne claimed to be in favour of his argument that gasaliers were chattels or fixtures which passed to his client upon the signing of the contract, as they were not specifically excluded. If his friend had in tended the purchaser to pay for these fixtures they ought to have been expressly excluded from the contract. Mr. Pierce Lewis said his Honour would un- derstand that the plaintiff claimed that the gas- fittings were not fixtures; they were simply chattels Mr. Gamlin said there was a case directly bearing upon the point as to whether chande- liers and gasaliers were fixtures, decided in 1868. It was the nisi prius action of Sewell v. Angeratein, and Mr. Justice Wills then held that gasaliers were part of the gas pipes, and were as much a part of the gas pipes as the millstones were part of the mill. The gasaliers were necessaay to the enjoyment of the gas pipes, which were of no practical use when separated from them. His Lordship said he thought the gasaliers ought to have been the subject of a separate agreement. His Honour said he would carefully consider, the arguments, and would give his judgment in writing. A WIFE'S MISFORTUNES. Johnson Simpson Greenhalgh, of Rhyl, trad- ing as Greenhalgh and Roberts, builders, in that town, sued Ellen Bendall, wife of James Edward Bendall, late of 24, Queen Street, Rhyl, confectioner, for the recovery of JE36 12s 8d., for work done and materials supplied. The action originated in the High Court of Justice, and was remitted to the County Court for trial. Mr. Pierce Lewis represented the plaintiff, and Mr. Gamlin defended. The plaintiff carried out certain work at 24, Queen Street, for the pur- pose of fitting up the shop for a high class con- fectioner's business. The work was done at various times between May, 1897, and July, 1898. The defendant paid 92 18s. 3d. into court, and denied her liability as to any fur- ther part of the claim, which, she contended, was a debt against her husband, who traded as Bendall and Son. Mr. Pierce Lewis, in opening the case, stated that the work was ordered by the husband, but Mrs. Bendall said I have the mcney I will see you paid.' On November 28th last the bill was sent to Mrs. Bendall, with the following covering letter :—' Dear Madam,—We beg to enclose you our account for work done at Queen Street for you. I shall be glad to re- ceive cheque for same as early as possible.' Bendall had left his wife and the shop, and the then claimed the furniture and sold it by auction, and subsequently she had surrendered the lease to the lessor, Mr. Geary, who bought some of the fixtures and utensils. H. T. Roberts, manager for Mr. Greenhalgh, then gave evidence to the effect that Mrs. Ben- dall clearly assumed the responsibility for the payment. In cross-examination, the witness said Ben- dall approached him as to this work in the first instance. He did not know that Bendall deserted his wife on the 12th of November last, although the bill was not sent in until the 28th. He was not aware till that day that at the Bin- gor Bankruptcy Court the other day a receiv- ing order was made against the husband. Re examined Bendall frequently, when the work was being ordered, referred to his wife for confirmation. She seemed to have a sort of casting vote in the matter. The day-book in which the details of the work were entered was submitted to his Hon- our, when it appeared that the account had been originally entered in the name of Mr. Bendall, and subsequent'y altered. Mr. Francis Geary, auctioneer, stated that he was the owner of the shop in Queen Street, which he leased in 1897 to Mrs. Bendall, when he agreed to make certain alterations which were carried out by Mr. Greenhalgh. When Bendall left, the witness agreed to accept a surrender of the lease, and purchased some of the fixtures. In cross-examination, Mr. Geary stated that Mrs. Bendall told him, when the lease was sur- rendered, that she had nothing to do with the business, but claimed the furniture as her separate estate. Mr. Gamlin, opening for the defence, said Mrs. Bendall came to Rhyl as a lady wiih means, and she lived on the parade for some time. It was then suggested to her by her husband that he should commence business as a confectioner, to which occupation he had bjen broight up. He had been in difficulty in Birmingham, and had had to make a com- position with his creditors. The business was started, and Mrs. Bendall had the lease made out in her own name, at the wish of the owner, but she had nothing whatever to do with the business proper, not having been brought up as a confectioner. All the orders, &c., were given by the husband, whom she assisted in the shop solely with the view to saving him expense. He took all profits and borrowed money from time to time from her, with the result that the whole of her banking account, 1:585, was altimately transferred from her name into that of Bendall and Son. On No- vember 12th he deserted her, and since had not contributed a penny for the maintenance of herself and six children. She had sold the fur- niture, which was her own separate property, and was living upon the proceeds. Mr. Gamlin pointed out that it was admitted by the plain- tiff that the day book was only altered when the notice of defence was given. Mrs. Bendall was called, and stated that when the negotiations for the lease were on, Mr. Geary seemed to question the ability of her husband to pay, and she told him that she had a little money. He then said he would like the lease in her name, and she agreed. She denied that she had ever to Mr. Roberts admitted any liability. Mr. Pierce Lewis said the husband and wife appeared to be playing into each other's hands, and the creditors all round had been the suffer- ers. His Honour said that on the maiu question he was disposed to take the defendant's view. There was conflict of evidence as to the ad- mission of liability by her, and he was, there- fore,-driven to decide by the surrounding cir- cumstances. If Mr. Roberts was so very parti- cular to get the acknowledgment from her before the work was done, it was remarkable that he should have allowed all the items of the account to be entered upon four separate pages of the day-book under the heading of 'Mr.' Bendall. It was not until after the action was brought that the prefix was altered to 'Mrs.' Mr. Roberts had said that the credit was given to Mrs. Bendall, but the truth seemed to be that it was only when he began to have a doubt as to Mr. Bendall's solvency that he took that view of the matter. He held that the credit was given to Bendall, and, therefore, the action failed. Some discussion ensued as to a baker's trough sold by Mrs. Bendall to Mr. Geary with the fixtures, and which was made by the plaintiff. His Honour was inclined to think that this article, which Mr. Gamlin said was disposed of in error, being a utensil belonging to the hus- band's estate, ought to be paid for by the wife, as she had disposed of it. but Mr. Gamlin sug- gested that it would probably be claimed by the Official Receiver. Mr. Geary remarked that the trough was in the nature of a fixture. There was half a year's rent due to him when the lease was sur- rendered, and, with the E12 he had paid, he considered the fixtures he obtained eost him in hard cash close upon 960. His Honour said he would simply give judg- ment for the defendant, without costs. The trough was so mixed up with the other things in the surrender that it was impossible to separate them.