Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

13 articles on this Page

M 0 L D











COUNTY COURT. Friday. Before His Honour Judge Sir Horatio Lloyd and Mr. Henry Taylor, Regis- trar. A LEESWOOD PROMISSORY NOTE CASE. His Honour delivered judgment in an action brought by John Roberts, Eaton Place, against Edward Anwyl Prydderch, Manchester House, Leeswood, for the recovery of E100 alleged to be due on a promissory note, the action having been heard at Mold. The promissory note had been returned to the defendant and endorsed in the presence of a witness, that the holder made a present of the capital sum to the defen- dant, but the interest must be paid while he lived. An I.O.U. was signed for 94 a year. The plaintiff had no doubt changed his mind. There was no consideration for the gift, it was true, but his Honour found that there had baen an absolute renunciation of the note in writing, and the note had been given to the defendant in October, 1895, and it remained in his posses- sion until the commencement of this action. It was clear that there had been an absolute sur. render of the bill, and, under the circumstances, the judgment would be for the defendant. Mr. Wynne Evans (Wrexham), for the plain- tiff, addressed the court on question of costs, and his Honour directed that each side should pay its own costs. COMPENSATION OF AN INJURED COLLIER. Mr. Wynne Evans applied, on behalf of Edward Hughes, near the Black Horse Inn, Buckley, for an award, under the Employers Liability Act, against Messrs. George Watkin- son and Son, colliery proprietors. Buckley. He said that the applicant had asked for a sum of 10s. a week. The respondents offered 7s. 6d., and this had been accepted, and an award for that amount was now asked for, with the costs of application. Mr. W. H. Churton (ior the respondents) made no objection, and the application Was granted. PRE-MARITAL RESPONSIBILITIES. Dr. Edward Williams, Mold, sued Mr. W. N. Bellamy, now of Chester, for £5 16s. 6d. for professional attendance. Mr. W. H. Churton was for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. B. Marston for defendant. Mrs. Williams, plaintiffs wife, produced a book showing entries against the defendant in 1891 and 1893. For the defence, it was stated that the claim was a bogus one. The items in 1891 referred to attendance upon a lady, who afterwards be- came the defendant's wife, but they were not married until 1892. During 1892 and 1893, the defendant and his wife were attended by Dr. Trubshaw. The case was adjourned to the Mold court for the attendance of Dr. Williams. Mr. Marston intimated that in the meantime he would issue a counter claim, and subpoena Dr. Trubshaw. A MANCHESTER MONEY LENDER AND A MOLD CLIENT. There was an action remitted from the Salford County Court, in which Hayman Fincklestone, money lender, Albert Street, Albert Square, Manchester, sued John Jones, retired black- smith, of Glanrafon, Mold, for the sum of f,8 6s., balance due on a note of hand. Mr. Churton was for the plaintiff and Mr. Marston for the defendant, who had entered a counter claim for the return of deeds in the possession of the plaintiff, and £ 20 damages for detinue. Mr. Marston explained that the case had partly been heard before his Honour Judge Parry, at Salford, but was adjourned because there was a witness for the plaintiff not able to appear. Judge Parry adjourned the case to this court, to avoid the great expense of taking the defendant, who was a poor man, to Man- Chester a second time. Knowing how fully the judge of this court was occupied, Judge Parry had asked him (Mr. Marston) to explain the matter to his Honour. The Judge I will return him the compliment some day (laughter). Mr. Churton, in opening the case, said that John Jones, on the 9th of Deoember, 1897, borrowed jElo from the plaintiff, and gave a promissory note for f,22 10s. As collateral security, John Jones gave a memorandum of charges on certain cottage property he had at Pentra Wylfa, Mold. He was to repay the loan with the interest at the 'rate of a XI a month, but he never paid a penny. In conse- queuce of this default, plaintiff collected the rents of the cottages referred to from the 21st of February, 1898, to the end of December, 1898. Altogether 918 6s. 6d. were collected in rents, but out of that sum there was to be de- ducted £3 7s. 6d. for collection at the rate of Is. 6d. per week, and 15s. for rates and taxes, leaving a net amount of E14 4s., and the balance was the sum now asked tor. The defendant claimed for the return of deeds, but it was new to him to bring an action) tor the return of deeds when the amount they secured had not been paid. He also took objection to paying for the collection of rents, and said there were rents in arrears. But the plaintiff could not be responsible for that. As to the payment for the collection, it was no benefit whatever to the plaintiffi as it was paid to a local man for doing the work. William White, agent for the plaintiff, swore that the signatures to the promissory rote were made by the defendant and his wife in his presence, and the plaintiff also signed the memorandum of charge in his presence. Cross-examined, he said he did not oonsider the defendant was a man of weak intellect. He knew defendant could not read, and read the documents out to him, as he always did. Mr. Marston Who i* the plaintiff? Is he a man that is alive-has he existence? Witness Yes. Mr. Marston Oh These men have so many names, you know (laugher) Morris Price, manager to the plaintiff, said that the gross amount received from the rents of the cottages was f,18 16s, 6d., and the net 914 4. Cross-examined He handed £ 15 to Mr. Whise to pay over GO the defendant, but he did not know the defendant only received fl4. He did not tell defendant and his wife that perhaps Mr. White did always behave honestly to them. The defendant was a party to allowing one of the cottages to remain empty. Thomas Rees, Mold, said he collected the rents of the houses, and was paid Is. 6d. a week for doing so. He had to go several times on several occasions before he could get the rent. He submitted his collecting book, showing the amount collected and the deductions. Mr. Marston, for the defence, said that the defendant was a weak man, intellectually and physically, and it was a disgrace to the country that men like the plaintiff should get hold of pigeons like the defendant to pluck. He did not know what he was signing, and his signa- ture was obtained by fraud. Furthermore, the plaintiff had had all his money. There were five cottages letting in the aggregate at ten shillings, and the plaintiff was in possession for 46 weeks, and had he been diligent in the col- lection of the rents, there would have been £23 collected. If he was not diligent, that was not defendant's fault. Then the charge for collec- tion was out of all reason. The defendant, in the box, supported Mr. Marston's statement. He only received E14 in cash, and he did not know what he was signing. Plaintiff had had the houses for 46 weeks, at 10s. a week, and 15s. from another house, which afterwards became empty. All the houses were let now, and the rents paid regularly. Cross-examined: He admitted giving the charge of the cottages so as to get the money. John Williams said that he collected rents of cottage property two and a half miles away for 2! per cent. and four miles away for 3 per 2 cent. After some remarks by Mr. Churton on the question of arrears of rents, The Jndge said it was quite clear there was something due, therefore the counterclaim failed. As to the claim, the charges for collec- tion were rather heavy. He would give judg- men t for the plaintiff with costs for f,7, payable at 10s. a month.