Hide Articles List

9 articles on this Page


----i ABERAYRON. «



LAMPETER. TRINITY COLLEGE OF MUSIC.-Miss Edith Jones, Up- lands Miss Sarah Davies, Mill and Master J. T. Richards, Ardwyn, have passed an examination in music held by the Trinity College of Music at the Aberystwyth centre. A FALL.—Two boys of four and six years of age, the sons of Mrs Evans, Market-street, were playing on the Bryn, where houses are in course of construction, when one of them fell into a smtll pond of water made to sup- ply water for the builders. The younger boy of four years fell into the pond followed by his brother in at- tempting to rescue him. An alarm was raised and the lads were taken out by Mr W. Jones, Market-street, and Mr David Oliver, Greenfield, and taken to Dr Evans, where they were attended to and afterward taken home. COUNTY COURT, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14TH.-Before his Honour Judge Bishop. Though several important cases were entered for trial, his Honour did not take his seat until after the clock had struck twelve. At other courts undefended cases are taken in another room, but at Lampeter it is customary to hear those cases before the Judge is called in. On Wednesday the undefended cases were disposed of about a quarter to twelve. The summonses are made returnable at ten o'clock. Davies v. Mor qan.-Walter Davies, draper, Lampeter, sued Lloyd Morgan, Bryn, Cwmaman, for the value of a suit of clothes. The defendant had obtained a new trial at the previous Court. Mr Arthur Hughes, Aberystwyth, appeared for the plaintiff who, giving evidence, said the defendant with his brother went into his shop and his (plaintiff's) assistant consulted him about giving credit.— David Nun Davies, the assistant, said he served the defendant in 1891. Defendant said he was never in the shop and afterward that he did not re- member being in the shop. When he went to service for the first time (for which it was alleged he got the suit) his father got him a suit from the tailor at Pumpsaint —The Judge said the difficulty in his mind was caused by the fact that a boy of thirteen went to the shop in company with his brother and that the father's name was entered in the book as well as defendant's.—Mr Hughes pointed out that that was a common custom in the country.—The Judge, after a lengthy hearing, said the defendant must pay.—Defendant, however, said he would never pay, whereupon his Honour remarked that he would have to be dealt with in the process applicable to persons who would not pay. Jones v. Jon/'s.—John Jones, Caermalwasfach, Rhyd. cwrnerau, sued Eleanor Jones, Gibraltar, Llanio Road, for X2 2s, the value of a bridle and saddle.—Mr Watkins, Lampeter,appeared for the plaintiff who stated that he sold defendant a horse and lent her a saddle and bridle to take the horse home and it had never been returned.— Defendant admitted having bought the mare at ATI, but said it was a man's saddle and that David Davies, butcher, Capel Bettws, took the saddle and bridle. She went home by train and Davies rode the mare home and de- livered it to her the following morning, In the course of furtherlhearing, defendant said she would have returned the saddle, but the mare was kicking. She afterward said that she went for the mare the following morning when there was some old rag of a thing on her. (Laughter). Defendant produced a very dilapidated saddle and said she had it at Davies's house, but Mr Watkins said it was nothing like that twelve months ago. On being asked why she had not returned it before the summons was issued, she complained of having had such a kicky animal."—The Judge did not believe the saddle was worth £ 2 2s twelve months ago even if the rats had been at it since. He therefore gave judgment for 30s, saying that no doubt she borrowed it and did not return it or get it returned when asked for it. A.dmi,ti8tratilJn.-Sall1uel Davies .Tones, the Emporium, Lampeter, a creditor of William Thomas, deceased, to the extent of £25 IUs, applied to have the estate administered. Mr W. Hughes Jones, Aberystwyth, appeared for the plaintiff and Mr W. Davies (Messrs Smith and Davies) for the estate.-The Judge made an order for administra- tion. Davies v. Thomas and Another.—Shortly before two o'clock, Mr Hughes said there were two actions to come before the Court arising out of the long-pending dispute with reference to right of way at Llangybi. Mr Howell consented to adjournment of the two matters and asked his Honour to fix a day outside the Court fixture. He had been at Lampeter four times over the case.—The Judge said it would be forty times if it went on in that way. It was adjourned for the parties to settle it in the only possible way. One party at the last Court. said he had done all he possible could, but that the other had not done so. The parties should go to Quarter Sessions and get the path diverted. He should not fix a special day but if he liked he would adjourn it.—The Registrar asked if the case was to come on first at the next Court and his Honour replied in the negative.—Mr Hughes explained that it really amounted to a miscarriage of justice.—The Judge said it might he, but he could not hllp it if the parties chose to adjourn at two o'clock in the afternoon. —Mr Hughes said he would take what he could get and the cases were adjourned. Interpleader.—Thomas Davies Evans, 22, Berry-square, Dowlais, claimant Thomas Jones, auctioneer, 'New- court, execution creditor and Thomas Evans, Blaen- pant, Pencarreg, debtor. The case was tried with a jury. Mr Frank Lloyd, Lampeter, appeared for the claimant and Mr Arthur Hughes for the execution creditor.Ilx Lloyd, opening the case, said the original judgment was obtained as far back as February, 1897, for e:3 IDs Jd. On the 2211d of May of the same year, execution was issued against Thomas Evans. There were not sufficient g03ds to realise the amount due to the landlord and therefore the execution creditor got nothing. A second execution was.made on the lith February last and it was in respect of that second execution that the dispute arose. Mr Lloyd proceeded to say that the house was broken into and the goods taken and because of that £ 5 was claimed.—The Registrar said that sale was proceeded with because there was no deposit made.—The claimant was called and said all the furniture at Blaenpant be- longed to him. A chest of drawers, oak linen press, small round table, and a dresser had been taken away, but his ;ister bid for it and got it hack. His grandfather gave him the things atrhis death.-ilir Hughes at this point abjected to his client being made responsible for the acts of the High Bailiff in breaking into the house and seiz- ing the goods when he acted without instructions to that effect by the execution creditor and the Judge concurred, saying he would try the ownership of the goods as con- cerning the execution creditor and then try the case as against the High Bailiff.—In reply to Mr Hughes, claimant said he was now twenty-two years of age. His grandfather died about seven years ago. All he said was Keep the furniture." It was then at Pleasant Hill with his uncle and aunt. He was then living with his father- in-law, Thomas Evans. His mother took the furniture from Pleasant Hill. Last November took Blaenpant. The furniture had been in his father and mother's house for the past six years and he had never asked them to pay anything for them. He had been away for some L years.—Margaret Evans, claimant's mother, said she re- sided at Blaenpant and everything she had belonged to her son, Thomas Davies Evans. The bailiff took a cup- board, half drawers, linen press, a little round table, and dresser. There was also a fork and a shovel belonging to the landlord. The bailiff burst the door open. Her son had the furniture. She valued the goods at £4 10s or £ 5. The goods were bought at the distress sale by l'homas Jones's servant. He told her so himself. If she had bolted the door, could she not do what she liked with her own house ?—Asked if she did not expect visitors, she said that John Herbert told her about four or five in the morning he was coming. He only came on the door step md told her that he had a paper to sell the goods if she did not pay £ 2 14s. She asked him if he would not come into the house, but he declined as it was raining. [Laughter.)—Asked if Herbert and the furniture were not jld friends, he having levied before, she said levy had been made twice in ten years against her husband. Mr Tones was not there at the time of the levy. The bailiff, when he came to levy, asked her to open the door, but ihe refused to do it —Mr Hughes Will you be satisfied f I let you have the lot for £ 1?—Witness They were father's and mother's before they were married.—Mr Hughes: Will you give a sovereign for them?—Witness: [ cannot say without my lawyer.—Mr Hughes What do rou say, Mr Lloyd ?—Mr Lloyd I won't give. 11 for them. Laughter.)—Benjamin Davies, Blaencarrog, the land- ord, said he let the house to Thomas Davies Evans, who vent into it in December. The rent was X4, o be paid as he asked for it. He was told by drs Evans and others that John Herbert had been there ind though the year had still some threejquarters to run, ie sent a notice to the High liailiff saying there was t4 'ent due —Thomas Evans, the defendant, said the goods )elonged to his stepson.—Cross-examined John Herbert lad visited him many times, but had never levied upon I hose goods.—For the defence, Mr Hughes called John Herbert, who said he had been bailiff for nearly twelve rears and had been several times at Evans's house. Hp had levied on those goods before and sometimes Evans had paid. Until now he never said the goods now claimed did not belong to him. He levied properly and left the warrant at the house, but when he returned found the door locked. Had no special instructions from Thomas Jones but levied on the warrant obtained from the Court. -By Mr Lloyd The goods were worth about X3 and were sold for 12s 8d.-The Registrar said that money had been paid into Court.-The- Judge said the question for the jury was To whom did the goods belong ?" Claimant said his grandfather gave the furniture to him, but there should be some will or something giving it to him. His mother took the furniture and had possession of them ever since. The claimant never had possession of the furniture. Dealing w'th the landlord's claim, his Honour observed that theilandlord claimed £ 4, though £ 4 rent was not due, and a receipt for 10s rent was put in to show that the son was tenant. It seemed that an at- tempt was made to make out a case in favour of the son to prevent the goods being taken. As to the case against the High Bailiff, if a claimant did not take the proper steps to prevent sale by paying the money and a bailiff, having once entered, was entitled to forcible re-entty if the door was shut against hint.-The jury (who consisted of Messrs D. Tivy Jones, Samuel Davies Mile End Joseph Price, Gwarcoed Daniel Davies, cabinet maker and D. W. Jones) at once found that the furniture did not belong to the claimant, and the Judge said that was an end to the whole action. Rowland v. Davieg.-The case was called on in which D. W. E. Rowland, Garth, was plaintiff, and Evan Davies, Wenallt, Llangeitho, defendant, the claim being 11 10s on an I.O.U. Mr William Davies (Messrs Smith and Davies, Aberystwyth) appeared for plaintiff and Mr W. Hughes Jones for the defendant.-The case had been heard at the previous Court and his Honour again ad- journed it to the next Court, it being understood that the matter would then be re-heard, there having been a change of advocates in the meantime. Davies v. Davies.-John Davies, Tynywern. Llancrwys, sued John Davies, Esgercrwys,' for X20 10s damages for trespass by sheep and ponies.—Mr F. Lloyd appeared for plaintiff. Defendant did not appear and was not repre- sented. A jury was called consisting of Messrs Joseph Price, Gwarcoed Thomas Rees Edwards, Castelltigar Samuel Davies, College-street; T. L. Davies, Northgate and D. Watkin Jones, North-road.—Mr Lloyd, opening the case, said the trespass was of an extensive and aggravating character, and extended over a period of two years. Plaintiff gave defendant notice that he could suffer it no longer and that he would keep an account of all trespasses. He did so and had made notes of eighty- one days on which trespass had been committed or a total of some 200 trespasses. The sheep trespassed in nocks numbering eleven to fifty-one.—Plaintiff gave de- tails of the trespasses from February to May and said the defendant refused to come to fence. At least £ 20 10s dam- age had been done.—The Jury found for the amount claimed and judgment was entered accordingly. Davies v. Joiwa.—Mary Davies, wife of John Davies Llwyncwrt Farm, Llancrwys, sued Walter Jones and Mary Jones, his wife, Bell and Yew, for an assault alleged to be committed by Mary Jones, 5s being claimed as damages.—Mr Watkins, representing Mr Arthur Hughes, who had been called away to London on an important case, applied for an adjournment but Mr F. Lloyd said his client had all her witnesses present and would not consent.—Plaintiff said she and defendant lived on different sides of the road. On the 24th May, the defendant said plaintiff's children had been reared on robbery. Plaintiff asked what she had stolen and defendant replied, You have stolen many things from us altogether." Asked her to name some «f them. De- fendant told her to come over the way and she went to- wards defendant's house. Defendant then called her names and wound up by throwing a bucketful of dirty water into her face.—In cross-examination by Mr Watkins, plaintiff explained that the row was caused through children, but phintiff denied that she had set her children on to annoy defendant. She did not call defendant dirty names nor impute improper conduct to her. She had not teld defendant that she (defendant) had caused children belonging to her husband by his first wife to leave the country.—Margaret Davies, Cwmhowell, said she saw plaintiff wringing wet with her hat on the road.—Cross-examined Heard plaintiff ask defendant to say what had been stolen and defendant asked plaintiff to go away. Knew thatfplaintiff was wet to the skin be- cause she saw her changing. (Laughter.) Did not hear de- fendant asking plaintiff to go away or she would get more, but was not prepared to deny that it was said. Both were in a temper. Heard that there had been a row previously about fowls, but could not say whether that had any- thing to do with the present dispute.—Mary Ann Davies, ten years of age. who gave her evidence in Welsh and told the Judge she did not speak English in school, said the defendant said "The gipsies are walking to-day again." Mary Jones threw dirty water over her mother. Examined Mary Jones said the education witness's mother was given was to teach her and her sister to steal She asked, Where are the shawls with you to-day Had net been annoying Mary Jones for three years. Mary Jones had been calling her names, but she (witness) was a nice little girl and had not called back.—Mary Ann Jones, servant at Llwyncwrt, said she had thrown a drop of (water over her (witness's) mistress.—This was plain- tiff's case.—For the defendant, Mr Watkins said the defendant had been annoyed tor the past three years.— Mary Jones, the defendant, admitted throwing a little drop of water over plaintiff, but she was disturbed and called every name while in her own house by plaintiff and her children for the past three years. Had never gone up to Llwyncwrt to annoy plaintiff. She begged plaintiff to go away and leave her alone. She did not call plaintiff names, but wanted peace. Asked plaintiff twice to go away as she (defendant) wanted to go on with her work. Plaintiff, however, remained about the house for half-an-hour.—Mr Watkins asked if plaintiff was dressed in silks and satins on the occasion and the Judge said it would have been a £20 job if it was so.—Elizabeth Evans, Plough, Lampeter, a smart young woman, demurred to speaking English when his Honour asked if it was a disgrace to speak English in Wales and afterward said that people seemed to be quite ashamed of speaking English.—Mr Watkins said they were afraid of making mistakes.—The Judge said they could speak English as well as Mr Watkins. (Laughter.) '—Finding that witness was only going to speak to provocation, the Judge said that no amount of provocation justified an assault.—Mr Watkins said he had other witnesses to speak to provocation, but would not call them under the circumstances.—Addressing the jury, he contended that the plaintiff had only had a little pre- mature washing.—The Judge said it was practically an undefended case. No doubt children and fowls were con- stant sources of rows among neighbours, but people must live and let live and not take the law into their own hands. The jury should ask themselves what ought to be the damages if one of their wives had had a bucket of water thrown into their faces when Mr Watkins said his Honour should put it the other way—what would the wives of the jury do if they were constantly annoyed for three years. The jury found that an assault had been committed by Mrs Jones and awarded £1 damages.—Mr Lloyd contended that judgment should be given against the husband as well as the wife, but his Honour said the jury had found that the wife had committed the assault and he would enter that verdict.



Imperial parliament ....".....-_/...._-.._.....,..

[No title]

-------------------Xocal itni…