The Welsh Coast Pioneer and Review for North Cambria

Llandudno County Court. A Local Florist and the Railway Company. Futile Claim Against Colwyn Bay Lawyers. The Qualities of a Llanrwst Horse. THE above court was held on Thursday before his Honour Judge Sir Horatio Lloyd and' the 0 Registrar, Mr R. S. Chamberlain. Alleged Negligence on the Part of the Kaiiway Company. William Newman, fruiterer and florist, Llan- dudno, sought to recover from the L. and X. W. Railway Company the sum of £ 4 5s 6d, the value of three cases of hothouse pines sent by a Camden (London) dealer, from Camden by train to the plaintiff at Llandudno on Octclber 9th last. Mr R. Anthony (of Messrs Pritchard, Hen- derson, and Co.), appeared for the plaintiff, while Mr Fenna represented the company. Mr Anthony stated the .goods were sent by the ordinary fruit train from Camden to Llandudno on October gth, and were due by the train which usually arrived between seven and eight o'clock on the following morning..Plaintiff made t'he customary inquiries for the goods, and found they had not arrived. He made subsequent inquiries, and on Saturday he 'n- formed the company's officials, that, provided the goods were delivered by eleven o'clock that morning, t'here might still be an opportunity for him to dispose of some of them. However, the go.ods did not arrive until three o'clock in the afternoon, and at that hour it was too late o sell them. The pines were eventually sold by the company .for 25s, which sum they offered the plaintiff, who refused to accept' it. He now only claimed the actual amount of the money paid by the plaintiff for the goods :o the consignor. Mr Fenna said that since plaintiff told his Honour that the 'goods cost ^4 5s 6d, there would be no dispute as to damages. Plaintiff, in cross-examination by Mr Fenna, said he did not know the goodis were handed to t'he company at Covent Garden Market. From authority he had he was inclined to dis- pute that suggestion. To the best of his know- ledge, the goods were sent by the consignor :n time to catch the 2.50 from Camden. Mr Fenna: Then, I am afraid your know- ledge is .not very goo'ci. Coming to what took place at Llandudno, whom did you see at the station? Witness The warehouseman-Jones. Mr Fenna Jones, stand. up. His iHonour: 'Not too many of you at a time. (Laughter.) A man got up in the far corner of the court, whom witness recognised as the Jones in ques- tion. znl Witness said he did not know whether there iwas another man, named Giffen, present. He denied: that the reason for that action was his annoyance because the pines had been sold by the Company to. Mr Berrill, the fruiterer. James Filby, a carman employed by the com- pany at Camden, gave evidence as to being handed over the goods from Mr Geor.ee Turner, of Camden, the consignor, at Covent Garden, between 5 and 5.30 p.m. on the 9th October. They were afterwards delivered at the Camden Station for transit by the 6.30 p.m. train. No special instructions\ were given to him as to the transit. Further evidence was given by Thomas Max- field, Thomas Giffen, and John Edward Jones, also employees of the company. The latter stated the goods came in at one o'clock on Saturday, when he made a special journey with them, as well as other things, to t'he plaintiff. Mr Fenna contended that all reasonable care had been taken by the company in the transit of the goodis between London and LIandudno. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed. Claim Against Colwyn Pay Solicitors. Edward Story Jones, ironmonger, Colwyn Bay, sole surviving partner in the firm of Messrs Roberts and Jones, contractors, Colwyn Bay, sought to recover the sum of £37 xSs from Messrs F. Nunn and Co., solicitors, Colwyn Bay, for work donei and:, materials' supplied in; the 'erection of certain two houses in Promenade-road, Colwyn Bay. 'Mr T. H. Morgan, Colwyn Bay, represented the plaintiff, while Mr James Porter (Messrs Porter and, Amphl-efct, Conway and Colwyn uay) appeared for the defendants. From the statement made by Mr Morgan, it appeared that the houses in question had been originally begun by Mr Frank Madren, builder, Colwyn Bay. Plaintiff supplied certain mater- ials, ironmongery, and fittings, and also financed the builder. The original estimate for the goods was £ 172, and in July, 1902, ZIIS was due to the plaintiff for what'had already been supplied. By arrangement, plaintiff was to be paid in fortnightly instalments through Mr Nunn. As Mr Madren did not pay, an inter- view took place between defendant and plain- tiff. Plaintiff declined to go on with the work unless he had a charge on the property, and lie eventually obtained a second charge on the pro- perty. A few days later plaintiff attended a meeting of Mr Madren's creditors, when the charge was objected- fo. On August 18th, Mr Nunn was informed that plaintiff would not go on with the work unless he had a guarantee. Mr Nunn then said they were taking over the property, and informed" plaintiff he would be liable for any work done on the houses from that day—the 18th August. By mutual agree- ment, Mr D. M. Roberts acted as overlooker on the work, and accounts were to be mitted to him for all things ordered by Mr Roberts. An account was eventually sub- mitted to Mr Roberts, but objection was made to certain items in it, amongst which was the fitting of electric bells at) the cost of £ 12, and gates and railings, which it was contended had not been supplied. Evidence for the plaintiff was given by Mark Davies, a joiner. For the defence, Mr IPorter said that what occurred! with reference to the second charge in favour of the plaintiffs was that the second mortgagees became alarmed, a meeting ofMr Madren's creditors was held, and the creditors took objection to the charge. It was put to the plaintiff that the charge might be upset in :hc court of bankruptcy, and some of the creditors saidt if plaintiff did not give it up they would 'go on making Mr Ùladrën bankrupt. Plaintiff afterwards s aw, Mr Bernard Lowe, who acted for defendants, and talked the matter over. Mr Lowe told plaintiff that if the charge was given up or upset in the bankruptcy court, or if the second! mortgagee had to quit his preferential position, he, as first mortgagee, would see him paid fer what he had done, and on that the letter of August isth was written. Mr Roberts was appointed overlooker, and in September plaintiff presented his account, amounting to about £ 20, to Mr Roberts. A number of the items were knocked out, leaving only £ j 195 2d, which had been paid in the court. The posi- tion was accepted! by the plaintiffs from time to time to January 10th, when a contract for the purchase of the house was signed, no mention being made by him except to the smaller amount. He submitted that the whole of the negotiations were based on the assumption that the sum due was £ 7 19s, otherwise, if the sum sued .tor ha-i been "considered the defendants would ha.'c added it to the purchase price. Defendants charged t-he plaintiff £5 5s for drawing up the the charge, and deducted it from the £ 7 19s 2d due to the plaintiff. A cheque for the re- mainder was sent to plaintiff, but it was re- turned. It twas after the contract for the pur- chase of the property by the plaintiff was s.gned that the claim for ^37 was made. D. M. Roberts, the overlooker, gave evidenc;; for the defence. 1.f His 'Honour gave judgment for the defend- ants. Doubting a Horse's Qualities. SUCCESSFUL CLAIM AGAINST A LLANRWST MERCHANT. Owen Roberts, a master carter, of Colwyn Bay, sued Edward Jones, coal merchant, Llan- rwst, for the sum of £40, the value of a cart- mare sold the defendant in February last. Mr James Porter appeared for the plaintiff; while 'the defendant was represented 'by coun- sel, Mr A. E. Griffith, of Liverpool (instructed by Mr Allard, Llanrwst). ilr Porter, in his statement, said the amount claimed, was due for a brown mare sold the defendant in February. The defendant had called at the plaintiff's house one day, and after seeing a number of horses he selected the mare in question. Next day, she was inspected by a veterinary surgeon, who accompanied defendant to the plaintiff's place. He would call a num- ber of witnesses who would give evidence that the animal was a good' worker in shafts and chains, but, at that time, she had been kept in the stable for some time, because there was no work for her to do. The parties eventually made a 'bargain, defendant agreeing to pay £40 for the mare. She was afterwards taken to Llanrwst, where she was put to haul a load,but, whether because she. was stran'ge to the people or the people were strange to her, she did not do her work. While in 'the plaintiff's service, how- ever, no complaint had been made against her. Evidence as to the purchase was given by the plaintiff. The defendant had promised to send him a cheque for the full amount of purchase price on the day following the day of sale, but it had not been received. He had never known anything vfrong with the mare, and when complaints were made against her he offered1 to let his man 'go to assist in working the mare for two or three days. The mare" had been worked regularly from August until the time of sale, and not a single complaint had been received against her. Amongst other jobs in which she had been concerned, had been 'he carting in connection with building near the Fla'gstaff, Colwyn 'Bay, where the hill was very steep. Cross-examined by iMr Griffith, witness said the mare was worth more than Z40 now. The reason why he had not taken her back at that price w'as. because defendant requested the sum of 62 for his trouble in connection with. "he purchase. William Jones, of Pen'rallt, Llanelian, head carter in the employ of the plaintiff, said the mare had been in his charge, and he had worked her steadily for three months after she was bought by his master, in shafts and chains, and on all occasions she had acquitted, herself splendidly. Additional evidence as to the mare's good qualities was given by Griffith Roberts, John Richardson, William Davies, Robert Foulkes, and Jesse Roberts. Frank Booth, veterinary surgeon, of Colwyn Bay, gave evidence as to examining the animal. She was perfectly sound, and quiet to handle. He had known her since last August, and he had frequently seen her at work. On all occasions she appeared to work very satisfactorily. Cross-examined bv Mr Griffith He had known mares developing gibbing propensities, at the age of ten years even. Hugh Jones, another witness, in cross- examination, said that before the mare was sold to Mr Owen Roberts she had giibbed once on Gyffin Hill, but that was the first day she had been taken out for a long time. She was eventually sold to Mr Roberts for £42 10s. I Edward Jones the defendant, said the mare nagged in the, streets, and backed into shop .11 windows, while three men were in charge of her. She was quite useless, and he had to take her out of the lurry, to which she was attached, another horse being put in her stead. He had his cheque ready on Saturday morning to y I forward the plaintiff, when the complaints about her came within his knowledge. He then wrote lo the plaintiff statin'g he was going to return the mare, because she was no good to him. Plain- tiff replied, stating he would call upon witness on Mondiay, but he never appeared. Some per- sons eventually called to see witness in regard to the animal. He asked them to have the mare tried, but they emphatically refused to do so. One of them, Thomas J. Davies, told wit- ness he had been permitted, -by Mr Owen Roberts to make him two offers. One of them was that Mr Roberts would give him (witness) the choice of any of the other horses in his stable in ex- change, or he would accept the return of the mare on the understanding that witness made an allowance of a few pounds for it. Cross-examined by Mr Porter, witness said he had only tried the mare on one occasion, but that was "quite enough" for him. He had not tried the mare since—neither in a cart nor in chains. 'David Tones, veterinary surgeon, Llanrwst, gave evidence as to seeing the "animal in Den- bigh-street. Llanrwst. She was restless, and certainly £ n:bbed. Hug-h Hulhes. carter in the employ of the defendant, stated the animal was quite unman- ageable on the morning when she was triel be- hind a ton of coal. He afterwards heard his master ask Mr Roberts' friends to subject the mare to a trial, and to their refusal to entertain the offer. Corroborative evidence was given by John Davies. His Honour, in giving judgment for the plain- tiff with costs, said he believed the witnesses for the plaintiff that the mare was a 'good and honest worker.

When sentenced to six months' hard labour for drunkenness, hitting a policeman, and smashing windows in the charge office and a cell at Warrington's new police station, Annie Smith, a 'notorious character, told the justices to "cheer up," as "she could do it on her head."

Carnarvonshire Licensing Cofflfl1 The Question of Early Closilig. THE Confirming Committee of THE <-■ shire Quarter Sessions met at Carna Saturday, Mr J. E. Greaves, Lord LieU presiding. Oakwood Park Hotel, The first application was that of ths Park Hotel, Conway, whose origin eveu-(M licence had been exchanged for a seV licence. I-ructed!by Mr Trevor Lloyd (i,ns, rt f the berlain and Johnson) appeared in supp application. ppoS«" Mr J. J. Marks, Llandudno, who hafl on behalf of the temperance party a .^en i5' vious hearing, intimated that, having fof formed there would be 110 facilities a: the class of drinking complained he 'was instructed not to oppose on occasion. tj,.e #' The Chairman wished' to be clear on ter. Was the Bench to understand t ing as such would be discouraged; Mr Trevor Lloyd: Entirely so. nrn& •Mr Flarry C'legg, a member of the c asked what guarantee was given that taking would 'be continued. \fr After consultation with the owner, Lloyd called Mr Stott, the owner, who st,bat he would give a written undertakmb facilities would be afforded, and that e as such would be discouraged. tile pollc Mr John Hughes- asked whether opposed.. a "If Mr Marks replied that, this be^g ed licence and the police not having c'Pe the first hearing, they could not opP° The grant was then confirmed. A Llandudno Grocer's Licence. r's Mr Trevor Lloyd applied for a g jje e cence for iMr Littler at Llandudno- lice11 g plained that the applicant had held reIjjis65.{ for 14 years, but removing to. new P_ 1, year ago, he had taken it for grantc -ses, licence went with him to the new P^e this proving not to be the case, ne had lost the licence, which he cou tained. # r g Supt. Rees said there were six ot licences at Llandudno, one being c(.upied rectly opposite the premises now 0 the applicant in the same street. The licence was confirmed. ide, A Point of Law at Penrhy05^^ Mr Trevor Lloyd supported the aPpeptW for a licence for the Cross Keys Inn, 'o side. kobje coo, Mr Marks again opposed, and too c in the first place to a point of ^avV" er j tended that the justices had no jj6 lice.}d previous adjourned meeting to gr^l cellcelicA, inasmuch as no application for the apP ^1 been made at the annual meeting- uieetIJ tion having been made at the annua he contended that the applicant at from applying at the adjourned as the withstanding this, the application VIt were the adjourned meeting as though ordinary annual meeting.$ The committee having heard a^0 the legal aspect of the case, decided application.. Mr Trevor Lloyd then explain'e r ]ia ce< was an old beerhouse, having a The application was to enlarge irles makmg it a full licence to sell spirits. jf Replying to .Mr Clegg, r Mr Trevor Lloyd said that it the lip plication was refused, the old '$ would still remain. On the °^eT,cenC& application was granted the old 1» g be extinguished1. Consequently, of this licence- would, give tj0use./ji)* greater power of control over the 1 much as the licence could be taken c0uP magistrates so decided, while the) jd take away the present licence uXl^ef elliaf tinguished by the granting of the da8 licence. ,6^°' ° Mr Farrington, en'gineer, of aI|0n. evidence in support of the applica tfre. Cross-examined, iMr Farrington s j$ of the population to be served by {i0^ ft were of the working class. He that two houses for the sale of spJr 'thifl necessary for such a place and v yards of each other. The licensee, Thomas1 W lllianiSf W .pft ined., said this was the fifth time J plied. The house was owned 'hy and Co., and it was part of his with them (that he should rnaks coJ. tion every year. The village 1 sn^ 700 inhabitants—was calculated1 to. olJse5' week on drink at the two public* A house had five bedrooms, t'nree^ 0 p 0 let to visitors. His family consis_ t° and1 wife, with six children, makinD M eight. priv The committee, after consulting half an hour, refused the applica Early Closing at The Chairman then called at$' fact that it was the duty of consider what steps should be f d for curtailing the hours for the sa licensed houses. hi'c'^ = t'1 tl Mr John Hughes said this wa^ h'ou9lil0 sary in Port Dinorwic. One of t haid power to keep open until e,^ ,oClc- ce the others had to close at ten 0 jjo h anomaly was due to the fact that t, iK ferred! to had been in the Bang0 t fore Bangor became a boroug ,er j( with regard to the house had tered. w to %\tfc The Chief Constable, in reP^ to de>V said the committee had now_p°vv any district except Llanberis, Ae: houses were kept open until e « oø due to the fact that the cornmitte 1ve^» Llanheris to be a "populous p f £ ?0i \>1 'd After further discussion, it the motion of iMr J. Menzies, t;0,n C. H. Darbishire, that the re5° fre Llanberis to be a populous p aS el- and that in futiire at Llan.bsris; public-hoiises be closed at ten ° f 0 "^tps aI,Ve ?

General Kelly-Kenny di?cl^t to tl>e ledge of his rumo'ured appoints Army Corps. P £ 0^ For using a churchyard^ ^rig3*1 of betting, John Fairhurst was, da. CostS' jOj Court on Monday, fined 4oS' a A BoRon cab driver, who co, ney to Bury, ran into and 'got to pay for it by weekly 1IlSI