The Welsh Coast Pioneer and Review for North Cambria

Motor=Car Accident at Rhos. Sequel in Conway County Court. Action Against Colwyn Bay Contractors. NEARLY the whole of Thursday ait Conway County Court was monopolised by parties to an action, the result of a collision between a motor car and a contractor's lurry near Rbos- on-Sea in September last. The plaintiff was Christopher Henry Peake, manager of a Leeds firm of pianoforte manu- facturers, hailing from Cross Gate, of that city, and he sought to recover the sum of £ g 17s from Messrs Hughes and Rowlands, con- tractors, Colwyn Bay, in respect of damages alleged to have been done to his motor car through the neglect of ■defendants' servant. Mr James Amphlett (Messrs Porter and Am- phleitt, Conway and Colwyn Bay), appeared for the plaintiff, while Mr Thornton Jones, of Ban- gor, represented the defendants, who denied lia- bility. The Plaintiff's Version. Plaintiff stated that, on the nth September, while driving in his motor car from Llandudno to Colwyn Bay, he could see the defendant's horse and cart coming to meet him juste in the vicinity of Rhos-on-Sea. He sounded his horn twic,e-o,ri the last occasion at ,aboult 200 yards distance from the cart. J uslt as bis motor car approached the other vehicle, the horse crossed <be roadway, with the result that ik collided with his own car, smashing one of the car lamps, valued at £2 8s; a mud-guard, value Zi 10s 6d; and a wheel hulb-cap, value 5s, and repairs were carried out by Mr Merridew 45 Colwyn Bay for £ 2 6s. While the car was under repair he paid 158 for storage, but he did v.,ot choose to include it as an item against the defendants. The depreciaition; in the value of the car he put down at £3. The total amount of the claim therefore was £9 173. Examined by Mr Amphlett, witness said the dafendants' servant was out of sight, and had not the least control over his horse, because the reins were not in his hands. His own car was going dead slow; his vehicle was one of the smallest made, and of six-horse power. When the. accident occurred, both he and his wife, who, with his son, accompanied him, were well able to retain their seats thus prov- ing that his own vehicle was not driven at any great speed. After the accident the man drove away immediately, and Mrs Peake, who fol- lowed him, spoke, to, him concerning the acci- dent. In due course,- witness followed the man to a quarry, and asked him whether he had re- ported to his master the fact that he had done some damage to his (witness's) motor car. The man replied in the negative. Asked why he had not done so, he replied he did not, see the necessity for so doing, and adrdied that he {wit- ness) was driving at a furious rate. This he (the speaker) emphatically denied. The man then said his horse had never shied at a motor car before. Witness had 'been used to motor car drivingfor over two years, and he had never been stopped by the police, neither had he ex- perienced any accident. Cross-examined by Mr Thornton Jones, wit- ness said he was a manager for a firm of piano- forte manufacturers. The car in question had been in his possession abouit two months, but he had driven cars for two years previously. 'He had not 'been on the road before the day of the accident. The road might have been 22 feet wide at the spot in question. He knew nolthing of a footpath four feet in width, which lined the roadside. From the appearance of the reins he was sure the man did not holdl them in his hands; but defendant was not in view until after the acoidenlt occurred. A Doubt. Pressed by Mr Thornton Jones, witness stated he would not go so far as to say the man did not actually hold the reins. He did not see any lady, shortly before the accident occurred, who had been obliged to jump aside out otf the way of his car. He did not know what the gradient of the road was at that point, but he did not think a gradient of one in 27 was a very considerable one. He denied that the man put up his arm to warn him beforethe vehicles col- lided. Mrs Peake, the plaintiff's wife, and Ge,orge, Peake, his son, gave corroborative evidence. Fred R. Merridew, motor car manufacturer, Colwyn Bay gave -evidence as to the extent of the damage done, and as to having measured the road where the ,aocidiellit took place. The width of the road at the point in question was 23ft. Having regard to the fact that the car was some 7cwts in weight it was his opinion that if ithe motor car had been driven at any speed it would have knocked the other vehicle over. Cross-examined by Mr Thornton Jones, witness said the car waa^capable of the speed of 27 miles an hour. The Defence. Addressing His Honour, Mr Thornton Jones contended he had no case to answer inasmuch as neither of the witnesses called for the plaintiff had been able to prove neglect on the part of the defendants' carter. Evan Parry, of Bank Park, Colwyn Bay, said he had been employed as carter by the defend- ants for the past twenty years, and during; the whole of the period no accident had occurred to a cart under his control. He emphatically denied driving without having control of the reins on the day in question. He was sitting in in the cart when the plaintiff's motor-car came rushing by at a furious rate, and they collided. Belfore they.approached, however, he had held up his hand in order to warn the occupants of the car, but they took no notice of that. He never heard the sound of the plaintiff's horn. Cross-examined by Mr Amphlett: Witness said the car struck his own cart at the back corner. The rate ithe plaintiff drove was about 40 miles an hour. (Laughter.) Edward Thomas, of 8, Ivy-street, ,Colwyn Bay, another carter in the employ of the defend- ant firm, said he was driving in a cart which followed the one that collided with the motor- car. He saw the previous witness raise his hand to warn the plaintiff, but he never beard the sound of the horn. Annie Jane Williams, of Haifod Cottage, Rbos-on-Sea, gave evidence as to seeing the plaintiff's car passing. It was driven at such a speed that she stood by a seat along the road- side, for fear she should be run over. This was wilthin a short distance of where the accident occurred. Margaret Williams, mother of the previous witness, said she had told Mr .and Mrs Peake as soon as they got out of the car that they "were enough to frighten anybody." John Williams, -S9ll of the previous witness, said that after the accidenit he had' some con- versation with Mrs Peake, and she acknow- ledged that no how bad 'been blown, because they thought it was ndt necessary. Roger Hughes, one of the defendant firm, said that a few days after the accident, Mr Peake called upon him, asking what he (wit- ness) proposed to do in the matter. Witness replied he did not init;einid doing anything. Plaintiff then said he would take legal proceed- ings againslt him. After a lengthy hearing, his Honour gave judgment for the. defendant, each party to pay their own costs. +

Llanrwst County Court. Claim Against Llanrwst Trustees. Eightpence a Day Wages. FRIDAY: Before his Honour Judge Sir Horatio Lloyd, and the Registrar (Mr J. E. Hum- phreys). A Labourer's Wages: Ridiculous Offer. Robert Lloyd, labourer, of Frith Cottage, Llanrwslt, claimed £ 1 17s 8d from John Roberts, farmer, Yfotfty, for work done. Mr Latimer Jones (Messrs Porter and Amphleltt) appeared for the plaintiff; while the defendant was represented by Mr C. T. Allardi, Llanrwst. The Plaintiff, who described himself as a farm labourer -and miner, said that during the recent harvest season he had been employed as a farm hand by the defendant, the agreement be- ing itihiaft he got food1 and reasonable day's wage. He was engaged with defendant for 31 days, and he claimed 2s per day, making a total of 63 2S. Defendant had paid ^1 on account, and! plain- tiff had also been given four pounds of butter, valued ajt 4S 4d. The balance now due was £ 1 17.5 8d. Cross-examined by Mr Allard: Plaintiff said he was 60 years of age. He was not aware that he had at any time suffered from a para- lytic stroke; in fact, his medical attendant had told him that was not the case. He considered himself able to- do a better day's work than any woman car boy. He was at present engaged with the North Wales Gas Company, at the rate of 3s 6d per day. He kneiw he had his food with the defendant, but that was the rule at harvest time. Replyingl to Mr Laitimer Jones, defendant said he 'be'gan work at 5 a.m. and finished at 7 p.m. For the defence, it was contended: the agree- ment was that plaintiff should be engaged at what the defendant considered reasonable wages, as the plaintiff was ill very oten, and quite unable to do such a day's work as could be expected from a man of his age. Moreover, it was alle'ged that, when the 41 referred to was paid to him., the plaintiff agreed to the amount as being in final settlement of the debt. Replying to Mr Latimer Jones, the defendant, who gave evidence in his own behalf, said the man had tried to mow hay on one occasion, but his work was so unsatisfactory that he had to give it up. Mr Latimer Jones: And now you say his work is not worth more than the sovereign you paid him? Defendant: Yes. Mr Latimer Jones Do you know how much that works out at per day? His Honour: Eightpence, I make it. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for the full amount, and costs. Claim Against Llanrwst Trustees. A 'BUTCHER'S CREDIT SYSTEM. George F. Kerry, butcher, Llanrwst, sought to recover £29 9s 8d from Owen Is'goed Jones, J.P., chemist, Llanrwst, and Hugh Roberts, also of Llanriwst, both of whom are trustees of the estate of the Lait-e Mr Wynne, of the Eagle's Hotel, Llanrwst, the value of goods said to have been supplied to, the, management of the hotel on behalf of the defendants. Mr Llewelyn Hugh Jones, of Wrexham, ap- peared for the plaintiff; and Mr R. S. Chamber- lain (Messrs Chamberlain and Johnson) for the defendant. Mr Llewelyn Hugh Jones said the late Mr Wynne died in 1897, and the defendants were appointed trustees in 1899. After that daite I.ale trustees carried on the hotel with various manageresses in charge. Miss Hughes carried on those; duties until July, 1900, and in that month the defendants engaged a Miss Griffiths as managecess. In the same year the licence was transferred to the defendant Hugh Roberts, in whose name it was still. Miss Griffiths left in May, 1901, and her successor, Miss Parry, was appointed by Mr Isgoed Jones. After Christmas, in 1902, Miss Parry gave up the position, and Miss Wynne succeeded her ,'n the management. There were three daughters of the late Mr Wynne, and it was not until August, 1901, tha)t tbt eldest came of age. Eventually, the plaintiff "Drought .an action against the de- fendants for the recovery of £331 12s for meat supplied to the hotel, and the' action, was selttledi at Chester. Meanwhile, the plaintiff adopted a system, of giving only week's credit to the defendants, and this had been continued until up to quite recent times, when the account had agaJingone into arrears to !the extent of a six- week's supply, which came to the value of the amount claimed, ^29 9s 8d. Air Chamberlain protested that, inasmuch as the claim concerning the -f331 account had been settledl, it was unfair to bring the matiter up a'gain. Mr Ll. Hugh Jones I don't see any objec- tion to that. Mr Chamberlain: But I do.. I say there is a possibility of its prejudicing my clients' case to-day. Mr Hugb Jones said he had no desire to be unfair to anybody, but it was certainly right that the whole history of the thing ibe gone into in order to show how the hotel had pre- viously been managed, and the course of deal- ing between the parties. Proceeding, the advo- cate said that when the accounts had again got into arrears the plaintiff wrote on August 28th to Mr Hugh Roberts, enclosing a pass-book as to the meat supplied, and asking for a cheque. Before that date, however—on August 17'th- the defendants gave Miss Wynne, who had meanwhile married and become Mrs Whittaker, a short notice, practically ordering her to give up the management of the hotel in favour of Mr Hugh Evans, the present manager/ The reply to the letter asking for payment came from Messrs James and Humphreys, the de- detfendant's solicitors, and that was to the effect that the goods now in question had been o. dered by Mrs Whittaker, to whom he (Kerry) was to look for payment. It was also pointed out by the writers that the plaintiff had inform- ed them that he would not supply more meat— after the Chester action-except for payment on delivery. Two other letters had been forward- ed requesting payment, but the bill was yet un- settled. On September 19th, defendant's soli-' citors wrote stating that if the plaintiff waited until after the vaca-ion there was no doubt the account would be paid. /-lilt The plaintiff gave evidence bearing ^ce advocate's statement, and stated that ever t;0lls the death of the late Mr Wynne the transa between him and the defendants had been riedi out in precisely the same way. His Honour: Were your ledgers beade the same, names? Witness: Yes, sir. in Mr Hugh Jones You entered the g°° the name of the manager or manageress, as th 10 case might be? Witness: Yes; and I was paid by cheq from the trustees. _sS J| Still examined by {Mr Hugh Jones, g ■ said no one ever intimated to him that W Whittaker hiad been relieved of the inaIia?*I1 menit, but Mr Hugh Evans had on one occasi ■ ordered the supply from him. sS 9 Cross-examined by Mr Chamberlain, wi^ said that when the new manager was aPP°I^er he was well aware of the proceedings at Chest■ > because he had been concerned on that 0 sion also. (Laughter.) He knew Mr Is'§°. Jones was one of the trustees, and though t gentleman practically lived next door to hotel it never occurred to him to get bis or from Mr Jones. Mr Chamberlain: Was there not a dist1^, understanding that, after the Chester pxoce ings, you should give a week's credit only? Witness: From whom? g Mr Chamberlain: Don't fence with j there not a distinct understanding to tbalt Witness: I don't understand you very well. Mr Chamberlain repeated the question, 11 Witness replied that that system had bee kept up for a long time. The Defence. Mr Chamberlain, addressing His Honour the defence, said tha/t Mrs Whittaker, who ha^ been referred to as the last manageress, one of the children of the house, so to sPe,^ and so far from being a manageress, iQ cardinary sense of the term, she nolt so at any time. As a f act, Miss when she married Mr Whittaker, lived in house as one otf the family. His clients did D want her there in any capacity. She ne received a penny, and she never paid a With regard to the big bill of ^"300 odd 3( had been mentioned, he would call Mr phxeys, who ait the time acted as solicitor to defendants, and he would give evidence provlg to bis honour that plaintiff had been ds' tinctly told not to give more than a wleklo „ credit. A letter had been written by Mr Hu phreys calling plaintiff's attention to that, a that statement was not repudiated in any in the letter written by the plaintiff in rep J' He rested his case absolutely upon that ?0111^ Having regard to their previous experience "VI was not likely that the trustees would alIa credit to go on as suggested. t<> Mr J. E. Humphreys then 'gave evidence as his acting for the defendants. The defendalI were trustees for 'the freehold property_ °1' In reference to' the conversation he had-with t plaintiff, they met in Market Square, IJaavv;,t^ and plaintiff said he would not grant t "house"—meaning the Eagle's Hotel-II10,re than a week's credit in future. That was w 0 negotiations regarding the Chester action proceeding. Witness replied: "Quite rli°^jg Kerry." Witness intended saying a few "wor to the same effect to1 Kerry, and would ha done so had not Kerry himself spoken. As r presenting his clients he (witness) thought was only right and proper. When he Kerry he had' that conversation in has eye, and it came as quite a surprise to hear that Kerry had afterwards ^iven credit the way he had. Both advlocall,es having addressed the couItt. His Honour said he would reserve judgnie Another Claim. John Jenkins, boot and shoe maker, Llaur^^ put in a claim against the same defendants, 18 respect of boots and shoes supplied the M1S Wynne, of the Eagle'9 Hotel, value ^10 Mr Llewelyn .Hugh Jones again appeared the plaintiff, the defendants, Owen "^Sf °vjiy Jone's and Hugh Roberts1, being represented bY Mr R. S. Chamberlain. Tjj9 At the outset, Mr Hugh Jones informed Honour that his friend, Mr Chamerlain, juslt intimated to him that the only point w would be taken! for the defence was tha't the^ fendants were1 not liable, inasmuch as f-^y neither guardians nor executors for the chit of the deceased Mr Wynne, their position be simply that of trustees of the real estate. Mr Chamberlain: We also suggest t'ha Whittaker might have had some of the §° (Laughter.) Mr Hugh Jones proceeded to say goods had been supplied for the use o1 hotel. Ever since Miss Hughes was man ess of the business the plaintiff had been that his accounts would be paid by the tr^s after the bill had been duly certified. jer tiff had been put off from' time to the impression that he was dealing y* ^0jit trustees, who- were maintaining those giris the takings of the hotel. ^ad 0 Plaintiff said that all previous accoun _eS_ been paid through the defendants' c The last payment of all—received by ^que- 1902, for £ 4 39—was made by their c When he presented his bills to the Misses -ciJ1 they said they could not pay ^uStee'S- they had presented the account to the While conversing with Mr Isgoed Jones the laifter told him he was very s'oir^^iie pay* would have to wait for a long time for all ment of his account, but that eventua would be paid in full..Ile 'W,as Cross-examined by Mr Chamberlain • faults never given to understand that the of were trustees of the real estate only- the debts 'were due for boots suppll€ Whittaker. Mrs Whi'ttaiker had been P before the wedding, and that aceoun e extent of the account. Mr Chamberlain, addressing bas said there musit be someone in "l°co ,^ut th0 before such a claim could be held goo 'a(j!injois' defendants were neither guardians,n0^r|ris. Al" trators of the personal estate of tbe S per* ready the defendants had suffered 8^^ an.a sonal loss in connection with the e. esS) bt# y they had paid the money out of km they must draw the line somewhere- His Honour remarked that it was jy for the defendiants that they had a beerl similar accounts. Where a Pers°^,u"ms<t:a-nC'e.SJ paid once or twice, under such ci Pal there was a presumption that be w°oUnts P3? again. The plaintiff had had 'trwo_aC him by trustees, and it was re as o na bie s.0rt presume he would 'be paid a.gain- thing threw a man off his guard._ Mr Chamberlain added that t eq^1 bad no funds in hand, either in tlbat could possibly be applied gt-on. necessaries for the infants 9uf,rneO)t' His Honour again reserved Ju & ZZo bave at

—— A fine pheasant and a har CI.ksh°Ps caught in the great railway c (r Crerwe.