Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

13 articles on this Page

CONWAY COUNTY COURT.

News
Cite
Share

CONWAY COUNTY COURT. LLANDUDNO DRAPER'S UNSUCCESS- FUL CLAIM. IAN INTERESTING MONEY-LENDING CASE. LLANDUDNO TRADESMAN SUED. COMMENTS BY THE JUDGE. His Honour, Judge Moss, with tho Regis- trar (Mr lv. S. Chamberlain), presided over this court to-day week. COLWYN BAY AGENT SUED. Will. Greenfield, coal merchant, Colwyn Bay, sued Robert Kendrick. also described as a coal merchant of tho same town, for £ 2, being an instalment said to be due on an luuouut ot x/go lor ooai suDplieo- same detendaut was sued by Messrs Sproston, hsJiuiongera, Colwyn Bay, for the recovery of is (id., alleged to be dU6 tor iish. d C Mr Hallmark (Messrs Henderson and Co., Llandudno), appeared for the plaintiifs, while Mr E. A. Crabbe, Abergele, repre- sented the defendant. Questioned by Mr Hallmark, Defendant said he was now an insurance Agent earning just twopence under JE1 28 per week. His wife kept a boarding house, And a phaeton also belonged to his wife. "They had one child. In reply to Mr Crabbe. witness said he Was already paying into court £1 Is 6d per month under judgment summonses. It was A small boarding house that was kept by iis wifo and there was a bill of sale on tho furniture and effects. During last summer his wifa only managed to pay the rent £45, from the business. He was a coal merchant up till 1906, and during that year he paid Mr Greenfield £151 3s lOd., while since he had ceased trading he had paid £2. He was anxious to pay his creditors, and would do his best to meet whatever order his Hon- our made. He now offered 5s per month in settlement of Mr Greenfield's claim, and 2s 6d per month in the case of Messrs. Sproston. Mr Greenfield said defendant had offered 10s per month at the last court. His wife kept a large boarding-house which was fit- "ted up with telephono apparatus and the phaeton referred had been offered to him ^witness) by the defendant, thoueh he now aid it was the property of his wife. Mr Crabbe: This gentleman knows very Well, or as a trader should have found out that there is a bit! of sale upon the wife's furniture. His Honour made an order in the case of Mr Greenfield for the payment at the rate of 10s per month, and in the other at the rate of 4s per month. AN INTERESTING MONEY LENDING CASE. Hyuian tLerumn, ot iViarliot-streefc, Man- hustor" trading as ilay and Co., financiers, Applied for an order for sale or foreclosure Against Ann Jane Walker, a married woman, -of 1:)5: Stockport-roadj Longsight, Man- chester. Mr Arthur Edward Grundy, solicitor, Manchester, appeared for the plaintiffs, but jtho defendant was undefended. According to the statement of claim, the plaintiff lent to the defendant, Ann Jane iWalker, and her husband, William Solomon Walker, the sum of £28, under a promissory jiote, signed by them in favour of the plain- tiff, dated the 27th June, 1907, payable bv (quarterly payments of JE6 6s on the 25th .September, 1907, and the like sum of £6 5s jon tho 25th of each succeeding three months. tintil the wliolo sum was fuUy paid. In .case of default the whole sum of £28 or so much as should be remaining unpaid should "become due and payable immediately, to- gether with interest on the sums unpaid at and after tho rate of one-half penny per shilling per week from the date they became respectively due, and payable until the pay- ment thereof." At the time this agreomeut was entered into tho defendant deposited ccrtain deeds relating to a plot of land situate IJt Llys- faen, in the parish of Llysfaen, in the county ,of Carnarvon, formerly an encroachment of the common wastes of the Crown's Hundred of Creuddikm and nod 11 on tho plan of Llysfaen Common, remaining in the office of -the Commissioners of Woods and Forests." Mr Grundy explained that when tho plain- en terod into tija Agreement ifc was under- stood that sho was married to the man Wal- kor. Two payments of £2 were now due under the promissory note, and sho refused -to pay them. However, the husband had called on the plaintiff at Manchester on the previous day, and had requested time to wettle the matter, but sufficient time had been already allowed and ho now asked for an order for foreclosure. II. Vorber, a clerk iu the employ of the plaintiff, gave evidence bearing on tho transaction, and handed to his Honour a (memorandum of the arrangement. His Honour: Ibis is a very curious anemornndum. Mr Grundy: It is a very simple one. Honour, but had there lieon no memorandum •at all we would still have an equitable jMortgngo on the property. His Honour (to witness): How much ttnonoy did you hand over to these people? Witness: £20, vour Honour. His Honour; I see the note is for £28. Mr Grundy replied that that was one teason why the plaintiff did not ask for the -Interest to which he was legally entitled on ■the terms of the promissory note. His Honour: I could rectify that (laugh- ter'. Mr Grundy said the plaintiff was surely .-entitled to something in addition to the i:20 on account of interest. His Honour: You are entitled to £20 and --6 per cent. on it. That is not here, but this is one of those cases in which I should five the defendant some relief, because you ave this security, and do not therefore run the risk some money-lenders do; the inter- est should be in proportion to the risk. Continuing, his Honour said he had some "doubt as to whether have evidence that the" Daniels" referred to in the docu- put in was the defendant. Witness produced a marriage certificate which he said was handed to him as that M tho defendant and her husband. His Honour: This is not strictly conclu- but! will take it. AI! >w.adjfl tho document his Honour re- „ Marked (hit tho rimo gir-en was simply Ann Dan ietn, whereas ho .now called her Ann Jane. Mr Grundy said he -could give no explanation -lwgrar airier that He fiad been handed the docu- only that morning. His Honour evnfcually made an ordor for fom -<8lo?nre unless the money due was paid within six -■fnonths. Ho held thatfho amount recoverable would be C20 with S par oent. interest; Defen- dant would be responsible for the costs of t-ho LLANDUDNO DRAPER'S UNSUCCESSFUL CLAIM. James Smith, draper, etc., of Victor House, jfciostyn-streot. Llandudno, made a claim against *„&alis Gabrielson, of 5, Chapel Walk, Liverpool, -for 4" 9d in respect of goods alleged to have ".■jb^an supplied. Mr T. H. Morgan, Colwyn Bay, was for the jVaintifT, and Mr James Pwtcr (Messrs Porter, Amphictt and Jones, Conway, Colwyn Bay and Llanrwst), v\ a, for the defendant, who denied :4iability. Mr Morgan stated that at the last court j udg. ment had been given against tho defenda.nt in his ahsenoo, but. as his Honour had consented -4o a rohea.r the case was now-reopened. Plain- tiff waa a draper carrying on business at Lian- ■ dudno, and the claim against the defendant wai ■for yoode supplied to hia wife between April and May. she tired with her sister, Mn "SYedcrick at Llandudno. The items in the .joriffmal claim against tho defendant were mixed «p because defendant had lived with her aistw. When plainS^?w%K^dal1lt ter at Liverpool, he said £ ?,Ut the mat; "to pay if tho account J«re InqU G,pr0par^d claimed there was aa aS 'l «0 he held a receipt, but a.} the had hcon. Put m until that morning th« MOI know whotlior it had been* aid or J NJ however plaintiff admitted that £ 2 rea^r ii'^u'h against/he amount claimed. sr, ORSZ b:,ok'i,ut i«g »"•■«> to suiiply- t1l7' <h .t gn0d.&. ""tlt'Üo"ed b,M.. P -t Mrs it after th/it m?dieft Llandudno, and .fo.r Applied to the hus-. Rcpi.mig to Mr Morgan, he said the -defendant' on several occasmns went,{9 the shop with hL wifa when sho purchased Bopds. did know at the last court that the defendant was not going to appear. Tho Judge: That was defendant a own fault, and a man who does not appear must bea.r the consequences when t-ho fault is his own. But how do you make this man liablo, Mr Morgan? This wjunaJi did not pledge her husband's credit to begin with. Mr Morgan replied that the wife had gone to the shop as a married woman, and obtained g'oods sometimes even in the company of her hus- band. The goods bought would be necessaries to her in tho meaning of the word in the Act. His Honour, after remarking that the accounts before him were not very intelligible to an or- dinary layman, said he doubted whether motor hats and motor veils could be described as neces- saries of life.. For the defence. Mr Porter said the defend- ant had given his wife inst-ructions not to credit him with &-ly- accounts, and on that understand- ing he allowed her £ 2 ,or week far her main- tenance at Llandudno. Plaintiff had not known that Mrs Gft.briielaon was married, aswaa evident from the fact that he had not debited 'her with the 3-coount. because he did! not know heir name- The b;W had been sent to the Fredricks, and when t.ia aocount had been, cor- rested plaintiff -again dIOOited it to the wife, Defendant, who gave evidence in his own lie- half. remarked that the Fredricks now in South Afrjca, a.nd could not Do called. Cxos,exa.m Inad by Mr Morgan: His salary average E4 per week; the highest. he had earn- ed being £ 6 in one week- In rerily to the Judgo. wk-ness said he had made an allowance of J62 per woftlc to his wife on the distinct umierstandiing that she did not pledge his name If she wanted mc>re rno-Y .aho was supposed to have applied to him for it.. His Honour jnvitod Mir Morgan too quote him a case in support of the legal point sub-mitted by him. Mr Moffgau replied that he oould not do so that minute, but, would 00..K) after luncheon, if his Honour wished it. His Honour said it had been held over and over agot.n. that where a man gave his wife money- which. having- ragard for liar station in life was sufficient to find herself and family in the n-eoassariea of life a tradesman should not. give her crodit. t6n4 afterwards seek to make her husband liable. In that oase the hi»bnnd had apparently given his wife a sufficient allow- ance, and if an airrarjigement had bean made, (which appeared to have been made upoa the evidenoe) that she shouJd not pledge hM- hus- band's oredfit lie failed to see how the plaintiff could reoover. In the caae of Derbeaham an{(, Mellon, as well as a Later case, that point had been decided, a.nd unless Mr If-or,-an ooidd quote him the case which ruled otherwise he must give judgment for the defendant. Tho court adjourned for lunch at this point- j On resuming Mr Morgan rcfe-rred his florour to the case in question. After reading it. the Ji«lg™ said1 he did r.ob think the case touched the d-ec!i|on in Derben- ham v. Mellon, because in it the husband knew about and acquiesoad n the purcbso by the wife. Mr Morgan said lv» thought that a letter written bv the -dafendant in this oas» had made him equaiby Liable, and nothing had been said until now that the defendant intonded denying liability- His Honour said he had co reason to alter his decision. Judgment was. therefore, entered for the defendant. ACTION AGAINST A LLANDUDNO TRADESMAN, COMMENTS BY THE JUDGE- John J. Soholicld. of 2, Stone-street, Livor- pooi-road. Mancth-es-ter, brought an actxion against Richard Higaiett Brown, grocer and provision dealer, of 42, Madoo-sfcreet. Llandudno, for £5.. dewribedi a3 "damages for value of a homing pigeon lost by defendant owing to his negli- genoe." Mr William Rudd. adficitor, Liverpool, was for the plaiintiff. while Mr James Porter de- fended. Mr Rudd outlined tho M'iê at considerable length. He said Sohofield was a keeper of homing pigeons, and was a member of the National Homing Union. Tho clam referred to the value of a bominig pigeon of a particu- larly valuable strain. The bird had strayed in a. raco in October last, and had fallen in an ex- hausted stato into the Lap of a Miss Morris, a young lady who happened to bo staying in a h-ouse on the sea front at Llandudno- Mis3 Morcils made i.nquiiri-es of the police who re- feinred her to the defendant as a likely man to help her in returning the bird to its ownf The bird was handed over to him by Mi&sftvlorris on the understanding that it would be returned by him. In duo coivrso. the defendant sent a bill to the owner of the b!rd claiming 1^3 by way of expenses incurred over the bird. Plain- tiff refused to pay that amount, and the mat- tor was taken up by the Homing Union- The bird was not returned when demanded. Brown saving it had been lost. M L. R. Morris, oif Oxon, Shrewsbury, enid that in Sept-t afoer lost whilst on a inotcir-irg tow in North Wales eho stayed in a house on the eea front at Iiandmdno, and the bird in an ex- Sxkuatod eorwJLfckm ZoJi cm; the window sill axd on to her She fed jot and caillet?' a.t the polico ctatdor4 and in oww-quenm of what sho was toLd elbo called1 on the de&rtda.nt. Brown was ac-dzed: for tho adareea of the NaAioaval Homing Sooieby, amd he found the, necef«iiry addresi of the bird's ownet. He then wrote a postcard, and sho aefced him whether he would undertake to look aifter tlhe bird and return it, as she was going down to Cornwall. She toJd him he could ttva-ve the ar-d if one was given for :retur.n!iu!g' the bird. Ho promised to do that. and to take as iysuda carc of it as if it were his own. She never authorised him to make any olaim in her naime. She told, him that if he was out -of pocket over tiho expenses he must lot heir know, M:io bird was duly sent to the defend^it. The nezt communioation sihe had with the defevndant was a. Getter in wihioh he said ho hod tried to get the exneneeB of her- tieffl and friend ove,r the master, but ahe iisvor atsked him to do so. Thore was no truth in his assertion that 3ro had "distinotilgr stated that the bird was not to be brought here." Gross-o.xairoi.ned iby Mr Por-ter, Witness said fhe had. no intention to leave the bird with Brown vaben she went to him. Brown never told her he had bad a lot of ti-oubie ovor other pigeons. Sho did not knew that the poet card written by Brown in her presence had been sent in lior maane. S'ho did not think sho had posted the card; she had oentainij not read its contents. The bird was in hw poosct-eion. for tihreo or four hours. By Mr Rudd: She had 'It her addrees with Biwavn so that he ooul I -her know if be wetre ouit-of-pocket over Itnø expenses. S. W. Roberta of M ado c-street, Llandudno, secretory to the Xi'andudr.o Saturday Homing Society, spoke to calling upon defendant with a letter from SohoSeld asking B-rwvn to hand over the birdi to him (vritmess). After the ietter had bee-i road by tlho defendlajrt he said "Tell hLm to proceed." Queolic,ied by Mr Rudd, Wibneeg said defend- ant) (hod been a meatber of the local society, but was not- now. By Mr Porter: Brown eaid; he had not seen the bird for two or three dajya. By Mr Rudd: When A atnay pigeon caane to 'his iranda he adwaiya fastened, at up aftor its discovery hadl been reported to tihe cwneir. P.S. Willie ms, of Liliundudno, said that when he called on Brorwn at the rcqueet of R. T. Wvnne, pra;ident of the Llandudno Homing Socie-y, t'tie dcfenda.ut said "Tho young lady brought tho pigeon liero to &nd asked mo to write to the addrross on the ring. She the pigeon here with me, though I toA3 Mr I wou!d not be rœporniblefur it. I put it in a bag, and I have nearer seen it. afterwards. It was'there for a day or two." Brown then suggested t-hat witness searched1 the bag for the bi.rd but witn-eevs WtlS satisfied with Brown's ebatemenifc, and therefore made no search. R. Thomaa W.vnr.e, of Clifion-road, Llandudno, bore out the evidence -of S. W. Roi>erts. Chafes Peart, engineer of Liverpodl, hon. secretary of the Western Central branch of the National Homing Union, valued the lost bird At £ 5. In reply to Mr Porter, Witness said thst any far.cxr w()rud return a lost bird under circu.mstarn^ee. Mr Porter: But he would noi VQ been, bound to do so. His Honour remarked t'hwt, as the «efenwa«nt had made hin»elf a obailoo for the custody of the "bird, Û10 was inctkied to be-ieve he wcruid have been bound to do so by j &Úo5.cld. the owner of the bird, said the bird waa of a strain for which J62 a-nd £ 3 were paid far young ones from uho nest, and it had won several first aad second prizes. n Alter Mr Porter had b.rio8y addrcteed tne court for the defeuoo, Richard Hignett Brown, the defendant, said he wrote a post-card to tha owner acquainting nun o; the bird's wnereabouts, and Mies Mor:19 posted it. The bi=1 referred to had been p-epa-red m conset'iuenco of the statement made by Miss Morris regarding all the troub.e she and her maid had ))eei put. to over the bird. He had fee a aski.d by the plaintiff to ssnd on the account of the expenses incurred, but no mention was t.}d. in that letter as to the return of the bird. His Honour said tho copy of the message be- for& hint urged tho defendant. tpt return the bird and to forward particulars of the expenses Defendant added that tho bird had smeo strayed from his loft, and oould not be found. Ho had nothing to conceal over the matter, and ht> never imeridoJ to "make anything out of fhe affair The bird was not worth more than 10s, tecame bi.-ds t-hat strayed in that fasten were called "duffers," &nd regarded as practically valueless. Croa3-examine»d by Mr Rudd The bill \vaa not authorised by Miss Morris, but he had prepared it because she had told him of the trouble oho had been put to. Questioned as to various items in the bill, de- fendant said it had been ma.de out "on Miss Morris' account, and not on my account, for I did not require any." He "never acknowledged the bird at any time, nor at any time touched it." Owon Williams, employed by the defendant as an assistant, slid he heard Brown tell Mias Morris he would not "take any responsibility with the bird." The bird, he understood, escaped from the paper bag, in which it had been left Oil the shop counter. In giving judgment, his Honour said the c-- was. perfectly clear to his mind, and he felt the defendant had not told the oourt all he kn^ about it. Mis3 Morris had no interest in the matter, except the interest of a person who pro- bably took mori interest than most people would have done in the return of the bird to its owner It would be impossible to believe that a lady in her position would concoct'her story, tie ttne judge) thought it an impudent try on on tho part .of the defendant with the Homing Society. Miss Morris had distinctly said she gave no instruc- tions with refereaioe to the bill put in. His Hon- our read the items in detail, and added, "I have no hesita.tion in deciding as to the first part of the case, but what the full value of the bird is I can't say. I have heard the evidonco of the Hon. Soc. to this society, and of the owner, but such people are apt to take a rosy view of these things. I give judgment for the plaintiff for J54 costs !o follow." Mr Rudd asked his Honour to allow tho owta on tho higher scale, but this the Judge refused lo do. „ A oase in which Brown brought an action against the Singers' Sewing Machine Co., Ltd., for th", recovery of a eewing machine was pert heard, and adjourned to the Llandudno Court next month.

ALARMING FIRE AT CONWAY.

Advertising

A CHARGE OF SHEBEENING IN…

-' NEW SHERIFFS FOR NORTH…

A SPECIAL OFF £ R.

[No title]

CONWAY FIRE BRIGADE'S ANNUAL…

[No title]

Advertising

4 COULD NOT WORK

A NURSE'S TERRIBLE AGONY.i

Advertising