Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

17 articles on this Page

DEGANWY MAN AS EXPERT WITNESS.

News
Cite
Share

DEGANWY MAN AS EXPERT WITNESS. COUNTY COURT ACTION. An action in which his Honour Judge Moas said there was a multiplicity oi acoouivts was heard at the Conway County Court to-day The plaintiff WM Mr John Rush worth. furni- ttsne dealer, etc., Deganwy. while Mr HUj. oon tir actor. Deganwy. w-as the defend- ant. The amount olaini-ed was £ 9 14a made up according- to the statement of claim as follows: Qualifying to give evidence as an expert wit- ness in a case brought agarest tho defendant at Leeds, £1 Is; attending court on t. £ > day of trial when the case was referred to arbitration, £2 23; railway fare and expenses. £ 1 9s; four itorns for goods (including a builder's pulley, valued at 12s 6cf, E2 15s repairing a shed roof in aonsoquence of damage alleged done by the d&- fendant in carrying on *>n*> blasting opera- tions near the plaintiff's premises, 2s; putting gibes squares in a akylignt broken on tho same oocasion, 2s 6d. Plaintiff further claimed El 16s 6d said to be money paid uiwfer protest to tihe defendant under a distraint order. In this oonnection it was explained .lwl Mr Hill had detrained upon the plaintiff's goods for rent- The amount due wall 1;12. but thero had been, it was alleged, an over payirjent to the amount now claimed. There was another item of 66. 6d with reference to the use of a garage. Mr James Porter (Messrs Portex, Amphiett and Jomea, appeared fotr plaintiff, while the defndant. who denied liability. was represented by Mr HaUtnark (Messrs Iiondersoa and Co., Llandudno)- Plaintiff explained that at the defendant's request he had gone to Leeds to give evidence in a county court claim aga<ii»t the defendant with reference to some machinery in connection with a briokyard dispute. lie (witness) had had a kmg experience ad manager of brick works, and he had given evidence ai an expert. The case had been referred to arbitration, and he (heard nothing more about it so far as the de- fomdamt was oonoerned. Before he went to Leeds he had to examine the machinery in question so. as to enable him to give evidence. In reply to his Honour, witness described htcwei-f as a practical engineer and manager of hriolc-works- Mr HaUmark informed the Judge that JB9 odd Was t!he extent of the claim in the Leeds case. Witness gave minute particulars relating to tihe remaining details in the claim, and. refer- ring1 to the pufley, for ivthich he claimed 12s 6d, said he had originally tent the article to Mr Hill, who kept and apparently used it for nine or ten months, and when it was returned to witness he sent it back to Mr Iliil beoause he would not have it. Defendant had. how- ever, sent-it back again. Cr-,i-xamimed by Mr Hallmark: He had been in Mr Hill's employ for two or three weeks when he was paid at tie rate of 308 per week- Mr Halt-mark: And. now claim all this money for & day's work. Witness: But I only just went to Hill's for < time. I wag not there aa manager. I don't know what I was, but ho waa the nlinager (laughter). Further questioned witness said he had been to reoeiot of. 24 per week as manager of a brickworks and at one time, as an engineer, he had had 800 men under him- He was now in business on hiit own account as a bicycle and motor oar repairer. furniture dealer, etc. The fees now charged with respect to tho Leeds case had been agreed to between the defendant a-nd himseLf, Mr Hill agreeing to give a larger fee provided ho were suooessful in the case. THE DEFENCE. Mr Hill gave evidenoe on his own behalf, and said plaintiff agreed to go to Leeds on payment of a guinea and expenses- No mention had been made of an increased payment in tlio emit of his succeeds over the action. Wvtmefls was orosft-exanMncd at Length bv Mr Porter. Roforniug to tbe item dealing with tihe distraint defendant said there was mone- due to him from the plaintiff. who was his tenant, ton- rcat 11.00 he distrained upon Ixls goods- Mr Porter: You know your auctioneer de- trained for too much, and that you are liable fox trespass or for over-distraini. Witness: I don't think 6(). Mr Porter: And you distrained upon his goods though you knew you owed this man money. Witness • I bad to do it. Mr Porter: Them in regard to the fee of my client at LeOde-you roeoeived on account of this man 303 by way of oostE, so you are trying to mako a profit on your own showing of 9i ? Witness: The costs were taxed, of course. Mr Porter: Why didn't you let him know «iat you had worn tihe case when it bad been finished with T Witness: I let him know the result as soon w th" oago was settled by arbitration- 8?}ve judgment for the plaintiff tar £ 7 7s 6d, allowing £ 1 l3 rather than the f-2 2--1 o6in-d for attending court at Leeds- Mr Potter: What of the costs, your Honour* its Honour; Cost* to follow.

RIOT AT FREE TRADE1 MEETING.

Advertising

BALL AT EATOl4-

SPRING SKIN DISEASES.

[No title]

ABERGELE PETTY SESSIONS.

'--THE TERRITORIAL ARMY.

' ' .. -U.F CARNARVONSHIRE…

GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES DOUBTED.…

Advertising

[No title]

VOLUNTEER PRIZE DISTRIBUTION…

FIGHT OVER A HOLYWELL LICENSE.

CONWAY CHURCH CHOIRS,

THE SCHOOL DISPUTE AT FLINT.

Advertising