Hide Articles List

13 articles on this Page

Advertising

N. S. P. C. C. WORK AT COLWYN…

AFFAIBS OF A RHOS-ON-SEA TOBACCONIST.

'IA COLWYN BAY CARRIER'S ,BANKRUPTCY.

[No title]

RHYL COUNTY COURT. --

Advertising

---,.---------A GERMAN FACTORY…

HOW A BARONET SAVED £5

.. A WORKMAN'S WARNING.

[No title]

Advertising

RHYL COUNTY COURT. --

News
Cite
Share

day-book he could not allow the claim, and what- ever costs the defendant was entitled to he would get. A defendant from whom Is 8d was claimed was ordered to pay the amount. THE RHYL PROPERTY DISPUTE. In the case of Homer v. Vaughan, partly heard at the previous court, Mr Homer, owner of the Victoria Hall and property to the west and south, claimed an injunction to compel Mr J. O. Vaughan, owner of Vaughan's Baths, to remove a signboard which has existed on the roadway leading to the hall and baths since 1850, plain- tiffs claiming that Mr Vaughan's father agreed by deed under seal with the late Mr Greenhalgli that neither of them should place cr leave any- thing on the roadway after the signing of the deed in 1898. On the other hand the defendant counter-claimed and asked for an injunction to compel Mr Homer to remove certain portions of the shop front of Messrs Tayak and Co., window sills, and a porch, which was alleged to overhang the roadway, and also for an injunction for ex- cessive user of the right of way to the Victoria Hall. At the previous hearing the Judge ad- journed the case, and expressed a hope that in the meantime the parties would come to the con- clusion not to go on with the action. Mr Howel Evans (Messrs Gold Edwards and Co.), who appeared for Mr Vaughan, now said he was sorry to be there that day after what the Judge bnd said, but he had done his best to settle matters. There had been cor- respondence between solicitors, but Mr Homer declined to settle. Mr Gamlin said he thought he should explain to the Judge that Mr Homer had a brother in the legal profession—a member of a largo firm in Birmingham—and the brother advised Mr Homer to have his legal position defined by the court, and he could not see his way to go out- side that. Mr J. O. Vaughan, in cross-examination by Mr Gamlin, said the width of the roadway by the High-street entrance was 20ft. 9in., and he was aware that he had said that the 10ft. 9in. roadway granted to Mr Greenhalgh was from tho outside of the sign, and that he (defendant) had granted Miss Jones a right of way on the other side of 10ft. He did not think the roadway was measured at that time, and he further said that he had the right to grant Mis.5 Jones a right of way of 18ft. if he so chose. The Judge asked what bearing the questions had on the case. Mr Gamlin replied that the roadway was 20ft. 9in. wide at the entrance from High-street, and that the 10ft. 9in. was measured from the gable end of the house and not from outside the sign- board, which was higher up the roadway. In reply Lo further questions, Mr Vaughan said they had abandoned three window sills as they had been up over 20 years, and the plaintiff had altered the verandah, taken down the porch, and removed the electric cables which were on the right of way, but there was still a downspout and three window sills overhanging. He was aware that the old tenant of the Victoria Hall had left that place. He did not know that Mr Homer gave him notice to leave as soon as he took possession of the property. Mr Evan3 pointed out that at the date of the counter-claim the things mentioned had not been removed; it was done since. The Judge asked if in all seriousness the parties wished this case to be fought out to the bitter end, when things had been allowed to remain on the roadway for years with the tacit consent of all parties. It seemed to him to be a storm in a tea cup, though he could not compel Mr Gamlin's client to come to an ar- rangement. If they asked him to go on he would do so, but he. did not see that any useful purpose could be served. Mr Gamlin said he would submit to an order for the window sills to be removed if the Judge would make an order for the signboard to also be removed; the signboard was the crux of the whole matter. The Judge said he was against Mr Gamlin on the signboard. It had been there since 1860, and there was no evidence that it had been an obstruction during the 48 years. Mr Gamlin replied that the matter must then go on. Mr Evans pointed out that in the agreement of 1889 with Mr Vaughan and Mr Greenhalgh there was nothing said about Mr Greenhalgh's heirs or assigns. It was a personal agreement with Mr Greenhalgh, and had nothing to do with Mr Homer, who succeeded him. Mr J, O. Vaughan said that Mr Greenhalgh had entered into the agreement to asphalt the roadway, and he did so to the gable end, be- yond the signboard. Mr Evans said he had other witnesses to call as to the window sills and downspouts not having been there for 20 years, but as Mr Gamlin ad- mitted that he would not call them, he would only call evidence as to the excessive user of the right of road. P.C. Rogers gave evidence that he had been put on duty at the Victoria Hall on Sunday evenings when crowds of boys would congregate there from 6.30 to eight o'clock in order to go to the hall to witness the cin-matogranh enter- tainment. He was there to keep order. In reply to Mr Gamlin. Witness said there was no disorder since Mr Homer had had the place. Mr Gamlin said he relied upon the agreement, which. he contended, clearly laid down that the defendant was not to leave or place anything on the roadway. As regards tho counter-claim he would call evidence as to th" measurements As to excessive user, the Victoria Hall was erected in 18S6, and it had been used for sales and dances, as well as other entertainments, and the only complain there had been made was about, the cinematosranh shows, but. as soon as Mr Homer could do so he got rid of the tenant. The hall had now been leased to Mr A. Cheetham, who would use it ss a printmsr works. They were prepared to give an undertaking not to conduct any entertainment: there which would be a nnisanee. Mr Goodll.11 -a.ve the measurements of the road, and produced the denosited plans of a temnorary rid in <r school on the site nronosed to be built in 1880. also plans for the Victoria Hall, erected in 1896. Mr Thomas Whitley gave evidence as to the alf-rin(r of the property in 1830. Mr T. B. McCormick produced a newspaper file to show that in April, 1898, sales were held in the Victory Hall. Mr A. C. Flint, auctioneer, nrodnced tb- late Mr Gearv's books to show that the haJI had MAn used for sales, diances, and entertainments. Mr Homer had done away with the cinemato- graph show, as soon as he srot possession. Mr P. J. Ashfield, proprietor of Messrs T:>vnk and Co., .whose shoo adjoins the road. i; there had been ro cause for complaint, since Mr Homer had had the propertv. He had attended dances at the Victoria Hall. Mr A. Cheetham said he had f.,Ic(,n the Victoria IT ill on a lease as a printing om". Mr EVan3 having replied, the Judge reserved his decision. A FATHER'S LIABILITY. George Nutter, formerly of the Imperial Hotel, Rhyl, but now of the Fox and Goose, Whitchurch. sued J. W. Ellis, a retired chemist, now residing at Abergele, for B10 8s 6d for board, apartments, etc.. supplied to the defendant's son from October 4th to November 22nd, 1907. Mr Joseph Lloyd appeared for Mr Nutter, and Mr E. A. Crabbe was for the defence. The Plaintiff stated that the account was con- tracted through defendant's son, Mr Pennant Ellis, who during the period sued for was serious- ly ill. The defendant was one of the plaintiff's customers, and came to the Imoerial Hotel at various times. On October 4th the son, who stayed on and off at the Imperial, was seriously ill in bed. and plaintiff called his father's atten- tion to him. The father went to see his son, and instructed them to send for a doctor. When the latter came he certified that Mr Ellis (junr.) was suffering from pneumonia, and advised tli-t a nurse should be sent for. Thereupon the de- fendant asked that a nurse should be sent for. Defendant, said he would pay. In reply to Mr Crabbe, Witness admitted that the defendant's son was about twentv-siv years of arre, and was an architect and surveyor practising in Rhyl. Plaintiff added that a nurse was sent for. and was supplied with board and apartments. The defendant said he would pay the bill, and later on asked for it. He maintained that the defendant said he would pay. Dr. Summerhill deposed that when he told the father that the son was suffering from pneumonia, and that he ought to have a nurse, he authorised them to send for a nurse and askod Mr Nutter nnd himself to do all thov could for him. Defendant said: "It will be all right. I will pay all expenses." In cross- examination, witness said he had sent in an account for medical attendance, and entered the father's name in hi3 books. Defendant said he used to casually call at the Imperial. When he went there on the night in question the doctor was already there, and he denied that he ever ordered the doctor or nurse. He had spent a great deal of money on the education of his son, who was able to pay the bill. In reply to Mr Lloyd, defendant admitted that he remembered saying that it would be all right. Mr Crabbe submitted that the defendant's son was the person to whom Mr Nutter should look for payment. If the defendant were liable he I claimed that, an agreement should have been made in writing. I His Honour was inclined to think that when the father heard that his son was suffering from such a serious illness as pneumonia, which required very careful attention, he undertook to be responsible for the expense. There would be judgment for the plaintiff with costs. That, however, did not prevent the father from re- covering the amount from his son. LANDLADY'S CLAIM AGAINST A LODGER. Celia Reynolds, Kinmel-street, claimed M 7s 5d from Matthew Wightman, tailor, alleged to be due for lodgings, food and money lent. There was also a counter-claim for JE5 18s for money lent and loss of work through incapacity owing to the plaintiff locking defendant out one night. Mr Joseph Lloyd defended. Plaintiff stated that defendant lodged with her for about twenty weeks, and when he left on August 29th last he owed 9s 3d for lodgings and food and 18s borrowed money. In reply to Mr Lloyd, plaint.ff denied that she turned the de- fendant out of his room to make way for visitors. She did not lock him out on the night of August 29th. Thomas Reynolds, the husband, said that he knew the money was owing by the defendant, according to what his (witness') wife told him. The Defendant denied that he owed anything. He left because he was locked out when he went there one night. On that particular night he wa.3 working until twenty minutes to twelve, and arrived home live minutes later. He rang the bell, but got no response although he waited for three-quarters of an hour. He went back again with a constable, but could not get in. It was a cold wet night, and as a consequence he was incapacitated from work. One day plaintiff came to him whilst at work, and asked him to lend her a sovereign, which he got for her. William John Richard-i, the defendant's em- ployer, remembered the plaintiff coming one day to the shop, and defendant came to witness asking him for a sovereign, which he said he wished to lend to Mrs Reynolds. Witness added that he gave the defendant £1 which he handed to Mrs Reynolds. Plaintiff admitted having the JEl. but of that amount 18s 3d was due to her for rent and money lent, and the defendant told her to keep the remaining Is 9d to go towards a wedding present. Defendant then asked her to treat him, which she did (laughter). P.C. Oldfield confirmed defendant's statement that he came to the police station on August 29th, and that it was a cold, windy and wet night. His Honour awarded the plaintiff 18s, and declined to allow anything on the counter-claim. A TENANT SUED FOR DILAPIDATIONS. Herbert Barnett, Rhuddlan, on behalf of his wife, sued Mary Jones for JE6 8s lid for dilapida- tions alleged to have been caused by defendant during her occupancy of Springfields, Rhyl-road, Rhuddlan. Mr J. Pierce Lewis represented plaintiff, and Mr Joseph Lloyd was for the de- fendant. Mr Pierce Lewis said that when the defendant entered the house it was in excellent repair, only having been occupied for twelve months previous- ly. When defendant left, it was alleged that the house was in a dirty state, the pipes in the bathroom were choked, a leaded light was broken in the vestibule, and the paper was discoloured. Mr Joseph Lloyd said that 30s had been paid into court, which he claimed was sufficient. Evidence having been given the Judge awarded the plaintiff four guineas.