Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

9 articles on this Page





j WREXHAM COUNTY COURT. I MONDAY.—Before Horatio Lloyd, Esq., Judge. "A LAWLESS AND DISGRACEFUL COURT." Mr Adams, solicitor, called his Honour's attention to the disgraceful arrangements connected with this court, and said he had great difficulty in mak- ing his way through the crowd to the attorneys' tal Ie. His Honour said it was nothing new to him. He had to fight his way through that morning. He was never in such a lawless and disgraceful court as this. He would write once more, and only once, to the Treasury. He would rather go to every court in the circuit than come here. He was really sur- prised that the authorities of the town could per- mit such a disgraceful state of things. It was per- fectly scandalous. They saw the repeated com- plaints he made, and he would ask any one attend- ing that court whether those complaints were un- reasonable. He could not hear a word that was said simply from two courts being held in one room, and the noise in the streets all round. Mr Sherratt suggested the Corn Exchange as a suitable place for the sittings of the court. His Honour said he would rather hire a court for himself than have to endure the present state of things. All he wanted was two quiet rooms, if he could get them; but the town authorities would do nothing. At Rhyl they gave him the use of the Assembly Room and four other rooms at the nominal charge of half a guinea a sitting. Mr Sherratt said the same accommodation could be afforded at the Corn Exchange. His Honour: Is that place at liberty now ? Mr Sherratt: I believe it is quite at liberty. His Honour: It is a matter of physical im- possibility to go on here. If that place were ready I would go there this afternoon. Mr Thomas Jones, auctioneer, here made some remark. His Honour: We will see what can be done be- tween this and next court. It is no fault of the proprietors of this place, for I happen to know they are anxious to make all the provision they can, and there has been some improvement in the ventilation. It arises, as I said before, from two courts going on in the same building, and from the noise in the thoroughfares. Some other place ought to be found. The matter then dropped. G. J. AMAND v. UHLAND AND DAVIES. A claim of .£9 18s 8d, fur lime supplied to the de- fendants at Penvcoed Colliery. Mr Lee (of the firm of Messrs. Chapman and Lee), Gresham-street, London, appeared for the plaintiff. Defendants took exception to an item of .£2 in the account sent in, and also to a charge for demurrage.—The case was eventually adjourned to the next court for evidence to prove the delivery of a portion of the lime. THE TRIMLEY HALL BANKRUPTCY,—APPLICATION TO COMMIT ONE OF THE TRUSTEES. j Mr T. A. Roberts, of the Equity Bar (instructed by Mr Evan Morris), said he had to appear in a not very pleasant matter. It was to apply for an order of commitment against a gentleman who was one of the trustees in the bankruptcy of the Trimley Hall Company. The bankruptcy had been going on a considerable time, and great difficulty had arisen with these trustees. The estate, as he understood, was not very large, between .£2,000 and £ 3,000; but the expenses had been so large as to have nearly exhausted the whole estate, and instead of there being a g"od dividend, the expenses had swallowed up £ 2,000, leaving only .£200 or £300 to be divided among the creditors. Therefore, it was necessary that every halfpenny that remained should be applied in a proper way. Instead of doing this, the trustees had thought proper to retain the money, and had allowed Mr Richards to keep a considerable proportion in his own hands. The accounts had been audited, and instead of the money being paid into the bank, only a portion had been properly applied. In the last account that was taken it was found that Mr Richards had a balance in his hands of .£80 or £90. The matter came on upon the 17th of May, when an order was made against this gentleman that he should pay over the balance in his hands forthwith. The order was personally served upon him; but instead of his attending to it, he thought proper to disregard it, and instead of now attending before his Honour for the purpose of explaining why he had not done so, he had made an affidavit in which he said that some Bums he was entitled to retain, and was willing to pay .£60 into court, leaving a balance of ,£14 er £15, which he said he was not obliged to pay. Now it was quite plain, if the order was made specially in the presence of Mr Richards, it was absolutely necessary that that order should be carried out; but instead of that he sent a letter, which made the matter worse than before because instead of attending before the court, he thought proper to write to the registrar of the court a letter, in which he pleaded some pressure of engagements in London, and threw contempt not only on his Honour but on the whole of bis jurisdiction. His Honour said he might say that he had re ceived a letter from the trustee on Saturday, enclosing a copy of his affidavit, and stating that he meant no disrespect to the court, but was obliged to be in Londcn that day, and mentioning that he had I paid all the money he had in his hands, excepting some actual current disbursements, into court. Mr Roberts said the trustee was obliged to pay this money into court; and if he were entitled to have certain sums allowed to him, of course they would be allowed. In his letter, he stated that he had paid into court £65. retaining only .£13 for such expenses as might be incurred by the trustees in meeting this matter. He thought it must be admitted that the spirit of the order had been com- plied with, and the reason why it was not complied with sooner would be found in his affidavit, a copy of whioh he had sent to the ju Mr Roberts thought the court would agree with him that it was not for a person against whom an order was made to ex- press an opinion as tethe spirit of it being complied with, and that the letter was a most improper one to write, and was further contempt of the order of the court. Mr Roberts, continuing, thcught that when his Honour looked at the case he must exercise the jurisdiction which in cases of bankruptcy it wae quite clear he possessed; for the Act expressely sa.id, by the 65th section, if he remembered rightly, that a court of bankruptcy should be a superior court, and have all the powers which the Court of Chancery had The Court of Chancery had full power to commit in anything that was done contrary to its orders, excepting in cases that came within the Debtors Act. Then there was another clause, the 66th, which provided that every judge of a local court of bankruptcy should, for the purposes of the Act, in addition to his ordinary powers as a county court judge, have all the powers and jurisdiction of a judge of the Court of Chancery, and the orders of his court should be enforced accordingly. So that his Honour had power to committ any person who was guilty of contempt by disobediance of an order of the court. What was the Debtors' Act? It stated that in all cases of money payments no com- initial should be made where the matter in dispute had reference merely to a debt; but an express ex- eruption was made in cases where persons had re- ceived money as trustees, and it was held that in all cases where money had come under the control of a trustee a committal could go. The application now was that the trustee (Mr Richards) should be com- mitted for not having complied with this order. He admitted by his affidavit and by his letter that he had received notice of the order, yet thought proper to show his contempt by not appearing there that day to do what the order required him to do. His Honour had a discretionary power in making the order, but when made it must be obeyed. His Honour said it was quite obvious, on the trustees own affidavit, that he had no ground what- ever for detaining the balance he alleged he had in his hands. The order, as shown in his affidavit, was that he should pay the balance in his hands. At that time he had incurred certain liabilities and made certain payments which would go to diminsh the balance in his hands; but he admitted that in addition to the sum now paid into court he had de- tained £ 13—that he had no excuse for. He there- fore thought he had no discretion, and that the order must go; but in what terms was another matter. Of course one did no want to do anything harsh, and he should be disposed to suspend the operation of the order to give him an opportunity of complying with its requirements. Mr Roberts: We have no objection to that at all. It was found that the balance in the hands of of the trustee on the 17th ot May last was £S9 Ss lud. The sum of £63 had been pa"id into court, and credit was given for a further sum of .£5 Is 8d. leaving £1 7s 2d still due, and which ought to have Leen paid over under the order of the court. His Honour made anorderot commitment against Mr Richards, but suspended its execution for ten days to give him an opportunity to hand over the balance now in his hands. THOMAS ROBERTS v. JONATHAN HUGHES.—AN UNPROFITABLE PARTNERSHIP. This was a case in which two men agreed to act as partners in a contract to build a house at Bwlchgwyn, for the sum of £80 odd. The job proved unremunerative. and having discharged all liabilities they sustained a loss by the transaction, the half of which, .£2 5s Id. the plaintiff now sought to recover from his fellow partner. Defendant repudiated his liability, but his Honour found for the amount claimed with costs. Mr J. Jones appeared for the plaintiff. ACTION AGAINST A COLLIERY COMPANY FOR NON-PAYMENT OF WAGES. Mr Adams appeared in the following cases, in which claims were made by men emploved by the Penvcoed Colliery Company for arrears of wages :—Hunt v. Marland and D'lVies-.£22 2s 8d Peter Cunnah v. Same-£13; David Williams v. ame-.£13; and Thomas Hooson v. Same-£410i3.- Forthwith orders were obtained in each case with proportionate costs. G. ESTICK v. BURR.—A COLLIERY COMPANY IN LIQUIDATION. The plaintiff in this case, a carpenter, sued the defendant, trading as the Millwood Colliery Com- pany, for wages. Mr J. Jones appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Lee (of the firm of Messrs. Chap- man and Lee), Gresham-street, London, for the de- fendant. Plaintiff said he had been working for the Mr Burr fourteen days and a half at 6s a-day. The wages were paid by Peter Watkin. Cross-examined: He was engaged by the Mill- wood Colliery Company. Was not aware that it was a limited liability company. Captain Pinson en- gaged him. Did not know he was one of the directors. Mr Burr was a shareholder, and said he was very sorry for him, and would lend him a pound on account. Peter Watkin. collier, sa.id there was a board up at the works, on which were the words Millwood Colliery Company." There was nothing about limited. It only said trespassers would be perse- cuted" (laughter). Took Mr Burr for his master, and told him so. Mr Burr told him that Captain Briar had nothing to do with it when he came down. The colliery had been standing now six weeks, and two officers were in possession. Told Mr Burr be considered him his master, and went by his destructions" (laughter). His Honour said there was no evidence of liability. Defendant did not engage this man. He was engaged antecedently to his coming. Mr Adam& informed his Honour that he happened to know, as under sheriff, that the company was in liquidation, and that a reseiver had been appointed. Mr Lee put in a certificate, showing that the company had been registered as a limited liability company and stated that Mr Eurr having already advanced .£4,000 to the company, felt that if he did not resist this claim he might have to meet all the claims made upon the company. Mr Jones then obtained leave to amend the summons by striking out the name of Mr Burr and substituting Millwood Colliery Company (Limited)" and the cause was then adjourned to the next sitting of the court. EVAN E. JONES V. BURR. The plaintiff sued the defendant for -62 4s for work done in connection with the furnishing of his house but it appearing that he had charged for a week during which he was not employed at the house, defendant being in London, his Honour non- suited the plaintiff, ARBITRATION CASE.—RICHARD ELLIS v. JAMES TAYLOR. This cause which came before the last court and was referred to arbitration, was an action to recover £8 9s 3d for overcharges alleged to have been made by the defendant, an auctioneer and appraiser, in connection with the sale and transfer of a public- house business. From the defendant's case, it appeared that he lent Ellis, who was about t) take the Horns Inn, Bridge-street, .£35 to enable him to settle sale account with Mrs Jones, the former tenant, who had left that house in order to take possession of the Carnarvon Castle Inn. Subse- quently, through the defendant, Ellis, finding the business did not pay, re-let the Horns for .£90, including a portion only of the fixtures, the other portion being sold by auction in the ordinary way with other articles in a two days' sale that took place there on the 4th and 5th of April Several executions were issned, which the defendant paid off or became responsible for; and eventually out of a sum of nearly .£300, the proc-eds of the two days' sale, there remained after paying executions and other liabilities only the sum of £3 7s od due to the plaintiff, which was handed to him immediately after the sale. The dispute having been referred to Mr Snape for arbitration, he had made an award in favour of the plaintiff for .£4 lis. No other cases of importance came before the court.



[No title]



--_._--ilocal WcU)«3.