Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

23 articles on this Page
















OSWESTRY. (Continued from Page 8) THE FAIR. At the weekly auctions-, Messrs Whitfield and Son sold 188 cattle and calves, and 1388 sheep and pigs, and Mr. Luiham 40.cattle 300 sheep and lambs. Mr R. O. Wynne Roberts, borough surveyor, Oswestry, was one of a short leet of five out of 107 applicants for the post of County Surveyor under the Cheshire County Council. AN UNLICENSED PEDLAR. At the Borough Police Court yesterday before the Mayor (Mr. C. E. Williams) and Mr. G, Perks, J. Harris was con- victed of attempting to sell laces in Bailey street on the previous day without a pedlar's certificate. P. C. Hobson and Mr. Alfred Thomas pro/ed the case. The accused was fined 5s. and costs or seven days' imprisonment. A PLEASANT OUTING.On Tuesday the members of Mrs Cecil Hook's Bib.e Class, in connection with the Parish Church, To the number of 60, had a trip to Welshpool. The party, who drove in four large brakes, reached Welshpool about one o'clock, after which they made their way to Powis Castle Park, visiting the Castle, gardens, and terraces. At four o'clock they returned to the Church House, kindly lent by the Vicar, where tea was partaken of. Subsequently the party were photographed by Rev. P. A. H. Birley, the return journey being commenced about- seven o'clock. ALLEGED LAJICENY* At the Borough Police Court yesterday before the Mayor (Mr. C. E. Williams) and Mr. G. Perks, W. Johnson, labourer, was charged with stealing from the Wrexham Hotel, Church street, a purse containing 15s. on the previous day. Mrs. Kennedy, wife of the land- lord, stated she left the prisoner in the vaults and when she returned she found him on his knees be- hind the counter locking the drawer. The money was found in his possession. On the application of the police the case was adjourned for a week in order to make enquiries about the character of the prisoner. PRESENTATION.—On Thursday, the members of the Oswestry Parish Church Bellringers' Associa- tion met in the belfry for the purpose of presenting their master, Mr Griffith Whitfield, with an illuminated address and a clock. The Vicar (Rev Cecil Hook), in making the presentation, said the first person he saw when he came into Oswestry was Mr Griffith Whitfield. Ever since then he had been connected with him in church matters and had formed a great esteem for him and he was sure he had won the respect and esteem of the bellringers themselves. Mr Whitfield had in the past to exercise his authority occasionally but he had always done it in such a way as not to hurt the feelings of others, and from the way in which the society was managed he had evidently won the co- operation of his brother beilringers as shown by their presentation to him that evening. He had great pleasure in presenting Mr Whitfield with the illuminated address and clock The following is a copy of the address :— "To Griffith Whitfield, Esq. We, the undersigned members of the Oswestry Parish Church Bell- ringers' Association, desire to place on record our appreciation of the interest you have always taken in our Society and in each of us individually, since you: became master of the Association over seven years ago, during which period no less than five peals have been rung. The importance of this may be gathered from the fact that the last peal previous to those rung by local ringers was in the year 1731. We beg your acceptance of the accom- panying clock as a small token of the esteem in which you are held by all the members, and we trust that the bells of our old parish Church may long be ,rung under your niastership.Fi,eclerick Jones, Morris J. Morris, Richard Edwards, Richard Martin, Edward Jones, Henry Jarman, David Davies, William Morris, George Davies, William Worton, John Hughes. Oswestry, July, 1896. The address was the work of Mr, Henry Smithies (of Messrs. Longueville and Co.), and was framed by Mr. Edward Jones, Upper Brook Street. A very good photograph of Mr. Whitfield was inser- ted in the corner of the address by Mr. Maclardy, photographer, Oswestry. The clock was sup- plied by Mr. A. Lashmore, jeweller, and contained the following iiiscriptioi: Presented to Griffith Whitfield, Esq., by his brother bellringers of Oswes- try Parish Church, July 1896."—Mr. Whitfield in reply, said the presentation came as a great surprise to him, and he felt their kindness very much. He spoke of the seven years he had been with them as seven years of real pleasure to him. All the mem- bers of the association had worked well with him during that period, and he begged to thank them most heartily for their kind presents and also those who had taken the trouble of getting it up.—On the motion of Mr Edward Jones, seconded by Mr Henry Jarman, a vote of thanks was passed to the Vicar for presidiu-The proceedings were brough to a close by the bell lingers playing" Auld Lang Syne" on the handbells. COUNTY COURT.—THURSDAY. Before His- Honour Judge Harrris Lea. SHOOTING HIS NEIGHBOUR'S DOG. A considerable number of unimportant cases were disposed of, the only case of public importance, however, being that of Wm Butler, farmer, Hordley, Ellesmere, in which he sued Francis Edward Reynolds, faimer, Sycamore House, Bagley, Ellesmere, for £25 damages being the value of a dog shot by defendant on May 22nd. Mr R. E. Lloyd, solicitor, Ellesmere, appeared for the plaintiff and Mr W. H. Bott, Cswestry, for the defendant. In opening the case, Mr R. E. Lloyd stated the contending parties were important farmers living near Hordley. The plaintiff's son was fetching a colt from one of his father's meadows, to reach which he had to traverse a private road which was used by both of the farmers. He was returning with the colt along this road about half past seven in the morning, accompanied by his father's dog, a smooth haired collie, whsn he met the defendant coming along the lane with some cattle and ac- companied by his dog. The dogs had a slight scuffle when the defendant without any provoca tion shot the plaintiff's dog through the shoulder. The dog was an exceptionally valuable one and the amount of damage claimed — £ 25—represented, nothing like the value of the animal.Ir John M. Butler, son of the plaintiff detalled the case. hen he saw the defendant coming lie sent his dog- over the ditch to be out of the way. The dog afterwards jumped back, and the two dogs had a slight scuffle. They did not fight.—Cross-examined: There was another dog present, a puppy, out it did not take any part in the seiffle. The defendant's dog was muzzled at the time and plaintiff's dogs were not. Plaintiff's dog shook defendant's dog with his teeth once. He could not call it a fight.—Mr William Butler (plaintiff) proved ownership. lie gave to Mr Peel, Ruyton, a milch cow and another dog for the dog which was shot. It was a very valuable dog and had been used to train other dogs. zC25 did not represent its value. --Cross- examined The dog had no pedigree, but was pure- bred. The cow would be worth from X,5 to Xra, and the dog given in exchange was a good watch-dog. —Mr William Peel, Ruyton, stated lie sold the dog- to plaintif fabout five years age. It was the best sheep dog he ever saw working and it had been used to train four other dogs for him.—Cross- examined He paid £3 for the dog when he bonght it himself. Mi illia.m Reynolds, examined for the defence, admitted shooting the dog. The dog was very quarrelsome. It had worried his dog the previous daN-. His dog was mussjoled and wasonly eleven months old. It was very much smaller than either of the plaintiff's dogs, and both were on the top of it in the ditch. The dog was in danger of being drowned. That was the position of the do,s when the shot was fired. His conviction was that the dog was drowned. A sovereign was a good price for an ordinary sheep-dog.—Cross-examined He did not carry a gun to shoot, the do" He carried the gun to defend it if necessary. His (log was lamed by the scuffle. He took "out a o-un license the previous day.Mr. Josept, Smith, Limpet Hill, Ellesmere, examined, stated that the plaintiff's dog worried his dog more than once. He had to carry a terrier he had when passing plaintiff's dog. He had often called out to Mr. Butler about his dog. Mr Bott contended that his client 'had a perfect right to shoot the plaintiff's dog. His client's dog was muzzled at the time of the fight and was perfectly helpless. It was also in danger of being drowned and of being worried by the other two dogs of the plain- tiff's. The defendant did not shoot the doo- until he was perfect 1 y satisfied he was entitled to shoot. it in order to sai-e his own dog's life.—Mr. Llovd asked for exemplary damages. The doo- was" a most valuable animal, had trained various other dogs and was certainly worth zC25 to the plaintiff. His II(anour, in summing up, after reviewing the evidence, said he came to the conclusion that there was not sufficient danger to the life of the defen- dant's dog to justfy Reynolds in shooting Butler's dog, and therefore Butler was entitled to damages. With regard to the damages, Mr. Peel had bought the dog for C3 and sold it to Mr. Butler for a milch cow, valued at X5 or JE6 and another dog, which was worth very little. He thought the value of the dog must therefore be somewhere about £5 and would give judgment for JE5 5s. with reasonable costs.—Mr. Lloyd asked for costs on the full amount but this was declined, his Honour remarking that he could not encourage people to ask for such heavy damages.








Family Notices