Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

11 articles on this Page








DISTRICT COUNTY COURTS. Before his Honour Judge BERESFORD. KNIGHTON,—MONDAY. ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE. Robert Lewis, wheelwright, Llanbadarn-fynydd, sought to recover the sum of £ 12 7s lid, principal and interest due on a promissory note, from the Rev. David Lewis, vicar of Llanbadarn-fynydd. Mr M. Woosnam, Newtown, appeared for plaintiff, ana stated that the plaintiff had been unable to serve the defendant with a default summons, but the plaintiff had filed on affidavit that morning. A bill bad been sent to the court against plaintiff and a cheque for £ 4 48. The plaintiff did not acknowledge this account, and denied his liability. The plaintiff stated that X12 7s lid was owing him by the defendant, at the present time. He did not acknowledge the items claimed, as they were not owing. His Honour said he thought the case had better be adjourned for the defendant's appearance, so that plaintiff could take the R4 4s paid into court on account, and he would allow plaintiff's costs that day. The registrar would intimate to the defendant that the case had been adjourned. CLAIM FOR THE VALUE OF A DOG. John Parker, Bettws. Salop, sought to recover the sum of £ 3, the value of a dog, from Edward and Charles Evans, Rose Grove, Bettws. A counter claim foT .£1, the value of a lamb, was entered by defen- dant. Mr R. Morgan (Llanidloes) appeared for the Slaintiff, and Mr M. Woosnam (Newtown) for efendant. The plaintiff stated that on the 2nd June last Edward Evans came to his house and asked I where his dogs were. Defendant said plaintiff's dog had killed his lamb. Plaintiff replied that if he could prove that his dog had killed the lamb he would have it destroyed. On the 3rd June, the following day, the defendant came to his house again, and Charles Evans shot the dog in the bay where it was tied up. He valued the dog at £ 5. Cross-examined: The dog was not dead, but was afraid it would be of little use again. Mary Parker (wife of plaintiff) said that when defendant came to the house Edward said thit the dog had eaten one of his lambs. Mr Woosnam briefly addressed the court. He said that probably on a point of law his Honour would be against him, but he contended that there was some justification, as defendant's lamb had been killed by plaintiff's dog, and again the defendants were given permission to shoot the dog. It had also been stated that the dog was recovering, and he failed to see how .£3 could be claimed. Edward Evans was called, and stated that he bad complained to plaintiff about his lamb being killed by his dog. He tracked the dog from the field to the house, On the 3rd of June he again went to plaintiff's house, and the Mrs Parker gave them permission to shoot the dog. His son then shot the dog in the bay. His Honour would not hear any further evidence, characterising the action of defendants 80S monstrous. He said if plaintiff had claimed £10 he would have allowed it. The verdict would be judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, judgment for plaintiff on counter claim, and costs. WELSHPOOL, —WEDNESDAY. There were entered for hearing one adjourned case, 50 new plaints, and 13 judgment summonses. WOOD V. FARMER. In this case, which came before his Honour at the last Court, application was made by Mr LI. Phillips, Newtown, with regard to certain items of the cost which had been taxed by the Registrar.—Mr Maurice Jones appeared on behalf of the defendant.-His Honour, after some discussion had taken place, sus- tained the judgment of the Registrar. NEWTOWN, —THURSDAY. EVANS V. EVANS.—A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. In this case Charles Evans, of the Crown Inn, sued Edward Evans, Crown-street, for £ 50 damages, sus- tained by an assault made upon him on July 9.—Mr Edward Powell appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Martin Woosnam for defendant.—Mr Woosnam applied to have the case adjourned on the ground that he had applied for further and better particulars and they had not been furnished.—Mr Powell said he had stated the amount of damages claimed and the date on which the assault took plaoe, and he did not know what further particulars he could supply. Mr Woosnam wrote to him on the subject, and personally he had no objection to an adjournment, but Dr Webb would leave the town before the next Court, and his client would not consent to the adjournment.-His Honour said ha did not see what further particulars could be supplied, and he therefore could not make the order asked for.—Mr Woosnam said if the case was tried that day it would affect his client very unfairly. His client, the defendant, had taken out a summons for assault before the other side moved in the matter. That summons would be tried on the following day at the Petty Sessions, and he thought it only just that the criminal case, which was entered first, should be disposed of first; otherwise it might be pre- judiced by the trial of the present oivil action.—Mr Powell said the rule was to defer in matters of assault the criminal proceedings until the civil had been dis- posed of, and quoted authorities in support of his contention.—His Honour, however, took a different view, and ordered the case to be adjourned, the ques- tion of costs being reserved HUGHES V. BEES. This was a claim for £ 9 14s 4d—for drapery goods and furniture told and delivered—brought by Miss Hugtif-s, Bazaar, Newtown, against Mra Rees, of Bryn Bank Terrace. The defendant died r, few days before the last Court, and His Honour, therefore, gave notice of the case to her son-in-law, Mr Richard Humphreys, inviting him to appear.—Mr Taylor stated that there was no will, and therefore there was no executor or legal representative of the late Mrs Rees, and letters of administration had not been granted by the Probate Court. She had, however, left some furniture which came into the possession of Mr Humphreys, but he had already paid more than the value of the furniture.— Mr Woosnam applied that Mr Humphreys should be appointed executor administrator de tm tort.—Mr Taylor, in order to save argument, agreed to this, upon whieh Mr Woosnam proceeded to argue that Mr Rompbrays As administrator do go)$ tort ooold not avail himself of a Statute of Limitation, which "AI the defeoe* Mt up originally.—His Honour said he understood when Mr Taylor agreed to the application of Mr Woosnam that Mr Humphreys was to occupy the same position as Mrs Rees would have done, and he would adhere to that understanding,—Mr Woosnam argued that Mr Humphreys should have applied for letters of administration to the Probate Court, and should have distributed the assets proportionately between the creditors of the deceased. If he did not do so the law said he must take the consequences of his con- duct.—Miss Hughes was then called and examined. She stated the nature of the purchases, and said the furniture sold to Mrs Rees was now in possession of Mr Humphreys. The sum of 48 lid had been paid into Court. The last payment made was in January, 1886.—Mrs Hughes, mother of the previous wit- ness, produced the books. Some discussion took place as to the date of the last payment made by Mrs Rees, and a discrepancy was discovered in the particulars of the claim as to the precise date of the last payment.—Mr Woosnam then objected to the form in which the notice to plead the Statute of i Limitation had been set out, aud Mr Taylor asked his Honour to exercise his power to amend. He admitted that it was not regarded as an honourable thing to plead the Statute, and in an ordinary case he would not ask his Honour to amend; but in the present case it would be very hard upon Mr Humphreys if judgment was given against bim.-His Honour said it was clear that they had not pleaded the Statute properly, but he would grant leave to amend, and consequently the plaintiff would be barred from recovering her money, although, no doubt, it was very hard upon her. He would give judgment for the defendant without costs. There were no other cases of interest. LLANIDLOES,—FRIDAY. MORGAN V. JONES. The only case of interest was one in which John Morgan, Aberdeunant, sued Thomas Jones, Belan, for X8 damages to fences, trees, and gates on his farm. Plaintiff was the owner of the Belan farm, and defendant was his tenant up to May last. Plain- tiff gave him notice to lfave, upon which defendant, it was stated.caused the above damage. -W. Williams, Rhiwbrongelly, said he examined the farm in com- pany with plaintiff, and he valued the damage at .£8. —His Honour gave judgment for plaintiff for X3 and costs.