Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

11 articles on this Page

DISTRICT COUNTY COURTS.

News
Cite
Share

DISTRICT COUNTY COURTS. Before His Honour Judge DAVID LEWIS. LLANFYLLIN,—TUESDAY. On his Honour taking his seat, Mr C. R. Jones as Ex-Mayor asked leave to congratulate him on his ap- pointment. They had had several judges in the cir-' c-.iit of late, and all bad given great satisfaction, and they had every confidence in His Honour, with whose name they were faiiiiliar.-Dr. Roger Edwards said as a Welshman he had especial pleasure in supporting what Mr Jones had said. The appointment was oue they were all proud of (hear, hear).—His Honour re- turned his very sincere thanks, and said he hoped nothing that he did would ever cause them to repent his appointment. TITHE CASES.—Mr M. Woosnam applied by letter for leave to file notice of opposition in two tithe casfs, and the application was granted.—In other oases of which notice of opposition was not given, judgment was given for Mr Cleaver, the plaintiff. A NOVEL DEFENCE.—Dr. Edwards sued Thomas Evans Jones for the recovery of = £ 1 lis tid for medi- cal attendance upon his wife and chil(I.Deferidauc said he was not the father of the child though he married the mother.—Judgment for plaintiff. WELSHPOOL.—WEDNESDAY. GETHIN V. MARSH. In this caee Thomas Gethin, junior, of Adfa, Llan- wyddelan, sued Thoma& Marsh, farmer, of Tycoch, Llanfair, to recover ;elO 9J lid. iNIr Richard Morgan, Llanidloes, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Martin Woosnam, .Newtown, for the defendant.— Mr Morgan stated that; the claim was for goods sup- plied and work done and interest thereon, and also the sum of < £ 6 for hay used by the defendant (which belcnged to the plaintiff) between the months of January and March, 1892. With regard to the hay, there was a sale at Tycoch, and plaintiff purchased the hay there and left it on the farm. The defendant went to live at Tycoch after the sale, and used the hay. When the plaintiff heard of this he gave notice that part of the stack belonged to him. Notwith- standing the notice the defendant continued using the hay. Besides the hay there were numerous other claims for tapping, patching, making boots, etc., which made up the amount claimed.—The plaintiff bore out his solicitor's statement, and was cross-ex- amined by Mr Woosnam.—John Jones, auctioneer, Llanfair, stated that he conducted the ale at Tycoch under the instructions of Mr T. Henry Marsh, and the proceeds were given to that- gentleman. The stack of hay was sold to Daniel R. Gethin. Mr Marsh never told witness that the hay was not to be taken off the farm. The stack of hay was sold for j £ 5, and weighed about 3T tons.—Thomas Marsh, senior, Tycoch, Llanfair, father of the defendant, stated that he had no account from plaintiff previous to his receiving the summons. His son was earning his own living, and after marrying the plaintiff's flioter went to live at Tydoch, but owing to difficul- ties sold the effects of the farm and left the neigh- bourhood. He (witness) never had any boots from the plaintiff in his life, and did not owe him any money. Witness knew nothing about the stack a-a he was at Shrewsbury at time of the sale. Witness took the Tycoch farm when his son left, and used the hay which was on the farm and gave it to nis cattle. He finished the staok of hay at the end of February -After Mr Martin Woosnam had addressed the Judge in defence, his Honour reviewed the facts ot the case in which he said that he thought the de. fendant had been done." His son had gone away leaving him to pay k22 8s Od for rent and tithe. He therefore gave judgment for the plaintiff for the one ton of hay at the rate at which the plain- tiff bought it making the amount due to the plaintiff .£1 8s 7d. NEWTOWN,—THURSDAY. AN EXTRAORDINARY APPLICATION. Mr T. M. Taylor said he had an application to make against a professional brother, nut one with whom he was intimately acquainted, but one practising in a foreign court. Unfortunately it Appeared that an officer of the County Court, but not within his Honour's circuit- His Honour I am so glad of that. Mr Taylor said the gentlemen in question was Mr. William Powell Price, the Registrar and Acting High Bailiff of Brecoa County Court. It was with regard to the summons issued by him (Mr Taylor) from this court on July 1st, and returnable at last court. The Assistant Registrar of the Newtown County Court (Mr Watkins), would prove that the summons was not returned to the Court as required by the rules. Of course he (the speaker) had then a duty to perform, but considering that he was a professional brother, be forebore and acted leniently towards him, and did not bring the case before the Court, as was suggested to him. He now regretted that he had acted in that way. His Honour asked if a similar case did not come before him at the last court. Mr Taylor replied in the negative. Continuing, he said that Mr Powell Price had treated them all with contempt. The case was the Park Brick and Tile Company against the Registrar (Mr Powell Price) himself, to recover the sum of £ 5 Os. 6d. He wrote to Mr Price on the day of the last court as follows The Park Brick and Tile Company, Limited, not having received any notice from the Registrar of non-service, we attended court to-day with witness to prove the case, but were informed that the summons had been returned. We cannot say we are surprised at you, because this kind of ttiing has happened before. Our clients pressed us to mention the matter to the Judge, but we did not do so. Unless we receive the amount endorsed on the summons, together with a guinea for witnesses and expenses, there will be no alternative but to carry out our clients instructions." From that date, July 25th, he had not heard a word from Mr Price. The Registrar (Mr Talbot) had communicated twice with him, but he believed he bad treated Mr Talbot's letters with the same contempt as those written by himself. His Honour, having conferred with the Registrar's Clerk, said the Registrar had received nothing from Mr Price. Mr Taylor said it was then his unpleasant duty to ask his Honour to make an order on Mr Price in accordance with Rule 22 of the Courty Court Practice Act. The Act provided that his Honour might make a order in such a case, directing the High Bailiff that he would, on a specified date, cause the person complained of to pay compensation for his neglect. This was the second day which he (Mr Taylor) had brought his witnesses to Court to prove the case, and be asked his Honour to make an order. His Honour: You want me to make an order calling upou him to shew cause ? Mr-Taylor: Yes. His Honour remarked that officers of the Court should be diligent, and granted the application. WINDING-UP OF NEWTOWN ÆRATED WATER COMPANY. In this case Mr John Edward Thistle, auctioneer, of Montgomery, liquidator of the above Company, sued Mrs Charlotte Martin for .£10, in respect of the payment of two JE5 shares in the above concern. Sir T. M. Taylor appeared for prosecutor, and Mr Edward Powell defended. Mr Taylor said this was one of a aeries of cases which would come before the Court, though in this instance the case would require proving from the commencement, the parties not having acted. The claim was for .£10, made up as follows X2 109 due on application, .P2 1013 due on allotment; 42 103 for first call, and £ 2 109 for second call. He would prove that the Company was properly incorporated, that an order for the winding-up of the Company was voluntary made, giving certain powers to the liquidator. Application was made for five shares in the name of John Powell, Mrs Martin, who was his wife, having married again, and was executor of the will. Mr John Powell made the application, but no money was ever paid on the application. He would show by the minute book that the allotment was made of the shares asked for, and alee the register of shares would show the allotment was made. He could prove the first and second calls were made, bnt he could not find that the deceased or his executors bad ever exercised tne rights of shareholders. Mr Powell said he would admit all that, with the exception that he disputed that any shares were ever allotted, and that his client had received no notice of allotment. Mr A. E. Jones, clerk in the employ of Messrs Talbot and Watkins, proved making out the memorandum, agreeing to the allotment of five shares to Mr Powell. Mr Henwood said Thistle was appointed liquidator on April 29th, at a salary of .230. Mr Powell, on behalf of the defendant, stated that the facts material to the case were admitted and were principally as follows. The application for the shares was made on 7th October, 1880. The meeting at which the allotment oecurred was held on August 27th, 1887. Neither the deposit nor allotment instal- ment was paid, nor did the defendant Mr John Powell make any payment whatever or act as a shareholder. Under these circumstances he con- tended that the defendant was not liable, it having been held in several cases that to constitute a share. hiolder three things were necessary, viz., application, allotment, and notice of allotment. The application in thie case was admitted, but the allotment was bad on two grounds. First, the application was not on the prospect us containing the terms, which had been materially altered b-fore the allotment; viz; that the < <|>r jspectos provided that the vendor should receive the allotment another agreement had been madef whereby the vender was to receive the purchase! money in shares. Secondly it was bad on the ground that the application was not accepted within a rea- sonable time. In support of this contention, Mr Powell quoted tITO cases from which it appeared that four and a half months, and four months was an un- reasonable time between applications and allotment, and in this case he pointed out that ten and a half months had elapsed. His Honour asked whether the fact that John Powell and the defendant had not repudiated the shares did not make the difference. In reply to this question Mr Powell pointed out that John Powell died three years ago, and it was therefore impossible to say what he had done, but in- asmuch as the Company had taken no steps against him or written to defendant to recover the amount of the deposit or allotment money, it was a fair as- sumption that he had repudiated the shares, and that the company had no idea of enforcing payment. Fuither than this, neither Mr John Powell nor the defendant had taken any part whatever in the Com- pany's affairs, neither had they attended directors meetings or appointed proxies or otherwise. Nor was a probate of John Powell's will registered three years ago, thus clearly proving that the defendant and her late husband did not regard themselves as shareholders. His Honour reserved jhis c(Bjision till the next The next case was one in which Blr J. E. Thistle sought to recover the sum of .£25 from Edward Davies, Newtown, for unpaid calls on shares.—Mr T. W. Taylor appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Woosnam for the defendant.—The defendant had paid .£:!O 10s into court. but had deducted k4 10s out of the X25, which he alleged was due to him from the above Company for work done and expenses. Davies stated that the balance sheet had been drawn up for the Company by Mr Tilsiey, Caersws, and witness was instructed to revise it by the directors, and in doing so he had occasion to go up to Rhayader and Llanidloes, to see Mr Edward Wood, solicitor, who was acting for the Company. Mr Taylor contended that the Company had never authorised Mr Edward Wood to act for them. Mr Davies, on beirg cross-examined, saia that he had never instructed Mr Wood to act in the case. Mr Taylor pointed out that at the time the Company was winding-up an advertisement appeared in the Montgomeryshire to-press, which stated that any per- s, na having claims against the above Company were to send in their claims on or before a certain date. On being questioned why he did not send in his claim the defendant said that he had his own rea- sons." After Mr Woosnam had spoken on behalf of the defendant, and Mr Taylor for the Company, his Honour gave judgment for Mr Thittle for X25 with costs.

NEWTOWN BANKRUPTCY COULZT.

BOWLLiNtt MATCH.

THE WELSH ME JIB EUS AND MR.…

RIOT AT FERNDALE.

Advertising

TERRIBLE RAILWAY DISASTER…

THE COAL CRISIS.

SLAV SUPERSTITION. -

4-RAINFALL AT DOLFOR, MONTGOMERYSHIRE

THE GREAT HEAT. ----