Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

21 articles on this Page

A MAESTEG BOUNDARY DISPUTE.

News
Cite
Share

A MAESTEG BOUNDARY DISPUTE. At the Bridged < ity Court on Saturday, Judge Gwilym Will f" 'C'had his attention oeeupied for a considerable time in hearing a dispute in which Stephen Lewis, of 34, West-street, Maesteg, < was the plaintiff, and William Rogers, a neighbour, the defendant.—Mr D. Villiers Meager, barrister- at-law, Swansea (instructed by Mr T. J. Hughes, Bridgend), was for the plaintiff, and Mr W. P. Smith, of the firm of Messrs Robinson, Smith, and Sons, Swansea, was for the defendant. In opening the case Mr Meager said the trespass plaintiff complained of was that defendant had built a wall partly on plaintiff's property so as tc be an encroachment, and plaintiff claimed nominal damages and a mandatory injunction that the wall should be moved, as defendant set up a title to the wall. The property was conveyed by defendant to plaintiff for the residue of a term of 99 years, and there was a certain reservation which was shown on the plan. His Honour: I suppose it is a question of measurement, and that you have half the surveyors of the county here. What is the intrinsic value of the land ? Half-a-crown ? Mr Meager: Aceording to the plan the ground slopes and defendant is contending for his right to go straight out through one garden, and if this is carried out to the boundary, practically the whole of our garden goes. Mr Smith That is not our contention at all. Our contention is that we began on our own premises and went straight to the end of our own boundary. The plaintiff, sworn, stated that in November, 1891, he took the land in question from defendant. The adjoining land was not then built upon. The wall, which was the subject of the present action, was not then built. Plaintiff was taken ill in the following December, and remained in his house about three mouths. At this time defendant was living in plaintiff's house, and continued to live there for about seven months until the adjoining house was completed, and then be went to live in the house. Plaintiff had an interview with defen. dant early in 1892: the wall was built then. Defendant came to his house and said the masons had made a mistake in building the wall out of direction. Plaintiff told him that whenever he (plaintiff) wanted the wall pulled down it would have to be removed and defendant replied that it would be all right. In the following August they had another talk about the wall, and defendant then said the wall was on his own property, and when reminded that he denied it before, defendant said, 11 I told you something just to satisfy you." That was the first time defendant had made any claim to the land. Plaintiff and defendant were present when Mr Humphries measured the land, and defendant then admitted that he was too much out, and that he had taken some of plaintiff's land. The wall encroached two inches at one end, and two feet at the other. Cross-examined by Mr Smith, plaintiff said he went into the house on the 20th November, 1891, and the wall was not built then. The house on the adjoining land was nearly up to the joists. There had been no trouble between plaintiff and defen- dant, but there might have been some little difference between their respective wives. Mr P. J. Thomas, architect, surveyed the land in question in last year. He met defendant, and pointed out to him that he was under the impression that the wall was out of direction. Defendant would not admit this, and witness subsequently surveyed the land. He consented that the wall was about two feet out at the top, and encroached to that ex- tent on plaintiff's land. In cross-examination, witness said he did not think tha plan on the deed was absolutely correct in regard to frontage. David John Rogers, nephew of the defendant, said he knew the wall in question. When he was working there in February, 1892, the wall was not in existence, ahd there was a coal-house there. Cross-examined Witness said he was quite sure about the date he could tell them how far the house was built up to. John B. Lewis, Pelican Inn, Maesteg, who supplied defendant with stones for building the house in question, said his first instalment of stones was when the house was up to the joists, and the date was 30th November, 1891. David Powis a mason employed on the house, said the boundary wall was built after the house was roofed. Cross-examined: Witness said the wall was built after the roof was on. Witness helped to build the wall, and this was done during the time they were waiting for the paving for the inside. A man named Price said he was employed by defendant to build a coal-house. The wall was built then. The coal-house was built on plaintiff's land. Cross-examined: The house was built against the wall in dispute. Frederick Donovan said he cut the foundations of the houses. He went to fetch his tools away when defendant's house was under roof, and he got his tools from the old coal-house. He went through a new building at the back of the old house. There was no wall there then the old coal-house was on the spot where the wall is. Defendant was called and swore that the wall was built when the assignment was made. The men were put on to build it while waiting for something else, in order to prevent them going on the Orink. His Honour said it was only a question of measure- ment. Defendant continuing said the first mention about the wall was after there had baen some disagree- ment between their respective wives. He had not admitted at any time that there was an encroach- ment. When the Maesteg Surveyor pegged out the land, defendant pulled them up and threw them into plaintiff's garden. Cross-examined by Mr Yilliera Meagre, defendant said he had left his contract at home-he thought it would have been of no use. There was a coal house on the site of the present wall, and he built a coal house against his wall. It was not a present, but he did not charge him anything for it. There was no arrangement that the old coal-house was to be re-placed by a new one. A surveyor put the plan on the assignment, and he was told to do so very carefully. Defendant was not willing that the matter should have been settled by Mr Scale as suggested by Mr Hughes' letter. Mr Watkin Davies, architect and surveyor, Maesteg, said he prepared the plans on the two documents. They were taken from the original lease, and were correct according to that. The portion reserved was done for the purpose of keeping the boundary. The wall was in existence when he made the plans. Cross-examined, witness said his instructions were to reserve a portion to the defendant as the wall was built and defendant wished to retain. He had prepared the plan handed in by Mr Smith that morning in a great hurry, and bad corrected it by pencil marks. The witness was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination with regard to his meaaareme,, he stated that he should rely on his evidr He would swear that the wall was built w ,.4' conveyance was made, as he went to get measurements for the plan which was on the deed. Evan Evans had the contract for the carpentery work in connection with the houses. His first instalment was received on let December, 1891, a fortnight after the firsb joists were up. The masons went on building this wall when witness was doing the timbering of the joists. Cross-examined witness said he could not remember that there was a stoppage for paving stones inside. His Honour said the one important point was whether the wall was built at the time the assign- ment was executed. Mr Meager I ask you to say that the evidence of Mr Watkin Davies is obviously mistaken. His Honour: He gives a reason of putting the line as shown. Whether the plan is correct or not, the intention of the conveyance was to reserve to the defendant the land on his side of the line, and that line was put there for the purpose of including the wall which had been built. I shall give judgment for the defendant with costs.

GLYNCORRWG URBAN DISTRICT…

GLYNCORRWG SCHOOL BOARt

DOLL AND WORK COMPETITION,…

NEATH BOROUGH POLICE.

BRYNMENIN BUILDERS AT VARIANCE.

Advertising

THE BLAENGARW COLLIERY COMPANY…

KENFIG HILL MALE VOICE PARTY.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT INQUIRY1…

STRIKE AT MELYN WORKS, NEATH.

.--GLAMORGANSHIRE ANNUAL PLOUGHING…

Advertising

LLINELLAU COFFADWRIAETHOL

PEN1LLION

CYFIEITIIIAD

i THE STORM OF THE PENITENT.

THE PATH OF SNOWDON.

WHAT YOUR EYES TAUGHT MINE.

[No title]

Advertising