Hide Articles List

10 articles on this Page


[No title]



Family Notices

[No title]





LOCAL CLUB'S AFFAIRS. 6EQUEL TO A BRIDGEND MAGISTERIAL DECISION. BRIDGEND BREWER AND SOLICITOR SUED FOR SUMS OF JE1,150 AND JE48. JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS. At Glamorgan Assizes on Tuesday, before Mr. Justice Sutton, the case of Angora and Others v. Morgan and Llewellyn was heard, in which the affairs of the Blaeu- garw Constitutional Club were concerned. It was an action by the plaintiff and otbera (the trustees of the club) against Thomas Morgan, brewer, Pontyclun, and Bridgend, and David Llewellyn, solicitor, Ogmore Vale and Bridgend, for the return of two suma of £1,1150 and £48 12s. 1M., to which they af- leged they were entitled, but for which tho defendants denied all liability. Mr. Abel Thomas. K.C., M.P., and Mr. L. Prosser (in- structed by Mr. F. Gaskell, Cardiff) acted for the plaintiffs, and Mr. B. Francis-Williams, K.C., and Mr. John San key, K.C. (instructed by Mr. James Morgan, Cardiff), acted for thf- fendants. The plaintiff's case, outlined by Mr. Abal Thomas, was that the plaintiffs, Crt-o. Angovo, Joseph Wilkinson, and Michael English, were the trustees of the club in question, and thst George James. David WiHiams, William Wil- liams, John Gibby, James Davies, and Wm. Davies wore all ordinary members. The chib was registered as the Blaengarw Constitu- tional Uub. and was vested in the plaintiff*. In February, 1907, the club was struck off t.1wt register by the justices at Bridgend, and vram closed, and in September of the same ye*ar the premises, furniture, and fittings were eoIcI by the instructions of the trustees to Evan Griffiths and others for the sum of £ 1,972 2s- 10d.. and the defendant David Llewellyn, acting for the plaintiffs, oeceived the par- chase money. It was alleged that he, ACTING IN COLLUSION with the defendant Thomas Morgan, and without the instructions of the plaintiffs, paid over £ 1,150 of the purchase money to Thomas Morgan on the alleged ground that Morgn had a bill of sale on the effects of the club- dated April 18th, 1905, to secure £ 530 and interest, and also a mortgage on the premi- ) ses, dated October 30th. 1905, to secure £ 50» 4 and interest. The club was insolvent wlwu closed, and numerous other creditors had not; received payment. The defendant Llewcdlynf also retained JE48 12s. lOd. for costs out of- the purchase money. The allegation of thw plaintiffs was that both the mortgage and brll of sale were invaiid and worthless, and tho mortgage deed, which was purported to IMP signed by the plaintiffs, had never bEoeta signed' by them. The signatures wem- attached without their consent or authority. The plaintiffs also aJJeged that in anything they consented to they did so believing that the bill of sale and mortgage were valid and binding documents. George Angove. Joseph Wilkinson, ami Michael English, the trustees, were all called. They were colliers, and all stated they trecr» illiterate. They all DENIED THAT MORGAN'S CLAIM O amounted to more than jE500 or £600. Tb was all left to Mr. Llewellyn to arrange, end they professed they knew nothing about thp documents they signed. They were toM it, was a matter of form, and they would be safe- guarded. Michael English said that. although only 1 JE500 was owing, he signed to pav Monris £ 1,100. 1 Mr. Williams: Do you mean to say that,, although you believed only £ 500 was dtie, yow M agreed to pay him £ 1,150? M Witness Yes. I did. I did not care irhaft became of it at last. I was fed up of going, j to Bridgend and getting into trouble for jt abstaining from my employment. Let every— body look out for themselves. (Laughter.} The Judge protested against the way tlurfc 'fi plaintiffs' case was got up. None of the wit- M nesses, so far. jN SEEMED TO KNOW ANYTHING. W Plaintiff came into court to try and find out |l particulars which should have been ascotr- ,fl tained beforehand by inquiry on the spot. 9 Mr. Charles M. Lloyd, charte.red acooira- tant, Ca.rdiff, said he had gone through til* ledger which Mr. Morgan produced to Tti- 9 at Mr. Llewellyn's office, and he found thadfc jfl the club owed him £ 600 odd for goods sap- fl plied. There was no record of any mouejp fl lent. JN Mr. J. W. Hughes, deputy-clerk to t- Bridgend justices, produced the evidence 9 given by defendant, Morgan, at the ptWce— court hearing. He said. "The club owe M 9 a trading account £ 622, about. I hold a fciA t of sale for security. no mortgage." ''9 This concluded the plaintiff's case, and his J9 Lordship remarked that after the most amIri- guous evidence of witnesses who knew no- 9 thing, the real doubt in his mind was whether j§| the bill of sale and the mortgage were not to 9 secure the same £ 500. There had been 9 evidence of a loan, unless forbearing to sum for goods sold vas considered as sueh. Mr. Williams said there was a loan ad»-'9j vanced. 9 The Judge: You may be able to prow that: I don't know.. The defendant. David Llewellyn. soHcifmy 9 Bridgend and Ogmore Yale, was then caUed^ 9 and said the mortgage was given to defend 9 ant Morgan for 9 MONEY ADVANCED 9 by him to pay the contractors, and had no, 9 thing to do with the bill oi sale, which wi 9 for goods supplied, Morgan having refused V supply further goods without security. 9 The defendant, Thomas Morgan, was aftaf 9 wards called, and produced his cheques Mtt 9 bank book to show that he advanced the straai 9 he now claimed by instalments to pay tlw-9 contractors for the new club buildings. JB Mr. Cule, cashier at Lloyd's Bank, BridIL- end, corroborated. iW His Lordship from time to time expro.itwd -jM strong views as to the plaintiffs perseycitxC. with the case in face of such evidence. ATrat jf at last declared it to be "an absolute ecandat » to the legal profession" that a charge of fradl,1 should have been preferred against -respeeb-I abie people upon the evidence of men lerho, knew nothing whatever. The evidence 40<M Mr. Llewellyn, Mr. Morgan, and the iuadKfl cashier made it dear that the money vaMMaj owing to Mr. Morgan, and more than tiud^9 claimed. He intimated that he could aeesMfS question for the jury. ^9 Mr. Abel Thomas suggested that the should say whether the money was dsn '1MB Mr. Morgan. jB The Judge: Do you seriously mean tfadUw Then perhaps you will recall your gee*—jj tant, and ask him if he is able to dwBWiW how the contractors were paid. Nobody BM|9 any facts about it on your side at all. VERDICT FOR DEFENDANTS. 9 Mr. Thomas was raising other poidH when J The Foreman of the Jury rose, and saifll "The jury have agreed." (Laughter.) |H The Judge: What do you say? -jM The Foreman Verdict for defendants, djjH Lord. JM His Lordship thereupon entered jnditSXMOMt for defendants, with costs. 9