Hide Articles List

15 articles on this Page

LLANRWST AND TREFRIW COUNCIL…

[No title]

[No title]

RHYIJ COUNTY COURT.

News
Cite
Share

RHYIJ COUNTY COURT. SEQUEL TO A BETTWSYCOED ACC:DENT. SERVANT'S CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION AGAINST A RHYL HOUSEHOLDER. This court was held on Friday, before His Honour Judge Megs. A RULE AS TO ADMINISTRATION ORDERS. On an application being made for an admini- stration order, Mr A. Lewis Jones said he ap- peared for a creditor, and he wished to ascer- tain whether the debtor did not owe more than £50. His Honour said no notice had been given of opposition, and he had made it a rule that if an administration order was opposed notice should be given to the debtor. It was not fair to a debtor that anything should be sprung upon him without notice. His Honour granted the order asked for, and hoped solicitors would bear in mind what he had stated as regards notices. COMPENSATION CLAIM: SEQUEL TO AN ACCIDENT AT BETTWSYCOED. Mr Holland Roberts (from Mr A. Foulkes Roberts' office, Denbigh and Prestatyn) referred to the case of Mrs Dorothy Griffiths, Ty Capel, Meliden, against the Glyn Mining Company. Bettwsycoed. This was the case in which it w.as alleged that a man namod Griffiths white lifting a barrel of oil on a stand at the mine injured himaelf in February, 1909, and he died from rupture in April last. The plaintiff's claim was 'for compen- sation, death beamg due, it was alleged, to the injury received in the accident. Mr Holland Roberts said. he was pleased to say that the parties had agreed to terms, and he asked that tho agreemont. should be recorded by his Honour, the amount of compensation being £64 15s. He asked that S20 should be paid at once to Mrs Griffiths and tho balanoo by 7s 6d per week. Mr Pierce Lew's, for the respondents, said he agreed. His Honour pointed out that there would not b.3 much left, and he could not quite see how the £20 was made up. Mr Holland Roberts that £15 5s lid had to be paid for funeral, doctor, and other expenses, and Mrs Griffiths had other acoounts to moot. Mrs Griffiths was called, and agreed with the award. H u-i Honour said ho would allow Mrs Griffiths to take S16 out of court, and the balance would be paid to her monthly at the rate of 7s 6d per week. DISPUTE AS TO THE PRICE OF LAMBS. Tliq Registrar heard a crise in which Mr Ed- ward Anwyl, Gwespyr, sued Mr William Jones, Prestatyn, for S2 Os 6d, being the alleged price of lambs and of a pig. Mr Holland Roberts ap- peared for the plaint.ff, and defendant attended in p?reoa. It was stated that the plaintiff put a number of flieep on the defendant's land to graze, the undersianding being, according to custom, that defendant was to take half of tho lambs from the sheep. In all there were six lambs, and plaintiff alleged that defendant sold them at 25s each. He had rotoived B2 on account, and de- fendant hau also sold a p g for 5s 6d, -leaving a balance of S2 Os 6d. Defendant's contention was that he only re- ceived 20s each for the lambs, and so only owed defendant £1 5s 6d. Mr Holland Robrd'ts pressed for an adjourn- ment, and said he would endeavour to get the shop books of the late Mr Cunnah regarding the transaction as to the lambs. Defendant.: You need not go there. I havo asked about them, and it is not in the boobs. The case was then adjourned. HOUSEHOLDERS AND THEIR SERVANTS. CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION. Mrs Isabella Fleming, widow, described as a general servant, of Killshaw-strect, Liverpool, claimed 6s 3d per week under the Workmen's Compensation Act from Mr Jehn William Heath, bootmaker, 163, Wellington-road, Rhyl. Mr Brandreath, barrister-at-law ( nstructed by Mr Sicrc", solicitor, Liverpool), appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr J. Pierce Lewis for the respon- dent. In cfpanirag the case, counoe! stated that tho plaintiff a ooo-k, <.1.00 in July la-t entered the service of Mr Heatih. After being there a week sho tripped over some oilcloth Iln tho passage, fell down a ficgfht of stairs, and dislo- cated her col'Jarbon'o, and injured her thigh. blue was talkan by MN Heath to Dr. Hughes who attended to her, and for tfaree weeks she was unahle to do work, and not receive amy wages for that period. Then for three weeks Sh0 had Is 6d) per week dc- ducted from her \WI.g>28, and the end of eight weeks was cent away, a-ftar receiving a week's notloe. In October plaintiff's fcobciior vv robe the respondent seating out that the plain- tiff was incapacitated, and claiming' 6s 3d per ■ week compensation from her under the Work- men's Compensation Act. Tho Q, 3d was ar- live-ell ait aa follows:—4s 6d per week wages, and 8; per vvook the value of Ihor board a.nd lodgings, half of tihat amount, beting 6s 3d. In. his .rcipiy, tho respondent admitted that there was a,n accident, bwt contended t-hatt. his wife employed tihe plaintiff. Count*?! submitted that the master of the houue was liable for the wages paid. Later on respondent's solicitor sc.t up that there had been wilful misconduct, buii had not given particulars. Tho Judge said he thought plaintiff was en- titled1 to those particulars, but Mr Pieree Lewis submitted that while the respondent could claim partioulars plaintiff was not entitled! to particulars of the respondent's defence. The said1 it miglit moan a-n adjourn- ment if there was a. surprise (sprung on rtfhe plain- tiff. Plaintiff then called. and gfuvo her ad- dross 20, Binnie-street, Hall ¡,,¡¡¡ne, Liverpool- Shia detailed how shoe was goinig to till a kettle in the respondent's house, and trippinig over aome oilcloth fell downi a flight of five stairs. Respondeat picked her up, and Latter on Mrs Beath and a lady friend took her to Dr. Hughes-Jones. He advised her to lay on her back for soma weeks, and then to carry her arm in a. sling. For three woolœ sha was mot aibie to work, bUJ after that did a. little. Aftor tfue k-ft Mrs Heath's houee she did nothing*, and could mot work, &3 she could not raise her arm above hex Shoulder. She was totally capacitated. In oroas-examining tho plaintiff, Mr Pierce. Lewie pointed out to the Judige that although the plaintiff said she could net raise her arm above her ahoukfer she had actually durin.g tihe time she had been in the wttneaj-box lifted! her hand to her forehead, and had put her hot straight. Plaintiff, in reply to questions, stated she had boeon examined by Dr. Bates, of Liverpool, but she maintained that the could mot use her arm- She denied that lihe had been warned by both Mr aind Mrs Heath not to venture along the passage alfter dark with- out a lighted candle. In was true tHat sinee. the aooident dhe had done odd jobj abcut the house, but shø used: her left hajnd. She had to ag'roe to a reduction of wages, because Mrs I loath had a woman ii» to wadh. She com- plained of pains in her hips a> well as uf stiff- ness in the shoulder. Mr Lewis questioned the plaintiff as to where she lived in Liverpool, amd whether siho had not resided in Ridhiton-street. Plaintiff ad- mitted that she visited a friend there, but could not eay whether she travelled from her solicitor's office to th.:1.t place on a tram car. Mr Pieroo Lewis said he would oall a witness to prove that on one day plaintiff boarded a traomaar in Liverpool, used her right arm to get on the ear, used it to guide herself to a seait, aad ag-ain used it when cJw left the car, yet. ale could not it at aU, Plaintiff replied that she could not say whe- ther she was on a oar or not. The Judge said he thought tho plaintiff oould Lii. bar arm higher than elhe said. THE DEFENCE. For the defence, Dr- Hughes-Jtines was caEed, and said1 he atten'ded plai.ntiii'. Stle oid not suffer from dislocated Moulder, as was all«giad. iSine bad a fractured collar,bonic, and wais- bruised about the hipis. He bo'und the arm up wi the usual way, and in live weeks sno shiouid; have bean all right. Cre*s>-exanuned, witness waid tJ¡,a.t for three weeks she would have to reit, and for anutlier two wecha aliould. have carried! her arm in a ■sling. He considered that the staiines> from winiwh the plaintitt' saad she snjfforod was duo to want of exercise of the arm. fracture wouid m his opinion, linterfene with her capacity or work ox the of the Mntb if ohe used it. Mr ilealih stated' that he bad warned the plum i.-iff aigaiuiSt going along tho ^xijstsag.e witn- OUt" a. ligist after dark, and had told jier ho would r«.<; be rcaponsiblo for any accident. When piujntiif leifc she was all riglnt, and had told, him so. In orosB-examinafeioa, he said he as.iisbed his wife with catsh for tho house if She hatd a ppor season- Respondent also said thai' after three weeks tho plaintiff said she could us3 her arm, and did work. Mrar tH,!?rj-ilr seated that dhe engaged the pl-anntui truin Liverjitool, and found cm her -ar- rival she had only sight in one eye. Her hus- band wanted to get rid of bar at omoo, bu.t allowed lier to stay. Plaintiff dlid nobhinig for threo weeks after the aocackant, but afberwawfe rocdced tlie or&die. as slbe said shoe wanted som-e- thing- to oocupy her time, aod sihe did a little ooetl-ng. It was true ahe bad a wo-miaai in to wiaE-h, as 81113 waa afraid that plain-tiff rnigiht ,,1.ia hurt ber arm. She deducted the Is 6d plt.1 the washerwoman from plaintiff's wages, and she was l'hle. She too had warned the plaintiff against cct ujing a candle in a tiurk 1 The Judge said that the only poin>l, in the oaso was whetlier plaintiff was xneapacitated. No one oould say in a lodlfting^houso a servant ewuld in the hurry thiin'k of talking* a lighted! oanwile. That would not be serious and wilful misoamduct within the meaning of the Act. Mr Pierce Iiercm also oontemdtod thab respond- 1t did not have notice of the aocid«nt, but The Judge said* that where master knew of eat ftoaident, and ihis family took the servant to I a Jtootor, and 800 was afterwards in his house weolcs be. knew of tho accident- It was an-atbeir question as to the claim not being made f«r two month.i, and the plaintiff was lost eigiht cf for tliat period. Plaintiff said' she was not active for ithat period, but so far as the facts wore proved she was inactive as to hor claim for two months. He did not accept her story as to her being incapacitated, and be had seen, her in the box. Ooumsel submitted that if there waa any question on that point tihe matter could bo re- ferred to a medical referee. T'iie Judge: I do mot aooept her story. She says she cannot xiaise her arm above her aboulder, but siiic has done 90. A question aroee as to why Dr. Bates, had not been called, and Mr Pjroe Lewis 6tated that respondent oould not afford to pay his fee for attend!rag court. He had evidence to prove that pla.in.titt had used her arm in a tnamear- The Judge he did not think tihat was ry. He held that the oase of wilful and serious misoonduot get up by respondent faded, and notice of the aooident was g!iven, but the fact remained that from August uraiii October plaintiff no claim, and she i-cuad that she was not now incapacitated. He did not think itbo respcudenit was justified in stopping the wages for three weeks, but IflS plaintiff's food and lodgings was worth 8s per week, half that amount was covered. Then ag-ain respondent abciuid not have deducted tiiie Is *6d per week, and he fotcud that plaintiff durinig that period w-as partiaUy incapacitated- He bad decided to award ber Is 6d for three weaks, and found that sihe was not now incapacitated. No doubt., betiin<g a nervous and excitable wornarly ahe iiad certain idiaaa in her baad, but be would not furtbor into that -matter. He awarded her 4s 6d, the dediuoted. witbout oasts. CLEANING THE DYSERTM "UuT." JVIr Arthur J a met V\ right. Rhyd Farm, Dyserth, sued Mr Jidwam Parry, Hope House, Hotiyweii. for £2 3s for in connection, tlie cloamng of tnc Djoerth De- feuidant l^k> into court, andi counter- claimed for £1 10s, alleged damage .to ins jaiad by a quaiciiity of soil being deposited titeieon- Mr Jc«3j>h Lroyd appeared far tihe plaintiff. It was. stated thai Mr Wri-ght arranged w-tli oiheir ocoupieirs and owners of iain-d to nave the worUt of cle-ansnig' the "out" carried He wrooo tJ0 the deiendant, wbo, 1t Wa5 oonto0Il1df.d, agreed to that couirse, but on being iniormed trsut the cost was fu par rood, replied tinat he would net pay more toon 6d, and 1JKiJ De would send his own men to do tihr" work 11 mat prace was not agrr-ecd to, but pJiaauaailif had already hud tho work dene. Detendant's counter- claim was in nespect of the soil taken from t'he "cui," contending that the whole of it had deposited on hm Juind instead1 of being divided: between hi in and' the owner of tne land' on the other side of the "out." Plain- tiff's -answer to this was tha.t he had followed tibe custom of the country, deposit jag the sod on the land1 which WaQ lowest. lie could not pub it on the other side because oi a high hedge. Defendant argued that 6d was ample for oaoh rood on his land, as there were only weada in tihe cut, and that tho woilk ^bcuid not have been done without his written agree- mont to the price. John Twist., Kbuddlan, who did the work, said the price of 2s per rood was very low. The Judjge thought plaintiff mrgibs have w.octed until defendant atgreed to bhe price, but did net thirik the charge tKiirciaeonable. He allowed plaintiff £2 8j. and awarded defendant 5.3 for the sod plaoed on his land- E'aoh party to pa-y their own costs. CLAIM FOR RENT FROM RHUDDLAN. Mrs Anne Owen, Dyffryn Aled, Rbuddlan, claimed £8 16. from Mr Pryc-E JCCI«G, Plas, Ijly-a'acin, in rc.spect to a let to ihim. Mr Joaeph Lloyd appeared for tihe plamtiffi end Mr E. A. Crabbe for the defendant. The plaintiff's 0000 was that ithie lemaniey of the houise by agreement oommctneed on July 13th, 1909, the same to expire by six mcntihs' notice in writing on May 1st in any year. The rent wias £16 per anmum, payable in advance. The defend-ant was not able to pcssesflicn •cif tho hause. but paid rent until he aisked plaira-iiff to take the hou e off his hands. Plaintiff ag'reed to do so, provided the defend- ant could find a suitable tenant He was wn- able to -do so until ithe end of the year. Plci'.ntiff said that she had taken the matter once out of the hands of her solicitor on de- fendant promising to pay the leg'al expenses which sine bad incur red1. Defendant had bad full partioulars of the claim, and lie had mot repudiated liability, in fact had promised to pay the rent at the rate of JS1 per month. His Honour ashed what the defence to the OM0 was.. Mr Crabbe replied that he was afraid there was very little defence. He had only just !x"en instructed, amd was under the impression that credit had not boon given for two sums of £1 paid, but he now saw that credit had been given- Defendant took the house under tlie im- pression t'ha.t he could also get some land; he did not get the kind, and was forced to move away. He 'paynaant by intl.ailme'nita of £ » per month. In g'ivin-g the plaintiff judgment His Honour disallowed 2s 2d allowed for the tenancy agree- ment, and 10.; ód the aimomnt of the legal ex- panses defendant was alleged to have promised to pay when plaintiff took the matter out of her solicitor's bands. The order was for 10s per month.

ST. ASAPH BOARD OF GUARDIANS.

RUTHIN BIRD SHOW.

Advertising

HOTEL ASSESSMENTS IN LLANGOLLEN…

[No title]

ST. ASAPH (FLINT) RURAL DISTRICT…

CONWAY CHRISTMAS MARKET.

SANITATION AT FLINT.

[No title]

Advertising

ST. ASAPH (FLINT) RURAL DISTRICT…