Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

14 articles on this Page

.Abergavenny County Court.

News
Cite
Share

Abergavenny County Court. Mondagvefore His Honour Judge Hill Kelly. ) Cynical. 1 I I A judgment creditor, referring to the (iedtor, He is a shell inspector, and previous to that he was a solicitor's clerk. I suppose they pick these men because they know nothing about it" It was stated that the man's wages were £,t IS, 6d, per week. Rent of Apartments. I Amelia Freeman sued Will. Phillips for £ 2 5S. T'ilt of apartments. Plaintiff stated that defendant and his wife (.clme to lodge at her house on the 11th of March, and went away on the iQth uf April. Defendant agreed to pav her tos. per week for two rooms, iire and light. She asked him when he went away if he was going to give up, and he replied tkat he was not and that Mrs. Phillips was coming back. She kept the rooms vacant for a month and iour days. Defendant Shame an you to summon a person like-this. Mr. Ross cme and Ietçhed, the furniture, and she krfewyery well Iwas going away. His Honour Did you give her notice ?—No, taere was nothing said about notice. In reply to the Judge, defendant said he had •nly portmanteaux and 119 furniture at the "uouse. He left to take a situation at Michael- cHurth Court After defendant's wife aad given evidence, His Honour considered that a week's notice should have been given, and he gave judgment t >r plaintiff for 10s. Claim for Rent: A Gift of he Late Marquess- Thos. Parry, auctioneer, Newport, sued George rlÎllips for ££4 rent of Red Cottage, on the Nevill estate. Plaintiff stated that the Nevill estate was con- veyed to him on the 22nd November, 1917. TMendant was an old workman of the late Marquess. Repeated applications were made tis him for the payment of the rent of 5s. per week by Mr. R. W. Powell. Defendant never 'disputed the-claim, but he never paid, though he jepeatedlr'promised to do s>. Defendant I never took it off him. His Honour He bought the property and It, is your landlord. Defendant The Marquess gave me the house zi years ago and said It is for you as long as you live. We will call it Red Cottage." His Honour Did you never pay rent ?—- No, aid no one ever asked me for any till Mr. Richard Powell asked i--e, and I told him the same tale that the house was given to me by his lordship' as long as I lived, and his lordship remarked that I should not want it afterwards. His Honour That is true enough. Defendant Not only that, but he gave me a jjottle of champagne to drink health when I Vront into the house, and there is the key which ii"s lordship gave me. The champagne is gone, 1t:t I have the key. His Honour Have you anything in writing ? Defendant 'No, I have nor. His Honour It is not binding if it is not in writing. He could.only do what he pleased for las own life, if it is not in writing. Defendant I thought his word was good enough. His Honour While he lived, of course it was. Defendant His lordship remarked that he did not know which would live the longest, but h said it was for me as long as I lived, and no • Oiie ever asked for rent until this last year. R. W. Powell, clerk to the Committee of Visitors oi the Monmouthshire Asylum, said he saw defendant on May ist, 1917, and told him the unditions of his tenancy. He told him his rent would be 5s. per week. Defendant asked him t,) try to get it for 4s., which lie endeavoured to .-r, but Mr. Parry said he could not see his way to iet it for 4s, He then told defendant that he would have to pay 5s. per week, and this he promised to do. He said his lordship had given kim the house, and he thoEght he should remain tnere all his time free of rent. Mr. Parry said he had recently'sold the estate t,- Mr. H. Cory, M.P.,of Cardiff, and he was only cuiiming up to the time he had possession. De- fendant had repeatedly promised to pay, and since the summons was issued he told Mr. Powell hlat he would pay and so save further expenses. Defendant You hollared at me in the market and said I want some rent oS you." I didn't give you much answer, because I did not think it was very nice. You brought* me a rent book, — aad I said I could not see my way to pay rent for a house given ma by the Marquess of. Aber- gavenny. Witness You aid that. His Honour said that now the Marquess was dead what he said to the defendant was no longer binding. It was only binding for his life, and then only as a matter of "honour. Now the property had been sold, and the owner of the property was entitled to be paid rent at the rdte trwd in May, 1917, which amounted to £ 14 up to the 4th of June. Defendant said lie could not do much work, "-ad he did not know how he was to pay. Plaintiff He has considerable freehold property ill the town. Hi.- has three or four ioases. He has put me to every possible ex- panse, aud I have been uios-t lenient in the matter. Mr..Powell He has given me a lot of trouble. Defendant I have rates to pay. Your Honour will see what property I have from this rate receipt. His Honour looked at the receipt, and said tliat defendant had three houses, of a total rate- r-Wle value of £ ~z$. He made an order for the payment of the £ 14 at the rate of £ 2 per month, a_?d allowed costs to the plaintiff, on the latter's application. I Farmer and Wages Claim. Frederick Lloyd sued George Smith, farmer, Tyu-y-Wern, Llantilio Pertholey, for £ 1 16s. w-iges due. Plaintiff said that he wai; employed for the 'kay making at 10s. per week. When he had been there a fortnight defendant raised his wages to 12S. He gave a week's notice on the 8th of July, and defendant said he would kick him off the ground. When he left, defendant kept three j weeks' wages off him. Defendant said that plaintiff workeu for him first ill 1917 and kept on till May 1918, when he left to go up the hills. He returned for-his k -lidays aud asked his grandefther to arrange for him to go back again for the hay making. Witness agreed to pay him 10s. per week, and he worked for three weeks at that rate. When witness returned from the market one day he found that plaintiff and the other lad had arranged that if he did not raise their wages they .would leave in a month. He raised their wages to try to get the harvest in, and plaintiff worked for six weeks till he gave a week's notice. As he should have given a month's notice witness kept II three week's wages back. By the Judge: He agreed with plaintiff's I grandfather that the employment should be subject to a month's notice, as before. Wm. Thomas, plaintiff's grandfather, said that •when he arranged with defendant there was no talk about a month's notice, but the employment "WclS by the week. Bert Williams said that lIt: and plaintifi arranged that if defendant did not raise their .wages they would leave in a month's time. It was a month's notice which witness had to give. His He nour held that there was an agreement to give a month's notice, and he gave judgment far defendant on the claim and struck the counter I claim out, as the defendant could not succeed 91 both. I Unpaid Tithes Claims from Clodoch..f The Rev. Fredk. George Llewellyn, Vicar of Clodoch, Longtown, sued Olney Howells, farmer Silver Tump, Llanveynoe, fori I os. id. tithe. Defendant If there is auy tithe on the map I will willingly pay, but I Lave4never seen any tithe on the map. His Honour, It is too late now. You have not given notice of opposition/and therefore you cuanot be heard here at all. Why didn't you read the summons served upon you ? These summonses are made out with the greatest care iu order to tell people what their rights are and vriiat they have to do. The summons says" If r vou wish to oppose the application you must, I within five clear days, file with the Registrar of the Court the notice of opposition given below." Nothing could be, plainer or simpler. (To plaintiff-) Why are you claiming this ? Perhaps you can tell him something which will satisfy his mind. Plaintiff said that as the Vicar of Clodoch he was the owner of the vicarial tithe, which in- cluded the parish of Llanveyno. He had ap- pealed to defendant 10 times and he had invited him to the Vicarage to see the tithe map, but he refused to come. All appeals to him had been in vain. Defendant I asked him if I could see the tithe map, and he said I could by paying half a crown. His Honour You will have to pay more than half a crown now. Plaintiff said that this matter had been before the Court three or four times before, and de- fendant knew quite well what the position was, but he tried to put witness to as much trouble as possible. He (witness) had never prosecuted before and he di¡;l not care to do so now, and he appealed ko defendant. not to press him to take those proceedings. They were on, the most friendly' terms, .and defendant used his stable and coach-house as though they were the dearest friends, but there was no attempt on his part to settle this matter. In reply to the Judge, defendant said he was the owner of the property. I His Honour said that tithe was a part of the ordinary rates and taxes which had to be paid in respect of the occupation of land. The claim was quite a sniall one for a man in defendant's position, and he must pay it in 14 days, or the officer of the Court would distrain on his property. Frederick George Llewellyn also sued Mrs. Griffiths, of Bristol, in respect of tithe on Den- mark Cottage and Upper House Farm, Newton, Clodoch. Plaintiff said that it appeared that the Upper House had been sold nearly 18 months ago, and defendant was no longer the owner. He only found out by making inquiries, as defendant did not reply to his letters. He had written 10 times for this small amount. Defendant had written a letter enclosing a. receipt and denying the correctness of the claim. His Honour said that defendant had sent a receipt showing that up to Oct ist, 1916 the tithe on Denmark Cottage had been paid, and plaintiff could only claim for six months up to April 1917, and not IS months, as he had done. Defendant had sent £ 1, but he could only give judgment on the claim for 6s. 9d., atid it was not for him to apportion the difference. He advised plaintiff to communicate with the defendant and en- deavour to settle the matter amicably, and the case would stand adjourned. Sequel to Soldier's Death Father Sues Intended j Mother-in-law. J eremiah ^Madden sued Ellen Elizabeth Webb, of Llantarnam, and formerly of Abergavenny, for the return of clothes, etc., the property of his son, killed in action. Plaintiff said he was suing for a box of clothing and other effects of his son killed in action on the 10th of April, or the value of them. He received official notification of his son's death from the War Office on the 16th May. He went to de. fendant's house and applied to her for his dead son's property, but she refused to give it to him, saying, in the presence of a police-constable, that the last words of his son was that her daughter was to have everything. He told her that her Aggie could not wear his soate clothes. His Honour There was a will ? Plaintiff He was blown to pieces, and there was no will found on him. I am the next-of-kin. His Honour There is a letter which has been held to constitute the soldier's will. Where is it ? Plaintiff I have no letter, only from the War I Office to say that I am the next-of-kin. I have had his settling up accounts. His Honour The letter from the War Office says that this amount of £14 has been issued to you and his mother as joint legatees on your joint receipt, in accordance with the deceased's will. which the letter forwarded by you has been held to constitute. What has become of that letter which you forwarded to the War. Office ? Defendant I did not think it was necessary to bring it. In reply to a further question, plaintiff said that he did not think the War Office sent it back, but His Honour pointed out that the War Office letter stated that four letters were enclosed, and added, I must see that letter. You are suing to recover his effects, and whether you are entitled to or not depends on what appears in his will. The letter you forwarded to the War Office ex- presses certain wishes on his part. You must have had the letter back." I His Honour asked defendant Have you got some things belonging to this young man who was killed in action ?—Yes. Why don't you give them up ?—Because I have his will, Is it proved 2—A solicitor has seen it. That won't do. Where is the probate ? Defendant Will you adjourn it ? His Honour: No. Who are you ? Defendant The intended mother-in-law. Plaintiff put in a letter written by his son on his departure from Cambridge in 1915, in which he said I leave the money to you." Defendant also put in a letter from the de- ceased in which he said In the event of .my death I leave everything you have got belonging to me to you. Ptaintiff here made a a insinuation against the defendant in regard to cases of this kind and His Honour rebuked him with the remark that the observation was highly improper. lintiff made another insinuation a little later and His Honour said I shall have to deal sharply with you it vou are not caretul. Plaintiff It is hard lines on me losing my sen and being tricked out of my property. His Honour read another document put in by the defendant, and said that if it was what it purported tt) be it was an assignment of an in- surance policy taken out by the deceased on the life of his father. In reply to His Honour, de- fendant said she gave £ for it. There was a lot of arrears and she paid them up. His Honour What do you want to keep his clothes for ? Defendant He made his home with me, and each time he lias been home on leave he has stayed with me. He was engaged to my daughter for six years-, and he never stayed at his own home. His Honour That does not seem to be any reason for keeping his clothes. His clothes don't seem to be any good to you. Defendant They are as much good to me as to them. Plaintiff When I told her I had official in- timation of my son's death she came up and claimed the presentation watch which he had given to his sister. She said she would give up everything if she had the presentation watch. My wife refused to give it up, and that is the reason she has detained the things. His Honour You are entitled to the money which he left, and which you have been paid by the War Office, but as regards the things which were left in the possession of Mrs. Webb, the defendant, I think she is entitled to them. As regards the assigjiment of the insurance policy, I want to see the Witness George Preece before I say anything about that, and as -he is not here the matter must stand over until I sit here in November.

OH! THE AWFUL ITCHING.I

[No title]

[No title]

[No title]

Advertising

Advertising

ICRICKHGWEJ.L. ;

KiKg Hemy VII!. Scfoscl,,…

Advertising

Abergavenny Board of Guardians.

I! Abergavenny Stock Market.…

Ewias Harold Sheep Sale.

[No title]