Hide Articles List

12 articles on this Page



CATTLE RUN OVER. FARMER SECURES DAMAGES AT THE COUNTY COURT. At the County Court on Monday, before His Honour Judge Bishop and a jury, an aotion was heard between David Walters, of Cefncorhwydd Farm, Dunvant, who made a claim against the London and North-Western Railway Company. Mr St. John Francis Williams appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Parsons represented the' defendants. Mr. Williams said that the plaintiff pro- ceeded against the Railway Company for killing five of his. cows by the negligence of the driving of a train. Part of Mr. Walters's farm was on both sides of the railway, and in ^rder to enable Mr. Walters to get from one Side to the other there was a level crossing, Wiieh was made for his convenience. About 8.30 on the morning of June 20, Mr. Walters sent his boy dnwll to fetch eight cow's from the Held on tlic,, other side of the railway, for the purpose of milking them. The boy, be- ror h? opened the gate, looked at the signal WhIch was about, twenty or thirty yards away. "?en a train was aPPl'nachmg, the signal Was supposed to be down. The boy, however, aw that the. signal was up, which was fl?ainst the approach of a train. Seeing that. tie signal was up, he opened the gate on the side of the railway, and looked up and ,idown to see if a train was coming. He did )> see one. He thereupon crossed three sets i ,()f rans to get the other side. He then at- ,te!hPted to take the eight cows across. Ap- '"??tly, the eight cows got, across the first :J.nd when they wfM on the second rail- ? ??'' ??? before they had time to get across ? third, the London and North-Western Passenger train dashed into them, with the ?sult that five cows were killed. Three of T' e cows got safely across, and he attached a ?sidera.ble amount of importance to Hus act. Their allegation against the company  'aj that they did not. keep a proper look-out, I and Mr. Walters claimed the value of the I cows at ?16 each. Mr. Parsons: On the plan you will see the Places ii-iarked where the cows were killed. Mr. Francis Williams: Then it is not dis- {}Uted Mr. Parsons: No. continuing, Mr. Williams said no company "ad a right to run over a man's cows, even if they were on the line. The driver admitted tthhat he did not see the cows until he was on them. His Honour: Don't they have cow-catchers oil the engine Mr. Francis Williams: They would have to yave a long one on this engine .because they liad five of our cows (laughter). 'Vuliani Evans (16). bore out the opening statement, of counsel. ssexarriined by Mr. Parsons, v. it ness 8aid he had been a cow-keeper for two years. e tIlt.ered Mr. Walters's employ about a iveek prior to the. cows being killed. The cows were ready by the gate for him to take thrn across. He first saw the train when it was about half-way between the curve and the crossing. He was not sure, the train mstled when nearing the crossing. Re-examined, witness said he did not turn the eoWs back when the train was approach- lng, b ecause it was better for him to let them Proceed. David Walters, the plaintiff, said he was in the. habit of keeping the cows on the field op- posite, the railway. When the boy was pro- ceeding with .the cows he was getting out of bed. He observed the train approaching from the bedroom window, but he did not hear it thistle. After proceeding 550 yards the train "as stopped, and the remains of one of the Cows had to be TenioNed from the engine. Mr Parsons: Were the cows that were killed, the best, cows ?—No. Mi. Parsons: I do not know much, about! His HOllou: You know more about milk and cream (hoghter). AIe y°u perfectly certain that there was no \}lJstlmg, or do you say that you did not hear thing i ~I did not hear the whistle, and I "as watching the approach of the train. John WaKers. Gowerton, said he remem- pered getting into a train on the day follow- Ing the accident, and the inspector, the driver ? ?'" "doh'1' were there. Mr. Francis Williams: Were you introduced to ?o diiver and the stoker? ™ itness: Inspector Jones said, "This is the ,nver of the train that killed the cows (laugi, The driver told me that he did 111) 1Ilie. cows until he was on them. a JUHI are a music masterYes. tl,.e (-.O??'S, I Tha.t. does not enable you to value the cows, j ??PPose?—Kot veTy much, sir. IllS Honour: It wonld enable you to speak nl ter)*6 ??nt the tune of the whistle (laugh- te Mr. Parsons submitted that there was no easc,, 1, the plaintiff had, by Ins own ev;"If C'°' ??vn that the accident was due o the boy's negligence. 'T k 1 ^1 orris, engine-driver in t1w employ of tj 11, company, said that when he can 10 the eHrYc- the distant signal wae on \} 1 1' A "n "which ?as against him. As soon as j ?Pproachcd it. he sounded the whistle for alv )1*' ??? yards, and the signal was then 1<M.??' The ?"'?? was at the time proc"Bd xn> '? ?he rate of 40 miles an hour. Witness landing ?n the left side, and kept a careful, )111. After the train had pro- (? ? ? ???' yards from the crossing the stok".e? r shouted that there were cows on the ne. It was impossible for witness to pull ? he ?ajn w'thin such a distance. 11 IllS Honour: How was it that the train was n.ot. stopped ,,n?? it had proceeded 550 yard3 frn.» the i? ?ossing? th" ltnes's: The only reason I can think of is 'th»+' the ?"?d and fat lubricated the rail. JfT Francis Williams: Are von sure it was Hot l. ase of the cows having got shaken up so ????'&bly that the milk within got Ú fned int 0 hutter which got ?n the raUs '? <1?? ?< !;uer).—Thn.t might have been the case ??d lighter). ?'? Honour: Perhaps rhe witno-ss will tell {laug} ^tber it was' ma rgerjne <>r butter (l Ie <1) 'r 1J W:}: l)lI!J'g"f'rm t' ,¡T" )11 ,t()1' /"i°.,?hter). not. keening a D,M}'. Parsons said t.hft.u?Ti?r- "? ?ilwv ?'?' ??-' ?gUgent 11" n?.t. kce-?n? n > ¡{Opel' ook'out--and this wus the only ens, thp ??'?? had attempted to make out "giouSI--i.t iv.ould not entÜ;I' the jury to 'at: P?'?ifF their verdict. Thc;? had to ,be ''? the lad did ?verytlnng possible -t?  ¡.be consequence of the defendant's ne"-r?'??' '??? accident, he contended, was du? ?' ??' negligence of William Ev?ms. He Wio a ????Sent lad, but had shown an err .? of jUdgment on this occasion in taking tv, eo^'s "?"? the Unc. jr rarJ°is Williams said he was surprised -to }^' at ? friend give birth to the surmise l[j  ?'?"? ?? the youthful appearance of ?l)e ? i ?'? ???ht suggest that there was con- ??ito-ry negligence. n B:1S 'Honour: Ycu both look like bovs H'??Ug? 'hter). ^^Hiarns said thee was no foundation ?'ht ?"? ihe suggestion that the boy was "Milt J/ c negligence. It was perfectly obvious ?hi driver and fireman had not kept a p???' "?"t, and that amounted to negU- gsn Hi s II "I 1 h } 'fa S '??"??' ?? summing up, ?.d that MLe ??'driver sa.w the sisnal down -'h?-tu ? thi at 1 l  look- on] 'J" f! Ie l{ not kept a careful look- <?r\ ?h? questIon was whether that look- ?''? '!ent 01- Tef?nab''c. The jury  whether the plaintiff wa? guilty oT Jlf they found thm ,be (lefen- .L?, iity of negligence*by not keep- ? inga proper look-out, then they would have to find whether the owner was not negligent by sending the boy to fetch the cows. The jury returned a, verdict for plaintiff for the amount claimed. Mr. Francis Williams asked for judgment in favour of plaintiff with costs. II His Honour gave judgment for P,30 with costs.




Burry Port District Council.I…



I Intermedaiate Managers.…

) - I I Interpleader Action.…

[No title]