Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

9 articles on this Page

[No title]

- - - llanelly's Dilatoriness.

Welsh Summer School. I




I COUNTY COURT. I COUN! C_OURT. Monday, before His Honour Judge Bishop. The undefended cases were disposed of by the learned registrar, Mr. J. Bishop. IMPRISONED THREE TIMES. S. Bedford, Swansea, proceeded against Her- bert Williams, Thomas Street, on a judgment summons. Airs. Williams said she had three children, and could not pay. Her husband had been to prison on three occasions. His Honour: Does he like it? II Defendant: I do not know. He is always drinking, and does not give me any money. His Honour: It seems to me that he likes going to prison. You must endeavour to get him to stop drinking. I will make an order. I and suspend it for fourteen davs, PICTURE FRAMING. I s. Landy, Inkerman Street, sued Noah John I in respect of picture-framing. Plaintiff stated that at the. ro- | quest he framed four pictures. j His Honour: You talked ao much, and he gave you four plates to frame? Landy: Yes. Miss J'jliii stated that site asked Landy to frame six plates in oak. His Honour: Is that so? Landy: She gave me an order for six. and I have delivered four. His Honour: Were you to frame them in oak ? Landy: No. Miss John stated that she was not prepared to pay because the frames were of an inferior quality. A picture-framer informed her that the frames: were not worth 6s.. let alone 9s 6d each. The goods were supplied to her in Cwmbwrla. ) His Honour: Is that so? Landy: Yes. His Honour: 1 shaH non-suit vou. lf you t;ii:e the defendant to the Swansea c'^ ^ort I shall advise her to pay the amount for the four pictures into court. SHEEP KILLING. Dd. Evans, Penllwynrliodin Farm, claimed R4 from Joseph Da vies, Royal Oak, Bryn, and John Davies, Heolmynydd, Bryn. for sheep that had been destroyed. Mr. T. R. Ludforcl represented the plaintiff, and Mr. 1). R. Edmunds defended. Mr. Ludford said that the claim was in respect of damages committed by the defen- dants' two dogs on the 25th February. One sheep was killed, one damaged. and three lambs were starved. David Evans deposed that on the 25th of February lie was taking corn to the sheep. On entering the field lie saw two dogs killing sheep. Witness' was accompanied by his wife. He went after the dogs, and found that one- was a terrier and the other a sheep dog. He followed them to Bryn, where Davies lived -the distance being 400 yards from the field IV hor8 the; sheep were. He saw the defen- dants, and told them what the dogs had been domg. The dogs were covered with blood. Witness then proceeded to the Royal Oak, and Davies said lie, had seen the dogs, and asked what had been done. Witness replied, I will tell you again." He then returned to the field, and found that one sheep was killed, and one damaged, the result being that two lambs were starved. He went to the Royal Oak later, accompaniel by P.C. Tom Davies, and saw the dog. He also went to the Bryn, and saw the other dog, and called the atten- tion of P.C. Davies to the fact. His Honour: Have they offered to pay you anything. Witness: I took them a bill from Mr. Lud- ford, and they said something I would not like to repeat. His Honour: Well, do not say it then (laughter). What did they offer you? Witness: E2. They have: now killed one of the dogs. Cross-examined, witness said he saw the two dogs running after the sheep. He also saw the dog when he returned the second time killing another sheep. He was sure that one of the dogs' was a sheep dog, which was a little bigger than the other. Mr. Edmunds: Do you not buy the offal from the Slaughter-house? Witness: No; I only buy the dung. Mr. Pearks buys the offal. His Honour: What does he do with it ? Send it away to make sausages (laughter). I Sophia Evans said that on the day in ques- tion she saw two dogs attacking a sheep. She immediately went after them. I Cross-examined by Mr. Edmunds, witness said that she had seen a similar dog kill a sheep in about five minutes! Mr. Edmunds: When was that- Mrs. E vans' Witness: When I was about nineteen years of age (laughter). Mr. Edmunds: What breed was the yellow dog ? His Honour: They say he is a clever son a ?, lie is a c l en-er s(,)ii who knows his father, and it is a very clever thing for a person that knows what breed a dogs is (laughter). P.C. Davies said that on the 25th February lie accompanied Evans to the Royal Oak. Evans said that 'he had brought him there to see the dog, so that he could attend the I court as a witness. Mrs. Davies, fetched the dog from the backyard, and witness did not find any blood marks on it, but its coat was wet. Mrs. Davies then said. So my dog is free," whereupon Evans said, "No, you are .iiot frse. This is the dog I saw with the bitch." They then proceeded to Heolymyn- ydd, and saw the other dog, with a blood mark on the left shoulder. Cross-examined, witness said there were about six or seven fields from the Royal Oak to Evans's field. He knew that Evans pur- chased the offal, mixed with the dung, from the Slaughter-house, which attracted a good many dogs to the district. Mr. Edmunds: How many dogs are there in I the district?—There are a good many. Do you know Hollow ay's dog?—Yes. His Honour: Is it related to you? (laughter). Edward Williams, Brynmartin Farm, said the claim of £ 4 was by far too little for the sheep and three labs. They were worth z5. Mr. Edmunds said he would prove that Mr Evans had enquired from several people in I the district the owner of the black dog, be- cause he did not know who?. it WHS. I John Davies, Royal Oak, said there were I many dogs in the district. He left the dog ¡ out on the morning of February 25th. and if returned in about- half-an-hour. He did not observe any blood-marks- on it. -Witne5se were called who said that they I saw Thomas John Davies's dog at the time that Evans said it WiS in his field, and thin they saw no marks of blood upon it. His Honour said it seemed to him: tlwt the ) case was' abundantly proved that Evans had i seen the dogs in the field, and had foUowwl I them, and found one wet, and the other with blood on it. It appeared that one of the I dogs, which was said to be a quiet one, was I in bad company, and he supposed evil com- I munication corrupted good manners (laugh- ter). He gave judgment for the xjlaintiff for j the amount claimed with costs. ¡ HENS KILLED BY A Don. I Edwin John, Old Castle RoiMi, sued Win. Hayes, 127 Old Castle Road, for damages to his liens. ¡ Mr. D. Jennings appeared, for the plaintiff. Plaintiff said I.e kept a number of hens. ¡ He saw the defendant's 'dog in his backyard killing three of them. He spoke to Hayes about it., and he fold him to shoot the dog if- ho saw it there again. In May there wore seven more lien- killed, and three injured, and a quantity of eggs were destroyed by the f dog. t Cross-examine<i: Are there any xats in the river ?N-ot that 1 know of. Mr. Ludford: Yon differ in that respect i from the Town Surveyor. 1 William Hughes, 127 Old Castle Road, said there were other greyhounds in the same I street similar to his own. I His Honour gave verdict for 12s. A DISPUTED BALANCE. I Evan Williams, Resolven, sued Benjamin Hughes, Cilmore Road, Loughor, for balance of account. Mr. Gwilym R. Price appeared for the plaintiff. i s the -sigtiee of 'ilie Plaintiff said he was the assignee of the book debts of Edward Langey. He had made i application to the defendant for payment, but he had refused to pay. Edward Langey said that the balance was due in re$peCl of coal supplied to the Longhur (itie i-ti i) [ -oal suti)plieil to t.lie Loiiglior Mr. Price said thai Mr. Langey supplied the- Loughor Foundry with coal to the amount of £ 40, and the Loughor Foundry Company had supplied Mr. Langey with some castings, for which credit had been given, and a balance of £ 9 16s. 4d. was now due. ¡' Benjamin Hughes, Loughor, said he had been dealing with Langey since 1902. He had obtained some orders from him both verbally and in writing. I His Honour said that plaintiff could only have judgment for what he had bought, and I if Hughes had a cross account against him he could proceed against him for it. He would give verdict for the' assignee, and he I would have to consider whether there had been a dodge to avoid the counter-claim. Mr. Ludford asked that no costs be allowed I because his client did not owe the debt. Both I companies for which Mr. Langey acted had smashed. í His Honour disallowed costs. COMPENSATION CASES. i Thomas Davies, Panteg, Pontyeates, sued the Caepontbren Colliery Company under the Woi'liuieu's Compensation Act. ÑÍi". Meager (instructed by Mr. Saunders, of j the office of Messrs. Randell, Saunders, and Randell) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Llewelyn Williams, M.P., defended. Thomas Davies*, Panteg, Pontyeates, stated that he was employed at Caepontbren Colliery as an assistant collier, at 30s. per week. In August last, while following his employment, a lump of coal fell on his finger, -and he was attended by Dr. Lewis. He received a paper from the cheekweiglier, which was handed to the manager. Witness was out of work for fourteen days on account of the injury. After his return to the colliery he spoke to the manager several times about his compensa- tion, but the manager simply laughed and turned his back. About a month ago the manager said lie would pay him, but he had not received anything. Cross-examined by Mr. Williams, witness said he met with his accident on a Friday, and worked the following day, although he had injured the middle finger of his left hand. Mr. Williams: Have you been working at the colliery since you returned in August last-?-—Yes. j Mr. Meager: We are making no claim, ex- cept in regard to the fourteen days. ) Mr. Williams: Then I drmv attention to ttie particulars of claim, which state, "Total incapacity up to August 16th, and partial in- capacity since." Mr. Meager: Althouugh the work has been harder for him, lie has been able to earn as much money as before; so I cannot claim. Mr. Williams: Did you sign a document to this effect: "I hereby withdraw any claim I have made for compensation, and therefore withdraw any slaim as such''?—Yes. Did you understand it?—The manager told me I would be paid. Did you understand the meaning of that Nvrifing ?-No. Mr Williams: I suggest that Mr Lewis, the cashier, explained everything to you ?—No answer. Mr. Meager: Did you intend abandoning your claim to compensation ?—Not if I could get it, of course. Mr. Lewis, manager ai the colliery; gave evidence with regard to the claim. Cross-examined by Mr. Meager: Afr Ir you got the plaintiff to sign the document, did you write to your Kidwelly office stating that he had withdrawn all claim ?—Yes. What do you mean by stating in your let- ters that notice of the accident was not given, when the notice is produced to-day?-- The managing director wrote that letter. What do you say?—He was home from the 6th August until the 14th August. Re-examined by Mr. Williams, witness said lie never saw the letters written by Mr. Alfred Stephens. Mr. Williams submitted that the plaintiff did not break his finger, because he went to work the following day. The evidence was very unsatisfactory, and the amount was tri- vial. He suggested that he was not entitled to compensation. According to the claim put in, the accident happened on August 1st, and the notice of the accident was not put in until August lltli. Mr. Meager said that the company, after writing a letter to the solicitors, had the man to come to the offic-a to sign a document. He submitted that was corroboration that the accident had happened. j I His Honour held that it was not proved that an accident had happened, and com- mented on the absence of any evidence of a medical gentleman. He did not know that the man's finger had ever been broken. Judgment would ha in favour of the respon- dents'. ) COMPENSATION TERMINATED. j The c-ase in which Messrs. Richard Thomas and Co., of the South Wales Works, were the j applicants, and Edward Williams respondent, was again heard. Mr. W. Llewelyn Williams appeared for the company, and Mr. Meager represented the re- spondent. Mr. Williams said the case was referred by consent to a medical referee on the 15tli March, who had decided that the respondent was not able: to resume his work as a charge- wheeler in the Steelworks on Nov. 17tli, 1908, nor in May, 1909. The only two questions that remained were the question of costs and whether lie was able to do light work. His Honour: You did not ask the medical referee that ? Mr. Williams: In his answer he has stated that respondent is able to do light work. The manager of Messrs. Richard Thomas and Co. has offered him light work, and he, has re- fused it. Gordon Thomas, clerk in the employ of Messrs. Richard Thomas and Co., gave evi- dence with regard to the light work that was offered to the respondent. He offered him £1 per week. Dr. Edwards said the respondent was in a fit position to do the work offered him. After some argument Mr. Williams said his clients were prepared to give Williams light work on Monday next at £1 per week. Mr. Meager: And my client is bound to try it. His Honour ordered the company to pay the compensation due to date, and the man to try the light work offered him, the ques- tion. of costs being deferred. AGREEMENT RECORDED. I A compensation ease, in which the parties were Mansel Rees v. The Glanmwrwg Colliery. Company, was heard. Mr. Meager appeared for the applicant, and Mr. Parsons represented the respondent- Mr. Meager said the application was to re- cord an agreement- The compensation had been paid up to 15th June, 1908, which had not been recorded. His client wa-s incapaci- tated up to January 18th, 1909, and subse- quently secured some light work, driving a c-art. Mr Parsons said they agreed that the plain- tiff was totally incapacitated up to June 15th, 1908, but the memorandum alleged that they agreed to the workman's compensation up to January 18th, 1909. He objected to such a clause, because they never agreed that he was totall incapacitated up to January, 1909. He could not object to the memorandum in the ordinary form, hut at some future date His Honour would he asked to review the matter, because it would have to be determined whe- ther the man had recovered on June 15th. 1908. His Honour said he would strike out the portion to which Mr. Parsons had taken ex- ception. Mr. Parsons said lie did not take any ob- jection to the recording of the usual memo- randum. Mr. Meager made an application for costs. It was unnecessary for them to have been there if Mr. Parsons had not objected to the wording in the memorandum. Mr. Parsons replied that they would not have objected to the memorandum in the ordinary form.


Adjudication on Male Voice…

Furniture Removed. 1