Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

9 articles on this Page


Married v. Single blessedness.

Farm Notes.

Pembrokeshire Agricultural…

Mother and Daughter Cured.

The Fishguard Railway.


The Fishguard Railway. ENGINEER'S CLAIM. In the King's Bench on Wednesday (before Mr. Justice A. T. Lawrence and a special jury) the hearing was continued of the action of Walton v. Cartland. Mr. Hugo Young, for plaintiff, read correspondence,, and pointed out that the contract of paintiff was with Messrs. Rowlands and Cartland and the North Pembrokeshire Railway Compay, to whom he s.ent in reports of the progress of the line, and also certificatos as to the work of the sub-contractors. Plaintiff had nothing to do with whatever was the arrangement between defendants and the Great Western Railway Company. Defendants had an in- demnity from that company under which they could claim. His Lordship said he gathered that the whole question between plaintiff and defend- andts was whether Messrs. Rowlands and Cartland were liable for the work done since February, 1898, or whether plaintiff had been employed by others to do the work. Mr. Young said plaintiff had given the Great Western Company information as to the progress of the work, just as he would have done to any shareholder who had a large interest in the undertaking. Mr. Montague Lush, submitted that defend- ants could not be held liable for work which the Great Western Compay had orderd to b. done without consulting clients. Mr. Young contended that on the corres- pondence there had been no intimation of any change in plaintiff's employers or pay- masters. The plaintiff jrave evidence as to the carry- ing out,of the various schemes and the work he did. He had a conversation with Mr. Rowlands in March, 1898, when the changed condition of things ^cussed. Lie was promised by Mr. i.\Ua pay lur extra work which was entailed upon him by this change, and this promise was confirmed by letter. The hearing was adjourned.