Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

19 articles on this Page



------_------------ ---.---..--------...---HAVERFORDWEST…







HAVERFORDWEST COUNTY COURT. Tuesday.-—Before His Honour Judge Bishop. CHIEF STEWARD'S DEBTS. Margaret Evans, Manorowen Mill, Goodwick, sought to enforce judgment upon Edward Mason, chief steward of the s.s. Great Southern for £7 4s. Mr. Howard Davies appeared for plaintiff, and said a certificate had been obtained from the company that defendant's wages were 24s. 6d. per week, and produced a letter from the defendant offering 3s. a month. An order was made for this sum. ADJOURNED. D. Mason and Sons, Limited, Birminhgam, had obtained judgment against Walter George, Fishguard, for £16 7s. 8d.. and Mr. W. J. Jones asked for an order for 10s. per month. Defendant wrote offering 2s. 6d. per month, and said the was too ill to appear. The case was adjourned for defendant to appear. A SOLVA CLAIM WHICH FAILED. Mary Swales, of New Street, Solva, sued Thomas James, contractor. Letterston, for R,4 9s. 3d., for money alleged to be due to her daughter aged 14 years, as wages, and for cer- tain goods in possession of defendant, which she alleged were her property. The particulars •>f cbiiru v, ere 12 weeks wages to her daughter at 2s. 6d. per week, 30s.; pier glass, 14s. 6d.; one picture frame, Is. 3d.; one dazen knives and forks, 7s. 6d.; four table spoons at Is. each, 4s.; half-dozen tea spoons value 2s.; total, L4 9s. 3d. Mr. W. J. Jones appeared for defendant. The plaintiff said the defendant was married to her sister, and on the latter's illness she al- lowed her daughter to go there as servant, the defendant saying he would see her all right. She was there for eight weeks, but was not paid anything. Her sister had certain goods from plaintiff, including a pier glass, and after her sister's death she asked the defendant to return them, but he refused. Cross-examined by Mr. Jones, the plaintiff said after her sister's death some of her clothes were given to another sister, but plaintiff did not have any. Her sister died in Oct., 1906, and in Oct., 1907. the plaintiff married again. She saw him at Mathry, and asked him to return the things which belonged to her, but he went into the house and took no notice. It was not true that the pier glass was given to defen- dant as a wedding present, nor was it true that these proceedings were taken out of vexation because the defendant had married again. His Honour (interrupting) said it was not necessary to proceed. He did not believe a word of the plaintiff's story so far. Sh- stated that she sent these goods to her sister, but she never said a word about them, nor put in a claim until after her sister's death. "You have not," added his Honour, "any claim at all; go away home, and say nothing more about it. Go home and don't come here with a story of this description again." Plaintiff was non-suited. PEMBROKE DOCK FISH MERCHANT'S CLAIM. Frederick George Simpson, fish merchant. Pembroke Dock, and Milford Haven, sued Willie Bennett, junior (a youth of 19). of Spring Gardens, Carmarthen, for £ 2 Is. for fish sup- plied to defendant's order. Plaintiff's daughter appeared, and produced the orders as booked against the defendant, ana said these were sent through the post to the defendant by her father from Milford Haven. Defendant, in reply to his Honour, said he was now 19 years of age, and was between 15 and 16 years of age when these transactions took place. He (defendant( traded on his own account, but lived with his mother, who now kept the Prince of Wales Inn. Carmarthen. He maintained that he had paid for all the fish he received, save the last lot, which he could not sell. Miss Simpson, replying to his Honour had to admit that she knew nothing of the transac- tion, beyond the entries on the book, which were in her father's handwriting. His Honour said he could not give a verdict unless lie had evidence that the defendant had fish which he did not pay for. Witness could not prove that, and plaintiff must ap- pear himself. He would adjourn the case if necessary, but the plaintiff would have to pay the costs of that day. The case was adjourned accordingly. A CLAIM FOR FOWLS. Florence Esther Edwards, of the Stag Inn, Bridge-street, Haverfordwest, sought to re- cover from Wm. John and Son., Quay Street, Haverfordwest, C3 15s., for the loss sustained by her by having 15 fowls of the brown Orping- ton breed killed by two dogs belonging to the defendant. Mr. R. T. P. Williams defended. Mrs. Edwards said on May 21st she had 7 fowls killed by dogs. On the following day she was called into the yard, and found six dead fowls in the cote, and two outside. There were two terriers in the cote, dragging the fowls about, and she tried to catch them but they got away. The next night a trap was set in- side the cote, and the two dogs were caught. They were subsequently claimed by the defen- dant firm. Cross-examined: She now described these fowls as brown Orpingtons. Mr. Campbell Jones wrote for her to claim P,2 12s. 6d.; but it was after that she found out their value. Mr. Williams, for the defence, said it must be proved the defendant knew the dogs were of a ferocious disposition. His Honour did not think there was any necessity to do that. Mr. Williams, however, maintained that it was. Plaintiff, replying to his Honour, said she did not know to whom the dogs belonged un- til they were claimed, about a week later. Mr. Williams quoted Addison on torts, and the Dogs Act, 1906, to the effect that the owner of a dog could not be held liable unless it could be shown that he was aware of the dog's previous mischievious propensity. Plaintiff said she had been informed that the defendant's dogs had killed other fowls. That statement came from defendant's servant. His Honour: You had better call her. Plaintiff said she was married now. Well, if she is married she is not killed. (Laughter). You should have called her. To Mr. Williams he said he should not stop the case, as he did not agree with anything he had said. Mr. Williams: It is a point of law I raised. His Honour at first said he should disregard it, but afterwards said he would take time to consider the point. Mr. Williams said the only evidence he would call wa sto show that the claim was exaggera- ted. He could not disprove that defendant's dogs killed the fowls. Wm. John, a member of the defendant firm, said that he could not dispute that whatever damage was done was done by his dogs, but he had no knowledge of their mischievious propensities. He had never heard of them doing damage, or killing anything beyond rats. Since this happened, however, he had destroyed one of the dogs, for subsequent faults, but the other one he kept, and it was free to roam the town. In reply to a question, the defendant said one of the dogs worried a fowl at Broad- way, and he had it drowned. As regards the price of the fowls, defendant said a farmer's wife told him last week that the price of lay- ing hens was Is. to Is. 3d. His Honour: Nonsense, you can't get laying hens for that. Mr. John: They have to do it. His Honour: But you can't get them for ls. or Is. 3d. Mr. John: But this woman is selling them at that price every week. His Honour: But not brown Orpingtons. Mr. Williams: We don't admit these were brown Orpingtons. His Honour: Then prove the other thing. John Mathias, Portfield, said he had been in the employ of Mr. J. H. Bishop for 4 years. The ordinary price far any kind of laying hens was from Is. to Is. 3d., and that was what Mr. Eishop gave. Plaintiff: Mr. Bishop is a wholesale man. His Honour said brown Orpingtons, early spring chickens, 5& months old, could not be bought at that price. Eggs for sitting were 2s. a dozen. The defendant, in reply to his Honour, said the dogs were mother and son. The young one was 12 or 14 months old. His Honour: And badly brought up. (Laugh- ter). Mr. Williams said the mother could not be had up for setting a bad example. (Laughter). He added that his client had no wish to evade the claim, but he thought it was exaggerated. His Honour took time to consider the point of law raised by Mr. Williams. After lunch, addressing the plaintiff, he said he was sorry to inform her that the law was against her claim. It was almost a pity when she caught the dogs that she did not detain them until the question of damages had been arranged; that appeared to be the only way she could obtain them. He was bound to non-suit her, and to say she could not rev-ncr. At the there was no coubt the delendant's dogs did kill her poultry, and the amount of their value was very nearly what she said, and not Is. or Is. 3d. per head. Mr. Williams said his client had paid Pl into court, and he would either allow that to her, and let her pay costs, or he would not ask for costs. His Honour: Can't you be a bit more gener- ous ? Mr. Williams said he could not promise any more until he had seen his client. ADJOURNED. Samuel H. Hughes, of Goodwick, coal mer- chant, sought to recover from Henry Williams, Fishguard, zEl 10s. 8d., for culm supplied. Mr. H. A. Jones Lloyd appeared for plaintiff, on behalf of Mr. A. B. Williams. Martha Williams, the wife of the defendant, appeared, and asked to give her evidence in Welsh. Mr. Jones Lloyd: What is your name? "Martha Williams," said the old lady prompt- ly, and then there was a laugh at the neat way the solicitor had shown the witness knew Eng- lish. Plaintiff gave evidence as to the culm having been supplied, and as the defendant alleged that it was never delivered the case was ad- journed for John Owen, who delivered the cumi, to be called as a witness. THE WHOLESALE GROCER AND THE BAKER. James Bowen Thomas, baker, St. Martin's Place, brought an action against Edgar Wm. Rees, wholesale grocer, High-street, Haverford- west. to recover P,50 damages in respect to the defendant's agent's alleged illegal entry of the plaintiff's premises, and the seizure and re- moval of a cart, boxes of soap, cases of candles. and a case of lump sugar. A jury were empan- nelled to hear the case, which was heard at the last court, but on that occasion the jury were divided. There was also a counter-claim brought by Mr. Rees against Mr. Thomas for £18, the value of the goods supplied, and on this his Honour gave judgment for Mr. Rees, costs to be dependent on the verdict of the principal claim. Mr. H. A. Jones Lloyd appeared for the plain- tiff, and Mr. W. J. Jones for the defendant. The case was heard before the following jury:—Joseph Gibby (foreman), Thomas Evans (Lower Spring Gardens). George P. Phillips (Dew Street), W .R. Morgan, Henry Jenkins (Dew Street), Wm. Harries (High Street), John' Davies (Tower Hill), and T. H. Davies (Palmer- ston). The plaintiff's case was that the seizure of the goods was entirely unauthorised but defendant maintained that his traveller, Mr. Elias, had met plaintiff when leaving the town for Swan- sea, and that Thomas told him to take goods in settlement of his account for £ 18. This Mr. Elias did, and was the cause of the action. James Bowen Thomas, the plaintiff, repeated the evidence he gave at a former hearing. Cross-examined: He had had dealings with ?lr. Rees since he commenced in business, and he had always been treated in a gentlemanly manner. He admitted that he and his wife had had some difficulties, and he had sought a separation on the ground of his wife being an habitual drunkard. During this time his shop was very often closed, but it was on his country trade he depended for a living. He denied" that he told Elias there were plenty of goods in the shop and he could go up and take it out of them. What he said was that his wife would settle the account. He never told Elias afterwards that he did not think he would have been so sharp on him. Emma Thomas, wife of the plaintiff, said Elias called on July 23rd, and said that her husband had gone away and he had better take the-goods. She told him not to do that as her husband would be back. If he thought her husband would not come back, she said she would pay him the money, but Elias said she was not to do that, as she would need the money, and added, "How foolish you are not to give me consent to take the goods," as he would return them as soon as he heard that her husband was back in the town. Cross-examined: She told Elias that her hus- band would be back in the morning. She did not consent to him taking the goods. She thought her husband slept upstairs the pre- vious night, but she was not sure. Bertha Summers spoke to having heard Mr. Elias ask Mrs. Thomas to consent to him tak- ing the goods to the value of the bill, but she declined. She said she would pay him as soon as she could get out. For the defence Mr. Jones called Mr. Rees, traveller, who said when he asked about his bill Thomas said there was plenty of stock in the shop and that he could take it out of that. Thomas ran on to catch his train, and witness went to the plaintiff's shop and told Mrs. Thomas that her husband had given him permission to take goods out of the shop. The next morning he went over to see Thomas in consequence of a letter Mr. Rees had received from the plaintiff. Witness said to Thomas, "You are a fine fellow to give me permission and then want the goods back." Thomas said that if Mr. Rees would send back the goods he would pay him the money. Thomas paid him ki on account, and promised to pay the remainder monthly. Cross-examined: When he met Thomas in the morning it did not occur to him at the time to get permission in writing to take the goods. He met plaintiff in the street, and Thomas was in a hurry to catch his train. John Davies, 9, North Street, spoke to having seen the plaintiff on the morning of July 23rd. Thomas then had a parcel in his hand and he looked as though he had been crying. Thomas said, "Good-bye, Jack, I am going up the line." Asked what was to become of those left behind, plaintiff replied that he "didn't care a d about them." Mary Drinning, of Church Street, was also called. She said she saw plaintiff on the morn- ing of July 23rd, and he had evidently been crying. The jury retired to considered their verdict. During the interval the foreman came and asked the Judge whether if the jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff, they could order each party to pay its own costs. The Judge said they could not. The jury had nothing to do with costs, which were a matter for the court. A verdict was found for the plaintiff for £2 damages. The jury had not answered the question as to whether the goods were illegally taken, and Mr. Jones said he must insist on an answer to that question. Meanwhile the Judge had left to catch his train, and the Registrar asked the jury what was their reply to that question. The Foreman: Some say one thing and some another. At the request of the Registrar, the jury again retired to consider this question, and after- wards answered it by saying that the goods were not taken with either Mr. or Mrs. Thomas' leave, and that the plaintiff was entitled to k2 damages. — •





Family Notices


Rural District Council. j



[No title]