Hide Articles List

15 articles on this Page

OLD AGE, )

--AN EVENING VISION.

0 -AN AUTUMN REVERIE.

(!)Itr iilmmt Sablf.

C E R1; 1 < i Y D It UID10…

[No title]

THE ENGLISH CIlUliCH: ITS…

ABERYSTWITH. I

[No title]

THE LORD iIlAYU!t'S SHOW AND…

FROM THE " MANX PUNCH."

DENBIGH. I

HHYL.

News
Cite
Share

HHYL. COUNTY COURT, November 8, before R. Vaughan Williams, Ksq., judge. Several small cases were heard at this court, which is held here bi-monthly. Messrs. Louis, ltuthit), R. E. William, and W. R. Williams, Hhyl, solicitors, were engaged to a few of theol. An Annoying .Aetion.-Rohert Pierce, carter, sued S. P. Evans, clerk in the em piny of Mr R. E. Williams, for the sum of t5, money leut. Mr Louis appeared for plaintiff, and Mr R. E. Williams for defendant. The plaintiffs case was simply that he bad lent the money to Mr Evans and it was stated for the defence that plaintiff had requested Mr Evans to sell him a piece of land, and if he succeeded in effecting a purchase he should have £ 10. Plaiutill, however, sold the land himself, but having given Mr Evans some amount of trouble, he came to him and said-I have disposed of the land myself, but I like to be a man, and I will make you a present of X5." Subsequently Mr Evans had occasion to enforce a distress warrant against plaintiff, who then denied having the £ o except as a loan. Plaintiff produced a book with the view of proving his claim, but the leaf containing the item, he said, had been torn off. Mr R. E. Williams said the plaintiff had made a cock- and-bull story, and in fact it was an abominable action. Mr Louis replied that Mr Williams's remarks were uucalled for, and were a reflection on his client's char- acter. His Honnur-I must give judgment for defendant. There is not the shadow of a claim for this money, and my belief is that the action was only brought to annoy the defendant. If that is a reflection on your client (the plaintiff), I caunot help it. Lewis v. Oit-e)t.-The plaintiff in this action, Mr R; Lewis, Wellington-road, sued the defendant, a butcher for ii, money lent. Mr Louis appeared for the defendant. Plaintiff stated that he had lent the defeiid,,tut ilO towards the purchase of a cow. He produced an 1.0 U." for the amount signed by the defendant. Mr Louis said the document was invalid because it was not stamped. His Honour examined it and said the objection was good, but, with Mr Louis's consent, the form of action was amended. On cross-examination, plaintiff stated that a person named William Hughes was with defendant when he lent the money. Both of them were borrowing the money jointly, but he could not say, or would not say which of the two received it. Mr Louis argued that defendant did not borrow the money, but was the surety for it to William Hughes, who had acted in collusion with plaintiff to fall upon the defendant. His Honour gave judgment for defendant.

[No title]

THE POPE AND DIPLOMACY.I