Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

8 articles on this Page

CARNABVONSHIRB ASSIZES. I…

News
Cite
Share

CARNABVONSHIRB ASSIZES. I CARNARVONSBIRE ASSIZES. On Fridav, these assizes were again resumed at rfM-uarvon, before Mr Justice Denman. I>I8RUTK ABOUT A WILL. Thh was an action in which John Morria Jones, T'? JoM.. Ellen Williams, and Jane Griffith,  plaintiffs, and Richard Hugbw detend?nt.- M- \!?)coim DoactM?d Mr G. H. Anwyl Evans /Ltracted by M? R. Ivor Parry, Pwllheli) ap. ?dfortb.?intiff.ndMrC. Higgins, Q.C., d?fE.H L'o?("'?°??*'y?"??°?y"'? '?)bert< Halifax) for the defendant,-The plaintiffs ii.imed that tbev were entitled to the "session of messuage, tenement, and lands, called Pwllmelyn, in the parish of Aberdaron.—Mr Douglas said the laintiffs claimed as heirs-at-law and co-heiresses. Hugh Griffith (the teotator) died in 1819, leaving a will in which he devised the said messuage, tene- S ment and ii"'? to the churohwardens or overseers of the poor of the pariah of Aberdaron, or their ,successors, in trust towards the use, olothing, and IDaintenance of his daughter, Jane Haghee. who weB an imbecile. After her death his will was I that the said tenement should go and devolve to his daughter Elizabeth, if then living, for her life. After the death of his daughters, Elizabeth and Jane, be bequeathed the tenement and lands to his arandsous. Hugh and David Roberts, share and _L..o IikA or to the survivors of them for the lives of them and the said survivor; but Hugh Griffith otherwise died intestate. Hugh Griffith died leaving issne Lowry Hughes, who married John Morris, aDd the plaintiff was her heir-at-law Aune, who inarried Lewis Jones; Jane, an imbecile, who died unmarried; and Elizabeth, who married Robert Griffith. Hugh Roberts and David Roberts, who were the two graudsona named in will, took a like interest. The eldeat 80D of the marriage between Klizabeth and- Tinhert Griffith WM Griffith Roberts, through ?n the plaintiffs Ellen Williams and Jane Oriffith claimed their third share of the estate. ii,„w this will, first of all, Jane, the imbecile, •nioved a life interest in trust. After her came Elizabeth followed by Hugh and David Roberts. David lioberts was the youngest of the two brothers, ,nd died a bachelor in 1825. Hugh Roberts died on the 19th January, 1882, leaving four sons, of whom-defendant was the yonngest. What they said was that the effect of the will was that Hngh and David Roberts between them took a life interest ill., ■ and after their death the estate passed to the beiis:at-law of Hu,,Iii Griffitb.-Mr A. D'Oyly Watkine, one of the officials at the Bangor Probate Otlice, produced the original copy of the will in nneation -Mr R.Ivor Parry,sohcitor,Pwllheli, said he had beers acting for the pJaintlff. On the 2nd -3_ 10.- Novembcr last vear, ne saw 1118 aeiemiaut IU nis house at Aberdaron, and, on behalf of the plaintiff, demanded powewion of the premises, which he reftised-The various certificates of births and marriages were produced, and evidence for proving -be pedigree of the persons mentioned in the will was given by the following persons :-Ellen Parry (73) Anne Jones (82), Robert Parry (69), Anne Robert? (67),and Ellen Williams.—Mr Higgins said if his lordship thought desirable he was qnite prmared to argue the matter now but they on)y ?i?hej !o pre?nt the necessary facts and have the matter argued in London, if desirable.—His Lord- ship adjourned the case for further consideration. ACTUS FOR LIBEL AOAINST THE OWALIA IIEWSP,\PF.R. In thi-s action the plaintiff was the Rev. Robert Hushes, UwchIFtw'rffyil on, Llan&elbaiarn, a d the defendants were the Gu-aha Newspaper and Printing Company Limited. The Plaintiff illtoed" that he had been libelled in certain letters which appeared in the Goocclia, aud claimed £100 damages. Mr Clement Hic'ins, Q.C., and Mr A. J. H. Williams (instructed bv Messrs Turner and Allanson, Car carvon), were for the plaintiff; and Mr E. Sweteuha°.n, Q.C., M.P., and Mr Maloolm Douglas (instructed by Mr George Owen, Carnarvon) defended. The case was tried before a special jury.-Ir Hiseins, in his opening statement, said that the plaint iff, Robert Hughes, was a Calvinistic Methodist minister, who for the last 55 years had resided at a place called Uwchlaw'rffynon, in the parish of Llanaelhaiarn. There was another old person named Thomas Williams, living in the same parish; ttntl these two geutlemen lived together upon very friendly terms. On the high road between Llanaelhaiarn and Nevin was the house where the minister lived, and about half-a-mile from it was the place Thomas Williams lived. Thomas Williams had a daughter named Margaret living with him. Thomas Williams died in 1883 at the ase of 83 years, and his daughter died an old t'aid a little before him, at the age of about 50 years. He might tell them further that Mr Robert Hughes was kind and neighbourly towards them, as., sometimes visited their house as a neighbour to lee the old man and his daughter. He would now we them to the libel. On the 12th January of the present year, the Rev. Robert Hughes oalled at the shop of Riclurd Ellis Owen,bookseller.Llanaelhaiarn, when the latter drew his attention to the Gtoalia newspaper which had just come in; and pointed oat to him the two leter, which e(,ntai!?d the alleged libel. They were written under the heading or" The Llanaelhaiarn GhOÐt," and the first read in English as follows:—" Ati auswer to the question in the Gtcilia :-To the Editor.—Sir,—I was travel- line a thort time ago from Nevin to Llanaelhaiarn on a cold and frosty night, when the snow covered the earth, and as it was full moon, every objeot conld be decerned as if it had been daylight. By the tiire I had reached Llithfaen, it was drawing neat eleven o'clock, and although I was by myself I was neithf r afraid nor timid. Directing my steps towards Liinaelhaiarn and passing a small and poor looking hut, I turned my head and found an oM nun of about 8U years of age following me. 1 knew the old man when alive,and I reoognised him. Now I began to dread and perspire. I hurried on until I oame above Uwchlaw'rffynon, the old man still following me. To my great surprise and con- sternation, behold an old maid, tall, very thin, and somewhat ugly in appearance, met us. I reoognised her alw. I knew both well. I was never afraid of ther.1 be/ore; but now, standing between the two, v:,e on the right and the other on the left of me, lod I in the centre, I did not feel my feet under Nt. I felt my hair standing on my head, and the coll sweat running down my back. Somehow or other I determined to speak to them. I asked them in the name of God what troubled them ? and why they appeared to the living ? The old maid filled that she would teU the reason on two oondi- viz., that I would never disclose (1) their lames, and (2) the name, residence or occupation of the person or persons whom she ould mention. I oomplied, and she went on say- is "When on earth, we lived together for many JWrs, ana lived sparingly so as to collect a little fJ?De"V' to end our days without asking help r?m Pari3h or parson. We collected bont 91?0, v'9'torB came to us on false pretences. They took advantage of our ignoranoe, and stole our "My and that, in short, is the cause of our visit to yon. We are determined that those «j* sons BhaU not die like other men unless ""? eonfm their eins.-(Bigned). TRAVELLm.-Mr 0».n ,bpn he read that letter, knew to whom t -tf '? he drew plaintiff's attention to it. link "?°P??er followed this further state- ?Ont, ■! traM)ation of which was :—Corrobora- I"e ?Ir Editor -What" One from AnotW pt* heard is perfectly true, and I &\? °' # "h? I h?eseen and heard, that there irA in ♦v?m hftve Been an<* heard, that lore in tbi etish a great number of ghosts, I T ciiaii 'k^ them all one by one into light, that oth. K, the inhabitants of this parish knna, L 'L a?( ?' ??' The ODe I am #owg to  '"?'?? which my old wife aNndOne night when coming home from KKin? ?' ?*ery late, and the old woman entirely l.ii., .?? 'P pace with me, therefore I p Paoe w,th me, therefore I **>aii'tl«!v J of er, But oh! when I was "WtbeW,?s'h.??n. a little above that I be- held sometk- 8 the shape of a man coming '"wsrd o e, carrving a lamp in one band, and in th I ot er a i,ei that which the oolleotors of laratice onies --ive, I stayed at that plaoe ttntil the old 07Jln came to me, and I asked her "?? YM u tbt ?——'?" "Yes," she replied. i?rr??'"? y ?'?tened m.. too. He said "vd iMr S SM, y "ened me, too. He said "m"thiar b?,,t ??"6y that WM lost." come On, I ,id," and don't say a word ."and we dI'rect'li nn/ ? ? homewards hastily. The old "?'a ha "'fted h ? "'? u if she had only just "?M fro?m b?\'? she kept '? of me Ji'il we reached ?v, house. After a cup of tea our '"? 'eft M .? fear left what » I?"! spirits were restored. We 0tbad t;sen, and this old woman '? Prett?y m?'). ?e history of everything ?'hMh. -4 & ?°o"t fifty years. She II "M&Me At?oM? n)?.' '?'?''y what we saw that }bl. Aft" I nw "1 the the question of ?'" ?o? \???<'S?!.<. th. question ot ?'?h,.iM ° ?JM'.?." we htve trrivedat I ? ??t ? the Mme one ts ''? which h?  heard about but that it ?edin ?°?,°' On th.i night, and I 'huld b I V,rv Iad to g,t rid of this ghost, fearing ?b?e,Ky? °?? ?? 'st. 't..ring J*? carrying water f "°'"? '? the children ? ??'???? ?w? ?? '?' the we)). beoMM m?y ot ll, tav without T,trhe wtell utntil tit w' ,b.,Ylate. I be, love if number of the ??of?' ? ?) ? ?' me, and One from ^ari»h °U ,,catcfl him, chMn him, ati lt%ke him efap«Ttive. We might convene a ?'"?'??n ?'' ? °"ht convene t bit threu, -rneting and Pit him to death, and then ln4ke a biR 1)??titi,)n as long as the speech of 'vOQ'te of disBltablishmon' made ? uf the classical ifmffe that the Church is like a eat in the organ," then, after reoeiving enough of signa- tures, present it to the parish parson, and ask him would he be so kind as to allow us to open the large grave in order to lav there side by side with all the things that are already there, the ghost whioh disturbs some old man, according to the idea of one who is troubled with this gbost, We think it would be well to bury in thi new style, like bury. ing a dog, and if One from another" Parish" does not object, we would ask the pastor of Babell to say a word on the occasion. We shall do the thing as quietly as possible. It will be a private funeral. You shall have more of its history again. (Signed) ONE FIIOM THIS PARISH. The defendants, first of all, admit that they published the letters, but they denied that the statements referred to the plaintiff. An Act of Parliament provided a coane which the defendants might have adopted. They could have printed an apology in their newspaper. They could have pleaded that it was put in their newspaper without any malicious inteatiou, and paid a nominal sum as damages. If they had done so, they (the prosooution) would have been in this position; they must have accepted that money in satisfaction of the libel, or they must have proved that what they did was done with malioioua and gross negligence. This course the defendants had not chosen to pursue. The defend- ants were a limited company, and the capital was subscribed by persons who, probably, agreed with the opinions 9 x pressed in the paper; It was Well" known that this newspaper was a strong Cown,?., vative organ; and, on the other band, the plaintiff was a strong nvocate of disestablishment aDd a prominent Liberal. Defendants defeuded their action and tried to escape the responsibility. If they did not refer to the plaintiff-hecause this was not put in without referring to someone-whom did they refer to ? He would draw their attention to another question. Unfortunately it happened that Margaret, the (laughter of the old man, became insane about the year 1881, and became exceedingly violent during the period of her insanity, so much so that it necessitated her removal to Denbigh Asylum.-Mr Swetenham objected to the introduc- tion of this matter. They were not affeoted by anything said by an insane woman at Denbigh.— Mr Higgins: It is a story to which the paper refers, It got abont the parish afterwards.—Continuing, Mr Higgins said after the year 1881, and during the period of this woman's insanity, a story had got about the parish of Llanaelhaiarn to the effect that £120 had been stolen from the house of Thomas Williams, and that story was con- nected with the name of the plaintiff. It had since died away, until its reproduction in a public news- paper for the whole parish to read. He did not hesitate to say that this was the worst possible kind of libel, because it raked up an old story which had died out and which noootly believed. They often heard it was for political purposes these things were reproduced. He need not say this was a most cowardly thing to bring a matter like this before the public. He would oall witnesses, all respectable persons, who would prove that the letters were understood in the parish to refer to Mr Robert Hughes. The learned counsel then referred to the points in the letters which connected them with the plaintiff. A reference was made to the pastor of Babell," and that was the natne of the chapel at which the plaintiff preached. Plaintiff had also been lecturing in favour of disestablishment and had at one time in his speech made use of the words that the church was like a cat in an organ." WILLIAM OWES EVANS, a clerk of Messrs Turner and Allanson at Pwllheli, testified that he had made a translation of the letters published in the Gicatia. -By his Lordship: Is that a correct translation ? It is substantially correct ROBERT HCOBES, the plaintiff, said he had lived in the parish of Llanaelhaiarn Bince 1846. He bad filled several offices there as overseer and guardian of the poor. He knew Thomas Williams and his daughter. He was on very friendly terms with them, and scarcely ever passed their house without turning in, Thomas Williams kept a small farm, and was also a weaver. He died in 1883, and his daughter in 1882. He never in any way obtained from him £ 120 but on one occasion,when he was going to pay the rates, he borrowed about £ 3 from him,which he afterwards repaid. This was about 35 years ago. He had on several occasions lent Thomas Williams money, which were also repaid. Some three or four years ago there was a rumour concerning him in the parish to the effect that the daughter of Thomas Williams, whilst insane, had declared that he had taken her father's money. He rever heard any specifio sum mentioned except in the Gwalia. It was untrue that he had ever taken any of the old man's money. His attention was first drawn to the articles in the Gwalia by Robert Ellis Owen, a bookseller at Llanaelhaiarn, and he reoognised that they referred to him.—Cross-examined: He officiated as a minister at Babell obapel. He did not recollect that his solicitors had shown him a letter which they had received from the secretary of the Gwalia Company, in which they offered to give the name of the writer of the letters and to publish an apology, but disclaimed any intention of libel on their own part. lie was not bringing this action upon the understanding that if he should lose he was not to pay any solicitor's costs.-By Mr Higgins: He saw a letter from the Gwalia Com- pauy dated the 16th March, 1387, giving the name of the writer of the letters in question. It was David P. Thomas, whom he thought now lived at Llantair- feohan. Ho had been a pupil teacher at the Llan- aelhaiarn Board School, and used to read the lessons in the church. RICHARD ELLIS OWEN, bookseller, Llanaelhaiarn, remembered selling copies of the Gwalia of the 12th January, and recollected seeing in them the letters headed" The Llanaelhaiarn Ghost." He knew at once they referred to the Rev. Robert Hughes. He usually sold three copies of the paper every week, but that week he sold five copies. -Cross-examined: He never believed that the rumours previously circulated about the Rev. Robert Hughes were true. He knew that the words pastor of Babell" referred to plaintiff. THOMAS HCOHES, olerk to the Welsh Granite Company, pointed out several portions of the letters which convinced him that the person referred to was the Rev. Robert Hughes. Corroborative evidence was also given by John Jones, Evan Evans, Dr. J. W. Rowlands, Evan Williams, Dr. O. Wynne Griffith, and John Jones, Cae'rwrach. Mr SWKTENHAM submitted that there was no case to go to the jury on the ground of the decision in the oase of The Capital and Counties Bark v, Henty." It was necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the facts should be known bcth to the person who published and the person to whom it is published. The plaintiff had not gone further, and proved that the publisher must have known that these facts were true at the time he published them. The first question for the jury was, whether this artiole would be read in a defamatory sense by a person of ordinary reason, If, in the opinion of the jury, it would be so read; there was a further question, if there was any evidence upon which it could be raised, whether they were facts known to both the person who framed the alleged libel and to the persons by whom they were published. His LORDSHIP said the case of The Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty was wholly inapplic- ilble here, No one oould say that such words as "stolen our money" were not libellous if they referred to the plaintiff. If defendants published this thing written by someone else, they did it at their peril. The question for the jury was to say whether the person referred ID as having stolen our money was the plaintiff. Mr HIOOINS, addressing the jury, commented upon thef actlthat the editor of thenewepaper and the writer of the 'letter had not been put into the witness-box. He thought it would be safe to presume that the editor knew from whom these letters oame. The cist of libel was the Recusation of having stolen some money, and the jury wonld not hesitate to say that that was a libel. The next question for them was, whether those word? referred to the plaintiff. There were two letteM-one under the beadig of "The Hacae!haiara Ghost," and Bigned Travel- ler," the gist of which was a charge of stealing some money. The second letter was headed «orr^" rative Evidence," and which identified the Rev. Robert Hughes. First of all, his residence, and then he was desoribed as an advocate of disestab- lishment," who made use of the classical simile that the ohuroh is like a cat iu the organ," an ex- pression which he did make use of as testified ?.. ? ?f t).< witnesses. If the rep rod n etiun of an old story oonoerning the plaintiff was done for politio.. puposes, it was unworthy of the party who did it, and would be far more damaging to them- selves tbu to the pMtytowh.ohthep?mtiSbt ,?<? If this was 1 libel, and referred to the n?titf he thought they would all be of opinion 1?? ?wM of ? very serious mtnre. He would not Isk h? to award e.tr.vMant damages, but .u.h ? sum as would show their sense of the MnoaaneM 0f the libel. ° ???ENHAM for the defence, contended that there was no intention on their part to ATT&OK THE plaintiff. Nothing in the world wOl1ld be further '??' ?i  of the Couservativ.ar,ty, who  ? cut t. Thev bad given up the name of the I  8 apology In the paper, bt tha did not Beem to SUit plain- in the paper, but {aint;ff's object was to clear tiffs solicitor. j not to extract money from the  would ?" InMyflleared by the publish ing of any reasonab] al apology in the paper, an offer which was refused. He contended that plaintiff's charaoter had not suffered in any way, as they had evidence showing that the story was disbelieved by the neighbours. His LORDSHIP, in summing up, said the defendants were charged with publishing two libels. If a man was libelled in a newspaper, he had a right to ask for damages against the proprietors, even though they bad never heard his name before, nor had any personal spite or malice against him. Indeed, our characters would be in danger continually if that were not so. Newspapers now-a-days were not too unwilling to publish spioy letters concerning persons. Putting these two letters together, it would seem that they meant to impute to some. body that there bad been a gross misdealing with money. Mr Swetenham had addressed them as if in this case it were a matter of great importance that the defendants knew nothing of this when they published these letters. That had nothing to do with the case. Plaintiff did occasional duty at the chapel of Babell, and some of the witnesses who attended that chapel say that these letters would not apply to anyone more properly than to the plaintiff. There was not the slightest evidence on the part' of the defence that they applied to someone else. If they were satisfied that these words were written concerning the plaintiff, then came the question of damages. It had been strongly suggested on the part of the defence that this action had been brought in order to pot money into the plaintiff's pocket; but if the name of the writer was given, and it was found that seeing the newspaper pro- prietors who chose to put these letters in their paper was more satisfactory, then a man bad a per- fect right to do so. He entirely agreed with Mr Swetenham that a newspaper would not publish soch trash in order to put down political opponents. It was no defence to say that the publishers had no libellous intentions when they published these letters. Mr Swetenham Jiad truly told them that the plaintiff had not haJ any actual pecuniary loss in this matter; but if a man felt that his feelings had been hurt and his character disparaged in the eyes of his friends and neighbours, he had a perfeet right to ask for damages. The jury then retired, aud after an interval of a quarter of an hour, returned into court and pro- nounced a verdict in favour of the plaintiff, award- ing £10 damages.

I ANGLESEY SUMMER ASSIZES.…

Advertising

! THE NORTH WALES SCHOLAR-jSHIP…

THE BYE-ELECTIONS OF THE WEEK.

THE WIMBLEDON RIFLE MEETING*

SILVER ON THE BRAIN.

Advertising