Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

7 articles on this Page

ABKRGELK. I

News
Cite
Share

ABKRGELK. I TB. BURIALS QUESTION.—K largely attended pariah meeting was he!d on Thursday week, the Rev. D. Evans, view, pre.id IIg, to bk. into consideration the communication rjo ivi 1 from the Secretary of State in reference to provi u>g h cemutery for tbe pariah of Abergele, aod t, ive-iv* *nd consider the "eprt of the committee appointed to iuBpeot different plots of laud regarded as suitable sitfs for ouch cemetery. The vestry clerk read a copy of his 10 ter to the Home Department and the r. V'y, in which the Hom,) Secretary declined to express any cpilli JD on certain points of law contained iu that letrH, or undertake tel give th» vestry instructiooa ia the matter, but j-uggeste i the expediency oî 0 taiutng legit advice. The ChairmiU Raitl the c b-d visited fuur p ece8 of ground wh:ch h»d '.e.¡) c nsiierel lik "y sites for a cemetery. In each t\t, e was D^ed of drain tge, but the eommittee had a¡;r".d that the p!oc adjoining the Cilvinistic buri.it ground wa* by far the uioat auitabe for their purpod*. It C iu d be cheaply dlaned, there was a road 10 it, H was in c¡".e proximity to t h. to no, aod was walieu on tw<> G»»«*inm«ftt wa* against sanctioning S'tes t" buriil pnrpoitS lU a <Frnwio,t where a tJWU w,is •»];■? y tl) increase, and it wa-- riuit\le on that ftccou it a U-i. It Wa proposed by Mr W. M. Chrke and second-i by Mr. Hugh Williams, 1 That a burial board he ap >-»i;j ",d f ,r the pirish «»f Abergele, end ihat the Horn t ""0 nary be requested to sai.c ion such appo ntin-u?.' Ir. Kooert Huberts oo"tor.de,1 that this es>lntim c »nld •!« t he pa>e d *xceptat a Vrstry convene! for thr pnpo-e, and moved a* an •inaodmiLt t'vit notice of icii intention he filst posted up in tbo ordinary way. Tilj «raf».»i]uji>t t wa* seconded by Mr K. Hughe*, u^ d o u<«t rtc ;v^ fmttur s>*pp rt, and th* resolution w t ,rr¡( d. PETTY SESSIONS.—SATURDAY. Assault!—Hubert E lis was charg-d with James Hodnett, manager of the Stviun Bote1, Colwyn Biy, on the 25th September. The complainant interfered in a fight betwean defendant and another nia'i iu th.i house, ani was nevrreiy maltreated in coa- sequeuco. Defendant was fined 20s and c,,t"Ellis Wid also summoned for being druuk and disorderly the same night, and fined 53 "od costs.— John Jones, Peel- atreet, charged with having L:riewoisly assaulted Mr H. Roberts (Bodrao), Alierg-le, thereby breaking his leg, was further i-, ui ta i,.1, tua o>:nj[>luuaut 8'¡;¡ unable to at'en 1. U<-f -ivi mt a.)d two sureties w^re again liound over. A Lionising Vase.—App'ieitiou was wade uD behalf of 1, ltoOert Hayworth, :\buctl?ster, for the transfer of the iicynae of the Rose Abbey Htt.1, Llandrillo yu Hh ja, to Mr William Price, the executor 4If the lata owner of the property. Unaware that Llan. drido had been reci-utlf inc uded iu the Aber<e!e division, thle licensee had applied as usual to the Con way magistrates for a renewal, wNich they were powerless to grant, and the justices now ruled that LO transfer could be grunted u ,Ie,s the license w»s produced. Tb" applicant was dir^ct^ci to confer with the magistrate t* olerk as tJ the proper CJUM 10 pursue the circumstanceB. Son At/elldetnee at School. -The øchool attendance dike" of the dis'rict of Llauf.ir.tal. faaxarn summontd O-ivid'Kyffio, Thomas Davies, and William Davies for ue¡;!eetit.¡; to seud their children regularly to school, aId the lI>ll\! order was IN: U<: in each case. luiportmit E;cc;"c (.(/se- Dr. S%W, proprietor of a hydropatinc at Brouderw, Colwyn lity, w is eumiujned by Mr Pre-s, district øupariobndent of fxciae, for having in his service a mile servant for nh >m he paid no license. From the statement of t'le ,np1 vinant aud anothvr officer, it appeared that the defendant bad in July bk-o out a carriage license, and that it waetheciietouiofr.he Excise in such cases to be vigilant that no npanservant was employed for whom payment of license was evaded. On tbe 26th August Mr Henderson, an excise-officer, observed a boy oleuniog the windows. The defendant was served the S'lne dav with a f 'rm of d claration as to any servants liihle to license, and after the expiration of 21 dayij both i fiicsrs callod urion Dr. Sltaw (the declaration not t-uvi g been returned), requesting to know what duties the boy performed. He (defendant) replied tint he cleaned buots and sboe., knives and forks, and attendt 1 upon the persons lodging in the house generally, being ueltel if the boy did notalsi Attend to the horse alJf1 trip, defendant an8wered, He does ail much as I d > He could not be induced to take out a license, as lie held ho was not liable, and preferred to coutei, the matter.—Tho boy, who was called as a witnes', deposed that be was imoloyed regularly by Dr. Shaw in the opacity of boots. He wa. there all day, but slept at, hum*. Dr. Shaw attended the horse him- self generally, and so;n-times a manll\wed John Jones. He bad groomed the horse often during the first fortnight. Had not 1» eo I\.k..d to cleao the carriage, but did so once or twice after the horse came. M r Chamberlain, Llandudno, for the defence, stated that the boy might, as he had admitted, have washed the carriage and cleaned the horse once or twice, but he contended that accord'ng to the section such a servant was not liable to li,-eD8e, as he was but partially employed and did not reside in his employer's bouse. The boy was kept f r tbe good of his master's trae- the hydropathic e,tabli.hment-to wait at the baths and attend to the wa-its uf tl1.. v:3ítors. and tw for his pwn iervice. He rcoopied precisely a similar position to a boots at an ordi •a'y hotel.—The Betch con-idered that a license should hive been taken out, but at the sariae time were of opinion there had been no attempt to defraud. A nominal fine of 5s was imposed, with 248 costs. THE QUEES (OST THE RELATION OF ROBERTS) r. ELLIS. Judgment was eiven on Tuesday in the case of "The Queen (on the relation of Roberts) v. Ellis," in the Court of Queen's Beach. The case had reference to elections for Local Boards. It was an application on the part of Mr Roberts for an information In the nature of a quo warranto against Mr Eliis, calling on him to show cause by what authority hit claims to exercise the office of a member of the Local Board for the district of Aber- gele and Pensam, in the county of Denbigh. The appli. cant, Mr Roberts, was one of the candidates who bad the majority of votes at the last election, and he claimed to have been improperly passed over by the returning officer as "not qualified"—the defendant, Mr Ellis, being returned instead. In March last tbera were four vacan. cies upon this Board, two of which were to be filled up from the Abergele district. The 25th of March was fixed as the list day for the nomination of candidates; the lld of April *s the day for the collection of voting papers; the 3rd day of April fand following days if necessary) for the examination and casting up of votes. The applicant, Mr Koberts, was nominated for one of the two vacancies in the Abergele Ward, together with elevso other cancilates, among whom were a Mr Lloyd and Mr Ellis, the defendant. A poll was demanded and dulv taken, and on tbe 3rd of April tbe votes wer" examined and cast up by the returning officer, when it appeared that for the Abergele Ward the following was the state of tho poli: Lloyd, 58; Roberts, 57; Ellis 52. The quiliScation required for membership on the Aber- gele district of tl.e Board by tbo Public Health Act, 187-5, is (1) residence, (2) either real or personal estate to the value of X-500 or rating to the poor relief on an annual value of not lees than £15. The returning officer being of opinion, on inquiry, that Mr Roberts, the ap plicant, did not p s<e»s the necessary qualification, Bent a letter to him on the 9th of Ayril, asking him to attend next diy to prove his :1uaJification, '18 othcr, wise be wou'd not return him as a member, even although be obtained a majority of votes. Th;s letter the applicant duly received, but took no 1Jotice of it, and did not atteud. The returning officer thereupon mads further inquiries, and aa;n examined the poor- rate assessment book, in which he could not find any proof that the applicant possessed the requisite qualifi- cation. On the 14th of April he accordingly certified Mr Lluycl and Mr Ellis as elected for the Aberg-le ward, and in bis certificate wrote against the name of the applicant the words not qualified.' Of this certi- ficate and return the applicant complained, the defend- ant, Mr Ellis, having thereupon taken his seat and acted as member of the Board. The applicant, in his original affidavit, confined himself to a general allega- tiou of his own qualification for his office, and did not io any way explain the origin of the controversy but the affidavits filed on behalf of the defendant explained the grounds on which the returning officer passed over the applicant as not qualified. It was admitted that he was not rated on an annual value of £15, and the returning officer denied that at the date of the election Mr Roberts was possessed of any properly to the ameuafc of £500. Tbe applicant nHeged his qualification to have consisted (I) of cattle, stock, and other effects of two farms in the parish, but outside the district of tbE" Board (2) of six loss-hold houses, let by him at £26 per annnm, subject to aground-rent of £2 7s; (3) of furniture in a house rented and occupied by bim in Abergele, and of cash at his banker's. No further de- tails, however, were given by the applicant to show i oW the £500 was arrived at, nor was his affidavit suppor'ei by that of any other person. It was not disputed that he was formerly ia business in the town, but he had for some years ceased to carry on his trade. Up to the year 1872, he rented and was rated for a farm of the gross e<timated rental of £61; but in the beginning of that year, being involved ia litigation, he sold his stock aadeffectsand transferred his tenancy to his son-in-law On the 6th of November, 1879, a poor-rate was made Ur the parish, in which the son-in-law's name was ill. Mrted as occupier of the farm, and the receipt for the late was taken and given in his name. The applicant, (■ hie affidavit, swore that all his debts and liabilities W been discharged, and that his on-in-)aw has 86m8 thae simos I given up possession of the farm to him, I and that the applicant is now the sole tenant and occu. pier, and that the cattle, stock, and effects en the farm wen at the date of the election and still are his own property. Up to the time of the election, how. j rvar, no change had been made in the rate-book. It* rate ef Koumber, 1879, taring bera ia the M-in. law's name. After, but not before the election, the applicant gave notice to the overseer that he req uired to be rated iu the place of his Bon-in law, statiog in his letter that he was the tenant' since Srptember, lS7: It further appeared that the applicant was living in a small house in Abergele of the rateable value of £7 12 8d, the furniture being valued in the affidavit of the returning offioer at £20, and tbe value put by the applicant on tbe six leasehold houses not being ad uiitted before these facts, it was argued on behalf of the defendnnt, Mr Ellis,—first, that whatever the truth as to the applicant's qualification, the decision of the officer vas final and conclusive, if honestly and fairly ■Kiven and next, that ou the evidence it was right. Theca*e had been argued before the Lord Chief Justice and Mr Justice Bowen, who had taken time to consider their judgment. Mr Juatise Bowen now read a written judgment, in which the Lo-d Chief Justice concurred, and iu which, the facts having been set furtb to the effect above stated, the learned Judge proceeded as follows:—The rules for the eectiuu of Local Boards are contaiued in the second schedule of the Public Health Act of 1875, and the. rule material to the present l'ase is No. 5-'The Ckudidates, to the number to be eleoted, who, bfing duly q valified, have obtained the greatest number of votes, allan be deemed and shall be certified by the reo turning officer to be elected, :1 to eacb per Bon so elected the returning ofifcer shall forthwith send notice of liis election.' Tbese rules, though professing to pro. v;de the necessary machinery for an election, nowhere stato who is to decide, iu case of dispute, whether a candidate is qualified or not. This incooveuieut omis- sion has given rise to the present difficulty, as we are loft to infer from a laborious colatio" of a Urge number of rules whether the Legislature really intended any'- bxly, and, if BO, whom, t > he a tribunal, with power to decide on a disputed question "f qualification. Tbe absencs of express statutory reference tel tbe .111 ject has been relied on equally by both sides, as proving, according tl one side, that the returning officer, or according to the other, that the CJnrt. of law, are to decide such disputes when they urise. That tho returning officer is clotoed with some judical functions is certain, as under Rule 51 he is to decide on the validity of disputed votes, which was held by the Court in the case last year of "The Queen 1'. Collins" (a case reported in The Times, and in "L. H. 2 Queen's Bench DivIsion "j. Toat he is not judge for all purposes ",o"ld appear to follow from this, that ho i. not intrusted with a similar power over the validity nomination papers. We do not on this occasion propose to decide the question of law whether the decision of a returuilJg olficer who passes over a duly-qualified can- (ii iate in favour of some one else is necessarily final. There is sutScient in the special circumstances here to indoce us to believe that it would be a mischievous exercise of our discretion if we were to make the rule absolute in favour of the applicant. We tiiiuk that if there has beJu a miscarriage of justice (which is by no means certain) the fault restB i" the main with the ap. plicant himself. He appears in 1872 to have parted with the property which is nece,s.ry to make up tne quali- fication on which he relies, an i though be stites iu his affidavit that he resumed pos"es,ion "80UJC time since," a vague reference which seems intended to point to or abstain from pointing to the 1st of September, 1879. But as late as November, 1879, he was stillleavinl( his son-in-law to be rated and to pay rates for this property. It was only after the election, aud after the ill stake, if any, had arisen, that the applicant took steps to have his own name inserted in the rate-book. A returning officer can only judge of qualifications by tbo materials before him. In this case the officer examined the rate. book, but before finally arriving at a conclusion as to the applicant's qualification, wrote to him to request him to attend and prove what h's qualification was. Of this letter the applicant took no Dotice, and if, in con- sequence, the returning officer was led into an error, it seems to us that tbe applicant has himself to thank. A persun who, under such circumstances, applies to this CJurt for relief is bound, we think, to make it doubly clear to the Court that his case is a bond fide one, and tbat his conduct has not been purposely misleading. This the applicaut has failed to do. He has not attemp. ted to explain the cutiuunnce of his son-ic-law's name on the rate book dowa to the time of the election, and no affidavit is filed by his son-in-law in confirmation of his fatber-iu-law's claim. The returning officer appears to have done his duty, if not successful, at least to the best of his power. For these relsons, the application must be discharged with costs.

IABERFFitAW.

I BETTYVSYCOED.

CARNARVON. I CARN ARYON..…

ICONWAY. I

I DENBIGH. !

HOLYHEAD.