Hide Articles List

15 articles on this Page


.-""- - ,-. - -.-......._-…




[No title]






WREXHAM COUNTY COURT. I This court was held on Wednesday, for the hearing of adjourned ard other cases, before J. L. Winston, Esq. Deputy-Judge. There were 114 cases entered into court, but a great portion of which were small debts, some were settled out of court, and others possessed no public interest. SAMUEL PHILLIPS, v JOSEPH THOMAS.—This was an action for the recovery of JE2 17s 3d, being the amount of rent dui for land let for the growing of carrots. Mr. Acton appeared for the defence. It appeared that the land was not properly cleaned for carrots, though when the contract was made, it was aereed that it should hp so; and that the plaintiff had had two loads of the car- rots. William Edwards deposed that he knew the land was in an indifferent state, having scuteb, dockweeds, &c.; and that it would be impossible to clean the land. Saw the carrots when growing several times. Saw Phil. lips take carrots away three times, they formed a better part than that taken by Thomas. Repeatedly saw Thomas and a number ot persons in the field cleaning them. John Thomas, being called, said he had been assisting the plaintiff for six days in cleaning the land, which was very dirty-full of scutch and dockweeds. Knew Phil- lips had had the best part of them. Judgment for the defendant—without costs on either side, AXON v. HUMPHREYS.—The defendant in this case who occupies the Black Diamond Inn, Tryddyn, was sued by the plaintiff, who is a wine-merchant in Chester, tor not quiting the occupancy of the Black Diamond lavern. Mr Bndgeman, Chester, appeared for the plain- tiff, and Mr Roper for the defence. Mr Olivar King, who is manager of Mr May's colliery at Tryddyn, stated that the agreement then put into court was entered into by Mr Humphrey's and himself. Mr Lewyn, being the attesting witness, which showed Mr Humphreys to be a quarterly tenant-the Black Diamond Tavern, being at one time his property, which he subsequently, sold to the plaintitt. The agreement is in my handwriting, and was written at Mr. May's office at Tryddyn. The object of having this agreement entered into, was, to separate the house from the garden, thus having two occupancies in- stead of one, reducing the rent from X20 to ;C 16-the £4. being for the garden, he could obtam a license much L M, cheaper. Anis was tue only object. Some receipts were here put in, the witness declaring them to be in Hum- phreys handwriting. By Mr. Roper: I had the agree- ment made to please Humphrey, and he has told me smce that the license had been reduced in consequence ofit. Edward Price was tenant previous to Humphreys, and had a lease of this property for ten years, but owing to a bill of sale being made, I had to redeem the proper- ty, and an agreement was entered into between myself and Humphreys; but never said Humphreys took the hoase for the residue of Price's time. Humphreys paid one L65, which was for possession, license and good-will; but never led him to believe that he should have the house, the residue of Price's time. I received money by instalments, the last being 920; but do not know wheth- er I received it from Mr or Mrs Humphreys and never said the lease was all right. M r George Lewyn being called he said he was book-beeper at Mr May's colliery, Tryddyn, and knew the .defendant. Reccollected the agreement which was written at Mr Kings' and Mr Humphreys. The object of the agreement was to reduce the license by dividing the rent. The public-house is near Tryddyn colliery, have been in the habit of dining there otten, and of paying defendant several sums of money. Cross-examined by Mr Roper I was requested to write the letter to Mr King requesting a lease by Mr Humphreys. It is not the first time for me to be in the witness box. Was not ordered out of the box at Chester. Mr Roper for the defence said there had been the most flagrant false swearing on the one side, or there would be on the other, as he would shew by the witneses it was most contradictory. Thomas Humphreys was called, who said he was tenant to Mr King, and had paid him £65 for possession, license, and the residue of Price's lease. There was about seven years and a half of the lease unexpired. Had spoken to King several times about the lease, and he said I should have the lease when I had finished paying £ 66. 1 did not put my name to the agreement now before the court, which makes me a quarterly tenant. It would not be worth my while to take a house quarterly, and was never asked to do so. In fetching money from Mold to pay the last instalment, I calle. with King, and said I was glad to be able to pay him, and asked had 1 better bring a legal gentleman up to him, or would he come down to Mold, so as to make matters right. He objected, saying it would cost me JE3 or j:;3 lOs i to which I replied that I was willing to pay. He called with my wife on the Monday following, and received £2U in my absence he afterwards told me the lease was all right. Recollect his telling me in March last that he should see I would not loose anything. By  ..Bndgean: The paper is not in my handwriting Pialnttf wlshd me to deal with him-refusing to do so, 1 received notice to qUit, I never requested Lyone to write to Mr ?ing about a lease. [A pen and paper were 0 a lease. [A pua and paper were hOle handed to tile witness for his .VSITmS™ Humphreys Recollect Mr King coming to our house, ,1 ask for my money. I Paid him 20 and w?teXe 1. U I.. lt;aat;. LOI(L mo tl1at would be the lease, meaning the receipt. It has color upon it, hi said. [The receipt put in court a\WIUt?a ?'S? carmine paper.] dwlid Pnce, who hdd the leas. prior to Mr Humpnreys, said 1 00 that Humphreys was to have the remain- der ot the le?e. Hia hoaom in summing up said it was very strange coidencc, certainly there was a discrepancy between the signature written in court, and that in the agreement and receipts given by Mr Humphreys. There being an error in it, which could be very possible. The agreement itself was not a very clear one. He could not give judgment lor the defendant without finding the two w ltuesses guilty of forgery which he would not do; but Le thought the agreement had been entered into, and that the defendant Humphreys must have forgotten all that it contained. lie tberetore awarded judgment for tue plaintiff. LDWAED LEWIS V JOSEPH DAVIEs.-This was an action lor £ S la 6d for ale, spirits, &c., &c., supplied to the defendant who occupies the Commercial lun, in this town. Defendant did not appear, and judgment was given for the plaintiff. GEOKGB NOKBUKY v JOHN WOOLRICII.-This was an action for sue guineas, being the value of a watch the property of the plaintiff, but in the defendant's possession ne Having lent a sovereign thereon. Mr Jones appeared for the piaintiff. George Norbury said he lived at Gres- tord, aud the defendant lived with his father and mother who kept a public-house in Gwersyllt. Went to his house on the 3rd ot March, 1853, and told him I was going lrom home, and was short of money, when the defendant of. tered to lend me a sovereign on my watch, which was to be returned according to an agreement drawn out at the time, and signed by ug both. The next transaction ot the watch took place on the 5th of .November, when I asked for my watch and put a sovereign down to pay for it. Delendant said he had set the watch by him it was out repairing; and afterwards slid I should not lave it until I paid an alescore I owed to his mother. I went there again on the 23rd of December, asked for IUY watch, and put a sovereign down on the table to pay foreit, when he i-aid I should not have the watch and the mother and broihers made a rush for the sovereign, and I believe Mrs Woolrich got it. They afterwards brought me change, whit h she said was the change of the sover- eign after paying the ale-score. By Mr Acton The 5th Xovember \1 on Sunday. I eill sunt a sovereign with my mother, but they would not deliver up the watch. Mrs Norbury, pltintitf's uioMier, said she had been to Woolrich's three times for the watc!l, saw de. fendant and he replied he would not give the watch up to anyone but to my son. Hugh lioberts and Mr Hey- wood, watchmake", also gave evidence. Mr Ac'on, who appeared tor the detente, called the defendant, John W..olriob, who said ihat. iu; had bought the watch out- and -out. PLinliff had been to their house, but had never olfc-ioil half-penny for the watch, ar.d was drunk when he came. Cross-examined by Mr Jones; Have had the wateh in my possession. Have been with it to Mr Fraser, the watchmaker. Had the dial-platu, which had Norbury' name on instead of figures, taken off, and a neN dial-plate put on instead and have had it altered ain. Never saw the sovereign mother ba.l. By the J ii,,Igo Saw the change given by mother on the floor, but never stiw the sovereign Mrs Woolrich wns exait-ined, but nothing fregli was elicited from her, she having partly resolved not to answer the questions put to her by Mr Jones. Edward Woolrich, also swore, that no money was offered to his brother for the wa'cb, till he saw was the chan ge on the floor. Verdict for pliLin-tiff- tlie watch ordered to be returned, and costs to be paiJ by defendant, liable to b', rcovered next court. J Kenrick Le wis had sued 19 persons to pay various sums of money lur medical attendance. Some were set- tled out of court. Mr Acton appeared for Mr Lewis. In one caM, two different accounts had been rendered, one by Dr Lewis, and the other by his collector. In another case, verdict was given for the defendant, who had bad some medicine four or five years ago, but never received a bill until now, he having paid for his medicine as he got it. A host of petty cases were heard, of no importance ex- cept to those concerned. Several orders for committals wore also granted. THURSDAY. IN RE PARKIN.—This day had been allotted chiefly to insolvency cases. The first case called on was that of Mr Parkin, of the Grove Park, Wrexham. Mr Buck- Ion appeared in support of the petition and Mr Rymer appeared on behaif of Mr John Clark, tailor and draper, and Mr Joseph Clark, two judgment creditors. Mr Rymor said the petition had been filed since the 2nd of August, 1859-five months ago, but circumstances over which the court, the insolvent, nor his clients, had any control, had prevented the case from being heard. This had given his clients time to consider the matter, the consequence of which was that their temper had become mollified. Thev had therefoie, no inclination now to oppose the petitioner, and if the Court should think fit to name a day for the final examination they should offer no ob- struction. lie had, however, a few questions that he intended to ask tte insolvent. Mr Rymer then put his questions to Mr Parkin with the following result. Had only one family portrait. It cost £ 10 originally. Had some jewellery and gold watches, but they had all, been sold more than twelve months ago. Had disposed of some sheep since his schedule had been filed. The money was in the hands of the auctioneer and would be paid into court. Mr Glascodine said it would be paid as soon as the auditor came. Mr Rymer said the Act of Parlia- ment did not include portraits in excepted articles, and he thought the schedule had better be amended. No doubt the assignees would let the family have it after- wards. This was agreed to. Mr John Clark was appoint- ed trade assignee, and the 22nd of February named for the day of the final order, and protection granted till then. The liabilities in this case amounted to;69337 10s, »3set3, £ 450. -A lagre portion of the liabilities are se. cured by mortgage. IN RE WILLIAM HUGHES. I In this case Mr Buckton appeared in support of the petition, and Mr Jones appeared on behalf of one of the creditors, Mr Lacon, ironmonger, of Oswestry. The case was an adjourned one, and it was understood, at the last court that Mr Jones was to state the grounds of his opposition he therefore called upon him to state them. Mr Jones: I decline to do so. Mr Buckton: But I call upon you to do so. Mr Jones: You may call the spirits from the vasty deep, but will they come ? The Judge suggested that Mr Jones should write the grounds of his opposition on a piece of paper and show them to Mr Buckton. Mr Jones said he might as well state them openly then, and proceeded to observe that the ground of his opposition was a long series of frauds in business transactions com- mitted against his client, the opposing creditor, and he was now seeking through this court a legal discharge from all liabilities. There were only seven creditors in the schedule, four of whom had set offs for the amouuts owing them, so that in reality there were only three. Of these three 275 was owing to his client,— Mr La- con, a small amount to a Mr Roberts, and E30 the in- solvent professed to owe Mr. Bunston, of Ellesmere, ironmonger, but he had reason to believe that there was nothing owing to Mr Burlston. He had also parted with certain goods for the benefit of Mr Burlaton, of which there was no account in the schedule. There was also other objections of a technical character to which he need not allude further. Mr Jones then pioceaded to cross-examine the insol- vent, who stated that he formerly lived at St Martins. Left in 1841 as nigh as he could guess, and had lived in Overton ever since-about 18 years. Paid Mr Lacon jM in his shop in Oswestry, in 1841, he believed, but he would give him nothing to show for it. Had offered to pay Mr Lacon as he could, but he Wi-uld not take it. He said he would sell a spoon if he could find one. Never owed Mr Lacon £ 41 43. 2d. The money he owed him was JB19. Mr Buckton rose hereto explain. He said the debt was L19, but judgment had been obtained against his client and costs incurred atlaw until the debt ultimately reached L70 and more with interest. That being the case, there was evidently an attempt to mix up the debt with other statements and affairs for the purpose of perplexing his client and it was time that he should protect him against such wanton and wayward opposition. The opposition was evidently got up to drive the poor sons of the in- solvent to pay. Mr Jones said Mr Buckton had no right to draw such inferences. Cross-examination continued-Lived in Overton in 1844. Owed some money then. Had a middling house of goods then. Sold some of them and put the others away. Put them away because Mr Lacon would not take the money he owed him. Put them into a friend's house. Buried a cart metal wheel in his friend's garden, because the bailiffs were coming to his house. The house was not clean empty when the bailiffs came-there was a little in it. Mr .Lacon got nothing. Francis Davies claimed some of these goods, and took them away. Mr Lacon went to law with Francis Davies, about the goods but Francis Davies got them. I got the goods back again It was the sheriff's man who unburied the wheel. Mr. Lacon was fifteen years and never came nigh me. Yes he turned up again-one morning I got a writ for L459 15s (laughter.) Mr Lacon: That was my lawyer's fault. The Registrar No; it was the fault of the system of those days. Cross-examination resumed Mr Lacon came to see me some time last year. No, I never lived in clover. (Laughter.) No, how could I be well to do, when I was in debt. (Laughter.) If Mr Lacon had come to house like a man, I might have done somethine with him, but he come like a bum hai-ley. (Lauglitpr.) Could not tell exactly when he received the writ-it was M .u- day morning when it was thundering and ligisuing. (Great laughter.) Sold a cow at Wr sham i-ur the Thursday after for £ 10, a heifer for t7, a can for C3 10ii alfo a cart for £ 6 15s, and a donkey for ZI 2s. Sold there to pay Mr Burlston. Sent some goods to a place In the county of Salop where the bailiff could not reach them. Took three loads in all. The Insolvent was severely cross-examined thus for a considerable time longer, particularly with regard to his dealings with Mr Burlston, who had a quantity of goods returned, a sum of money paid him, yet there was said to be X30 still ow- ing him. His honour wished to see Mr Burlston's in. voices, but they could not be found. The petition was ultimately dismissed. IN RE FREDERICK HATTON.— This was also an ad- journed case. There was no oppositiom and the final order was fixed for February, 22nd. FRIDAY. I The court was occupied throughout the whole of the day in tryiug the case of ickering v. WYlltt (A jury case.) The amount claimed was E47 for certain work done, and the defendant pleaded a set-off. Mr Bridgman, of Ches- ter, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Swetenham, for the defendant. After a short deliberation, the jury re- turned a verdict for the defendant.

[No title]



Family Notices