Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

8 articles on this Page

I .. C \. - ,-, W" I .I.I?"..-"-…

News
Cite
Share

I C W" I .I.I?" I I ? :\t). Pi'.T.Y SESSIONS. 0 ,'n.v IS")'.— I Wo re Captain j! '<. Wi,IIHJ,E.t¡. 'i.H-.r. !5!.iA.«Y CASE AT THE Rnos,- 1 1. 1 } .'?'?),? Y..i.:?.t:'t)) I :t!d inth" d on h; nt:i;'rn'd 11 woman named i'uah ),j. iv.nii.T wif-. Sawh Evans, hcinff Still"  -}- t: A'i (t'?r Mr. Hymor) appeared ir •. i.„T Sarah Davies. wifo ?f Edward •' I, !!?"? <?'d to ?'ln? present:? j" xl il-u T!I«* PRIMMER and his tirst wife ".1.. 'I 1'1 I 'tti 'h 1- '.) .? ?jr. K(tsw"'th office. She knew ??n-wrt).? th';Yl'?'l at the I'onkey ':I'" .1. 'J'¡ ? h.T "V.'n house. They afterwards live! t<>- ,1 ), .r n h?t*e. ?. _?? ;)J wif' f'?T some time. The groom's  ?',t. -asi'iii "t ?" marriage w?s Jonathan p5 ?.. j,?.. inr"u''l. His ti?t wife lea him- ■'r> 1 sine" died. His first wife leitliim" ?'* ?, r?l. at!» mother's. She lives with '? ?t' 'r- .? luis ?''? ? a I?H- Had heard it said ? rr married, hut (nd not know it of her iViol '1' mmiL'with w h om she ?. ,:w¡\,l. olt' m:m !laUlt' Wit w om S Ie ..?j,n J.tm? (alias Barnabas Jonc?.) '? :"nl'r allwin. ¡'inf\' marri",ll'uah Hoherts •t!* rai l "'?? '?''??"?S"?'? ?'??? Iiu))c'rts ■- '1 b;'r:o" j wiHm? to live with her. j 't 'aniH-ars, however, has ?'? him ?'?'g I 1, .œ 1 I' ) "i v.>va2-- of discovery into Staffordshire) .l.i u-Lv he married a si-eond time was l>e- f,: !i;t?''?' h.tdlt'hhmt undtuarru'd again in |i'liis was aU which h had to sa/. tlii* said t!?tt ]n'would h ■ e.nnmit-  to take his trial for the charge. On till' ;¡,.iz, t" LI! 11.. tna l1r tie I'Harg, On 'IVttion of Mr. Al ton, hail was accepted for vj; two '??"? of tln each and ''?? :„ ).?? An application was then made for ;¡!r,.j¡"!1<1 his tirst wife who wa in .?? i..n?('d as there was no proof of produced to warrant the Bench "1¡c, We have reason to believe, however, ^Set-bar,?- it her can be proved, as the is known, and moreover, the parties 'rilr. admit the charge. "RI'IVREI: or LICKXCE.—The licence of the Furn'tee Inn. lhymbo, was transferred from lii-kmia to :\1 r. John Itostoek upon the appli- ,.f the latter. '11,¡"tr;¡!l'; d,'rk intim;lktl that no IJetty r iitiiii-.Ltt-(l that no petty will he held on Monday next on account li niiii'h-hire arizes. WREXHAM C'OIRXTY COURT. •uv..In.v 1,5ï.-nefort. E. L. E"tlOt .1 ",lil. r et whi'-h was l.el.l on Tuesday last, had r, .ua mnt of business to transact, Ii S adjourned eases and r■! ■ eMinitiiif nt. T!ie following are ,,1 ,¡'t'" Sninc n.—The plaintiff in this action u i:-Kr, "I Wrexham, souglit to re- Mr. S iv.iui'l Streteh, l uteher, under the ■.u!ii-inees. Oil the 27th of June, • ire'l her horse an.l (airt to the de'en- s.nse lieef to Chester fair. There was I)iit • 'ta'tiv it l«r*'ed t:¡:ít s he should have (13. rJ-"h tH<: un'h r.-ian.li i:: that the horse was tj bo it) ti't,io::k in the nlllrning, The iiiin" wis sent with the horse, and he tir-i h >:ne until 10 o'clock at niht, al- Stretch had detained him in Chester. ■ the pliintitf had received Js, fr..m S inmels, junior, and Is. from the dc- the ];:tl t)ccn m.'¡ ("r s;, :In,},Nt Ij,an,l als) tl1,.t a-; she harllot fa-wrvice* <>f the horse and man for 12 hours, the present action was brotighr. Thi- defendant, how- tvtr, Lmuglit witnesses to prove that the man's" in Chest, r wa< entirely his own fault, as he !:Ii' \I"e ;1I'1 ¡'"me at 1 "Jock, "nly that he rf g ods for Mr. Davics, IOf l..v>! r l"n Ut tries.- circumstances, his Ilon- rec-o,or U*. Jesr. J. J-sr.—This was an action to nt'iver il s by 1 Lc plaiutiff, of Mr. J.jnc;, who keeps a mill at .rymbo. In May last, tic plaiutiif engage! to Kork fir the defendant for is. per we-k, board, and lo It was further ffiiukti'd t!ii, as the i,laititilrs family lived at ILv» t'll, JIt, "11, ulu haw- u day or so once a month t..d see them, which time i,.i tir?1'r t,i:it fit- Ij i h E 11 w« to 1* made up by the plaintiff working over to*. After going home twice, he felt anxious to leave'letendanl's service and tol.l him so. A few day's alter, on his master's return from Wrexham, Leiiain expressed his wish tu leave, on which de- trfjuant threatened to make mince-meat of him, m then to throw him into the mill pool, (a tit-bit tortile lisil we presume). This brought matters to a crisis; but tile defendant refused to allow him for t»rti!iie, and deducted the 4 days which he hi iii 114!1. The present action, therefore, »jj tu H'i'iivcr for this overtime which he had put i lgr:i iii ,t book. Mr. Jones and his brother de- ti*d that they had ever intended him to go home i ctniiort'.ire.- days at a time, and not to charge for ILe lo-i-n -t likely. On the night in question, he iaautei] taeir .sist-r by refusing to give her some fi t'tt; mi11, and also f'enied most posi- t:rt;y thi ir pr "inie.ng, before the Minera policeman, t' settle with him on the following day. After wawiainj the policeman, who gave very confused evidence, his Honour said the p!aintiff could not recover: but toll the defendant that he was a very iu tcmjierel mm —Judgment for the defendant. IIOLLANII v. To,rs.-This was an action iinught by the phiintitf, at present a shoemaker ut Itrymh i, but formerly the occupier and to. the landlord of a public house there, to re- cottT £ j os. of the present tenant who holds the u ijtr n lease, for certain fixtures left in the when the jdaintitf left it, and which had not fir. Mr. Uuckton aiipcared for the Paintitf and Mr. Lewis for the defendant. The {'limtitfin givinj his evidence stated that the fix- tuTi.s( pictures, ic. which bad not been paid for, he had jiMtnised to leave in the house for the use yflae deleiiduiit until the expiration of his lease, i-ut that lie wis 11 1":1, t:-e-m in the same condi- gn as when he had them. However, he had a?k- M *r the ;)ic'!ir?, son? dishc,, and a wheelb?r- fjv u' h i i him, the detendaivt slrinjthat he Would be answerable for them. As lt'J admission of the plaintiff decided the case Oiast himself, his Honour gave a verdict for the J|r. L'wis intimating on bis part that I r 0 plamtilf eoulil have tlie pictures whenever he ietuh tlioiu, w,-t,i an action for wages, brr Ann Jones cngased with the defendant, Mr. «tal«uac, farme r, near ]Iolt, for t6 wages for the ^hf asked permission of it to Margaret Isaac, the defendant's sister, for her- "'If and tne uther servant girl, Jane Morris, to I' -'lit lur a sliort time, which she gave, stating to J:.n" )Iurl'i,; that they must he at home at beutitne, i,h wa< 10 or half-past 10 o'clock. It was seven mrk win-it tlji-y left, and they camt: to Wrexham ;t' al,qut a L:nt't. Tilt' tal'tcd ]101111' from _-?.i'ut t a Thi?v started homf from r xiiarn at U ./c ock, running part of the wav niilcsy but when thtT gut hunw every to be(i and although they knocked time they could not make any one hear, they tlml eaiui' hack to Wrc-xbaiii. They were tri^atciicd, and on romi!i £ near Spring Lodge Y Mr. LliUh, the litilieonian, whom they told about it." It was then 1 o'clock, but they got MiiniMn thotou-n. "When they returned home n,1t dai- Jri" l':lc told them to grl back from hfre tlieycanio, andrefusod to lot them have either Lr,r u'a,,i or their clothes. The amount claimed ^s* SJ. for It weeks service. Mr. Lamb cor- rb their 1'\ idence in part. lie met tho two "k in the road crying and seeming much fright- ?'!i"t..id him that they had been unable togd ?'Mr h.?< Ht. told them to go on to the town to' J Ii *v"dd stop and see them safe as far as the (< x nQ-—Miss haaesald that she had given them t 1,1 ttainly, 1lt had strictly told them ??urnhyl0(,?o?' She heard no knocking all, n?ra'ty Il0be whatever. It was one o'clock a"i tacy came hack the next clay, and she told  tu so a hout their business, and also refused to tbf?n) their wa?es or their clothes.—His Hon- ?"'?) he !utL,t give a verdict for the plaintiff for t!¡l: fun athf.unt. 0 Addressing the defendant he ad-. .].» "i ?aae it appears to me that you have ac- tt? ?' n- haMh!y indeed with these poor girls. It t ev did return home and were unable "fetin the house, and your conduct was very In lJwlf., v. VI.IST.—This was an action to rc- f-fiv,r .)f ?20 by the plaintiff, Mr. William j).lormerly landlord of the Commercial Inn, R ???'n. but of late vears in the employ of Messrs. ?ll,A-laii,l "lid biewers, of the defendant, Mr. 1%, nl- "nt' the proprietor of a brewery at Biatre r nta!' Af"ld f"r a breach of promise of contract, and f,,r 'erta"1 expenses incurred bv the plaintiff fjr to)<? defendant in consequence of that promise. ? ?u<kt?n appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. p of Mold, for the defendant. Mr. Buckton 5^' t'lL' ca*e. Ilis client had been a resident in Wrp Mh am for many years, and at one time kept the ? micerctal Inn in this town. For the last seven ?'a? he had acted as manager for Messrs. Itowland <jn, brewers, and was in the receipt of 185 per ——? v?M. with board and lodging. In the latter (¡f November last the defendant went to the W THT ead and ??' his client ? ?c yard. He tc-1l his intention to commence in the brewing ^a Tld ???' ? ?"? conversation proposed to the PtaJ,fff to become hia manager, and also partner, he 0 1 a ner, c :enant) nnding the capital to work the concern. 1:; chent demurred at first, being taken somewhat k at so sudden a proposal, and told him that he -.<' prefer acting as a servant for wages. Ho called in the next morning and it was agreed that he shouldhav020 a week wages, and one third of ot the net profits, he at the same time to become his partner. It was agreed that the phintiff was to go to the defendant's house on the following Thursday, and he did so in company with Mr. Evans of the Market Hall, a maltster. He left Mr. f-vans at Pont-BIvddyn, and went to Bistre, and after- wards he (his client), Mr. Flint and Mr. Evans met at the Star Inn, Mold. The plaintiff on this occasion told Mr. Evans that he was going to take Mr. Da vies as a partner, and as he (Mr. Kvans) was his friend he should buy all his malt of him, which would be 120 bushel s per month. On their leaving the inn in a trap, 111'. Flint remarked thut he (Mr. Davie?) should have one for himself to ride, and wished to purchase Mr. Evans's horse for that purpose. Subsequently the defendant called at the Market Hull twice, and on each occasion repeated the same kind of remarks, on the last occasion sav- ing that he had taken a cottage for the pbintii which would be ready for him on the 10th of Feb- ruary, and again stated that he should deal with Mr. Evans for malt. It was also arranged that his client was to go to Bistre with Mr. Jones the plumber, in order to see about a pump for the brewery—whether a new one would be required or what alterations would be made in the old one. '1 hey accordingly went over in the early part of January, arid, with Mr. Flint, inspected the brewery. It was decided then to have a new pump, and on Mr. Jones aud Mr. Davics differing as to the pipe to convey the water, Mr. Flint remarked to Mr. Jones, that he was to take his instruction from Mr. Davics a-? he was to be his manager. He also showed Mr. Jones the cottage which he had taken for him. Mr. Jones was ordered to make a new pump, but before commencing he was t) send in his estimate for the same, which he afterwards did. It had been agreed before that the agreement to be drawn up between the plaintiff and defendant, and consequently Mr. Edward Jones, solicitor's clerk, was employed to draw a draft, which, to- gether with a letter from his client was forwarded to the defendant on the 14th of January. No answer was returned to this for about a month, when the defendant wrote to say that he did not agree with it in every particular, but that the alterations would not be material. lie also apologised for not writing before, by saying that he had been very unwell. On the 8th of April the plaintiff went to the defen- dant's house, when he got back the draft, 1\[r, Flint saying that on account of his ill-health he was anxi- ous not to enter into the business and recommended Mr. Davies to look out for another partner, and that he would let them the premises at a moderate rent. On the 14th of April he went there again in com- pany with Mr. Evans, when lie agreed to go on, and again spoke of having the malt from Mr. Evans, and appointed the following Monday as the day when Mr. Davies was to enter on his duties A letter, however, was received, by the plaintiff from him a day or two afterwards saying that by reason of ill-health and his wife's objections he had deter- mined not to enter into the brewing trade for the present. On account of these inducements and negotiations his client had given up an excellent situation worth 30s a week had incurred sundry expenses, and superintended certain alterations, and had been thrown out of employment for ten weeks, and for these expenses and losses he now came be- fore the court and claimed some compensation. He called Mr. Davies who detailed at great length the whole of the transactions, and stated that on the Itth of April Mr. Flint gave a direct order to Mr. Evans to send 30 bushels of malt per week. Mr. Jones, plumber, corroborated the statement of the plaintiff as far as it related to the conversations which took place in his presence, and also to the plaintiff asking him to become a partner in the brewing trade, but he did not remember whether he said with him or Mr. Flint. He refused as a matter of course, and thought nothing further about it. Mr. Evans was next examined, but denied that Mr. Flint had given him any" direct" and positive order for malt—nothing of the kind: but he said he would deal with him when the brewery was commenced. This discrepancy in the evidence gave rise to a long discussion, and on Mr. Davies being called upon to explain his words, he denied recollecting having used them, but admitted that no order had been positively given. Mr. Eyton then addressed the court for the defence. The action he said was for a breach of contrast. Xow if acontraet had been proved, the plaintiff was defend- ant's partner and consequently he was out of court for one partner could not see another. If there were do contract, then there were absolutely no grounds for any action at all, for mere verbal promises went for nothing. In either case, he con- tended that the plaintiff had no grounds on which to bring an action. His Honour remarhl that if a person left a situation, performed certain journeys, gave certain instructions, and incurred expenses for another person and by reason of promises made to him in the presence of a third party, there were le- gal grounds for an action to recover compensation. Mr. Eyton then said he should take the case upon its merits. The gist of the defence was that the agreement drawn up by Mr. Davies went a great way further than his client had intended. It men- tioned a malt-kilnas well as ahrewcry, which would require a capital of between £1,000 and £2,000 to carry them on. This he was not in circumstances to do; and this coupled with his ill health determin- ed him to relinquish the intention. As to his being out of employment for ten weeks, he was a weekly servant, and it was his own fault if he gave notice before he was finally engaged with his client. His Honour said that in his opinion both parties had been to blame. The plaintiff had acted hastily in giving np one situation before he was sure of a- nother, and the defendant did not seem to have known his own mind for two weeks together. The plaintiff had given his evidence in a very confused manner, and in the matter of the order for the malt had stated what was not true. At first he believed the case was an important one, and that he should have to give a verdict for the full amount. Xow lie could not do so. But as he had done something for the defendant, he thought he was fairly entitled to a little. The defendant must pay him ?j which he thought would be fair to all parties. Ycrdict accordingly.—This case occupied the court a little more than 3 hours. MUMFORD y, DAwsox.-This action (flJr£2 10s. for a half year's rent of a cottage at Bangor) which had been twice adjourned before, was again ad- journed to enable the plaintiff to amend the terms of the summons —the plaintiff paying the costs of day.—Mr. Lewis for the plaintiff-jft". E. Pugh for the defendant. ELIZABETH PuGirv. JOHN* ROBERTS.—The award of Mr. Edisbury was read in this case. The claim was for £1:! 12s. 3d., and the award was for that amount, with an intimation that the estate for which the defendant was executor had no effects. A. D. JoXKS y, S. LI.OVD.—This was another award by Mr. Edisbury—-the claim being £3 los. and the award Sd The court only allowed the claim. JOHN* WII.LI.VMS v. Tunon C. WILLIAMS. —Tiie plaintiff sells slates, &c., atTrydden, and the action was to recover the value of o,'i00 slates at 42s per 1000, sold by him to the defendants, who are employed in the erection of a new house at Trydden. It appearing from the evidence th:11 the house was being built by one John Lloyd who has taken it by contract and whose place it was of course to find slates. As however the plaintiff swore that Lloyd did not give him any order, and that the defendants did, Mr. Lewis said he should not pro- ceed any further as it would only be one person swearing against another. Verdict for plaintiff.—■ Mr. E. Pugli appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Lewis for the d 'fendant. SHEaR.vr v. PIERCE.—This action was brought to recover compensation (£2) for the loss of one game cock, three hens, and "seven choice chickens," which were shot by the defend lilt with a gun. The plaintitl'is a solicitor's clerk, and lives at Crescent-place. Wrexham, the defendant being son of Mr. Pierce, tanner, of this town. Mr. Acton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Lewis for the dctendant, Mr. Acton stated the case. His client lives MI a row of houses forming Orescent-place, at the back of which there is a small yard. Adjoin- ing this yard and separating it from a croft belong- ing to Mr. Pierce, is a low fence in which there are a good many holes and gaps. The neighbours' fowls get through these holes into the field which is planted with mangle-wurzel. Mr Pierce wrote a letter to his client threatening to shoot the fowls if they were allowed to trespass any more, and his client wrote him a letter back daring him to do so, and asking him to put the fence in order. The threat was no idle one, and on several successive days 1 cock, 3 hens, and 7 chickens were put hors de combat. He then called two little girls and Mr. Smith as witnesses who proved the death of the fowls, the bad state of the fence, and in one instance, of the defendant shooting at and killing a hen and some chickens. The defence was, that the fowls are a terrible nuisance, that it is impos- sible to make any fence good enough to keep them out, and also that the fence does not belong to Mr. Pierce, but to the owner of the property. His Honour said the law as to the trespassing of fowls is in a very unsatisfactory state. Legally, Mr. Pierce had no right to shoot the low Is, but tinder the circumstances, he should only give a verdict for os. Judgment accordingly. At the close of the case, Mr. Lewis and his Honour, highly com- plimcnted Mr. Acton on his Urst appearance In that court and on the way in which he had con-I ducted his case, the former expressing his warm approval of it, which he said be was sure was felt by all the other members of the profession present. There was a number of small cases after this, but nothing of any public interest.

| DISTRICT ITI3W3.

[No title]

CORETESPOITDENCE. v -, ...…

[No title]

--BANKRUPTS.—FIUDAY.I

[No title]

Advertising