Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

22 articles on this Page

Advertising

-"WREXHAM RAGGED SCHOOLS.

SALE OF THE WESLEYAN CHAPEL.…

TO THE SABBATH SCHOOLS. -..-…

[No title]

lBOROUGH MAGISTRATES' COURT.

[No title]

ICOUNTY MAGISTRATES' COURT.…

WREXHAM COUNTY COURT. I

News
Cite
Share

WREXHAM COUNTY COURT. I WEDNESDAY, AUG. 21ST, 1861.—Before E. L. RrCH- ARDS, Esq., Judge. The court sat this morning at half-past ten. There were 150 cases on the list, some were settled out o court, and the majority possessed no feature of interestf to rhA nuhlir. NEW THTATi.—HUGHES V. ROBERTS. I Mr Rymer (in the absence of Mr Lewis) moved for a I npw trial in the case of Mr Hughes, maltster, against M Roberts, Town-hill, judgment for which had been given by his honour at the last court. The new trial was sought on the ground that the plaintiff was taken by surprise by the evidence of the witness Studley, which he then was unable to refute. Further evidence had been obtained which would enable the plaintiff to do go. After a few observations from Mr Wyatt, who appeared for the defendant, his honour then read portions of the evidence as given before him on the hearing, and then refused the application for a new trial. ACTION FOR WAGES. Bryan Smith sued Thomas Williams, of Broughton Hall Iron Woiks, for the sum of 5s. alleged to be wages due. From the plaintiff's tale it would appear that he was employed by the defendant, at the Brough- ton Hall Iron Works at 2s. 6d. per day. He worked t\\ o turns, but finding he was unable to tollow the employ- ment, he did not come to work but applied for his wages which was refused. Mr Jones, who appeared for the defence, cross-exam- ined the plaintiff, who denied having entered into any contract subject to the printed rules of the company. Thomas "Williams, the defendant sworn, said, I work at" the Broughton Libil Iron Works. I engaged the plaintiff to work at 2f. 6.1. a day the first week, promis- ing to raise him the following week. I engaged him sub- ject to fourteen day's notice on both sides. Plaintiff worked two turns, and did not come again. I had to take his place. The notices (a copy of which is pro- duced) are posted up on the woiks. Plaintiff haviDg put a question to defendant, denied ever making the contract, or seeing a copy of the rules. Thomas Mansfield, sworn, I heard plaintiff agree to work for defendant at 23. 6d. per day the first week, sub- ject to fourteen day's notice. His Honour gave judgment for defendant, but re- minded him that printed notices bung up at the works were not valid; and judgment was given in this case upon Mansfield's evidence of their being a contract en- tered into between them. "JOHK JONES" V. "JOHN JONES." TIIIR action was brought by John JODe, in the em- ploy of Messrs Griffiths, Jones and Co., Felinpuleston Mills, to recover JE5 4s. from John Jones, slate mer- chant, of this town, for work and labour done as a writ- ing clerk in keeping and making up defendant's books- eing 25 days at 4s. por day. Mr Jones appeared for plaintiff and Mr Wyatt for de- fendant. Mr Jones having stated the case, called upon the plaintiff John Jones, who being sworn, said: I am plaintiff in the present action, and seek the sum for work done in assisting defendant to make up his bcoks. [Plaintiff here went through some memoranda made of hours occupied in doing that work, which made a total of 26 daY8.1 I did this work bt Mr Jones's house at his requegt. f re- collect going with defendant to Mr Bayley the stationer's, to buy a new set of books, and have worked upon these books. I have applied to him for wages, by letters, and had an interview with him at the Temperance house, Hope-street, when I asked him why he did not attend to my letters. He replied that I charged too much- he could get any one to do it at 2s. 6d. per day. I said, yes, some sort; but no respectable person would do it at that." Before we parted, he promised to send me money on account. By Mr Wyatt: Knew defendant in 1853. Did not get my schooling from Mr Jones gratuitously, I paid him 2d per week. I never agreed with him to have schooling and books, and that I would recompense him on any future occasion. Did not agree to keep his books for 1861 at 15. Have occasionally had my supper and a bed at his house. when we sat late with the books. Mr Wvött, in stating the case for the defence, admitted the work had been done; bnt thatthe defendanthai educat- ed the plaintiff, who was a poor lad at the Rhos, and gave him books, when he (defendant) kept school there in 1853, without any charge, plaintiff promising that if he could on any future occasion assist him he would do so. Plain- tiff, therefore, was only fulfilling his promise in keeping the booke. In the end of last yeer ho made an agree- ment with the plaintiff to keep his books for 1861 for -So. Up to March last, be had been looking over his books for thirteen nights, and about two hours each night-which would be worth about 25s. John JODes, slate-merchant, being called and sworn, said: In 1853-54 1 kept school at the Rhos. Plaintiff came to me and said he could no longer go to Ruabon school, his parents being unable to pay. I taught him for two years. I had just returned from Borough-road and had many books, and told him he was welcome to bor- row any of them. When he left school, I said, If ever you are able to pay me, you will ?" He said he would. He came to my house and assisted me in making up my books in 1858. In the beginning of this year he said he had done enough for what I had done for him, and I agreed to pay him £ 5 for posting my books this year. He discontinued in March. I consider that 253. is quite sufficient for what he has done. Cross-examined I never had anything for his school- ing. I was a public servant. I received a salary, and children's pence. I taught him in school hours and after. I swear that he undertook to maka up the books as an adequate return for his schooling up to the end of last year. Mr Jones, in replying contended that it was extremely improbable that the plaintiff had engaged to keep de- fendant's books on account of gratuitous instruction he had received in a public school. He (Mr Jones) had been a schoolmaster himself, but he could not expect all the children he had educated to be lawyer's clerks for him for nothing (laughter), and submitted that such gra- tuitous scrvices would not hold good in law. His Honour gave judgment for L2 out of the L5 4s. ACTION FOR WAGES.—KOBERTS V. HUGHES. This action was to recover the amount of t 19 109 being 13 week's wages at 30s. per week due from Mr Hughes, maltster, of this town, to Mr Joseph Roberts, son of Mr Frederick Roberts, Town-hill. Mr Wyatt appeared for plaintiff, the defendant con- ducting his own case. Frederick Roberts, sworn, said: In September, 1856, Mr Hughes called upon me, he had some samples of malt and hops, when my soa happened to come inti the shop and Mr Hughes asked who he was. I said he was my son, and was just then out of a situation. He said he would like to have him to take charge of his books, and he would give him 30s. per week. He went with him that day, and stayed with him for three months. I I saw my son several rimes during that time. I supplied him with clothing during his stay with Mr Hughes. My son could not get his salary and so I had to supply him with money. I asked him for his salary, when he cursed and swore, and said he had never agreed to give him any salary. Mr Hughes several times interrupted this witness while giving his evidence, and persisted in doing .ao against the remonstrances of his Honour and Mr Wyatt, and now proceeded to put a number of questions to him, which tended to show that Mr Roberts's son had been dismissed from his situation in Birkenhead, and that Mr Roberts begged of him to take him for his food, &c., and was about describing a scene that had taken place between Mr Roberts and his son, the son raising a carving-knife to stick his father,; when his Honour again remonstrated with him, and said he would be com- pelled to adjourn the court unless he would adhere to the rules of the court. Mrs Hughes also put the same question respecting the carving-knife scene, which was denied by Mr Roberts. Joseph Roberts, sworn, said: I am son to last witness. On the 12th September, 1856, I saw defendant in my father's shop. When I came in, he asked father who I was. Father said I was his son. He then asked what I was doing. Father replied that I was then out of at situation. Defendant said, why you had better let him come with me to take charge of my books, I will give him 30s per week. He wanted me to go that day and I wanted to stay two or three days to get ready. He urged me to go that day, and I went with him to Ches- ter that morning, and that evening to Shrewsbury, where I remained for three months. Mr Hughes was a good deal from home at Birkenhead, Liverpool, and Chester. Mrs Hughes conducted the business with my assistance. A day or two before I left, a summons was left at the house, and at Mrs Hughes's request I went to Chester for him. Witness here detailed the trouble he had in bringing his master from Chester, starting from that place on Sa- turday, and getting a little beyond Chirk by 11 on Sun- day night, and his calling at every public-house on the ¡ road, when he got so disgusted with him that he left him. I had a book in which I kept an account of what j I paid and received on different occasions. There is a balance of 13s due to Mrs Hughes now. I have since been to America, and had to return on account of my health. Mr Hughes interrogated this witness in a similar manner to his father, when his Honour called him to order. Mrs Hughes having been called to the box, his Hon- our said that the proceedings were a disgrace to a court of justice, he had never, during the time he had sat on the bench, been so insulted as he had that day, by the strange conduct of her husband. Mrs Hughes expressed her sorrow, and after being sworn, said that Mr Hughes brought young Roberts there. He was doing nothing but smoking cigars, killing time and making my house his home, and so did his father. Mr Hughes had been from home one day, and on his arrival I asked him why he gave me so much trouble that I and the servants had plenty to do without waiting upon Roberts and his father. The two had been quarrelling, and the son threatened to stick his father with the carving-knife. They refused sleeping with each other, and I had to make up a bed for one. We lost a heavy sum of money through having supplied an orJer to Phenix, of Euab ja, received I by young Rotcrts for mait. Mr Wyttt I never saw this book of entries and pay- ments, but I gave money to him of which I have never received the balance. Young Roberts came home and ordered the malt to be sent to Phenix1. At Mr Hughes's request Frederick Roberts was re- called, when a serie3 of questions were put to him, the whole of which were answered in the negative, when Hughes retortetl all d said-" yoti will aay anything, you Methodist scoundrel." His Honour, whose patience and forbearance had been put to the test, after consulting his notes, said he should defer giving judgment until the next court, owing to the conduct of the defendant. He had never, during the thirty years of his experience witnessed suca disgraceful proceedings, and hoped to Gud it would never occur again. LLOYD V. BOSKILL. I This was an S tion seeking payment for work done by j Mr Edward Lloyd, plumber, of this town, for Mr Ros- I kiil, Glascoed. Mr Rymer appeared for Mr Lloyd. Mr Roskill wished, as his advocate (Mr Acton) was from home, thet the case be settled by arbitration, because the work was not well and satisfactorily done. Mr Rymer contended that the work was well done, and that thtl 1 case should be gone into. His Honour: I hope you will always have your work done so when you come here (laughter.) Mr Roskill: No. your honour, the work has not been well done, for Mr Lloyd himself took this out (holding in his hand some bad lead piping), so that according to his own showing it was not so. Mr Rymer You have got hold of the wrong stick. Mr Roskill: I beg your pardon, sir, (holding the piping I up) it's lead (laughter). His Hjnour thought it would be better to refer it to a competent person for arbitration. Mr Rymer preferred his Honour bein- the arbi- trator. Mr Roskill: I should be glad to see your Honour at Glascoed (laughter). His Honour: To give me a warm bath—(renewed laughter). Mr Lloyd wa3 willing, if it could be referred. His Honour Mr Lloyd, I must assume to be as good a plumber as you are, and I must say that I caftnot solder your case unless you refer it. It was ultimateiy agreed to refer the matter to the arbitration of Mr Box, of Chester. The court rose shortly after four o'clock. I

-.-I WREXHAM BOARD OF GUARDIANS.…

I NORTH AND SOUTH WALES BANK.

[No title]

OVERTON. I

ABERDAKE EiSiEDDtfUL). I

[No title]

ADWY'R-CLAWDD. I

MEETING -OF THE ROTAL -BRITISH…

THE ROYAL RESCRIPT TO THE…

THE \! I ;'EN'S'hi'£ TO I],,",…

LATEST AAKKETS.

Family Notices

Advertising