Taunton Courier 25 Nov 1903 Taunton County Court includes Robert PAYNE of Lydeard St Lawrence and Walter HAYES and John NORTH of Pitminster

Sarah Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper Articles

Taunton Courier, and Western Advertiser 25 Nov 1903

Page 5 Column 4 and 5



YESTERDAY. - Before His Honour Judge BERESFORD.

ADMINISTRATION ORDER. - Mr. A. G. TAYLOR made an application, on behalf of Joseph WADDON, rope-maker, of Taunton, for an administration order. - Applicant, whose liabilities amounted to £46, attributed his failure to bad trade, and the competition he he <sic> met with in machine-made goods. - His Honour: What you want is “Protection.” (Laughter.) - An order was made for applicant to pay 5s in the £, at the rate of 5s a month.

FATHER AND SON-IN-LAW. - Alfred COUSINS, an old man, who formerly lived in Castle-green, Taunton, brought an action against Henry George WYATT, his son-in-law, of High-street, Taunton, for the return of certain goods. - Defendant counter-claimed for the amount expended by him on plaintiff's maintenance. - Mr. C. P. CLARKE was for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. H. WATSON for the defendant. - Mr. CLARKE explained that the case was adjourned in order that the bailiff (Mr. WOOLLEN) might go to the defendant's premises and see which of the goods claimed were there, and which they were prepared to hand over. Mr. WOOLLEN went there, and certain goods were as a result handed over to the plaintiff, and it was in respect of the goods retained by the defendant that the action was now taken. - Plaintiff stated that his wife died in January last, and the defendant took away his things and himself telling him he would seep <sic> him comfortable the rest of his days. No specific terms were arranged. WYATT also had £13 6s 6d in money from witness. He remained there till May, and then he was ordered out of the house and dared to put his foot inside again. Witness subsequently went to live with his youngest daughter for a few days, and then went to Cardiff. - By Mr. WATSON: He was ill for a time after he went to live with the defendant, but he denied that he gave a lot of trouble. He was in receipt of 13s 10½d a week. - Mr. WATSON said his client had never had many of the things mentioned in the list, and he was always open to return them. His client now counter-claimed for the cost of maintaining the plaintiff from January to May, but he would not have done so had it not been for the action of the plaintiff. With regard to the £13 insurance money all but £4 of that had been spent on plaintiff's wife's funeral. His Honour eventually decided to dismiss both the claim and counter-claim, each party to pay their own costs, and the defendant the hearing fees.

ANOTHER FAMILY DISPUTE. - PAYNE v. HAYES. - This also was an adjourned case, in which the plaintiff, Robert PAYNE, an old man, of Lydeard St. Lawrence, sued Walter HAYES, a distant relative, with whom he had been living, for the return of certain household effects. - Mr. C. P. CLARKE again represented the plaintiff, and Mr. A. G. TAYLOR the defendant. - At the previous hearing His Honour recommended the plaintiff to go back and live with the defendant again and endeavour to be comfortable. - Plaintiff now stated that he had gone back to the defendant's house but he could not continue to live there as defendant and his wife would not speak to him. - Defendant, however, asserted that the plaintiff had lived very comfortably with them since the last Court, and the only complaint he had to make against him was that he kept bad hours. - His Honour made no order, but adjourned the case sine die, adding that if the defendant subjected the old man to any unkindness he would deal with the case. Plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the adjournment, and defendant of the first hearing.

BROTHERS-IN-LAW AT VARIANCE. - William GOVIER, coal dealer and publican, of Taunton, sued his brother-in-law John NORTH, farmer, of Pitminster, for £1 0s 3d. For coal supplied, and the latter put in a counter-claim for £1 4s for two casks which GOVIER had failed to return. - Mr. C. P. CLARKE for the plaintiff, and Mr. W. T. BOOKER, of Wellington, for the defendant. The claim was admitted subject to the counter-claim. - After hearing the evidence of the defendant, His Honour gave judgment for the plaintiff on the claim without costs, and dismissed the counter-claim.

Back to Miscellaneous Page

Back to Home Page