9th March 1928 - Legal & Official Notice

Original image on Facebook

Legal & Official Notice

To Mrs Douglas Angus, formerly of Aspenden, Buntingford, in the County of Hertford, and then of The New Century Club, Hay Hill, London.

Take notice that an Action has been commenced against you in the County Court of Hertfordshire, holden at ROYSTON, No. H 21, by WILLIAM HERBERT SMITH, of Buntingford, in the County of Hertford, in which the Plaintiff's claim is for warehouse charges in respect of furniture, etc., stored by the Plaintiff for you from 1920, to the 8th February, 1928, amounting to £63 18s. 0d.

AND IT HAS BEEN ORDERED that service of the Summons in the said Action on you be effected by this advertisement.

If you desire to defend the said Action you must attend on the day fixed for the hearing, namely the 28th day of April, 1928, at the Court House, ROYSTON, at 10.30a.m. In default of such appearance judgement may be entered against you.

WM. Onslow Times, Registrar.

Dated the 7th day of March, 1928.

16th July 1926 - Buntingford Farmers' Dispute

Original image on Facebook

Buntingford Farmers' Dispute

Action at Hertford Assizes

Farmer Swoons in the Witness Box

An action was brought before the Lord Chief Justice of England, Baron Hewart, at the Herts. Assizes, at the Shire Hall, Hertford, on Tuesday, June 22nd, by Mr George Borlase, of Cumberlow Green Farm, Rushden, near Buntingford, to recover damages against Mr William J. Williams, of Ashdown Farm, Hare Street, Buntingford, for wrongfully detaining a thrashing machine lent to him in May, 1924, and not returned until July, 1925. Mr Lilley appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Grafton Prior for the defendant.

Counsel for the plaintiff stated in opening the case that the parties were farmers and friends, and in May 1924, the defendant asked paintiff to lend him his thrashing machine to do a few days' thrashing. It was lent with the intimation that the plaintiff, who had then finished thrashing, would required to have it back again by the following harvest.

That thrashing machine was not returned until July 1925, three or four months after the issue of the wrist in these proceedings. Meanwhile the defendant had made use of the thrashing machine himself and had also hired it out to neighbouring farmers.

Those the defendant's books which the plaintiff had been able to inspect - not all of them - clearly disclused the fact that the defendant had let the machine out on hire to no less than 31 farms. Part of the damages would there be to take account of the profit which the defendant made by the use of the plaintiff's machine.

The damages were placed under the following four heads:

(1) The cost of hiring a thrashing machine to thrash his own corn after the harvest of 1924, £60;

(2) depreciation of the value of the machine and cost of alterations and repairs, £60;

(3) loss by damage to corn which sprouted owing to the fact that the plaintiff was unable to get another machine, £82;

(4) profits obtained by the defendant from letting the machine out on hire to other farmers, £100.

The Judge: What does a new machine of this kind cost?

Counsel: About £300.

Your are not asking for a new machine? - No.

Continuing, counsel said that before the plaintiff and the defendant came to Hertfordshire they were neighbours in Cornwall, and were very friendly. They used to buy stock from one another, and there was an account between them. At the time this machine was borrowed the plaintiff owed the defendant £100, and that was to be set off against his claim.

When the plaintiff in August, 1924, asked for the return of the machine the defendant promised to do so, but failed to keep his promise. He afterwards applied several times, but the machine was not returned. In March, 1925, litigation was commenced, and in July, 1925, the machine was returned.

The plaintiff gave evidence in support of counsel's statement. In cross-examination he denited that the defendant ever pressed him for a settlement of their accounts. In consequence of not getting back his machine he had to hire another one from a Mr Stick. Asked if the defendant had ever pressed him to pay his account, plaintiff replied: "Oh, no never. He simply said, 'Oh, go on boy; that's all right'."

Didn't you really let him have the machine because you owed him this money? - No, but when my men took the machine to him he said to them "It shall never go back any more."

The Judge: Don't you think that showed that you let him have the machine because you owed him £100? - No.

Counsel for defendant: Do you know your own machine? - What do you take me for? What a silly question to ask. (Laughter).

Mr Harry Goode, agricultural engineer, of Royston, was called to state that his charge for repairing the machine after it was returned was £55. In cross-examination the Judge elicited the fact that this witness sold the machine to the plaintiff in September, 1923, for £120, and it was then 22 years old.

Mr Thomas John Stick, farmer, and agricultural machinist, Mr John Henley, foreman to the plaintiff, and Mr William Aldridge, formerly in the defendant's employ, also gave evidence.

Mr Prior for the defence, said that he admitted having the thrashing machine and using it, but that he was always prepared to pay for it if the plaintiff would only come to an arrangement to settle the outstanding account.

The defendant (Mr Williams) stated that at the time he borrowed the machine the plaintiff (Mr Borlase) owed him £183 for cows, bulls, and other stock, and he still owed it to him. He had never paid a penny on account. Nothing whatever was said as to terms when he borrowed the thrashing machine, neither as to paying for it or as to how long he was to keep it.

Were you to pay him anything for the use of the machine? - No mention was made about paying anything.

It was pointed out to him that in the correspondence at first they were very friendly and addressed each other as "Dear George" and "Dear Will," but afterwards Mr Williams altered his attitude - Yes, replied defendant, when Mr Borlase sent me several nasty letters I said I would not have anything more to do with him, and asked him to pay me what he owed me.

What damage has Mr Borlase suffered by your retaining his machine? - None. I have had damage through not being paid for my bulls and cows that he has had since 1923.

Mr Williams was then cross-examined as to the documents he had been asked to produce, and why he had suppressed some that were material to the case, and he replied that he did not think they were material.

The Lord Chief Justice then sternly remarked: Do you know that nothing is so prejudicial to your case in these courts as the suppression of documents?

Mr Williams faltered, and fell head-long out of the witness-box on the floorof the court with a heavy thud. His wife, who was in the gallery, and the police ran to his assistance, whilst the hall-keeper hurriedly fetched a glass of water. The defendant soon recovered, and was able to say "I felt giddy," but he looked very much shaken, and no further questions were asked of him by the plaintiff's counsel.

Evidence was given by Mr Grigg, of Cockhampstead Farm, Braughing, Mr Fred Dowton, of Cottered, and others for the defence.

His Lordship said that in his opinion the plaintiff was clearly entitled to succeed, and he awarded him £81 14s. 9d. after deducting the £100 owing to the defendant, the defendant to pay costs.

(From the Herts. Mercury).

24th Feb 1928 - Braughing, An Interesting Will Case

Original image on Facebook

Braughing

An Interesting Will Case

The hearing of the Probate action in the matter of the estate of Ezekiel Walter Martin, late of North View, Braughing, Near Ware, retired farmer, who died on February 17, 1927, came on for hearing before Mr Justice Hill in the Probate Court on Tuesday, the 7th inst., and it related to the question as to whether the last will of the deceased, date September 23, 1924, was duly executed.

The will referred to, of Ezekiel Walter Martin, was made by him on a printed will form.

Mr W.O. Willis, K.C., and Mr Noel Middleton (instructed by Messrs. Hare and Son, of Much Hadham) were the council for the plaintiffs, the children of the late Ezekiel Walter Martin, who claimed that the Court should pronounce against the will and that the deceased died intestate; and Mr Cotes-Preedy, K.C., and Mr T. Bucknill (instructed by Messrs. S.J. and S.T. Miller, of Cambridge) were the counsel for the defendants, three of the grandchildren of the deceased, Walter, Arthur and Neva (children of Mr Harry Martin), who benefited [sic] under the will of the deceased.

The gross value of the estate of the deceased was stated to be £12,426 7s. 3.d

Mr Justice Hill said: This is a case very near the line, and of some difficulty. The document which was executed as a will bears date September 23, 1924. On the face of it, it is unimpeachable, and, indeed, if both witnesses were dead it would be impossible to impeach it. It is on a printed form. The writing throughout is that of the testator, with a number of paragraphs. There is no signature at the end of the last paragraph, but a little further down appears, in print, the formal attestation clause, with a bracket against it and against that bracket, on the first two lines, appear the signature and description of the testator, on the next two lines the first witness, and below that the second witness. It looks like a properly executed will. The presumption in law therefore arises, and is strong, that this was the duly executed will of the testator.

But, on the other hand, the two witnesses are alive, and they have both been called. To the recollection of the first witness, Miss Ashdown, I do not attach much importance, because she was evidently an elderly lady; she was extremely nervous in giving her evidence, and it is not so clear as it otherwise would be; and her recollection is, I think, not entirely to be relied upon.

So far as it goes, she said this: That the will was folded, leaving only the lower half of the second page upwards as the will lay on the table, and nearly all the space above the printed attestation clause was covered over with a bit of paper; and she says that when she put her name to that bit of paper, as she did, the name of the testator was not upon it. I have pointed out that in those circumstances it is odd that she should have begun to write her signature as a witness, not on the first line abreast the bracket of the attestation clause, but on the third line; and as it now appears the first line is occupied by "Ezekiel Walter Martin, retired farmer," and the second line by the village where he lived. Still, that is her definitive statement, that there was no signature.

Mr Simpson, the other witness, is much younger, and he is quite positive upon it that there was no other writing when he signed: "There was no other writing that I saw."  He again says that the bit of paper was put across the will, bringing it down to about the fold of the document as it then stood, that is to say, an inch or two above the attestation clause, and that when he signed there was no writing upon what was opened to him, except what Miss Ashdown had written.

He said his memory was quite clear. He is giving evidence now at the beginning of 1928 with reference to something that happened in September, 1924, but he had in an affidavit sworn in April, 1927, said the same thing; so that his recollection is the same throughout - it is not so very long ago.

In face of that evidence I feel bound to say that the presumption is rebutted, and it has been proved that this signature of Mr Martin's was not on the document at the time when the two witnesses signed, but has been put upon it at some later time. In coming to this conclusion, I am not ignoring the fact that Mr Martin had made wills before and that on a later occasion when he witnessed a will it was all done in proper order; but I cannot - I wish I could but I cannot; my sympathies are the other way - do other than find that this will was not properly executed.

I think it is the greatest possible misfortune, because it seems that so far as most of the members of this family are concerned, the thing has been driven to this legal decision. The costs will come out of the estate.

Mr Willis: Your Lordship, for the moment will pronounce against the testamentary papers of September 23, 1924?

Mr Justice Hill: Yes.

Mr Bucknill. I do not know whether your Lordship would say in this case that the costs should come out of the estate as between solicitor and client?

Mr Justice Hill: Certainly.

Mr Bucknill: It is a case where the matter has had to come to the Court.

Mr Jusitce Hill: I think so. I think that is fair.

Mr Willis: If your Lordship pleases.