Archifdy Ceredigion Archives
MUSEUM COLLECTION

Acc. 1279

Ref: MUS/345

Reference: [GB 0212] MUS/345
Date(s): 1885-1889
Level: Fonds
Extent: 5 items
Scope and content: Documents relating to the High Court case Hamer v James and Hughes.

MUS/345/1. Manuscript, 'In the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Session between Edward Hamer, plaintiff, and Richard James and Wilfred Johnson Hughes, defendants. Plaintiff's bill of costs against the defendant Richard James' - beginning in June 1884, a total of £236-19-7. The case concerned a hotel, managed first by James and then by Hamer. Both the Queen's and Belle Vue hotel [Aberystwyth] are mentioned in the expenses. Mention is also made of witnesses called, these including: Jane Jones and Catherine Lewis, waitresses, both of Borth; Sarah Price, Commercial and sitting room waitress; John Michael, waiter; William Jones, boots; Hugh Thomas, hotel driver for over 30 years; Herbert Symonds, driver; James Rowe, head ostler of the hotel stables.
50 pages, condition frayed and decayed.
1885

MUS/345/2. Letter from Mackay & Co. of Lothbury, London, to Messes Daniel Jones & Linnett of 1 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, concerning Hamer v. James and expressing surprise that no more instalments were to be paid towards their bill of charges, which amounted to £69-9-11.
25 March 1889

MUS/345/3. Letter from Edgar Atwood, solicitor, dated from Aberystwyth, to Daniel Jones Esq. of 1 Quality Court, Chancery Lane. It concerns a disputed payment made in London ('I say £2 & you £4'). Atwood is prepared to accept £1 of the disputed £2 difference, if paid at once.
6 April 1889

MUS/345/4. Letter, dated from Aberystwyth, from Edgar Atwood to Daniel Jones Esq., again concerning the disputed payment.
16 April 1889

MUS/345/5. Letter from Griffiths Jones, at the Corporation Solicitor's Office, Aberystwyth, and 1 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, to Messrs Jones and Linnett, re Hamer v James Bankruptcy Petition. Jones or the Corporation, intended to apply to have the Petition dismissed in the Newtown County Court and was writing to obtain an Office Copy of the judgement delivered on appeal.
24 July 1889