The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1884-08-26 00:00:00

A:WHEN' NUXIWN3f.S.

Charles Coats, hay and corn dealer, of Blandford.
v. Henry Hooper, labourer, of Blandford.—Claun for
rent.—A4 2s. had been paid +Mei the service of the
dUlUlOulpi, his honour adjourned the case.
Same V. JAI Wull4.—lU LlU++ Cale only 44. was
left unpaid on the original claim, and this wa.
adjourned for defendant to pay in the meantime.
alartha Miuteru relict of the late Hobert
Slinteru. baker. of thandford, v. James Kail, labourer.
—Hr. Ilrenuand for plaintiff. —Defendant offered 2i.
per in.uth. and his Honour varied the original order
to thi4 ;in default ..1 payment II days.
Same v. Gilbert Lan.% gardener. —This was a
ojuijlar CA.!, CIAIUI for LC,. I .u1,14.4.—Tu0 original
urvlor wa, 3, per month, made 12 mouth, 111110 J, and
defendant had not paid anything. —Order fur 14 days'
w not to isms JU payment of the 3s.
John J. Hick., draper alai mtlittor, Bland onl, v.
Joh., 3toore, sawyer. - I.),:fulnlaut pleaded slackness of
work and illue44 of wit: awl cluliren al the cause of
uou.p.iyinent.—Froin the plaintiff's statement it
appear, the goodi were obtanica on allYrobatjulk
piainuff nicer iutonimi t thifUUdikUt credit,—
Order for commitment, not to ism,' on payment of is.
a Moab. .

.... oto.
Henry Coif v. John Home, *.awyer.—Claiin 104.
fur a pig pun:ha...id Li). defendant —Onler made for
It dap, uot 1., luta° it ilv. monthly be paid.
Herbert Jeffery, linker, of Lllandlord, v. 8414111111i1l
Park, labourer. —Cave adjouruol.Alplatiutilf wait cow
tiuod to an hospital.
Jame.% Crew, Okeford, v. Nivtli Clarke, carter.—
Order 'twit, for 10 day, if original order nut complied
with.

ORDINARY CANEY.

In the c--. 10,1 of Inkpen cod Burt v.
Borpitt, referred from the last Court for arbitration,
the parties interestml were satisfied, but Ur.
Brennand applied for a legal irunt to be settled —To
this Atkinson said the rUfermi reserved the legal
point, Ai defendant was sued as trustee of an estate
that never existed.—Mr. Breutiaud argued differently,
as the servant left in charge at death could claim
contents of house for wages, especially AA the goods
were the property of Mrs liskpen, prior to her
mirriage with the last husband. The point in dis-
pute was suing Sir. Burpitt a. adininistrator of the
testator's estaW, isisteatl of efteeutor.—llis honour
said the wrong party was not sued iii substance, only
in form or law. fln his decision would rest the
question of oists, and considering the importance of
the decision, he rimervesl the decision till next Court
llonour allowssl judgment to bu entered as the
arbitratord'award put in, but no costs allowed either
didu. The amount of the fees were aaktgl for, and on
being informed it amounted to LI 6. , his Honour
suggested the solicitors should halve it, vrhich Was
agreed to
John Drake Sturniinster Newton, v. Robert

Itidout, of Itingwoud, formerly of the same
Claim for for hire of horse and cart seven days, used for
the ponces) of collecting butter.—Defendant pleaded
li,, w.c....en of Tom Hidout, elleaigi and butter factor,
with wh he lived, and had never received any pay-
ment for cervices rendered more than the advantages
of hoine. He had the horse and cart for his father's
litvoine,s. When plaintiff out in his account to
ho replied Isy letter, as it WA., entirely on his father's
account.—The father, John Itidout, deposed he had
carried en the business for 31 year., and then gave
it up to his non, who received the profits at the tune.
—Verdict for plaintiff.

John Shepard, v. James ilph.—Claim El. 12s. tid.
left clue ..n a suit of clothei.-31r. Atkinson for
Brennand defeuded. —Defendant's sun
worked for plaintiff, alio provided him with clothes,
for which he had [mid 24 pr week towards it.—
Plaintiff, a carpenter and sawyer, of Child Okufurd,
deposed defendant's son Pin, to work for him at 10s.
per week. When he had the clothes the boy made
the agreement to pay for them, as he Wal very bare
at the time.—lii, Honour held the son was liable, and
must be sued.—An application for costs wa.s refused.
Edward 3ims, provision dealer, of Tarrant Gun-
v. John COX, labourer, of the saute place.
Claim CI 15s. 9d. for goods and groceries supplied.
Hi/ Honoar went through the books of the pLsintiff,
which showed many payments sometimes in full, and
the small amounts left due.—Defendant disputed 104.
off the amount, which he said ho had paid.—lJlti
mustily hi. Heneur waded thr.nigh the intricacies of
the acceunti, and plaintiff airreed to take defendant's
book Ai right —Order made for payment of balance at
per month.
. .

wUie merchants, of Blandf ord.
v. Frsuci4 Winer., itinlie.por, of Blandford.
Claiin for spiritl 14uppliot when defendant was in
business. —Several items were disputed. First —Ws.,
El Is., 184., 12s. ikl., 124., el Is., 184., 184 , for gin,
ruin, and brandy, but his Honour held the books a
the firm to be correct, and gave an order for plaintiff
for the whole amount, £l3 124. 64.—Order mad. fur Gs.
in tith.
. .

• Henry 8ar111,4. dairyman. of Milton, v. the London
and South-Western Railway Company.—Claim for
10.4 to a currogated butter roller during transit from
Loudon to Rhillingstone, on the 29th May of the
present year. -Plaintiff's brother desposed delivering
the butter roller to the company's servants at the
Borou.fh receiving office in L. orlon, and produced a
receipt for sanr., showing a charge"( IC 10d. carriage,
which was paid in advance. nu. WAY the charge at
company's risk. 11.3 packed it himself. It.. value was
30.. .1. letter from tho company's solicitor WA. read,
denying receiving such an article. the consignment
in onlivary package. —Verdict for plaintiff for
full amount claimed, and coats allowed.