The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-07-01 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.

WALL'S EXECUTORS V. GEORGE POWELL.—At
the County Court, on Thursday, before R. Kettle,
Esq., judge. This was an action brought by the
executors of John Wall against the defendant
for £lO is 4d, for fixtures taken from a public-
house at Brettle Lane. Mr. Perry appeared for
plaintiffs, and Mr. Saunders for defendant.—From
the evidence of Thomas Hand it appears that they
let a public-house at Brettle Lane to Mrs. Adams.
At the time she went in the house there were a lot
of fixtures they had bought. The house was
afterwards let to the defendant by Mrs. Adams.
Since that time defendant had left the house
and taken a quantity of fixtures away belonging to
plaintiffs, who now sought to recover, the amount.
Mrs. Clark agent, to her mother, proved that the
seats were taken out of the tap room and that
they did not belong to him. 'I he defence was
that he paid Mrs. Adams for the goods and fixturds
£47, and he afterwards sold them at a great loss.
An inventory of the goods was produced and Mr.
Saunders said they should have to sue Mrs.
Adams. Verdict for £9 2s 9d for plaintiffs.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY V.
HANDLEY.—This was an action brought by the
Company against defendant who resides at
Br's:ley Hill, for the recovery of .25 8s 10d, fcr
carriage of goods between Birmingham and
Cradley. Mr. Perry appeared for plaintiffs and
Mr. Prescott defended.—George Bentley, clerk at
Snow Hill Station, said he had seen defendant who
owed the amount claimed, and afterwards asked
him for the money, which was for carriage for
goods between Birmingham and Cradley. De-
fendant had not paid the money. Cross-examined:
He did not ask defendant to lend him £2 in Bir-
mingham, neither did he have £1 of defendant on
the 29th May last. He has not received £4 of
defendant. He has not been threatened to be
prosecuted by the Railway Company for not pay-
ing over the .24.—Mr. Prescott here read a copy
of a letter sent by the defendant to witness and
enclosing a post office order for £1 8s 10d, making
with the £4 paid to witness the amount of car-
riage due, in settlement of the account. This was
denied by Bentley. Mr. Prescott addressed his
Honour for the defence, and said he should put
defendant in the box and it would be for his
Honour to decide which was speaking the truth.
Defendant said he lived at Brierley Hill and was
a commercial traveller. On the 29th May, 1875,
he met witness in Birmingham who asked him
if he had two sovereigns to lend him and he told
him he had not, but had one and lent him one.
At that time he was in great trouble. On the
18th November• last, after coming out of the
Exchange he lent him £3. At that time he was
on friendly terms. When he asked him why he
had not sent the receipt for the £1
sand he
said he would send him one and he did not owe
him for the £3.—His Honour: You had better
bring an action against the witness.—Defendant:
I ceitainly shall do. A verdict was then given for
the plaintiffs.

PARTRIDGE v. PlTT.—This was an action to
recover the-sum of £lO 15s 6d for goods sold and
delivered to the defendant. Mr. Clulow appeared
for plaintiff, and Mr. Perry for defendant.—
Plaintiff proved that the defendant had a quantity
of bricks from him and had not paid for
them. The defence was that the order was not
completed. Verdict for plaintiff for full amount.
COX 11. HALL.—RUNNING DOWN CASE.—Plain-
tiff brought an action against the defendant to
recover the sum of £3 8s lid through injuries
received to him, by the alleged negligence of
defendant. Mr. W. Hayes appeared for plaintiff,
and Mr. Lowe for defendant.—A number of wit-
nesses were examined, whose evidence went to
show that plaintiff was on his right side and
the defendant en his wrong, when driving
between the Shenstone Hotel and the New Inn,
Halesowen, and his Honour gave a verdict for
plaintiff.