The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1862-08-19 00:00:00

NISI PRII7S COURT.—TITZSDAY.
Moro Mr. Justice KEATING.

HAWKINS v. GIBBS AND ANOTHER.—Tbis was an
action between two farmers residing in the neighbour-
hood of Taunton, to try the validity of a will. Mr.
M. Smith and Mr. It T. Cole were for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Kerslake and Mr. Bullen were for the defen-
dants. The cane was settled without being called on.
LOCKET. MATTEDLIVS.—SiT F. Slade, Q.C., and Mr.
Prideaux were for the plaintiff, and Mr. Karalake,
Q,C., and Mr. Kingdon wore for the defendant. This
was an action to recover damages for a trespass and for
an entry on plaintiff's land. From the evidence for
complainant it appeared that the land in question was
formerly a piece of mute land, known as Slatemoor,
and the father of the plaintiff reclaimed it, and built
upon it a cottage. This. land and cottage he kept
possession of until a short time before his death in 1856,
when it was purchased by Mr. Hutchings, builder, of
Bridgwater, for £4O. Mr. Hutchings, subsequently to
Mr. Looke's death, let the cottage to Mr. Locke,
junior. For the defence it was proved that in 1837,
after the cottage was built, Mr. Deaden, the then Lord
of the Manor, claimed the land, but agreed to allow old
Mr. Locke to remain in possession until h;a death, and
the death of his wife. In 1844, however, Lord Ash-
burton purchased this land, along with others, and a
short time afterwards an arrangement wee entered into,
by which it was agreed that Locks should continue in
occupation of the cottage and a part of the land until
his death and the death of his wife. Consequently be
had no power to selL It Ives agreed to enter a verdict
for defendant, aubjeet to:the opinion of the court
above, with contingent damages of 25.
ROBERTS r ELWOETHT.—Mr. Collier, Q.C., and Mr.
Cole for plaintiff; Mr. Coleridge, q.c., for defendant.
This was a cause in which the plaintiff Bought to re-
cover damages for a malicious imprisonment. Defen-
dant is a gentleman of considerable property, residing
at Wellington, Somerset, and plaintiff was formerly
in his employment as coachman and gardener, it being
stipulated between them that, in addition to hie
salary, plaintiff thould have a complete snit of driving
clothes each year. In June hurt 'a disagreement took
Place between them, and ,the plaintiff gave notice to
leave his service. Defendant then demanded a great
cost which he had had made for the plaintiff, and, on
the latter refusing to give it up, refused to pay him his
wages, and next day sent him a notice requiring him to
give up the cost, intimating thet In the event of Its

,
being retained ptoceedings would be taken against
him. Nest day die defendant gave information te the
polioetand, acting on his instructiona, Sergeant Price
apprebended,plididiff at his residence. Plaintiff wan
taken to the nelignoitatigrianiliocked up in a sell for
twenty hours. ,17ext Morning he was take,' before a
magistrate, who after heaving the evidence of Mr.
acted
mud
Blworthy, iumiejia dismissed the charge. While
the case was being definedifht Mated that he-
should not have is he had done if plaintiff had
given him longer :notice. Welke for plaintiff—
damages Mk
lieuei v. Enuer.,—This was an action to recover
deliveries for the seduction of plaintiff's daughter. Mr_
, }Weans: wee egunsel foe plaintiff, and Mr. Collier,
litc., fog defendbut. —Deffindant is a roadaide bleak
-
smith, residing near Bridgwater, and plaintiff is a
widow, keeping the Keytherne tollgate, near Stowey.
Connected with this gate is a side bar, known as Ban-
earn Bar and this was attended to by Rhoda Hobbs,
the phillitiredaugliter. DefenEant'e shop was near
this bar, and an intimacy sprung up between him and
Rhoda, resulting in his being accepted WI her suitor,
and in seeing her home each night after she left the
bar. The 'reset of-this intind, was that the young
woman became in the family way, and defendant then
, told her not to trotble, as he had got a good home, to
which he would take her when he had made her his
wife. She aqui delivered of a eliild in May last, and de-
fendant at first promised to allow her 3s. a week for her
maintenance, bet stibsequentiy he refused to have any-
thing to do with her. She summoned him before the
magistrates for the affiliation of the child, bat the case
was dismissed for want of corroborative evidence.—Me.
Collier addressed the jury in mitigation of damages,
after which his lordship summed up, observing that If
the jury believed the evidence there weld be no doubt.
the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The only question,.
therefore, was to the amount of damages that should
be given. The jury, after a short consultation, found a.
verdict for plaintiff—damages lb.