The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-06-19 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.

JURY CASE.—Reibbleg V. 11Pbt.—At the Counts,
Gala held on Wednesday last, before
Esq., Deputy Judge. This was on aclion to re-
cover the sum of .1;11 for breach of contract. for
pl,+'s bought, but not delivered. Mr. Ilonafrav
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Colds for the
defendant.
William Nickless said he resided at Wollaston,
and was employed by Beddoes to purchaae some
pigs of the defendant. On the 31st December •
Witness went to look at some pigs. Defendant
said they ought to make L 4 10s eseh. 1 'hid
bite y would give 4'2 do. Defendant said I could
Ii ivy them for td 10s. I asked for lOs out. De-
fendant refused ta give that amount, and own,.
stely agreed to give it. I told him I woall have
them, and a4r0...1 t do so, aml jut ii 5,4 us ear-
neat 'fleecy. I after saw a 111,171 11i1111,,i Priel`, lit
Lb e defendant's employ, aml we'd I.r the pigs
Dcf, intent said they were sold fur niece money,
r, insect to let me have them.
Henry Nickless, son of the last witness. said
he went with his father to buy some pigs of the
defendant, and corroborated what be bad sall.
Charles Price, in the employ of defend:wt.
said be recollected Niekless and his son conii,g
in December to look at some pigs. Mr. Nickleas
said the piga would cows to 10s.
John Sedgley, of Andnant Bank, said he knew
Stokes, the defendant's farm bailiff, and spoke to
him about the price of pigs.
Mr. Collis objected to this, as it was not evi-

deuce,
George Beddoes, butcher, said he went with
Nickless to look at some pigs at the defendant's
f:lrm, and authorised Nickless to give t 8 135
each for them. I thl. him to bay them. antl all
he could get them for less to keep for himself.
I saw Niekless nest day, who told use all he gut
back we 2s. This neat day I wont for the pigs,
and took the money. Mrs. Bills produced a :
paper with an entry on it of seven pigs at 90s
each—making £Bl 108, I after went to Mr.
Bills, and told him what his wife had said. De-
fendant said they (the pigs) were worth £5 each.
He said he was very scaly I had had so much
trvuhle, and offered use the do b6ck that had been
paid as an earnest money,
Mr. Collis then addressed the jury for the de-
fence, and Buid it was a question for them to de-
ci o whether the plaintiff had bought the pigs
for .t 8 Its each, or for ..t4 10s. He should
prove that the defendant, who was a hiOly rea-
rm:dale man, holding sun important position at
Me. Foster's iron works. and as a man of busi.,
see, after he had concluded the bargain, ho at
once made a note of it, and there could not he
sly mistake. He pot them down at £4 108 01
e Leh ; and the plaintiff had not suffered any hiss
by the transaction. If the jury thought plain-
tiff was entitled to damages, they should be

merely nominal.
6,,orge Bills said he was manag,?r at Mr. Fos-
ters, find a farmer. He never allowed any of
his men to buy or sell. Mr. Beddoes came to
look at some pigs. I told him they were .t 5
each. Plaintiff said he could not give that
money, and after offered 1110 .tfl 108. I then
told him that I would take 103 off the piga, if
he would take the lot, which would make them
14 10s. Mantas agent agreed for that am-
omit. and paid 5s earnest money, and agreed to
fetch the pigs next day; and 1 went at once and
made out a bill for V 103 each. Plaintiff then
told me he should bring an action against me for
breach of contract. I told him I did not want
any action, and offered to let some one decide it,
but he refused.
After hearing further evidence Ws Honour
summed up, and the jury gave a verdict for tile
plaintiff of his, being is for each pig; and also
ordered defendant to pay the costs of the day.

Brooks v. Darts.—At the County Court held
on Thursday, before Mr. Young. Deputy-Judge,
This was an action brought to recover the sum
of £3O. for rent. Mr. Ceilia appeared for plain-
tiff, and Mr. Maltby for &fondant.
Mr. Collis said the defendant was a butcher,
and tenant to plaintiff. The action was to reco-
ver the sum of £3O, for rent due.
Thomas Brooks said that he was agent to the
plaintiff, and in December 1862, let the defend-
ant a house and premises. On the 29th Septem-
ber defendant had the adjoining house and
agreed to pay far the two £lO per year. The first
quarter's rent became due at Christmas, and de-
fendant paid £l2 ss, and continued to pay the
amount till December, 181;8.
Cross examined: Did not let the house to the
defendant on the first occasion. Do not kuow
whether the houses were taken at different times.
Defendant was to do all the repairs except the
roofing.
Re-examined: When the house was taken it
was a new take, being on yearly tenancy ; the
rent to be paid quarterly.
Simeon Hays proved servinea notice upon the
defendant to quit the h)use, or to pay more rent.
That was in March, 1868.
Susannah Brooks (plaintiff) proved that the
premises belonged to her. Was not present
when the premises were first let. Her first hus-
band let them.
Cross-examined: Did give a notice to Hays
to serve upon the defendant to quit or pay more
rent. Did not tell defendant to burn the notice,
and that it would be all right. Defendant did
burn it. Did not take a receipt for £l5, and
only receive £l2 5s for it.
Mr. Maltby addressed his Honour for the de-
fence, and contended that the net' -e ()I up-
on defendant was had, and that defendal.t took
the houses at different times, and that the taking
of the last house was entirely unconnected with
the other, which he should prove by the fend-
ant and his wife.