The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1862-03-11 00:00:00

HUMRAT 'OBVERT AT DORCEIESTEIt._

James Johnson, 25, la¢oter, and 27t—omas Parry, 30,
-Human, were .chmaisit. with ...,rolsbing a well kelown
Dorchester character. named Nathaniel Seal, of the
sum of 165., on the 14th December. Prisoners pleaded
" Not guilty." Mr. W. Fleets prosecuted. Witnesa's
examination elicited much laughter on the part of the
audience, and the noticeable jacket in which he was
enveloped came in for its share of admiration. Prose-
cutor stated that on the evening of the day in question
be was in the act of getting over a stile from the Walks
into the Fair-6eld, when he was pulled backwards, and
his face pushed into the mud. The prisoners helped
him up, and in doing so pulled him about, raying, I
say, old daddy, what time 'does the next tram start ?"
He said he did not know, :Ind told them that be had
lost his money. He had between 15s. and its. in his
pocket, in a piece of rag. The prisoners ran away, mid
he afterwards picked up 3e. in the mud, where he had
been rolled. It was • moonlight night, and, he was
able to distinguish the prisoners. Next morning he
saw them examining the mud, where he had been
thrown down the bight before. Two witnesses were
called to prove that the prisoners were in Dorchester
the day in question; one of them said he saw the
prisoners near the scene of the robbery.—Charles
Hodges, landlord of the White horse Inn, stated that
Parry came to him on the evening of the day of
the robbery, and wanted to know it he could have a
bed and • ball. He agreed to let him have two
beds, and the prisoners slept in the house that night.
Joseph Barrett, late a sergeant in the Dorchester
was also celled for the prosecution. One of the pri-
soners made a long rambling statement, and said that
suspicion attached to them because they were strangers.
They were each sentenced to eight months' imprison-
ment•with bard labour. One of the prisoners was
anxious to know if he could have the 7s. 6d., and also •
sovereign found upon him. His Lordship said he had
no power to grant such • request.

' AIAILWAY TRAIN.
OeOrge 'Whittle, on- 'wee charged with throwing
two turnips at the Great Western Beilwey train, at
Frampton, on the 25th ot Septeniber.—Hr. Collins pro-
prosecuted,aud Ilr. Cole defended.—Jamlis Arms, the
guard of the train in question yea called, but did not
sever, and a medical certificate wan put In stating that
he was ill in London, and unable to attend.—Gilee
Simpkins, the driver of the engine, said that just after
passing the Grimskme station he found something had
struck the engine. He looked around and found at his
feet some pieces of a turnip. He afterwards saw the
torieenerin the act of throwing another turnip, which
was smashed through coming in contact with the engine,
—John Harris deposed to seeing prisoner throwing tur-
nips at the train. He told him that the engine-driver
might take his act as an insult. —He did not think it
was thrown with violence or to hurt any one. Mr. Cole
said it wee a most serious charge against the
prisoner amounting to felony. He advanced
prisoner's previous good character, and thought that the
jury would not consider that the turnips were thrown
with a malicious intent. It was merely a ftalish act on
the part of the prisoner, and urged that he had suffered
sufficient already in being brought before his lordship.
Prisoner's master was called, and stated that flailed
was industrious, and not likely to do a malicious act.
He stated that the clergyman of the parish was present
on theprevions day to speak in favour of the prisoner, but I
was unable to attend that day, having to perform
divine service in his church, The Judge having care-
fully summed up, the jury returned a verdict of Guilty
of throwing, but with no malicious intent. His Lord-
ship said that was a verdict of Not Guilty, and ordered
the prisoner's dinbarge, suitably adancnishbargl#m.

NISI PBITIS COURT.—THURSDAY,
(Before Mr. Justice Bridle.)
Erionnite3 AT TOLLARD FARNIFIAM.—Thei Chureh•
wardens and Ovetsetra of ballad Farnham. w. Barrett. .
—Me. Stock Was counsel fair the plaintiff, and Mr. Cole ,
for the defendant,—Mr., stock, in stating the case, said .
that this was aw motion of ejectment brought against
Harriet Barrett, Samuel Barrett, and Henry Coomber•—
Harrietßarrett and Henry Coomber had allowed judgment
to go by default, and Samuel Barrett alone appeared as
defendant on this occasion • and the question for the
jury was to say whether a certain house was or was not
the property of the overseers and chnrchwardeps of the
parish of Tollard Farnham. The action wee brought
to recover possession of one of two houses bunt on the
site of an old house genie 80 ye rs ago. The'eld house
had been used as the residence of paupers for a long
period of years. After awhile, however, the old house
became unfit for habitation, and aubsequently it
tumbled down. After the old house had lain in ruins
a year or two, the parish officers erected two new
houses on the piece of land on which the old house
formerly stood, and these new bonus bad been winded
by different persons at different times' having -been
placed there by the perish oflicors, inconsequence of
their needing relief. About 20 years ago, Eh Barrett,
husband of Harriet Barrett, WSB placed in one of these
houses by the parish. He had been receiving pariah relief
before this time, and continued to Ireceive pariah relief
tip till his death, which took place in February, 1860.
While he resided there all the repairs to the house were
done by the parish. Harriet Barrett, his widow, was
in the house at the time of her husband's death, and re-
mained there, continuing to receive parish relief till the
October following, and,indeed with regard to parish relief,
that was continued till the present time. In September
1860, the parish Officers desired to get possession of
this house, and gave her notice under 59 Geo. 111.,
cap. 24., which provided that after a formal notice has
been given, the case, in thr event of r refusal to quit,
may be summarily disposed of by the Magistrates. 'The
ease came before the County Bench in October isao, when
the defence set up by Mr. Chitty, who appeared as Mrs.
Barrett's attorney, was, that she was a tenant,
paying 6d. per week rent, and that it was oonaequently
necessary to give half-a-year's notice. Now no rent
waa ever actually paid, but in consequences of being
allowed the use of the house, the parish gave the party
6d. a week less. The Magistrates, however, decided
that Mr. Chitty was correct in his law, and dismissed'
the case. The Churchwardens and Overseers then
gave Mrs. Barrett half-a-year's notice to quit, but just
fore the time was up Mrs. Barrett left, and the
Overseers put in another pauper,named Mary Price, who
remained there some few days, when Samuel Barrett,
son of Eli ,Barrett, came and turned her out and took
possession of it as the heir to his father's freehold; aad
it was in coueequonce of this, act, that the questioif
Was brought before them that day.—Evidence in sup-
port of the case was then called, and John Hue!, who
said he had been relieving officer for Cramalsorne Union
ever since the establishment of the New Poor Law, that
he knew Philip Barrett, and that he gave him relief on
the part of the Tollaed Farnham parish to the amount
of £lOB Os. sd. Mr. Cole, in addressing the jury for
the defence, said the defendant's father had resided in
the house in question upwards of 20 years, and that
such • possession gave him a title to it. His son,
therefore, the present defendant, was entitled to the
property as heir-at-law of his father. The plaintiff had
failed to show that the parish had any claim whatever
upon the house. All that had been proved was that
one witness—defendant's cousin—had built the house,
and that his uncle, who was an overseer, had paid him
for his work, But this did not prove that the parish
had any olaim upon it. fie might even have built for
old Eli, of whom they bad heard so much. If the pro-
perty did belong to the parish, how easy would it have
been for the plaintiffs to produce d rauments, showing
such was the use. Even the parish books, were they
called for, would show if the cost ef building appeared
in them. He then called the defendant, who said his
father resided in the house 24 years, and during that
period had never paid rent. His Lordship, in sum-
ming np, told the jury that it did not signify whether
Eli Barrett occupied the house 20 or 50 years with-
out paying rent, if he were occupying it in the capacity
of a pauper, the churchwardens and overseers of tho
parish were in lawful possession. The question, there-
fore, for the fury to consider was whether old Eli was
occupying the house as a pauper, and in support of the
presumption that he did so occupy it there were the
facts that on one occasion when the house was repaired,
the repairs were paid for by the pariah officers, and that
he received relief to the ainonnt of upwards Of £lOO,
' and that he was buried at the expense of the parish.—
The jury found for the plaintiffs.
' A DISPUTED ACCOUNT.—The Einem) Clay Company,
' v. Gauntlet—Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr. Kingdom,
' instructed by Messrs. Pinniger and Wilkinson, of John-
etreet, Bedford-row, London, appeared for the plaintiffs.,
and Mr. Pridesux, instructed by Mr. S. H. Perrin, of
Lincoln's Inn Melds, London, for the plaintiffs.—Mr.
Hingdon said this action was brought to recover the
suns of £7O Is. To this the defendant had pleaded that
he had paid the sum of £2l into Court, and that
beyond that sum he was never indebted; and further,
that beyond that sum be bad a set off.—Mr. Coleridge,
Q.C., then stated the case to the jury. The 'Kinson
; Clay Company had pottery works near Poole, and the
defendant, who is a shipowner, resided at Portsee.
The question in the matter of dispute, was'a somewhat
troublesome and intricate one. In July, 1800, the de-
fendant came to Parkstone, where he saw Mr. Matthew
Crawford, and agreed with him respecting the purchase
of pipes. After this the defendant sent orders, from
time to time, for bricks and drain pipes. The defen-
dant's father had also considerable dealings with the
plaintiffs. The point in dispute seemed to be briefly
these :—The plaintiffs' chartered Jan Vrin, a vessel be-
longing to the defendant, to take 75 tons of bricks, and
25 toned earthea pipes to Quebec. The Jan Vein
, could not carry more than half the quantity over the
bar at the mouth of Poole harbour, owing to the shal-
lowness of the water there, and the consequence was,
the remaining part of the cargo was taken to her, oat-
side the bar, by the defendant's vessel, the Little Ida,
for which the defendant charged £l2. A remainder of the
balance, E. 37 55.. was disputed on the alleged ground
; that the goods charged were supplied to defendant's
father. lii support of the action, Matthew Crawford,
manager at the Clay Works, was called, and he said
, that when defendant came, he gave a general order that
when his vessel came to Poole, it was to be laden. In
consequence of this he gave John Elvish orders to load
the vessel with goods mentioned in the invoice. He
sent an invoice to defendant in April, 1861, and had no
complaint respecting the items charged till this action
; was commenced. His company chartered defendant's
ship, Jan Vrio, with bricks and pipes to their agent at
Quebec, but gave no orders for the articles to be con-
, veyed from Poole Harbour to Headland Bay, outside
the bar, at the mouth of Poole Harbour, by the Ida.
lie knew the Jill WM could not complete her load in
' Poole Harbour. The invoice to defendant's father was
' in his handwriting, but did not recollect sending it.
Had beard that the company had an action against
defendant's father. Did not know that the captain of
' the Ida rejected a large quantity of the pipes sent down.
' —John Elwish, foreman to time company, said that on
the 29th Julie and 13th July, he received orders to load
vans at the Company's stores' to send them to Poole.
The quantities mentioned in the cheek were
sent, and a copy of the cheek was given to the
carters to give to the captain of the vessel. The orders
were to deliver the goods on board the Ida. On the 6th
August • further quantity was shipped on board the Pia.
; These were all for different voyages. Sometimes he left a
,a man in charge, and received from him the account of
goods shipped.—Samuel Thomas, in the employ of the
Company, paid he gave the checks which last witness gave
; to him, to the captain of the Ida.—Thomas Green, coal
I merchant, said he sometimes 'superintended the loading
; of vessels in Poole harbour. When the Jan Vrin was
loaded, he gave no instructions to the captain of the
; Ida to trananort a portion of time Jan Vric s cargo to
Studland Bay.—Mr. Prideaux, in addressing the jury
, forth, defence, said he believed be should be able to
satisfy them that he was entitled to a verdict. He
maintained that as the vessel which the plaintiffe' char-
tered was not able to take in the whole of her cargo
alongside the quay of Poole harbour, it WU the duty
of the plaintiffs' themselves, either to transport time re-
mainder of the cargo as the vessel lay outside the bar
at the harbour's mouth, or to pay for such transport,
and that it mattered not whether the defen-
dant's or any other vessel was used for the
purpose. The plaintiffs' did not dispn,e the
amount charged by time defendant for the em-
ployment of the Ida to take the nines from the quay to
, the Jan Vrin, and consequently the jury could have no
difficulty in coming to a decision on that point. Many
of the pipes taken down to the defendant's vessel had
been refused by the captain on account of their broken
and crumbling condition, yet these had all been charged
for; buts besides this, there was a vast number
of items charged, which defendant knew nothing
of. There were several charges made for best
pipes, yet the defendant had never ordered,
nor had he received best pipes. The defen-
dant's father had also dealings with the plaintiffs, and
he also was overcharged. It was found that on com-
paring the two bills—the one sent in to
the plaintiff, and the other that had been
been suit in to his father—that they bad both been
charged for the self-same articles Mut both bad been
charged or good that neither received. Re unfeseed
that looking at the bills that had been sent in by the
plaintiffs, that they reminded him very stromily of the
saddler in London, This man had 33 customers, and he
sold a saddle to One of them, but forgot which. Conse-
quently, when the Christmas bills were made out, the
saddler told his man to charge the saddle to all his
ettIISOMOBS. This was done, and 33 of the customers
paid their bill without questioning its accuracy, and
only one of the 33 questioned the accuracy. Now, be
by no means wished to infer that plaintiffs'
never sent out the goods they had charged
for, but it struck him they ware very
much like the saddler; at all events, they had
" saddled" both his client and his client's father, not
only for one and the same thing, but for goods they
knew nothing about. The defendant had no desire to
make any evasion through raising technical objections,
else there were circumstances in this case that would
stop it at once. He was willing to pay what was fair
and lust; and that was what he believed he already
had paid into Court. He should call him before them;
he would also call his father, and his clerk, to
prove the facts to be as he had stated, and
that - nothing had been received for which
money had not been tmidered.—Henry Francis
Gauntlett, the father of the defendant, was then called
to prove that he had received invoices of goods he had
never ordered nor received. The plaintiffs bad oom-
meneed an action against him also, and he paid into
court the amount charged for all he had received, and
indeed for one or two items he was not satisfied about.
He had bad things charged to him at dates when he
could not have received them, and the same articles
were charged at different dates. After considerable '
cross-examination and • lengthened discussion between
the learned counsel and his lordship, the cue VMS ad-
journed till the following day.

FRIDAY.
(Before 11Ir. Justice BYLE/3.)
The Hinson Clay Company v. Gauntlet.—By the
recommendation of the Judge the two actions both
against the father and the son were stayed, without oosts.
The father and son to pay £29 us. between them,
it being left to them to decide which had the goods.

TRIAL OF PRISQ},IERS.
P05T43771C1 BODELRY.
&berg Liam, 38, letter-mrrier M Dorchester, wad:
charpd with *Ming a letter, being employed in,