The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1867-08-20 00:00:00

WAREHAM.

Perry SUSIONI, August 13th—Before 0. W. Purer.
J. Mowlem, and N. Bond, Esqrst —Richard Blanchard,
a coast•guardsman of White Nothe, wu summoned for
using threatening language towards Charles Emmanuel
Beggs, of the same place, on July 30. Dismiseed with
a eaution.—Thos. Lock and Thos. Hibbs, of Winfrith,
were summoned for trespassing in search of game,
on land in the occupation of Philip Burden, on July 30th,
on the complaint of Mr. Thomas Basoombe. Look did
not appear, and service of the summons was proved by
Sergeant Florence. Case dismissed,—Wm. Runyard,
of Wool, was summonal for allowing two cows to +tray,
on the highway, at Woolbridge, without • follower,
on the complaint of P.C. Bridle.—t autioned and
dismissed.

A SOLICITOR'S DIRPUTTI. —At the last County Court
the only case of interest was that of Trevenen e.
Phippard and Howell, in which the plaintiff, who
practises as a solicitor in the town, sought to recover
from the defendants, who are also solicitors in Ware.
ham, possession of a book called "Okra Magisterial
Synopsis,' value £2 10s.—Mr. Weston for plaintiff. Mr.
Atkinson for defendant—The plaintiff some years ago
entered into partnership with Mr. Phippard, and it
existed till 16th March last when the term haring
expired, they came to • mutual understanding and
dissolved partnership. Plaintiff said that he purchased
I the book in question and paid for it out of his own
pocket. On leaving Mr. Phippard. Maroli 19, he
removed his portion of the office furniture and various
law books, including that in question. On July Ist
Baker. Phippard and Howell's clerk, borrowed the
book from plaintiff's clerk, during his absence, and on
application made for it, several evasive answers
were given, and at length it was said the defendants
could not hid Mr. Trevenen the book. The book was
paid for with other goods by a cheque for £l6 19s. 6.1.,
and plaintiff said this payment had never gene into the
partnership accounts. In cross-examination, plaintiff
said by the diary produced the Ina 19s. 6d. might be
charged to the office, but he had never been allowed it.
Did you not intend it should be charged to the office
account? A. Doubtless, if I had been allowed it.
1 The amount is charged there under that account ; but
it has never been allowed. - Mr. Atkinson: I am aware
of that. Have you and Mr. Phippard settled your
accounts? There was • mutual arrangement by which
our accounts were settled. —Q. Settled or to be settled?
Have you received or paid any money under that
arrangement? Are you not at mount a considerable
sum in Mr. Phippard s debt ? —A. For premium only.
Q. You deny that you owe hitn anything under the
partnership account !—A. Under that deed of arrange.
I meat I do deny it. Mr. Atkinson put in the deed of
arrangement, with the plaintiff's signature to it, by
which the partnership assets are to belong to Mr.
Phippard, and in addition to that lie into receive £llOO.
If, after that, there is any balance, it is to be divided
between him and Mr. Trevenen, after all debts are
paid. Mr. Atkinson again asked plaintiff if this sum
I of £l6 194. Cal. WU not charged to the offioe account?
I —A. By the amounts it was charged, but I have
received nothing for it.—Q. Under that deed is not
Mr. Phippard to provide you with • statement of
debts and credits between this and the Ist November
next?— A. Yes, the debts and credits which he receives
since our dissolution. After some further evidence,
his Honour said he had watched the case closely, and
he could find nothing in the world, from the time it
Was bought up to the time of the dissolution of
partnership, that the plaintiff treated it in any other
way than partnership property. If they looked at the
accounts, if they looked to the payment, or if they
looked to the diary, they found this all confirmed. The
plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited.