The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1865-07-25 00:00:00

4/r.'

m:-
turn
bad i
who. I

Summers bought a house and large garden at the hack,
of Mr. Oxford;. The property adjoins toemises rented
by Mr. Caleraft and occupied by Mr. Summers, a gen-
ie-law of Mr. Hobbs. Being essious to raise the height
of Miserall opperatiog the two properties, be had, en
the 219th March, erected a scaffold for the purpose,
employing MI.. Hobbs- to do the work. On the day in
question while Mr. Summers wan giving direction, re-
specting question,
building°, the Wall, the defendant knocked
him off the scaffold back...lads, whereby the plaintiff
sustained considerable injury. 11 had been offered to
the defendant to withdrew the charge on his psyingthe
costs incurred and making a sufficient •polog., and this
course was still open to him, whioh, if he dice
not accept, he, (Mr. Cole) would ask the jury te give.
exemplary damages.
Henry Barnes, architect and surveyor of Doreheder„
produced a plan of the boundary wall separating tie
premises of the plaintiff and those occupied by kir.
Anderson. There were five piers on Mr. Ando/soles
side of the wall.
WSW Summers, the plaintiff, said that in Septem-
ber last he purchased a house and garden behind,
adjoining I:l,c:ideas ocenpled by Mr. Anderson, the,
defendent's son-indaer, who rented them of Mr. Calmat,
Mr. Oxford was the original proprietor of the nremisee
plaintiff purchased, Being anxious to raise the'
boundary wall he employed a person named Hobbs for
that purpose, sod t secifold was erected on his own side
of the nali He bad no oomplaint from Mr. Andersot
about the erection of the scaffold, but on the 21rtlx
March the defendant meree Int plaintiff's yard,
said to plaintiff, "yea shall not raise that wall
—you are craze." Plaintiff told him to go off his
premises. Defendant then left,- and said be woMd
kick plaintiff'. if he came out. Plaintiff went
outside of the gate, and as defendant walked
mese, plaintiff remarked, "I suppose, then, yea lass
thought better." Defendant then went up Andescars
side of the wall, said that plaintiff was a murderer, ise
he had struck hls little boy with a bacon knife and hadbeen tent to Forston Lunatic Asylum, and told Hobbs
not to raise the wall. Plaintiff told lobbs to goon—
he himself was responsible, the remedy was by action
-
Plaintiff then got on the wall, and told Hobbs bow high
he was to build the wall, said the property was his, and
that he could build a house upon it if he chose. De.
fendaot then struck plaintiff on the head, knocked ther
brim of his hat in dais eye, end knocked firm of thy
scaffold. He got on the scaffold again, and again de-
fendant knocked him off. He did not feel me* of the
affair at first,but afterwards suffered from a "deli Obis
side," which vine occasioned by being knocked from tire
scaffold. Mr: IVilliams, surgeon, attended him fee •
fortnight, and administered embrocations and inward
medictines.—Crnes-eeamined by Mr. Kendalre : On the
3rd of April, Mrs. Anderson summoned bin before the
magistrates for a breach of the peace, which the said he
had broken on the 25th of March in question. Plain-
tiff said nothing to Mrs. Anderson—only told her he
did not want to have anything to say to her. Mrs.
Anderson had • lot of jessamines nailed to the wall,
and hanging two feet over the wall, and he took a Itaile
and ripped the leathers with which the shrubs were
nailed. Mn. Summers begged him to desist, bat be re-
fused, Plaintiff's premise-a would ultimata,' fall to.
Mr. Calcraft's heirs, but were held under a thousand)
years' !gime. When defendant talked of kicking him„
he told him he might do it if he liked. He might albs
have shaken the tail of his coat at him. Did not rash.
' at Mr. Card, tree threaten him in any way.
Mr. Hobbit said that on the 25th of March he was
, engaged by Mr. &enrages to raise a wall. He saw •
jessamine growing on Mrs. Anderson's side of the
, wall and over the wall. The defendant mune up the
, street, and into plaintiff's premises, and told plaintiff
he was not to raise the wandi was not his pr3perty„
Plaintiff told witness to go on, be week! *es him all
right. He then ordered defendant to go off his pre-
mises. As defendant was going out of thefflt,e, be said if
Mr. Summers would not go out he coeld kinkii —.
Mr. Summers then went out, pulled upthe tail of Me
goat, and said, "here it is." Defendant then weed ep
Mr. Anderson's side of the wall, and said fist lite
Summers ought to be in • lunatic asylum, and del be
had cut his child with • knife. Defendant then audit
plaintiff got on the scaffold, be would push him off;
Mr. Summers got on the scaffold, amddefendant pushed
him off twice. Mee. Anderson then same oat, anti
begged her father to go in. - Croasexamined The
scaffold consisted of a plank, supported by two soap
boxes. Witness saw some branches of shrub' lying in
Mr. Anderson's garden which had been Mgt or The
wall wasraised ll inches, the height intended, Weems
of the bricks had since been knocked off.
George Piper, a Journeyman bricklayer, employed by
Mr. Hobbs, and who was present at the; time of the,
assault, said that Mr. Card told Mr. Summers that
if he went on with the wall it would be knocked doer..
When defendant told Mr. Summers that be mit his
child in the face with the bacon knife, Mr. Summers
turned the boy round, and asked if be could see the
mark. While Mr. Summers was cutting the shrubs
away from the wall the defendant got up and pushed
him back. The wall could have been built without de-
taching the shrubs.
Mr. Karelake, in addressing the jury, said that Mr.
Anderson being from home that day, Mrs. Anaemia
very naturally sent for her father when the out sea
being committed with the Arabs. It would Ss proved, he
believed that the wall belonged to Mr. Anderson, and
I that the defendant had no right with it whatever, math&
lase with the shrubs growing in Mr. Anderson's garden..
Besides which the defendant himself would oorroborate.
the evidence of the last witness for the plaintiff, that he
did not strike a blow but simply pushed him from his,
son-in-law's boundary, where he had no right to be.
Be therefore asked for a verdict in defendant's favour.
- .

Mrs. Julia Anderson, dati-gh-te-; of the defendant,
lived in the house adjoining defendant's nearly two.
years. Her husband being an architect, was often
away from home, and this was the case on the 25th of
March. On that trimming after her husband had
left, she saw the plaintiff cutting away the shrub'
nailed against the boundary wall. She sake&
him what he was doing? to whish he reptimf
it was no business of hen. She begged him to
dbefet, but be gen kept cutting earerything away, and
maid the wall was his own and be ahouJowbita.
he liked. Ile appeared to be in a passion, arra said, V
she did not like it she might bring an action against him
She then went in and sent for her father, who told bins
the well was not bis, and because plaintiff would not
desist from cutting away the shrubs, her father tried to
push him away—he did not strike him—and plaintiff
then jumped off the stage. In cross-examination witnewe
said the plaintiff was a very passionate man, and mho
was really afraid of him till she swore her life against.
him. While he was tearing and cutting the shrubs
from the wall, she put her hand up and asked him not
to lejure them, when he raised the hand in which kw
held his knife and said, "Get away; I'll do for you
some day." Some of the sprigs of the jessamine did grow
over the

Charles Card, the defendant in the ease, said be knew,
the plaintiff's premises before Mr. Oxford built the
house. The buttresses of the boundary wall were built
Mr. Anderson's side of the wall and an outhouse bt
longing to them was built on the wall. He then oorro-
berated that portion of his daughter's eyidsnoe relating,
to himself.

William Anderson, eon-in-law of defendant, produoed
I a plan of the disputed walL He was from home on the
25th Mach, and on his return he approved of what hie
father-in-law had donr, and from when he was told 130
went • few days afterwards and took out a summon,.
He dad not know that he was told the shrube had been
cut. In cross•examinatMn witness said he might barn
told Mr. Barnes that the raising of the wall had'
improved the property. He believed it had improved
hi property as it was more private than before.
Wm. Oxford said that his mother formerly lived its
the house now oocupied by Mr. Anderson, and that she
built part of the wall in question, and he finished the
other portion after her death. His mother continue
the owner of the property till 1847, when she cher).
Witness bought Dorset House, mince sold to defendant,
about the year 1840. The continuation wall, which,
winces built, belonged to the plaintiff. At this part of
the proceedings a juror was withdrawn by the ammo&
of both parties, each to pay their own costs.

- - .
Tauta or Paisoriar:
CONOIALMINT 07' BERTH;
Lavinia Barter was charged with concealing the birth
of her child, at I.lolwell, near Sherborne, May Ist,. Mr.
Collins prosecuted. The only evidence adduced wee
what had been elicited from prisoner, by the constable
t.lling her she was bound to answer him anything.
This being the ease his Lordship directed the jury to
acquit prisoner. Verdict aecordingly.

ATTIMPTED CHILD MURIA&
Agnes Flower was charged with attempting to mur-
der her newly.born infant child by fracturing its /ikon,
at Shaftesbury, Marsh 26. Site was also charged with
a common assault. Mr. Saunders prosecuted and
Mr. Oole defended. Prisoner was living as cook
so Mr. Baker, surgeon, and on 26th May asked •
fellow servant to clear something away in the garden.
On going there she heard a child cry, and called others
to the spot. A search was made, and • babe disoovered
in a seakale bed. Mr. Bennett took the child into his
house, and it had since done well. It was not • hill
grown ehild. Prisoner had since been married. Tile
judge said the second count of the indictment only weld
go before tbe jury. After • brief consideration that
jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

STEALING BOOTS AT DORCHESTER.

William Hines, seaman iii H. M'. navy.waa indicted
for stealing a pair of boOte, of the value of 12a., the
Property of Matthew MoCooaville, at Dorchester, on
the 20th July. Mr. Itavenhill prosecuted. —The prisoner
laid lie did not take the boote—they teloored to hie
chum. Sentenced to three weeks' hard labour.
The Court rote at five o'clock.

I the