The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1865-02-28 00:00:00

SHAFTESBURY.

COUNTY COURT, Monday, February 20th.—Before E.
Everett, Esq.—There were 60 plaints entered, about 20
of which °awe on for heariny.
.. . ..

BREACH OF WARRANTI7.—Moore v. Beatable.—
Claim £6.—This case was adjourned trent the last
court for the production of witnesses, and to amend
partioulars.—On the present occasion Mr. Atkinson
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Chitty for the defen-
dant. It will be remembered that Liu the last oomedon
it was proved by plaintiff that an exchange was made
between himself and the defendant. The plalutiff was
to give two pigs, value £3, and • pony? value £3, for a
horse, the defendant paying • sovereign to boot. A
warranty with the horse was given, but after the lapse
of four days plaintiff found it lame and broken-winded.
Two other horses were afterwards sent, but neither of
them suited the plaintiff, who now claimed the price of
the pigs and the pony.—Mr. Atkinson having briefly
opened the case, George Hatcher, a young man in the
plaintiff's employ, was called to prove that the first
horse was taken back to Mr. Bartelsle's in December.
Ho said he tied it to the back of the blacksmith's shop,
which belonged to defendant's father. The defendant
came out of his father's house and cursed about the
horse, and turned it loose. - By Mr. Chitty: Mr. Moore
told him the date it took place on; except what he told
him he did not know. Could not recollect how long it was
since he lived with Mr. Moore. Knew there were six
days in the week.—By his Honor : The horse was led
by a piece of twine, but be could not say whether the
twine was left on the horse, or the handle of the door.
The horse ran •way, and nearly over him.—Thomas
Bastable' son of the defendant, was next called. This
witness displayed an amount of ignorance truly de-
plorable. He said he belonged to the Roman Cstholie
Church, and had been to school at Marnhull, and also to
a school at Portsmouth. On being sworn he did not
appear to understand the nature of an oath. He stated
that he rectillected taking • note, by his mother's
direction, to the plaintiff. Could not say if the one
produced was the same. Could neither read or write.
Could not say if he took two notes. Could not say if be
went on two separate occasions to Hr. Moore'a house.—
His Hence to Mr. Atkinson : Just remind him be is sworn
to speak the truth.—Examination continued: Had been
to two or three schools, but could not read the Bible.
Had been to school at Marnhull, and also to a !wheel at
Portsmouth. Could not say bow long he was at echooL
His mother told him to carry thein down, and he took
them.—By Mr. Atkinson : Chen you took two notes,
did you I—Witness : I don't know, but I will not
swear I did not. Did not know anything about
hereafter. They sometimes showed him a book at the
school at Marnhull, but be did not know what was in it.
Would not know the note again if he saw it.
His Honor called the plaintiff's attention to
the note, when he said that it was the one
Bastable'a eon brought bins.—Mr. Atkinson said
he wished to spare the feelings of the defendant.
but as the notes sent by him were disputsd he should
now call his wife.—Sarah Beatable said that she was the
wife of the defendant, and mother of the last witness.
The note precluded she could not read, but she gave the
note to a boy to give to her son to take to Mr. Moore,
Her siafer-in-law wrote the note at her request. She
declined to say the note produced was the one. Her
husband said he should not answer the letter sent by
Mr. Moore, and she thought it best to do so, whidh she
did in his absence. Both notes were then handed to the
plaintiff, who said that he believed they were from the
defendant. —Amelia Emery said that the note produced
was in her handwriting. Her brother's wife asked her
to write, Ho was gone to Fifehead when she wrote one
of the notes.—Mr. Atkinson: Then you wrote both.
The letters having been read, witness stated that the
last read was written first. They were all merhbers of
the Roman Catholic Church.—His Honor having
decided that the agency was clearly established, the
plaintiff was examined by Mr. Chitty, and stated theta
man named Cable was present at the Nit transaction.
—Mr. Beatable said he would not warrant the third horse,
and he (plaintiff) kept it a week, and then sent it back.
The warranty was given with the first horse.—Mr.
Chitty then submitted that the first contract was
annulled by the subsequent transaotion ,• but his Honer
held that the first contract was good anil that the
changes had nothing to do with it The seoond and
third horses were as bad as the first. He therefore
balled upon the defendant to substantiate his Cll9O.
Defendant said that be told the plaintiff that this first
horse had a spot in its feet, bet it would get well in
time. The plaintiff sent it baok,and he supplied nether.
He would not have that, and he sent • third. That he
kept a week.—Dsfendast called John Keeble, who said
he remembered being at Moore's house when Beatable
came with a horse. There was another horse there.
Heard defendant say that as the one plaintiff had did
not snit him he had brought another. There was
nothing said about warranty.—His Honor having briefly
summed up, gave a verdict for the plaintiff to be paid
forthwith.—Defendant was very violent, and swore he
would not pay a penny, and by his Honor's direction
Weis ordered out of courts
J. Gardilsr Green v. Henry White.—Claim £3 for
attendance and medicineg.—Plaintiff stated that he
attended the defendant's wife at Tisbnds She went
there to wait on her sister who had typhoid teem,.
After she had been there a short time she wallahs° take
ill, and at her request he supplied her with medicines.
She bad the fever, and was ill 18 weeks.—Defendant's
wife admitted that she had the medicine, but said she
did not order it. —His Honor remarked that people did
not often take medicine from the mere liking of it.—
Defendant said that his wife went to nurse her sister,
who had the fever,and the ministerof his parish and the
oterseet Would not allow her to come home on that
aceount, His wife wag quite well when she left, and
he did not call in the medical mail. He was toll that
the parish would pay the dos:eon—Plaintiff stated
that in all pariah cases he had a written order
from the relieving offirier.—}fis Honor remarked
he could very well understand the objection ranged by
the defendant, but as the medicines in her case were
necessaries the same as if she had been starving and
bread was given her, the defendant was liable.—
Verdict for plaintiff at 4s. per month.
The game v. George Marshall.—Claim 145., of which
14. 6d. had been paid since the summons was issued.-
-Verdict ter remainder in • month.
John Jess ii. Thodial How,-''Claim £3 Bs. 6d. for
butter.—Mr. Chitty appeared for the plaintiff.-6 I
cheque for £1 19s. 4d. was handed into Court, And *
verdict was given for the remainder in seven daps
A FATHER REFUSING TO JEW MIS OWN CHILD.
—John Galpin v. James Roae.—Claiin £2 ss. for
the support of an infant for 30 weeks—Plaintiff
stated that the defendant, who resides at Marnholl,
married hit daughter, and that after their
marriage they resided at his Miriam Abend a fort-
night after the wife's confinement she died, leavitig an
infant. He kept the child free of charge for the first
three months. Soon after his wife's death defendant
left his house. He did not then say anything about
supporting the child as the doctor considered it
would not live. When his daughter died they agreed
that plaintiff should keep her things, and that he
should pay all expenses of the funeral. His daughter
died oil the 2nd
,Mareht 1863, and they had kept the
child ever since. The defendant married again about
Deoember.—The wife of the plaintiff stated that on the
20th of June she spoke to the defendant about the
child, and said she could not keep it for nothing, at
the same time asking him if he would pay is. 6d per week
for its support. He agreed to do so, and paid at that rate
for six months. He then gave up coming to see the
child, and at the end of 14 weeks she sent him • note,
and he then came and paid for 14 weeks. He paid up
to July, 1564, and had not paid anything since.—De-
fendant said that Mare was no agreement made. About
three months after his wife'adeseh, plaintiff's wife asked
him for something to buy the child some clothing, and
he gave her some money. He could not say how moth.
—By his Honor: Did you pay her for the 14 weeks at
Is. 6d. per week ?—Defendant replied that he did • but
it was for the child's clothes.—His Honor : What a
guinea for an infant's clothing in 14 weeks I You ought
to be ashamed of yourself, air, to act in such • disgrace.
ful manner.-,-.Verdict for plaintiff beyond all doubt.
On the dedision being given loud cheers broke forth
from those present.
Robert Fray v. John Alford.—Claim £3 Bs. 2d.—The
plaintiff, who lives at Tisbury, has been employed by
the defendant to quarry stones, and the claim was for
work done.—Aceording to the defendant's statement,
plaintiff owed him upwards of £5, and that he
had kept bank some irons used by the defendant in
his work. After a somewhat lengthy investigation the
parties agreed, by the advice of the judge, to select as
their referee Mr. Silas Coombe, whose decision, his
Honor observed, should be final.
DON'T PAY rvrios.—Jeremiah Spicer v. Maidment
—Claim 15s. for fagots. In this ease it was clearly
proved not only that the money was paid, but that of
the 15s. charged for the wood, the defendant only had
6s. worth.—The bill, duly reoeipted by the plaintiff's
wife, was handed into Court, and his Hotor gave judg-
ment for defendant with costa, remarking that the
plaintiff had brought him up very unjustly.
Wears ii. Mitchell.—Claim £l2 Ba.—Mr. Chitty ap-
peared for the plaintiff.—After hearing the evidence
his Honor said it was clearly proved that the wrong
man had been summoned. It was the defendant's
father who agreed for the pigs, and he alone was halls.
Mr. Mitchell, sen., said he had tendered the money,
but this was denied by the plaintiff.—His Honor gave
• verdict for the defendant with costs, and Mr. Mitchill
immediately handed a cheque to the plaintiff for the
amount.

Targett e. Denby. - Claim 21 12a 6d. for hobby-
borses.—Plaintiff said the order was given on the 19th
August, and he delivered the goods to Thomas Hayter,
who had to decorate them—Defendant said that he
gave some hair to the plaintiff to oolnb out, and had
had Mr. Tapper to value the work.—lt appeared, how-
ever, from Mr. Tapper's statement, that he only saw one
out of the whole number, and his Honor gave a verdict
for plaintiff.

Prm SIMMONS, Tuesday.—Before J. On Bottlay
and C. Gordon, Rep.,
BAST STONES—Arthur Towles was charged with
being drunk and riotous on the 3rd instant. —The ease
wits fully proved by P.C. Hobbs, who also said that
when he requested the defendant to go borne peace-
ably, he made at him and struck off his hat. He also
abused and knocked Mr. Mills about.—Fined 20s. and
coots, or 14 days' imprisonment —Fine paid.
GILLINGHAM. —Frederick Snook was charged with
being drunk and riotous, and refusing to leave the
Fir-tree inn when requested to do so by the landlord.—
Mr. Chitty appeared for the defendant.—P.C. Pain
said that on the 28th of January he was sent for by the
landlord of the Fir-tree inn, and when he got
there he found the defendant struggling with
the landlord. Ho was in • fighting attitude. The
landlord had previously put him out. After • short
time witness got him away, and he went home.—By Mr.
Chitty There were several parties present, all standing
up. The man did not strike him but went home peaceably.
Chitty said that hp would not deny his client was