The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1882-10-03 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.

Momr.

(Before Mr. Srrjearit Tirrnra.-Arxixsori. Judge.)

Witthou llounseil v. James B,l6:Asc.—This was • )64110
mint eununons. The wife appeared, and said she tied
held OA 0( £1 2.. lier husband genii 15t. p3r work
when be could. They had nine chtldreh. Pleintiff mid
ell the chlidren were et work. The Registrar reminded
him the child in arms wee not. His Honour told her if sit
tau Plait:kite's ciistooleis were like her he would soon be
In the bankroptcy court. Order voted to 4s. c month.
Dr. William Turner v. Charles Fraacis, printer. —1 ads.
meat summons for £1 17e. 61. Order mid, sor 14 days,
j..plgruent not to iseue if lald within • moth.
W. 11. Blanchard v. John Wheeler.—This was e cleim
for .C 5 at -neat due on • loan 01 £B7. Mr. Trevor., for t o
complainant, briefly stated that tile defendant la id become
indebted to the plamtiff to that amount, and as la curity
lir the loan he .ado over the mortgage of • Policy fir
£lOO. He put in an agreement to that effect which bed
been signed by the defendant. His Honour hiked bun
what he had to say to that. Defendant said be never reed
the egreement. The feet was Kr. Travers to 'd biro ii
he made over the whole of the policy he would have to
par no interest. (Mr. Trevor* denied this.) Now they
wahted to charge him not only this interest on the loan,
but the profits on the policy as well. The Judge said be
was clearly liable under that agreemen', hod he moat
fin.. for the plaintiff for the amount clamed. Didendent
said he would have it set asid3.
Angel Hodges v. James Conaish.—Cialm £l4 5.. 41.; and
Ditto v. Thomas Cornish, £lB 12. —Mr. Trevas wee for
the plaintiff, a draper in the Higheetiseh Mr. Br..ii.••
Hill for the defendants, who live at Li tchett. From the
statement of Mr. Ti avers, is appeared the goods were
supplied in July, 1577, upon the death of the ists Mrs.
Bhippick. His client was called upoo •yt o ex cu rto
make arrange silents for the inners], and be was t0.1.l th I
various parties would 1.1 bins, Accordingly two of the
defendents (there are three) called, and ordered o. r am
articles of mourning, and Mr. Hodges was told by th to
the truitaes would pay, hut in addition, on both orrestoca
he was told that if the trustees did not they, the ri I.
ant', would. It seemed they wets all entitled no It r tli
will to certain legacies, arid the goods were are 4.1 IL
supplied them, and they were used by them. Oa epp'y•
ing to the executor it seemed noise family dispute hot
arisen, sad the whole thing had been thrown into the
Court of Coonoory. Hi.. Honour said no doobt Mr.
Travers saw the difficulty In the case, and with that
experience he had acquired wae endoevourtni t avoid it.
It was bard upon Mr. Hodges. Why not bring into
operation that whole...me provision the 17th order, 161
sec., and make both parties defendants. His Honour read
the section, and it gave the Court the power, if it saw
to order the addition or removal of any names to an artaini
Exceptions were, however, made. In Vie mime of a plain.
tiff his consolt bad firet to be &eked ; in that of • defend.
ant be must have notice given him. He was 04 opinion
the names of the trustees stioeld be ad led as defendants.
and for that purpose should adjourn the case. We were
Informed the cent of the funeral of the late Hrs. flhipairki
of which these tso claims are items, was £lll Ile 61.
Maidment v. B .debt e 'Hector. claimed
7s. 61, three days' work, of the defendant, (couture
deel. rof High-street, in collecttna debts. Defetidant tied
offered 5., hut his liohoar. alter bearing the rase, sod the
sere rut war worthy of his hire, and found for the 0010004
claimed, with costs.