The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1878-08-20 00:00:00

POOLE

AT the last &mamma.; —County Court, before Mr. T.
E. P Lefroy, Judge. the cane of Tlin Bourinamouth COW
ammo Beath was heard—an acu
from the vildentlant, who lime t Poole. iltirmer:ceTir
through his haw* meets: a booth on the beach
tori=Eitit Ampert.-111r. J. Draitt, JUL. who append
for plaintiffs, oald the action WM brought with a view to
monist the Oiratmlemionen in carrying into fome their bye-
law, regulating the erection of bos, ac., on the beech.
Defendant pat up his stall on the beach at Bournemouth
on thin last Beak-holiday, mad refused to Mks it away
when requestad.—Mr. Torrandon. who appeered for eh*
defendant. said he was under the iMPreilliOn that UM
Commissioners had no right to enforce a toll, but whom
he found they could do so, he peld the 'Ming charged.
D./4.4,0t woo not present but he (Mr. Trmanken) wee
ibeereeted to say that he was advised by one or twe
Commissioners themselves to remain on the beach, or be
would hare moored the stall he erected when told to do
an—Mr. Druitt said that was not cornett—Me ledge
meld as defendant woo not mama he would give Ma
solicitor an opportunity or agreeing to a verdict 04 10a,
with cost, on the higher scab, sad alUtnately • median
by consent woo given for go., with coati on the SE scale.
Comm, COURT.— Me lest 'SUM/ of thus Court =
to the long vacation tirma held on Thursday Into.
Chamber. eh. Petty flessima being held In the Guildhall
alto. sataa time. TM following aims cum before Judge
Litre/ :
Mosisrensa V. pietism —The anamant claimed woe for
rent of. cottage ald. per week.- The plaintiff, in the
course of her evidsnos. amid • thous* was put in for rest,
sod the &radiant said he was turned out after sunset,
mg everything woo settled. TM defendant prod aced •
receipt for 64., paid at them Curtis and Sons care at
Bournemouth- —Judigraent was given for £333. &L, to bo
paid by Instalments of Saper meth
Lewis v. Mg —This woo an adjourned open The
Moist claim was for CS /Ts 54., and th• cede wee
adfou but the defeadant dtd aot modem
re:MAN w bm said were in his posessidcm. —Thellindte
enbi bue be brought bis rearpta—Kr.
m woo not torsat:m awn the original
'haven who
datondant wont to the
oan
asil aRO tie plidadi

cremegeted to take half the mew. The defendant, how-
ever, did not pay the mosey. and be (tri Trevor') We
him notice that the agreement just mentioned was null
and void —The defendant told the Judge he went to Kr-
Oakley. Mr. Blanchard, an, mg. Lewin, and they each
agree to wart lb in the pound. Hs believed he paid
the plaintiff L 7 10e. and he let him hays two. tons of coal
and a ton Of hay—Mr. Travels said he was willing to allow
for everything of which he gave the plainti ff • correct
flee'euh—Judgment was given for the amount claimed.
The Pools Waterworks Cesipsem v. Booth —The amount
claimed was LW tor water eupolied to some cottages
belonging the defendant, for whom 111 r. H. T. Trevanion
' &Peewee:l.—Mr H. F. J. Brrnee, secretary of the company,
said the defendant extend* t his pipe so as to supply the
cottages in wiestion, without given a written notice to the
company. This was done in 1P74, and It was not till
March t that he knew that the defendant had done
thia—Mr. Trevanioe •dd if his client did this he would
be liable criminally.—The Judge sdd if. without the
consent of the company, the defendant used the water, he
must pay for it. —Mr. Barnes said three weeks ago he had
the water simply stopped and the defendant paid six
months' water rent—in reply jo Mr. Trevanion, witness
said in cutting off the weter from the cottages he cut off
the wisely from Mr. Jambe's, and he had a right to do so.
Mr. Jacobs had paid regularly. He turned the 'rater on
again when the defendant paid him LI, the scream from
December to June. He refused to admit his liability, but
said he paid the money because the tenants had no water.
Witness endorsed the receipt, that it was not to prejudice
the sneers—Kr. F. Sharp said Mr. George Curtis gave
gave him an order in April, J 974, to lay on the water in
the ordinary way, and he did so—Mr. Barnes said be had
only charged from June, 1874.—He. Sharp. to answer to
Mr. Tres union, said he had no doubt that Kr. Curtis gave
him the usual notice to give to the company. but he could
not now remember as it was no long ago.—Mr. Trevanion
said this was not • vexations defence to • good
claim. The defendant was supervisor of ',dee of
an octet:mho district, and, whilst away from Poole,
he left the management of his houses to Mr. G. Curtis,
who was fully copoisant of all the rules as to the
supplying of water. Mr. Curtis would show that he pre-
pared • form of request to be Permitted to make the
extension of the main to the cottatet, and he gave it to
Kr. Sharp, who was the recognised water-fitter to the
company. No demand was made on the defendant, and
he thought the money was paid by the tenant,. He (Mr.
Trevanion) contended that the company were making a
negligent use of their statutory powers, which were more
than the common law gave them, and, because the
cottages were under £lO each, they were foisting the
water-rent on the landlord. If the defendant had known
that the tenants had not paid for the water he would
have paid it and charged the tenants with the amount,
but at the present rite, there were only two of the
original tenants remaining. The defendant never received
a farthing from his tenants for water rent, and It was un-
resaonahle that the commit should hav- allowed the
matter t o go on so long, until, to the defendant's Miaow
surpris-, they sent him a bill for £lO. If anyone 'offered
it should be die company, because it was through their
dean t that the defendant was now called on to pay.—
The defendant then gave evidence, and he tonflrmsd
'Preemie's:is statements, •a far as they applied to himself.
He also steed thlh he hail now added 31. per week to the
Secant.' rat for the water supply, and they willingly
paid it. He would not ask the two of the original tenants
who now remain. d to pay any arrears for water.—Mr. G.
Curtis said he fl 1.1 up the proper form and gave it either
to Mr. Sharp or Lis men. He knew that neither the Gam
nor the Water Company would tap mains without the
(roper forma-11r B mews said in this case there was no
reason go tap the nista, because it was a continuous pipe.
—llr Curtis said is hundreds of cases the company sup-
plied water to the tenant, for b. Sd. • quarter, and the
defendant belleysd they were doing so In the wawa
cees.—Judgment was given for the plaintiffs.
Boil v. gui,—this was an adjourned case, the claim
being for hire of sack,. Mr. W. H. Atkinson, of Bland-
ford, was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Treavers for the de-
defendant —Yr. Treavers said he sugirestegl a reference,
but it was not agreed to—The plaintiff said he would not
object to a reference if the defendant would not pay the
costa—Mr. louvers said he should he willing for the
costs to foto", the event, and the plaintiff said in that case
he should be out of pocket. mho wine sure th it his accounts
were coreect —lt was agreed that the dispute should he
referred to lift. George 'woe,
Thinies v. CU:or-A.—This was an account for groceries,
b., dosed to Le owing by the defendant, who lives at
Lychett —lie said his deter, who was dead, and who was
formerly his housekeeper, contracted the (told—Judgment
for the plaintiff, for whom Mr. Trevanion a_ppeered.
Cha.bery v &met —The plaintiff sued T 1 mas Street
for LI St, for the hire of • bicycle.—Mr. Trevanion
Tfor the defendant—The plaintiff sta on ted that
ifedreday evening, the sth of July, 1877. the defendant
hired the bicycle, and did not return it till the following
Monday. Ile charged him ed. per hour, for 44 bourn,
being at the rate of twelve hours per day : The machine
was damaged by a person named Pottle, to whom the
defendant lent it lie (plaintiff) be refused to let out to
Pottle a bicycle of that class.—The defence was that •
young man named Hurdle. who had left l'oole, hired the
bicycle, and that he was liable- The defendant said the
machine was not in proper repair when Hurdle hired it,
and this was the cause of the accident. They had had it
reported he plaintiff said he did not claim anything
for the demure, although. in co...suet:ice of this, he hail
sold the bicycle below its full value. —A verdict was given
for the plaintid for 10e.
Pety v. eiwith.—The Rev. Maenamara Pater, Rector
Of Ilamworthy, sued Mr. Joseph smith, organist of St.
James's Church, Poole, for £5 Its ed., for breach of
covenant Mr. Travers was for plaintiff, and Mr. Reginald
Aldridge for the defendant —Mr. Travers said this WWI an
adjourned cam, and the question was whether certain
repairs done to a house were done on the ow side or inside.
Ilse plaintiff 1 ft the Imam to the defendant, and when
the latter left the plaintiff said it was not in • proper state
of repair. Mr. eravers put in an agreement. hut Mr.
Aldridge, and also the court, objected that it was
unetamped.—A nunsuit was order.