The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1865-04-11 00:00:00

This was an action to recover the value of certain
plant and machinery bought by the plaintiff at a male of
the defendant's effects, at Londe Mill, Fordington, held
by Mr. Rnsor. The defendant, in his pleadiege, denied
that the plaintiff bought the plant and machinery, and
.flisat he had complied with the conditions of sale. It
'trip
.faet lieu Merr.le'rlearitdttde3l64lge Oftattheemt effectsth of
at
Alm defendant, • woollen manner. Plaintiff bought
several lots for £4B, and considered the articles worth
.10IL One condition of the sale was that the articles
be removed from the premises within seven days
of the sale, but, as some of those bought by
_plaintiff
were actually built in the wall, be had an ietat*rir with
the defendant, who said he might have until the
following Michaefinam to take them away. A fees daye
after plaintiff went to the defendant's premium to
remove the artielesowid line clefendstat then refused to
let him have tnem unless he cleared them out that
evening, which it wee haposeible tot him to do. The
defendant staticased • .polionnan on the premises to
prevent the entrance of plaintiff, and, the letter 'being
unable to get away the sztielas, he had brought the
present action.
At the conclusion of the plaintiff's examination in
Wel the ooart adjourned until Wednesday nursing,
The plaintiff's witnesses were amordingly in course
of being examined on Wednesday morning, wigs, lime
learned Judge inteepeted, andasbed aielloiseildia
' was 'meditating the oronsexaminaties, wbolbsr be had
any evidence which would soinbatabat fele the plaintiff
as to the pertebefiee extending eke time for the removal
of the goods, and as to what teak place at the second
meeting- of the parties. He should think • man must be
• fool to pay his money when be was dirtiest'y tad
that he would not be allowed sualaiwat time to remove
the goods he had bought.
M. Kingdon replied that be should be able to prove
that there was an express agreement between the
parties that the plaintiff should have only three days,
heyood the time specified in the conditioo allowed Mtn
for the removal of the good., the reason for not grantieg
longer time assigned by defendant being that he should
'be so fully occupied during the ?eolith of September
'that he could pot be at the mill to deliver them There
Were letters between the plaintiff and the aneeloneer
eh confirmed this, and it could be further proved
that on the morning when plaintiff and his men went
-Iblbe mill they might have arrived by an earlier train,
that the defendant told them he bad been waiting there
at great inconvenienee, sad that unless the goods were
removed by six o'olock that evening they could not be
taken away.
The learned Judge said whether or not a bargain for
three days was made it was not likely that the plaintiff
would enter into an agreement to pay the money when
he could not have the goods. If the money were accepted
a reasonable time should be allowed for the removal of
the goods.
Mr. Kingdon said if his lordithip and the jury were of
that opinion it was of no use for him to waste their
time in carrying the eaae farther.
The jury said they were of opinion, from the plain.
tiff's ease, that he was entitled to recover, and what
by the hop* spiriel for the derendrit
theft opinient. •
Irma diseassignaurcurdiet for theplaintiff
rifl, was entered.