The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1867-05-14 00:00:00

BRIDPORT COUNTY COURT.

Thera were üboat 140 raw before 13. Everett, Esq.,
Judge, ow Wrdousioy, many of wbiai ware settled oat
of court._

naanalßeed.--Clitim of £9 Em 94., for
piles and railing dens the plantiff. who ins formerly
dairyman for the def nt, a farmer at Milton. Mr.
Day for plaintiff. Mr. E. W. Gandry for defendant.
Plaintiff stated he did the work, but when the bill met
in to defendant Wei &SO to him to read, he said be
could not reed.—Creseusamined : Though he could not
reed he Gould write, but not very much. The work
done was during last year at gram Vino. He hired ,
eleven Goers of defendant and milked them, but was not
hie dairyman. (His Honour said he wondered he wet
not ashamed of himself to stand there and say so.) The
rails were put round nob.; there were three rift. which
were not protected at all before. Mr. Read desired him I
to pit the piles and railing. He first made • demand
for this amount about • month ago. H. had not then
been served with the mammon. to last County Court,
sad it was not made in eonerquenes of being summoned
by defendant to that ooart.—lisiaxernined : What he
meant by saying he did not go to these premises au
dairyman was that he was by trade • carpenter, sod it
was not until be had been there two years that he took
the eows.—Mr. Day went on to examine hire with
reference to the signature of his name to a document
which was produced in the ran It last court, which the
plaintiff then denied wee his, and his Honour thought
he bad committed perjury, and gave the verdict against
him an that ecossiom The plaintiff now again denied
the signature to be his, and his Honour told Mr. Day
, that if be went into that now, mid the man glean Mooted
the signature beton him, he should oommit him for
perjury. He would have done be at lad mart, only
that it would have cost the county £4O.—A eon of
plaietirs, • young man, was called, who swore to Mr.
Read having reirested his father to put the piles sod
railing, and harm( promised to haul them, though he
did not do so ; be also said he eould not read wilting.—
The defendant denied giving any order for railing to
plaintiff. The claim had never bsen made on hint until
plaintiff was served with the nmroons to this court.
He paid • bill in December last to plaintiff, at which
time he heard nothing about this clalm.—Croes-ex.
mined The rails being put round rick, would be •
benefit to them, and to the landlord in consequenes.—
His Honour said be would not believe the plaintiff for
one moment ; the perjury he committed at lest court
would prevent his doing that, he believed what the de-
fendant said, and gave • Teethed for defendant with
met&
Mr. Dunham,. Isaac Oslo (plaintiff in former case),
—Claim of £9 16 t —lt appeared there wee an evocation
out against defendant for costs in the action at last
court, and Mr. Manley had a bill of sale on his goods,
and it was elated defendant intended to go through the
b.nkruptcy mart, so thst it .eased tory doubtful if
plaintiff would est anything.—He served to take El a
month, whioh Ida Honour ordered deleadent to pay.
Mr. John Brown Hopkins, farmer, e. J.R. Wyndham,
Req.—Claim for £9 64. Symonds, of Dot.
ebeeter, for plaintiff, and Mr. Leggin for defendant.
The plaintiff said he lived at Loden; the defendant. Mr.
Wyndham, bad had the management of Sir Molyness
Nepean's estate for some years past, and formerly lived
at Loden Court. H. remind an order foe reed, spars,
and straw from defendant through hie fervent. The
draw wan delivered at defendant's stables, the reed de.
fendant sent his servant Parsons for. It was used on
the outhouses M Loder. Court. He etsred 50a. per
100 to defendant for the reed, which Ittihad been in the
habit of charging; £2 per load for feeding straw ; in. Rd.
per cwt. for litter straw; and 3s. 9d. per 1,000 foe the
span. He was a tenant of Sir Molyneux Neiman and
his family for 40 yearn, but was not a tenant now.
Croes-exanained : He bad a lame some years ego but
lately had been renting from year to year on a verbal
nt which he made with Mr. Wyndham, who let
:LIT.Clim to him as the *pet of Sir Molynenz Nepean,
Bart. By the terms of hie lease be was precluded from
selling straw exempt to his landlord. Howe, not bound
to supply • sedate amount of straw during the year,
nor to supply it at a certain rate. He supplied always
at the market pries. When the straw was ordered
nothing wee said about price. He supplied the goods to •
Mr. Wyndham. He knew they were to be used about
the estate of Sir Molyneux ?femme. He applied for
this amount about three weeks ago, when Mr. Wyndham
mat him • cheque for CS in payment, which he deelin d
to accept and returned. He left the farm at Miehaelmaa
of his own record' be was not turned out ; he would
not stay there under Mr. Wyndham's management of
the NUM.—Re-examined : Sir Molyneaz Nepean only
aims to live at Loden Court shout six weeks ago Mr.
Wyndham lived then previously. Other people had
Oven en farms for the same reason is be had—not liking
Mt. Wledhate. —Mr. Norris Roper rooks to the pries of
the goods charged not being too much. The straw
was under the prim he would supply it for. Ores.
examined: It wee not the custom In this neighbourhood
to supply the grinds to the landlord at eeleelleilleg prim,
whisk would be ire than the rizerket prim He knew
it was dose in some parte of the eeeetry.—lir. 115i°
said the defame was that I. dealing with Mr. Wynd am
plaintiff dealt with hiss sa the meet of Sir Si. Nspeen,
sad that the agreement wee that the goods shoold be
supplied at conininiac" prim, not market mire. The
plaintiff ought to make Irks demand of Sir Si. Nopean,
not the Ailleodant.—Flis Honour mid that decadent
having tent • ebenne for the straw, it was evident he
was liable for that, not Sir Si. Nippon, and the only
qesetioe we, am to the price • and with regard to the
other coeds there was no evidinee to show the defendant
was not liable. Re gave an order for the plaintiff, to
be ;mid 11th July, when defendant, who was now
abroad, would probably ban returned, and then if be
to the verdist he could move for a new trial.
°11174.41ta Rome v. Pretoria Omani —Oahe Ell 16e. bd.,
Weans of amount for .-111 r. Manley fir
plaintiff. Defendant's wife and strongly
denied owing anything. Plaintiff le living at
tliworton. and defendant lives at Nettlecombe. The
eves occupied • loan Na., sad the parties adjourned to
another room te see if they sould &neap the =O'er
betimes thearelma, but they eirold net do no. The de-
fendant is • small shopkeeper, and hod bees having
seeds to the moon of shoot COD or SOO pet year from
plaintiff to sell apain.—Bis Homier took time to look
over Jai a 0616, so ressived hie deolaion.

Jane Elliott (executrix ol the lath *after Elliott,
modsmsn) a. John Copp.—Claim for Ell ls.—
fendent paid EA 3a. into 00111 i. Mr. Ths7 far plebefiff.
Defendant sonadend Eft only was dun, and said there
was a balms*, of account owing to bier by plaintiff,
which, with the amount paid into wart, woiti'l make
"P ed. The claim wee for seeds and wheat. The de.
f. &lent waacrasieezaminrd at great length. Me. Harris
mid be sold about nine or ten seeks of yetebes for de-
fendant to Mr. Elliott Net year, and received Eft from
him on account, which be paid to Mr. Copp ; the mnount
of the sale of the vets'., was 211 fla—Hie Honour pee
a verdict for plaintiff £4 4., from which lb. Ed la Said
Into court was deducted, and defendant wee ordered to
pay the other Is. and Costs.
13. Read v. Isaac flele.—Mr. V. W. Hendry for
plaintiff, Mr. Day for &fondant. This cam, to recover
poseeeeion of • hones at North Poorton. ens trio., at last
court, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The
deiend•nt had rented the house and several mows of
plaintiff, the easement for which w.e that he shotll.l
Pay £123 p•-r pier for the whole. The cosi had been
previously Oven up to plaintiff. —Mr. hey, for defendant,
oon opal ied to set aside the promeding. at that trial.
on the ground that the amount of the rental, being
beyond £5O, hie Honour bad no jurisdiction In the cede.
—Mr. F. W. Clundry opposed the application, in the
NW at hut curt was merely For recovery of pomesolon
of the house, which was only rented at Ell prr year.
He also said that if the application were made at all it
nught to have been made at the time of the trial at the
last e.ort. —Hie Honour refoord the application.
In Re Richard Teeter, of Stoke Abbott, farmer. —The
bankrupt name up for I.ln last rumination and dis-
charge. Mr. Loggia so ported, Mr. Day opposed for
the crechtors' assignee. Bankrupt attributed his failure
to having signed amirptaners on accommodation bills for
his brother-in.lear. for which he received no value, and
newer ezpected to be called upon to pay. Rio Honour
therefore said that the bar krupt bad no beminem there,
and the rase must be dismismd. The liabitities were
about £l3O, and the assets nil.