The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1865-04-18 00:00:00

WIMBORNE.

ColTwry' Coma, iVel-i'ea-ci•"yt• April 13.—Before
K Everett, Esq.—At the bi-monthly sitting of this
Court there were a large number of original plaints
entered besides adjourned cases, and the business
lasted from 10 a.m, till late in the evening. The
first case called on was Kellaway v. Thomas
Singleton.—This was a claim for 10s. on account of
a bad half-sovereign teeing tendered. It appeared
from the evidence that the defendant went into •
public-house to get change for his master. The
landlady could not oblige him, but the plaintiff who
happened to be there did. After he was gone it
was discovered that the half-sovereign he tendered
was a bad one. About a week after he called again
at the same house, and on being taxed upon the
matter, in the prctence of a witness, said he would
sooner have given ss. than it should have happened.
—Defendant denied first that it was bad money,
and second if it was he did not know it.—His
Honor said he would not impute to the defendant
anything like fraud; he might have tendered the
bad money believing it to be good, but there was
the statement of • witness as to the conversation at
the second interview, when defendant said he would
not have minded losing Si. if the affair had not
happened, so that there was very little doubt he had
the money.- —Verdict for plaintiff to be paid is 14
days.
Burden v. Bennett —The plaintiff in this case
claimed a month's wages on the ground of wrongful
dismissal. It appeared from her statement that she
went on trial as domestic servant on the 9th February
last, and if she suited was to have £4 10e. a-year.
.Before she had been a week in defendant's employ,
a sovereign placed with other money on the mantel.
shelf in • bed-room was mined, and her mistress
suspecting her searched her box and pocket after
she was gone to bed. By the request of her master
she went and swept the room, and stated that she
found the missing piece of money ins chink in the
flooring between the bed and manteLpiece.—Thir
mistress then told her she must have known some-
thing about it, and said she was to leave. The next
morning she scrubbed out a room by her mistress'
orders, and then left.— Defendant said that neither
himself or his wife gave her notice to leave, but
after the money was found she went out into the
yard, and told the men her mistress had accused her
of robbery, and that she would not stop. She
began packing up her things, and would have left
then, but acting on the advice of a man in his
employ named Ambrose Adlam, he told her not to
go as it was late. The next morning she asked for
her wages, which his wife refused to give. —Ambrose
Adlam said that he was present on both occasions,
the plaintiff said she would not atop, but he did not
hear either his master or mistress tell her to go.—
Verdict for defendant.

Ryan v. Smith. —Claim £1 19s. for rent of potato
ground.—Mr. Moore appeared for the plaintiff.—
Before the case was gone into his Honor inquired of
plaintiff's solicitor if he did not at the last Court
move for a new trial on the ground that the evidence
of the defendant's wife was not heard when the
case was disposed of at that Court two months
previous To which Mr. Moore replied that
such was the case, and his instructions were to that
effect. —His Honor: Then this is one of the grossest'
attempts of deception ever practised on any Court.
I particularly noticed the ground of this application
as I thought at the time it was a strange one, and
when I referred to my notes I found that the state-
ment that the defendant's wife was not examined
was untrue, for I have her statements written down.
—Mr. Moore: Certainly, your Honor, those were
my instruction,; and then, turning to the plaintiff,
"That', what you told me, Mr. Ryall."—Plaintiff
endeavoured to pass it off as • mistake or misunder-
standing, but his Honor said, "No, sir, no mis-
understanding at all, and if I were in your advilrli
se place I should throw up the ca altogether. r.
Moore then sat down, and a pause ensued.—His
Honor to Mr. Moore: "The case is in your hand."
—Mr. Moore: "After what has fallen from your
Honor I hardly know how to go on." After a
few moments reflection Mr. Moore proceeded with
the examination. —Plaintiff stated that the defendant
was a carter in his employ, and that he let him 39
lege of garden ground, at Is. per week. The ground
was let in May last. The contract was made with
defendant's wife. The defendant had been in his
service before. After the defendant had been in his
service a fortnight he allowed him the use of a part
of an old dairy house.—By his Honor: The house
was not let as part of the wages.—Elizabeth Smith,
wife of defendant, stated that after the plaintiff
turned her husband off he came to her house, and in
answer to her request that he would not turn herself
and her children out of doors, he said they were to
leave in a week. She left in a fortnight. She asked
him what she was to do about the garden. tb which
he replied that he would pay her for the seed. She
said that would not answer so well for her as she
had a family, and must have the garden by some
means or other. That was in May. He said he
supposed she must, and went away, and she had the
crops as they ripened. The ground was planted
, with potatoes and other vegetables. The wages of
her husband were Bs. per week to look after seven
hones, and he had a garden and potato ground free.
—Witness was then examined by Mr. Moore as to
the original agreement between her husband and
plaintiff, and stated that Mr. Ryan's horses and
wagon came for her when she moved, that they at
first lived in a part of an old dairy house,
and afterwards in a cottage, and that during
the whole period her husband was in plaintiff's
employ not one word was said about rent.
• —Defendant was then called, and corroborated
his wife's statement, causing some little amuse.
meat by his off-hand answers.—Reference having
been made by him to a certain conversation
with William Saunders, the latter was called as
witness for plaintiff, and dated that he carried a
message from his master to the defendant. He WM
to tell him that if he (defendant) would agree with
his father, he was to come down the next morning.
Plaintiff was again called, and in answer to questions
by his Honor said that he desired Saunders to say
that if defendant and his father could go on comfort,
ably together he was to come, and the next morning
defendant's father went for the goods with his
(plaintiff's) wagon and horses. He did not see
defendant before he came. On the Saturday
evening his wife came, and received hie wages, 86.,
from plaintiff—Defendant was in his service from
February, 1861, to May, 1864, and occupied the
house and garden all the time.—His Honor very
ibriefly summed up, remarking that for his own
credit's sake, plaintiff should have admitted that the
house, garden, and potato ground formed part of
.the defendant's wages, or else it would go forth to
the world that the plaintiff, a respectable farmer in
the neighbourhood, gave his carter, who had charge
of seven horses, only Ss. per week. That they did
so form a part there could be no doubt, for the man
lived in the house, and had the garden and ground
3i years without paying rent. Ilia Honor than
clearly pointed out that the defendant had a just
right to the crops in the garden and ground; and
after again advocating to the way the case was
brought on, gave a verdict for the defendant with
all costs and expenses, • decision which seemed to
give great satisfaction to those in Court.
Warland v. Gomer. —Claim £7 3a. Bd. for clothing.
—Mr. Tanner appeared for the plaintiff. —Plaintiff
proved that the goods, consisting of wearing apparel,
were supplied to defendant at his shop, and
that when he asked for payment he said
he had left back 3s. per week in the hands of his
master, Mr. Downton. Three years ago plaintiff
„wrote for the money, but was then refused payment
win reply to defendant, Mr. Warhind said he could
'not recollect if Mr. Downton asked him to let de-
'fiendant have clothes, and he would see him paid.—
'Defendant said that he had not had the whole of the
denten charged for. This was satisfactorily contra-
dieted by a witness uarned Roberts iu Mr. Warlaud's
employ.— Defendant said that when he iirst went to
Mr. Downten's he had Is. 6.1 per week as errand-.
boy, and after he had been there seine Nile time he
asked his master to apeak to the plaintiff to let him
have souse clothes. He did se. After lie had been
with Mr. Downton some time his wages were rose
to 2s. 6d. per week, all of which he left back in his,
hands for more than • year to pay for the clothes.
After he had been apprenticed eight months he
received a note from Mr. Worland threatening him
with a County Court summons. He took the note
to Mr. Downton, who told him not to trouble him-
self about the matter. It was all right —His Honor
having requested the attendance of Mr. Downier',
that gentleman stated that the defendant only le'
money back now and then, and what was thus .
wits marked on a piece of paper, which the defendant
kipli he also took the money to Mr. Wetland. ;
I Tbessmounts he so left came to, as fir as he eculd,
remember, £2 14a—Verdict for plaintiff in 10a.
instalments.
Wetland Pozon.—Claim £3l 16s. Bd.—Mr.
Tanner appeared for the plaintiff, and to
Dickenson, of Poole, for the defendant—in
ease the Statute of Limitations was pleaded, but in
answer thereto, plaintiff's solicitor produced a
letter, received from the defendant by the plaintiff,
dated Bth March, 1869, and cited two maes—" Corn.
forth r. Smither, Law Jour/sea 29, pager 229 ; and

left
ldt,l

tw;i

Hammon V. Smith, reported in 9th 'vol.
Times. The letter being considered by His
as an answer to the plea, the case was gone i,
Plaintiff said that he believed the defendant ol
him £3O 16s. Bd., and that he had applied
writing for the same in 1857, '5B, '59, '6O, '6l, ; '62. The letter read was in answer to one from!
demanding payment. In casting up the &mom there was a mistake of £l, so that the debt i £3l 16a. Bd. He believed that was the only mistai
—After going through the accounts, his Honor a
that on the let June, 1857, there appeared to bi
balance of 1,5 Os. 4<1., and that the value of 1
goods had since that time amounted to £26 16a. I —Plaintiff said that the balance of £5 Os. 4d. was
the half-year's account, not on the whole year.-1
Honor said there appeared to be no dispute as to
bill, but as to the credit given, and having sum;
up the amounts of credit given, remarked that I
such calculation it appeared that more than £5
been paid than was due, to which plaintiff roil
that, as the balance of £5 Os. 4d. was only on
half-year's account, and not on the whole, the
he sued for was correct.—klr. Dickeneon, on '
of his client, said he did not hardly
there was any oocrsion for him to can
defendant. Their answer to this plaint was,
this, that according to plaintiff's own showi
account was settled up to June, 1857, and a '
struck, which left his client £5 Os. 44. in p'
debt; since that time goods to a certain amount
been received, and credit for sums to pay for
goods given, so that instead of the defendant on
plaintiff anything they had even paid more than
due. —After some farther discussion his Honor sa,
he would grant an adjournment if the plaintiti
wished it, to give him an opportunity of amending
his particulars, the plaintiff to pay costa—Mr.
Dickenson objected to the adjournment as an
irregular proceeding, and ultimately a non-suit wsa
entered.

acootintiv

migtake.

showing s.
• balan_!,

Plaintiff.

Wheeler v. Coff.—Claim ss. Q.—Plaintiff mid
that the defendant bought an eel 'peer of him,
which he had since twice mended.—The defendant
denied buying it, but it appearing that several
parties had need the spear, and had it in their pos.
session for • long time, and that to avoid payment
tbey shifted it from one to the other, his Honor gave •
verdict for the plaintiff to be paid forthwith, re-
marking that it was a bad case. They ought every
one to be made to pay for it.
Beamont v. Sims.—Claim £5 4s. Mr. Chitty
appeared for plaintiff. This was a claim for
certain grocery goods which plaintiff alleged
defendant had out of his shop, at Long Critchell.
Plaintiff stated that the goods he sued for had been
taken since the latter part of 1863. The first entry
was in November, and the last in March, 1864.
The amount owing was £6 4s. In April he reoeived
from the defendant £1 on account. The goods were
delivered partly by himself and part by his son.
His son kept the books—John Beamont said that he
lived in the home where his grandfather resided, and
conducted the banner for his father. —Defendant to
plaintiff: "Did you not borrow £1 of me to
pay Dr. Packman's bill V' " No."—Defendant ad.
mitted that he had had goods out of plaintiff's shop,
I but said that it was by agreement, instead of plaintiff
I paying her money.—The plaintiff took to the stock
I in trade which was hi, mother's, and which was
valued at £45, but as his (defendant's) wife did not
wish to be hard upon her brother, she agreed to
take her share out in goods.--Elizabeth Sims said
she remembered parting their mother's property. It
was divided between three—herself, his sister Ann
Pike, and her brother. They had £43 each. Ann
Pike administered to the will, and paid the money.
Her brother took possession of the shop properly,
which being valued at £45 he was to pay her and
her sister £l5 each. Her sister had it in money,
but as she bad a large family she agreed to have
in goods. An agreement to that effect was drawn
up between her sister and brother, which her sista
handed to her. She did not see it written. Could
not say who wrote it. (The agreement was handed
in, it was simply an acknowledgment of the
above. On its being handed to the plaintiff he said
he did not write it, and never saw it before.)
Witness then said that the goods were had
both after ,he received the paper, and also after
the date on the top. The date of the last item on
the bill was March, 1864.—Ann Pike said that she
remembered writing the piece of paper for her
brother, who at the time had a bad hand. They
were together, and her sister, the last witness, was
working about the house. The paper was written
on 30th October, 1863. The goods in the shop were
valued at £45, their shares being £l5 each. When
she drew the money out of the bank she deducted
her share from what she paid her brother, but only
took £l3, as her brother had mentioned about the
doctor's bill. She paid her sister £43, and it was
agreed that she was to have the other £l5 in goods.
She had had about £6 worth.—His Honor inquired
of plaintiff if he had not sued his other sister, Mrs.
Pike in the Blandford Court, for £l3, to which
he replied that he had. Plaintiff here stated that
when they looked over the books they found that
the debts were more than they expected.—Mr.
Chitty having made a few remarks on the case, his
onor summed up, remarking that he was very
vtozill acquainted with the merits of the cue before
him as it was not the first time he had been °ailed
upon to adjudicate in the matter. He then dearly
showed that instead of the defendant owing for the
jiLootdsly ty
enhetiufoedrm a
ued
his wife's
of
rife,ws hat
shatefe
rehofdethenfdant was
45
,
and
instead of the defendant owing plaintiff anything it
was exactly the reverse. His Honor then corn.
mental on a brother so naing his sisters, and gave a
verdict for defendant.

Warland v. May.—Claim £l6 Os. lit—Thus was
an interpleader case, the plaintiff holding a bill of
sale on defendant's property.—Mr. Tanner appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Dickenson for defendant.—
Instead of the ease being gone into, an agreement
was come to that the plaintiff should be paid out of
Court.

Christopher Bowles e. T. James.—Claim £2 105.
—Plaintiff in this case is $ warehouseman at the
Wimborne station of the South-Western Railway.
It appeared from the statement of the plaintiff that
two bags arrived on the 23rd of February from
Southampton, one consigned to Thomson, and the
other to James.—Defendant came for his bag, and
plaintiff being busy at the time aid, "There it is,"
pointing to where the two bags were lying. Plaintiff
paid the carriage, and took one away, and on the
following Saturday came and took the other, the
first one he took being Thomson'..—On the
Friday Thomson came for hi.. Plaintiff went to
James' house, and told him of the mistake, asking
him to pay the value of the good& Letters which
passed between the plaintiff and the consignee were
then handed in. —Defendant said he could not read,
and therefore did not know which was his.—Verclicil
for plaintiff forthwith.
JUDGMINT SIIMMONSICI3. —G. Habgood ro. Cornelius
Rymond.—The defendant had premised to pay fl
in 14 days, but had not kept his word.-14 claye
imprisonment.—Stickland u Frederick Duke.—
Order 14 days' imprisonmenk—Francis Thorn o.
Charles Loder.-14 days' imprisonment.