The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1870-03-26 00:00:00

Nocal an Distrcit

COUNTY COURT.

Collins v. Penteeost.—At the County Court, on
Wednesday, before F. Dinsdale, Esq., Judge,
the plaintiff in this case was a servant girl, and
the defendant a schoolmaster, at Wordsley.
The action Was :to recover the sum of lie 811,
for wages alleged to be due. Mr. Wallappeared
for.defendant.
Plaintiff said in January last she was engaged
t, live with the defendant as general servant,
and to have a per year. She went a month on
trial. At the time she engaged it was agreed
she was to go to church on Sunday afternoons,
and to have certain time at night. She went to
defendant's house on the Saturday, and on the
next day went to church, according to agree-
ment. On the following Sunday she got ready
to go, when Mrs. Pentecost told her she should
not go ; it she did, she should not have her
again. At that time all the work was done, with
the exception of cleaning the scullery. She
went to church. On returning, a little boy told
her she was to go into the dining-room. She
went in and saw the mistress, who asked her
where she had been. Witness told her to church.
She then asked her if she had read the com-
mandments. Witness said, " Yes." Her mis-
tress toll her she had broken them by disobey-
ine, her orders. She then discharged witness,
strthat she only stayed eight days, and she now
sued for the month's wages.
A witness was called to prove that plaintiff
did go to church.
For the defence, Mrs. Pentecost was called,
and said she engaged the plaintiff with the un-
derstanding that she was to go to church when
convenient. Shmo gave her leave the first Sun-
day, but on the second she did not, as she ex-
pected company. Plaintiff disobeyed her orders,
and she discharged her.
His Honour summed up, and said it was clear
plaintiff had been engaged as a general servant,
but she had disobeyed her mistress's orders, and
he could not give her the full amount claimed.
But it bad been proved she went to church, and
he should give a verdict for 2s lid, and allow
the plaintiff's witness 28 ad for attendance.
Howell v. Pearson.—This was an action to re-
cover the sum of £27. The plaintiff is Francis
Howell, bailiff, of Corley, amid the defendant
William Pearson, of Red Hill. 31r. Stokes ap-
peared for plaintiff, and Mr. Perry for the de-
fendant.
Mr. Stokes, in opening the ease, said the ac-
tion was brought to recover £27, being a bal-
ance for wages, breach of contract, and for
wrongful dismissal. .4:7 as had been paid into
Court. Plaintiff was engaged as a bailiff at
Corley for the del nnlant, in September 1860,
Defendant applied for plaiutifrs character, and
afterwards entered into an engagement with
him at 211 s per week, with cottage free (fur-
nished), and fire.
Plaintiff said he lived near Bridgnorth, on the
1001 Solite:tuber he WAS engaged by the defend-
ant, as a bailiff. Was to have a cottage fur-
nished and fire, and one pound per wet k. At
that time defendant had receiv cd an eight years'
character front his last place. The week after
tleft inlant had received his character Mr. H.
Wilson canto to hire him, but witness told him
he expected to go to the defendant's. Waited
about a week and then went to defendant's
house. He was not at home, and saw Miss
Pearson, who told hitn the other man was not go.
ingiaway for three mouths. Saw defendant the
same night, and after received a letter front hint
dated 11th Octorer. Tile wages were to com-
mence a a:ea after. On the 4th December he
went to the defendant's house, and he gave him
1:5 on account. Witness then told him lie should
expect the wages to commence from the time laz
had had his character.
•The solicitor for the
plaintiff here put in several letters which had
passed between plaintiff and defendant: Aftor
which plaintiff said he had to sell his goods
previous to taking the situation.
Cross-examined: I did apply to defendant for
the situation, having heard of it. The wages
were to be 20s per week, a house furnished, and
fire. I did see Miss Pearson. Did not tell her
I wanted to sea the defendant to make fresh ar-
rangements. On the 3rd December received £5
on account. 011 the following Monday defend-
ant did say it was not convenient for his bailiff
to leave. I did not object to drive the waggon
for a week, but did object to be the waggoner,
as I engaged as bailiff.
Thomas Jones, farmer, was called, and proved
that when a bailiff was engaged it was the cus-
tom to give three months notice.
Mr. Perry addressed his Honour for the de-
fence, and called
Defendant, who said : Some time in Septem-
ber plaintiff came to time about a situation, and
told me what he could do, and said he should
want 3:1 per week. He gave me the address of
a gentleman front whom I was to get his charac-
ter. He was to live in a house belonging to me
and find his own furniture. Wrote to him on
the 14th of October to tell him to go to Cor-
ley. He came to my house on the following
Monday, and told me he should not go to Cor-
ley under the conditions I proposed.
His Honour, in summing up, said plaintiff
had been kept in suspense for some time, and he
should give a verdict for plaintiff for £l9 7s ad,
and costs on the higher scale.
Brooks v. Mplor.—This was an action which
had been brought in a Superior Court, and re-
ferred to the County Court, for the sum of £4l
19s 811. Mr. Perry appeared for plaintiff, and
Mr. Collie for defendant, who pleaded a set•off
of £l6 las 4d, and paid into Court .Cl 2 12s 7d.
A verniet tor defendant was given by consent,
each to pay their own costs.
Bisgell v. Meredith.—At the County Court, on
Thursday, before Mr. Dinsdale, Judge, this was
an action to recover the sum of £l3 ss, balance
of amount lent on mortgage. Mr. Hooter ap-
peared for plaintiff, and Mr. Homfray for the
defendant.
Plaintiff deposed: On the 29th of May,1867,
I lent the defendant £4O, and the defendant ex-
ecuted the mortgage produced. Did not seethe
property. Defendant led use to believe at that
time there were two dwelling-houses, and asked
me to lend him £lOO. I lent hint £4O, and have
only received one half-year's interest. In con-
sequence of the defendant not paying the
. .