The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1866-07-10 00:00:00

THE DORSET COUNTY EXPRESS AND AGRICULTURAL GAZETTE, TUESDAY, JULY 10, 1866

could he performed for about /MO or £7o—a sum not
eseeeding what maid be required to put the present
block in repair, wth all its ugliness remaining—Mr.
Tisard opposed the removal of the etatue. and Hr.
Potheesry thought that it was so closely allied with the
hi•toty of Weymouti, that it would be a great objection
to remove it. 'fheitforelathers erected the monument
to preserve the memory of 'good old King George 111.,
and it would be out of character to mum" it, as it wee
a fellli0111:40011 to UM whole country that Weymouth
was the favourite ordering place of the good old
monarch. He was it favi.ur of putting the present
statue in repair.—Tbo Mayor said he did not wish his
Msjesty removed fr.st the town, he only wished tu
iuiprove his appearance. At pre out the affair looked
like a tomtit perches' on a rump of beef. However, if
the Council were not lisposorl to entertain his project,
why, let the matter drop. He believed that thegenerel
opinion was that the present pile was not only tins
oigh.ly, but also that it was a disgrace to the town.
The queation then ciropptd.
The meeting then akourned for a week.

WEY MOUTH COUNTY COURT.
Thu rsday.—(ll. fore R. Everett, Feui.. Judge.)

,
Clothier,. lionly.—Tie parties reside at Portland.
The plaintiff, • shoemsker. made • pair of half-boots
for the defendant'i son, and when he took them home,
Mrs. Hardy declared ther were too small, but plaintiff
persuaded the father to lake them and try them. The
son wore them a *heft time, bat being unable, after a
short time, to get their on. the defendant cut them
down and said be wools, new vamp them and make
them all right. He kept them awhile and carried them
hock undone, and demanlai the money. Mrs. Hardy
refund to receive theta sod they were left in the road.
The plaintiff, in reply to the judge, mid be did not new
vamp the boots because he liad not been paid for them.
Judge Bat you made them too small in the drat place,
you then cut them and promised to make them It, and
at lent refused to fulfil year contract. The ems he die.
diamiased. Plaintiff : What am I to do now, your
honour : I have not the boots. Judge: I don't sit hers
to give you advice.
Wickens v. Grant.—The plaintiff is • shoemaker re-
sidle, in Weymouth, sod the defendant an &Malan'
overseer. The action vas brutisht to reoever lie. 3d.
for shoes supplied to a Mrs. Arno. Plaintiff mid that
Mrs. Acute was a lady whose husband had left her, and
whom the plaintiff took under his protection, until she
ruhroondocted herself. The order was • general one—
/dr. Grant telling him Is make Mrs. Matti otos boots,
which he aid. On two or three occasions Mr. Grant
had also paid him. The defendant denied the plaietifre
statement its (010. He never gave plaintiff an order to
supply Yrs. Acutt, be had never promised to pay him,
or to see anything paid for her, and the only transaction
that or:warred between them was that on one occasion,
when Mrs. Acutt was ill, she gave him half • sovereign
end asked him to give that money to Mr. Wickens for
her. The judge said the two statements were flatly
contradicted—there was oath asainat oath. In the
wane of some further remarks, the judge, barks,
elicited that Mrs. Acutt was • married woman, whose
husband probably was still alive, said that Wooed the
case at once. Verdict for the defendant.

Dominy r. Lakey.—An aetion for £lO, brought by the
plaintiff, a butcher in Park.street, against the defendant,
a brewer'. labourer, for meet supplied and delivered.
The plainti If said the wife had promised pliyment several
times, but be had seen the husband. His Honour:
Then you cannot tell whether she obtained the goods
with her Lusband's knowledge and consent. If be
comes forward and says that she had the goods without
either ha knowledge or consent, you cannot get your
money. You must be careful how you trust married
women without the bustmad's consent acknowledged or
Adjourned for a month.
Manley r. Andersoo.—An action for the recovery of
£3 2... 74. The plaintiff, a grocer, in Park-street,
trusted defendant's wife for goods to the amount sued
For on the recommendation of another woman residing
in Weymouth, who said the husband would be sure to
pay to any amount. —The husband appeared and said
his wife left him at Gorport, without his oonsent, and
that she ineurred this debt without his knowledge or
authority. The judge gave a verdict for the defendant,
adjudging the plaintiff to pay him his costa for travel.
ling and loss of time.

John Way r. James Lock.—A claim for £3O for use
and feed of le acres of land on Bbilvington Farm, near
Portesbam. from November 22nd, 1863, to March 25th,
1864, £B6' removing hay from farm contrary to term of
hiring, £l2; dilapidation of farm buildings, £8 10a.;
and loss of reed and wood stack, El 10s. Mr. Way
appeared to advocate hi. own case, as he said his
solicitor, whom be had employed when the cam was
before tried, was very expensive and not very profitable.
Besides, no One knew better about it than himself.
Mr. Andrew., of Dorchester. appeared for tba defendant,
and stated that the plaintiff appeared to rely on an 'lo-
st/moped &commit, which lost him his caseon the last
oecasion.—Plaintiff then made his statement, and mused
some little merriment in court by expressing his sum'
prise that the judge and defendant's counsel could not
understand the matter when it appeared as plain to
himself am A.E.C.—At leogth his Honour told him that
he could not go on as Um agreement was not stumped.
The case must be nou-snited. Plaintiff: What, non-
soiled again Judge: Yea, you have not a leg to stand
on. Plaintiff said he supposed be could take the case
to a superior court. Judge Certainly you can.
Plaintiff: Then I shall certainly do it. Jedge Do so,
I'll venture to my you will have enough of it before you
Lave done.

Ward v. Rogers and Mona—The plaintiff resides at
Portland, and the defendants are fishmonger' at South-
ampton. The action was brought for £5O for crabs and
lobsters, supplied and deliver,-d. Mr. Howard appeared
for the plaintiff. One of the defendants, a younger
son, appmeed sod deposed that he was in bushier on
his own amount, •nd had nothing to do with the debt,
was af..eg,n.a against to. rather and
elder brother.

Bowling r. Northover.—The plaintiff was formerly in
defendant's service, at Chlekerell, but being ill three
daya, he sent Ilia son to supply his plane. The defend-
ant refused to pay the fall amount of ware afterwards,
and they parted. Bleu then, defendant had given the
gaeden, which plaintiff hal planted, to his present
outer, without remunerating plaintiff for hie need sod
labour. At the suggestion of the court, defendant
greed to allow plaintiff 12s. compensation.
Jolliffe r. Flartlett.—An action for 1115 on a horse
which plaintiff purchased at defendant's Pale for £35, on
its being warranted sound, but which it was alleged,
bid since been found to be unsound and not worth more
than PIO. being broken winded and spanned. Mr.
Howard appeared for the plaintiff and Kr. Andrews,
of Dorchester. for defendant.- Mr. Potheoary deposed
that on May 11th be bad • We of blit. Bartlett's. and
among other things he ,old r. horse to the plaintiff for
113 i, which, wording to instructioes, he warranted
snood. Mr. Jolliffe said he purchased the horse for
En, a warranty being given it. It wail noble looking
standing 17 Or 18 hands high. As tne animal
had been out at grew he put the horse in the stable for
three or four days, feeding It on eon, and subsequently
put it in the water-cart, a man named Symonds being
the driver. After leaving work, in wasequene• of
what /Symonds told him, be looked at the honse's feet,
and found one of them very hot on the fetloek Joint.
Next day the horse went out again, but the fetlock
joint still appearing inflamed he spoke to Mr. Tranturn
about it.. He then spoke to Hr. Bartlett on the subject,
and that gentleman told him the horse had not had
the collar on for two years and had been out to
grans. He would soon get rid of the humane,
,If he worked him steadily. Plaintiff said be
could not work it steadier Kan he did. De-
fendant replied he had Nome old hamars which the
horse used to wear, and which perhaps would fit him
better. The old harness was tried without effect..
Plaintiff then went to Mr. Potheury, but that gentle-
man told him he could not be bothered about it, he
must go to Mr. Bartlett Mr. Trantum wu again seen
about the bone, and Mr. Redwood was also sent for.
The latter found that the horse was both spavined and
broken winded, and that it waa not worth above
In cross-examination plaintiff said that at the aale, Mr.
Gale offered P3l for the horse, being the next highest
bidder, end that that morning he had been to him and
offered £36. Fie considered Gale ems Bartlett's agent,
and he refused to tell unlese (Isle awned to pay the ex-
penses. Mr. Gale went away, and when be came beet
said that Bartlett waste obstinate man, and would not
pay any portion of the costa—Mr. Howard said that
there ems only a difference of DS between them—Ho
Honour thought it wee a pity when they came so near
they did not settle the matter without *owing into
court—Mr. Gale was then called. He denied being
employed by Mr. Bartlett to settle the difference
between blot and plaintiff. He WAS DOW willing to give
£36 for the horse without any warranty whatever.—The
judge sold here was an end of the we. A thing was
worth what it would fetch, and here wan a pinion who
said be was a diaintereeted party, offering the full
amount for the horse. The eau was then withdrawn,
each party paying their own outs, and Mr. Gale giving
1.35 for the hone, which waa soon afterwards turned
001 10 Mr. Bartlett's field.