The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1885-02-24 00:00:00

BLANDIORD.
COUNTY COURT._

-
FalDAT.—Before his Honour, Judge Tindal Atkinson.
P. C. Adams, brewer, Fiddleford, v. H. J. Rickman,
farmer and corn merchant, l'imperne. -Claim Ell for
horse sold.—Mr. Atkinson defended.—Plaintiff stated
he sold the horse on certain conditions on the 22nd
January, RMS. Ho had two horses passing through
Sturuunster Newton Market on the day in question.
A Mr. Sims wished to jrurehase a horse, and whilst :
dealing with hun Mr. Rickman came up. PLiintiff '
asked Rickman if he wanted to buy a "screw,' and
told bun the horse was a'' , shiverer. This on enquiry
was somewhat similar to a ricketty sheep ; it shisik
the harness off. Itickinan was afraid if the horse
could work, but on plaintiff saying he omit' have it a
week on trial, and if it did not suit ho was to pay Li,
they parted, but met again the sense day, when de-
fendant offered to give tin. and if at the expiration
of three days it did not suit ho would give luso. To
this plaintiff objected. still re iuiring the £1 whether
I defendant kept it three days or a week. A few
minutes after, as defendant was going to catch • train,
the plaintiff asked once more £l2 for the horse, and
El if not suitable in three days. To this defendant
said "All right.," and waved his hand. Nothing was
heard till a week al terviards, when a letter came
saying that owing to the wet weather defendant could
not try the horse. But owing to this delay he had
lost the sale to another, considering the horse sold to
Mr. Rickman.—For :he defence, Mr. Atkinson said
a time was arranged for sending the horse, and it slid
not arnve till the Nlonday, four days later, when Mr.
P. ckmau had written to enquire how it was the horse
had not a: rived.—Cross.examined : Ike horse was
not to be sent the same day. lie was to keep it
three days ; three days' . nal was not mentioned.
His hors. was not supposed to wait for line weather.
There may have been two very wet days following
the 300. Eleven day. afterwards he received •
cheque for £l, which was returned. —His Honour held
the only point In dispute Wad on the terms of the
contract. Wet days would not justify the horse I ell=
kept, nor prevent its being returned. If three days'
trial was allowed, then wet weather may prevent,
but plaintiff had stated the horse was to be kept three
days, then if found unsuitable to be r, turned—De-
fendant was then called. He stated plaintiff was
showing the horse to Mr. Sims, and then as he was
in want of • horse to go to plough he enquired of
plaintiff about the horse. Defendant said the horse
was a slight shiverer, but after it was once started it
was not noticed, and he was certain it would plough
all right. Defendant said "I clammy he will work,
but the question is how would he be after a day's
work ; would his back stand?' lie said "Take and
try it • week." There was a little alufenng at that
time, but no deal was made. At the second meeting,
shortly after, although at a considerable distance
from each other. Hickman said "Are you going to let
me have the horse !" Plaintiff answered ' I shan't
alter," which defendant presumed meant the terms—
El 2 and a week's trial for £l. Ho said he would
send the horse the next day, but instead it came on
the Monday, four days after. On the Tuesday and
Wednesday following the rains were very heavy, and
they could not go on the land to plough. He wrote
acquainting Adams of this. On the 3rd February the
horse was taken to plough, and was found completely
knocked up on returning. In consequence of this be
rote the letter pnsfuced, and enclosed a cheque for
Li as agreed, requesting Adams t take the horse
away, or he charged far keep.—.lfter some remarks
from his Honour, a judgment was given for plaintiff
for the 13 due for non-suitability of the horse. which
had nat been paul into Court, and this would carry
the costs.

W. 2Lickenxie. publisher, Bristol, v, N. Surtees,
gentleman. Childe Ok.-fenl. -Claim In 51, for two
books delivered.-21r. Budge, of Poole. for plaintiff,
stated the claim was for two volumes ~f picturesque
views and country seats us England published at 2;
guineas each -William E Minty .book agent, deposed
two volumes had been delivered and paid for, and
April 9th 1881 the two s °tutees now sued for
were delivered by him at Mr. Serums' house. Defen-
dant pleaded when the first two Bloke were 'minified
he told the agent not to send any more.--The judge
pointed out the agreement with the publishers signed
by Mr. Sorters. which he said was as binding as the
fetters f the law could bind, and after seine remarks
f defendant as to worth of the books, gave a vet--
diet for plaintiff.
Joseph Fowler. machinist. ste.. 111i:borne St.
Andrew, v. Davis Jarvis, of the same place. -Claim
£1 ss, for hire of four horses and two inn for elle
day in working a field and drilling seed. -Mr. Atkin.
son for pl.intiff.-15s. had been paid inte ceert, the
defendant disputing the remainder as excessive price
of work done. Only 3 acres were worked and
whereas 10 acres ought to have been dune in the Cline
specified and for the price claimed It transpired the
charge was 54 per home per day, and 2s rm. per man
per day.-This his Ifonoiir did not consider excessive,
and remarking that perhaps the state of the land
accounted for the amount finished, gave a verdict for
plaintiff for the amount claimed.
William Pond, ironmonger Blandford, v. Charles
Arnold, machinist, .if Winterbonie Kingston.- Claim
£I3 2s. 9d. for goods supplied. Phi. was • new trial
granted at the Deoember oeurt. The d,fenou wee the
goods were never supplied to him. nor by his orders ;
they were for his mother, who was in I usiness. and
Decently liqui fated -Plaintiff's 4011deixneel no dispute
had ever been made till a notice of meeting of
crediters from defendant's mother's solicitor was sent
him -I{is Ilenour held -Intendant ought to have
stated he was not in business when the ;pests were
supplied to him, and gave a verdict for plaintiff for
the amount claimed.