The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-06-24 00:00:00

(ii i -

It, and he said he should do what he liked with
his own property. He (plaintiff) was still ten-
ant it the Inn. He had lost a good deal of
work. Should say £4O worth; but sued for
.£l5. He refused to give up the key, and they
burst the door open.
James Rhodes said he lived at the Lye. Ile
knew the premises at plaintiff's shop. He saw
James Robins before the place was pulled down.
Jane Richards said she was wife of plaintiff,
and she and her husband had the George Inn
and premises about three weeks before Michael-
mas, and paid two quarters' rent at the rate of
..t4 2s 4d per quarter. She never gave any orders
for anything to be done at the shop. She recol-
lected the masons coming the last Tuesday in
February. William Robins came on the Mon-
day morning and asked for the key, and Thomas
Robins came on the Tuesday and asked for it,
and witness's husband said he should not give
the key up to anybody. Thomas Robins said
he wanted the key to make the place into a shop
for Mrs. Edwatils.

Cross-examined : My husband had some work
before Christmas. She recollected defendant
and his wife, and Edwards and his wife, coming
01

Mr. Perry called defendant, who said his name
was George Munelow. On the lot of February
he saw Mrs. Richards, and sometime after that
he went to Richards's house with Mrs. Edwards.
The shop was turned into a provision shop, and
defendant asked plaintiff about the hearth, and
plaintiff said he would get it removed by the fol-
lowing Friday.

Crs-exazilined : I recollect Mr. Prescott
calling upon me about it. Did not say I should
build it into a shop in defiance of Mr. Prescott,
or any one else. Mr. Prescott said he should
send me to prison, or something of the sort. I
did not tell him anything about it.
George Edwards proved that he went to the
plaintiff's house, end looked out the things he
wanted to buy, and paid him I:15 for the goods,
and received the money back again.
Thomas Robins, builder, of the Lye, said that
lie sent some men to do the alterations neces-
sary for a provision shop, and that plaintiff gave
hini possession.
_

George Cutler, bailiff, said the plaintiff asked
him to look out for a blacksmith's shop in Stour-
bridge, as he was doing but little business at the
Lye, and he told him there was one at the top
of tho town.

Mr. Homfray replied on the evidence, and
His Honour said that it had not been proved
the amount of damage sustained, and he thought
a verdict for V.: would be a sufficient one. Wit-
nesses
_allowed costs.

Mathew sv. Les;;,—ln this case, which was
heard on the last Court day, the plaintiff had an
order for the full amount claimed. 1:18 Os
On Wednesday, Mr. Parry, of Birmingham,
applied for anew trial, on the, ground that the
ease was heard in the absence of Lesser. After
reading some affidavits, Mr. Elcock, on behalf
of plaintiff, did not oppose the application, and
a new trial was granted.

Ularer and C. v. J. U. Itnehattnnt. —ln this
case the plaintiffs were oil merchants, and the
defendant an oil dealer, residing at Pensuett
Mr. Perry, who appeared for defendant, said be-
fore going into the case he would say a word or
two. The action was brought for two instal-
ments of ZT 7s Id, a composition made by the
defendant in 1E169. Proofs would have to be
given and evidence taken as to the defendant
tiling his petition, and the various forms which
are required in the 2titli section of the Bank-
ruptcy Act. The witness, in answer to the
Judge, said he was not prepared to prove what
Mr. Perry required, and the Judge gave a non.
suit. Mr. Perry said he had two railway ser-
vants from Liverpool, and asked for their costs,
which were allowed.

Chambers v. Clarr.—This was an action to
recover .t 7 on a dishonoured bill. Mr. Prescott
appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Perry for defend
ant.

Mr. Prescott said the action was to recover
£7 for u dishonoured bill given by defendant to
him (Mr. Prescott and endorsed by him to the

John Saxon Chambers produced the bill, and
said it was dishonoured. Defendant had called
upon him several times and offered to pay him
by instalments, but he refused to take his oiler.
Defendant wanted to pay £2 per mouth, which
he (witness) refused to accept. Defendant again
came to the works to him.

Cross-cxamiued :-;-117e—document came into my
hands about the middle of May. I received it
of Mr. Prescott. I gave him a five-pound note
and two sovereigns. Will swear I paid. the
money for the bill. Defendant is a master pain-
ter. I have heard he made a compueition. Du
not know that I owe Mr. Prescott more than II
for professional attendance. I owe him some.
thing. Do not know the amount.

M. Perry to Mr. Prescott: Have you closed
your ease ?
Mr. Prescott: Yes.
Mr. Perry said the bill was not before the
Court.

Mr. Prescott said it was, for he had handed it
ill to the Judge.
. .

31r. Perry-submitted that the handwriting
had nut been proved, and asked his Honour if
he considered there was anything to answer.
Defendants signature had not been proved.
The Judge said there wim something to an-
swer. As regarded the signature, defendant %vim
iii Court, and he could call upon him to prove
it.

Mr. Prescott.: Yes; and. I will call him.

Mr. Perry: It has Hut been proved that the
bill has been presented at the particular place,
and on this ground asked the Judge for a non-
suit.

Mis Honour ruled that the case must proceed.
Mr. Perry said the uresent defendant was
formerly a client to Mr. Prescott. The defend
out was in difficulties, and for a consideration of
£27 received his professional advice. £2O was
paid in cash, and a bill for £7 was given to Mr.
Prescott as part payment. Special arrange-
ments were entered into, that the bill should
remain in the hands of Mr. Prescott, and the
defendant was to work it out, and he had been
engaged doing work for him.
His Honour said he did not see how Mr.
Perry could get out of the four corners of the
bill.

Mr. Perry : The plaintiff has not proceed the endorse-
ment, nor the presentation. The defendant was then
,alled, end said the endorsement of the bill was is his
handwriting, and that he wrote the whole of the bill, at
air. Prescotio dictation. He had promised to pay Mr.
Chambers, if hewoald give him time. He told low that
sir. Prescott owed him f for work done to two houses.
Mr. Chambers then said that he wee under Mr. Pres-
cotes thumb.—Plaintiff was re-called, and said he did
not ',resent the bill himself, but Mr. Prescott did.—Mr.
Prescott said he could prove that—Mr. Perry objected
to the advocate being put into the witness brie.—Mr.
Prescott Why you have done it over and over again.—
His Ilonoar ruled that Mr. Prescott conld,give evidence.
—Mr. Prescott proved that he presented the bill at the
bank on the Sri of June, and it was dishonoured. De-
fendant cross.examined: I have received thirty or forty
pounds from Mr. Firmstoue. You (Mr. Prescott) owe me
for knocking down your walls, and making two
houses into one.—Mr. Prescott. 110 you mean to say I
owe you 1211. Witness: Yew—Mr. Prescott Whet did
you do? Now, be careful, sir. WiVaeas : I knocked
down seine walls and doors, and you have not paid sir.
I have the architect's certificate that the work is done,
why don't you pay me, like a man ?—Mr. Perry said lie
did not see what this had to do with the case.—Mr.
Prescott : Mr. Clare is one of the largest tradesmen in
the town, and the Court knows it —Mr. Pnrscott to the
defendant : What has Mr. Pagett paid you for painting
houses for him ? Witness: Nothing. —Mr. Paeacott :
ilas not Mr. Pagett paid you money. Defendant: No;
hoc
hiss
afew day— m
niit.lsTyou
fw rso
antretsokfashwiLlen be of p
l him
i soms
paid you
e men
ss
money? Defendant: No, he has not—His Honour
then gay., a verdict for the plaintiff.—Mr. Perry then
offered 5s a month, and said he did not think defendant
could afford to pay more.—Mr. Prescott objected to the
amount, end said he could pay it at once.—The Judge:
Mr. Prescott, how can you expect defendant to pay it at
once, when he has been in difficulties durinpgtheolnasfth.s—in
months? I shall order him to pay it), per iss
Mr. Prescott to Mr. Perry: Perry, you are • d—.--d
roacal.—Mr. Perry to the Judge: I must claim your
Honour's attention for a minute. I have always nodes-
soured to conduct my cases in a fair and proper manner,
without imputing anything to anyone, and have done so
in this ease. Since the judgment Mr. Prescott has said to
me," Perry. you are a d--d rascal."—The Judge:
What do you say'—Mr. Perry then repeated what be had
said, when his Honour turned to Mr. Prescott and said :
Is that true, Mr. Preoctitt Mr. Prescott Yes.—The
Judge : Then, I must ask yea to apologise. Mr. Pres-
cott: I shall nit; hut I withdraw it—The Judge : You
withdraw it : Yew—The Judge: I hope
you will cc od 1.•; eirself properly in future, while. in
i'rt"•l 'lr. Pre .; -it: Yes; but I can Hay what I like
oot I C dirt.— -Zr. Prescott then turned to leave, when
he r. sins!: to his Honour, and said the defendant had
Joel ,hook his flit in his Lee. He had moulted him be.
,re th,st
defendant:
sasths,ol
f. 01.1 tirdlsat
yCo'uo usrhtsid day—The h
sJsriedsge to
your fi Mr.
ballingt' eco tt
us? y Mr.
.s Cure:fiend
IloAu rg
ellnouneossuasir ,
od
stood
e.blhty,otwfdrrse..
shooktl re
hs d
is fitalfoiats Mr.,.T h
lid
dostot
told
asserted
deliberatet hat
falsehood.
Mr. Clare: Upon my honour. I swear! did not shake my
fi•t at him.—His Honour hoped he would not.—l'he
patties then left the Court. Mr. Prescott indulged him.
dell in abasing Mr. Perry from the Court to Mr. Perry s
office.

Itoluks e. Huyes.—This WU an action brought by
I. ntiff against defendant, for the sum of £l2 12s, for
wraegfully converting to his own tom, half the carcaee of
a cow, on the 28th of April last. Mr. Perry appeared for
plaintiff, and Mr. Homer for defendant- This ease has
already appeared in the Observer, and our readers will
recollect that on the last occasion, the jury, after being
lucked up for sometime, could not agree, and the Judge
discharged them. The facts are that defendant had
for some weeks past been in the habit of buying a cow
with plaintiff, who gave Whittaker, his agent, 211, on the
'27th of April, towards paying for half • cow. Whittaker
and defendant went to Birmingham. A cow was bought,
brought home, and killed. On Whittaker going for half
the carcase, defendant refused to let him have it, alleg-
ing that he had not paid for it. On behalf of Brooks,
Whittaker was called, and he swore he paid defendant at
the time that the cow was bought, in the Bound House,
Birmingham, £9. in gold, and £2. in silver. Several
oilier witnesses were called for ilaintiff. The defence
was that plaintiff's wan, Whittaker, had not paid for his
half of the cow, and eonsequently defendant refused to
It him have it without the money, and be had to sell •
l• portion of the cow at a loss. A number of witnesses
were called for the defence. At the close, his Honour
summed up, and the jury were locked up for an hour and
a half. 01. returning into court, the jury found a ver-
dict for plaintiff, for the full amount claimed, but declined
ti give their opinion as to whether Whittaker had paid
defendant or not' thus leaving that queetion open.
Parrish C. Clusiunun —This case came on for hearing
at the last Court, before Mr. tiodeon, Deputy-judge.
Mr. Perry appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Stokes for de-
fendant. The aTtiou was to recover the sum of £39
balance of account for work done, the particulars of which
Intro already appeared in the Obserree. Mr. L. Warren,
Deputy-fudge, feud the following award, which be hail
received from Mr. Godson. lam of opinion that the
judgement of the Court must be for the defendant.
Where a person is sought to be made liable on the ground
of his being a partner, the true teat is, whether or not
be has constituted the other alleged partner his agent in
respect of the partnership business. A participation in
the profit is cogent, but not conclusive evidence of a
partnership. Such is the deduction to le drawn from
the cases of Con v. Hickman, 30 Li., c.p. 125, and
Buller v. Sharp, 33 L.J., c.p. 105. Applying the test to
the present case,:f am of opinion that the defendant
Chnpman in not liable to the plaintiff for money due to
him for work done by Thurston s order. In this view
1 tou fortified by the cases of Barton v. Hodson, 2; Ten-
nant V. Taunt, 49; and Wileon v. Whitehead, 10 p and
w. 803, which seems to me to be strong authority in foe.
our of defendant, and think under the peculiar circum-
atone.. of the case, no costs ought to be given. Verdict
for defendant without coats."

CHINNILY ON Fine.—At the Petty Sessions, yesterday,
William Thompson WAS charged hid, allowing his chim-
ney on lire. The ease was withdrawn on payment of
lis 6d coats.

DRUNK Mill Itiorons.—Elijah Harris and Benjamin
Harrison, of Crailley, were charged with being drunk and
riotous, on the 17th Met inst. P.C. Roe proved the case,
and Harris was fined :is and costs, and Harrison Ills and
costs.

_
DA MACIINO Glum—Mary Ann Perry, Eliza Harris, and
Margaret Wooldridge were charged with damaging mow.
tog grass on the 14th just, the property of Joseph Chance.
1 hey were ordered to pay ffs each.
AEISA ULTINO TIIE POLlCE.—Benjamin Brooks was
charged with assaulting P.C. Brooks while in the execu-
tion of his duty, on the 17th inst. Mr. Perry appeared
for defendant. Complainant said he was on duty about
a quarter to one o'clock. when he was called into Mr.
John Hand's liquor vaults. Mr. Hand asked him to put
defendant out. He asked him to leave, and defendant
refused, and said lie was pee.cable and should not leave
for any man, Witness laid hold of him to put him out.
and defendant struck him twice in the face. The offence
was admitted, and defendant was fined 40s and costs.—
Benjamin Richards and John Edwards were then charged
with resisting P.C. Brook. while in the executioe of his
duty, on the 17th inst. Complainant said he saw the
defendants at Mr. Hand's. As he was putting the last
defendant out, Richards said no b ffiby should put him
out. He pushed witness roan 1 and prevented him from
doing his duty. John Hand, landlord of the Wine Vaults.
said he called in the officer to turn Brooks out. He did
not see Edwards impede the officer at all. Richards
jumped up and went between Brooks and the officer, and
said he should not take his friend, but he tßicbards)
would take shim home. Mr. Perry said he believed
Richards did get up and say that ho would take his
friend home. ltmight have indiscreet on his part, bat
he had no intention of impeding the progress of the of-
ficer. Joseph Hand, Helen Roe, and James Brearley
were called, and their evidence went to show that Rich-
ards did get between Brooks and the officer, and that
Edwards did not interfere. Richards was fined Is and
costs, and the case against Edwards was dismissed