The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1867-06-18 00:00:00

• sh 11.
• a the
*ea e
Ate seals ` -
work wo. -

WEYMOUTH COUNTY COURT.
TUMULI' z Before E. Everett, H.q., Judge.
The funeerfieg were the only oases of 'Wired to
=....stilitt•enThamas Luning v. the Illeyor a
of Weymouth.— Claim for £l6 is..
Me. Howard appeared for the plaintiff, and the T.
Clerk, Mr. F. C. St-ggall, for the dofendents.
Howard said this Mu a rather curious emu In
a cumin portion elf the Herbonr Wall retteireA ta
atid two partite untreated for this work. Tbea
for which plaintiff sought to reenyer payniene were
supplied to thee. puttee whilst the work wee 'deg on,
but some time after • *huge took pleat., and the defend-
Lot's surveyor used the goods supplied in cien-yieg on
the work whilst soother portion ronisined I. the yard.
He made seplicetion to the defendants, bot they
disputed their liability to pay. Plaintiff would be able
to say that be had seen the goods supplied by him seed
by the servants of the Corporatism day be day. arid
would also say that he had made application for the
money time after time up to the present period and
they had declined to pay. His client was willing to
some to an equitable emingemenb but this the d. fend-
anti bad also declinet —Pleintilf said he bad been en
Ironmonger in the town for needy 40 'retire The
amount ued for we. for blocks and elisin.fell supplied
to the Corporation. These were ordered by some men
who carried out the work, but their names he meld not
remember. The goods were used by them bar a time,
when they the:ended. and after that defendant.'
servants used them. The chain fall were now used in
the Corporation lighters and the blocks were In the
yard.—Crossex•mined : The men to whom he emptied
the goods were Benjamin Bongs and Samuel Richards.
He believed they eels the contrultors andel. the
Corporation for bidding the wall. He dthited the
when with the goods until they left when he debited the
thorstion. —Mr. Itteggall, In addressing his Honour,
said there was not the shadow of a pretues agaipst the
Ouporstion.—His Honour : Not the lesid. —Verdict
for the defendant".
Num for 27 17s. 9j4.—Mr.
Arden appeamd for the plaintiff, Mr. Howard for the
defendant. —Ms plaintiff said he was • mason at Port-
land. In October. 1860, he agreed to do so much
masonry work it Is. 9J. a perch, which work he um-
dated. The total amount was £2l Oi. 3id. and he bed
received £l6 2s. 51., leaving £7 IT.. 91.1. the amount
sued for. The work bad b--en measured as agreed
upon, and Mr. Reoftett, the architect. had acted for him.
ZeCrceVeutPliPlilielk Fiat Brix N1V.a;.4.. 11:ilu'rt
Hine. He had sent lea day work bill, which defendant
dispnted and told him (plaiqtiff) to get ,the work
measured and hs trould pay him. Defendant might
hue helped him a little in lifting up some stone, in
stripping • roof, an-1 building a wall. Ho seat io the
bill produced—it was a day work bill for £I2 9.. 9.1.
Defendant said it wee a humbug job and that it was a
false bill, end said, "get the work measured and 111
pry you." Defendant had paid £l6 2.. 64. for work
measured and 1.1 on account of jobbing work. Plaintiff
bail received 24 6.1. from def.thd•nt'a eon, thi. IVsn not
credited, it we. lent to pleintiff. Defendant had given
him a piece of b. ef. Defendant had purchased 401b5.,
but was so "tight" he could not carry it horns and he
gave plaintiff the piece for carrying the beef home for
him —His Honour: Is the beef th be considered a act
off ?-11r. Alden : flo.—His Honour : Then hear
no more about beef. Re-examination continued :
Plaintiff went with Mr. Bennett when the work wits
measured. Defendant had been "poking about" bat
doing very little work. Defendant went with plaintiff
and Mr. Bennett and points' out the work done by
him, and that work was not iecladed in the niessure•
went. The reason the work was measured was that the
umlaut for the day work was conai lered too high.—
Robert Christie Bennett deposed that he was an
arehitect and Purveyor in Weymouth. On the 4th of
April last, he was called in to measure the disputed
work in thls case. A Mr. Coombe was celled in on
defendant's behalf. Ur. Pearce not being satisfied,
afterwards celled in Mr. Norman. as prohiteat, with
whom witness went and again measured the work, and
they had agreed upon the whole particular, both as to
measurement and price, and defendant lad agreed to
it. In valuing disputed work witness generally
allowed 2s. a perch, but in this ease he hail allowed
Is. %I. Defendatit sent with witness when the work
was measured, and the &dui ions agreed upon had
been allowed.—Mr. Howard expressed his surprise that
defendant after two arshitect• had been engaged on the
matter should have brought an act'on. It was mut
shooed employing bins (Mr. Howard), and he should
withdraw from the case —His Honour rive judgment
for the plaintiff, °beeping that defendant had not the
slightest &Isom to the action.
Thomas Luting r. Leas Spencer—This was an
action to reviver possession of a cottage or Ch•pelhay
occupied by defendant as week', tenant. Plaintiff eould
not prove service of notice to init. P.C. Metlahou
proved serving • notice no defendant, and his Honour
gave an order to take possession in • fortnight observing
that bat for the tenancy having been a weekly one no
order would hays been made, as the service ef nodes to
quit had not been proved.
Phillips v. Bartlett —Claim 9.. 9d., for • "four and
nine" that rupplied and • "balance" of 6... Detendan
who had been supplied with three hats to choose from
said fie kent the one st 3.. 61, and on being waked
what the ss. was for said perhaps Mr. Phillips would
like to explain. It was for • °barge for di-count on •
five pound bill the Abeyant ci which had been paid by
soother iran. Plaintiff acid defendant lad on his oath
an "Infernal lie* end he would make him prove his
words. In addition defendant pleaded his bankruptcy
and di-charge with reference to the claim of ss.
Plaintiff said he shoo'd have had notice and he was
not "scheduled" for the sa. Verdict for plaintiff
3a. 6d., his Honour remarking that he should be
ashamed of himself for bringing the action for such •
Holloway a Cot—Claim 16s. 101., for goods sold and
delivered to defendant. a earner and gilder of they-
necieth, by the plaintiff a whiting menu/pie er
SouthaMpton. Defendant disputed the elmin and
Mated that some time In August last • pereon cams to
his ahnp and premed him very much to buy some whit.
the. As he could not get rid of him he gave him an
order for 1 cwt, hat mtheetthently increased the order to
3 ev,t. the cliff lo be 2.. 91., per met, delivered. This
potion asked witness to allow some other small orders
to be sent with this to save carriese which witness
agreed to. Afterwards two oaths were sent from South-
ampton containing 6 ewt which the defendant at first
lamed bat sobeequently took the roods in. No invoice
was sent till some time after. Menus wrote to the
defendant on the subject and requited in reply any.
thing but a ounplimentary letter to the effect that the
arm did not trust people of defendant'o claas, and were
not going to be talked down by a "Weymouth bouncer."
They did not think of sending out lees than two tons of
whiting and defendant sould have got a aced), from
any little shop keeper. Of all the towns they knew
Weymouth ens the dirtiest hole, sod they thought
its staple article was bread and cheese. His Honour
said he had never beard a more insolent letter read.
Defendant mid he would admit to owing for 3 cwt.
of whiting at 2e. 91. Plaintiff explained the rump why
he had sent 0 cwt. was the carriage of that would not be
more than 3 east and that the Invoice and ball had been
duly Rent, verdict for plaintiff 84. 7d. Pliintiff applied
for his expenses which Ilia Honour refused remarking
that he never heard of a more shameful ease brought
inth curt. There was aMU action, by Mr. ('ox,
store e of the goods not ordered by him hot this he was
advised not to try. Mr. Holloway asked his Honour
to allow him his railway fare 15s.from Southampton. His
Honour informer' him thet nuts farthing would he
allowed and advised him to keep better agents for the
future. Mr. Holloway became rather noir, and persistent
when his Honour cautioned him or the Bailiff would
hap to turn bin out.
Hansford e. C'...dm—Claim for 15e., for • coffin for a
child of defendant... The order for the coffin was given
by the defendant's wife—Ordered to be paid in 14
daßew v. PellifEe.— kaiiolll to recover £2 given to the
wife of plaintiff by her grandmother. A Portland cave
in which as • matter of oourse a "church gift" was
brought into question. ft appeared that the mother of
defendant had given her by thumb gift certain property
chargeable with the pap:meta £2O to five of her grand-
children, the plaintiff's wife being ono of them. Mr. .1.
Oibbe Pearce had recently paid £lB of the mount, and
• receipt Maned by the plaintiff's wife for £2 some time
ago haring been produeed and admitted by the plaintiff,
brought the ridiculous action to • due
Laity v. HounselL —Claim £l2.—This action was
brought to realest the urn of £l2 from the defendant
as he Secretary of Court Plume of Feathers, No. 3,152,
Weymouth United District of the Ancient Order of
Formters, alleged to be doe on the death of Joseph
React late a member of the Court, To save any un-
necessary 'rouble, Mr. Howard admitted the doe red..
trstion of the society. There was some difficulty in
proving the death of &oat, who was asuman on bnard
the barque MP, rboio, supposed to have foundered on
her homeward voyage from Quebec, which plus she
left on the sth September. 18th., the °air means avail.
ad.. for seek • tareeei being throaah the Beard of
Trade. The owner had given up the .hip as lost, and
had paid to ths representatives of all on board the
wages du up to a certain time after the vessel had left
Qubee.—Plaintiff stated that the person in respect of
whom he made the cleim wss his wife's brother. He had
received ET 11... 41. the wage., and produced the order
for his so doing. He Widened the £l2 as death money
due from the Court. and sued as next of kin. He had
seen the Chief Ranger and Secretary on the subjeet and
they had told him the morey would be paid on a certain
night,but that there was Is. 6d. due for arrears which
be paid. The next thing be received on the Wiest was
• letter to the effect that it having o,Kaal to the know.
left* of the Court that Bro. Bocott was not dead, the
6a. Si. would be returned to hint. The pinintiff here
Put in several letters including ono from the Board of
Trade in proof of the death of Focott—ln oromonamioa-
tine soms of the above facts were repeated and in
addition it appeared that the only found *Moth..
to which plaintiff had been, was that of putting
his wife and family in mourning. He did not know
whether his w9e had been nominated to receive the
money. He had made application to have the matter
settled by erbitration. He bad odd the Is, 6d. in
August, 1868, aad the vessel was supposed to have owe
lost in September, 1865. The secretary did sot tell him
that Result was out of compliance. He had asked the
Chief Banger to have the matter beard by arbitration,
tied had also offered the money rowessary in sash a cum
Tbe Secretary had told his that the chum for the
money was drawn. He had no evidence to prove that
the Joimph Scutt mentioned in the oertiAoate of the
Board of Trade was the Joseph Bearitt the member of
the olub.—Ellstheth Legg deposed that she received
some balfspay from the snores of Joseph Beetott up to
At" 1885. and that the money received by plaintiff
Tee s.—By Kr. Howard: Ecoott had told her about
his running away from vessels and she should not he
wuprised am him lo Weymouth any day. He had toll
her he once got three months for leaving a vessel.—For
the defeat* it wse oontemded that the death of Ecoott
had not 'aeon proved, not at the time of the supposed
death Eallalit MSS Out of complianu, and that pa
(WHIM exposer* as contemplated by she 40th rule
had bass incurred. Mr. Howard reomitnieted the
'widows no these points given by plain...tram continued
that this was a very important cam to the soviet,, as it
affeeted Its general roles and orders. This solety was
Wend to pay • certain amount of money to ..ay member
provided be was not out of oompliance. Belo 32 stated
.vpheb any member wafering his emotrithtlons and
lode, to be sixteen week. in arrears, or being fined sad
net paylag tbe same within sixtess weeks, shall be
otievimedir the veeretory three days before the next
Goya night, to pay, with the addition of *of puny for
•••hdlffittffithth • teillefead am to tedium it bolow the
soma el slot week? coetribatieee, and If be neglects

!bowl

I

I:2 NIL 4....., ai eltall be suspended from all
is until he bee redound the amulet below eight
weeks' oentribstiese, and hu eutinued to pay, so CO to
keep them wader that amount for Musts= of eight
eeks, wire beshall be reinstated is all benefits. Aiiy
istamber ellowing his onntnbeeione to be twelve =maths
- . stream rr Ife @toilet the Order." Now he should
• before the Owlet, MU/ wrfled shies that
......ogs 1,, liinfi pi buo. ashes dile id his 'apposed
~ lda the =Le thing he P.. tut-doted to say was
I snob • claim as the present are. newer eobtenithcerl
the riles alibi. Order. One of the 'Meets of • leer
=dug • number of this Order wan, in cos of
sees, readying • weakly sew, or, in ease of duth,
he should be respectably interred, and the expenses
amount of £l2, defrayed. The Order mein.
6their
that he the eau as at present made out, the
wits not within the meaning of the 40th rule.
Hamer t That =erred to me at se early stage
ale owe, when I tusked the plaintiff under what
✓al his olden was laid.—Mr. Howard here read
taolOth rule, which stated "That on the death
/4, t'l free member of this Corpt, doe notice.
the being given to the secretary, the soot of Cl 2
'Pal ' paid towards his tenets, espouses ; and
.11" the wife of any free encipher die, he alull
reeei‘the stint a six pounds the funeral thohar to h'
lidaattd by this Court, until repayment has been made
be thtlistrica. Any member having received funeral
11,!"*Ile for one wife shall not be entitled to the
ellovete, if he ehoold marry again, until twelve
weather= the date of paying the sum of ten shilling.
as entrees lot the almond wit," That role, Mr.
Rowerdiontlnued, most dietinctly stated that the sum
Of £l2 nold be paid for leveret expenses; therefore
the
me.herstf a family dressing themselves in mourning
Preset claim mttet be for teat. The mere fact ,if
was nevereonteinplated by that rule. His Honour : I
have not such dnaht upon thst point. Mr. Hoerani
continued,thee this was* m.. 61 insPeirtsot eau for the
members Os the society. es the decision would .ffert
'Ottue thmeinds of persons. The meaning of role SI
am ibis —lust if • person di. d in a town without
having • eirtg or family, he should nominate a party
who should buy him. end this society would give him
the money inuder to do so, but in this eau Reeroth.
'War via aottominued. His Honour mid the 40th
and 41st rules tout two very different mesninee Mir
Howard then read the nomination rule. No. 41, which
said "The secretaryAO' st;.(l'ini tk74...iiion—ici 4111;in
the burial money ;hall iiia; paid on their elect..., such
Parma being the wife, father, mother, child, brother.
or Ulster nephew' oh niece, of 'doh member, pursuant
to the filiat section of If and le Vic. a El. Any member
may revoke such nomination by a written notion to that
effect, signed by =pelf. and it .h.ll be the duty of the
Chief Renter, in such CUP, tone. the nomination erased.
The member to pay three-penes to the Management
Fond for Path nomination or revosetion. The
secretary, neglecting to ink • new member to nominate
within three months of his admiasion, to forfeit tliriie-
Pence." After reading thin, Mr. Howard said that the
spirit of these rules was his to pay money for the
purpou of interring a body respectably, and on no other
ground. weld • demand he made.-- -His Honor : There
otn be no doubt about the meaning of thi.4lst rule. A
dead body is not very properly, &Mead to remain
above emend. The meaning of that rule 1., test A
person 'heal.' be nontintawt, a coffin provided at °nee,
and the person so nominated receive the burial money.
If there is an etetutor he 111 the person responsible for
the burial, and he will receive the burial money inde-
pendently of anv next of kin.—Mr. Howard said that.
according to rule 40, the money must be paid towards
funerel expenses, ant, with all due submission to his
Honour. he took this view of the ease. Supposing this
man had died ir this town, and theme parties bad some
forward for the fettered money, they would have heen
entitled to CR. They were bound to prove that these
expenses had been incorred before receiving the money
—for the sake of argument, they might receive the £l2
and spend it in an eacursion to London, which, of
emu's, was cattiery to the rule. The members of this
Order did am with to raise any technical objection in
this matter. Out at the earn.. time the decision affected
the Order thisughout the country. The hest tonnes for
plaintiff to have taken would have been to have gone to
arbitration, chief' he now said he wish. d to do but lie
(Mr. Howard) could bring • witn= forward trio could
deny that he had refuicel the offer to go to arbitration.
The order would be pleased to uttle the matter under
Role 16, where the matter amid be rlisp end of by
means of arbitration, and where the plaintiff, if he felt
he had not juoire in the first court. could remove his
eau from court to court until he arrived in the highest
one in the Order. He see bound by the decision of
that court, but he hail never made an offer to go to
arbi•ration —ll.s Honenr : lint hole if they refuse to
pay him £l2 due upon death 1 —Mr. Howard said the.
amount was not doe upon dea.h. Ma argument was
that it was doe, not upon death, but for funeral ex-
penses.—Hi. Honour : Is there any other °knee by
which the Order are bound to pay I—Mr Howard re-
plied that there was no other clause under which
plaintiff could recover. In tide cue the prouedin.s
were so contrary to the spirit of the rule', that that
was the reason why the defence had been raised. Thia
Order, which was intended for the benefit of the varionn
bodies in England, would be the I= in the world to
raise any technical objections against the peyment of
any money which was due. He c 0... 1.. .1 0n... 1 y say, in order
to show their willlneness, that if plaintiff would clout',
to Estee the cue d. tiled by arbitration that they would
accept it.—Flis Honour remarked that that WY by far
the fairest way. Let the Court decide if any, and what
amount was due. He thought the best entree plaintiff
could take was te accept the offer made. If he wished, judg-
ment might be swipended until the arbitration had been
settled. bat Vats bearing might prejudice pleiotifrs cue.
Plaintiff uid he was stilling to do anything which was
Juno ...a .e.ownioste. tit.. ;romans said it had been held
by the coons •oove that, wnere moose. non an antlers.
hem chums, the first step in all manner of disputes Mil
to take advantage of that clause, and if the party dis-
piriting was not seti.fied with their decision, •ppesl
could be made to the low coorta. He, however, most
.ay that plsintiff had not much of • chancre after what
had taken place that day. If the Order were ailing to
do what was sight and (.0, he would give them credit
for doing so. but plaintiff had • very awkward ease to
contend with. In his evidence he asked him wider
what clause he elidined the money, when he gave him
the 40th and 41st rule. This was given in hilt
(plaintiff's) eeidenes, and therefore if he claimed under
iboae rules he had no cue at all to proceed with. It
.111
heated and was eaten op by • shark, that • person could
go ton cloh and deign funeral expenses Plaintiff said
that the Order had been taking from him money under
(*lee prezences His H moue said the money had not
been taken under false pretenoes Plaintiff ought not
4i make use of such observations. for It wonld only sat
the Order against him. le was ttatiel by the secretary
that the arbitration would probably last two months,
and judgment was deferred until the Auteuil Court.

BRIDPORT COUNTY COURT.
WEDSZEDAT : Before E. EVERITT, Esq., Judge.

. . _
There were about 1 0 owes int:biding some adjourned
64 month, but the greater number of them were settled
out of Court.
Joseph Ackerman v. Stnekey.—Claim. £2 IT 14.
An adjourned car..—Mr. F. W. Canary, for defendant,
showed that 19. 6.1. only was Owing, Whi,h nuni wa
paid into Court.—Hi. Honour censured plaintiff fur Ws
'shameful amount keeping," and gave judgment for
19a. 61., without costa
John 'helloed, miller 'end grocer, Askerswell r.
William Hallett. Claim. El for grocery goods in
1867.—its. Gendry for plaintiff, Mr. Day for defendant.
The delivery of the goods being prov-d to his Honour's
satisfaction, he ordered payment by ss. a month.
Seine v. Ann Churchill; a woman who had been in
receipt of parochial relief fur 12years.—Claim £3 S.. 41
Plaintiff only proved • debt of 13s. 21. to the judge's
satidaction. and had judgment for that amount.
John Oxenbury, farmer, Cbl'eock, v. John Hyde,
Ckarmoutb.—Claini of £5 on exehaage of bones.—
Mr. Day for plaintiff.—Defendant said the horse wag
warranted wend, but was unwound. —PLaintiff used h.
exchanged the bor.*. on Ist November, 1865. and
was to be paid by defendant An agreement was signed
by both which was read in Court. Defendant had
frequently promised to pay the money. The horse
defendant let plaintiff have was an old one, and was
killed in a few months after as useless. That day
defendant had nail the colt be let him have had •
" flip" in the eye--it was aOp done by a boy touching
her with a atiak, it hall been done a week or two before.
and plaintiff thought that the horse would recover that.
He did not know whether defendant notioed it or not,
a. it Iva, dark at the time. Defendant bad
Plained of this until that day. —Defendant said the
deal wag made at 10 o'clock at night. and be found
afterwards the mare was unsound, all but blind and a
little lame ; and he told plaintiff and he offered to give
£l4 and have it back main, but did not do so. He kept
the horse about six weeks, and then sold it for ell.
The horse was about 12 years old.—Crose-examlned
He had never promised to pay the money to pleletiff,
and had told him repeatedly the horse WU unsound.
He had been a horse dealer for 20 year*. Plaintiff
rewailed, declared defendant had never to'd biro the
horns was lame, and had never oft-red to return II: he
he had —(1 lighter). Hi. Honour mike' defend-
ant if he was in the habit of buying horses at 10 o'oluck
at night, and he said he thought plaintiff was an
honourahle nein, on which plaintiff diald he thought at
the time that defendant wrui an honourable man-
Naught...).—Defendant said his horse was about 12
Years old, and plaintiff said it was more like 16 yea s.
Plaintiff said defendant bad several times need to let
hien have another horse and deduct the CIS from the
price of it, but had never done so. The defendant
denied making such an offer. To oboe that apthostioe
for tlx. money had been tuade to defendant, Ms. Day
said be applied, by Mr. Otenbuty's dincitioe, to him for
II in Nay, 1866, and read a copy if the letter is haa
letter hook, but defendant said he had never received it,
he did not know whether his dOn bad ; he admitted,
however, the address where the letter erts sent to wee
where he was living at the time.—His Honour summed
up and gave judgment for plaintiff forthwith for the
etnnunt claimed. The cam caused much amusement.
Emmanuel Hodges v. Janne Danford. --Claim £7
for mermen of • field in the pariah if itaropisham,
which defendant rents under plaintiff.-11r. Leggin for
plaintiff. Mr. Day for defendant, who said the defence
w" lb" it was a yearly letting from July, when a rent
agreement between the parties was used.—Mr. Lorre°
said his came was that the parties met on 4.11 July lull,
which was the County Court day. and Plaintiff basing
summoned the defendant to that Court to Ai,. up
pre-semion, plaintiff agreed to withdraw the cane on the
defendant paying the am ant and costs, and under-
taking to give up princedom on 25th Match last.—
Judgment for plaintiff; posesseion to be given in 14
days.
JUDGMENT liommowate.—Mr. Scott, surgeon, v. G.
eurnuell--Claim El 101.. throe instalments of Wu
per Moulb• The original claim was £8 12a 61., which
defendant had been ordered to, pay in 10s. monthly
instalments bat had failed to do so.—Senteneed told
days' hand -04 ny..y.
Mr. Dunham, ironmonger. v. William Bowden.—
Cl.ol, for es 64. 104, balance of an seeount of
„ 20
1110- iss. and assts.—Defendant's wife appeared and
said the bad paid se. of the amount on Tuesday, which
was *lowed. The defendant was • blackaniith, working
for Mr. Cosx at the Harbour. Plaintff offered to take
to two monthly inatahoenta, and seta* the debit
inehding the costs of this day.—His Honour ordered
defrodant to pay in net manner, and adjourned the
sew to Ant Court Say, informing delesdaet's wife that
If 111 was not paid by that time beg husband would
here to go to prison.