The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-07-22 00:00:00

DETINUE—CHANCE e. BIRD.

This action was tried at the Worcester Summer As-
sizes, on Monday last, before Mr Justice Lush.
Mr. Young and Mr. Dodson were for the plaintiff, and
Dr. kienealy, Q.C., for the defendant.
Mr. Young, iii opening the came, said the plaintiff was
letter•cutter and engraver at Smurbridge, and at the
date when the cause of action arOne was also a draper
there ; and the defendant was a basket-maker at the
HMO place. The parties were brothers•in-law. Plaintiff
had had differences with his wife, and, in November, Iriti7,
the latter left him, and resided for a time with the
defendant. Between then and 1861) plaintiffs wife came
and went between pountill's and defendant's house, and
an the latter year left him altogether. missed a
farice quauuty of goods which had been removed from his
auwie and shop, ruff found these goods, or some of them,
were exhibited is defendant's ahoy wuidow for sale. He
erought an action for the recovery of the goods or their
value; but, when the case was ripe for triat, defendant
made an application to a judge in chambers, and by con-
sent a conditional order was made for the delivery of
goods apecilied on the first list before the Court, value
4.5 U, and ,tl. lOs the value ad other goods set forth in
; lilt Nu. 1, and the costs. Defendant had returned the
goods, dud paid what he agreed to pay except the costs,
Ziff which he declined to pay. The present action was
accurdingly brought for the recovery of the goods and
damage", but the gohis having in fact been returned the
effect of a judgment for the plaintiff would only be to
give him has costs.

halm& (Mr. Peter Chance) and his shopinan proved
the removal of goods from plaintiff's premises, and their
.Attibition in defendant's nlisp for sale. In cross-
examination, plaintiff said lie had lived unhappily with
ais site for thirty-four years. lie was charged with an
assault, sad WAS tiued by the magistrates. lie never
gave her permission to take away goods from the cloth-
iei's shop.

A witness named Laisiter, clerk to plaintiff's attorney,
stated that, in December, 1669, he went on plaintiff s
ueh.dt to J. fendact's sh,v, and demanded certain goods
spec -died ci. a oat lie produced. Defendant looked at the
113 L 10,1 Did it down, saying, •' All that is here is mine.
-
Witness then left.

Dr. lienealy, f ,r the defence, said the plaintiff's wife
ovought tie goods to detentiant'a prenneea. He never
exercised any dominion over the goods. He understood
that planatili had allowed hos wile to take away the goods;
,nd isuci, thin lictluLllA commenced he at once halal the
volls shodid be returned. The goods were returned,
dud Xi Loa paid for some articles that had been disposed
Deteudaut never agreed to pay costa, which, on the
tolls beteg taxed, appeared to amount to .ClB 16s 101,
.widel, to Octet i a basket-maker, would have been a
seri°Ul automat CO pay.

Mrs. Hannah Chalice, wife of the plaintiff, said or
taishaud told her eke might take whit she liked ao that
ate wait heraelt. She told her brother to.

Mr. Bird, the defeudant, stated that hie sister brought
. he goods, and said her husband had allowed her to bring
theui. He +waisted his sister to pack them up, and he
and some others took them to plaintiff's place. Plaintiff
threw them into the street, tied called ad who were pas.
sing anti sand, " Here's the stolen goods." Robinson,
plaintiff's shopmitn, counted the goods from the packages
on the street, and carried them into the shop.
The further hearing of the case was adjourned until
.he following day. when

Mr. Young addressed the jury on the evidence, and
submitted that matters foreign to the case had been im-
ported; and contended that defendant having in the first
instance, and until an action had been commenced, re-
fused to deliver up the goods, he had in the eye of the
Ins converted them to his own Use. The order of the
Judge in Chambers was made on the application ad the
I,lendant ; tool having, as a c:tusentiug party to that
ader, • lin itted that he had eattferfud the goode to tie
was utie mid undertaken to pay the lased COSA, it dill not
lie in his mouth to C,lllllr thy-rend ny lie had nothing to
with the goods, blast tie sister brought them to his
pr.,inises, and that lie returned them. Tile plaintiff was
'law asking for what defendant had prtoniscd to
is,' I twin.

HIM Lordship, in canoeing op, said the only ijacation
Mr the tory wa, whether defendant did really take pos.
of the goods and refn,e to deliver them up, or
merely allow the plaintiff's wife to Ming them to his pre.
atteee, and did not interfere with them. He recapitulated
Ole facie in evidenee bearing on this point; and directed
the jury to find for the plaintiff' with Is damages, which
would put him in a position to get his coats, if they were
of the former opinion, and for the defendant if of the
latter opinion.
The jury found for the plaintiff.