The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1865-12-12 00:00:00

WAREHAM COUNTY COURT.

Forty new plaints came before E. Everett, q., on
Friday, but the following ocly possess any interest :
DISPUTED LIABTLITY. —George Marsh, farmer, of
Bourten, v. William Francis Smith, pork-butcher,
of Gosport. Mr. Weston for plaintiff. Claim
£ll 18s. lid., balance of account for some rigs and
21 geese, supplied to Mr. Armstrong, • relative of de-
fendant's, whose business defendant and his wife for
many years transacted, and after his death succeeded to.
Defendant denied his liability, saying he was only a
servant. Adjourned for further evidence.
CLAIM POE RENT. —Henry Spicer v. Samuel Ridont.
Plaintiff, who is a farmer, claimed 75., for seven weeks'
rent of a cottage. Defendant is a labourer, and had the
house in part payment of his wages; he left plaintiff's
service directly after harvest, when Spicer gave him a
month's notice to leave the cottage, but he remained
seven weeks. He should not have charged anything,
but defendant was very saucy and swore at him one
day when he met him.—His Honour said as soon
as defendant left his employ he ought to have
left the house; no month's notice was necessary.
Mr. Spicer said that he gave a month's notice to quit
the cottage as he always paid his wages monthly His
labourers however could draw at any time within the
periods of settlement. His Honour condemned the
system of eying labourers' wages by the month. The
men were obliged to run up accounts with the shop
keepers, which resulted in the end in being brought
before the County Courts. Mr. Spicer had evidently
behaved with great forbearance towards the defendant,
and the conduct of the latter had been most disgraceful
towards his former employer when they had met. He
should order immediate payment. At the earnest solici-
tation of the defendant, however, and with the consent
of the plaintiff, the time was extended to • month.

NO*lll. ArrLlOavtoN.—Mr. Trevenneu asked permis-
sion to file a petition under the new Equity Act of last
Session, asking his Honour to grant a release and
indemnity to the trustees under the will of the late
Joseph Gillingham, of Lydlinch, on their giving up to
the legatees, Mary Saunders and Joseph Saunders, her
husband, the mortgage deeds of some leasehold property
devised to them. It appeared that rather more than
30 years ago Mr. Joseph Gillingham purchased from
Charlotte Humphrey, the remainder of a lease of 90
years on three lives of an orchard and other lands with
the building and appurtenances thereto belonging, and
that on the 15th November, 1860, he made a will, leav-
ing his interest in the property, on his death, to his
daughter Elisabeth and her husband. The legator died
on the 9th Augabt, 1881, and as the legatees desired to
obtain possession of the documents, the trustees came
to that court to ask to be indemnified from all responsi-
bility hereafter. The three lives named in the
mortgage were Mary and Charlotte Humphrey ao4
Maria Kerley. One of these WILS now dead, a aecdod
had not been heard of for the last 20 years, sal the 3rd
was 60 years of age. Mr. Johns. of Ringwood, appeared
to watch the case on the part of the legatees. His
Honour, however, said he did not wish to hear what he
had got to say in reply as Mr. Trovennen had clearly
mistaken his course. The Act in question did not apply
in this case. The trustees required no releage or
indemnity, as the property was not devised to them for
the use of the legatees, but to the legatees themselves.
The petition was accordingly dismi:sed.