The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1864-11-22 00:00:00

0011t11.

COUNTY COORT, Monday, November 14. —Before
E. Everett, Esq., judge.—There were BO plaints
entered, and 90 beard, of which the following were
the most interesting to the public i—
w alumna e. W. Lene.—Ulaim Atkinson
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Chitty for the
defendant,—Plaintiff stated that the defendant was
employed by him to cut some barley during the
bat vest. He asked plaintiff to be answerable for
him to Mr. Hotting, of the Portman's Arms, for some
beer; to this he agreed, and the defendant had
gallons, at 10d. per gallon. Plaintiff had paid Mr.
Bolting for the bier; bet when he paid defendant
his wages he forgot to deduct the amount. He wrote
to the landlord to say he was to let the defendant
have the beer. Lane bad the beer tho lame day as
he sent the note to the landlord.—ln Answer to the
plaint the defendant said the beer was • part of his
wages. He did take a note to Mr. Hotting, but did
not know the oontenta —On Mr. Bolting being
called, he said be gave the order back to Mr.
Williams, when be paid for the beer. He put the
beer down to Lane, and not to Mr. William—His
Honor said the case could not be settled without the
note sent by the plaintiff was produced in Court,
and allowed Mr. Williams time to find it. That
gentleman, however, returned some time afterwards,
and said be could not Bad the note, and on applica-
tion by Mr. Atkinson the are WM adjourned till
next Court on paying the defendant's es
Ralph Creeds* v. Samuel Ceases— is was an
application for an order to eject defendant from •
cottage which he held belonging to the plaintiff.—
Mr. Atkinson appeared for the plaintiff—Plaintiff
stated that defendant had been • labouter in his
employ. His wages were Ila per week, with a
free cottage, fire-wood, /ie. He dismissed the
defendant in July. At that time defendant's wife
was Dear her confinement, and at his request he
allowed him to May tin attar she was churcbeit.
Since then he had told him to leave bet be refused,
merely saying that he would do so when he got
another hoctea —Defendant said that the plaintiff
bad never given him • proper notice.
He discharged him on the instant, used bad
language to him, and threatened to injurebin..—
His
Honor said if be was wrongly discharged be
Mould have sued his master. So soon as be was nut
of his service he became a tenant-at-will, and had
no legal claim to remain in the home, the occupation
of which formed a part of his wages.—The defendant
ulumately agreed to leave the boom in a fortnight's
time—Plaintiff applied for meta, but as the de-
fendant appeared at a previous Court when the
plaintiff was not present, his Honor would not
allow them.

O. Knolls. J. Spicier. —Claim £l6, for damage
sustained by floe-fulfilment of contract. —Mr.
.At-
kineon appear... 4 for the plaintiff, and Mr. Chitty
for the defendant. This sae • jury case, and am-
siderable interest was manifested by the farmers
and dealers of the neighbourhood. —The jury were
Mr. H. Fookes, Mr. H. F. rubor, Mr. C. Dotting,
Mr. E. Rossiter, and Mr. T. Beasant. Mr.
Atkinson briefly opened the cuss by stating that in
March Isat his client bought • quantity of bay of the
defendant at £3 per tan. He was to pay for it as
, be took it away. He had MIMI or eight tons, and
August he went for the remainder, when the de-
-1 fleidant told him he had sold it the previous evening.
Since the time the agreement was made hay had
risen from £2 to £5 per too, and as there was about
, sight tons left, his client had suffered to the amount
of £l6 by the noa-fultilment of the contract. Tbe
three questions to be decided were: let, had there
been a contract made? 2nd, wee it broken? and
3rd, what was the damage suatained He should
call evidence to prove all these points, and
I. believed the jury would iumnimoaaly come
So the conclusion that his client was entitled to a
verdict. He then called the plaintiff, Mr. Georp
Knott, who stated that be was • meddler and harness
maker, ant= dallier, residing at Elturminster New-
ton. In last he bought a rick of hay of Mr.
Joseph Spicer at Haslabory Brian. He agreed to
give £3 per ton. It was to be paid for as taken
away. Took away about eight loads of about • ton
a load. Took two loads at • time, and paid for them.
Paid three WINS at the rick. The agreement was
made in the field close to the rick. Defendant
called at his house at Sturminstsr, and paid him £5,
leaving £1 18.. 6d., which be said he would send.
It we. in May that he celled. Did not go for any
more hay till August, but kit hiswagoa, hay.knives,
to., at the rick. When be went ia Angus* he sew'
the defendant, and told his be had mem for
rest of ths hay, to which the defendant replied he
had sold it the previous evening. Plaintiff said
him what right he brit° sell it; to which he replied '
you ought to have come for it before according to I
agreement. He replied there was no agreement as
to time mentioned, aid he should bring the case ,
before the judge at the County Court. Wee not
&were that the hay had been sold before be went to
defendant's house. No contract was made as to I
time. There we. about sight or nine tons left, and
he estimated his lam by the non-fullibneat of the
oontract at £2 per ton.—By Mr. Chitty : The ma-
train was made in the basis:ming of March ia the
field. Could not retailed if soy one we. press
Would sot swear the airesaiost woe net mode is
February. Use. Spies, was ant present. The
=t woe at Et ma. Nadia( wee sail that
was not taken away bedme the °ow* want
out to gram the contract would be broken. Wrote
a letter from Portemouth to the delomdast. Did

not take away any hay after the 31st &leech. nor go
for any more till August. William Wont,
labourite, residing at Oketord Fitspaine, maid be was
employed by the plaintiff to truss too loola of hay
OD Mr. Spacer's (arm in March last. Wall going
on trussing when Mr. Spicer came to them with a •
letter in his baud, and told him he must not truss
rom Mr.
a_hatbblanisophyyttedmh:e.sareTilihhildsienvbose,iy.trabe.radweedu„anpeßtgcerbiin:dvm.p.yed;
seven
veepeonrerotnee4o:atrff it warn a
right tons linftetfhlt,eert
of
Newtoe, maid ha recollected going with the plaintiff to
the defendant's son's house on the 13th August, where
they saw the defendant Spicer said to the
plaintiff a "You don't do much in the hay work
now, do you ?" To which plaintiff replied. "Oh
yea, I do; I have come over for your son's and
yours." To this defendant made answer, "I aold it
last night'' Plaintiff said, "What business had
ought
ueithctt sellowa nbt
fet
you
.7Tedoof
ownrhoiitto which
amt,
kflacler
eotthhe r
oilr replied,
ge to
on "
Liso
agree'du
other things away I will sell them also." Theplaintiff
then said he would have no words about it; he
would bring the case before the judge. This was
the evidence tor the plaintiff. —Mr. Chitty, in reply,
said that he should be prepared to prove by the
evidence of three witnesses that the plaintiff eras
first wrong in the date when the contract was made.
He said it was March, but he was instructed it was
on the 18th February. He said it was wade in the
field ; but he should prove that the contract was
made in his client's house, and that the terms of the
agreement were that it should be removed by the
Ist of May or thereabouts, so that his chest's beasts
might have the offal before they went to grass.
When this agreement wee made there were present,
his client, and his wife and son. If the ;rice of hay
had not risen to £5 per ton they would not have
heard of the prevent action. A considerable part of
the hay left was injured by ezposure to the weather.
Mr. Chitty then read a letter sent by the plaintiff
to his client, dated Portsmouth, March 31st, in
which he stated that they would go on with the
trussing of the hay until it was removed,
and that he would pay the money on the
Monday. He also requested that the weight should
be attended to as the hay was very much. After
this receipt of the letter nothing more was seen
ot Knott oetil the eapiration of five mouths, so that
the plaintiff not having fulfilled the contract by
the time stated, had forfeited all right to consider
the contract as binding. Mr. Chitty then called the
defendant, who stated that he was • farmer, residing
at Haselbury Brian. On the 18th February the
plaintiff came to'bis house, and asked him if he would
let him have two or three cute of his rick to make
up • load. To this he assented. This was before
the contract was made. He then asked him if he
would sell him the remainder, to which be replied
on condition that it was taken away in March.
Plaintiff, said he could not take it so woo as that,
and ultimately they agreed that the price of the hay
was to be at £3 per ton, that as it was takes away it
was to be paid for, and that it was to bedewed away
the beginning of May, so that his beasts might have
the °ILL The agreement was to be considered as
broken if the plaintiff failed to take the hay sway
by the time named. On the 31st March, the plain. ,
tiff sent • man for the hay, and he then took away!
a little over two tons; the second time he came was '
on the 4th April, when he took about the same'
quantity, and on the sth of April be took two tone
cwt. Plaintiff paid him directly for the first two
lota, but the last lot he paid him partly, leaving
£1 IS.. 61., which be mid he would fiend. That
money, however, he had never received. He beard
nothing of the plaintiff from that time, and on the
12th August he mold the remainder of the hay to
Mr. Coates, of Blandford. Mr. Coates took
away a pert ; but in consequence of the hay
toeing partially spoilt by exposure he was
obliged to make an allowance on some new
hay to Mr. Coates. He was More than £IO out
pocket by the non•fullilment of the contract —By
Mr. Atkinson Knott made the agreement in his
house the same day as he took the first quantity of
hay away. Had not seen Mr. Knott from the time
the agreement was made in his house till August.
The hay was to have been taken away on the lit
May, and saw Knott at Storminster on the 2nd of
May. Gave the second letter be received from Mr.
Knott to his carter Hidout. When Knott paid him
the £5 at Starmiuster he complained to him that he
had not taken the had away. Didn't give him any
notice that if it was not taken away at the time he
would *ell it. Consulted Mr. Fear on the subject.
On Mr. Atkinson asking the wittier bow it was Mr.
Fear gave the case up, Mr. Chatty objected to the
question; conversation between an attorney and
his client was not admirable as evidence. Mr.
Atkinson was of opinion that it wise. His Mawr
ruled that the defendant had no occasion to answer
the question, considering the car as one of privilege.
Atkinson said that strictly speaking, Mr.
Chitty had no right where he was.- -Mr. Chitty
(warmly), "What do you mean by that, Sir, I have
as much right to be here 1111 yourself."—Examina,
tion continued : Mr. Knott never said when he
the £6 that he would send the £1 ISL
Was very glad to get the £s.—Kitty
Spicier, wife of the defendant, was then examined.
She corroborated her husband as to the time and
place when the agreement was made, and also as to
the terms respecting the removal ; but stated it was
Knott who said if the hay was not taken away by
the let May or a few days after the agreement was
not to be binding—The son of the defendant
was theta called. He said be was in an
adjoining room, the door of which was
open ; be heard all the conversation. The
plaintiff agreed to take the hay away by the first or
middle of May. It was his father who said if the
hay was not then taken away in May the agreement
would be broken. To this Knott assented. Was
not present when the firsttwo lots of hay were taken
sway; but helped to trues the third; he believed that
wae on the 4th of April. By the Judge: His
mother was about her household work when the
conversation took pros. Believed she was cooking
the dinner—At the request of one of the jury the
defendant was recalled, and in reply to the question
as to whether be had applied to Knott between the
time when the last lot of hay was taken away and
theath August, replied that be,had Dot —Mr. Chitty
then addrered the jury, pointing out that whereas
plaintiff's evidencerested upon his own unsupported
testimoay, three parties had given their evidence
that the teruas of the contract were that the hay wee
to be taken away in May by the plaintiff, and rase-
gamely that it was not his client who had broken
the agreement, but the defendant—His Honor
having' summed up his usual 'clear and impartial
manner, the jury consulted together fior a minute or
two, and then gave • verdict for the defendant
William Dawding v. John Cluett Claim
.£3 164.. 6.1. for hay, of which £1 17s. 6.1. had been
paid into Court. —Mr. Chitty appea.ed tot the
plaintiff, and Mr. Dashwood for the defendant. -Th.
question in this caes was whether the agreement was
at the rate of 308. per ton, or at £3 per ton.— After
hearing the evidence, which was very oacclosive
that the former was the price, his Honor gave
jedgaient for the defendant.
W. C. Cheesewright v. ftherring.—Mr. Chitty
appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Atkinson for the
defendant After hearing the outline of this car his
Honor granted an adjournment tor the production of
the defendant's witness.

Edwin Trowbridge r. Thames Fort .—Claim
£2 le. Id.—Mr. Chitty for plaintiff, and Mr. Atkin•
son for defeodant —After an examination of the
moount• and vouchers of both parties, a verdict for
the sum of 7.. 641. was given.
The same r. George Itobbins.—Claim £1 11..
Mr. Atkins.° and Mr. Chitty were engaged in this
owe. After • very short bearing, his Honor gave a
verdict for the plaintiff in 14 days.
Thistles Cook v. Jessie Laster. —Claim £3 2.0. 641.,
of which £1 fle, was dispeted.—Verdict for the
plaintift for £2 ls., at 3s. a•month.
Cook., Goobee. —This was in action to recover
poseersiou of a bonne at Keynstoo.—Tbe evidence
went to show that the rent was paid half yearly, and
that the defendant had occupied the home eight
years. His flon.ir told the plaintiff that be most
give • halLyear's notice at Christmas.
JUDO/LINT SUMMONIII3.-Joluo Read.. H. Riggs,
and the ammo George Cotter.— in thaws oases is
fl,mor said that the defendant had received wages
belonging to the plaintiffs, which he had retained,
and we. Mos guilty of fraud. On each charge he
would be imprisoned for 14 days' in Dorchester gaol.
W. Yoaag v. W. T. Short. —l4 days' imprison.
want.