The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1870-03-08 00:00:00

Vorott &until Expos,

DORSET LENT ASSES'

Sir Fitzroy Kell, one of the judges forth. Western
Cireult, arrived it Dorchester from Winchester, on
Friday &Itemize shortly before four o'clock. His
lordship we. met at the fionth-Weetern Station by
the High Sheriff (Hector Mourn, of 15dmondaliani,
Esq.), wearing the uniform of a Deputy-Lientenent
of the misty, "Ali his chaplain the Rev. .1. H.
Carnegie, the tfider-Sberifi, end the County Clerk
(G. J. Andrew', leq.), attended by about two dozen
stalwart constabim There were very few parsons
to wither the FOONSIOII to the judges' lodgings.
The judge entices the shares private carriage with
Mr. Homo and tie chaplain, and wcoseded to the
county house. Shortly shower& hie lordship
entered the Oro= Court, whoa the COILOIIIIIOO for
holding the seism we. formally reed in the presence
of half a-dosen curious spectators. The judge sub-
sequently attendid Divine service at St. Peter's
Church, whin pagers were read by the Rev. E. W.
Peers, M.A., and the sermon was preached by the
Rev. J. H. Carnegie, from Palm bilis. 11. "Lit
the irighing of the prisoner come before thee." Mr.
Justice Hannan amived o Saturday morning.

PLIVB COURT, SATUIDAY.
li
eatore Sir FITZZOT KILLT and • Special Jury.)
V.Fiaker.—This Warn an action Inc clainsem
oreaMoned by an encroachment Both parties mule at
Hlandford.

Q.C., and Mr. &Wen were counsel for
the plaintiff, and Yr. Cole for the defendant.
Mr. Bull= opsnsd the pleadings describing the tree.
Pill n)mPlLn.d of, and the defendant's phew which
denied the trespass altogether, dlsputed plaintiff'. right
to the property on wbieh the alleged trespass was com-
mitted, averred that tbe said property WU defendant'',
and lastly stated that what was done was by plaintiff's
Leave.
_ _

Prideaux rid the plaintiff, Mr. Edwin Elmea,
was a pntlenian of moderately independent means,
residing at Blandford Forum, arid the defendant,
Mr. Henry Field Fisher, was also • gentleman
residing at that place. The aCtioll was brought
iii consegnenca of • trespass committed by the
defendant and the injuries done to plaintiff'. premises,
which if they be continued and the nuisance is not
abated, 'engirt very seriously levee the value of his
, reddens*. The nude object of the motion wee to put
in end to the tempest which vitas so saliently dotes
wal i lb. residenm of plaintiff. Plaintiff waa the
ampler of house, garden, and premises, situate in
the pariah of Blandford Forum, which it. purchased
In 1867, *IA gentleman named Bpioer. In the year
1868 the defendant, who had rodent!, purchased some
Property adjoining plaintiff's house began to under.
mine the vall and ekile of an outhouse, stable. and
washbonae of plaintiff', and also to excavate further
along the well for the wowse of building a house, ke.
Plaintiff remonstrated with the defendant for doing so, 1
and told him he vu undermining his premises sag
would injure the Property. Ddiudant replied "It
would make them stronger," and persisted in going on
with his building, and he partly deg under the founds-
Mono! the washhouse and 01:abused the plaintiff, and
also of the wall, when he (Mr. Prides's') believed, '
the workmen were afraid to go on. However,
defendant persisted, in spite of plaintiff. remonstrance,
in going on with the building of his house, partly let it
into plaintiff' waahhoose, supported it with bottreres,
and provided chutes which overhung a oonsiderable
distance the plaintifre premise', so that not only were
there these projeetions, but ha actually built into the
wall of the plaintiff's premises. The eaves to a
considerable extent overhung plaintiff's property
and prevented him from raising his building If he
wished to do to, and also, in wet weather. conveyed
mnah water to plaintiff's roof, from whetters it flowed
to his hack door. Plaintiff did not observe the extent
of the damage dons till the seaffolaing was removed,
when without Inee of tins he remonstrated with defen•
dent, and ultimately plaintiff received this ietter from
from Messrs. Fineham and Bellyse, the defendant's
soliciton

"Nandford, May 5, 109.
Ir,—Mr. Fisher deeires us to say that he admits the roof
of his new home projects or.. your land, Led heti quite wiliirsg
to enter into an @eminent to pay you a small annual sum
so that your right to compel hint at any tone to mono such
projection my not lie lost: and we hope you will have no
objection to come to an arrangement of this kind, ea other.
wise Mr Fisher will be compelled to go to • my consider-
able expense in altering his wall and nod.-- Your.,

louccuar um Seurat.

Before this, he should tell them, Yr. Finoharn had
ont off part of the projecting roof, but still left
enough to overhang some inches. Plaintiff answered
that letter on the following clay, in those terms :
Inadellorri, Hay A, PM.
Gentlemen, -Immediately on the foundation of Mr. Flaheem
new how* being laid, I foresaw It would project over my
land, and I apoke to him on the subject. He malted toe if I
had any objection for the roof V.) overhang —which, of course,
I had. Ile then pr 061111,4 he would not encroach on my pro,
perty, but, in face 01 (1.1, he has taken the liberty of doing
and there is now no en ow whateser for ouch an ungentle-
manly action. I hall therefere • xpect him to keep cl,ar 1,1
m 3 property The proposed arrangenwnt would only held
litigation in the es ent ,4 my death with those to whom it
would then belong, therefore, my decision I. aa before men-
tioned.---Yours truly,

arse
On the 10th of Mao, Massre.Princham and Menne
wrote another letter, as follows :
illandford, 10th May, 190.
Dear tir.--Sinre nor letter of ths sth inst., It haa been din-
covered that inattati of Mr. Fisher'. roof projecting over your
land . MY, at that time auppowsl, your predece.on in the
estate have veer conaiderably encroached on Mr. Fisher's land,
and he wa. therefore Justified in conatructing his roof In the
manner he orinall) did. —Yours truly, ',mental and B1Sail&
On the 11th May Messrs. Johns end Trull, who at
the time acted as attorneys for the plaintiff, wrote the
following letter to defendant's attorneys :
Dear sir, - Mr. Elms. h. consulted no, with reference to Mr.
Fisher'. enerachment on his property canted by the neat
house, now In coure of erection. We bane wen your two
letters of the Mb and 10th of May, and are at sin., to reconcile
your totally different atatementa The foundations of Mr.
Fisher'. house are ronatructed under Mr. Elmes's wall, and the
roof projects over the wall to the extent of about OD* foot. Mr.
Fisher he. admitted !hi, to our client, and we Mut therefore
Kite you notice. ate Mr Itlmea's solicitor., that the Indian, in
courte of erection (Inlet be at once altered, to as not In any way
to botch or overhang Mr. Inmes'. property. Kindly aebnow.
lodge the receipt of Lisle uctice.—Yours truly. Joints and Team:
Defendant's attorneys sent the following letter in
answer :

_
Deer Sir, - We are in receipt of yours of this date. Our letter
on the fith Mal, was. as appeeN by that of the 10th, written in
entire mistake as to the real facts Mr_ Fi.lier ha. not touched
or interfered In any way with Mr. Elmes's property In enn
dructing hi. new /tillage: mini. therefore, he decline. altering
it. Mr. Elmes inn wroneol rossewsion '4 mist-anis of 400
..tuare feet .111 r. Fisher'. land, and the wall you ment I.
built thereon, and, therefor..uh nall is Mr. Fisher's oroperty,
o fici itnill tn hrtzliisMl h., him ; and we give you notice, as 11,.
Elinees solicitors, that y.o, mint immedlatelv make a god and
~rhelent fence n the in,rtleeast anti nortii•weit odder, .1 the
land in pursuance 4th. covenants in the 'deed of eonwevimee
Intel December 22, Itstl. Flew acknowledge receipt thi.
notice.- Tours.truly, FINCIIAII and IigLIAMt.

On the 17th Mei, 1869, Mr. J. lame, plaintiff's pre-
sent solicitor, wrote fhb letter :
" flentktnen,--Mr. Elms, has conaulted me relative to vour
letter of the 10th Inst., in which you state that Mr. Fisher
intend. to mrnore the well rimming part ,4 the hocodecy of
Mr. Elusee• land at Langton Villa, Rlandford, and that Mr
Fithec bet e„,t touched or interfered with Ile tirnes4 pro.
property In constnicUng hi. new holm.. and &clime to
niter It. I have inspected the title deeds and astidled
nose( of Mr. lilmes's tights, and, on his behalf, In accordance
with the advice which he has had, I beg to gate that in the
event 01 Mr. Fisher attempting to carry into execution his
threat of removing the well, • bill will he died to restrain him,
and on ma& to the Court of Chancery for an Injunc-
tion. her to add that Mr. Elam will also wok redrew at
Ise, mule.. Mr. Fisher removes his existing encroachment and
refrains from making an, other—Yours truly,
.1. Mame.
Messrs. Finales and Bellyse, in replj, wrote to say
they would swept serrate Of any promos that might be
issued on the part of Mr. Mimes. The action was
brought to establish the rights of the plaintiff rather
than to get damages. Now, the defense, he thought,
was not • very creditable one on the part of Mr. Fieher.
There would be no doubt that the feet, of the ease were
with the plaintiff ; he thought it was equally cater the
law was with them, but as to the latter they would be
guided by the learned judge. They would observe the
words, "Mg. Fisher has discovered that Mn, Elrnee is
in wrongful possemdon of 400 equate feet of Mr. Fisher's
land, and the wall you mention!. built theme." Th.t
was the defence. He believed his friend Mr. Cole ,
relied upon the fact that In the description of the pro-
perty the number of eltuene feat was Meted to be some
400 less than the measurement really was, bat he did
not think that would help them, because there was •
plan In the margin of the deed of eonveyance, and that I
deed did not profilist to convey the exact measurement
of the land, but themes/mire or tbersabouta. The property ,
now the subject ef oonsideration was originally per-
theme from Mr. Fisher by a museum named Spicer,
from whom plaintiff bought it ; and there was most
conclusive evidence that the defendett intended to
that Ithoiose Reef .nA
wards meant to parebeee the whole of the
of which Spicer and the plaintiff had =in
emersion since it was purehaesd from defeudent
In the year 1861 Mr. George Spicer agreed
to parasol' the property La question of the de-
fendent, and at that time, two years before
.the
conveyance, the lend was mearured out for sale. It
was Mosel' perellelogram. Mr. Spioer said he should
like to have it square, and the defendant said so he I
should, and added a small triangular piece at the north
corner, oppoeite to where the house now sto.d. Mr.
Gilds wee acting ail surveyor for Mr. Mbar, and the
delfeedent said. 'Give him in that bit," and the land
was purehased in its present shape. Pegs wan pet in I
under defendant's direction—be we. not sure whether I
defendant did not actually put them in—and the 1
'boundary so marked was ploughed up by the diractioo of
, the defendant hinted', and he should prove the boundary
'so ploughed up was within the pegs. After that Mr.
I Spicer built his well all round the premise., and it
would be proved the wall so erected was within the
limits so mareed by the peos,and that while the wall was
being built, defendant from time to time ariu, it. It
was important to mark that all this was done before the
eoevevenee in 1862. On the 22nd September, 1863 an
indenture was catered into between Henry Field Fisher,
the defendant on the one part, and George Spicer.
who was the purchaser on the other part, and the deed
conveyed the property in this way.
" All this piece or parcel of sod. Fart of • flidd called Rope
Close, situate in the pariah of Ellandford Forum, containing in
the whole 11,720 guars feel or thereabout."
He admitted It did contain more than 12.720 square
fleet, but the words were 12,720 ROWe fret or there-
abouts—

-not-toiled on the Youtlkenwt by a new road It.ling into a
held called Damon leue, but now talkyl Edentrdwtrert
on tlie .outh-eaut by tbe mkt kid, called Dasnory Cowlcazw,
and on the other two ddr, by other part', of the said field,
railed Hope 41. w, hel.onsing to the odd Henry Meld Fisher,
whkh mid piece land Intended to he hereby conveyed, le
more particularly deli:tatted in the plan drawn In the margin
hereof, and thereon uoloured pink."
That wee tb• doed execoked by defendant when he
conveyed the Inod to Mr. Spicer, who on December 30th,
, 1867, conveyed the land to the plaintiff in the same
terms. After such conveyance Kr. gloms raised his ,
west well, but bad no intimation from Mr. risher that
he bed no right to do no. This wee the well upon
which the trespass had been oommitted. Shortly alter
plaintiff went into possession, defendant called upon

him and dinsted his attention to the fad that Roper !
(the °made, of adjoining property) had made a lima I
to against plaintiff's wall, reminding Mr. gimes that
kotter had Do right to do it. When Mr. Fisher
came into peassesioa of thia adjoin.ng property
himself be set up for the first time that the pro-
feety Spicer was in possession of was not all eon.
rayed by the dead, and had the coo:pees further to
lay the very part he had trespused upon was not
eitaveyed by it at all. He Should show further
that defendant had dated to other persons that this
was tito Wander, of plaintiff's land, or rather that
the adjoining lead was bounded by that wall, and also
that the wall boanded his (defendant's) premises. He
should also prove that shortly after plaintiff purchased
this property defendant offered to sell him some
property defendant himself DOw had at the
north-west corner of plaintiff's property, on behalf of
Mr. Southey, clearly indicating that at that time it
was not defendant's at eIL These were the principal
features of the case. He had already told them that
damages were a secondary consideratioe, but be thought
the evidence would show very substantial damages had
I been matalned, end that If this annoyance was not
removed the valmlof the premiens would be materially
Isesened, and the bowie rendered almost unfit foe
habitation.

Mr. Edwin Pearce, surveyor, of Pools, prodand a
plan of plaintiff's premises made from a survey. A
gutter of hrinkwerk and comsat belonging to defend.
ant's pr was attached to plaintiff's wall.
The inZt7said that was nothing. I
Witness: A wall plate also was let Into plaintiff's
prdenwl
Witness was ermined se to the lojary the wall-plate
did, and he sad it was immaterial.
His lordship remarked that if it was,there it would
he • trespass, and the qaestion as to the amount of
riamage, or if it ceased any damage, would come here-
after.

—lirelexamined : The coves now overhung !plaintiff's
Prls7ole : Bat there Is Anteing.
By Mr. Prideaus : That might not carry off the
water during heavy rain or niter snow.
Plaintiff said be purchased the property in question
from Mr. Spicier, in 1867, and entered into poseraion
at once. The dwelling-howie and wills were at that
time hunt. In March, 1869, he raised the north.west
wall six bricks. Defendant saw it being done from
time to time, and did not raise the slightest objection.
In the summer of 1868 defendant called OD him several
times., and wanted him to purchase the adjoining piece
of land where defendant's premises now are, saying he
wished to sell it for Mr. Southey. He declined to
: carobs's. Defendant told him that Mr. Roper had
planed a weather-board on his north-west wall
and said that if be (defendant) were in plaintiff's
pleas he would make him remove it. as he was A
: impudent ignotant fellow, and not worth powder and
shot. In Deeember, 1868, defendant escavatet under
the wall where his stable and trash-ltamm. Ti
%ll:Wein:aced SU feet In length, and it might be an
inch under the foundation. He called defendant's
attention to it, saying he Amid not allow him to
damage Ida property in any way, when Mr. Fisher said
It would make it ell the stronger. But the wall bad
pitched sines, end had ersoked towards the bottom.
He defied plaintiff. Defendant built the well of his
house where be had undermined, and to • height of five
feet against plaintiff's will. A getter was cemented
against plaintiff', well. When defendant's scaffolding
WY removed he perceived that the house projected
over bin promises. This were two ornamente—one
over the shop projected seven ingliNk and 3ft• 10i8-
in length, and a second at the end of the roof frame
projected Bor 10 inches, and shout 3ft. leng. In wet
weather, when the wind was in the north-welt, the rain
came from the Anteing on these projections, fell'ePon
the slates of his roof, and cams Into his back door.
Originally the roof projected • good deal more, but
defendant out away • portion of It in May in conse-
quence of his complaints.. Four joists were Mao let
into his wall in building a privy. Defendant bad also
nailed fruit trees to his walls on Roger,'. side.
He was not ernes-examined.
_

_ _---.—.
Mr. George Spicer said that in 1861 the land now in
question was disked out, and In the same year it was
walled all round. Should think Mr. Fisher saw it
every day. The wall was built within the limits
defined by the stakes. This was before the conveyance
of the property.
Cross-examined Never bare measured the piece of
land.

Judge: Did you know it it was measured before you
bootht it?

Witness : I never saw it misasursd.
Oroes-ozamioed : Mr. Edwards did not nogocisAs with
Mr. Fisher ota.mr behalf for the hind.

Mr. Green, builder. of Blandford. said he built the
wall end pr•iiniese for Mr. Bploer. Began the work in
J‘nnary, 1862, and finished it by Deoeinber in that
Yr,. • . .

Uross.exasnined : Have never mea.nred the land.
Mr. Prideaor said he would admit that the land
was as defendant said 400 square feet more than the
12,730 named in the deed.
The judge said he thought the plaintiff was entitled
to a verdict, but be would give defendant leave to move
to alter it.

Mr. cola remarked that Mt. Asher wee gelling this
land for building leases, and it was calculated at so
rotioll per 'not. The piece plaintiff hag was oonsidered
be 12,7210 feet, two thirds of which was reekon.d at
51. and the other third at 44.. amounting to £247 od4,
when defendant weed to tske the round sum of £240.
The ju4ge said it wag much to be regtette4 that
people who were neighbours could not make some
arrangement by which the objectionable parts of the
builiing could be removed.
Mr. Cole remarked that when plaintiff complained
that the were likely to do him an Injury, they
were cut back ; and it vu not until after the strong
letter accusing Mr. Fisher of unsentlemanly oulduct,
that the land was measured by defendant, when to his
surprise he found that plaintiff actually had 400 square
feet more than were sold him.

Judge : I am afraid he made the discovery too late.
His lordship hoped that before the next term the
pertles would oome to some arrangement. At present
they could only determine It according to the law. He
must direct the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages £5. with leave to defendant to move the
court to alter the verdict in auy way the law would
allow, awl with power to draw any inference.
The Judge certified for mita sad the speeiel jury.

Mins OF PRISONERS.
OUTNAOR ON • CHILD AT DORCHENTRIL

Jan Darer, 31, groom, was indicted for a criminal
assault upon a little girl named Swan Lucas, 10 years
of age, of Fordington, on Feiruery 2.
Yr. Saunders prosecuted ; prisoner was undefended.
It seemed that as the child was passing the stable.
where prisoner was at work, he called her in, locked
the door, aod assaulted her. Rubsequently he gave bore
penny.' Herfsther found something was the matter on the
following Wednesday, and questioned the child, when
she told what had occurred. Ife. Smith was called in,
and found appearanoes consistent with the girl's story.
Pri-oner, In defence, alleesd that thc child we. pre-
cociously wicked, but denied that be had sated as the
stated. •11•••••••
The jury found him guilty of a eommon assault, and
ale jade'', after telling him of the serious crime he had
committed, said that bad he not been a young man he
would have sentenced him to the full extent the law
allowed, but he hoped the comparatively light punish.
ment he :should Jolliet would indooe him to reform.
He was sentenced to twelve months' hard labour.
ZOBBIRT AT 11110•DWINSOIL

Marge Powell, 20. blacksmith, was charged with
stealing e quantity of dim, male, and other articles the
property of Willism Olift, at Broadwinaor, on the 27th
February.
Mr. Collins prosecuted.
The prisoner it appeared woe formerly employed at
the .hop of prosecutor's father, bet left in 1867. On
the day in queetion it wee found that an entrance had
bean effected into the shop and the articles in question
stolen. Foot marks were observed ender the window
and information given to P & Hardy. They were
traced thence aeroos a ffeld, and in the direction of the
Prisoner's home. A welsh being set, the prieoner was
heard by & eonstehle to be movies some iron In a abed
adjoining his bone., and, being confronted, it was
found that his boote eorresponded with the Ina'. He
was taken into custody, and in hie jeaket we& found
.onie of the stolen property, while In the shop in which
he had been heard was found the remainder.
Prisoner had no defence to make.
The jury at once found him guilty, and his lordship
sentenced biro to 4 month& bard labour.

CROWN 001:1RM-BATtriumr.

(Bofors taw Hoc. Sir JAmso HAINIOI, Knight.)

Tbe opening of this (Mart wee deleyed • abort time
by the noo-appearanee of the Judge. On the newts of
the magietreles being read over, the following Lowered :
Sir Mollo•a: Hyde Nerena, Rut.
Sir R. H. °method. Knight.
IL J. Weld, Req.
R. if. Eliot, Req.
J. W. T. Fylar, Req..
R. W. Willinom, Req.
J. M. P. Montagu, Earl.
o.
R.P.Fethermonbaugh,Keq.
B. P. Oundry, Seq.
J. P. Oundry; Req.
0. Warty, Req.

Joseph Ontadry, Esq.
J. H. Calculi. Esq.
E. H. Bingham, Esq.
H. C. Coodden, Esq.
H. P. Cambridge. lg.
A. E. Foster, Esq.
J. Bqmer, Esq.
0. W. Purer, E.
If. Williams, Esq.
S. Yestman, Esq.
J. E. Bridge, Esq.
Sir K. H. Neiman being sworn u foreman of the
Orand Jury, the Judge invited him and hi brother
anted jaroni to dine with the Judea. and in doing so
said be took the earliest opportunity of egpreeeinghi
regret that he should have detained them so long,
which was occasioned by his trualtng to railway alma
tables.

Alter the usual formalities,
Th. kflefled Judge delivered his 'barge ea folio..:—
Sir H. Nepeen and gentlemen of the Grand Jury. SS
thin is the first time I have had the pleasure of visiting
your county. I am not able to tell *hither I een oon-
/regulate you or not upon the stale of your calendar as
compared with its conditioo upon other occasions, but
I am glad to And that it does not (entail tteuly charges
of a serious character. There are however, one or two,
three I think—came as to which I desire to make •
Vow obeervatioom to you for you guidance. First with
reference to the case in which two persons are @barged
with undoubtedly a very serious offence, namely,that of
attemptiog to warder. The evidence with reference to
one of them, James Roberts, who stands No. 4 in the
...lender, doe. not sell for any SPollial observations from
ma The language that Ii tail to have b.en need by
him at the time of theossasioo of the act—the character
of which will form the subiect of investigation—if it is to
be taken as really indicating the man'. mind, will leave
little doubt as to the gravity of the offence ; but some
other remarks are necessary aa to the man Frank
Hui/tale. He does not appear from the evidence to
have struck any blow, and the question which you will
have to eonsider with reference to him is whether or
not he was, by hie presence and by his conduct at the
time, eo far giving, and intentionally giving, his
countenance and aid and support to the other man in I
that which be did, so as to make him a participator in
the guilt, if Key, which attashes to the other man. I
need scarcely say that that is& questin of some delicacy,
and I trust you will be kind enough to bear it in mind
In considering this me. It is obvious that the
concurrence of • man's mind
.in the act of another may
he evidenced by something that may be exeeedingly
slight in itself —a look,dience, not the uttering of • word,
sad (moo the mere ssaudins by, may indicate the sweat