The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1865-06-13 00:00:00

• r 7-71 -r fr• 3, T
eyald Vaud/3110. Vian ;
man

_ij. I.

IMPORTANT CASE UNDER THE MERCHANTS' SHIPPING
ACT. —On Tuesday loit three seamen named Frederick
'Cox, William Hodder, and Henry Hussey summoned
Captain Clarke, master of the "Why Not," for empen•
Batton in lieu of one month's wages, in the Nalll of
£8 12i. 6d., viz., Cox £3 Is., noise), £3 55., and Hodder
£2 2s. ed. The magistrates on the bench were S. W.
Whetham, Esq., and F. Good, Esq. Mr. Manley ap-
ared on behalf of the complainants, and Mr. Day for
defendant. A groat deal of evident* was taken. It
appears that there is considerable objection nianifested
by sailors at this part to going to sea on Saturday
evening or Sunday. This, d course. ia a source of
much annoyance and injury to shipowners. The
complainants, it seerps,were allowed leave from the ship
on Seturday afternoon. May 27, with orders to return
at 6 p.m. This they did. Sonia grumbling took place
amongst the crew relative to the master's intention of
going out that evening. The vessel, however, was not
taken out on Saturday,' night. On Sunday morning
the pilot refused to take the vessel out, as the wind
was from the 5. W., and there was what he called a
" nasty sea" on. TM wield dropped away in the
afternoon. In the evening tbe complainants absented
themselves. The pilot was -then ready to take the
vessel out, and the captain believed there was plenty
of water and fully intended to go. But, in consequ. nee
of their not satin:ling, the Why Not was detained in
port, and remains there still. TI e owner is thereby
-injured to the extent of from £BO to £lOO, and the
captain some £9. The delinquents were summoned
before the magistratea, ano tined. The case concluded
at 4 pm. The men did not return till after 7
p.m. They saw the mate on Neaday morning, and he
told them they were not to work again. The captain
leave them the came information, and told them that if
they waited till the Customs' House was open,
he would give them their discharges, and pay
them what there wan due to them—eight &lye'
wages. This they refused to take. Afterwards the men
attended the tides morning and evening, but were never
employed, and one of them worked on another vestal.—
In defence, Mr. Day contended that it had been de.
cided over and over again that any neglect of citry
the part of a servant for any period, however short, was
a sufficient cause for his master to diseharge him, and
that neglect of duty sufficient to justify such a course,
also deprived the nian of any claim 'or wage, He coin-
mooted upon the itnportance of the case to owners of
vessels at this port, WO expressed a hope that the bench
would seriously consider all the circutustanoes of the
case before giving their decision. After a long consulta-
tion, Mr. Whetham said they had given much attention
to the case as it was • very important one. But they
did not consider that sufficient bad occurred since the
proceedings on Monday week to justify the
dismissal of the men. At the ,31:11e time they
could not help remarking upon the loss that owners of
vessels sustained in consequence of sailors not attending
to their duties, and they hoped that mariners would he
more punctual in future. (Thetiornplainants and a Swot
their friends in court applauded the decision.) Mr.
Whetharu remarked that they had nothing to exult
about. It was more a matter of law in favour of com•
plainants than anythMg else. Mr. Day, on behalf of
defendant, applied for • Cage on the decision. Mr.
Whethaut said the bench were very happy to grant it,
as they felt it was a case of great importance, and one
that it was desirable should be be decided by • superior
court.

COUNTY Comrr, Wednesday. —Before E. Everett,
Esq., judge.—As usual, there was a large number of
plaints entered, but the majority of them were eiiher
withdrawn or undisputed. The only oases presenting
any features of interest are the following :—Henry
Hansford e. Richard Miller. Claim £5 damages
sustained for alleged injury to • quantity of straw.
Plaintiff occupies West mills, Bridport, and defendant
is a servant in the employ of Messrs. J. Gundry, and
Co., of this town. Mr. Loggin appeared for plaintiff,
and Mr. Manley for defendant. It seemed from the
statement of Mr. Loggin that defendant was in the
habit of purchasing straw for his master, and he ag sod
with plaintiff to buy of him two tons, for which he was
to pay ls. 9. per cwt. In the mouth of November
last plaintiff sent about 21 cwt. to fdee,rs. Gunrlry's
premises. The next day defendant met plaintiff
at the White Lion, and told him that he could
haul the other ton for him. Defendant keep a
dairy in West-street. Plaintiff refused to haul the straw
for defendant's use unless paid for the same. Very
shortly after defendant complained to plaintiff,
and also to Mr. J. Gundry, that the straw delivered
was " trumpery stuff," end "not fit for horses to lie
on," and was 'wet." Mr. Hanstord went to Mr. J.
Gundry about the matter, and was told he must take
back four or five cwt. That he did. How the straw
became so wet defendant did not know till the 29th of
April last, when he met a man-servant of Mr. B. P.
Gundry's, who remarked that Miller had served him
(plaintiff) a dirty trick about the straw. ahe returned
from hunting "he saw Miller and Menden throwing
buckets of water over the straw." Defendant went to
Muuden to inquire about it, arid Menden said "I carried
some water for Miller to throw over the straw."
Plaintiff applied to him (Mr. Loggin) and he wrote
to defendant asking for an explanation, which was
refused. Consequently the present action was brought.
Still plaintiff did not desire damages; he merely wished
to clear himself from the imputation of unfair trading.
He should prove that the straw when delivered was
good. It rained during the transit of the strew to Mr.
Gundry's premises for about 20 minutes, but not gut&
oiently to injure the straw. He should also show that
the four cwt. or five cwt. of straw taken back weighed
as much as nine cwt., in consequence of the water in it.
As the only object of plaintiff was to get an admission
that the straw was good when delivered, the eolicitor
for defendant suggested whether the matter could not
be settled without going into the cum.—His Honor pro-
posed their retirement for a short time for that purpose,
and they complied. On returning to court, Mr Loggia
said defendant admitted that the straw was perfrody
good when delivered, and had explained that the
straw became wet by being left in the wagon exposed
to the wet weather after it arrived at Messes. Gundry's
premises. Plaintiff was quite satisfied with this,
and withdrew the case.—Urnhard v. White,—The
parties in this snit both reside in the Vale of Marsh-
--
I. Plaintiff claimed El on a business transaction
..at had taken place between them as far back as June,
1859. Defendant admitted that 10a. was due, but raid
his son, now in the Guard's regiment, owned the horse
in connection with which the remaining 10s. was con-
tracted, and therefore it was due from him. The old
man curiously accounted for the youth's owning the
said horse. He stated that his son reared • calf, and
kept it till it became a weighty bullock, and then
hectored it away for a horse. It seemed, however, that
the youth was under age when the debt was
contracted, and that the £1 had not been paid
in consequence of the defendant having the
misfortune of his horse dying. His Honor
suaested that under the circumstances plaintiff
should deduct ss. from his claim, which he consented
to, and a verdict was recorded for 15e., 10s. of which
defendant paid at come ; the remainder to be due in
14 ,slays.—Francis Brown Gale and Jane Groves v.
Nary Critohell. This was an action to recover possession
of • tenement at Litton Cheney. Mr. Manley for
plaintiffs, and Mr. Loggin for defendant. It appeared
that some seven or eight years ago the son-in-law of the
defendant purchased the house in question for 1:140. Of
this sum defendant paid £4O besides the legal expenses
of the transfer. In consideration of this, she hat •
verbal agreement with him that she was to live in the
house rent free for life. Bat recently he had sold the
freehold of the premises to the plaintiffs, they had given
her proper notice ro quit, and now sought to eject her.
—Mr. Loggin said he had no legal defence to offer, and
that his client contested the action contrary to his advice.
He, however, stated the above facts, and urged that she
bad • claim in equity on the premises—His Honor
thought so too, and, upon his suggestion, notice was
given to plaintiffs not to complete the payment of the
purchase money, pending proceedings against them, and
Mr. Manley said he would comply with the same for
the present. Possession of the house was ordered to be
given up in 21 days.

I ivnod.
I that 1