The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1885-01-20 00:00:00

,INtaIPLIAPIR COIL

bbotabury Rsivoy Compon, v.Vine,. —Tole
wail an interpleader lieu. wherei i the dote, d ant
claimed certain plant arid effectaat Porteahiam brought
upon the lands of the railway by their late c.ntrao:.orr,
Milani. Green Auld Burleigh. Mr. S. Lyinbart (iu-
struatad by lit. Maria Burnett, of D ...Aosta.) op
-
peered for the plalotifle and stated die dafeadsot bad
withdrawn from the *Aloe, but there had not beett
time ta draw op the ovagesary a ,n•ent otter, and it
wag, therafors, nc..ssry to apply for judgment for
the plait if., 'blab his lordship grant* I with °cats,
and also made an order for payment out of court of
£l5O p•id in by the pladitifla.
Time?.
LEGG v. LITTLE.
The Court was occupied till bait-oast five hearing
Ibis comm. Legg Is • dairyman, and Little • teati,it
farmer, both reatling in the neighbourhood of Cors.
°oath/. Plaint,re clam, the sm mot of which wisa
not stated. was far egoiseelve awl illegal distraint and
money overpaid. Then wee a counter claim brought
by tbe defendant for the keep of ertain cows, for
a limed demigod suet aced by the plaint if not stock.
log the after graetti it kespieg the forme* and land in
proper oondition, and for damaged snatatned through
trespass et pigs.
Mr. Colilsa, Q C., sad the Hon. B. Ooleridge (la.
struated by Mews. Jolliffa oat aloof! irth. of Crew.
ke,no) appeared forth, plaintiff, and Sir. B. F.4«tt
Lock (Instructed by Mr. Leigh, of %against r) f ir the
defendant
_

in answer to an advertimment in the
oewspapor, entered into nisgotiatlini with the defeod-
sat fm eda,a.dheaorted to tak• for one year 40
cow., at £U. cow. He went in the ho.doning of
you and lospeoted tbil 04We and the &Mils, an I ch.
defendant stipulated that the dinky eh mid be filled
with the 411 cows by April 6th. Dafenaseit offeigil g,
have ii agreement .Irawn nu from a draft which, as
he alleged, be read orer to the plaintiff, but whidli be
(plaintiff) denied 4 fel days later two of the
defeodant'e coos broucht the &imminent to the plain-
tiff for the purpose of readlog alto him. It wee real
over to him, or the greater p ,rtion of it, ag ono .1
the Sono who via depot-el to read it • Imltto I b•
could not moke it out eery well, Shortly after this,
plaintiff and his wife visited the delimitaa. f ir the
pornose of signing the agreeinect, ant althoudi he
could t read it (both be sod his wife being Ip.
tautly aincatod) he put hie name to it, he bellowing it
oontaWeei nothing beyond what they hod eared to
verbally. Tide document vas engrossed mil executed,
but plaintire canned now sttogeseid it wee not Wei-
log on Legg, his signature having been obtained in
ignorance of its content., Plsintiff wont five,
patmemion 61 the dwelling-house and dairy farm.
According to the agreement he should have been mho
plied with 40 munch c we by April 6b, but only 33
were supplied by that date, and he dim-ward. rem oel
to Nees them. Hip aid the first quarter's rent. £1.30,
In advance, but on the second pewter beowninc due
he declined to par more then VI, on the ron,pt th,t
the defend eat had not kept hie bargain. Delo idart
refused to accept the money, an I pat in a distmes for
the full amount, seising property, said to bey- hien
worth MO. Plaintiff claim," on the grounds of the
diatreas 0.1. g Illegal and exoesdre, and for breaches
of areeumne.