The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1882-11-28 00:00:00

FIIIDAT.

BTEALING A HORSE AND TRAP.

At the Police-ootwt yesterday. before Kr. 3. 3. Leek"'
ter, Frederick Wittlmen, alias (...'harlee (1.4, of West
Coinnock, • notoriona character. about a years of Am.
was coargett with stealing • horse and trap, ths property
of Edward Guy. of Longdeet on the 3rd of November

Mr. Guy stated that on the day in question the primmer
hired hi. horso and trap to go to Bournemouth, and he
promised Li return it at four in the aft ,rnoon. Ho did
not return, nod on the I allowing day he save inforroati•in
to the police. Ho had aincu roc mored hit horn,e ar.ti tr ,p;
hut he CAlbi not swear ti the prisoner. He aid not give
ilia ham, shin ho hired IL Ho was not dremed aa now
(a clay-pit man), but wore • mrge suit, mad he twit bins to
a romtn.o cal
..mah. .

- - ---
Mr. Supt. Runt said on the I h of November, from
information he received (row Mx. Guy, he in.titutad
inquarim and atimovenal the horse mil trap at Blau& ord,
nod it was given up to the Poole police. Mr. Supt.
Lavender. ot Blandtord, woo ILL, and he leaked for •
remand: _

Horn proved letehing tth prisoner from Cardiff,
when, W., waa in the custody of the Mown .11 halve
constabulirr. appreheuded Workout inf orux A.ou
salt from here.

Prtsoner was remanded till Thursday.

COMITT COURT, Thursday.--Before Mr. Serjdant
Tindal-Atkinson (judge).—Am unto inded claim was
brought by a labourer, named Luke Lao, against
Mr. Augustus Lamm, of Coble>, Farm, Woudy..tsa.
He asked for El 34. 9.1. which he alleged to be due to
him for tieing up • number of oat.. Another labourer,
named Foster, also made • similar claim. When the
cue was gone into, however, it appeared that Mr.
Lennon had let the job to two other men, who in their
turn employed the plaintiff. Further, these two men
had left with Mr. Lotman the sumo( El la 3.1, for
each, which they considered the amount due to them,
but they refused to take.—A verdict was given for the
plaintiff, his Honour remarking servants should be
c ireful not to bring claims against masters f .r which
there was no foundation.—The Agency Company
(limited), Wimborne, v. Joseph Hour*, Stickland.
Thia was • claim of £7 155., balance of • loan of Ea,
contracted by the defendant in 1879, which he was to
repay in 40 monthly instalments of sc, El 10, bele;
charged as preinium.—Defendent had paid LI rm. of
the amount. Lis dui not repudiate it, but simply said
he could not pay.—Hia Honour gave judgment fur she
amount in 4s. inim,hly instalments, remarking he
never knew an instance of a i ian company that lid
its bushiers more fairly.—William Peter :sth:island
v. Thomas White, secretary of the Li iy.ll Providential
Lodge of the 1.0.0., Poole dietrict.—Plaiutiff
15e. ffor auditing the hooka of the lodge in 18713.
The defenoe was that it was part of his regular duties
as district auditor, his Honour, however, Lund for
amount claimed.—The only other cue ceiling for
notice was that of F. Cox, horse dealer, of Hill Butts,
v. Hobert Neel., farmer, Tarrant lisynaton.—lt was
a claim of Eb on an exchange of honer, an I it was
merely a question of agreement upon which, as usual,
both parties were diametrically opposed. The
plaintiff and defendant exchanged horses, defendant
agreeing to give Ell) to boot. Shortly after, however,
he called upon the plaintiff, and said the horse slid not
suit him and he should like another in its place. A
second one wa. mat which he kept, and ail it was nst
so valuable a hors. as the other he weed to pay ,E 5.
This, however, he had never paid, and he rooteuded
he ought not to be celled upon to do so aa be had made
a sufficiently bad barge= without it. —Judgment for
the plaintiff.