The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-12-13 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.

enormous industry of agriculture, some cyn-
ics might be disposed to ask what has been
the practical utility of these gatherings,
spresd as they have been over so many years?
WlF.m.e are the results of the application of
science to the cultivation of the soil, as
worked out by the late Dr. Voelcker ? On
the other band, let us think what would have
been the condition of agriculture without
these aids to its development and improve-
ment. If it is not flourishing with their
assistance, how would it have got along had
none such been rendered? The truth is
that the prosperity or the decadence of agri-
culture is a matter which ..must materially
affect other classes of the community. If
the farmer makes less of his produce he has
less to speud with the tradesman, who has
less to spend at the seaside or on the educa-
tion of his children, or in rational recreation
and amusement. The depression in the
finances of the .farmstead, tells all round.
There is no doubt that the avocation of the
farmer is a very trying one in the sense that
the success of his efforts depends so much on
circumstances beyond his own control. We
all know that for many years in succession,
up to this one, he bravely contended against
the adverse seasons inseparable from the
British climate and the atmospheric fluctua-
tions of the temperate zone. This year there
was a splendid wheat harvest, but the run
of foreign competition prevents the farmer
from reaping that reward for his exertions
to ,which he naturally looks forward. Un-
questionably if there is anyone who deserves
the support and encouragement of the dweller
in the town, it is the tiller of the ground.
The outcome of his labour is on the table at
every meal. At dinner, of course, it stares us
in the face in the contents of every dish,
whether of animal food, poultry or vegetables,
but a breakfast or a tea would be a very poor
one without milk or batter, with cream oc-
casionally thrown in as a makeweight in the
direction of lnxury. It is the too common
practice to &olive that the farmer is a
grumbler. Well, many of his critics would
grumble also if their equanimity Were tried
as his is when probably a sadden change of
weather destroys the hopes and upsets the
calculations of weeks. So far as the resi-
(lents in great citicr. are concerned, they
always greet the farmer with a kindly wel-
come, for they know what they owe to him,
and may well 11.'1.11 him prospetity and suc-
cear in his laborious work.

loorne over the t was . a
'el s

HARVEST WORK.—At the County Court on Tues-
day, before Sir Rupert Kettle, juAg.e, David Wil-
liams sought to recover the sum of „t 2 front William
Waseall for extra harvest work. Aftet h,rin,f the
evidence, his Honour gave a verdict for the defend-
ant.

CLAIM FOB .0.1 AND AN INJUNCTION ORDER.—In
this case the plaintiff was Elab Pearscn, a brick-
layer, of Mount Pleasant, who claimed the above
amount for damage done to cottage property by the
defendants David Pearson, Jesse Pearson, Samu,tl
Birch, and John Barnbrook —Mr. Waldron appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Ward defended.—Mr.
Waldron said all he asked for was an injunction
order, and for the defendants to pay the co:4s of
the proceedings • he did not wish to t ,ks any money
out of the defendants pcckets.—Eleb Pearson said
he was the occupier of a piece (Aland which was
on the plan produced. His father was the oceu-
pier of it for 60 years before him. There was a
ditch on the land for the purpose of drainintr it.
He had known it there for 50 yea:s, He knew the
feair houses occupied by the defendants The back
of the houses fronted the ditch. There used to b •
a wall between their premises and the ditch. The
wall had been down about 3or 4 years. The com-
plaint made sgainst them was kr turning their
filth into the ditch, and by killing the hedge. He
had seen ashes in the ditch. &bout 15 or 16 yards
of the hedge had been killed. The ditch created a
smell in consequence of the filth which was di aieed
into it by the eetendants, and it interfered with his
la, d. He had spoken to them many a time al-out
it. The annual rentil was £2 18s Od, which he paid
Lord Dudley. He caused a letter to le sent to all
the defendants on tbe 17th October last. The
pool that they used to dam into bad been away
for 20 yews. They then can ied the filth away till
the last 3or 4 years.—Ellen Pearson, wife of last
witness, said she had seen the defendants sweep
the swillings into the ditch referred to. She had
sleo seen them put soapsuds and ashes in it. On
June 11th she saw David Pearson pat brick ends
in it. They then kept a book in consequence of
what he (Mr. Waldron) told them, and had made
entries in it from time to time.—William Bolen, of
Bromley, said he used to live in one of the fon:
houses by Pearson's ditch. Ileneverdrainedintothe
ditch, he threw it on his own land. Cross-examined
by Mr, Ward :—No complaint was ever made to
him about it, He lived there about 30 years. He
did not know whether t het e had been any different e
since he had left.—Silas Jewess saicl he knew the
ditch and had from time to time cleaned it out.
During the last 3 years it had been filled up wi.h

ashes, filth and ditty water. He cleared it out 5
weeks ago and there were ashes in it then.—Mr.
Ward addressed I i Hencur for the :d-fence.—His
Honour said they had a rigiit to a watercourse if it
was a natural cue, but bricks could not flow in; and
the soap suds and ashes caused an effluvium.—Saml.
Birch said he hmd lived on the property for 6 year-.
The back Feniises were in a very bad state, but
the refuse did Lot to into the ditch. He had not
seen any bricks in the ditch since 11,-. hsil been ther,.
He never put any refuse in the ditch. By Mr.
Waldron:—His wife put the soap suds into the
ditch, and if he washed tlq3 house out the water
'as not earth d into the di.eh. He took part of
the wall down which joined the brewhouse. It did
not make a road for him to drain the water from
I,is bouse. Ihe wall did not jute' fere with drain—

ing the house into the ditch. He would swear there
drain thPre when he went there. lie hftd
reeetved a letter from Min (Mr. Waldron), and he
had not put any ashes in since —David Pearson
said he had lived in the two buildings 52 years.
He cleane I the ditch out many a time till Mrs.
Pear,on gave him orders no to do so again. He
had never put any reftr.e in the ditch of an offensive
chirocter.—Mr. I3e.:kley, of Brierley Bill, said ti.e
slops from the houses flowed into the ditch. From the
condition of tle hedge he should think there had
nit teen any offensive refuse put against the hedge,
md it was vreen now. One part of the hedge op-
posite the lane looked as if it had been taken up.—
His Honour said it was really a question of costs.
Lie should make an injunction order to restrain the
defendants from caeryiog or putting anything into
the ditch, evcept the natural flow; and he thought
Mr. Ward and Mr. Waldron might agree themselves
as to the costs.

ACTION AGAINST A CONTRACTOR.—This was an
action brought by Thomas Marsh, chainmaker, of
Mushroom Green, against John Jevons, contractor
for the sewerage works, for £5O damages. Mr.
Wa.ldion appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Shake-
speare f r the defendant. —Mr. Waldron said that
defendant was carrying out the sewerage works in
Stem bridge, and on the 31st August plaintiff, ac-
sompanied by some other men, was driving down
High Street, when the ground, which had teen ix-
caviled for sewerage purposes and filled up again,
sudd n:y gave way opposite the tot office. The
horse fell into a large hole, and the plaintiff and
two other men were thrown out of the trap upon
the rod. Plaintiff was so much injured that he
was unable to work for two months. His horse
was also injured, and unable to be worked for some
tine. The sum claimed was, he submitted, a
,easotiable one under the circumstances.—ln answer
to his Honour, Mr. Waldron said he submitted that
the accident was owing to the sa,rth not being
ammod tightly and the rwd left in a proper con-
dition after the excavation for toe sewage wok
defendant was carrying out.—Plaintiff was then ex-
amined in support of this statement. He had, be
said, been a tended by a doctor for two years, but
ssas getting better at the time of the accident.—
James Marsh, plaintiff's brother, who was with
hint it, the time of the accident, was next examined,
and afterwards Alfred Shirley, who wit fleece t the
recurrence from the road.—Dr. 134yley was ex-
amined with regard to plaintiff's injuries, and in re-
ply to his Honour, paid an accident to plaintiff would
be more detrimental to his health, and more nes-
inanently injurious to him, than a similar accident
to a robust man with a good nerve Crot-s-ex-
natined : The excavation in the street was clesed
from two to four weeks before the accident, He
knew the old town sewer burst. Re-examined:
The sewerage works gave way at several places. In
the road opposite his house some horses and carts
of the defendant's went into a hole.—Mr. F. Taylor,
veterinary surgeon, gave evidence as to the injury
to plaintiff.s horse, which he co,.aidesed was depre
elated ..£5 in value.—Mr. Shakespeare sai I he did
not know what case he had to a-.swer and he sub-
mitted that there had been no liability si,oan on 1
Mr. Jevons's part. Mr. Jevons was engaged to ;ay
down a system of sewers in Stourbridge, but they
were not completed, and there was no sewage
turned into them yet. Three weeks and four days
had passed afte- the sewers had been laid down at
this particular part befo:e the accident happened,
and it was not due to the excavaticn for the new
sewers, but to the giving way of the old sewer owing
to the storm water passing through it. The o'd
sewer burst not only there, but in other parts of ths
town, and caused the ground to give way, and he
contended that his client was not responsible di-
rectly or indirectly.—Mr. J. Jerez's, junr, , son of
the d fsndant, said he had the management of Ih9
wha'e of the arrangement of the whole:of the sewer-
age wo:ks for his .ather He supsaintended the
ranm.ing of t!•e earth in the excavation at the spot
whsie the accident hanpensd. After the accident
he found the old sewer washed away for seven or
f- t. old sewer was about five feet
slsave the new sewer, and ran parallel with it.—
Cross--exammeS : There was about two feet space
bet wes n the line of the sewers.—Hia honour at
is,int gave th an intimation that be was satisfied s
as to the lega liability, and the case was not
carried further, the advocates agreeing to leave the
in hi Honour's hands to say what was fair
ii
upon
i
ies.—His Honour said he desired
to impress p
both of them that n the Judge
menthe tinte,ga het.aast
i,iiff wastothnetiamoun n ailingtaof damages,man. i
he tookj
into ace
thought the liabili'y of the defendant, arose from
his hating had to meet a, difficulty in toe course of
his ordinary work, which it was his duty in
.the ex-
ecution of the work to have provided against all
risk from. When he found an old brick sewer, i
furry years old, which would be liable n times of
fi,cda to be very much strained, and which had
been subject to the jar of having this heavy work
dime all about it—they knew what sort of a state
that old brickwoth would be in after forty years—
there should have I cen something to guard against
the risk likely to arise when storm water came
down, The defendant was liable in law, and he
thought he ousht to pay suistantial damages and
costs. His verdict wsuld be for the plaintiff—.£2o
damages, and coots on the higher eta,e.