The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1879-11-22 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.

ACTION FOR TRESPASSING IN A. ROMAN
CATHOLIC CHURCH.
McCAVE v. GODFREY.
At the County Court, held on Thursday, before
R. Kettle, Esq., judge, an action was called on in
which the Rev. Dr. McCave, Roman Catholic Priest
was the plaintiff, and Mr. Henry Godfrey, nursery-
man, the defendant. Mr. Hugo Young (instructed
by Mr. Wall) appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr.
Stokes for the defendant
Mr. Young said the action was brought by Dr.
McCave to recover damages for an unlawful trespass
in his church. and the removal therefrom of certain
vegetables and fruithvhich had been used in decorat-
ing the church for the harvest festival on October
12. Some short time before Dr. McCave had asked.
the members of his congregation to bring flowers,
fruit, and vegetables for decorating his church.
Mr. Stokes at this point interposed a suggestion
that a good deal of time might be saved if the case
were dealt with by his Honour upon the correspon-
dence which had passed on both sides. lasi
really been tried out by the correapondenv.
Mr Young said they had from first to last been
hopeful to get an apology from the defendant.
Mr. Stokes Which he has offered.
Mr. Young : Not in a form that could be accepted.
Most gross insinuations had been made against the
members of the congregation with regard to the
decoration of the church, and they were there to
answer that charge in the fullest possible manner.
They must go into the matter unless his friend
made a full apology.
Mr. Stokes.said there had not been the slightest
imputation against any single member of Dr.
McCave's congregation, and if any unprejudiced
person read the eorrespondence he would a e that
defendant clearly absolved any member of the con-
gregation from any imputation in the matter. These
goods, however, were stolen, and were found in the
church, and this he should be clearly able to prove.
Mr. Young: That I can show is not so.
The attempt at an arrangement fell through for a
time; and Mr. Young, proceeding with his state-
ment. said the pears and cabbages removed by de-
fe: dant were in the church on October 12, at the
celebration of the harvest festival. The next day
Mr. Godfrey appear d to have thought—wrongly,
as he was prepared to show—that certain pears and
cabbages he had lost formed part of the display in
the church. He asked for permission to see them,
which was granted ; but, instead of merely going to
see them, he took a policeman and another man with I
him, and remoted them. They took away seven-
teen cabbages and a quantity of pears. They were
removed to the defendant 'a nursary, and to Dr.
McCave„ who went to see him when he f ,und what
had occurred, defendant said he was very sot ry for
Dr. McCave, and that his people should be brought
into trouble. but he had had a robbery committed
at his place on the Friday before, and the things he
had taken away were his. A long correspondence
followed, and though defendant absolved Dr. Mc
Cave and many of his congregation he refused the
apology which was asked from him, and said the
pears he had taken away were his. (The pears
were detained by the defendant, but the cabbages
were sent bank as not identified.) Defendant in the
correspondence, said if he had not understood Dr.
McCave to have given him permission he would
not have removed the things. After reading from
the correspondence.
Mr. Young said plaintiff was still prepared to
accept an apology.
His Honour asked if the case was to ga on, after
the letters which had been read?
Mr. Young said certain insinuetions had been
made.
His Honour: It don't appear to me there is any
insinuation whatever.
Mr. Stokes: None whatever.
After some discussion, it was at last agreed that
an apology in a form agreed upon between Mr. Young
and Mr. Stokes should be given and accepted, and
the case was then struck out.
A good deal of interest was manifested in the
case, the Court being crowded during the hearing.
BARNSLEY V. TURNER.—This was an action to
recover the sum of £7. 10s. 3d. alleged to have
been lent to the defendant. Mr. Oldershaw ap-
peared for plaintiff, and Mr. Waldron for defendant
Plaintiff is a clerk at Old Hill, and defendant a
publican, of this town. Plaintiff said he went to
Chester on business of his own at the time of the
races. He went to the races' and backed smne horses
there He denied that the defendant backed them
for him. He had previously been to Cheltenham
races, and afterwards went to the Derby. Defen-
dant was with him, but he denied that he gave him
money to back horses. Defendant did not give him
six sovereigns back for two he had from him to
back Polly Carew. He lent defendant the money he
sued for in London. He was not "skinned out"
when he got back to London from the races. Be
did not pawn his watch. It was pawned for eV.
He went to Sandown. and backed some horses. He
again denied that defendant backed them for Li n
Defendant did not put money with his in backing
horses He did not know what defendant did with
the money he lent him.—Defendant being examiled
said he met with the plaintiff at Cheltenham and
other races, and he asked witness to back so no
horses for him. Plaintiff said he did not know the
bookmakers himself, and he asked wit aess to aet for
him, because of the welshers. He backed horses,
accordingly, with money plaintiff gave him. Th
was more losing than winning, but he folio ved
plaintiff's directions in the horses he backed. I! e
backed Polly Carew for plaintiff, and there was £4.
won on that horse. The result of the betting on the
first day at Eps )m was a loss, and on the second day
a portion of the loss was made grod. Plaintiff as'ed
him to go to Sandown with him. He said he did
not care to go, and had no money. Plaintiff said he
would find the money, and gave him his watch, on
which he borrowed £7. Afterwards he pawned his
keeper ring but the pawnbroker said it was only
worth Is. 63., and they had not enough to get home
with Plaintiff said. "How are we to do now ?" and
witness suggeated they had better walk home.
Plaintiff declined this, and succeeded in borrowing
some more money on his watch. He never asked
plaintiff to lend him a penny, and he only hal
money from him to back hones—John Martin was
called in support of defendant's case.—His Honour
gave a verdict for the defendant.
COLLAPSE OF SCHOOL BOARD CASES.—The Stour-
bridge School Board sought to recover school fees
from twenty-eight persons. The first case was
against a person named Benjamin Weston, and
upon the clerk, Mr. G. Perry, opening it. Mr.
Prescott, on behalf of the defendant, raised an
objection to the proceedings, on the ground that
they were not properly instituted. The minutes
were sent for, and it then appeared that the cases
had been brought before th 3 Court owing to he
recommendation of a committee, but the committee:
only consisted of cffle person, Mr. Billingham. Else
quorum for the committee, it was admitted, was two
persons.—His Honour said there was no legal com-
mittee meeting held, and gave judgment for the
defendant.—The other eases, to which the reline
defect attached, were withdrawn.
ELI WHITEHOUSE v. EDWARD WILLETTS.—This
was an action to recover the sum of 15s for injuries
done by defenclant'sfowls. Mr. Waldron appeared
for plaintiff, who said the defendant's fowls had
damaged a bed of carrots, bed of celery, peas, beans,
and o her things, which amounted to 15s. Two
witnesses were called to prove that the fowls were
in plaintiff's garden several times a day, and dam-
aged it. Verdict for plaintiff.
GRIFFIN V. DOWNING.--ThiS was an action to
recover the sum of 15s for harvest work done.
Mr. Elcock defended. After hearing the evidence
his Honour gave a verdict for defendant.

WILFULLY DAMAGING STRAW.—At the Police
Court, held yesterday, before Messrs. H. 0. Firm-
stone, R. L. Freer, F. Evers, and C. Cochrane.
Charles Tooby, Charles Clarke, James Corfield,
William Corfieid, William Loyd, Robert Harper,
and James Cotterill, were chamed with wilfnlly
damaging a rick of straw, on the 16th lust, the pro-
perty of Alfred Parkes, farmer, of Norton. Edwin
Speaks said that he saw all the defendants go up
a ladder:and thro v a quantity of straw off the rick.
They did it repeatedly. Alfred Parkes said that
two wagon loads were wasted and soiled, and tat
to put it all right again would cost 30s. Mr. Coch-
rane (the chairman), said that the defendants had
rendered themselves liable to a penalty of ..£5 each,
in addition to the damage done; in default two
months' imprisonment, but on this occasion they
should only fine them 61 each and costs, and 4s 3d
dunage ; in default 7 days.
CHARGE or DRUNKENNES9.—WiIIiam Cook was
charged with being drunk on the 16th inst. Poliie-
constahle Eaves proved the case. Pleaded guilty.
A. previous conviction was proved, and defendant
fined 2s 61 and costs.!---David Soutwick. of Crv.dlev
was charged with being drunk in High Street, on
the 15th tnst. Police-constable Oakey proved tbe
ease, and said he found him lying in the ro id,
drunk. Pleaded guilty. Fined is and costs.
CHARGE OF STEALING GLASS.—Noah Comp Jon
Dennis Park, glass blower, was charged with st3al