The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1878-01-12 00:00:00

6ocat 40 gistrut 4etcts.

COUNTY CUIJE,T.

DETHERIDGIC 1.). DAVIEB.—At the County Court,
onMondaY, before Losdale Warren, Esq., Deputy
judge. This was an action brought by Mr.
Dether auctioneer, of Brierley Hill, to re-
idge,
cover .24, for furniture supplied to the defendant
in 1874.—Mr. Collis appeared for plaintiff, and
Air. Perry defended.--Irom the evidence of ,
plaintiff and his son defendant had been in the
pnrchasipg furniture, part of which was
of
thet time and the other purchases by
instalmentgr in 1874 defendant's wife and
.paid h a bit
sister-in-law purchased some furniture which was
sold to defendant's wire.—The defence was that
all the furniture bought from the plaintiff was
paid for and that the delendant's wife r ever went
to purchase alone. Defendant's wife was called
and said she had never bought any furniture but
with her husband, but ,that, she went with her
sniesvteelr-ikutielaP whoanythi bought some goods and she
anything of the 'affair until she was
sorved with a County Court sumumus,—Verdict
for defendant.

HOPWOOD v. BOSLE Y.—This was an action to
recover the sum of --(2,2, fur tacking a horse.—
Mr. Perry appeared for the plaintiff, anti Mr.
Waldron tor the defendaut.—i;rom the evidence
of complainant it appears that in 18i5 and 1b76
he let the defendant a field to put his horse into
at the rate of 5s per week or £1 per month. In
1877 he asked the defendant it he intended to
turn out his horse as usual. Defendant asked the
terms and he told him if for four months it would
be £1 per month and if for three months 6s per
week. Defendant said he would consider about
it. Shortly afterwards he met the defendant's
son and asked if his father had decided to turn
his horse out and he said "Yes, on the usual
terms." He commenced on the 26th May which
ended in Septemht r and have received £2 on ac-
count. He often saw the hoe in the field. Cross-
examined: He saw the horse in the field within a
fortnight of the expiration of the time.—George
Henry Bosley, son of the defendant, said the
agreement was to pay Os per week and that the
horse was in the field but ten weeks and had
offered 10s to make up that time. Cross-ex-
amined : I did offer 4ssrs. Rogers and Jordan
£1 to settle the case.—Defendant was put into
the box and gave similar evidence.—Verdict for
BEFRIDGE V. PARDOE.—This was an action to I
recover the emu of £3 Os Bd, money lent.—Mr.
Addison ap tred for plaintiff, who said he lived
at \I Y. and in Auge - last he engaged
three . -ors named Pardo_ to cut 25 acres at
3s 6d e acre. They were ,Jad off and asked for
advai.ee and let them have 30s on account. He
afterwards engaged them to cut a quantity of
burley, thirty acres at 3s per acre and the whole
amounted to .t 4 103, altogether they had drawn
£l2 19s 8d and only done work to the amount of
£9 .14s, laving a balance of £3 5s Bd.—Defend-
ants admitted they had overdrawn £2 10s.—
Verdict for plaintiff, defendant, to pay lOs per
month.
BEIULIDGE V. PARDON AND ifARWARD.—This
was an action to recover the sum of £2l 9s 4d,
money advanced to the defendants.—Mr. Addison
apparel for the plaintiff who said that he
engaged the defendants to get up 10 acres of
potatoes. On September 22nd he advanced them
£l, on the 29th £4, October 6th £B, October 13th
.25, making a total of £lB. Defendants had only
done work amounting to £l4 Os Bd.—The defence
was that the work was done to the satisfaction of
plaintiff and that 8 of them did the work. Plain-
tiff went on to the ground, paid them, and said
he wa;.i perfectly satisfied.—Verclict for dt feud-
Ws.