The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-05-06 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.

Johns V. J6-ite3.-At the County Court, on Mon-
day, before 1. Kettle, Esq.. judge. This was a.
ActiOil brought by Mr. John';, ;grocer, r%ntAing iL
Coventry Street, against the defendant, who re.iidez
in Brettell Lane. Mr. Collis appeared tor plain
tiff, who said that the def.ndant owed him £3O 6.
1.01 for grocery supplied. Joel boult delivered
,sonie of the goods. Mrs. JOlle6 first cam,
to him and es.ed hint to supply goods to h,t
,t1:o1u:ale. Silts paid Ivr the tirgt lot of goods an .
sue canid several thin s at to hi sh,,p
ordered the goods. I)..fenuaut
,wi,s with lies tu.
one ucea.ion ant said he would pay the lawny
A. wan named Cortield ahat delivered some of th, -
goods. lie had frequently sent to the defendant
and asked hint for the money, and he asked for
time and promised to pay. The defence was, that
he was not liable and he had not ordered the
goods. Edwin was the per6on who had the goods.
his Honour recommended the defendant to
arrange with Mr. Collis. There was no doubt the
goods had been ordered and sonic one;must pay
for them. The defendant said he did not have
them. The case was then adjourned for the de-
fendant to come to some arrangement with the
Pearson v. Great Western Railway Company.—
This was an action brought by William Peafowl,
of Norton, against the Great Western Railway
Company, to recover the sum of £l5 15s, for the
alleged negligence of the defendants. Mr. Colli,

appc:2a,recl for the plaintiff and Mr. Perry defended.
Mr. Collis in opening, said. the plaintiff resided at
Norton, and kept a hunter and occasionally run a
horse in the County Steeple Chase. On the 16th
December last plaintiff sent a horse to the station
which was entered to run at Kinsbury Races.
The horse was booked to go by the 12.59 train and
defendants were informed that the horse must go
by that train or it would not be in time. The
horse was put in the box but from some extra-
ordinary reason or other the station-master did not
send the horse by that train. Plaintiff then told de-
fendants servants that it would be no use to send
the horse as it would not be in time and counter-
manded the order, but notwithstanding that for
some reason or other the horse was sent away, and
brought back and afterwards put in a stable at the
Talbot Hotel. The effect was that the horse got
a bad cold and he was unable to use the horse for
a month. Plaintiff had to pay £3 for the entry of
the horse, .t 2 2s for a veterinary sur,geon, and -210
fploOurst fortinhte
dt
thele-
re e lnoebseos,
xos
said
oidspearrsov
vti
oce e
tsti.
ee Peallbaaoii nmv
et
offf
mx3wia. shpe tehwr eizns
instructed to oppose that as the money had not
been paid. In answer to his Honour plaintiff said
that he had got to pay it and his Honour gave a
verdict for the full amount claimed and costs.
Taylor V. Perry.—lt the County Court, on Wed-
needay, before R. Kettle, Esq., judge. This was
action brought by plaintiff, who resides at King-
ewinfcri, against the defendant, to recover the
sure of £6O, the price of some land. Mr. Elcock
appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Stokes defended.
—From the opening of Mr. Elcoek, it appeared
that several lots of land were put up by auction for
sale. The defendant bid for one lot and he being
the highest bidder, it was knocked down to him for
£6O and defendant paid .25 as a deposit, and
would not pay the remainder and the action was to
recover the balance. The defence was that de-
fendant was mistaken as to the lot of land and
that he was drunk at the time. The case was ulti-
mately adjourned for the production of further
evidence for plaintiff.
Gwillarn v. Haselhurst.—This was action brought