The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-03-25 00:00:00

Tag Sri URBRIDGE OPMEI VER.

the amount already paid into Court, viz., at the
rate of Ids per week, was sufficient to keep the
defendant's wife. She had raised reports of a
Nila Iption about her husband, and had done
all she could to malign his character and injure
him in his business, and to a certain extent had
succeeded. Defendant was formerly in a very
good position, but through the reports circulated
by her his trade had fallen off, and be had been
obliged to sell a portion of his property, and
that at the present time the whole of his income
amounted to some £Bl per year, after certain
deductions. The learned Counsel addressed the
jury at some length on the conduct of Mrs.
Chance, who, he said, had done all she could to
ruin her husband ; and contended that the offer
be had made for her support, and the amount
already paid was ample for her maintenance,
and asked the jury to give him a verdict.
Mr. Peter Chance deposed: What my wife
has stated about cruelty is utterly untrue, as also
is what she has stated about my conduct towards
those whom I have had as housekeepers. I
have heard what my niece has said about a pro
posal I made to her one morning at six o'clock,
and it is untrue.

tE.Bird, the witness, said: It is a lie," upon
which his Honour ordered her to be removed
out of Court).
Defendant continued: It is utterly untrue. '
It is not true I turned my wife out. I went to
Great Bridge one Monday, and she said some-
thing about going. I told her not to go, and in
my absence she robbed me of a large number of
articles, and went away. It is untrue that I took
her by the shoulders, and put her out. She has
challenged me to fight, and has pulled my hair
and whiskers. 1 had my whiskers off on that
account. I have always behaved myself in a
chaste manner with the women that have been
at my house. My present income I believe to
be under £.BO per year. I have some house pro.
petty, but it is heavily mortgaged. The income
from my trade is £l.B 4s for the year. I pay my
journeyman 4s 6d per day, I cannot see to work
myself. I have 13 houses, and get from them
about £9O per year, out of which I pay mortgage
and rates. I have three at 2s 6d, and ten at 4s.
I swear I have not received more than .240 per
year after everything is paid. There are de-
ductions which amount to about £53. My wife
and myself have lived on .61 per week, and
sometimes only 12s. My income is less than
DAL

Cross-examined - When we had cross-sum-
monses before the Magistrates my summons was
dismissed, and I was fined. She perjured herself
before the Magistrates. I let the house in Mar-
ket-street, in which I lived at 1:20 The adjoin-
ing house I let for £3B. I had six houses at
Arnblecote, and I let three front ones at .18 per
week, and three back ones at 28 6d; four houses
at Wollaston at 3s 2d ; and three in Angel-street.
If I had let them all it would have amounted to
about £164. I sold two houses. My journey-
man has worked on an average five days per
week. I mean to say that Ss is more than I get
profit. I did not tell the relieving-officer totake
my wife to the asylum. I told him I thought
she was insane. I owed £1,600 about two years
ago, and she said I did not owe anything.
Re-examined by Mr. Smith: Some of the
houses have been void for some time.

Thomas Robinson said lam a journeyman
in the employ of defendant, and have worked
for him about 20 years. Was apprenticed to
him, and have never heard or seen him act
cruelly towards his wife. Have heard her chal-
lenge him to fight. Have never seen anything
improper between the defendant and his house-
keeper. Heard defendant tell his wife she was
not to go away. That was on the day he went
to Great Bridge. Saw one of Bird's men have
some goods of Mrs. Chance, through the win.
dow, and have seen the same articles exposed in
Bird's window for sale.

Cross-mcamined : I have slept in the house for
some years.
Mr. Perry having addressed the jury in reply,
His Honour briefly summed up, and said the
real point for the jury to decide was, what would
be a fair amount to be awarded to plaintiff. The
question as to the goods alleged to be retained
by plaintiff did not affect the case, as an action
was pending in the Court of Queen's Bench for
their recovery.
The jury deliberated a few minutes, and then
returned a verdict for plaintiff at the rate of 12s
per week, which would include the sum paid into
Court at the rate of lOs per week.
Minivan/ v. Chrtstopher.—This was an action
to recover the sum of £l2 14e ed, being a bid-
once of account for work done. Mr. Addison
appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Collis for defend-
ant. —From the evidence of complainant, who is
. . .

a builder, it appears that he untlertook to build
certain property for the defendant for £225. He
had done a quantity of extra work not in the
syecification, and there was a balance due to
him of £l2 14s 6d.—The defence was that the
work was not properly done, and £6 had been
paid into Court for the balance.—After some
witnesses had been examined, it was ultimately
agreed that a surveyor on each side should ex-
amine the work, and Mr. J. Allsop, of liagley-
I street, was appointed referee ; costs to abide the
event.

Jackson v. Adams.—This was an action to re-
cover £l2 Ss flu, being the balance of account
of £l4 156 for plants and shrubs supplied to the
defeudant.—Mr. Collis appeared for plaintiff,
and Mr. Perry for defendant.—Pli,intill is a
gardener, residing et Blakedown, and defendant
au auctioneer and nurser.) man, residing at Man-
chester. Evidence was produced to show that
the plants were got up the same day they were
sent off, and the delivery proved. Ihe defence
was that the goods sent were dead, and a lot of
rubbish nearly worthless, the roses and fruit
trees being dead ; and that the goods were
bought of a William Jackson and not Joseph
Jackson.—His Honour, in omitting up, said the
defendant had proved that some of the trees
were dead, and after striking ;tut certain items,
gave a verdict for plaintiff for tis 7d.
SPORTING CASE.— GiVithB V. GilL—At the
Court, on Thursday, before Mr. Godson, Deputy
Judge, this was an action to recover the sum of
£2, for money deposited in defendant's hands
for a rat killing match. Mr. Perry appeared for
plaintiff, and Mr. Prescott for defendant. From
the evidence it appears that plaintiff (William
Griffin) made a match for his dog to kill eleven
rats in less time than Mr. Thomas Alichurch's
dog. The amount was £5 a side, to be paid by
certain deposits, and an agreement was drawn up
and signed by Griffiths anti Allchurch, and that on
one occasion Allchurch was seen to put into the
defendant's hands four sovereigns, he (Gill)
being appointed final stakeholder. On the date
of the match it appears that neither dog killed
the whole of the rats, and it was alleged that
the rats had been '• doctored.- Several witnes-
ses were called on both sides, and the Judge
gave plaintiff an order for the amount claimed,
without costs.
Griffiths v. Davis.—This was an action to re-
cover £3 for money deposited by plaintiff with
defendant. Mr. Perry appeared for plaintiff,
and Mr. Prescott for defendant. The evidence
given was similar to the above. The 1:3 claimed
was the three pounds deposited to make up the
.15 for the match. His Honour gave a verdict
for the amount claimed.
SAStUEL HINGLEY AND Sow.—ln this ease
Mr. Prescott made an application to restrain the
Registrar from putting the papers in reference
to the above bankruptcy on the files. He said
the case was a very important one. Messrs.
Samuel Hingley and Co. had been in business a
little over two years, and had accumulated debts
over .U 5,000. A meeting of creditors had been
held at the Bell Hotel, Brierley Hill, and many
creditors were there and voted on a resolution
who had not proved their debts. The Judge
said he thought complaints ought to have been
made at the time to the chairman. Mr. Pres-
cott said be did complain verbally. Persons
were present who had given bills for large am-
ounts, and voted, and he contended that they
had no right to have done so,and that the meet-
ing was null and void. A long legal argument
ensued, and in answer to the Judge, Mr. Pres-
cott said he attended the meeting on behalf of
Mr. Benjamin Raybould, who is a creditor.
After some further discussion, his Honour re-
marked that the Court declined to go into the
question, as it was bound by the documents now
in Court, but he would adjourn the further con-
sideration until Saturday, and in the meantime
he would look up the law, as a new point had
been raised by Mr. Prescott.
Leonard v. Gill.—This was an action brought
by Mr. S. Leonard, auctioneer, Cradley Heath,
to recover it 2 113 s 3d, the price of a pig sold to
Mr. Joseph Gill, broker, Halesow en. Mr. Homer
appeared for plaintiff. Plaintiff said he was an
auctioneer, at Cradley Heath, and had a sale at
Halesowen, on the 13th of December. Defend-
ant attended the sale. A pig was put up for sale,