The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1870-09-03 00:00:00

BRIERLEY HILL.

Xobterley v. It sllias4.—At the County Court held at
Dudley, on Tuesday last, before Mr. Rupert Kettle,
Judge, Mr. Mohberley, the well-known horse dealer and
contractor, of Round Oak, sued Mr. William Williams
(Messrs. Budd and to), of Tividale and Brockmoor, for
A sum of £26, the price of a horse. Mr. Honifray ap-
peared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Stokes for the defend-
ant. Mr. Slobberley said he sold the horse to the de.
fendaut in gay, 1666. It was live years old, and sound
in wind and limb; fit to ride or drive. The horse had
just left a farm, where it had been fed on grass. A day
or two afterwards Mr. Williams called and said the horse
was unwell, and would not eat its food. Witness crust.
turd the horse, and said it was only oat of "sorts,' and
told the defendant to give it some physic and a ball. This
he wrote down for the direction of the defendant'.
groom. A week afterwards the horse was rent home in
a dangerous condition, and died on the following morn.
sag. A farmer who had worked the horse for a year and
a half, and the dealer who sold the horse to Mr. Slobber.
ten, were called, and swore that the horse was sound.
The farmer sold the animal for £22, and the dealer sold
it to the plaintiff for 1:22. Mr. Mol.berley also called
his farrier, who stated that the animal died from diarr-
Mee. It was a most dangerous course, whilst the horse
was in physic, to send him exercising. The horse, whilst
griping and suffering from debility caused thereby, had
been sent out of a warm stable at Tividale to Round Oak.
and he was prepared ti swear that the walk caused its
death.—Mr. Stokes, in defence, said that he rested his
case on one issue, and it was that the plaintiff agreed to
let his client have the horse for a week or so, and if lie
did not like the animal to return it. His Honour thought
there was another issue, and that was the treatment of
the animal whilst in defendant's possession. Mr. Stokes
then called the defendant and his groom, and they swore
that the directions of Mr. Mobberley as to the treatment
of the horse had been tally earned out. Mr. Williams
was then re-examined to show that the plaintiff had told
him he might keep the horse a week, in fact, until the
following Monday, and send him back if he did not snit.
Mr. Homfray, in reply, conteeded that the whole respon-
sibility rested upon the defendant, inasmuch as he had
care of plaintiff's horse, and when he found the animal
unwell, he should have called in a veterinary surgeon, or
at least have sent for Mr. Mobberley.—His Honour, in
delivering his judgment, said he agreed with Mr. Host.
frays law, but the facts were against the view of the de-
fendant being liable. Mr. Mobberley directed what medi.
sines the the horse should have, and left his horse
entirely in the hands of the defendant, which he should
not have done after seeing the horse unwell and preserib-
lug for it. There was no doubt, too, bat that the plain-
tiff had ordered a little gentle exercise for the horse
The piAkatltt had also amid the horse might be returned
on the Monday, and the horse was so returned, although
suffering. Mr. Mehherley ought to have known from his
prescriptions for the horse in what condition he would
Mae been by that Monday. Finally, Mr. Mobberley
:should have sent his own man to attend to the horse, or
have had it at his own stablrs. Verdict for the defend-
ant.

CHARGE or Tanaamszsm.—at the Petty Sessions, on
Thuraday lest, before I. Spooner, E.g., John Jones was
charged by Benjamin Blewitt with using threatening
language to him on the 24th tilt. The threat complained
of was proved, and defendant was ordered to find two
,iireties in £lo—himself iii £2O, to lieep the peace for
sin months,

CHARGE AGAINST A TOLLGATE KEEYER.—Jane Hulme,
keeper of the tollgate at Bromley Lane, was summoned