The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1870-11-05 00:00:00

OLD HILL.

BRFACM or CONTEACT.—At the Petty Sessiona held en
Wedneaday last, before F. W. O. Sierra and N. Hthge.
Emirs., George Taylor was summoned by William Mills.
coalmaater, with committing a breach of contract by
neglecting this work, and claimed 106 as compensation
Joseph Hill, doggy, said he engaged the defendant to
work at loading, and the defendant worked with three
others. They loaded four dozen hands per day. Their
duty was to load four dozen each day; bat he took the
stint off about eiz months ago to three dozen per day.
which was continued up to the 28th of October. The
defence was that he only did 211 dozen as the stint. The
complainant wanted him to load three, and he refilled to
do it, and left his work; and called a witness to prove
this, and the case was dismissed.
OCIZNCE AGAINffT Ton LOCAL BOAST ACT.—Messrs.
Williams and Perry, iron dealers, were summoned by the
Local Board for an infringement of the bye•laws, to
building a stable and house, wil%)lit previously deposit
ing plans of the lame at the office of the Local Board.
Mr. Wright appeared for the Boxrd, and Mr. Homfray for
the defendants. Mr. Wright in opening, said that the
defendants had built • stable and honor at Ledds.l HAI!,
and that they had neglected to depose plane of thy build-
ing at the office of the Local Beard, and by so acting had
rendered themselves liable to • penalty if five pounds
but the Board did not wish to prep.' for the fail penalty.
But it was to let the defem;suts and e.tt. rr. kW. that
they could not put the law to debauce. l)e:ereismte had
been informed of the law not only lay placards, but by
written notice. They had refused h. ceply, Awl the
Board had no alternative bat to Off INTA.O4B the ,a. He

shoold prove the notice. air! lhat the di feinhoitb mid not
sent in plans. Mr. Wright produced th.. e• laws.—Mr.
Homf ray objected to the brio:awe being pt in, as ac•
cording to the 11th siad 2b Vset..c. Ila, an papers
should be signed by the se, —Mr. Wrabeit said the bye-
laws were properly signed •Ind tived them.
—Mr. Homfray said that lb •as r. oros..rs 'hat the noti-
ces should be put in SOMI ...Id paper in. vski b if it bad
been done.—Mr. Wright /aid the fact of than being
signed was sufficient, and it rested with Mr. Hmufray to
prove the notices had not been inserted.—The Bench
over-ruled the objection.—Willime N laitehouse said: I
am surveyor at the Local Board, at Rowley. Messrs.
Williams and Perry have erected • house and stable in
the parish without giving notice. In consequence of
that I have caused a notice to be served upon them on
the premises, on the sth October, and again last week.
Found they had built • large stable, and a house, with
• fire.place and chimney in it, and a room over it,. place
for the pantry, and 1 piste left to put theetairs up. Ed.
win Burgess, assistant
tion of Perry to the fact that some building was being
erected, and served a notice upon him. Red it to him on
the 9th September, and climbed bills to be circulated in
the district, which stated that notice of intention to
build must be given to the Board. Perry said he should
not give notice, or trouble hi/abseil about it.—George
White proved that he bad been engaged ie getting out
a foundation to build at the defendant's, and put the
foundaliou down. It was a stable, and house for the
watchman to live iu.—Mr. Homfray addressed the Bench
for the defence, and contended Boit defendants had not
built a house, but merely a watch-box for the use of a
naau on the works.—The Bench fined defendants Is 6,1
and costs.—Mr. Homfray gave notice of appeal.