The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1860-06-19 00:00:00

Dorottishirt.

WEYMOUTH COUNTY COURT.

Tb. monthly sitting of the Court was held at the
Guildhall on Thursday last, befoul E. Everett, g:aq.,
the judge. There were 01 plaint' on the cause list, •
much larger number than usual, but they were meetly
devoid of public interest. The sully defended cases were
the follosving :
A QUINTION OF AGUICT.—SonieI Moore v. Henry
Slade. This was an action brought to recover the sum
E 4 41. 10d. for work and lahour done anti materials
anpplied. L 1 Is. Ild, had been paid into Court, the
remainder was disputed.—Mr. Howard appeared for the
plaintiff. and Mr. Hill for the defence.—The plaiiiiiff
said that he formerly carries, on the business of plumber
and glazier in this town. and that he had frequently worked
for the defendant. When the new water-works came
into operation the defendant wished to have the water
laid on his premises, and he caked him (plaintiff) to go
with him to Mr. Beals, his landlord. When they asked
Mr. Beale redacting it, be refused to have the water
laid en unless the defendant would give Li a year more
rent. 'ESN be objected to, and subsequently the
defendant employed hist, as he understood, on his own
sceojut, to lay on the water. He took him the bill two
months afterwards, and defendant said he had mething
to do with laying on the water to She house, Mr. Beale
snot pay for it, and he accordingly took the bill to the
landlord. Mr. Beale refused to pay, as he said he gave
no order for the work, and consequently rafter waiting
Dow about three years without being able to get the
money from either party, lie had brought this action.
In Ins croas-examtuatiou Mr. Moore denied that the
defendant bad told him, previous to the work being
done, that the landlord had given orders for the water
tithe aid on ; b-at said lie did tell the defendant when
he took in the bill that he considered it a very had •
ease for him to have to pay for it, and that the landlord
ought to pay.—Joseph Beale said the house in which
defendant lived formerly !ielonged to him, but he sold it
soon after the water was laid on. He did not get one
farthing more for the house on account of that work
being done. He denied having given defendant insttue•
Sons o eniploy Mr. Moore to lay isi the water When
the plaintiff and the defendant called on him about it,
he nfused to go to the e:thenre unless the defendant
'mid El a year more rent, and defendant did not ask
him about it again. He denied having gone to the
house when the water was being laid on, or of giving
any instructions about it, but lie admitted going to the ,
house to gee Mr. Moore alien he saw a hole dug, but
said he did nut know whether they were leyimt on
water or gas. - Fr the defence Mr. Hill celled the
defendant and his wife. The former stated that lie was
anxious to have the water, and that he went to Mr.
Besk, again, about • week after the plaintiff end tie
were there, and that Mr. Beale again asked him El a
year more rent if he should have the work done. He
told him that was too touch, but that he was willing im
pay his what the other tennuts paid, and Mr. Beal, then
told him tog to Mr., Moore and ask him to do it as
cheap as lie could, as be would then have the less to
pey. He therefore went to Mr. Moore and told him
what Ir. Beale had mid, and that lie was to do it when
be did No. 7. Belvedere. Mr. Moore replied that he
would c,mie in a few days, but be WPS very busy just
thin. When he came he (defendtht) was out, but on
his return !ionic his wife told him that the landlord had
been and instructed Mr. Moore to put die water tap
ender die stairs instead of takin it into the back "aid
where they wanted it, in one. to save cipense. About
two months after the work was done, the plaintiff
presented his bill to 'Mtn for the work, when he told him
that he must admit it was very hard for him to have to
pay, but lie had taken the Sill to Mr. Beale and lie refused
to discharge the debt.—Mrs. Slade corroborated her
husband's statemeut in those matter, which mime '
under her own notice, and said that while the work was
being conies! on Mr. Beale came and ordered the tap to
be plated under the stairs to wive the expense, and that
Mr. 11. we said the place would do very well.—His
Honor gate judgment for the defendant, and added
that the plaintiff oug;it to be paid for the work he had
done. b.,t I,e coold offer a.. i.pinion as to his likeliltood
of getting it of the landlord, after the evidence he lid
that oey

DI:olvio Mawr or LAND.—Otorge Slade v. Milian
Car. Ties was an action to recover the non of
tla for re.o due from defendant to the plaintiff for
the clip of land over the tonne' of the Gr.-at Western
railway us Ridgeway 11111, betweeu Weymouth end
Gorclievt,r.-13r. Howard appeared for the idsintiff,
sod l r Cortielius for tile defendant.--Geoge :- lade,
.4 Cowes:, said that lie rented of the Great
Western Itailwae Company the whole of their waste
land ',Darrel, Weymouth and Frampton, amounting in
the whole to upwards of 15 acres. This included he
slip .4 land over the tunnel a Ridgeway, which wee 1
scrc, 3 roods, and 3 pe•-ches. He took the land of the
Gwat Weacrti Cowpony in October 1864, and let he
slip.. Cr ih.:eway Gomel to • oereon named Waters,
from March !WA liii September, for Ms. fur the half
year. Watens plamed it with potatoes, and Souk away
the crop. He afteneenis let the land So • person
awned Groves ak 12s. fid. pei: quarter. Groves had it
three euertert of a year, but would only pay for half •
par, as the defendmis greedy annoyed aim in the own-
petiou. lie alien apoka lo defendant, and asked him
why be annoyed his sensate, end he said he should drive
hi. cattle and sheep over it when he pleased. He told
him he ill not wish al have any unpleasantness, and
offered to Ic. Übe the land, as he Wan the occupier of
that ou both alike of it, 4 de same refl be aerator R—
ite., Cll yr are. Defendant replied that that was
more diac ne gave for altu rest of the lend, and he sub-
sequently agreed ie lea ia to him at 15.. an acre. The
land cio either ehle of she railway at Riigeway belongud
to Caim College, Cembridge, and was rented by the
derv:Mane Tl:u &feeds nt so-ce lie had had ce who
over the tunnel :red paid aim no rent, but. he lied pro-
to pay him sevaral times when ivi delieered to
huu the bilis, b... always made some victim, till about •
twelve moult since lie c -Med him into the market at
Dorchester, and said lie would pay him. Defendant's
brother was there, at-.d on defendant's saying dist he
was going to pay the rent, the brotaer told loin lie was
• foul to pay • single farthing, and he "hen refused
to do so. 'Me reason he gave for not paying was that
the slip of land over ~he tumiel was not fenced off (ruin
the land on each aide, and lie had applied to the railway
company in :ence it off, but they liad declined as :he
esteem would be £lO, which was more than the land
was worth. A plan was pot ill by she manager of the
company's line, allowing the client of land belonging
to the company —The defence cot up was that the rail-
way company purchased only an ease nent fur the our-
pwe of makio,; a teen.' under the land, as was evident
from the railway oomminy's not fencing the land off,
and that lie considered alma defendent believed she land
which he hired .4 Mr. Rooks, of Sherborne, the agent
for Ciao+ College, included Die slip over the railway
tunnel, and consequently She queetion was one of title,
and took it out of :iie juruidicaion of the Court.
His Honor said be could no. try .he right of title, but
he Inas, hear the ease to ascerlain if that was the real
question as issue. William Cake, the defendant
was then called. He said he took the farm
7 years ago of idr. Ffooks of Sherborne, who was the
steward for Caius College. Ho had no lease of his farm,
nor any written agrayment, bat held it Irian yea- .0 year
on a mere veiled agreement. The extent of the fawn
was between 400 and MA acres. (His I.lonor expremed
astonishusena that so large a farm ehould lie let or taken
be any one .ith nothing but a verlial agreement).
When be took the farm the railway company were
snaking • tunnel. The mouth of the tunnel was open,
and there lied been cut a shaft in the field, and a large
quentity of chalk and timber was lying on the slip of
land over the tunnel. Mr. Ffooks told him that the
tunnel was iitthe occopation of the railway company. He
bad no argreetnent with the agent respecting the rota-
tion of crops, or respecsing the conversion of arable into
pasture laud or rice reran. Four yeses ago the plaiotiff
asked him to pay Ilit. • year for the slip of land over the
tunnel, and lie told iii.i. lie had no objection if be found
that he Wan liable,bat lie had since heard Mr. Hooks say
that the railway company had roily an easement of the
land, Aral lie lied refused to pay. The land was not
fenced off. He knew a lemon named Waters. He
meollected Just he plented die slip with potatoes. He
allowed him to -ale them away without saying anything
alout it. He recollected the land was afterwards work.
ed by Groves. Someone took away the crop. He made I
no inquiries about it—dill nut dispute their right, but
did onee drive his plough through the potatoes. He
never nailed the railway company for any compensation
for going over t‘e lend, nor had be iiiterfered in she
mutter farther than that he cautioned Waters antlGroves
thatilie considered they were trempasaing.—His Honor
sai.lthat lies hould give no opinion reapecting the right of
the property, which was a qoeation ;or ancther court.
The defendant had mlniitted that he was told when he
too), die farm that the railway company were in occu-
petion of the slip of land in dispute; they had a shaft
th-re, and a large quantity of timber and chalk. He
made no application to the railway company for cow.
pensation. He had allowed poetise so occupy the land
aut take away their ewe,* unniolested, and it was quite
v. iden. Dia. lie *Juddered 4 the time the land belonged
to the company He had in' docbi, sherefore, that he
aid agree le :eke she land at 1:15 a •:en... of the plaintiff,
without having made any reservation, and that
ii i.as in eon equence of enmething he Mu' afterwards
heard Iron' Mr. Ffmiki that he di.iiuted parnent. He
shuld therefore give jodgemena for: the plaintiff ru the
ground tr: hiring and ocenpatiou, for the amount,

Si' 1,14: YOR Y.:AGM—Raper v. nOrne.—Thill Wu
fl cti,rl for the recovery of r. 3 be. Gil. for work done
at Portland in digging three vaults. The .urn of £2 104.
b.l been paid. The plaintiff said that be agreed to
41; the three vaults for Me., but that afterwards they
arm ordered larger, and he had as much more work to
it,, and the defendant said he would give 504. Ho WY
1,4 satisfied with this arrangement, and bad charged for
211.1ays .t:.. per day. His Honor nab' that the work
aas taken by contract, and that, according to his show-
-14. be had been amply paid ; he could not alter the
bruit of the agreement after the work had been duns.
Verdict for the defendant.
Ifirrtet Paiicksm. - Mary Mealy. Harin
&a.o. and James Balyia v. IVilliairt lianly.—Tbis was
a, action for the recovery of £l3 Be. 9d., being the
balance of rent for a stable. Hr. Arden appeared for the
plaiotiffs, and Mr. Howard for the defendant. It
•I'Mared that the 'Uhl' was formerly let to Miss
S'Hilibb, riding tnistresa, and that • balance was struck
,rn January, 113194, of the balance due up to November,
A 57, when £2 12s. 6d. was owing. The rent had been
allowed to go 0,1 till the present; and the whole amount
al' to March last was £26 18.. 9d., of which stun
113 lfh. had been paid off at different times. Miss
Nieibb had since been married to the defendant, but
i.lsintirs solicitor could not tell when nor where, and
the defendant now refused to give up the stable or pay
MP more rent. The Judge said that defendant was not
foe die rent of the stable previous to his mar-
riage with Mies Squibb, and the time of his marriage
;and thereforn be proved to obtain • verdict against
Mr. Arden consented to an adjournment till
'" next court, but said he feared he should not be
al4s to obtain the requisite information.
r fir Joke Charles, a( Radipole, baker.—This insol-
ent's protection was renewed until the next oourtday,
!bra a final order will be made unions cause then and
t4rte be shown to the contrary.