The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1882-05-02 00:00:00

WARIBEAX.
COURT). COURT.

(liebre Kr. Serjeaut Tindal-Atkineou, Judge.)

J. H. Mundell v. G. Mandon.—Claim la 04.2 d. for
goode supplied.—Plaiatiff I. a grocer at Berg Regis, and
the defendant • labourer at C irk Castle. The
original order was ss. • month, which the Judge
remarked wes too much, but the plaintiff [stormed his
Honour that was the defendant's own offer. —Plaintiff
offered to take ffs. a month, and the Judge varied the

_
order aooordingly.
J. li. Muniell v. W. Aindreire.-3anie plaint:if a•
in the last cos., ani tin defendant an innkeeper at
Winterborn• Kinnaton.—Clalm £2 Ilr. 2d.—Order
made for LI a month.

71-oIW-.l—obt;;;;7.—Hugh 'Thomaa—Plaintiff iv a
retired iroemooger, and the defendant formerly •
banker's clerk at Wareham, and now living at Holy-
head. The claim amounted to .EI7 10s.—Plaintiff
asked for judgment forthwith, ea he wail informed he
would, when be arrived at the age of It, OM°
In for £2,000, and also hat a marriage portion with his
wife. He believed he had arrived at that age.—
Ordered to be paid in three instaluaents.
Lionel Phillips v. Edwin Bower. Claim for
£2 fis. sd. for grooeries.—Plaintiff belongs to Pools,
and the defendant to Worth.—The Registrar informed
his Honour the plaintiff was in custody for fraudulent
bankruptcy at Poole.—The Judge: Then that is the
one I ordered to be prosecute il—The Registrar: Yes,
your Honour.—The Jo lire: Then how does he become
a plaintiff at all if his affairs are in bankruptcy, es all
the property he had Wall vested in the estate ?—The
Judge was informed he sued before he filed his
petition.—His Honour: The defendant is not aware
of thiLlor be would have taken no notice of it. I shall
allow his° teta—Carre struck out.
Load Phillips v. Ambrose Bower (of Worth).—
Claim for El 7. 114.-51 r. Bamford (Wareham)
appeared for defendant, and denied the debt entirely.
—The Judge ordered the case to be struck out on the
same grounds m the last.
Henry Jock' a, Bare Regis, tailor, v. Edward
Foster Rare Regis, woodnian.—Claim for 14...
Plaintiff did not appear, and the case was struck out,
and the defendant allowed his costs._

A rivractoi Brost Dtercra.—Emily Ann Randall
(Bwanage), v. John Tyennan.—ln this case tire.
Randall, a Swung* stone merchant, claimed
£l6 17e 61. balance of amount due from the defendant
for stone supplied. —The defendant pleaded a set-off to
the same amount for re-working the B.o:ie.—Mr.
Raadall, solicitor (Simone), appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Bamford, solicitor (Wareham:),foe the defend.
eat.—Mr. Bamford said his client wee a large building
contractor, and preparatory to sending a Under fore
church at Brighton he sent • letter to hire. Randell,stone
merchant, of Swanage, asking her to quota the lowest
price for Eiwacale stone delivered to Cliftonville
Station, Brighton about 2,663 feet rupee 8
stone facing, averaging he inches thick on thinier
and scabbloul on face and points squared. In answer
to this the plaintiff offered to supply the stone accord-
ing with specification' and deliver it at the east end of
Shoreham harbour. On receipt the defendant wrote
to Messrs. Randall informing them that the stone trent
wee not in accordance with the order. The plaintiff
replied that the at one was of the same description as
was always sent for building churches. Defendant
then wrote a letter expressing surprise at the tone of
the plaintiff's letter. It was the worst lot he
ever saw, and goose of it looked as though
it had never been touched since it left the quarry, and
would cost 3s. • yard to square and make according
to the mecifioation he sent. Afterwards the plaintiff
supplied more stone according to the specification,
emthbled and squared, at the same prim as the
first lot. The claim was for working the stone.—Mr.
Randall's cue was that the c trim sent the second time
was precisely similar to that which was sent and
accepted by the defendant without a demur, but the
first lot was very ot arekeely unloaded. It was not
handed out as worked stone should be, but was
pitched out, thu causing the angles and corners to be
hr hen off —Richard Wheeler said he was clerk of the
works to the architect at the church which was building
at Brighton and was present some two or three days
after the stOne wee delivered eh the site. Radii not
see it landed. The stone was .cobbled on the face, but
the beda and j dots were badly squired. It was not
fit, and be refused to allow it to be used unless it was
properly squared. He saw the second lot sent, and it
was very much better, and ha had no objection to
that. —Mr. Randall: Were the corners knocked off ?
Souse out appeared not to have been squared at all.—
If it had been thrown out of the vowel, would the
corners have been broken off s—Some atone would, no
doubt.—Were not some of the stones in the first lot
properly squared 7—Very few. —William Csrter,
foreman to the defendant at the Roman Ca, h
Church, at Brighton, said be knew a cargo of the
stone was to come from Swanage, and be wee present
when some of the atone was unloaded. The stone
was not according to specification—only a por-
tion of it was wobbled, and it was in •
very rough mtge. It was not squared, and the
, clerk of the works would not allow him to MIS if.
, Ordinary care was exercised in unloading. The sub-
sequent Cargo they meld au.—la reply to Mr.
Randall: He had never had te do with Swanage stone
before.—ln reply to the Judge: It cost about 20.61. •
yard to get it into a proper coadition.—Mr. Randall
said the stone was of the best description, and the
first lot was of exactly the same description as the
second. The captain would prows that the first cargo
was very carelessly unloaded, and that more cue was
taken with the aseond lot. What the defendant
ordered, not being acquainted with Swans(' stone,
was not exactly the stone they want.d.—Jóbn Hay.
son, manager to Mrs. Randall, said be saw the first
cargo of stone sent, end it was such as WM understood
at Swanne as stubbled on face and the earners squared.
It was such as would be supplied to the same order if
sent again. The ascend lot of stone sent after the
defendant complained was erectly the same as the
other, and was not picked in any way. It was all
taken from the mine stack.—Jamee Coleman said he
mew all cargoes of stone sent, and he did not know any
different*. It was such se would, always M
sulUd
to such an corder at Bw:wars—Root:ll omnono captain
of • coasting vessel, said be took all the cargoes. Ha
saw the first cargo unloaded. The defendants sect one
labourer to assist his men in discharging the stout
He saw his men hauling the stone up from the hold,
and the labourer was pitching it on the quay end
knocking the corners off. Witness told him he most
not do that, or be would damage the stone. The
carters who to k it to the site also threw it all out of
a heap. The second lot was handed out of the vessel.
—Mr. Bamford Did you not tell the foreman the
first lot was • very rough cargo 2—Witnees • No; it
ain't likely I should take the stone, and thee' run out
against it. (Lughter.)—The Judge said it wee quite
clear it was not delivered according t, specification,
and not delivered in a proper state on the queyelde,
and be gave a verdict for the defendant, with eula of
two wiliness.