The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1866-09-18 00:00:00

BRIDPORT.

--•
THU BRIDTORT OLD BIZITIIIT COMPANT AND
Tli
BreweryBRISTOL p
atOyIN Ti tee actionl. i nbsyt threenßriry deed old
Charlton,
°lune before Mr. J Wadharn, Under. Sheriff, on
Friday, at the Sheriff.' court, ltri.tol. Mr. Prideaux
(instructed by Mr. salmon, from the olSoo of Mr.
Henaorww) was caramel for plaintiffs and Mr. Eldin
(ieattlacted by Mr. Beckingliam) was for the defendant.
The declaration owl on the common money secounta,
oolong other things for money had and received by the
defendant on account of the plaintiffs. The defendant
pleaded—first, that he wag never indebted; ieeondly,
trojtni nt ; and th idly • set-off. Tto plaintiff.. ace a
brewery company, carrying on An !SWAM.. boone. at
Brolpoit, and lamina • large &saucy At Bristol. The
behisluas was originally carried on by the private firm of
Gelidly, Down and Co., hut the partnership was after.
wards inoorporated under the Limited Company's Act
and took the title of the Britiort Old Brewery.Com-
nsny. The defendants brother William was formerly
manager of the Bristol agency, and the defehdant was
engaged ass traveller, his cloth a being to take orders
and reseive money& on account of the company. In the
early part of hut year William Charlton took &situation
of trust and importance under the oompany at Bridport,
and the defendant was promoted to the office of manager
of the Bristol agency, with a celery of XV • weak. That
being the case, William went round with his brother.
introducing him to the eustoreera, and they called neon
Mr. Jury, a publissan At Exeter, who owed the firm £2O.
Mr. Jury said that Alaimo took the money and put it
in his pocket, and turning to his brother, said, "Harry,
give MX. Jury • receipt for this," which he did. Neither
of accounted for the £2O, and this action WAS brought.
tie. Liveless, plaintiff's adder, Mr. Jury. innkeeper,
and Mr. &beim, attorney, were examined for the prose-
cution. Mr. Prideaux argued that the defendant having
given the ri otitis was liable in point of law, and be said
he was afraid that this affair looked eery much like a
juggle between the brothers. If the plaintiffs had
brought their action against William, the receipt by
Henry would have been lung in their face; and if
William r veined the money, why had he not account,d
for it?-11r. E.llin briefly addressed the jury contending
that tale evidence WSW in favour oft),. defendant, and
eharasterishig the action as &moat discreditable proceed •
ing on the part of the plaintiffs. He rolled Mr. Henry
Charlton, the deleudant, now the 'alp at of Memos.
Bobiroon and Cu., of Burteneupon-Trenr.— Mr. Edliu
then 'norms.' um—lle. Prides's% rallied noon the whole
OM& He said it was not denied that this money was
paid to the brothels. out it hail undoubtelly never been
paid over to the plaint:ffs, for if the brother had paid it
over lie would certainly have been called as a witness.
lie (the learned eimisell did not wish to iin2ntn any.
thug to the brother*, but they might have got into
peounialy difficulties and been in want of this money.
At RAY rate. the plaintiffs hart caused to ustdrust both
del, llama% and his brztber, and to think that between
them they were attempting to do the company out of •
SUM of money to which .hey ws re fairly entitled.—
Mr. Beekingham (in the absence of Mr. Edlie) protested
against the use of such language, observing that is the
COATIS of the trial nothing had transpired to allow that
there was eause for mistrusting either of the brothers.—
Tim Ceder Sheriff mid there we. the fact that this £2O
IVAo received by one of them. and not ;mid over to the
pluintiffa—Mr. Mclean: argued that there WS, ample
evidence to show that the defendant was the wrens who
was really responsible. —The Under-Sherie, in slimming
up, said if it was t:.e defeodant's ditty to have no:vivid
that many on behalf of the parry. then the I.4ct of
hie 'tan Soo by and allowing William to pat the money
his Pocket, would be no answer to the claim of the
company, and the less, if thin e were lice, would be his,
not the compano4. But if, on the other hand, the
defaming WAS not the petty to receive this money, the
state of things was entirely altered. The defendant
bed sworn distinctly that lie had no instructions toreceive
this moiety. that, on the *only/try, his brother brought
the accounts from Uridport anal nceived the money,
ami that he (the 41,fenderol ecodval no money on the
j iumer, but was merely introduced to the customers
Theis it moat b 4 remembered that the account was &fluid
one for goods 'applied during the time William was the
triseeller, and it wont) be a queation for the jury
whether William di I not go round to collect his out.
standing &cements, and to introduce the defendant as
the traveller in future.—The jury retired for • short
ticse and thee returned into court with • verdict for
Use defendant.
A LLVGED FLLONIOOS ASSArtT AT SALWAY ANIL
—Last Friday, Thomas Ilansford was charged before
W. llounoell and J. P. F. Goniiry, Ears., with in.
decently assaulting Sarah Watts on Thursday night,
the 6th September, between eight and nine o'4:Lek,
at &thrash Ash.—Mr. Manley for plaintiff, and Mr.
Day for defendant. —Sarah Watts, wife of William
Watts, labourer of Salway Ash, said that on Thurs-
day. September 6th, sh:i went to work reed drawing
for Mr. Mk She took her children in the morning
to her mother.indaw's about 200 yard/ from her
house. In the evening she went to • public4houre
for some ale for her 'nipper, and on her return met
lier aister-irrlaw, Elizabeth Elliott. They went into
her house, and stayed there about a quarter of an
Dour. Thon she went to fetch her children, and on
her way met Thomas Hansfunl, who caught her hold
and pushed her against the hank in tho road. She
told him he had better let her Alone for she WAS a
married woman, and if he did not she would
summons him. He said "I don't care, I'll kor p you
hero as 1 rig as I like." and he tried to lift her
clothes, which she lionever preys 'Act. lie kept her
there about quarter of an boor. She hear) Barnard
Hansford then say "Whet are you about Tom," and
the prisoner let her go. Crosivexamined : She was
at the New Inn that night about ten minutes only.
O. Rai sn mho little room, it was not locked. Five
other people were there. She thought it was gin
and beer she drank there. She did not know ho,
much she drank. There was note gallon had among
them all. She did not put her arm round his neck
and kiss him when she met him. She did not walk
with ham for 100 yards with her arm round his
neck. She did not tell his she was drunk, or had
been to the publiothouse. When she was with the
accused, Bernard Hanaford passed and said nothing.
The accused had insulted her before that. Afters
wards Bernard Hensford said "what are you about
Tom." Thomas Hansford prevented her answering
by putting his hand on her mouth. After prison, r
left her she went down the road towards Bridport to
fetch her children; she did not vi up the road.
Her husband came home about nine o'clock, and
did not quarrel with her and say she was drunk.
lie never had amused her of drunkenness.
She did not tell her husband of the
assault that night. She did not tell him till
the neat evening after he had accused her of being
caught with Torn, which Bernard Hansford had told
him of. Her husband was then very angry. He
did not threaten to kill her. She went down to
Thomas Hanaford's mother's house in company with
her husband, who asked to see Tom, and said he
should not put up with it, and if Tom did not come
to him he should summon him. She wouldn't swear ,
her husband did not say he should not have known it
if Bernard Handord had not told him. She did not
tell the accused the night of the assault not to say
anything, but told him she would summon him.
Her husband had never accused her of being with
other men. —Re-examined : She had about two
glades at the Inn.—Elisabeth Elliott, wife of Thomas
Elliot, sister-in-law of complainant, saw her on
Thursday week, about half-past eight in the evening,
near her house, and went to her house with her.
She was not the worm for liquor. Complainant did
not tell witness anything about the amanlt that night.
She told her the next evening. She believed °ow-
plainant and her husband (witness' brother) lived
happily together; she never heard the husband coin•
plain of his wife', going with other men or of drunken-
nem.—Crose-examined : The complainant did not
say anything to witnees that night of the Assault, or
the next morning. She did not tell witness of it till
the next evening, after her husband knew of
Mr. Day, having addressed the Booth for the defence,
called Bernard flansford, &thatcher, of Palway Ash,
who said be wee in the road leading f:om Bridport
to Broadwinsor on Thursday evening week, and
when about twelve yards from hie father's house be
saw a man and womant and spoke to them. They
were against his father • hedge, a very alight fence
hedge. Not seeing them move, he went round the
ether aide of the hedge, and said, "Tom, what are
you about." There was no noise or appemance of
any struggle while he was near them. They then
went up the road together in a contrary direction to
complainant's mother-in-law's house. The neat
morning witness spoke of this and said he knew Tom,
• usu.... ,
the complainant and her husband came to him about '
it.—Crose-eaamined : He did not know who the
woman was, so could not oay it was the complainant.
It elm ileuer eight than nine when he sew these
JimotiPe
ninuannafdatordth,eanhdedmglOth—erki oarifthlle ensfaccuior:ld,, wife of
said on :
Friday night last the complainant and her husband
came
aot hTeormh."7"hinwhwenasthaehocuotin teplainann ohstlook.askanfoer
thhusebadzdthmoirdbohethwhisouldwintootanstand
hderit.,on.
an—dThweoußsold Bench
dismiseed tbe case.