The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1883-07-31 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.

The until monthly sitting of this Court was held
in the Town Hail on Monday, before Mr. Serjeaat
Tindal-Atkineon, judge.
There were 87 original plaints, but the greater pm.
lion were either disposed of by the Registrar before
his Honour's arrival or were settled out of c Aut. The
following came on for hearing.
W. H. Hsulinen, shoe manufacturer, Blandford, v.
A. E. Friend, hunteman, late of Biandford.—Claim for
boots supplied. —Order made for 14 days, warrant not
to is us if paid in two instalments.
W. H. itartiman v. Eden Crew, domestic servant.
—Order made for 14 days, not to issue on payment of
three instalments,
111 Reed v. William Parrett, of Shapwick.—Def end.
ant had sent in ss. to Court that morning, ad his
Honour gave defendant • chance of paying more, or
order of commitment to be made.
Thomas Hairie Pimperne, v, William Bailey,
Taunton.—Defendant sent • letter pleading illus.' as
inability to pay.—Order made for 14 days; order not
to is-ue if 4.. monthly be paid.
Edgar B. Smitn, tailor and woollen draper, Bland.
ford, v. James Wells, fellinonger, of Biandford.—
Claim s 2 2.. for vest and trousers supplied.—Mr.
Brennand for plaintiff, and Mr. A kinsou defended.—
This claim origina,ed from an order given plaintiff to
supply a suit of clothes at £4 4s. After sending the
cult to defendant a dispute arose about the c rat
fitting, and if the whole could legally be thrown rn
hand by reason of this our error.—The plaiatiff
.101:oeed that on the sth of May defendant ordered •
salt of clothes, all black, euperfine cloth c at and
waistcoat, and a thicker black cloth for trousere—the
price to be £4 15s. It was sent home on the 19th of
May ; on the following day the coat was brought back
by defendant, who was accompanied by his wife. His
...natant tiok it in then. The coat woe aln-red sod
again sent home. It was again returned, plsintiff taking
it then, and saw it fitted on, when it rt quired a little
alteration in the collar. It was sent home a third
time, and returned, and defendant fitted it on, and
declined having it, saying he must have another coat
made, as that did not fit. the waistcoat and trousers
were kept from the 19th at May to 5.6 of June, when
the defendant brougut them back, declini g t • have
them—Cra.-examined : The trousers and vest were
returned subsequent to the acouunt being sent.—ite-
examined : I refused to ace pt the returned goods,
end defendant's wife flung them on the fi or, so he had
p ~session of them sti.l.—Fred Butler, assietant to Mr.
Smith, depoeed defendant and his wife brought back
the coat, saying it did not fit. Defendant fitted on
the coat, and he saw the collar did not ht. Wells'
wife raid they would keep the trousers and eel, as
that fitted very well—For the defence, Mr. Atkinson
urged the plea that in ordering • suit of clothes the
contract was not fulfided by the oost not fitting, and
he was entitled to returri the trousers.—tlis Honour
lied by law this was admissible, as, for instance, a
builder coutrscting to build • house and not potting
$0 a roof, wad not completing the contract ; so in this
care the contract was for the suit of clothes, at Et 155.,
and be will not certain the agreement could be divided.
Still, his Honour argued that in equity he could not
see why defendant shoul I not keep the trousers and
emit, as he had admitted they fitted very wail—James
Wells, defendant, &potted he agreed for • suit of
clothes of Mr. Smith, at £4 15s. The coat did not tit,
, and he returned it himself; the collar was too large.
It we, then altered, and again returned ; that time
I Mr. Smith's son said if it was altered 40 times it wou lii
never tit.—Cross-eramined : His wife went with him
when he was meaauted.—By his Honour: She was
! not present at Mr. Smith's when he made any coni-
plaints. His wife took it back herself.—Rose Well
j wife of James Wells, said she took back the vest and
trousers to Mr. Smith. She denied saying to the
assistant Abe would keep them. She did say the
trousers and vest fitted very well. His Honour, ia
giving judgment. said • person could dem .nd • per-
fect fit it he made a contract—certainly equity was in
favour of plaintiff, but law in favour of defendant, and
entered a nonomit
_ . . .

___..__ _
Wllbam Small, Tarrant Monkton, v. William
Herlock, brickl..yer's labourer, ,d Bournemouth.
Claim 9s. 63- for grocery goods supplied.—Order made
for payment.
Ro'ert Mintern (the late), baker, v. James Hoot,
labourer, of Blandford. Claim £3 141. for bread and
goods supplied. Mr. Brennaud for plaintiff's widow.
—liefendiuit's wife appeared and denied the debt,
averring all she owed was 145. His Honour considered
the claim honest, but pointed out how shopkeepers in
this district allowed poor folks to get into debt so
deeply and so ensure their custom. Verdict for plain-
tiff. at Is. per month.
Erecutore of the late H. Blandford, v. Thomas
Kiagsbury, postman, Blandford.—Claim £1 17.. for
3 sacks ..f oats delivered.—Defendant's wife appeared,
and denied owing for one sack of oata, 12s. She had
Paid El 50. into Court.—Willlam White, and Henri
Sedler (clerk), gave evidence, and a verdict was
entered for plaintiff for the amount claimed.
. . . _

An amide:Atka oa behalf of Mr. Henry Thorne, of
Sturminster Newton, was Marie by Mr. Atkinson for a
new trial in the ca.. of Pavdiur sad Co., drapers, T.
Henry Thorne, trio i at the last Court before a jury.
for • new trial, on the ground that the verdict was
against the weight of eridenoe.—His Honour refused
the application.