The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1863-12-01 00:00:00

LANGPORT COUNTY COURT.

Warissemar.—Before C. Saunders, Esq., judge.
There were about 60 cases and 2 judgment sum-
monses entered for hearing, but many of them were
of little or no importance to the public.
F. Tbyer r. W. Fear —A claim of £I3 3s. 6d.,
balance of an account due for a quantity of apples.
—Mr. Louch appeared for plaintiff Defendant lives
at Wolverhampton. His brother Francis purchased
a quantity of apples of plaintiff, and they were de-
livered at Langport Station, and consigned by
Francis to the defendant. After the apples were
delivered, defendant sent an acknowledgment of
their receipt, with £5 on account, saying that they
were the best apples he had ever purchased. This
letter was produced in Court. The apples were
ordered to be booked by the Great Western Rail-
way. Defendant also stated that he would call on
plaintiff in a week and pay for the apples, and also
wished to know the price of some cider. The letter
was answered by plaintiff, and defendant again re-
plied on the 11th of August. A long cross-examina-
tion then ensued between plaintiff and defendant,
and the latter, with all the skill imaginable, endea-
voured to prove that the contract laid between his
brother and the plaintiff, and that he had paid for
all the apples which be had purchased. Defendant,
however, contradicted himself in various points,
thereby making conclusive evidence that be bad had
the apples, but did not with to pay for them. He
said he had paid the £5 on his brother's account.—
His Honor rid that if he (defendant) was agent for
another, and that person did not appear, be was the
responsible party.—Judgment for plaintiff forth-
with.

Ostler e. Edmonds.—A claim of Cl se, due for
rent.—Plaintiff said that the rent was due for a plot
of ground, let to defendant at £1 per year, and
amount sued for was for • year and a quarter's rent.
The plot in question was incorporated with the Mid-
Somerset Labourer's Friend Society, in the rules of
which specified that the rent was to be paid
quarterly, in default of which the occupation would
be gone. The rent now claimed was due for the
period. from Michaelmas, 12561, to Christina., 1662.
The ground was entered upon at Lady-day, but in
the interim, between Christmas and Lady-day, plain-
tiff had taken possession, and therefore did not claim
up to the time from which the land was entered
upon.—Defendant said he had never had a copy of
the rules, and had always paid the rent half-yearly.
—Judgment for plaintiff.
Fouracre v. Sugar. —Claim Ga 21 due for lodging.
—Plaintiff said the defendant owed her 12t. for
lodging, out of which he had paid 4s. 11, and had
done some sawing for her, which amounted to
ls. 91—Defendant, an old man, and a cripple, said
he was not aware that be owed the money. On
being asked how much he could pay a-week he re-
plied 34., and on being told that he must pay 64. &-
week, he replied that he did not think that he should
be able to do, "may be he would be in the union
next week."—His Honor informed him that whilst
there he would be exempt from payment.
French t Jaime—This case was adjourned from
the last Court, and was a claim of 4:2 6s. 9d., balance
due for work done. —Defendant said that plaintiff
had not executed the whole of the work, and that
what he had done she had paid him for to the
amount of 15a—Plaintiff said the bill was originally
£.l 6s. Pd.; but he had received £2 in various in-
stalmenta, thereby reducing the amount to the
balance claimed.—Defendant said that no money
was owing, as plaintiff was always paid every even-
ing, and in many oases had borrowed money before
the work was done. He had also had • quantity of
potatoes. Plaintiff's book was produced, but there
appeared to be several discrepancies in the entries,
and defendant's evidence being very straight-
forward, His Honor said that it was a case in which
some of the amount had been concocted daring the
lifetime of • person who was now deed, and oonld
not be called as a witness, and in such oases it was
necessary to severely scrutinise the account' which
he had done, and had found them to be in • very
unsatisfactory state. He therefore gave judgment
for defendant.

Walton v. Parsons.—This action was brought to
recover possession of an orchard, at the yearly rent
of £l9. Plaintiff had given defendant a legal notice
to give up the property, but he had refused to do
so.—Defendant said he had received no notice of
plaintiff's claim to the property; but the latter said
that he was served with a doe notice in Wales.—
Defendant said that the tenantry did not expire
until Christmas ; hut plaintiff said that it commenoed
and ended at Michaelmas. Defendant seemed very
enthusiastic in his endeavours to assert his right,
and appeared to be very Shakespearian in his move-
ments and sentiments, ever and anon suiting the
action to the word with real dramatic ability. He
also occasionally made several sarcastic remarks on
plaintiff to endeavour to effect his purpoise.—Judg-
ment for plaintiff for poseeseion in a week, and
for eight quarters' rent.