The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1878-02-09 00:00:00

11„oca1 tuo gianct 'gays.

COUNTY COURT.

DTUERIDG v. MATHEWEL—At the County
Court, on Tuesday, before R. Kettle, Esq.,
judge, This was an action to recover the
sum of ..t4 10s id, for goods sold and
delivered. Mr, Collis appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Holberton defended.—Plain-
tiff proved that the defendant came to his shop
to purchase some goods. Defendant's wife paid
£5 and the sum now claimed was the balance.
The goods were purchased in 1875. When defend-
ant asked for the goods he said ityvas for a girl of
his. Defendant did not say it was goods for his
niece.—Jamcs Henry Detheridge, son of plaintiff,
proved that he was present at the time and
assisted in selling the goods. On cross-examina-
tion witness said that Mr. Mathews bought the
goods and paid £5 at the time and the other was
booked to the defendant. It was not defendant's
niece that bought the goods.—Joseph Hingley
proved that he delivered the goods in question
into an empty house at the request of Mr.
~lathews.—This being the ease defendant was
called and denied that he ever had a conversation
with plaintiff about the goods in question and he
knew nothing of the transaction until served
..rith a County Court summons. He believed a
niece of his had bought some goods off plaintiff
.)tit whatever business he had done with plaintiff
30 had always paid ready money.—Mrs. Mathews
xas called and said she went with her niece to
1,:ok out some goods. Sha, bought some and paid
•::75 for fden. The money was paid by her niece
and vism the money was paid Mr. Detheridge
...id she could have zuwe more goods on credit by
plying for them fortnightly. • She no,vcr pledged
tier bus mind's credit.—Eunna Newton proved
t bat she vr,mt on the 6th May, 1875, with the las
yitnces to pur,3hase some goods. She selected
Ili paid for th-,ni h,?rself. Sonia other goedn she
ou, had paid tor tilek.
...,Newtga, husbancl of the last wittageo, proved

hat he gave his wife Z 6 to purchase goods.—His
iilonour said the evidence was contradictory but
fortunately for him to decide upon was docu-
mentary evidence. The bill was sent out to de-
fendant which accorded with the evidence given.—
Verdict for plaintiff.
MOBBERLEY AND BAILEY V. FERGUSOIC.—This
was an action brought to recover the sum of ..C4
is 6d, for bricks sold and carriage paid to defend-
ant.—Mr. Perry appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr.
Collis defended.—Jarnes Underwood, clerk to
plaintiffs, said the goods were sent by railway to
the defendant's order, Victoria Docks. The claim
was for extra charges caused by the defendant
refusing to take the goods.—Jesse Millward,
boatman, proved that he took a boat of clay and
bricks to the defendant's, Victoria Docks. He
saw the defendant and his manager. Defendant
told him to bring the bricks to his yard and he
told him he had no conveyance to draw bricks and
he took them as near the defendant's yard as he
could. After waiting some days he was ordered
back.—The defence was that the goods should
have been delivered by land and not by water.—
Judgment deferred.
RUSSELL V. BREWER.—This was an action to re-
cover the sum of ..£2, for goods sold and delivered.
—Plaintiff proved the case and said the defendant
is a Sub-Inspector of Factories.—Verdict for
plaintiff.
THE CASE or " DEAVILLE V. HIPRISS."—The
above adjourned case came off on Tuesday. The
plaintiff, a grocer, of Round Oak, sued the defend-
ant, a forgeman, living at Cradley, for the specific
performance of an alleged contract, in which he
(plaintiff) said defendant had sold him a right of
road to some property at Round Oak.—His
Honour, after hearing some fresh evidence,
decided in favour of the plaintiff, defendant to
pay £lO, and £lO costs, in settlement of all
claims against hint.—Mr. Loxdale Warren (in-
structed by Mr. J. W. Clulow) appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Colmore was instructed by
Messrs. Hotufray and Holberton, Brierley Hill, for
the defence.