The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1865-03-28 00:00:00

rijoir for
tfie lan4
I roily,"
osrlsfsdir

SHAFT&SBITRY.

COUNTY COURT, Monday.—Before E. Everett, Esq.—
There were 94 plaints entered, but the majority of the
oases were settled out of Court, and the remainder
were mostly undefended. The following are the only
cases of interest :—Mattliees v. Hooper.—Mr. Chitty
appeared for plaintiff, and stated that the claim was
£3, but she had agreed to accept 305., laud an order was
made for payment in three inatalrnents—Fdett v.
Kendall —Mr. Atkinson appeared for defendant. —Claim
£l4 Is. 2d., for three querters' tuition, bawd, &0., of
defendant's daughter.—The defendant claimed a set-off,
of which notion had not been given.—Mr. Fifett said :
I keep a school at Fienstridge. On the 4th or 6th of
April last defendant milled at my house, and wished to
place a child at my school. Nothing was said about
terms except an to dancing, which I told him NM el Is.
per quarter, but I ultimately agreed to teach his
daughter for 10s. 64. I furnished him with
a card stating terms. The child came to my school
about a week after, but went to her uncle's to sleep for
• week or two. She took her dinner and tea with us.
She stayed till the Midsummer holidays, and I delivered
my amount to defendant. Tbe girl again returned, and
stayed till the 29th of September, which made the I
second quarter. She went home, and returned and
stayed till nearly Christmas, being three quarters. I
sent my bill to defendant at Christmas, and threatened
to sue him if it was not paid. Just before Christmas I ,
received a letter from defendant, requesting me to send
the child to her uncle's, which I did, and agreeing to
pay what was due up to Christmas but refusing to pay
for the six weeks in the first quarter, during which the
child was not at my schoot. Cross-examined by Mr.
Atkinson: Nothing was said about charging pounds
instead of guineas. I am not in the habit of taking
pupils after a quarter ham begun, Rnd charging for part
of a quarter, unless under a special arrangement. There
was no agreement as to charging for tea.—John
Rendall said : I agreed with plaintiff to give £l6 per
year instead of £l6 16s. He agreed to take 10a. per
quarter for teschlag my daughter denotes. She told
me that she had not learnt dancing the second quarter.
I made no agreement ibout tea.—The different Items
of defendant's eel-off amounting to £6 la. 8 I. were then
gone through.—Ellen Etty said : I am • school-miatreas
and bad the entire management of plaintiff's school for
more than three years. She was In the habit of taking
pupils in the middle of a quarter, and charging for part
of a quarter.—After • long investigation of the case,
and • careful summing up of the feat., bin Honor
allowed the defendant LI 184. 64. for his net-off, and
deducted £1 Is. from plaintiff's claim, being his charge for
tea supplied to defendant's daughter which IL, Honor said
was included in the board, which left £lO Is. 6d. due to
the plaintiff, and for which a verdict was entered to be
paid in two instalmenta—Hopkins v. Miller.—Mr.
Chitty appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Atkinson for
defendant.—The plaintiff claimed £2 24. 81. for work
done.—Henry Hopkins. the plaintiff, said : I com-
menced working for defendant at a resit-house at
Shaftesbury, and afterwards at. Bourton. The de-
fendant sent me and Abaoloin Foot to commence digging
the foundations of some cottages.—Easinined by 'Mr.
Atkinson : I know James Brickell. lie paid me 2s. Bd.
a-day for six or eight weeks, but he did not hire me.
I wan not working for Brickell, but for defendant, who
told inn what to do. I had been working for the de-
. ..

Ferida—n-t all the summer, and be paid me: I wax never
employed by Brickell. I believe defendant had let the
job to Brickell. asked defendant for my wages before
Brickell went away.—Absolom Foot stid that he was
Rent by Mr. Miller to Bourton to dig out the founds.
tions of some cottages with Hopkins. Brickell paid
him a part of his wages, and Miller paid him a part.—
The defendant raid that the Plaintiff ceased to work

or him on the 24th of September last ; that he let the
brick work at Bourton to James Brickell, and bad dis-
charged the plaintiff Hopkins a week previously, and
had never paid him any money sinee.—His Honor cam-
froented on the fact of the plaintiff being paid by
Briekell, and not by defendant, and gave a verdict for
defendant. —Fray v. Alford.—Thin CASA was referred
at she last Court to Mr. Coombe, of Tisbury, who now
returned bin award in favour of defendant, without
costs, each party to pay half the arbitrators' costs.—
Moore v Beatable. —This ICU • judgment summons
against defendant, which was adjourned till next Court
day, to enable defendant to pay part of the debt.