The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1883-03-27 00:00:00

AN EXTRAORDINARY LOCAL CASE.

In the Queen's Beach Divisiou of the High Court
of Justine, the case of Ro Igett v. Porker was com-
menced on Ttnueday and continued on friday and
Mooday, before Ur. Justice Dolman sod • special
jury,' sialw at Guildhall. The plaintiff. wins the
executor, of the late Mr. Miles Rodgett, • landed pro-
prietor and Jo-tine of the Peace for Dorset, and they
claimed certain books, Ic., connected with &flour mill
at Sandford. which they alleged the defendant had
managed as servant. The defences was that it had
been arranged that the defendant should be owner of
the mUI busineas, and that his family were turned out
In October, 1881, because his wife refused to anent to
an immoral airangement between Mr. Rodgett and her
daughter, a child of 15. The defendant also made a
counter-claim.

IlenTy- Matthews, Q.C., M. Fullerton, and
Mr. &firehouse appeared for tbe plaintiff.; Mr. Kemp,
Q.C., and Mr. Roes-Innes representing the defendant.
Mr. ffullarton, In opening the cme, stated that tbe
action was commenced In the name of Mr.

MU..

iTcliett.:l;idiCaTiTsoTleta7o2l7oB—;;;;; cuar.sotrt—he
esding.
hadbeen o-estinusit by his executors. Mr.
Cie had resided at Sandforvi, Mitcham, had been
a justice of the peace for Dorset, and had owned ono-
Adorable landed property in the county. For a num-
ber of years the defendant, Thomas Parker, was •
farm labourer in Mr. Rodgett's employ, receiving
104. per week wages, but he imbgequently became
foreman at 16e. per week, with a cottage at
Sandford. In 1878 Mr. Rodgett bought • dour
mill, two cottages, and some other property at
Organford, the mill being in • dilapidated condi-
tion. not having been worked for some years.
Finding it inconvenient to have the mill account
mixed up with the farm account, he opened • separate
account in respect of the mill at the National
Provincial Bank at Wareham, As Parker was not
good at keeping books, a Mr. Lance was engaged by
Mr. Rodgett to do that. This went on until October,
between when and the previous April Mr. It ,dgett
bad felt considerable dianatiefaction at the results of
the mill business. He discovered that instead of a
Profit there was • lose, and he went several times
and complained about it. He also found fault with
the state of the mill, and insisted on its being
cleaned. The next day to saw parker and askid
him for an explanation of his refusal to obey, orders,
I whereupon Parker said he would not go back to the
mill again, and hi gave the keys to Mr. Rodgett.
The latter then demanded the books, but Parker
declined to id,. them up. A day or two later, how-
ever, he thoill;:01::etter of it, and handed over
certain of the the ledger and the day-book,
but all the other book, he detained. He was asked to
band one the moneys he had received on account of
the sales from the mill,but that be refused to do. Alain
he thought better of it, and sent his wife with /NO
which he had in hand. Mr. Rodgett could not get the
ash-book, nor the amount of the outstanding accounts,
which were believed to be about £5OO, but which
he could not collect for want of the booing. Parker's
wife refused to give up the remaining books, and oon-
sequeotly said she had burnt them. Notwithstanding
this, a few days v f ter wards the petty ledger was
brought to Kr. Rodgett, though Douse leaves were
torn out of it. Beyond this there were other books
which had not been delivered up ; hence the prevent
action. Some time afterwards Parker made an extra-
ordinary claim against Mr. Bodgett. He Mimed that
he had esseed to be maw, as ooltl7 sa as Mk of

Marsh, 1881, and that tbe mill wee thee transferred '
to him st a Yalu Won of E 1,479; air he was to Per
Mr. Ro bort int-meet at the rote of 5 per cent. on the
amount of the vain di ; and that he was to under-
take the stock should not be deteriorated so as to
diminish Mr. Rodgett's eecurity. Parker had sire
erected On affidavit that this valuation was made for
Mr. Rodger and Mr. Lance. but Mr. Laos would
say that he had never made such • veluation, and that
be bed gimp'', taken down sane figures as they were
101 l him. The defendant ha 1 made • counter claim
for nearly £1 000 co accoaot of Mr. R sigett's sired
interferon°e w.th the borne... Beyond this it wee
sorrel that Mr. Ito 'gait hod :role improper over-
tone I, P srk o's wife as to d.b auchinr her daughter
--alrl lily 15 years of age—an I that on the mother
refusing her vnent they were turned out of the
milL
This on the face of it was a In it improbable story,
and Mr. Rodg It brought the action in order to regent
It. He (the learns I counsel) should await with
curiosity the evidence which the defendant might
produce in relation to that abominably., and he was
, °earn baseless, accusation.
A large number of +Knee'se were produced to stir
port the statement of the learned omens!.
Mr. Kemp, in addres.ing the jury for the defence.
sal 1 • strange aocuoition had been introduced let, the
MN. If tbe accusstion wa true it was disgraceful to
Mr. Rodgett ; if untrue, it was disgraceful that the
Parkers hal ever made it. Mr. Rodger had been
well known Dorset, and if this action had been brought
I. the county his neighbours would have known
whether there was any probability in the soonsation.
He, however, deliberately clime to London, where he
was unknown. That the er,tire car was an extra-
or 'nary one nobody c add deny. Oa-ker was in Mr.
P. 'doer's Kosice 14 yea g, and, beginning in shamble
p *Rion, he bal w oked hi. way op until he became •
trusts! servant.. Up to March, 1881, Parker was farm
bailiff and manager of the mill, but still he was •
O-react. He hod o anplained of Mr. Rodgett's inter-
ference and siren notice of Ai. int ntion to leave, and
notice would have expired .n Mash. Thereupon Mr.
Rodger offered to Ist him have the mill, the term.
Wog that he shot I pay £75 a year rent, teke
the rock at £1,472 15e. 51., and pay five
bpe,rreopenvt. otohethame
not. The ,took was
nic:ma position
.rtobe
•.1 less value than £1472, so that Kr. Rodgett's
security might not be endeogered. The agreement was
I. bare been reduced into writing, but that was not
el •ne, th .ugh through no fault of Parker's. This
oontinoe 1 until the following October, when Parker.
who bad preciously lived at Sandford, removed to the
mill ; end from that puled he never received • far
thing of wages f rout Mr. Rodger. Mr. Rodort
insured the mill, which was described lo the policy
as being "In the tenure of Thomas Parker," and
Mr. Ho lgett banded the policy to Parker. When
Parker writ to pay his rent in September Mr.
R olgett Intimated that be should raise the rent from
£75 to £l9O. Parker refined to pay the larger sum.
Matters remained in • state of tears for several
days. At length Mr. Rodger core and went
through the stock and f 'nod that its value had
been increased to £1,903 15e. 81. Mr. Rodger
than said that Parker would either have to pay the
extra rent or leave the mill, sot Putter stated that
be would it bre up if Mr. Rodgett would pay him the
increased value of the stock and the balance on the
books. Mr. Rodger agreed t. do this, and thereupon
Parker gave up the keys. Parker's wife, however,
declined to give up the books until she had received a
cheroots from Mr. It nicer. One day Parser went to
threat • solicitor, and during his abeam. Mr. Rodger
creel everything in the place, including the books, to
be seise', and ..f curse Pricer had no shernative but
to turn out. Indep !Ideally of the mill, Parker had
kept • gro cry business which belonged entirely to
hint, but Mr. Rodglot rimed the grocery stock, which
was of the value of £lOO. The whole of the things
were sold on the village green, and fetched • mere
nothing. Pura now made • ormoterodsim. Including
£231 55, which Mr. Rodger bad admitted was a cor-
rect account for goo Is that liscl been supplied to him'
,
£4Bl 101. Id. being the difference between the erne of
the rock when he rook it over and when he was
turned out; god £lOO, tbe value of the grocery busi-
er..
The defendant having given evidence,
Mrs. Parker, his wits, was called, and, on being
crors-examioed by Mr. Matthews, she stated that on
one merlon she took Ell from her husband to Mr.
Rodgett with reference to the mill. Mr. Rodger
offered to give her the money back, and asked her to
Isl him come to gee her sod her daughter whenever he
liked. She replied that her daughter was as dear to
her as his daughter was to her mother. He said be
would like her to have • bore end carry on • shop, or
do whatever she liksd, and if her husband would not
go with her well and good. Tnis took place outside
Mr. R gigett's house. Mr. Rodgett asked her not to
tell her husband, adding he had seen her clean the
butter churn out, and that be would like to do some-
thing for her.
Mr. Matthews: You understood him to mean that
you end you daughter were to be his mistresses?
Witness: Not his mirreeng. He wished us to be
in • plasm where he c odd come and see us whenever
be pleased. He meant me and my daughter to live
together, and receise his visits for impeoper purpose.
He had asked use about my daughter nefore. The child
was then at ecboo.. He said " You have wen my
confidence in Tom," my husband. "and I can do much
better for you." He acided—" I am going to re
Polly, and if she tells you anything keep it from her
father." I replied that! +rood' not trust my child with
him. and I nev-r sent her to school afterwards.
Do you call that malting °venter,e to you about
Polly ?—He made out thet he was going to see her.
I inferred that be wanted to make some friendship
with her. He said she was getting a clever girl
That was the first time he had said anything to me
that I object. d to about Poily.
Did you tell your husband that Mr. Roderett had
made overtures to you of • meet Indecent and
immoral nature concerning your daughter—• girt
only 15 years of age—and that he had requested you
to keep it secret from your husband I—Yes, I did
tell my husband. I was much horrified and die.
gusted, and I burst into tears. I did not tell the whole
story to my husband. I told nobody but Mrs.
Conway, who had been • mother to me.
How long was this before the dispute about the
Wilt—Only two daya.
Did your husband say one syllable to Mr. Rodgett
on the subject ? —Yee he hammered his fist down
and told him he was no gentleman; adding "I know
what this has turned up about, you bad old fellow.*
Mr. R gigett asked me to help him to get my husband
turned out of the mill without making it public.
After farther evidence had been taken, the Court
adjourned until Monday.
MONDAY.
After some further evidence, bad been produced on
behalf of the defendant, Mr. Kemp, addressing the
jury, contended that the testimony of Mrs. Parker
must he trustworthy, otherwise why did not the
pialotiffe bring the prevent action in Dorset? Kr.
Fullerton, on the other hand, celled upon the jury
not to believe • single word of that witness evidence,
but digressed it as unworthy of the slightest credence.
His Lordship proceeded to gum up the testimony, but
before be had concluded the Foreman interposi, and
said it would pert ape be unnecessary for has lordship
to further, a. the jury had made up their m
and were prepared to give a unanimous verdgo.
His Lordship: It strikes we, plethora, that the
ors has been so thoroughly thrashed out that you may
now be able to return a Wird/a.
The Foreman : The verdict is for the plaintiff.
His Lordship: You don't believe the defendant?
Toe Fon.man : No, my lord, not at all.
Hie Lordship: Nor do L
The Foreman: Our verdict will be for the return of
all the books and documents belonging to the plaintiff,
with £550 damages.
His Lordship: lie only asks for £IOO, so that the
amount had better be reduced to that.
The Foreman: The jury desire to say that they do
not believe a tittle of the defendant's evidence in this
oar.
Judgment was aclordingly entered for the plaintiff,
and hie lordship certified for • special jam.