The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1880-01-24 00:00:00

*out itith (.4glotrut 40.1a5.

COUNTY COURT.

PARDOE tt. DAVIS.— At the County Court, on
Monday, before R. Kettle, Esq., (judge). This was
an action in which Jeremiah Pardoe, nail manu-
facturer, sought to recover the sum of .£2 14s. fid.
from the plaintiff Edward Davis, who is a cab
proprietor and shoeiug smith, carrying on business
at Shrewsbury. Mr. Perry, of Sturbridge, appeared
for plaintiff and Mr. Edwar..l3, of Shrewsbury,
for the defendant. Mr. Perry, in opening the case,
stated that the amount claimed was for goods which
the defendant had received while in partnership
with a Mr. Jones. They were then carrying i.n the
work in the names of Jones and Davis. Jones had
since died and they now sought to recover the
amount from the defendant who is the surviving
partner. Jeremiah Pardoe (the plaintiff), said he
was a nail manufacturer, and on the 13th of March
last he received an order from Messrs. Jones and
Davis, shoeing smiths, of Shrewsbury for some
nails. The order was handed to the judge. Plain•
tiff sent the goods by rail and also sent an invoice.
On the sth April last he received the invoice book,
which was cut in two and also a letter with it. He
had received orders from the same firm before and
the present defendant had paid for tliem. Cross-ex-
amined : 'Those orders he had produced were the
previ:-,us transactions and were signed by E. Davii.
He had seen defendant on several occasions about
this account who said he was not sure whether he
had received the goods or not. Defendant did not
tell him that Jones had no authority to order the
goods. He thought defendant had told him that
Jones was only a servant of his, and received
weekly wages. Edward Jones, a servant in the I
employ of the Great Western Railway proved
delivering the goods. Mr. Edwards, far the
defence, contended that the goods were the sole
property of Jone?.. His client denied ever havi ig
received the goods. The goods were placed in
Mr. Jones's premises and have never been applied
for the business of Davis and Jones whatever.
The defendant was then sworn and said that the
man Jones was in his employ and received weekly
wages. There was no partnership whatever. He
had never received the goods. Cross-examined :
There wds a sign over the door bearing the names
of Jones and Davis, shoeing smiths. His Honour
gave a verdict for the plaintiff.
INsuLL V. GOIOE. —This was an action in which
the complainant, Samuel Instill, auctioneer of
Brierley Hill, sought to recover the sum of .212
from the defendant, William Goice, of Brierley
Hill. Mr. Homfray (of Brierley Hill), appeared
for the complainant and Mr. Homer of (Brierley
Hill) for the defendant. Mr. Homer reminded his
Honour that the case was adjourned from last
court day to allow the production of the books. His
Honour remarked that the goods upon which the
charge rested where brought by defendant to be
sold by auction by the plaintiff. The sale was
made up partly of some goods which were the
aubject of the case. A. Mr. Wood claimed the goods
and therefore they were not sold. A. witness wis
called for the plaintiff who said he was at the Inn
at the time defendant bought the goods. Defend-
ant had a receipt in his own name. Defendant
was then examined and he had been acting as his
clerk. He heard there were some goods tJ bc sold
and went and looked at them. He took an account
of them. He i% eat to Mr. Insuli and told him
there were some gc ols to be disposed of and that
they were without money. Mr. Instill advanced
the money and he bought the goods. The next
morning he showed him the goods and he said he
thought there was a "bit" in it. He did not take
anything away. Cross-examined: It had been 12
years since he had any trans tctions wi h plaintiff
before. At the time he bought the furniture a
man named Baker was by He had received money
from plaintiff several times and had re-paid him.
He did not mention Mr. Than% and got the money.
He did not know whether plaintiff harl. the receipt.
or no:. His Honour remarked that defendant was
acting as plaintiff's agent and in some way or
other had through carelessness thrown £l2 away
belonging to plaintiff. He thought plaintiff ought
to have some of it returned; but he should have to
return a verdict for the defendant in this case.
BILLINOHADS v. COLL—This was a case in which
Jessie Billingham sought to recover a certain sum
of money from the defendant William Cole for a
losa he had sustained by in purchasing houses from
him. • Mr. Homfray appeared for plantiff. De-
fendant did not appear. The plaint'ff was sworn
and said that defendant represented himself is the
owner of four copy-right homes and asked him to
buy them. He bought them from defendant for
the sum of £3O. Plaintiff held the houses for
twelve months and then rs-sold them to a man
named Pearson. When he had sold the houses
Cole re-entered and he was obliged to return the
money and now sued for the amount Defendant
was still in posession of the property and he was
unable to get the money. His Honour gave a
verdict for plaintiff.

Vicroara HALL AND Rusrx.—This place of amuse-
ment was attended by a large audience on Tuesday
night, when there were two races on the roi ler skates
for valuable medals, the first event, one mile race
(26 laps) was won by F. Folkes in smin. 22-J, sec. J.
Armshaw being second in smin. 25sec. The half mile
race was won by J. Armshaw. On Wednesday
evening ti.ere was a figure pkating conte4 for a
silver medal which was awarded to Fred Perry who
skated very gracefully. This was followed by a half
mile rac ,1 for boys under 11, for a silver meill which
w a won by H. Dutton. The floor is in beJu.
ful condition and continues to attract a number of
visi'oi s.

-lOURBRIDGE AND KIDDERMrNSTER BANKING
COMPANY.--The directors of this company have
resolved to dec'are a divid-nd of 10s. and a bonus
of 104. per s!.are (together per share), or at the
rate of 20 per cent. per annum, free of income-tax,
payable on and after the 2n.1 -17 bruary.
Smoot, BOARD CoNr..sr.—Tuesday was th-e last
day for the withdrawal of nominations, but only
two were withdrawn. These are Messrs. Preece
and Roskell. There are fifteen candidates left in,
and a rather sharp canvass is being made in the
town on their behalf.

CHARGE OF DRUNKENNTCSEL—At the Police Court,
held yeat-rday. befo!o Lord Lyttelton, C. P, Noel,
iq.N rid J. B. Co hrane, Charles Harris was eliargd
wit., being dm/14 in the highway at Oldswinford,
on the 17th inst. Police constable Eaves proved the
case. Pleaded guilty. Fined 26 Gil and costs; in
d.•fault 7 days

DRUNK AND DISORDERLY.—MichaeI MeCirty was
d with being drunk and diaorderly ia High
&Teat, on the 17th in 4 Police-consttible CroBB
Y:OTed tallOgie• Qd4bPlO* gigltio Lad fad