The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1874-02-24 00:00:00

BIANDFORD.

brines/riga TO RAILWAY TaaVILLIall —At the
Oirenoester County Court, on Ttursday, helot' Mr.
Charles Sumner, Fidge,i Edwin Lawrence, journeyman
glover, of Blandford sued the Great Western Railway
Company (represented by Inspector Magee), for EA,
loss and ioj try resulting to him on • journey from
Cirencester to Chippeahsae. Mr. Bovir (Mailings,
Eilett, and (Ja.) appeared for plaintiff. It appeared
that on the 6th of January, In hat year, Mr. Lawrenoe
was a passenger by an afternoon train. At eireecatter
Station be gave a carpet bag into the care of one of
the Company's 'errant., and saw it labelled correctly
for Chippenham. When at Lemble Junction he again
notice.' his bag, and that it was properly tranefeerad.
At Swindon Station he stopped two hours and three
qaarters, but did not trouble about Ms bag, and OD
arriving at Chippeaham he found that it had not come
by tho same train, or cite it was taken on to Relate'.
He waited &Mot some hours, all to no moose, and
then went home by an express train instead of the
ordinary, as he intended. The bag cooutained curiae
apparel and articles of use, among which wag a valuable
pair of "clippers," without which he could not go on
working and earn his customary 6 61. or 7a. per day.
At the end of three days his employer, Mr. Watts,
found something for him to do, and he continuei at
that until the bag was returned, working and being out
of pookot every day bemuse he could not buy or
borrow another " clipper." When the bag came to
hand, on the 20th Jan., he found that an attempt had
been made to forme it ; then it was out op-to, some
things abstracted, and others—notably a gl tatir of
trousers—quite spoiled with dirt and grease. He was
then charged 2s. for the railway earring. of hie bag,
and that was paid, though it then bore the label as
pot upon it at Cirencester. Before its recovery, Mr.
Lawrenee had instructed his solicitor to oornmsnos an
aotion for compensation, Correspondenee followed
until the following March, when the matter dropped
till October last, when he, oming Into the net. hbour-
hood for holidays, revived the matter. Particulars of
the claim had been given, but not nettle few dart slnee
was the trousers mentioned or valued at .£l.—His
Honour gave judgment for the amount claimed.
COtlefT Coda?, tionday.—Before Judge Ledroy.
The following was the only hualotas that occupied the
attention of his Honour.

John Rowland v. Joshua Anat.—The defendant did not
acrarr.—The
ts.HtrithZ'atti.
bini.—Plabitiff saki he was only 12ycars of age and that he Wit
a aliAler on his own account, although he lived at home with
his father, who was also a denier. He sold the pigs to the
defendant two years ago.—The Judge having expressed surprise
that the plaintiff should be ftliing pip MI his own account
when only 17 years of age, the plaintiff said he had bought and
sold pigs over since he was about 12 years old.—The Under-
bailiff said defendant had written to him mid acknowledged
the debt, saying he was poor and could not pay very much at a
tin.. —llls Honour told the plaintiff that being an infant the
ivw was that he could not bring the action in his ORO name,
but the summons must he taken out in the name of his
guanlian —The case was therefore adjourned to see if any
agreement could be come to between the lank., failing which
• fresh summons would he taken out In plaiutilf's father's

, John Inkpen v. Jahn Beronsont..—ln this ease it will be ro-
be the plaintiff at the last court bniught an action tore.
enter
£1 ins. (money lent) from the defendant. Thu defendant
I then ideeded non-liability on the ground of his haying passed
th the WiLlikrUptCy Court since the debt was contracts...l,
' throui
Slid csae was Upon...a till today to unable the defendant
to obtain his order of discharge in bankruptcy front Mr. Tanner,
of Wisoborne, and produce it—The kegutrar now stated that
he had received • letter from Mr. TWllier sa3lng that be could
not get the order of the defendant's discharge in bankruptcy in
time for this court, and .akin that the sue 'night be ad-
journed to the next eourt stated that the claim wan
for money ho hail lent to tile defendant eight rears ago ehtm
be war in difilcultiot, and he prontiud to fet bini have his
barley, but when he wont for it he found it had la.en soh!.
The defendant prollliSed to pav him in full if it won init put in
the schedule at the thue of .bis bankruptcy. The defendant
had paid him mine money, and let him have a quarter of a bag
potatiu on nenutntlu 1870, which brought tbe debt down to
the amount claimed. —llls Honour said the defendant to-day
set up two defences. 1 inst that the debt WM Illore than
years' oil, and the answer to that was that he had fabl on
account by gAixis within that time ; and hirthm that I, was
duchanpsl iii Isnikraptey in tub'. lon .4 Ibis offeusi
no proof whatever. It WS, a hard case for the plaintiff and he
snoold not again adJouni the Law, hot ShOUld give Jed„•nuefit
I for the amount claimed. —The defendant Mended inability to
I pay, and at the suggmtion of his Honour the plaintiff agreed
I to take Judgment for instalments of 4s, a month.
John Hopkins v. .r. Dennis.— This was a claim brought at
the last court for the value of a pig, mid tine didendant's wife
then stated that she bad paid the money. The use was ad-
Jounied till to-day for the plaintiff to limbic, his book. The
summons stated that the phr was sold on the with beide/miser
1811, the plaintiff's book now showed it to have been sold on
the 24th Jane, as stated by the delmulant Honour, after
examining the h..he of the plaintiff and defendant, said there
was some //infusion in the plaintiff's accounts, and be was not
satisfied the money was owing—luting at both hooks it was
ulte leconeketent. His verdict therefore ere ler the