The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-07-26 00:00:00

BROMS GROVE.

COUNTY COML.—IMPORTANT DECIsION AS TO COSTS.
I —On Monday, at the Appeal Court (before Mr. It.
Harrington, judge), Edword Broomfield sued Police.
sergeant Workinon for is tid, for damages for seizing
and detaining goods under a search warrant. Judg•
meet Was given for defendant, with costs to he taxed.
At the last Court, Mr. Houerimn applied, on behalf of
IVoikudan. for the Court to sign jadgment foe the amount
, of taxed coats as between attorney and client, inasmuch
I as tile Registrar was of opinion that, as the claim did
, not exceed 40s, he had no power to allow the costs as
I against the plaintiff. The statutes bearing upon the case
• being the I and 2 William, 4 c. 4, a 192 and 3 Victoria,
c 53, sB, 20 Victoria, cop. 2 ;'24 and 25 Vict., c. 95, e.
113; the 9 and 10 Victoria, cap. 59, s. 91, enacting
that the fees of neither barrister nor attorney can be
allowed on taxation of costs where less than I:5 is re-
covered or claimed; and the 19 and '2O Viet., c. 108, s.
36, that "where in any action the debt or damage
claimed shall not exceed £2O. an attorney shall not be
I entitled to recover from his client any further cost or
I charges in the conduct of such suit than those men.
tioned in the 91 sec, of the 9 and 10 Viet. cap. 99, unless
upon taxation of costs the Registrar be satisfied by
writing, under the hind of his client, that he has
agreed to pay farther Loots or charges, and in such
case the Registrar may allow any costs or charges not
exceeding the amount which may have been so agreed
to be paid." His Honour having taken time to consider
the different Acts bearing upon the case, said, as he
intimated at the last Court, he was now still of opinion
that he had power to order the costs ti be entered as
a judgment against the plaintiff in the cause Broom-
field v. Workman. This ens therefore done for the
amount, ft 13s Gd.
THE LAW as TO FENCES.—JOIIh Clarkson sued John
Humpurey for the sum of 10s, for damages done by
defendant's cow to plaintiff's garden crops. Both
parties reside at the Bubery, near Bromsgrove Lickey,
defendant occupying a field adjoining plaintiff's garlen.
Defendant's cows got through plaintiff'. fence into the
garden, and defendant contended that, as the fence was
defective, he was not liable for the damage. His
Houma said it was a great and geoeral mistake made
by moat people with respect to these kinds of cases. It
had been recently decided in the House of Lords that
a person put'ing his cattle of whatever kind into his
own fields wan bound to are that they were properly
fenced, and if his neighbour neglected to keep his fences
sufficiently secure to prevent cattle getting through, it
was his duty to make a fence of his own to prevent
damage, and unless he did this lie would be liable in
any case. A verdict was accordingly given for plaintiff
for is.

_
CLERICAL APPOIKTMENT.—The Rev. J. It. Wilson,
M.A., formerly as:adult-master at the Bromegrove
Grammar School, bas been presented by the Lord
Bishop of Worcester to the rectory of St. Helen,
Worcester.

ALLOWING A DANOVROUS Duo TO BR AT LARGE.—
At the Petty Seasions. on Tuesday, before Captain
Bourne and Mr. A. Ryland, Mr. Benjamin Roe Tandy,
of the Strand, Bromsgrove, was summoned under the
recent Act, by Superintendent Tyler, for allowing a
dog which was dangerous to be at large not under
proper control.—David Lewis, an old man, proved that
the dog in question bit him on the leg on the 26th of
June, and Alfred Fisher, Catshill, corroborated the
statement.—Ann Broomfield, of Bournheath, stated that
Mr. Tandy's dog bit her on the leg and thumb about
three months ago, and she told Mrs. Tandy of it, and
showed her the blood the dog had drawn at the time.—
The defence ,was that the dog is quite harmless, and
that he does not bite or bark unless threatened with a
stick. The Magistrates were satisfied that the dog is
dangerous, and made an order that it be kept under
proper control, or destroyed. If the order is not com-
plied with the owner of the dog will be liable to •
penalty of 20s for every day of Bach noncompliance.