The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1866-08-21 00:00:00

BLANDFORD.

Clucirr. —On Tuesday hid a'atatah me played
b"•••ft •I•••• of lb. MaDdlord sad • like member of th•
?ignyerbe dui. Th. fouo-ing to. Keno by which
" yill be ma that th• Blaiadlord Osamu* bed Unit

oppooenta by 49 runs :—B/aadford—W. Trail], 34
Farquharson, 12; Morgan, ; H. Trail', 24; 8 Traill,
4; S. Blandtord, ; Castleman, 0; Hookey, II;
5 tkinaen, 1 Lintlaay. 3; bye., to., 15—total. 123.
Popper-me —Payne. 2; H. ftlan,forel. 1; M. Bury. ;
It.. J. M. Rory. 0; Rev. W. Bury. 10; fly. Barr,
27 ; It. Bury, 8; Matthews, 0; Hunt, 2; Mame!, 15;
L tne, 3; • ioee, t; —total, 74.

Core rr COURT, August 13. —Before E. Everett,
Esq.—There were 114 plaints entered beside eight
i judgment is ninon'''. or the former 32 came on
.1 r.r 11, ,•r I,uld c interrat awe the
"1"a :—.l. Ilatskinv r. J. Nun% Cisme
t; 13.. 1;1. for et eit l`r eatiage at Sp Eashuly
Mr. Atkinson app.w..l r the plaintiff awl ••sited
11..1 ell. nt It tli ro•tege in 1%51, at £6 Iler
yvar. Af rr the tio.t quarter she ago eed to lake ell
Inr..per w.ar on the toimlition that the defendant
kept the outer petunia.* in repair. Durant remained
in the Wiese from that time to Kbruary, 1866, but
lii client had given him notion pr.viously.— Klub
Ilau kin., that she let the cottage to
thu defendint in .Inne ard, when be entered into
She let it for £6 per year. Mr. Knight
at first tiel the rent, lint when she left the village
her sister. literah Pike, residing at sbapwick, received
11.—Sarah Pike said she received from time to time
in various sums rent from the defendant in behalf of
her sister, amounting to £l2 19.. Witness then
went ov.r the several Remo in her beolt, which
appeared to have been properly entered. —Defendant
said that the plaintiff came to his house during Ms I
absence and offered hie wife a cottage, and that she
Cu in the house • fortnight before he knew of it.
There were two written agreement, sent for him to
sign but be did not sign either of them. He
agreed to pay CB • year for the cottage. It IMO
out of repair. —Defendant here handed • statement
of the various amounts which he had paid by his
daughter to Mrs. Pike. Two of these entek.s bus
Hilmar particularly called attention to. One tor
£1 19.. 6mb. plaintiff said should only be for 19.. 6J.,
and another £1 IS.. plaintiff stated should only have
been Cl. On examining them it appeared
that the date and writing was in black iok,
and the figure's written over in blue ink.
and in the latter an erasure had been made.
Plaintiff's witness stated that she only wrote in
black ink, and never had blue in the bongo—Hos
Honour then said it only required but a little more
evidence, which, however, was not forthcoming, to
prove that not only perjury but forgery bad been
committed, and had that have been done he should
have sent the party from that court to Dorchester
jail to await hini trial at the assists. The evidence
on the part of the defence was utterly unworthy of
credit. Reckoning the rent at £5 10.. per year for
four years and • half amounted to £24 151., of which
£lB 15i. had been paid, and judgment would there-
fore be for £6 by 10.. instalments. —Edward
Clark r. James Burgess—Claim, £3 ss. 191—The
plaintiff is a owl merchant living at Rlandford, and
the defendant • farmer residing at Preston farm
The claim was for three tons of cal which plaintiff
stated had been entered in his books by the person
acting as his agent in 1861.—Robert Annoy, on be-
ing called, stated that he was plaintiff's agent in
1861. He knew nothing of the entries, thvy were
not in his handwriting, but h • believed they wets
n his daughter's. He could tell better about it if be
saw the day book. —His Honour adjourned the case
for the production of the day book.—Edward
Cable e. William Odd,. Claim. 121- fftl. for frodil
supplied to defendant'. wife before marriage.—His
Honour gave judgment at 4s. per month, remarking
that be did as because it was very hard upon a
husband to he called upon to pay debta which his
wife contracted before marriage, and of which he
knew nothing of. —The defendant's wife, who was
very violent, had to he removed from *met.
Wareham v. Rookw—This was an interpleader case.
Mr. Atkinson appeared for the claimant, and Mr.
Belly.e for the defendant. The facts of the cue
were as follows: At the Blandford county court on
the 12.. b March, the defendant Rook., obtained a
judgment for £l3 (to be paid by three instalments)
sgainst Thomas Richard Martin, a bricklayer of this
town, and on the 17,11 March Martin gave a bill of
sale to the plaintiff Wareham, for securing 1:50 tins
to him. Rook. allowed the matter to rest until
few days ago. when he pat an execution into Martin's
house, and Mr. Atkinson, on the part of Wareham,
immediately gave him notice of the bill of sale.
The high bailiff thereupon issued an interpleader
summons. Mr. Bellyse contended that the trans-
action was clearly fraudulent, and the bill of sale
consequently void, but hie Atkinson cited the meat
a Wood,, Dixie, and Darvill e. Terry, in both of
which it was decided by the judges that if the con-
sideration expreneed is the hill of sale was actually
paid, although, the bill of sale was entered into
with an intention of defrauding an execution
creditor, that would not make the deed void. Mr.
Bettye., iu reply to the Judge, disclaimed any intim-
tbe of imputing fraud to Wareham, and was not
predared to dispute the debt being due to him from
Martin. His Honour after hearing the arguments
on both odes, and going carefully into the cease
shove, ant oied, decided that the bill of sale was
good, aid .wordingly gave& verdict for the claimant
thereunder, at the same time animadverting very
strongly on the conduct of klartin in the transaction.