The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1866-10-16 00:00:00

P. DRCHESTER.

COVNTV COURT.- -lAA Tuesday, at this 00110 t,
K Everett, Esq., j adge, gave judgment in the nem
of Barnes v. Y.:era ey. The action was brotutht to
recover £303.. lid. damages sustained by reason of
dilapidations to • I rewbouse iii the Antelope Hotel
yard, for want oft apaira. The premises were held
under an &groomer it of lease for seven yews, at £l2
per year, paid hal,„-yearly. The landlord was to do
outside repairs, and the tenant what was required
inside, and yield up the premien' at the end of the
term in the same condition as he reanwed
them, allowing only fair wear and tear. In
law the covimants of the agreement were
natural and independent, and supposing the
defendant had allowed the premise' to become dilapi-
dated, be was liable for it. The question then was
whether any and what dilapidation bad arisen. Hu
Honour carefully went through the principal evidence
given, and said he thought plaintifl's witnesses
made cut that there was a great portion of the
premises which 'defendant had entered intol
an agreement to repair dilapidated at the time
of the expiration of the but year of his
tenancy. As to the flooring, touching which
the evidence was contradictory. his Honour decided
.that uooer the coolers there was not a floor of boards
and joists, but only of lath and plaster. The evidence
of Hichard Maher showed that the roof was very
bail, and the bearers underneath the coolers were
injured by old age and dry rot. The judge reviewed
the potticolsre ..f plaintiff's claim, and gave judg-
ment for £l3 3a. 2d. Mr. Andrews was forpliuutiff,
and Mr. Howard for defendant.—Hobert Chedd
s. William Walbridge. This was • claim of
£4 19.. Ild., balance of £35 19e. lid., for building
a cottage for defendant at Toller. Mr. Andrews for
defendant. It 'deemed that the front of the house
required to be stuccoed, and the roof to be
" pugged," when plaintiff left it. Evidence as to
the value of this was called, and • verdict
given for plaintiff for £3— Peter Parrett r.
Hobert and James Hawker. —The claim in this
awe was £3 19e. 3d., balance for hay had by
defendants, timber haulers, of Bearninster from
_ _

—•
farmer and the landlord of a
publicluuse at Cattistock. Mr. Weston for
plaintiff, and Mr. Andrews for defendants.—About
• year ago plaintiff nominated Robert and Henry
Hawker for the whole debt, and as they did not
appear he got • judgment, and James paid bim £6.
Two or three courts back the same portage were
summoned again for the balance, when James
Hawker was called to say it was he who was in
powers with Robert at the time the bay was bad, and
not Henry. This upset the action, and now those two
were summoned forth. balance,. 141320.1 came forward
and said that be and his brother agreed to pay the
money, and that he paid £6 as his share, hut his
brother asked fur time to pay the rest- —Verdict for
plaintiff forthwith. —Bankruptcy : Samuel Clerk.
watchmaker, High West-street, came up again for
his order of discharge, supported by Mr. Weston.--
His Honour asked if the bankrupt was now prepared
to make some offer fur setting apart something from
his future income for the benefit of his creditors.
Mr. Weston said he was not in a position to do so.
He had • 14 ife and seven children as well as himself
to support. aiol his two in-door apprentioss. —His
Honour suggested the last fact indicated • good
trade.—Mr. Weston said all his stock-in-trade and
working tools were sold, so that now bankrupt was
not in a gwoition to gain anything by the sale of
goods, malted nothing to subsist upon exeept what
he got by jobbing work. He went on to remark
that there was no opposition on the part of the
creditors; Mr. Rogers was the only person who
appeared against the bankrupt, and that was became
he wanted the boose to sub-let to Clerk, but
which the landlady bad now consented to let
to the bankrupt himself.—The Judge: A man must
d what is right to his creditors if he is not opposed;
se• the revonsibility in that matter which the 159tb
section of the Act throws upon the Coact.— Mr.
Weston said if Clerk had got any stook be might
make woos profit, hut he had not, and co alit only do
repairs. —ln answer to his Honour, br akrupt said
los rent wee £2B • year. —The Judge staid this was
one of • clam of oases of which seer. were a
great number; it attuned to be, bee. e
belief, without any remain w'ay, that men
▪ odd come to this Court, and without tigerise
go pay one sixpence to their c Is, end
got
free from their liabilities, and 'rt efresh. I, wes
a case where he thou/kit the could de
some:hing for his creditors if he .0011 lie (the
judge) had had a long time think of the moo,
and he bad given the liank,flipt every opportunity
of offerieg some instal.", ant But he had done
nothing, and the order r,f• the Court was that he
pi), into court £l6 a year until farther order',
payable quartaily by f. 4 insdalmetita.—Mr. Westos
called his Honor's atteoton to the case re Mows
Bates, in which it was laid down that the Court
had no power to reflise or- suspend an order of dis-
charge in any case, where the bankrupt was not
ehown ti be guilty of conduct amounting to • mis-
demeanour under the. Act of 1861. —His Honour
piloted out that the Act gave p.wer to grant a con-
ditional order. The, bankrupt would get his order
of discharge and to .newed protection from time to
aline, if lie kept tri., his payments every three months,
bet if he did not protection would mass He
is a man who seems determined to do nothing.
—Mr. Westo o said he would if It. could.
The Judge r emarked that he had not seen the
*lighten* we..ention of paying, but quite the
contrary—) Weston contended that under the Act
the order of discharge could not be refused, because
the beakr opts conduct had not exhibited anything
like mu demeanour under the Act —His Honour
said ha 'anew the law was correct as he had laid
duets, and directed the Registrar to carry out his
order ; the first payment of £4 to be made 25th
December next.