The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-03-29 00:00:00

Xocal an pistritt getvs.

COUNTY COURT.

JURY CASE.— Lampert v. bi mpert.—At the
County Court, on Monday, before R. Kettle,
Esq., Judge, this was an action brought by
Benjamin Lampert, of Quarry Bank, to recover
two sums of nioney—A2o 16s Mi and £6—money
lent to the defendant, who is a son of plaintiff.
Mr. Hower appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Hum-
fray for defendant. Mr. Homer, in opening the
case, said the action was brought to recover two
sums of money—TA) Dis 6d, lent in December
of last year, and ..e6 lent in October. The issue
tor the jury would he whether the money was
lent, and the defendant biot received it, and
whether he had paid it back. Plaintiff had
b. en married three times. There were two
children ,by the first wife, and the defendant
, was the son of the second wife. Plaintiff lied
married two sisters which, not being legal, of
course the defendant was illegitimate in the eye
of the law. The £lO 16s nd the plaintiff had in
the Post Office Saving's Bank, and three small
mortgages, and other moneys Plaintiff had a
bit of a" miff "with his wife, and the defendant
said to his father " why don't you turn all over
to me, and get the money out of the Saving's
Bank, and I will take care of it." But defen-
dant did not then get what he wanted. He
afterwards went to Mr. Waldron, solicitor, to
make some deeds over to hint. Mt. Waldron
told him to bring the fold man ; but no, no ; de-
fendant would not do that. He then went to
another solicitor, who refused, and one day he
tfot the old men to go to Messrs. Homfray and
Holberton's office. At that time the old man
was very ill, and when at the Dolph had to have
some brandy and water, and when at Mr. How-
fray's office was so exhausted that he asked for
water. Plaintiff was asked to sign his name,
and the old man made his mark, and the defen-
dant had the deeds. Defendant then asked him
to take his money out of the Saving's Bank,
when he did so, and the defendant had it, and
the present action wee to recover thdt money.
lie should put the old man into the box, although
suffering from ill-health, and he would tell his
own tale, and he (Mr. Homer) should ask the
jury to give hint a verdict. Plaintiff deposed :
I live at Quarry Bank. and had £2O 12s Oil in
Chic Post Office Saving's Bank. I drew it out
two or three days before I signed souie deeds.
\Vas at my son's house. James teok hold of
nie by the arm, took the money off me, and ran
up stairs with it. I asked him for some money,
and be gave lac 255. I had previously lent
him .t. 6 when in aMt of trouble. I have never
hut any money back. Shortly after I was
married the last time, I had a bit of a " miff"
with my wife, as all do at Buns. I asked my
son James several times for the money back.
He said that he would keep it for me until I got
well. I signed the deeds on the 4th December,
and lent the money about three days before. I
asked him again for the money,when he laughed
at me, and said " come to-morrow." I told him
I wanted to buy sonic food, and he told toe that
25s would last me a long time. £25 is now
owing to um. Cross-examined : I have had
some words with my wife she never hurt we
and threatened me. Ido recollect you and Dr.
Dixon coming to my house, but did not sign
anything. All I wanted was to have my mort-
gage deeds. I did lend my son £6. He was in
a bit of trouble at the time. Have never re-
ceived the sum of Al 10s, or other sum from
him. Mr. Ilomfray addressed the jury for the
defence, and admitted that defendant had £2O
12s 61 but not the £6 and that defendant had
paid all tile money back to the plaintiff in sums
from £1 lOs and smaller sums, and the last
item was ; hut denied ever having the .E 6 of
ptaintiff. Several witnesses were called. Betsy
Dunn proved that she was in defendant's house
on two occasions and saw him pay plaintiff ..t1
I.os and ..tl. Defendant's wife swore that, the
whole oh the money had been paid back to the
plaittiff; also the defendant himself. His
lionour then went careful through the evidence,
and remarked Wait the paper produced in Court
in which the defendant said he had written
down the various items paid back, and sworn to
by the defendant as having been entered at the
time the sums were paid, would probably assist
them in coming to a conclusion as to the value
of the evidence for the defence. Taking into
consideration the evidence given, if they found
that the items were written at one and the same
time they would judge of the other evidence,
and find tur the plaintiff. If they found that
the writing had been done at the different times,
the money was said to have been paid back then
they would find for the defendant. The jury
were locked up for more than two hours. As
they could not agree they were discharged.