The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1861-07-30 00:00:00

Cass or Stoucrios.

.....
HIVED W. MUNCIETOY, 7111 YOOYOWL —Mr Kur
!eke, Q.C., with whom was Mr. W. M. Cooke, was for
the plaintiff. and Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., was for the
defence. This sae a cual t.f tier', but the feed
were netg no, 31r knit dn.& before the fury
ewe 'morn. (list the in .rtted ..eutotel on both sides had
spewl for aerlict for the plamtiff to be taken for
tt..t it.. i 'li iiifl left that court without the
alirliteet imputation on It r elt •rant. r. Mr. Coleridge
stat...l th 11.1 the c •-e 0.1 been .rmaged eecommg
to hi. itt4r ',Atone, lea alettitd tett have made the
alizlitestin
thee .wern. an t by the direst.. of the judge maimed
a 'nudist for the 'demi., I) in ore% £lOO.

NISI News COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron CH %mini.)
A Dinr.rrio BILL.
AA'. and orsorhrr. exvvotor4, v. Apies, executrix.—
Dr. Deo,. awl Yr Ei.rda were for the plaintiffs, and
11r. 114 lor the defend 44
44 me ye i.e for the recovery of MIX) On WI
•101.... e allogra o h.“.• hreau K wen by Plaintire
*sip. 1* no de oi. (.0 the father of the
tee dammed brother John's
' that th• NA* Vas not made by

br.ts..,

phastilt.
widow,

plieds4-Ist,

,r

tier husband, 2od, that there bad been no consideration
received for the note; and 3rd, that the money had
been paid.
Hairy Ayfes said that he was one of the executors
under his father's will. Mr. Henfield wee the other.
. . .

He drew the note in his father's presence, and his
brother John signed it—Crow-ermined : His father
died in 1859, and he administered to his will. The
personal property was sworn under C:3,000. No
mention was made about the £250 owing by John.
Had never spoken to any one about the L'2oo owing by
hiin till the day of his funeral, which took place in
March last. The bill was drawn on • paper containing
• 15s. stamp. His father produced it. John was •
very foolish man, but could not call him illiterate, as he
went to school several years. The money was bad to
stock his farm with. He went into the farm in 1851.
His brother Thomas was present when the bill was
signed. His brother John could write, but, he had no
specimen of his handwriting beside tte note in court.
John was always in debt, and always borrowing money.
The L'2oo was lent by his father at various times. He
lent him £lOO when he had his stock. His father could

not write, and witness kept all b No
interest bad been paid on the . Had never borrowed
any money of John. Believed that Thomas at one
time borrowed • trifle, but did not know how much.
John's marriage was not agreeable to the family. and
his father left his property to him and his brothers.
Thomas Ayles mid he was the goo of the late John
Aylm„ but was not one of the executors to his wilL
The bill of exchange produced was in his brother !
! Henry's hand writing —Cross-examined : Did not know
when his father bought the stamp. Was not present
at his brother John's marriage. Both be sad Henry
were opposed to the marriage. Never saw his brother
John write either before or since the signing of this
bill. Had borrowed £75 of his brother John; and
paid him back afterwards. Ha knew his brother had
borrowed this money at that time. Wither never
said anything to anyone about this note till after his
brother was dead—By the Judge: His father pve up
one farm to his brother John in 1851. His father :WU

had one farm, where be lived.
Thomas Horns, farmer, stated that he knew John
Ayles, the younger, and had seen him write many
times. The signature on the note was similar to his
writing.--Cromaxamined : Witness married John
Ayles's sister, who lived with her brother as his home-
keeper previous to her marriage. Witness was pertly
obliged to Rimy her—cerious things did sometimes
In the ' beet regulated families." (Laughter.)
happen not, however, repented his bargain, as she was the
best wife be ever had. (Renewed laughter.)
Mr. Cole then addressed the jury for the defendant.
He said the ease bore on the face of it great suspicion,
and remarked that the unhappy woman who was the
defendant bad buried her husband believing that he
owed scarcely a shilling; but her affectionate brother-
in-law, whilst at tea after the funeral, for the first time
prodooed the bill of exchange, in her husband's hand
writing, which had been in his poseuesion for more than
a year since his father's death.
her. James Walker Carden, vicar of West Shoed*,
said the deceased John Ayles was moot his parishioners.
He came into his perish about ten years ago. He was
present at his marriage. After the einem ; witness
found he could not write his name in the ter, and
witness accordingly wrote his name and gnid.l his hand
to sign his mark. He was an unusually illiterate man.
John Ayles was also present at the marriage of • friend,
and he made • mark then. Witness Wooded him
daring his illness. He never heard him read.—Cross-
examined : The deceased appeared to be • man addicted
to drink. His hand did not shake.
Robert Godwin, • farmer under Sir Henry Hoare,
said the deceased John Ayles was twice appointed over-
seer. He asked witness to do his writing for him in
the fulfilment of that °Mee, as he said he could not
write. Waimea signed his name many times as Ayles
said be could not. He did not believe he could write.—
Crossoxamined Deceased was not a healthy man. His
hand did not shake to prevent his writing.
John Mitchell, a farmer at West Know's, knew the
late John Ayles, and was appointed overseer with
him in 1859. Soon after their appointment it was neces-
sary to place a notice on the church doors. Ayke asked
him to sign the notice for him, as he never put pen or
pencil to paper. He was an extremely illiterate man,
sod witness did not believe he could write. He *ever
signed a document all the time he was in office. After
the funeral of John Ayles, Henry Ayke asked if he had
heard that he (Henry) held mote of John's for MOO.
He told him he never had. Henry then said he held
the note and he should have the money, and be should
arrange with the steward and put his brother Thomas
in the farm immediately.
John Bristow, a labourer, said be worked for John
Ayles, the elder. John Ayles, the younger, went to
school • little while, but was taken to work as • labour-
er's boy at 8 years of age, end wank with him to drive
the horses. Hs did not believe be could write, and be
could reed but very little. He took any delight in
It. He went to school himself, and could neither
read nor write. He believed that John Ayles. scholar-
ship and his own were pretty much of a muchness.
Thomas Gough, a farmer at West Bnowle, stated that
be was overseer with the demand, who told hint ho
could not write his name.
John Farley Butter, solicitor, stated that be made the
will of John Ayles, the younger. When be took it
home, he asked him if he could write his name, and he
said be could not.
Sabra Ayles, widow of the late John Ajles, jun., said
she was married to the deceased in 1857. Me never
knew her husband write or attempt to write. She kept
his money. He never kept any accounts. She never
heard of this bill nor of his owing any money to his
father till after his death. From their marriage till her
husband). death, Henry, the plaintiff, DAT*e semej,p the
She attended herrather-in.law's funeral; Henry
was there, but did not speak to her. After her hus-
band's funeral, Henry came to her house to tea, and
produced the bill of exchange, and said it was for /2200,
money paid for her husband by his father, 10 years ago.
—Cross-examined: Her husband had had £lOO or 8900
in the Mink. Henry told her his father stocked her
husband's feria for his fortune.
By permission of the Judge, John Glover was called
for the plaintiff. He stated that the deceased John
Ayles, inn., was with him at his father's whoa, where
he (deceased) wrote on a slate and in shook. Boys in
his father's school first wrote strokes, and by and by
wrote "a-n 4 and, and t-o to." (Laughter.) Witness
got his living by bill-sticking, but in an honest way.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Cole, in replying for the defence, said "the school-
master" was got still further "abroad," for the son of
the schoolmaster had been called, but could not tell
whether the deceased got from writing" pothooks to
hangers," and that the witness was as bad • "hanger
on" to his friend's case as be could possibly have, and
that it would be better for them that he had been left
out of court. He oontended that the balance of the evi-
dence was in his client's favour.
Dr. Deane replied for the elaintiff, and said that lithe
jury gave • verdict for the defendant, they would say
by their verdict that the whamss for the plaintiff bad
conspired together to commit a forgery, and had that
day committed perjury.
The jury, after retiring for about an hour. returned
into court, and found for the plaintiff for £3OO. The
Judge certified on condition that execution should not
be put in till next term.
0/11111011 AOCIDENT.

Tsang v. Kinsirt.—An action for the recovery of
damages sustained by the overturning of an omnibus at
Bridport. Mr. Kerslake, Q.C., with whom was Mr.
Kingdon, was for the *iota, and Mr. Collier, Q.C.,
with whom was'Mr. Cole. was for the defendant. Mr.
Kiogdon opened the pleadings, and Mr. Kerslake stated
the 'ma to the jury.
Thos. Trappe: lam plaintiff in tbia action, and reside at
Mile-end, and am a eommercial traveller. On the 28th
February I arrived at the Bridport Station, where I got
on the box seat of the omnibus. The inside was quite
full. There was no other outside passenger, but there
were two or three large packages. When the omnibus
started, Oliver. the driver was opining off the roof on to
the box seat. The reins were fastened to the rail of the
box seat. The horses were nearly out of the yard
before he bad the reins in his band. The railway
station was perhaps three quarters of a mile from the
town. As soon as Oliver had the reins in his hand he
drove off as fast he could, one or both horses were in
full gallop. H. continua at that pace till arriving at
the Seven Stars, in Barrack-street. There was a descent
in the road into Hut-street, where also there is • short
turning and • paved crating. On getting to the side of
the pavement the driver pulled the reins to give the
horses the direction. He then dropped the reins and
spoke to the horses, and he might have touched the
horses with his whip. The omnibus at once
swerved round with great force and the near
hind wheel broke. The omnibus turned over,
and he (witness) was thrown to the ground, his leg
being beneath the box, and was not extricated till the
omnibus was railed. The horses went away with the
forewheels of the carriage. Witness was • little stunned,
and was taken Into a shop, on leaving which, be, with
some persons' unidanoe, went to the Bull Hotel, where
Mr. Hay examined his left leg, and found that the small
bone was broken. He had to remain there 10 days in
bed. The proprietor of the omnibus, on returning home,
came up to his room to see him, and on ascertaining
from him how the accident happened, said he would go
down and discharge the driver. Witness asked him not
to diabetes the driver till he had ascertained the facts
of the case from others also. While he remained at the
hotel, he was waited on by the servants of the house.
While he was laid up, another person had to be empliyed
to attend to his employer's business. He remained a
Bridport till the 2nd April. When he left Ms. Knight
said he had no bill for him. From the 28th February
till the 2nd April, witness was unable to attend to his
dut7. Before he left for London, witness told Mr
Knight he would communicate to him when he got
home. He wrote on the 4th April, but received no
reply. He afterwards, on the 15th April, wrote
another letter. On the 10th May he resumed business,
but it took him 10 day days to do 5 days' work, and he
had to hire extra for cabs, de., to the amount of £lO the
first month, I:3 the second, and perhaps about 30s. the
third. He was allowed • fixed salary from his
employer, which continued while he was Ill;
and • guinea • day for travelling expenses.
This, of course, was discontinued while he was laid up.
Be was still obliged to walk with • disk. Before this
accident he was very active, and often walked 8,10, or
19 nines • day.—Cross-examined: While he was at de-
fendant's house he lived well and hod plenty of wine
and spirits. When his friend Game down, he was
charged nothing. Did not make any *harp till the
15th April. Had insured in the Accidental Insurance
Compady, and had received the amount from the
Insurance Company.
Mr. Kerslake objected to this question being asked,
sad the Judge said it formed no part of the ease.
His salary was £lBO • year. None of this had been
stopped. He might, perhaps, have saved something
like Is. or be. a day of his travelling expenses. Did not
state in his examination-in-thief that the hones were
going gently when the carriage swerved round.
Charlie P. Sherriff, of Bridart, said that he was
sent for by the plaintiff on the 118th Feburary alter the
"x"d•ni ha/paned. Was also present on the ftd Marsh
when Mr. Knight Bra went op to see the plaintiff. He
beard the conversation that placed, and defendant said
"I shall discharge the driver." Plaintiff replied,
"Don't do so from what I have said, until you have
made further inquiries." He beard afterwards be had
done so. He subsequently bead plaintiff ask defendant
if be had sent to Dr. Hay about the bill. Mr. Knight
said he had not—he understood the insurance office
would pay -that. When Dr. Hay was questioned about
the bill, plaintiff told him ha must refer him to Mr.
Knight for it. settlement. I;l=n7as said about Mr.
Knight's bill, nor about van

Dr: Hay said he attendedthe plaintiff :the small bone
of his leg was fractured. He had not sent in his
'oral, because on the 2nd April, us course of conver-
sation, Mr. Knight said he mast be referred to for the
marient—Elo 6s. 6d.
Mr. Collier then opened the use for the defence, and
called the defendant, who said he was the proprietor of
the Bull hotel. The 'bus bed been built about two
years when the accident took place. It was built by
fdymes. He did not limit him an pries, and it was •
good one, lie ordered Symms to attend to it, and to do
what was wanted without applying to him. A man
came every day to look at it. He never heard any
complaint about it. He was out of town when the
accident happened, and returned ou the 2nd March.
He then went up to the plaintiff and asked
him how Bic accident occurred. Plaintiff said
the driver was turning slowly round the corner
in High-street, and slackened the reins and
dropped the whip. Had ne recollection of saying he
would discharge Oliver. He afterwards was told Oliver
had also hurt his leg, and "Joe" was put on in his
plue. He did not see Oliver for a fortnight. Plaintiff
lived five weeks in his house—had what he nod local
and drink, and said nothing about compensation. When
he left he sent for him, and said he had referred Dr.
Hay to him.
John Spire, coach builder, remembered the 'bus in
question. The pries was no. The material and workman-
ship were good. The wheels ought to have worked 3
or 4 years- They had been rebonded once. All the
repairs required were made. The wheels were taken
off and oiled the day before the accident.
John Thomas gave corroborative evidence as to the
materials and workmanship of the 'bus.
Simeon Guppy who looked after the omnibus daily,
also spoke of the goodness of the oninibus.
W. Oliver said he had lriven the omnibus two years.
He denied that the omnibus started before he got on the
box. He went his usual our, six miles an hour, and
slackened on going into Barrack-street. He drove care-
fully, sod in turning the corner WWI not going more than
41 miles an hour. He was unable to continue driving
the 'bus.
W. H. Hooper. the conductor of the omnibus, bore
testimony to the careful manner Oliver drove on that
and all other occusions.
John Hazard and Alfred Philips, • butcher boy,
corroborated the evidence of Hooper. The driver took
• fair sweep round the 001116 f.
Mr. Collier, in replying on the use, said that the
plaintiff had been so confused in his ideas that he did
not know how properly to state his easo--having made
allegations which could not be sustained. His Lordship
however had decided that the case had resolved itself
into two broad questions—whether the carriage
was a proper one for the safe carrying of
passengers, and whether, if such were the case,
there was sufficient care exercised on the part of the
driver? Now with respect to the first question he
thought the evidence he had adduced was ample.
One of the witticisms called was the wheelwright who
was employed by the defendant to inspect the carriage
daily, and at any time he saw anything requiring doing
he was to do it. Why really, be was quite astonished,
when lie heard this, that so much care and attention
was bestowed upon carriages. He believed this was
very unusual, but it at least showed that the defendant
was more than ordinarily careful in the matter, and as
the wheelwright had to do the work when he saw any-
thing required to be done, the assumption was that,
all possible care and precaution wasused,and the carriage
was fit and proper for the carriage of passengers.
But besides this strong presumptive evidence, there
was the direct evidence that the carriage was
in a good and sound condition. Then, was the
driver negligent in his duty? Several witnesses bad
had been been called to show that it WWI not going at the
time faster than from between 4 and 5 miles an hoar, or
at the very utinuet extent, between 5 and 6 miles.
Surely this was not an extravagant speed for travelling.
How then were they to account for the accident Why
be considered that it was on* which sometimes occurred
without any assignable cause, and which, isot being
foreseen, could not be prevented. He denied, therefore,
under them circumstances, that defendant wu
or that plaintiff himself intended to mike a charge on
him till after lie had left his house. And this was the
gratitude. All the time he had lived at
defendant's house, lie bad lived comparatively in clover.
Mr. Knight charged nothing for hisfriend's living during
the time he stayed with hiuz, and, after all this kindlier,
plaintiff had turned round upon him and endeavoured
to mulct him in an expense which he believed the jury
by their verdict would say he was not entitled to.
Mr. Kerslake then addressed the jury for the plaintiff.
He said he was sorry Mr. Knight had instructed his
friend to set up the defence he had done, as he had at-
tempted to prove too much to entitle the evidence called
in his behalf to the credence of the jury. The very
fact that so much care and attention had been bestowed
upon the vehicle proved that it was not in the sound
condition it was represented to have been. While the
fact that thy defendant had kept his client while lie was
at his house and settled the doctor's bill, proved at once
that Mr. Knight did consider that he was fully respon-
sible for the injery that had occurred to the defendant.
The learned Judge then summed up,and the jury after
consulting together for about half-an-hour returned •
verdict for the defendant.

WEDNESDAy.
Before Mr. JUSTICe BILIS and &Special Jury.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF ILIARRIAOI.
AI ileerton v. Sriekland.—Mr. Collier and Mr. Cols,
instructed by Mr. Day, for plaintiff; Mr. Kerslake and
Mr. Stock, instructed by Mr. B. Fox, for defendant.
Plaintiff's caw was, that she and defendant were en-
gaged to be married; that a reasonable timeiliad elapsed,
and thet defendant lied failed to fulfil his part of the
°Detract, and refused to do so.
Defendant pleaded—lit, That there had been no
promise-2nd. That no such contract had been entered
into within six year'.
Mr. Cole stated the ease, and Mr. Collier addressed
the jury for the plaintiff.
Mrs. Milverton : lam mother of plaintiff. My hus-
band is alive. He has been a brewer, and was once in
• large way of business. He kept the Swan Inn, at
Beaminster. About 1840 or 1841 I knew the defendant.
He efts in the habit of coming to our house. I had •
daughter—the plaintiff. She is now about 38 or 40.
Defendant became acquainted with her. He often sat
with her in our private room. The attentions were those
of • lover. I knew him as a respectable man. He was
• faruier. He continued to visit my daughter up to
1046. In that year, the plaiutiff, my daughter, was
confined id a son. Thee did was sheen to defendant.
I put it to him that lie must support the child, and lie
gave money at different times. I have asked him when
he would fulfil his promises to man-v her. He said lie
should dos* when lie left A xkuoller Perm. He said he
should not like to live with • aister-iielaw himself, and
he supposed his brother James would not. I had con'
versation with him about the marriage, and hecontinued
to make the same statements. I said, if be would marry
her, she could remain with me For wine time. He made
no direct reply to this. He continued to visit her till
we left the Swan, about five years ago. In November,
1855, We went into • private bowie. Defendant still con-
tinued to visit her. Some young man wished to pay
attention to her 18or 20 years ago, but elm would have
nothing to do with him. We lived in a private house
next the Swan, on. or two years. During this time
I defendant was at Axknoller Farm. 1 know his writing.
The signature of the document now produoed is his. It
I was about Feburary, 1860, that he left Asknoller Farm.
He is • gentleman of good property. He has bought •
farm of his own. Ido not know its value.—Cross-
examined : My husband still brews in • small way at
Boaminster. My husband took the Swan Inn, I su?-
poise, 20 years ago. He was a blacksmith there, but
did not do much to hie trade. We got rid of the Swan
Hotel about 1855. We had • sale for the purpose of
paying a debt. Defendant gave plaintiff C2O in 1852.
My husband was • journeyman when I married him.
HO also carried OD • MAWS buMllO.l. We after-
wards kept an inn at Weymouth. We were there
about a year. We then took and bought the Swan at
Beaminster. We rebuilt the Swim, and went rather
beyond our means. Mr*. Sticklend end others lent
money on the property. The private house to which we
went was ours ; it was mortgaged, but we had the right
to hold it for three years. We are in receipt of pare,
ebial relief, and have been for a month or six weeks.
My daughter, the plaintiff, went into • shop when we
left the Swan. She is in it • etill. It is not her own
hones. She occupies pones fields. It was nine or ten
years ago defendant first said lie would marry my
daughter. I have wen hiiu write receipts
when I paid him interest. I have seen him
write ten or twelve times. I first saw the docu-
ment produced in 1859. My daughter showed it to me.
The body is in the handwriting of my daughter—the
plaintiff. I was iu the house where I now live when
she showed it to me. I know Richard Swatridge.
He called on my daughter about apprenticing the boy.
He said his father would pity L'2d, and deposit
£2O more with Mr. Peter Cos on account of the
apprenticeship. lie-exateined—There was a proposition
made which we refused. The reeeipt produced was de-
fendsnee.—By hie Lordship—We owed defendant money
some year*. Tee interest was not paid regularly, es we
were friends. I have eight or ten of defendant's
receipts. (Seven were produeed.—Promiee of defend-
ant's to marry plaintiff was 'cad by Clerk.)
Elise Dawe —1 was a servant and cherwoman for
plaintiffs father, when lie lived at the Swan, 15 or 16
years ago. I have wen the defeu,lant come to the Swan
scores of times. He came courting. They courted
very mush like other people. Sometime* Abe sat on
his knee. I cannot soy whether there was any kissing.
I heard IDDI imp lie would imarry her as soon as lie and
his brother parted. 711 1851 I got a supper for him, and
asked him when I should have the pleasure of getting
his wedding dinner. I heard him speak snout marrying
her up to 1855. 1 have wen him nurse 'dandle% child
when he and plaintiff were in the private room together.
—Cruise-examined: I worked at the Swan before the
child was born.
John Marsh —lam a hair-dresser at Beaminnter. I
have known both plaintiff mud defendant uiany years.
They appeared to be courting. I remember • NMI
named Bowilitch trying to take hold of plaintiff and kiss
her. Defendant was there, and he said he bad better
let her alum, orbs would knock him down, as she wail to
be his wife. I have sometimes joked defendant about
his courtship. Four or five years ago, I spoke to him
shoat her, I said I supposed it was time for him to
make his mind to heves wife, lie said he should not
marry till after he had dissolved partnership with his
blather. He should then marry the plaintiff. He seemed
very food of her. Cross-examined—l used the
Swan more than I ought. Defendant was there most
night& He used to sit in a back bar with plaintiff. I
never saw anybody but Bowditch try to kiss her. Re-
examined—After what I had seen I never tried to kiss
her. 1 took care of that.
E. Bowditch-1 am a farmer, and rent a small farm
at Coreconibe, of defendant. I pay 4.139 • year. The
farm contains 60 or 70 acres. The defendant left
Azkooller in 1860.—Croes-essmined—The brothers
lived together, 1 should think, 15 or 16 years. Ido not
know where the other brother went when they left.
Some other person is in the farm.
Hannah Maria Saunders--I lire at Brighton. Plain-
tiff is my sister. I left home about five years ago.
know the defendant. He visited at my father's boos.
as my sister's lover, ever since I can remember. We
looked on him as her future husband. When I left
home be said he should see me at his and Wilbelmina's
wedd44.--Cross-examined—My sister is 43 years of aye.
Mrs. Milverton (re-called)-1 should suppose de-
fendant ia about the same age as my daughter, bull am
not certain.
Mr. Kerslake then addressed the jury for the defence,
and called the following witnesses—
Sarah Bartlett: lam in the service at Mrs. Murray,
at Asb, near Marks*. Before than I was in the service

of the defendant at A xknoller. I know plaintiff. She
used to come to defendant's house. I behave she came
for money tor the boy. I have seen hint give her
money, and have carriei money myself. I do not re•
member carrying more than 25e. I heard conversations
between plaintiff and defendant. I have beard him say
many times he would not marry her. Sometimes she
made no answer. At other times, she said "1 do not
uk you to do an, do I." She used to talk to me. She
said he ought to do something for the boy. She said
nothing about his marrying her.
, Charles Legg :1 am shaker, at Beaminater. One day I
met plaintiff and her boy on the road to Bridport. She
asked if the boy could ride. I took both up. This
was sines Stiekland's ask. She referred to defendant's
marriage with Wes Bad, which was about to take
place. She said he ought to do something for the boy.
She also said she could never get hold of any writing
from him. Cross•exainined—Plaintiff began to speak
of the subject herself. I asked her if she bad any
writings or letters of defendant's.
George Stone—l am • labourer, at Beaminster. I
know plaintiff. She has a field near my house. She
came to my house sometime after Christmas tut. She
asked me if I bad heard whether defendant was about
to get married. I told her I had hued nothing about
it. She said she would show whether she had not •
claim on him. I asked her if she had any letter or
writing from him. She said " No, as he lives so near.
He generally sends, and does not write."
W. Kerslake having briefly replied on the evidence
far the defence, and Mr. Cole having replied, his
Lordship carefully summed up Vie c•se, and the jury
returned a verdict for plaintiff, £ls9.deinagee.