The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1881-02-12 00:00:00

anb Pistrict

COUNTY COURT.

YATES V. SAUNDEES.—At the County Court on
Taursday, before Sir R. Kettle, judge. This was
an action bron7,ht by Nathaniel Yates, rope manu-
f4cturer, Enville Street, Stourbriclge, against B. J•
Saunders, ironmonger,- High Street, Stourbrid ge to
recover a sum of money -,;;:for the hire of tents
and for damage done to the same. Mr. Nathan,
of Birmingham, Instructed by Mr. H. Collis, ap-
peared for the plaintiff and Mr. Waldron for the
defendant.—The learned counsel opened the case
at some length and called Mr, Yates (the plaintiff)
who said that he was a rope manufacturer and was
the owner of the tents which he lent out on hire
The two tents in question were to the value of £l5
when Mr. Sctundeis applied. It was Mr. Sa,unde.:s's
man that applied lie went to see Mr. Saunder,.
On the first occasion Mr. Saunders asked him what
size oil sheets he had got. He told him, and he re.
plied they were not large enough. He asked him
the size of the tents and he told him they .were 12
yards by 6 yards. He said he should want them
for three or four days to cover over some furniture.
He (witness) agreed to let him have them and they
went away from his place in charge of his man.
After they had been away for a fortnight he went to
Mr. Saunders an I asked him to send them back.
Mr. Saunders as:ced him what the hire would be and
he told him it would be 10s per week. Defendant
rlelied that he would see to them, and si?mil them
back. They did not send the sheets back. He
(witness) went and saw defendant again who made
a memarandrun in his presence, and said that they
shohld come back. Defendant had them six weeks
before he (witness) knew where they were. He then
weir to see Mr. Saunders who asked him what the
charge for the tents woull be and (witness) replied
that he had sooner have the hire money and the
tents returned. Defendant then told him that they
were at Stamber Mill at the viaduct and said that
he (witness) was to put the charge in and he would
put it before the gentlemen. He went next morn-
ing and saw one over a plank in the Stour with the
water running through it and it was very dirty.
He let him have the tents on the 2nd October, and
one of the tents was 'returned on the 20th,November
Mr. Waldron here said that he was not going to
contest that they had not had the sheets nor the
:ime they had them. They had had the sheet-, a,d
they were as they had always been, willing to pay
a proper and fair charge. Plaintiff, going on with
his evidence, said that he examined the tent that
was brought home and told Mr. Saunders that it
w,s no use, His wife also saw it. He dried the
tent by the request of defendant. The sale price
£l5, the actual costs would be about .Cl 3 to make
them. The length of the tents was 12 yards by 6
yards. He was in the habit of letiin, those two
t nts out for hire at pic-nic parties an ibflower shows
If he had known that (heyjaad been for coveting line
he should not have let Mr. Saunders have had them
By Mr, Waldron : The two tents were made in
1879, on his own premises. He did not send the
Sid-s, only the tops. The tents costs £6 lOs each
without the sides. He meant to swear that defend-
ant told him he wanted them to cover furniture.
Mr, J. Johnson, tent manufacturer, of Birmingham
said he had seen the tent produced. He should
wa. t £7 lOs. for the portiin of the tent produced.
It, s% as not any use to be used at flower shows and
such places now. In cross-examination, he de-
seri, 0 i the separate amounts, and said that there
was 80 yard of canvass £4. rope 10s. binding Ss.
and labour 16s. the rest he should have as profit.
He was not aware there was more than 70 yards in
the portion produced.—Mrs. Yates, wife of plaintiff,
said the tents were made in 1879 and had been la

out 7 cr 8 times before Mr. Saunders had them. It
would amount to about a month. Mr. Sanders' man
brought the tent back, and she told him it was no
use to them, and he was to take it back again.
They were in good condition when the defendant' s
man to3k them away. They were kept in a room
up stale, kept lot that purpose. By Mr. Waldron
:he should think Is. 61 a yard would be a reason-
able price for making the tent.—John Johnson
(recalled) said he had measured the tent end found
there were over 72 yards in it —Mr. Waldron : I
submit that plaintiff cannot have both the value of
the article, and the hire for the same.—His Honour
said he could very well suppose the state of facts,
that he would_be entitled to both.—Mr. Waldron

1 said he should be able to prove that they were old
ones when they came into the possession of defend-
ant, and that defendant did not say for what
purpose the tents were going to be used. He
should call Mr. Cialliman' who would make the
tent at is. 6d. per yard,—Mr. Yates (recalled)
said he went to Kellet and Bentley's works and saw
Lhe manager. One of the tents was locked up.—
His Honour: You have kept one in your pos3essi,
up to now, and you cannot dispute that yen are
not liable for the hire up till now. They are
entitled to what damage there is d no to them.
They improperly used them and they will have to
pay for that.—Mr. Saunders (the defendant) was
then called, and said that he hired the tents
from the plaintiff. Ile told plaintiff they
were being used for covering cement.
Lie could not say how long they had
been in Kellett and Bentley's possession when he
tcld them that. By Mr. Nathan: Plaintiff sent the
bill in for the hire and he handed it to the Company
suggested as the bill seemed too much they
had better buy the tents instead of paying for hire.
He
plaintiff how much he would take for
them
sas dhe said £l5, He did not offer him £ll.
I
r. d
Bhbs
tell, mining engineer, in the employ of
e Kellett and Bentley, said that one of the
andl
and
e ens .
t
sheets Wa3 covered over the piers and one was over
a quantity of lime. By the Judge: It was laid fiat
over the lime. We use it over the piers instead of
having tar-poling. His Honour said it was not a
proper use tor the teuts.—Mr. Gallinian was called
and gave evidence as to the value of the tents.—
The Judge: You are bound to pay the full hiring
money and the damage caused by your improper
use and your client could serve himself by making
an offer for the tents in the present htate. Mr.
Nathan : My client will let the defendant have
them as they were entirely useless to him, for £l.
Mr. \Valdron : We will have them.—His Honour
returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £l2 10s. Od.,
the sheets still to belong to the plaintiff. The
counsels f e was allowed.
WHITTAKER v. EvAxe.—This was an action
brought by Mr. Whittaker, farmer, near Cookley,
to recover the sum of 4100 for false implisonment,
from Mr. Evans, farm bailiff, in the employ of Mr.
Swindell.—Mr. Nathan, instructed b W. IL Collis,
appeared fot plaintiff and Mr. Stokes for the de-
fence.—His Honour after hearing the evidence said
that the case was not made out, and it was dis-
missed.

WOLLESCOTE SCHOOT., BOARD.— Ihe monthly
meeting of this B )ard, was hell at New House
Scho,l, Careless Green, on Wednesday the 9,h inst.
Mr. G.Hill (chaiim in) presided and there wete
pre-ent Messrs. Smith, Brooks, Heatlicock and
Perks. A letter was received from H. M. Inspector
naming the day he would visit the proposed site of
Schools. The Board decided to hold a special
meeting, to view tho, draft plan of schools, in order
that they may confer with him t egarding same.
CATHOLIC CHURCIL—In connecti.,n with this
plac,3 of worship, a grand r±union will be held in
the Victoria Hall, on Monday evening next, under
the patronage of Cardin.il Manning„ Ihe chair will
be taken by the Right Bon. Lord Denbigh. After
tea a miscellaneous concert will be held.
FATAL Etkaiwl,x' A ceIDEN-T.—A goods guard
named Truiter W s killed on the Stourbridgc exten-
sion line, near Cradley on Thursday, He was
coupling some trucks when he got crushed
between the buffers, and was so severely injured
that he died whilst beingiconveyed to the Guest
HoTital Dudley. Deceased, who was very much
respected, had been in the employ of the company
for 30 wars, loaves a widow and one child.
DiATSK AND DISORDERLY. —At the Police
Court, yesterday, before Col. Fletcher and C.
Cochrane, Esq., Jesse Reynolds and John Ed-
wards were charged with being drunk and dis
unlcay on the 22ad ult. Reynolds was fimd Os
and costs, but Edwards was di-charged.'---zsarah
raue, ate old offender, was fined lOs and cost.,,
or one iumtli tor a similar offence.—Benjatnin
Beech ,vas fined os including costs, for being drunk
au
lts tohtienLe
dy e. —ss
alnVai I
cl ioasuatsWooldridge
being
o for
(h!
utnh Lye,ke
ia was
dis
orderly at the Lye.
15 EAcH (IF THE PnAcE.—Edward Morley and
William Whittaker were charged with Committing
a breach of the peace by fighting on the 31st ult.
After heating tile evidence of William Smith the
case ,A ai adjourned for a week to hear further
evidence.

_
CUTTING AND WoUNDlNG.—Willilm Frederick
Law, landlord of the Vauxhall Inn, was charged
with unlawfully wounding John Gibbons, on the
28th ult. Mr. Wyndham prosecuted and Mr.
Waldron defended.—Complainant, who is a lairmrer
residing in Coventry Street, said he went to Law's
house about a quarter to seven o'clock and called
for a bottle of ginger beer, and was served by Mrs.
Law at the bar, ad paid for it. While drinking
t' e beer. Law a ii.rt if he had known that he was
the btate he was e is,,o,dd not have suppled kim
with it. He (witnes••) asked why and prisoner told
him to go out. He told him he should go when he
had drunk the beer. Prisoner said if he did not
go out he would throw him out. Prisoner came
to him and caught hold of him. Ho pushed him
away, paying he would not allow him to throw him
out because he was not drunk. Prisoner went out
of the place in a hurry and told his wife to fetch
a policeman. He told prisoner that he would go
if he would give him another bottle of gingerbeer,
or pay him 2d, as prisoner had thrown his: beer
away. lie the got up to go out. Prisoner Btoo4