The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1859-04-12 00:00:00

WAREHAM.

It is a truly gratifying fact to state that the ex-
ertions of the several gentlemen who have taken upon
themselves to gather subscriptions for the man and
boy who were for so many hours buried in the (lay
Pita, at Fekrzebrook, have been highly successful.
The number of workers at the Pits in the laudable
attempt to release the sufferers will reach nearly one
hundred—great part of the amount subscribed will
lueapportione.l to these men. The concluding request
in our last week.B report to the philantrophic at a
distance from us, has been responded to most feel-
ingly by a gentleman in the eastern part of the
county, who has sent .Cri to Mr. Cast, and by
another gentleman of the Isle of Portland, who has
sent £2, one for the man and boy, and the other for
the workers. But the most striking trait has come
from the pupils of the " Trafalgar House School,
Winchester," who, upon having the report read,
voluntarily subscribed to the amount of twelve
shillings, which has been received in postage stamps.

COITT COURT, April Bth.--( Before Edward Everett,
q.' Judge.)—About 50 plaints were enten.4l.—ln 28
of the,e, the claims were settled and paid, after sum-
mons issued, and before the Court day, and in several of
tie cases, judgment was entered up by consent without
the appearance of parties.—Those heard by the Judge
were very ordinary cases (except two or three) and judg-
ment given for plaintiffs.
Snrkland v. Iluvsoon.--Adjourned from last court,
claim CIO Ils. balance of account for money lent. Mr.
Dickinson for plaintiff, Mr. Phippard for defendant.
TI is occupied a considerable time. In support of the
claim plaintiff himself only, and for the defence three
witnesses were called. The evidence given on both aides
complicated the matter so much that it was further ad-
journed till nexteourt, on the 10th June, for further evi-
dence.
Phippard v. Afreeh.—An action for recovery of lands
at Carey. The case of the plaintiff was that he had let
the premises to defendant for a year, only ending 25th of
March last, and that his tenancy was now ended. On
the part of defendant it was alleged that, although the
letting was in the first place only for one year certain,
the plaintiff had in October last agreed that lie should
continue another year, and had said be should hold him
answerable for another year's rent. After hearing the
evidence of plaintiff himself, who conducted his own
ease, as to the letting, also that of defendant and his
witnesses, the Judge carefully recapitulated the contra•
ilictory evidence given, and concluded by deciding that
the defendant was entitled to hold the land for another
year, and that the plaint must be dismissed with costs.
In the course of his judgment lie dwelt also upon the
fact that in case of a yearly letting the law always
favours the presumption of the letting extending over
two years instead of terminating at the end of one year,
particularly as regards agricultural tenancies.
Stirlfas,/ v. Phippard.—This was a case of a judg-
ment --defendant ordered to be committed for
24 days to Dorchester gaol fur disobedience of order of
Court. .

WARRIIA3I AI) PITHBECK UNlON.—There has
been the unusual circumstance of a contest hero for
tbe guardianship of Lady St. Mary. Messrs. Gar.
land and Nlinty, proposed by Mr. (limn ri
and Nle•sirs. Yearsly and E. Clarke, proposed
,by
Mr. Itarfoot and Mr. Yeanlly, being the candidates ;
but we understand Messrs. Garland and Minty have
been elected by a very large majority.