The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1874-07-21 00:00:00

WEYMOUTH COUNTY COURT.

Hartanti.-lielor• Mr. T. E. P. Lefroydudge.
all v. Daffess.-Chim for el Oa. . legal expenses. -
appeared for Mr. fiteggall. and said that defendant
defendant You are requ red to give at least
' notice In writing to the Registrar. You eannot
.g till I eso give the proper
lIJI off to soother heart, •
s
tutider:e.uteer.....,,/::_pll,edd
pre of the Statue of Umit.Uons to-day. -Defendant:
Judge No, I 1.01
• defence as this mainet the merits ; but I will hear what you
have to my. -Mr. F. C. Sewall sell: I am • solicitor practising
In Weymouth. Some time ago Mr. Dallas retained me to
defend him in • case against /kraal. I brought it to an tame.
to
.lbeidefan:n't:i'e:mitrny.wedtoLeb'it,ofi:;l.4hinbl!:i:'.;:Th:Jingoludige.l2.o„:d"blit":""dygno:artgiliuuviMl:atti4.th'htoL3B6.laugitercialbilic°;ll.6k:Ailunse....7ll r°ff.is'nflichndhawl:;icscerveted-end..l:l4.dbi;:ry iimelliwb:l4lverelyyy:
tood
buthedelangegoutbpti.trosi-..e,rwTh:trreuljduab!
gw Andrew,tor triir
rl.ooAkudovrecri, uUthi'tetoisilassEgaglagralkiutid""tdit,tearrird:r}iseeeh4t:wbuYeh'i'eu'.::Thetrhlie.thl'olmejiwgudhltag::::
I ion not the primer judge of such • bill,
In apeppeaDo ):...u2seehetpu, WrnAluallhathot:torutisibe.hel:lX:seinl,n6Liicea:Thdiloidheef.h.priLeudihmerelluipalei:cf dbet,h:..yirytif
for 11. -Defendant. • 1 gave Mr. Steggall OP to pay the whole
thing, and 1 undenriood it was .ettled years ago.-Mr. Stmorall.
I had street deal of trouble to get him to go to arbitration at
all, at last 1 suceeded.-The Judge: As a matter of form, as
you dispute the charges, and Mr. Stall consents to It, Mr.
.vAen7..i.„.7.thlrelousr.rimkounverr;thferthill:hl:,
tar.%
pliaayr.pwelit.thimpfaelteren.
juddg.lln.eitw::
I shall not allow you to plead the &mute of Limitations,
bemuse I think tlle &dishonourable defence, except in certain
rases. -Defendant : I would not do • dub able transaction
myself--The Judge: Although the law allows • man to plead
the Statute of limitations yet whore the debt is honest and
jult, I never will encourage the idea. -Mr. Andrews, registrar,
here came hi, and the Judge said: This man disputes the
correct:leer of the charges, and what I propose, and Mr.
Steggall eonsonu to, is that you should look over the charges,
and see If they are evirrort. - Mr. Andrews afterwards returned,
and said he did not think that tek Oa. 31. was at all too much. -
Verdict for plaintiff.
Sieggall and Haver Y. Dathis.--ebilm for CS)?. 51.- Mr.
Hooper mid this was a owe in which Mr. Sewall and himself
claimed of Mr. Dallas for legal expenses In a peUtion suit,
which was dismissed against defendant. The following morn-
ing defendant wrote • letter, authorising them to take no
bother nem but to rend in their bill of meta. That had leen
rent, and they had sine. received • letter in which defendant
stated that ga It would In, sufficient nets. The petition suit
was by Mrs. Pothewary against Mr. Dallas for division of some
property, the assignment of corns warn delivered on the =lel
February, but since that thne they had hean.l nothing from
defendant except the letter which said that the charge could
not be more than one guinea.---The Judge If • t 0.,, goes to
law, he must lay the proper clurges. If you employ an
attorney, whether you sumood or not, it matter, not, you must
pay the charges which the law allows.- -Defendant : 1 say It
was the other party who ought to pay him and me-Mr.
Hooper: I do not know anything about the party-The
Judge, to defendant: You think that where • man appeers,
mid Is unsumenful at law, the successful party ought to pay
his mate- Defendant I say the charges are unfair, Guarneri 1
merely employed him to emne hero that day,- The Judge:
The actual business done in eourt is not "tie-fifth or one-tetith
of the trouble incurred. Defendant mid he warn sued ea the
owner of property, and he Neared to prove that be was not
the owner. -The Judge mid if • man waa sued as owner of pro-
perty, all he had to d 0 was to confess that he was not the
owner, and toat, appear It was. etrange way for • man wish-
ing to move he WY not the owner to Instruct an attorney to
Mend a case.- -Mr. Hooper explained that defendant stated he
anis not the Imner ; but his Honour would not grant his wets
because of the say In which he set up the ownership of his
son. -The Judge said that it was idle for defendant to set up
such • defence-Mu Registrar, who had mumbled Meaux
/Haggai] and Ithaper's bill, mated that in it warn weep at a
guinea where 30. might have been charged, *lid al er it
was a fair mid proper Pith --Verdict for Maletiffs.- r. Hooper
asked for costs; there really had then' no defence. and he had
been put to the trouble of turtling there, and Mr. Steggall also,
to pro. hie delay-The Judge granted costa. -Mr. Howard
mua he had hem mixed up in this matter, and advice had lawn
given to 11r. Dallas, In ordor to save the expense of the court,
with respect to the piece of land sought to be divided. Rut the
only result was that he was putting everybody to expense. he
Was tint most outrageous thing., and womequenLW he (Mr.
Hos ) was compelled to let the matter go on In order to
bring him to his knee. Mr. VI Madge had been called in, and
Mr, Norman, hut defendant would not agree; here was a pine
of land with three 01.14. building Mod, and defendant wanted
the best pen of it, and to let the other parties have the rest, or
lONA valuable part- -Defendant: I only want what everybody
In Portland want& I will go and pay this amount Into Mr.
I=Srl's ofSee. -Mr. Hooper : linter pay it Into Cann.-
ri'irlarm was told he must pay Into Mr. Andrews's office.--
The Judge: I hope you will have nothing more here for your own sake. -Defendant then left the court,
and and • wiser man. -Mr. Hooper said Mr. seigr
was the first cage in which he had to recover from • client,
after a mactioe of 42 years.
Larrii v. Brown.-Thks was another specimen of the
expense sometimes Ming on persistent suitors. -Mr. Marsh for
plaintiff, Mr. Howard for defendant. -It was an application for anew trial. --Mr. Marsh (in robes) asked His Honour to gist
him special leave to move for • DOW trial, on amount of pt.
Inconvenience mond by the Great Western Railway miming
teem nwire, whereby he had been prevented from arrising
quarter pest :In 111dlaseld noC:Alarrinvedaytill. atir~ime tob'Poatt!....kithe4
Judge said the difficulty he noeind mos %A Mu Margit we.
not se much raking for a new trial, as asking the Judge to
overrule himself ellen MIA of law.-*. !inward kintesthl
that leis Honour Ito& power to grant such an application. -
not only then notice of application for
repoSaq%o mein, of appal-no Judo, You carr
not do 'hen did you 10 •*, ways a appeLl Mr . Marsh:
In due tinge, your lion. or, I awns here to ask for leave to hays, a new trial, or to give 1110 61110 to appem, and I in‘e
notice of the latter, within ten days. I may say I took counsel's
oilinion, and I waited almost to the last day I wrote to Mr.
!toward and alto tq the Ratistrair, asklng tram.. to „mee
that letter instead of a more formal notice of appeal. but
I complied with the terms of the Act. I now ask for a few
trial because It would be mch • saving of time to ti•s tvaraos:
humming I went to the Superior Court, and the) scud dorm
the cue, treat deal of time would be taker would be
saved i(anew trial were granted at onctL. yadoe ; gut
cannot give myself juriehicon *a by wind. I
cannot grant a new trial ler aa It were mthdirection ISV
myself on a print of Mk. Pdadtity If My Hoirwril xuntwitaid
to a new trill,•l"mftlit. Mr. Ilolvard : 1)001.47 not your
Homer. The more one looks at this Ma, Ihe more sine is
romitwed that kik law as Mid dorm 47 your Honour is right.
If 1 paj el tit settlement of an amount of .ClO, the acceptance
01 the Money by swatter ;laity may not be bending ; but
where I send • negotiable Instrument, and the plaintiff obtains
other advantages, the Incidentals will make the acceptance
good-Mr.
Marsh pointed out that the receipt given by
plaintiff stated that the payment warn unequal to the demand.
The Judge : The cheque having been tendered Itt full,
and having been retained, I take it thero Was ita acceptance of the amount. Mr. Marsh has no reetemy
but an appeal. -Mr. Howard contended that the judge
had no purermo grant medal leave In this ease, beemom
the ease cone under a certain section OM). -Mr. Marsh re
that his raison for asking for • new trial was to save expense
to the panne -The judge : You must wee that I have
If I had made • mistake, I have no power to reviewer,.
-Mr Marsh then asked for leave to appre! - 'll4
being Eti, the judge mid he required ne lietaie.M. all; he hail nal
right to appeal. Mr. Marsh: Then isa use have no mistake Mr
Howard, you understand 6 shall appeal-Mr. llovraid ; *
moment to nothing I Pot it to Mr. Marsh that the dal t I
cannot move hand or foot. Ile ought within 10 da* 6nn to have given notice of appeal, but to have onlY
entered ir •
securities for meta Ile quoted authripues to eh
securities and notice, unless waived, must be gwthe,,tllo t. days. Mr. Marsh's not having done is cowas a t w deerne „4-
could not be curu The
d. moment HI. Mr-maws
given the question of appeal or not was ounmietely
hands,
melthe party wishing It had power to e
ee and securities nowt Go give.,takif within 10 day Tellthe
knew -
from exjrecrienue, having just lies.,lies.,through ale "hat The Ju : Mr. MD,* you an began, at er t-a,t I -
afraid. the apWlant thils to give secant,
not bear It.- Mr. Marsh asked the judge Use Court al,c, f ftmeL7--
then wootsi
' MUSh him to
wii.g,:dedileak7nw.d.l,ll.f.„-iith::::;:gruiryti...jou6dgmaah.::eh:tra tinsentiuonehidi:sidt..;
Impose upon us Unduly of inmriegyht.' trYine to
I was
been able to pmve to your llOston
bane .„_.7rrno e mould nen
law. -Mr. llowapj f tyi you were Wrote; let
moque,. would No, (I t° 11(Wv that all Mn Marsh%
law you had down in ult., 'dared your that the
case was otsv4•l than right. I
must now apply for the cceta of t' rfa'O In this
We have had • ma& dem of ,
this case only, -.Hie je re'" and I stayed for
tate.rwe granted the cost; of the day.
Water Curap‘aw • •
t• Miller. W, Page proved tthe debt.
enduitit,ll:347co: wbepa.y
,ll..ll.:74llo6rthwwlat/ru.thand halft„
audln autvl-4.;
; akr Coinpany V. W. B. pia4,-34.- ,itaiattuatts fonli-
mouth

Acuir.
MR Mope. angled tor lam to letio a J t SUM/aolail
Ota of district spinet Dr. Hate& Hs antans the

ease ; but ble Honoues &dike °mkt only be eedereed by
applying for a Judgment =moos month after month—Lem.
was granted.

JUDGIIII2I7 scraossm.
Yarns Huard V. Jots CArsppell.—The wife appeare.j. sad
mid she could not before, as her husband bade bad foot. .
She had three orders against her of to. a month, Mid aye
children at home, of whom the eldest earned ad. a week--Sha
to promise to pay up her orders, and on thls under-
standing the cue was adjourned, the Jlt instalment to ha
paid in a w set.
Wilford end Itersolde. Gloucester, v. Senior. —Struck out,
mind,* scent afterwards appeared, haring travelled (rum
Olouoester. He wu too late.
Maria &sant v. Kidiani —OA had been laid.
—Adjourned

BOURNICI3OIITR.
A match between the Ringwood cricket club anil eleven
of Bournemouth odds and ends was played on tho Dean
Park cricket ground on Tuewlay last, rmultinic in the latter
sustaining a ' shabby defeat.," being beaten by ono
innings and 43 runs.

I
Ar the ordinary sitting of the County Court OR
Wednesday, before Judge Lefroy, a verdict fur LI and
costa, was entered against Williams Bailey of Bournemouth
for neglecting to comply with the bye-lass of the Bonne-
mouth Improvement Commissioners, the plaintiff
depositing p4as or giving notice of his intention to erect
a house in Bournemouth, before doing *). —The defendant
did not appear. Mr. Druitt for the plaintiff. These pro-
ceedings were taken in consequence of the numerous
infrrigementa of the law, and disregard of warnings
front the Ikurd.—Law v. Frooke. This was an action by
the plaintiff, who is a fanner, to recover (ruin the deten-
dent ,Elg odd, the balance of a imsyment due to him by
the purchase of a horse. The &fence was that the horse
was unsound and that it was a breach of warranty. Time
plaintiff totally denied having given a wamuity and it
was proved that the defendant went to the plaintiff and
almost insisted upon buying the horse being at the time
in grout want of one—us !humour gave a verdict for the
defendant with touts—Piper v. Thorne. This was an
action brutish to recover cosuperisation ilamaaes caused by
the plaintiff and his trap through the negligence of the
plaintiff's wife. The plaintiff claimed at first pa but the
claim was amended to klil) to bring IL within the jurisdic-
tion of the court. Thu evidence on both Nides was
voluminous and the case lasted over zte hours. —llia Ihmour
gave a verdict for the