The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-10-11 00:00:00

'DC

plaintiff about it. I then drew up an advertisement
and took it to the plaintiff himself. The house did
not let for some time. In April 1868 I went to Old-
bury with the plaintiff, but never for the ramose of
letting the business. Saw Mr. Nock several times
with the plaintiff. ,The letting of the business was
not mentioned on any other occasion. Went to see
him as a friend. Was on friendly terms with the
plaintiff. Nock had taken to the "Parrott Arms,"
so he did not want a house. Recollect Jackson aud
his wife coming over from Birmingham about the
house, but they had not sufficient money to take to
it, as he (Jackson) was in difficulties. I never went
to Birmingham with the plaintiff about letting the
house. Never made any arrangements with the
pW • Aff to go to Oldbury, Birmingham, or anywhere
else to let the house, but have been to those places
many times for pleasure. I aid order the plaintiff to
advertise The Bell. In December 1865 I wits at
Kidderminster, and met Mr. Hawkins, who told me
that he had got a sale in the town, and that there was
a capital carriage to sell, and suggested that we
bought it jointly, as he thought a good thing could
be made out of it. The carriage was knocked down
to me for £7. I paid plaintiff £3 105 my share of it,
and it was afterwards arranged to raffle it for £2O.
At the time of the sale there was a row, and I
thought plaintiff would have been knocked off his
" perch " The carriage was sent for from Kidder-
minster, and it cost me one ponnd. Plaintill did not
offer me a half-crown as his share of the Coats; nei-
ther did I show him an entry of 5s in my book. It
is unite false what he has said abont it. When the
carriage was fetched from Mr. Hawkins's it:was taken
to a colliery, and I afterwards sent it to the Bell, and
it has been there ever since.

George Griffiths, landlord of the Bell Hotel, said:
I took the house on the 27th April, 1872. Saw the
plaintiff previous to taking the Bell, and he said that
he had the letting of the Bell, and asked me if I was
going to it. I said, " Very likely." He asked me
about the valuation. I told him that I did nut know
that I wanted it valued ; if I did, I told him I had
a friend at Wolverhampton. Did not take the house
of plaintiff; but from the landlord, Mr. Holeroft.
Did not see the house advertised before taking it.
_ .

John Bent, auctioneer, Dudley, said: If a person
came to me who had a public-house to let, I should
at once advertise it; but if the house was not let I
should not charge anything for what I had done, but
only for the costs out of pocket for advertising. It
is not usual to charge unless the house is let, and
then we expect to get the valuation, which pays us.
I was one of the valuers at the Bell, ond charged
£lO for the valuation and the contract, which was at
the rate of 21 per cent.
Samuel Insult, auctioneer, gave similar evidence,
and said he was one of Um valuers at the Bell. His
charge was Lti per cent., which came to £lO. When
is person came to him who had a public-house to let,
he advertised it according to instructions, and charged
for the advertisements. But, if the house was not
let, he did not charge for his trouble.
In answer to the Judge, witness said if he had to
go out of town on the business, he charged railway
and hotel expenses.
This being the case for the defence,

Mr. Corser addressed the jury for the defence, and
said that the charges were excessive. He said that
Mr. Hawkins was entitled to something for his
trouble, but not to the amount asked for, and asked
the jury to take into consideration what plaintiff had
said—that he should not have made the charges he
had, if he had had the valuation.

Mr. Homer al.° replied on the evidence given, and
contended that the charges made were correct, and
that he had no hesitation in saying that he MC+ en-
titled to more than he had charged. Plaintiff had had
a good many journeys in trying to set the house, and
had been put to considerable expense, and ought to
be reimbursed. Here were Mr. Bent and Mr. Insu
two auctioneers, who made the valuation in one day,
and got most of the plunder—charging to each. If
that was their charge for one day, he was quite sure
the jury would not think his client had charged more
than he was entitled to. As regarded the charge of
.#1.5 13s to put a carriage into a coachhousc, that
was monstrous, and the defendant had never made
such a charge until he was sued by his client. Not
only that, but his Honour would tell them that one
partner could not sue another, nnless there was a
special contract between them. In this ease there
was no special contract, so there was an end to that
sum as a set-oft. The learned counsel had said in his
opentug speech that the charges were excessive, and
that he should call witeesses to prove that; but not
a question was asked by the learned counsel of either
of the witnesses, and he (Mr. Homer) concluded by
asking the jury to give his client such an amount as
they considered he was entitled to.

His Honour, in summing up, said that plaintiff,
who is an auctioneer, at Brierley Hill, was instructed
to let the defendant's house, and it was for the jury
to say whether the charges were reasonable or nut.
A set-off had been made by the defendant. One item
was £l5 13s for coach-house room. It was quite
clear from the evidence given that a carriage was
bought by the two partners; that Mr. Hawkins had
it at his coach-house for some four or five months;
that it was afterwards fetched away,and kent fur a long
time at defendant's coach-house, for which he had
charged at the rate of 2s per week. Mr. Hawkins
had not charged while it was in his possession, and
he was of opinion that the defendant was not entitled
to charge, as they had bought the carriage between
them, and it was a partnership affair, ant, conse-
quently, one partner could uot charge another part-
ner unless there was a special contract. The case
was eery simple. The jury would first consider
whether the plaintiff was engaged by the defendant
to let his house. If so, were the charges reasonable?
It was quite clear from the advertisements in the
papers that defendant was engaged to let the house,
as it said, For particulars, and to treat, apply on
the premises, or to the auctioneer." The next thing
to consider would be, whether there was an express
contract between them. Defendant could not claim
his set-off of £5 13s, but it would be for the jury
to consider whether defendant was entitled to any-
thing for the IBC of the coach-house.
After a short consultation, the jury found a verdict
for plaintiff for .tt Pis lid, money paid out of pocket ;
and £5 Is for the trouble he had been put to in going
to see persous about letting the house.

In answer to the Judge, tho jury said they did not
think there was a igiccial contract between the
parties for a charge to be made for the use of is
coachdietnie, and the jury disallowed the sum ol £l5
las as is IStt•otr, So the Verdict was fur plaintitf for
.e.lO 3s lid and costs,