The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1881-08-09 00:00:00

SH APTESBURY.
COLNT Y COURT.

FRIDAY.

&fors Mr. &debut-Tindal Atkinson.

Charles Spicer, dealer, Sha'tesbury, v. Nathaniel
Benjafiell, aucti meer, Aotcombe. —Claim £94 a.—The
defendsot held a r .00sitory sale at Semley, an I on the
6th of June plaintiff sent eight pigs to tho sale. One
of the o ,nditions of sale was that no sheep or beasts
warrantel sound, as these were, would be taken back
unless returne i within a fortni.;ht. Defendant sold
corn animal. for Air. Frost at the same time, ant the
latter authorimd him t., pay the plaintiff out of the
proceed& He POOP tonal, however, that the pigs were
unaound, and revoked his authority within the fort-
night. 'fhe pigs had since been ordered by the local
authority to be slanghtered.—His Honour consider° i
that the aucti ,neer held the money m agent for both
parties, and that as the pigs had turned out to be
unsound, plaintiff could not recover from the auctioneer.
—There was accordingly a verdict for defentlant.—Mr.
J. K. Ratter appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Hodder
for defendant.

ttobertJ. Smith, Shaftesbury, v. Wykee and
Sherrard, Shaftesbury.—Mr. Robins explains i that he
represented all parties, and the claim was £l6 7s. 7d.
for goods. As far as Mr. Wykee was concerned the
debt was not disputed, but he was unable to pay his
creditor, in fall, and at a recent meeting ss. in the £ had
been offered. Dr. Sh d bad entered into partner-
ship with Mr. Wykes on the let June, 1880, and as
nearly all the debt was incurred before that date he
disputed his liability.— The case was adjourned to seal!
some arrangement could be come to.
Jane Weldon, Shaftesbury, Y. Edward Hart Burt,
Iwerne Minster —The plaintiff (for whom Mr. Robins
appeared) is a proprietor of a shooting gallery and the
defendant (who was represented by Mr. Atkioson) is a
farmer at Iwerne Minister. It appears that an Odd
Fellows' Ike was rec 'nay held at Iworne, end the
defendant permitted the use of oee of his fields on
condition that no horses were to be allowed in the field.
At twelve o'clock Mr. Burt found a horse there, and
shut it up in his stable, where the horse was detained
nntil seven o'clock next morning, and was then only
liberated on payment of 10e., which Mr. Burt charged
for damages. The plaintiff now sued for £7 damages
alleged to have been sustained by reason of her being
kept from another club festival in consequence of the
wrongful detention of the horse, and for 10s., the
amount which she had been compelled to pay defend-
ant.—Verdict for defendant.
Henry March, Bourton. v. William Reeves,—Clain
£l, for a quarter's rent. Defendant's daughter said
she had obtained a P.O. order at the Shaftesbury
Poet-office, and had poded it to Mr. March, who
denied its receipt.—Alice Brockway, to some extent,
corroborated the evidence of defendant's daughter.
—Case adjourned for further enquiry.
Robert J. Smith. co-n dealer, &a., Shaftesbury, v.
Caleb Goddard, farmer, Motoombe.—This case had
been adjourned from the last court for the attendance
of a jury. Messrs. W. Flowers, J. Butt, H.J. Herder,
J. Haskell, junior, and John Rebbeck were sworn on
the jury.—Mr. Robins appeared for plaintiff, and Mr.
J. K.. Rutter for defeedant.—The pl .intiff claimed
£35 10• 101., balance due on a p-oumbeory n As. The
plaintiff had originally lert £5O to defendant at 8 per
emit.; £l5 had been paid into curt, and defendant
pleaded • c,unter claim of £27 12m. 81. made up as
follows :-15 sacks of wheat at 24a, and one sack at
295, £l7 16.,; hint, or damages for retention of 15
sacks for 3 years, 19 weeks at id. per sack per week,
£5 Os. 4d. Money overcharged for interest, £2 9e. 10d.
The return of 15 sacks or the value, LI 17s. 61. There
had been various traneactiona between the parties and
settlements of aoeounts.—The plaintiff's contention
was that the wheat mentioned in the set-off had been
paid for with other goods, while the defendant said it
had remained outstanding as against the amount due
on the promissory note. —The cane lasted a very long
time, and his Honour repeatedly and at length rather
warmly advised a referenoe.—Defendant, however,
would not consent to this.—The question of overcharge
of interest was by consent referred to the registrar.
The matters left to the jury were, therefore, whether
the wheat had been paid for and whether the sacks had
been returned, and if they had not whether the charge
made fee them was • proper one.—After considerable
deliberation the jury found that the wheat bad been
psid for, but that the sacks had not been returned.
There were two or three other came tried before his
Honour, but none of any importance.