The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1868-02-01 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.

At this Nat en Tamlay, there wan slam, number
Of casco% set down for hearing. 111 CollSlVlonell Of the
indivesitifla of the Judge. Mr. F. Dinsdale, business
did not begin ttil between tw-dvn and one o'clock. At
Litif o'clock it waa announced that the only C:o.e that
would he taken after that was a jury CANO, " Smith r. the
firma Western It iilway Company." Mr. M Merlon and
Mt. Young (of the Oxford Circuit) appeared in it.
Mr. M..tteram called the attention of the Court to the
Unit that beside the jury cam, there were two other cases
that were mire to oseupy a long time, and migested that
it would be adviaable to appoint a day which might be
devoted entirely to the hearing of all thr..e.

After some contte.a ttttt this course was agreed to, and
the llth February was fixed.
Mr. Mott erani further made a suggest ion with reference
to the general business of the Court. Mr. Welford, of
Bleminghem. and Mr. Kettle, of the Woreestershire Cir.
nut, had certain rules to regulite their procedure. Ile
did Rot know if their rule. would he Itgrewahle in that
Court, but he could not help thiek big that their adoption
would be a .h,irable thing for attorneys, suitors, and
counsel. These roles might be said to amount to this,
that when plaints were to be tsken oat of their usual
c.eirse, the parties were required to give notice. They
then bee: !special eases hi which special days were set
spurt ; mid thus the Lemeral business of the Court went
en without any notice of them. This system seemed to
meet the aprobation of the profession and all parties in.
terestA.

The Judge said that the Courts mentioned by Mr.
Moth ran had better machinery than that Court. When
that Court WWI assigned to his circuit, it was so on the
calculation that about sixteen days would be sufficient
for all the business ; bat sixteen days were nothing like
sufficient. Ile could not possibly do more, and lately he
had sat two, said ha some instances three days; and it
would he in the recollection of sonm that his deputy had
eat live or six days in the month of Soptenthcr. In flit,
iniugliam they could pick out cams, and mike the sort
of amparaition that liad been spoken of, but he did not
think it could be done here.

The subject dropped odic; some further con aaaaa Lion.
Ou v. A/anat.—At the County Court, on Wednes-
day last, before 1. Diusd*lo, Esq., Judge, this was an
adtion to remover • befalls° from defendant for sir, beer,
and grains supplied to the defendant by plaintiff.
Mr. Oakum said that he supplied the defendant with
ale, grains, and malt-dust, amounting to Li is 104. De-
fendant hail paid £2 to 101. and the balance new duo wan
12s Cl, but he (plaintiff) had sued for 12s. He had given
defeedaut bale of the various items.
. .

Defendant: Who keeps your books?
Plaintiff : I do myself.
Defendnut : Always?

Plaintiff: I did at that time.
As the questions were put in a rather boisterous way,
his Honour said to defendant that it would be much
hotter to put them in a gentlemanly and quiet way.
Defendant : What urn you?
Plaintiff: I am a =lister and brewer.
Defendant : hoot you keep a Madhouse.
Plaintiff : I hare lately.
Defendant : flow many times have you been had up
for short pleasure?

Dahlia: What do you mean, sir. I was never in gaol
in my life, and you have been. You biro been On the

Ilis Honour hero said that was nothing to to with the
me, mail didendant had brought it no himself.
Defendant said that he did not deny ho had hnd the
beer, but ha did not have the grains, and that plaintiff
bad not proved the delivery.
Plaintiff: twill aeon prove that. I saw the goods on
the way to the defendant's house.
Defendant: 'navy might have been on the way to
Ji•riehe for all I know.
Ilia Honour Then you dispute that you have not had
the grain?

Defen,iliat : I have not, mot what I have had of him
I have paid for it, and produce the receipt.
Plaintiff said that hie wife had given the receipt on
'coolant.

Ms Honour : It le not on account according to the
hill.

Plaintiff here asked that the ease be adjourned, and he
would have las wile to prove that the money paid nu on
account and he would shots defendant up.
'flue ease was then adjourned till next Court.

Tri nmooti v. Houghton. —This was so action to recover
17 3v Gd, being the balance of atconot for work dour by
plaintiff for
_defendant.

Mr. itoinfray appeared for plaintiff, and from the evi-
clialco it appeaseil that defentlatit id a ccmtractor

tit Quirliask, who undertook to do a quintity of workr lorthi ;A n irme, and the plaintiff took a portion of
the work. Ph flint hal pail a portion of the money,
and there was halanee dne of Ss Oil. Defendant
had the whole of the money for the contract.
The defendant said that there wan no contract, and
that he hl not reeeived all the money.
Ili; Honour Mile an order for the tall amount to he
paid in one month, and coats.

11;•ight v. SAithwit.—This was an action to recover
the sum of £5, being a deposit for taking a Faille-house.
Mr. lioinfray appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. C.
Collis for the dr-fr.:dant.
From the eviden,o it appeared that plaintiff is a mar.
ried woman reahline at Brierley Hill, but separated from
her husband. The Loyal Exchange, flrettell Lane, being
advertised to let, plaintiff, who answered the advertise.
went, agreed to take it at a valuation. Mr. Detheridge
was to value it for defendant, and Mr. Insult for plaintiff.
Plaintiff paid £5 down, and when the valuation took
place was to pay another £5, and plaintiff was to give
security for the amount. Plaintiff was to turn over her
rents to Mr. Insult, who was to pay the monkey.
D. Visitant said that the security was set sufficient,
and that the plaintiff could not curry out her contract.
He was willing for the plaintiff to have the house now
if she would give proper security. Defendant alleged
also that plaintiff had not carried out the contract, and
had taken another house, and through the plaintiff not
carrying out the contract he had not set it.
His Honour said that the eontract was not carried out
sufficiently on either aide, to bring a ease of breach of
contract. Something had been said about the £5, and
he should give a verdict for plaintiff for the full amount.
/twee v. Mice.hsg.—This was an action to recover de
2d, being the vi.luo f a leg of mutton,
Plaintiff is a hut-liar residing in Coventry-street. and
defendant ii u Initli-innki•r residing in Foster-street.
Plaintiff proved that she supplied the defendant with a
kg of mutton, Mid that defendant's sou came for it on
Saturday night.
Defendant said that it was paid for at the time of de-
livery, and that he had not change fur a iiiiii.lloVerOig9l
and went and got It.
Verdiet for plaintiff.

r. P.—This was au action to mover the sem
of g.l l Sw draperr goods supplied to the defeuiliint'a
We. Mr. Doreen W. formerly a draper in tll. tone
and the defendant keep the 11.• rm and Oroom. Mr.
Perry appoitred for the plaintiff. end Mr. Maltby for the
defendmit.
Plaintiff laid that defendant's wife sent for some
drapery g00d... and proved that they were impelled. fie
had Anne applied for the money. Defendant 7.1"" to
pay. end WI he knew nothing about it.
Defendant said that he knew nothing about it, and
that he kept Mr wife well impplied with money, awl that
there was no occasion to have credit.
The Judge said it was finite clear that defendant's wife
had had the goods, and made an order for the money to
be paid forthwith sold coats.