The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1874-05-09 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.

Kinrer School Board v. Bishop.—At the County
Court, on Thursday, before E. Kettle, Esq., Judge,
John Bishop was summoned by William Bennett
for non-payment of No 4d, school fees due. Mr.
Collis appeared for plaintiff, aid his Honour gave
a verdict for the full amount, and costs.
Baker v. Baker.—lu this cas., which was tried at
fie last Court day, when plaintiff got a verdict for
£5O, Mr. Addison said that the defendant had filed
his petition, but had not filedany accounts, and he
toW asked for an immediate order, which was
geanted.

Bourne v. Wnite.—Thin was an action to recover
the sum of £7 5s balance, for a horse sold to the
defendant. Mr. Collis appear,ll for plaintiff, and
Mr. Perry for defeudant.—Plaintiff said in Sep.
temher last he add defendant a horse for £9. lie
let the defendant have the horse on trial, and he
was to pay so much per week. After defendant
had had the horse at work for a month, it fell lame,
and he refused to pay the full amount ; and he now
..I,timed.t7 ss. Plaintiff's wife said that the horse
was sold to the defendant for £9. After the horse
had fallen lame, her husband told the defendant
he would let him have the horse for IS. Defend-
ant afterwards agreed to pay £7 se, which was
agreed to by the defendant, who is brother-iu-law
to plaintiff.—For the defendant, it was stated that
he had the horse on trial, and that the animal was
Lone when he had it. 'limo police Caine to him at
Stotoport, and told him to get rid of the horse,
and lie sold it for 50s. Plaintiff also told him to
get rid of the horse, and he had offered pluimift
t sttl the inatter.—VerdLrt for full amount
aid costs.

11:iee v. Hill.—This was an action brought
_

plaint ;it' to recover the ~. 0 .1 .0; reat
I. ged t 0 lue.—Mr. Prescott appeared for plain-
and Mr. Perry defended.—Plaintift said i.e In
th, defendant a house, and he agreed to pay the
rent.—Defendant said he took the house for his
soother, and told plaintiff he did not agree to pay
the rent. When the plaintiff sent in his claim he
forwarded it to his mother.—Verdict for defendant.
Thompson v Adams.—This was an action to re-
cover the sum of £6 4s, the value of six pigs.—Mr.
Perry aipeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Prescott for
defendant.—Plaintiff, who is a collier at Quarry
Bank, said that he met the defendant, who is a
butcher, on the 11th of April, and invited him to
look at some pigs. Bloom-Jr went with him and
said he would have nothing to do with them, as
they looked rotten about the feet. Defendant said
they had been walking about 15 miles,. and that he
would warrant them as sound as a bell. Defend-
ant wanted to buy some of plaintiff's pigs if the
latter would buy some of him. Defendant bought
two of plaintiff, and he bought six of the defend-
ant. The next morning three of the pigs could
not come out, and he sent for Mr. John Bloomer,
pig killer. He stuck one of the pig,, but it would
not bleed, and it then died. The other pigs were
still ill, and plaintiff had paid -el 5s for their keep.
—John Bloomer said that he had examined the
pigs. and they were suffering from foot disease.
They might recover, but it would take two months
for them to do so. They were getting better but
slowly.—Joseph Priest, chaintuaker, Quarry Bank
and Richard Male, also gave similar evidence.—,
William Fletcher, Sanitary Inspector, said that he
was called in to see the pigs on the 15th April. He
found they were suffering from foot disease.—Mr.
Prescott, for the defence, denied the warranty, and
said that the pigs were selected by the plaintiff
himself.—Defendan* was then put into the box, and
denied that he gave any warranty. The pigs were
selected by the plaintiff, and he sold the others for
22s each.—His Honour gave a verdict for plaintiff
for 1:6 4s.

Glover v. Hill—This was an action brought by
plaintiff for for damage to his garden caused
by the defendant's fowls-.. Mr. Perry defended.—
Plaintiff said that defendant's fowls got into his
garden, and rooted up the seeds.—The Judge :
What about the damage? You claim .e 5. Plain-
tff I claim .25 for damage done and insults re-
ceived from defendant and his wife. But Ido not
want the man's money if he will keep off his fowls
and not insult me.—The Judge : I am afraid I can-
not help you as you have not proved that .£5 dam-
was done.—Verdict for Is nominal damages.

v. Honis.—This "m.l rto'ion to-reen.
tor t siim .t .ett) 54 3,1, ar goo& sold and deli-
.. red ft id colleael 'Jythe defeudant.—Mr.
oseott appeared for plai!ttiff.—From the evidence
given it egg:eared that LI 10s lid was for goods sold