The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1881-07-19 00:00:00

13L&NDBORD.

BLANDFOAD COUNTY COURT—Tom%

(Before Mr. Serjeant Tindal Atkinson).
Joseph Lampard v. James Cheeseman. Mr.
Atkinson appeared for the complainant, and asked for
a warrant of committal unless instalments of es. a
month were kept up.—Order granted.
Joseph J. Lempard v. James Chememen.—Mr.
Atkinson on behalf of the plaintiff, said this WWI
a different Cue from the last. The plaintiff had given
a Mr. Davis, for whom he collected rents, so much
money for the arrears of certdn tenants, and had sued
them for the amount. Judgement had been obtained
against defendant, who promised to pay something on
account when he got his pension. Be received his
pension a few days ago, but went to the publichouse
with ha money. The defendant's wife appeared, and
said her husband had been out of work for some time,
and was now gone to Bournemou.h to see if he could
get somelting to do—The Judge said it was a
scandalous thing for a man t go and spend his money
in drink In 4 then send his wife to apologise for him.
fie only_ wished be had it in his power to punish the
146 d
Atkinson said his clie# would be willing
gOve the defendant LU his next pension day, which
woold be shout It.tober Bth, toile the first insal-
minis al it—, 414 linn,pur,. an order of
soineilttal. es IniPae4a4 eudaqt Paid Mt.
laio wart W his nags pod% 4,7 cow rosvul•

Timms and tio:k v. A Strickland.—ln this case a
committal was ordered in defaolt of payment of 3e.
monthly instalments.
Charles Cotes v. Hammett —ln this case the plain-
tiff sough, t • recover from the defendant, the landlord
of the Three Chafers Inn, the sum of £4 18s., for
fodder supplied. Plaintiff said there was an error in
the particulars of the claim, the two last items of
which had been paid. Mr. Atkinson, on behalf of
defendant,
account referredlant,usaidte had neverodstowhic beehthenfirecerat fiea,
ovurite:i
of
the last two had been paid The plaintiff failed to
prove the delivery of the goods to defendant, and his
Honour non-suited him, giving himleave to bring the case
forward again, if he could adduce sutfi dent evidence
as to the delivery of the goods.
W. J. Monk v. James Mardi 4.—Claim £1 10s. for
breach of contract. This was really • set-off against a
cl dm made by the present defendant against the
plaintiff at the last Court. Plaintiff sail he had
engaged defendant to cut grass from the ides of the
highway for litter, at 2.. 6d. • load. He agreed with
defendant to take so many loads, but the defendant
broke the contract by only cutting one load—which he
was paid for—and then leaving the work and putting
plaintiff to great inconvenience. In reply to the
Judge, the plaintiff said he would be willing to take
half the amount claimed. Judgment WM then given
for plaintiff, for 15e. with costs.
J. Hayward, of Blandford, chimney sweep... H.
Croom, upholsterer, Blandford. Th s was • olisim for
10s., alleged to be due to plaintiff for repairs to the
chimney of a certain house in • village near Blandford.
Plaintiff said that Mr. Croons gave him the order to do
ihe necessary repairs to the chimney, which had taken
fire and burst at the top. Defendant denied giving
the order. He said he was agent to the Atlas Insur-
ance Company, and on going over to look at the hours
after the chimney had been on fire he found the injuries
of such a trifling nature that the company could not
be held responsible for them. —His Honour said he
would adjourn the case for • month, and in the mean-
time the Atli. Insurance Company could be made the
co-defendant..—Mr. Croons said he would rather pay
the money ten times than drag the insurance company
into the matter at all. His Honour said that perhaps
that was the best way out of the difficulty, and
gave judgment for plaintiff for 10s., without coats.