The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1874-02-21 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.
ACTION FOR EJECTMENT.

BAKF.B r. PRESCOTT.

At the County Court, on Thursday last, before
Mr. Rupert Kettle, Judge, this case came on for
hearing. Mr. Motteram (instructed by Messrs.
Bernard and King), was for the plaintiff, Mr.
William Baker, chemist, of High-street ; the
defendant, Mr. George William Prescott, solici-
tor, also of High-street, holding his own brief.
Mr. Motteratu, in opening the case, said these
proceedings were taken under the 19th and 20th
Vic., chap. 108, section 50 and 51, and the object
was to recover possession of the offices in High.
street, now occupied by the defendant, Mr.
Prescott. The rental was £2O a year, and the
plaintiff claimed £2O for one year's rent up to
December 25th, 1873, and the profits arising
from the premises since that time. The pro-
ceedings to recover possession were taken under
the Recovery of reneinents in County Courts
Art, and he believed proceedings could be taken
under the Act which he had referred to. (Mr.
Motteram here read the section of the above
Act bearing upon the case.)
The Judge afterwards perused sections SO and
51, of the 19th and 20th Victoria. Whilst he
was doing so,
Mr. Prescott acid: Perhaps your Honour would
look at section 58 at the saute time.

-
Mr. Motteram : Pray wait, you can take your
own coarse bye and bye.
Mr. Motteram (continuing) said the premises
in question were in the occupation of Mr. Pres-
cott, and were within the jurisdiction of that
Court. He should prove that the tenancy was ,
under £5O, and that the defendant had occupied
the premises for many years, and that he had
neglected to give them up. And, having proved
as he should do, the title to the place, he should
ask his Honour to give a verdict for defendant.
He should prove the title In this way. The
premises were owned at one time by Mr. Pres-
cott. He passed through the Bankruptcy Court
in 1865, and in order that he might not sell the
property or mortgage the deeds, it was after-
wards tiansferred under a deed of Chancery to
the late Mr. Rowland Price, in fee, for the bene-
fit of defendant's children' and defendant agreed
to pay £2O a year rent to Mr. Price for the pre.
mises he occupied. Mr. Price was dead, and
he should prove that he died intestate, and that
Thomas Edward Price, who was now in London,
was his heir-at-law. He should prove that the
defendant was tenant to Mr. Price from a docu-
ment in Mr. Prescott's own handwriting in which
! he says "from the Ist November, 1865, I do
become tenant to Mr. Rowland Price." Mr.
Motter tin Bien banded a paper to the judge.
Mr. Prescott asked to see the paper.
Th., Judge: When the time comes I will give
it to you. After having read it, he handed it to
Mr. Prescott.

Mr. Prescott (having looked at it) said it was
a clandestine document, obtained in an improper
way. And even sunposing that doennient were
true it would not effect that case at all.

The Judge: Give me your objection.
Mr. Prescott: My objection is, that document
was obtained in an improper manner.
The Judge remarked that it had on it the seal
of the Court, and he must therefore receive it.

Mr. Saninial Richard Wilson was called, and
said he was clerk to Mr. Thomas Walker, M
Wolverhampton. He produced a datatatrat of

accounts made out on the 21st November, 1865,
between George William Prescott on the one
part, and Rowland Price on the other part.
Mr. Prescott as•ked if that document was
attested.
Witness: No.
Mr. Prescott : Will you swear you ever saw
me write

Witness said he was not there to swear to
his writing; but he had seen Mr. Rowland Price
write many years ago.
In answer to Mr. Motterarn, witnestrsaid he
could not prove the writing of Mr. Prescott.
Mr. Motteram remarked that the deed was
signed by Mr. Prescott.
In the coarse of cross-examination by Mr
Prescott, witness said he had been in Stour-
bridge since 18115. He would not undertake to
swear that the writing in the deed referred to
was that of Mr. Prescott.
Mr. Prescott said Mr. Motteram had said the
property was conveyed to Mr. Rowland Price in
fee.

Tha Judge reminded him that it was conveyed
in fee on trust.

Some lively badinage here occurred between
Mr. Motterani and Mr. Prescott, the latter affirm-
ing that the signature to the deed was not in his
writing, whilst the former said he (Mr. Prescott)
must know it was his own bold hand. No one
else could have written it like him, as be wasthe
best writer in Stourbridge.
Mr. Motteram (to the witness Wilson) : Is
that the order of the court under which the sale
was effected.

Witness. I can't tell that. This is a copy of
the order.

Mr. Prescott: There was no order of sale af-
fixed upon the minutes

The 'Judge said no one had any occasion to
know anything about any order. He further
added that what he meant was that if it was
under the proper seal of the Court he was bound
to take it, whether it was a proper order or not.
Mr. Prescott asked Mr. Materam to read the
document.
Mr. Motteratu : Tell not me to read it.

Mr. Prescott said he should ask the Judge to
order it to be read. A document was put in be-
tween A 13 and C, but it did not affect him.
There was an order between somebody else.
The Judge again remarked that if it was a
document under the seal of the Court, he roust
receive it,

Mr. Prescott objected that he could not get
that document in Loudon. It was not filed in
the Court. He certainly thought that document
did not affect anything between him and Baker.
A person of the name of Baker was bringing au
action against him, which showed the proceed-
ing to be totally irregular.
Mr. Waterman, clerk to Messrs. Bernard
and King, preyed that he served the utice to
quit (produced) on Mr. Prescott, on the 24th of
May, 1873.

'hie notice was then read over by Mr. Har-
ward, au it was to the effect that defendant
should give up possession of the premises on
the 25th December, 173.
Mr. Prescott: I object to that document as
being bad in law, for uncertainty. It is bad, ab-
solutely bad. It is an uncertain notice. Sup-
posing auy tenancy did exist without prejudice,
the notice would still be invalid, because the
tenancy did not begin at that time.
The Judge said he did not think the notice
was bad.

Mr. Prescott said ho would show him bye and
bye.

°Mr. Motterain to Mr. Waterman : You served
this notice on a certain day, autl possession has
not been given up to the present tune?
Mr. Waterman : It has not.
Mr. Prescott Ito witness): Do you know when
my tenancy commences ?

Witness: I know what you've sworn.
Mr. Prescott: Where did 300 get that docu-
meut from, Waterman 7

Mr. Waterman : I got that document from
Mr. Price a few weeks ago.
Mr. Prescott here handed a paper to Mr.
Waterman, and asked him if he knew when it
was served, and the latter, having looked at it,
said it was apparently served on the 14th August,
1806. He did not know that defvmbint had filed
a petitiau in the Court of Bankruptcy since that
date. He did not know that defendant was a
bankrupt since that date.
Mr. Prescott: Will you undertake to swear
that the terms lain holding thesepremises upon
are the terms set forth in this affidavit

Wituess : You have all the inforwation I can
giv,e. you.

Mri Prescott : Do you know when there was
a distraint put upon my premises ?—Witness :
I have made enquiries, but don't know. In an-
swer to further questions, witness said he was in
the sale room worn the property in question was
put up for auction, but he did not buy it for Mr.
Baker.

Mr. Prescott asked him whether notiewwts
given 'or It not t be sold.

_
Witness said he knew something was said
about it.

Mr. Prescott: Now Mr. Waterman !
Mr. Waterman : 1 know Mr. Corbett was there
and that he gave notice.

- e -
Mr. Prescott: Very weil then, that will save
trouble.

Mr. Ambrose Phillips Price was called, and
said he was a solicitor practising in Stourbridge,
and Mr. Row-band Price was hi i father, lie .was
the person who executed that conveyance.

Mr. Prescott : I dou't dispute this.
Mr. Price (continuing). My lather is dead, and
Thomas Edward Price ia heir-at-law. 'Phut:Luis
Edward Price executed this conveyance.

Mr, Benjamin Wooldridge said he was a land
agent and surveyor, practising in Stourbridge. He
was the receiver appointed by the Court of Chan-
cery, in the case ot Mr. Price. As receiver he re-
ceived the rents from the defendant from the year
1861 to 1871. Prescott was then tenant of those
premises. The rent which he was to pay was £2O
a year.

After Mr. Wooldridge had been cross-examined
at considerable length by Mr. Prescott, to show
he had never paid him any rent,

Mr. Prescott addressed his Honour in answer to
the case, and said he submitted that the plaintiff
must be nonsuited. His first objection was to the
summons. He contended that that summons was
an action of ejectment, and supposing there had
been a tenancy from that time that tenancy would
cease. It was true a certain statement was made
in a suit between Henry Walker on the part of
two children belonging to him, and Mr. Rowland
Price. It must be shown what that bill in Chan-
cery was. He contended that by the bill m
Chancery transferring the property the trustee
had no right to sell without having obtained his
signature, and this had never baen done. When
plaintiff purchased the property he knew that he
(defendant) opposed the sale.

After carefully reviewing the evidence, his
Honour found that, as a matter of f act, William
Baker, the plaintiff, was the owner of the property;
that he gave defendant notice to quit on the Bth
of May, 1873; that the tenancy expired on the
29th December, 1873; and that defendant had
held the place since that time. Therefore, plain.
tiff would be entitled to £2O, one year's rent, and
the mean profit of the premises from Decembar
25, 1873, £3 Os Bd. Defendant was ordered to
give up the premises and pay the money in 14
days.

ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR ASSAULT.—This WAS
on action brought before Mr. Rupert Kettle on
Monday last. Mr. Saunders, (of Kidderminster)
appeared for the complainant, and Air. Perry for
defendant. Dutton, the plantid swore that he
was sent for to Sherward's stables when defendant
arrived. Defendant accosted him with a corse
expression and thereupon struck him down and
assaulted him brutally. Cross examined by Perry :
I did not strike the defendant first. I had a
stick. I did not strike in defence. I did not fight
with Sheward whilst the stable boy was by Mrs.
Foreman was present when I was struck by Shew-
ard. I went to a Doctor for advice. I could not
see to work my eyes were blacked and I had pains
in my inside. I saw the Doctor four times. I
had my wages all the same—Mrs. Foreman, heard
a noise and ran into the yard, and saw Sheward
strike and kick Dutton, but Duttm did not strike
Sheward.—Stephen Watkins took a message to
Cookley, to Dutton, from Sheward, asking him to
Stourton in the evening. When Dutton arrived
I saw him with a stick in an attitude to strike
Showarcl.—Sheward swore that he was struck
by Dutton with a stick and we thereupon dosed
aid had a tussle from N, hich lie had a black eye.
The judge found for the plaintiff and the parties
agreed to the damages and costs being fixed at £4.

ASSAULT CASE.-At the Police Court, yesterday,
before Messrs, It. L. Freer, J. C. A. Scott, and J.
Cochrane, Alfred Green was charged with assault-
ing John and Maria McCarthy, on the 24th Jan-
uary. Defendant was fined 2s 6d and oosts in
each case.