The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-01-23 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.

Carter's Execvtors r. Hall.—At the County Court,
on Thursday, before B. Kettle, Esq., Judge, this
was an action brought by plaintiff to recover the
sum of .217, monies lent. Mr. Gould appeared for
plaintiff, and Mr. Stokes defended.—James Hale,
banksman, said he recollected Dudley Fair, Octo-
ber, 1860. About eight o'clock he was in the house
with the defendant. and others, Defendant, who
is the brother of witness, asked their father to lend
him some money, as. he had bought a horse and
had not sufficient money to pay for it. Witness
saw the defendant receive £l7 in gold of his
father. Mrs. Carter and Thomas Carter also gave
evidence for the plaintiff.—Mr, Stokes, for the de-
fence, denied ever having borrowed the money, and
said that he should prove that the defendant did
not buy the horse in question; but that Jacob
Carter himself purchased the horse in question,
and paid for it. Defendant was put in the box,
and denied buying the horse or ever borrowing
one farthing of Jacob Carter.—Edward Moreton,
said that he sold a black mare to Jacob Carter,
and the latter paid him for it; the agreement
being that if the animal was not a good worker it
was to be returned.—This being the case, his
Honour remarked that he thought plaintiff was
out-sworn, and gave a verdict for defendant,
TIIE VALUE OF A WATCH.—Marks and Cotton 1".
Oliver.—This was an action to recover the sum of
£6 10s, being the balance of account for a watch
sold and delivered to plaintiff.—Mr. Wall appeared
for plaintiff, and Mr. Perry defended.—Plaintiffs
are jewellers, and one of their travellers sold a
watch to the defendant, who resides at Pensnett,
the agreement being that the watch was to go
well for twelve months. The watch did not go to
the satisfactidn of the defendant. The latter
complained about it not working well. The effect
was that the plaintiff took it home to repair it.
Defendant then had a chain of plaintiff, which, ic
was contended, was substituted for the watch.—
After hearing the evidence for the defence, his
Honour gave a verdict for the defendant, the chain
to be returned to plaintiff.
Young v. Bowler and Bennett.—This was an ac-
tion brought by plaintiff to recover the sum of £l5
6s.—Mr. Wall appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Collis
for defendant.—Plaintiff is a butcher, residing in
Market-street, and the two defendants are also
bntchers. Plaintiff was in the habit of selling
meat to the defendants, who owed him the above
amount.—The defence was that .Z 4 had been paid
to Mrs. Young, who gave no receipt for it.—Mrs.
Young was called and denied this, and his Honour
gave a verdict for the full amount claimed, and
costs.

Davies v. Lovatt.—This was an action to recover
the sum of £4 10s.—Mr. Wall appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Perry defended.—From the evi-
dence it appeared that Lovatt formerly kept the
Old Pipe Inn, and let it to the defendant. At
that time a guinea club was held at the house, and
defendant asked planitiff to get up the dinner
stating the number 25, and that he would see to
the money being paid. On the night of the slip-
per only five attended, and it was for the loss sus-
tained that he now sued,—The defence was that in
clubs of that kind it was usual to have two din-
ners—one given by the landlord, the other the
members had to pay is each for. When he let the
house to the plaintiff he told him that he had given
his supper, and that it was the members' supper,
and that he put down on the table a sovereign for
plaintiff to take 17s, being is each for seventeen
members; and that Davies refused to have
answer to his Honour, Mr. Perry said his client
was willing to pay the 17s, and that he had got a
set-off against the plaintiff, amounting to £3 12s
6d, which was admitted by Mr. Wall, on behalf of
his client, and a verdict was given for defendant to
pay the balance, 17s 6d, and costs.