The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-09-04 00:00:00

:*,ocai nub pistrict

STOUEBRIDGE SCHOOL BOARD.

An order has just been received from the Educa-
tion Department, commanding five of the former
members of the above Board to re-assemble, as the
Stourbridge School Board, on the 16th of the pre-
sent month. The five members who are to consti-
tute the new Board are :—Major Walker, Mr. Wall,
Mr. Billingham, Mr. Stringer, and Mr.McEwen. It
will be seen from the above that Messrs. Prescott
and Scott are not included in the new arrangement.

COUNTY COURT.
Horsley v. Clarke.—At the above Court, on
Wednesday last, before Mr. Rupert Kettle, Judge,
this was an action in which plaintiff sought to
recover the sum of twelve shillings from the de-
fendant. Plaintiff is a farmer and contractor, and
defendant is a photographic artist, whose estab-
lishment is in High-street, in this town. Plaintiff
stated that ten shillings of the amount claimed
was for removing a heap of rubbish out of the
street:from the front of defendant's shop, and the
remaining two shillings were for damage to a lan-
tern. The quantity of rubbish removed was four
loads which be had taken away in accordance -with
defendant's directions and the lantern had been
lent to defendant, and was broken. Defendant
said he had offered to pay the ten shillings when
the bill was presented. With regard to the lan-
tern, he contended that plaintiff had used it on
his own account and, therefore,he (defendant) was
not liable.—The Judge; Who told you that?
Defendant': No one.—The Judge: I thought not.—
Plaintiff stated that he lent the lantern to defend-
ant, so that it might be placed upon the heap of
rubbish in the street, lest any person should
stumble over it in the dark all night. In the
morning it was found broken, and he claimed 2s.
for it, that being its value. There was a cross
action, in which Mr. Archer Clark sought to re-
cover five shillings from Mr. George Horsley, the
defendant in the former action. Mr. Clarke said
the 5s which he sought to recover, was in lieu of
the five shillings which he had been fined in the
Police Court, for not having the rubbish removed
sooner, which was due entirely to defendant's
negligence in not having removed it before. His
Honour told him that he was afraid ho could not
recover, as he was responsible for the rubbish
until it was taken away. Mr. Clarke said the law
of delivery was that a thing was deli-
vered when it was shut down in the street
in front of the person's premises for whom it was.
He knew that was the law with railway companies.
—His Honour wished he knew where Mr. Clarke
lived, as he should be glad to take a few lessons
in law oft him. A witness said he was present
when Mr. Horsley made the agreement to cart off
the rubbish, and he said it would take it away,
after it had been placed in the street. He did not,
however, take it away for some time after. His
Honour maintained that there was no breach of
contract, as the agreement was only to the effect
that Mr. Horsley would take it away within a
reasonable time; and no particular time had been
specified.—Mr. Clarke asked his Honour if the
iubbish had been there a week, would he havetobe
tined every day.—His Honour: I am not here to
answer questions; and I am surprised that you
keep on asking thena.—Mr. Clarke here handed in
the summons which had been served upon him
citing him to appear at the Police Court. His
Honour inspected it, and after doing so said he
could do nothing for him, and gave a verdict for
I Mr. Horsley in both cases.
el- I