The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1874-04-25 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.

Weller v. Pcarson.—At the County Court, on Thursday
last, before Mr. Rupert Kettle, Judge, this was au action
brought by Ann Weller, grocer, of Brett.ll Laue, against
William Pearson, glass-cutter, of the same place, to reco-
ver the sine of £l2 Ins for goods sold and delivered.—
Mr. Clu ow appeared to: plaiutill, and Mr. Homer for the
d.fendimt.—hrorn the evidence it appeared that the
goods had been supplied to Miss Person, at various
times, whilst she was acting as housekeeper for her
father She had since warned and left his house; and
tor the defence, it was contended that as the goods were
supplied to Miss Pearson without her father's knowledge.
and it was shown that he bed always inume-iately paid
the bills presented to him, the latter was not responsible
His honour having, however, elicited front the defendant
,hat he had given her sums of money at various times to
defray similar expenses, held that she was his legal agent
in the matter, and that he was liable whether he was
aware of the transaction or not. He, therefore, gave a
verdict for the plaintiff.

Weller v. Gunner—This was an action in which Ann
Weiler (the same plaintiff as in the previous case) sought
to recover -te2 Ifis 7d, for goods sold and delivered to the
defendant, (fanner—The sale of the goods having been
proved by plaintiff, defendant made a long rambling state
meat to the effect that he did not owe the money, and
that he had delivered as much as ten tons of coal to the
plaiutiff, for which he had not received the money. This
was tinily contredieted by plaintiff. and as defendant's
statement was unsupported, the Judge gave a verdict for
tne plaintiff for the full amount, to be paid within four.
teen days.
Merrick. v Marks.—This was an action of • rather
peculiar nature, in which the plaintiff, who carries on the
business of • clothier and outfitter in High-street, in this
Viten, sought to recover Li from the defendant, Maria
Marks, a wholesale clothes dealer, of thrmiugham.—
Phillips Marks appeared to answer for defendant —Plain.
tiff said that the young man who now appeared for the
defendant called upon him in 1878, with samples of
trousers, sad he ordered him to send him some. In the
July, defendant sent him the trousers produce], which
were very inferior to the sample sent, and totally unlike
them. lie sent the whole of the goods back, auk they
refused to have them—Phillips Marks, who stated de-
fentlakt's case with coneiderathe volubility, said that about
the 6th of Magma he called rpon the plaintiff and showed
him a pair of trousers, and told hies lie could have them
for 4s per pair, which was a very low sum. The tee
pairs of trousers were sent to him, according to order.
A short time afterwards they received them back, but on
account of the dirty condition Lf the parcel they refused
to take it in. Mares then read a num er of letters re-
ceived from the plaintiff, which were couched inlanguege
mire w.narkable for its foreibihty Hunt its poritene •
now these, and the statement wade by deleutlant, it
appeared that when plaintiff refaced to pay Limy entireil
an Sc ion against him in the fihnionguain County Court,
out the day for the trial happeniug to fail upon a J•WiAti
th. I asked and rietuicea leave to have the case
• ljeered to in futaro day. us the interim toe
hiss bio.ight tee present a :Hon, dountless, with the nt, tio
tam of forestalaug t lem —His litiuuur inAtui.i.4 the
ante. An application by defending, fur his expenses,
XL. refa,ed.

INTNIIPLESDER CASE.—DuvA T. Kiev and Ca.— This
Was an action brought by plaiutiff to recover damages
I it the rl.eged illegAi seizure of a horse. It appeared
Riot King and Co. had some time back brought an action
against the present plaintiff's father, and an order for
p ,yment was made against the latter. The money not
being forthcoming, au execution was issued, under which
the horse its question was seized, and hence arose the
preseut action. James Fawkes, County Court bailiff,
proved the seizure of the horse. He seized the &mina!
because he found it in the possession of the defendant.
Davis's father was indebted to the Court in the sum of
.C2O 19s 50, and the horse was !wined for the money.—
Mr. Prescott was for Davis, and Mr. Perry for King and
Co.—Ann Davis was called, and said she lived at the
Clore, Lye, and was 23 years of ago She kept a house,
and her father lived with her. She had kept the house
for more than two years. She purchased the horse on
toe 19th of March last. She purchased it from Balling-
nem. A man named Hill was present. Bullnigham did
not give her a receipt for the horse, but he gave her that
paper. They paid £7 5s for the horse. She bought the
horse to enable her father to get a living with it. It war
with her own money that she bought the horse. It sas
on the 4th of April that the horse was seized.—Atholstono
Hill was called, and proved that he drew up the agree-
ment to purchase produced. He could swear to the writ-
ing on the paper produced.—His Honour gave a verdict
for the judgment creditor.
Smith V. the Great Western Railawy Company.—
This was an action brought by George Smith, horse
dealer, against the Great Western Railway Company, to
recover the sum of £1 lie 60, for damages caused by the
delay of one of the defendants trains Mr. Collis ap-
peared for plaint ff, and Mr. Perry for defendants. It
appears that plaintiff purchased some horse. at Leomin-
ster fair, and a man named Hancock, war sent to fetch
them. On arriving at Bewdley, the train broke down
and he was Unable to bring the animals heme. The fare
sod costs amounted to £1 Ila tii. His Honour gave a
verdict for plaintiff, El.
Bryan v. the UtIJ3 Company.— This was an action
brought by William Bryan. grocer, to recover the sum of
£2 its 8,1, money paid to defendants. Mr. Collis ap.
peered for plaintiff, and Dr. S. Evans (instructed by
Messrs. Corner and Walker), defended. Plaintiff keeps
a grocer's shop in High Street. On the 10th of Januery
he filed a petition, and on the 29th a meeting was held
arid a trustee was appointed. On the 2nd of February
the resolution was registered by the liquidator, and on
the sth of February plaintiff purchased the stock for
the trustee. On the 19th of March a formal notice WWI
givefi to him that if he did not pay the money, his gas
would be cat off, and, to prevent this, he paid the £2 18s
141, on the 20th of March, under protest. Dr. hyena eon-
tooled that there was no new tenancy, and that the
plaintiff was the same was, and ander the tins Act they
were justified in doing what they had done. A long
legal argurneut ensued, and his Honour remarked that
it Was it very important case for the defendants, and re-
served his judgment.
ACTION Pea DASISOEL—Baker v. Baker. —This Was
an action brought to recover £5O for injuries sustained
by plaintiff's wife, from the alleged violence of defend-
ant. Dr. Sebastian Evans was for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Perry for defendaut —Dr. Evans, in opening the case,
said this was one of those assault camel which were po
frequent at the Lye. The. parties were nearly related to
each other—in fact, plaintiff and defendant were brothers,
and they lived near to each other. Unfortunately, they
lived us anything but friendly terms with each other,
arid there were constant rows between them. He then
described the nature of the assault, and showed that can.
err had resulted from a kick which plaintiff's wife had re-
ceived from defendant. He crnsidered that £5O, the
sum asked for, was a small one, when the nature of the
injury sustained was considered. He called Major Baker,
who said he was an engineer, arid lived in Ball's Lane,
Lye. He remembered the evening of the 27th Septem-
ber. It Wee Saturday. He was going home from his
work about eleven o'clock. and when he got to the top of
the entry he received a blow. There was another man
with him, whose name was James Littlewood. Ills wife
came out to see what was the matter, and the defendant
struck her and knocked her down. Plaintiff and his step-
daughter, assisted by Littlewood, carried her into the
house, and laid her on the sofa. They thought she was
dead for a few minutes. James Littlewood said he would
go home for fear they should set about him. When he
was gone, plaintiff looked at his wife's breast, and saw
that it was bruised badly, and there were also marks of •
kick on her left side.—Caroline Raker, Eliza Taylor,
Harriet Peball, and James Littlewood, gave evidence for

plaintiff. —Hr. Wesley Thompson, surgeon. was called and
said Yrs. Baker came to his surgery in the beginning of
toctober. He examined her bosom. and found • disco-
I mration, which, however, was not caused by a blow. He
afterwards found a cancer, and etviset au operation,
which was performed. On being croseexaminsd, wane,.
said he had been subpatued by the defendant, George
Ashmead, surgeon, said he had great experience in can-
cer, which was caused sometime. by constitutional taint,
and sometimes by blows. After a blow it might be •
week or month before it declared itself. ft was generally
more rapid in its development in young people.—The
Judge paid this witness a very high compliment for the
way in which he had given his scientific evidence iu the
case—Mr. Perry, for the defence, denied that the de-
fendant struck her, and called a number of witnesses,
after which his Honour gave judgment for the full
amount claimed.