The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1866-12-11 00:00:00

=there seemed to thblk they would do what they
with the newly appointed woe, be dskirsaisted if
possible to stop nab proesedings.—The Cbsirstan, after
remarking on lb. adivene of ordering trattoria out of
owls wed it we. impoodbls to believe tbe statements
of the defendant's witnesses, and toed hint k. and 18..
sosta—Henry Foot, boots at the Kings Arms lon,
Bautdford, pleaded guilty to a &tarp a drunkenness,
and was lined ss. and Ba. ends.

BRIDPORT.
13RIDPORT COTJNTY COURT, WucAT.
(Before B. Evirairr, Eq., Judo.)

Then were about 120 cases, beanies 5 judgment sum•
moat of which were settled out of court.
J•moo Bishop v. William Pomeroy.- -Claim for
Li Ids- dd. The plaintiff's wife was the mother of the
defendant, she having summoned her own son by • former
husband. Defendant is comber, earning more than El
per week. He had acknowledged the dobt but refused
to pay it. Judimient for plaintiff in three instalments.
Captain Charles Bailee v. Mr. James Rendall.—Claim
Of L 36., ret, for large and small tithes. Mr. F. W.
Gundry for plaintiff, Mr. Day for defendant—John
()rioter, collector of tithes at Ilaraliwood, produced the
tithe rate-book of the parish, to prove the amount to be
doe on this property, at Catty Stubbs, occupied by de-
fendant some years up to October, 1865.-111 r. John
Lombard, who sueeeeded the defendant in the farm on
October, 1265, said he bad received • notice of distress,
served in May last, from the tithe owner, foe n 12s. 2.1.
great tithes, and 14a. 2ed. small tithes, which be then
paid, and Captain Sullen had eines allowed book the
amount, as the amount woe doeby defendant.—Mr. Day
said the tithes were • landlord's tax, unless a special
covenant was made with the tenant, and in this cam DO
sovenant had been made, sobs submitted that plaintiff's
IMMO had tailet—Adjourned to next Court for further
evidence.

--En the case of John Orbiter v. Henry Walbridge,
tried at last Conn, on which judgment was reserved to
this one, his Honour mid the eettenes was very oon-
tredietory, but his judgment would be for the plaintiff,
and decided that they should select some competent
person between them to deeide on the amount, whose
report should be given in at the next Court., and ad-
journed thee., accordingly to the next Court.
Mr. Day,. Thomas White—Claim for Eli Ila 8d for
professional wren's"! occasioned In appealing against a
decision of the Bridport county magirtratin in 1883.
Yr. Day conducted his own ease, and lb. F. W. Gandry
appeared for defendant. Mr. Day's clerk proved the
loading in the MU ml pertiessters. Mrs wane, .11.
defendant, • farmer, 84 years old, said in 1883, her
husband was brought up before the magistrates and
Shed DS for nil* older without a Limnos. Mr. Day
appeared for her husband. 13be paid the fine £6 and
its. 6d. code to Kr. B. Fox, the clerk, soon afterwards.
She paid NIL Day E 2 Se. &L, —Be. Bd, for his advice and
£2 for defending the ease. The fie. Bd. wall paid him
the day before the hearing of the ease, the £2 the same
day the cede was tried, before it was beard. William
Copp was present when the £2 was paid. She bad not
asked Mr. Div to appal, and had had no oommunication
with bins sines tin day of the trial, and had received no
bill from him. Her husband did not sign any Mini'
that day. Elbe was with him all tbe tion—Orces-ex.
mined: Elbe did not em. Kr. Day heed one of the two
soversigne to Mr. Sleek% Mr. B. Fox's shirk, towards the
impetuses of the appeal. Her husband never signed the
paper produced; he did not sign any paper In her pre-
sence. She did not call at Mr. Day's office on her return
home. She bad not received any letters from Kr. Day
making for his Wet& The See was paid in oonsequence
of the police telling her that es the appeal had been
stayed she must pay the fine. Would positively
her husband never pat his mark to any paper,
she was with him all the time. Would swear she never
went to Kr. Day's rem Never had any letters from
Yr. Day.—The Jadp said he could not believe the
winless, when ehe said her husband did not pat his
mark to the notioe.—Mr. Gundry said he was bound to
my he did not think the marks were forgeries. He did
not understand that no communication whatever bad
been made to Kr. Day shoot appealing. The wife
wanted bar witness called.—Williarn Copp was then
sworn, and said be was present at the trial. He saw El
paid at Mr. Day's see, before they came into court.
In the court El more was paid. Thomas White did
not omit to go on with the ease of appeal, but Yr. Day
told hint it would net snit him anytbiog. Never saw
any papers ped.—Crosentainined :—Kre White was
not with me when we had the conversation together.
Mr. White wan outside the room, and Kra. Whit* was
in the room at the trial. I asn quite sure of that. I
did not see you pay El to Yr. Slide. I don't know
where While went, after be left the room.—Mr. Day
contended that the witnesses had contradicted them.
selves in every material particular. He (Mr. Day) IRMA
be one of the most abominable men alive, if he had been
guilty of forging defendant's signature, and the other
acts imputed to him by the witnesess.—Judgment for
plaintiff in El instalments, the first in 14 days.