The Blandford and Wimbourne Telegram. — 1882-04-28 (Blandford, Dorset, England)

MURDER.  I  At tho Manchester A,‘siz on Tu Prlay. Benjamin Bouch, groom, 28 years of age, was sentenced to death for tho wilful inurdor of his two children by throwin4 thom into the cane'. The faintly were in extreme poverty.  iwis  • wp • ' • •••46,- noise. • alserit.• '  family affairs were usually painful.—Mr. Brennand said his client would accept 22 and costs in settlement of the claim, to which Mr. Atkinson aeseeted.—The Judge, adverting to some remarks made during the case about the mother•in-law of defendant and her goods, said it was not so generally known as it should be that a registrar of a County Court coul I issue letters of administration for the smallest quantity of effects at a nominal sum, which he thought would cave a great deal of litigation and ill-feeling in families, if it were more fully known.—George Cook, Rushton Mills, v. William Stoeeman, Keyuston.—TtliS Case had been before the Court two or three times, and at the last Court an order was made for 4e. a month. This had not been complied with, and plaintiff's wife now applied for an execution. order.—As the defen, Ant was not present, His Honour suspended the former order,for him to appear at the next Curt and state his eircumstancem.--Fish v. Knott.—This was a jury c rect.—The plaintiff is a farmer at Yenston, but formerly of Hinton St. Mary, andthe defemlatit a farmer at Sturminster Newton.—Mr. Balch, of Burton, was for plaintiff, and Mr. Brennand, if Blaudford and Sturniinsttr Newton, for di- Undants.—The claim was for £29, balance of account on some hay, and hire of horses.—From the evidence given in this case it seems the plaintiff and defendant were formerly friends and neighbours, residing near Starminster Newton. Defendant purchased a rick of hay of plaintiffs, in a field called Rylands, the price being £3O. He removed one-half of this rick, value £l5, when an injunction from the Court of Chancery was issued, by which no more hay was to be removed from this field. Plaintiff had another rick of hay in another field, valued at £4O, and this rick defendant said he bought and removed, whereas plaintiff denied selling the rick. Then the hire of horses plaintiff claimed amounted to £4, which defendant denied, as the horses were borrowed, and no hire mentioned. The whole of these claims amounted to £59, out of which was deducted a eheque for £3O, which plaintiff alleged was in part payment of these claims. On production of this cheque in court, however, an endorsement was on the back stating balance of account for hay, which the Judge stated threw the hay dispute out of the question. On Mr. Balch, the plaintiff's solicitor, looking at this endorsement, he denied remembering to have seen it when he received the cheque, and doubted its being there then. His frionour said that rose a serious question, as it imputed forgery for purposes of fraud, which meant penal servitude. This opened the whole case again, and plaintiff and defendant were examined and crossexamined at some length. The question of the endorsement at the time of drawing the cheque was satisfactorily proved on oath by defendant and Mr. Brennand's clerk at Sturmiuster Newton, of which the jury said they were convinced. Then followed tee horse hire. Ultimately the jury found that thl cheque balanced the accounts for the hay, but they also considered a fair and reasonable remuneration should be allowed plaintiff for the use of the horse, when he had to hire another in its stead. This then depended on the charge made by Mr. Ames, who let plaintiff have his horses at the time.—His Honour concurred in the verdict, each party to pay their own costs.  , . - ' 1.1.111111111111.11.411"."3 , , It 1 t t ,t P , . ' s 1 / fV /