Blandford, Wimborne and Poole Telegram. — 1876-07-14 (Blandford, Dorset, England)

BLACEUURS.)  -Yoram,/ v. Coilias. —This was an action to recover from Mrs. Collins, a widow, ihnaages for I,.ss sustained by the lion-repair of machinery at Mangerton mill, which had been let to Mr. 'Norman by the late Mr. Collin:4.  Mr. Collins apises.red for the. plaintiff, and 3lr. Kingdom QC., and Mr. Bulleu for defendant. The facts simply appeared to be these :---The Mangerton mills were originally let by the owner to Mr. Collins, who is deceased. He re-let them, with. out permission, to Norman, on condition that he (Collins) should put and keep in repair the hatches and water. wheel. However, the repairs were not carried out, and after frequent applications, and as many 'promises to have the work dyne, Collins refused at last to do anything, and asked Norman for £5O for rent of the mill, remarking that if he (Norman) did not care to stay, a Mr. Maber would give him 4100 to go out, and take the fixtures at cost price. This Mr. Norman was willing to accede to, but when it " came to cloth,- said the learned counsel, no one could be forthcoming. Soon after this 31r. Collins committed suicide by shooting himself. Much to the sun prise id Mr. Norman, the real landlord' turned up in a Mr. Palmer, the owner of the mill, and wanted to make Air. Norman pay for dimages to the The learned counsel then called Mr. Norman, who deposed to entei ing the mill upon agreement, to the repairs that were necessary, and to the frequent promises of Mr. Collins to have' them carried out. Several letters were produced and read. Ultimately the matter was referred to Mr. Coombs and Mr. Brown, who were named as the 'parties to attend to the repairs. These, however, were not made, and witness brought an action in the County Court for £5O, for damages up to December, 1874. The witness gave other particulars as to the damages, the course pursued in endeavouring to get them compensated, and the ultimate result.  Cros—examined Ily Mr. Kingdon : Mrs. Rowney was occupying,the mill previous to witness taking it. He entered the premises on the 2:ith Mardi, 1874, but did not know what business was carried on there previously. He brought a steam engine there on two occasions to work the machinery. Coombs and Collins were on the premises several times together and the repairs that were necessary were po:nted out, but, up to May, this hail not been done. In the early part of 1875 a p.,nderons shaft was put in. :New hatches were required, two were brought npon the premises, and he saw them, but he never refused to have them put up. Witness was P.sked as to the construction of the new batches, o.nd after a good deal of fencing he desciibed them.  At this point the learned .Tudge suggested referring the case to an arbitrator, and after some discussioii between his lordship and counsel on either side the cease was referred to Mr. M. Homey, of South-street, Dorchester, Who is to ascess damages. The jury may congratulate themselves, for at the time of our going to press (Thursday morning) the Assessor had not concluded hearing evidence. This concluded the assizes, and the jury were diem!seed with thanks.