Somerset County Gazette 14 May 1864 Taunton County Court SYDENHAM v PALMER SHATTOCK BARTLETT v WEAVER FOSTER v CRIDDLE HELLARD v POCOCK LOVIBOND v COGAN YORK TAYLOR

Sarah Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper Articles


The Somerset County Gazette, and West of England Advertiser. Saturday 14 May 1864

Page 3 Column 1 and 2


Taunton County Court.

MONDAY. - Before C. SAUNDERS, Esq., Judge.

There were a large number of cases entered for hearing to-day.

SYDENHAM v. PALMER. - The plaintiff, a plumber and glazier, of North Street, Taunton, sued the defendant, a widow, of Clifton, to recover the sum of £50, damages alleged to have been sustained in consequence of her son, who was apprenticed to the plaintiff, having left his work. - Mr. TAUNTON, who appeared for the defendant, applied for a reference to a person in the trade, but Mr. F. A. TRENCHARD, on the other side objected. The following were called as a jury to try the case:- Messrs. G. H. GEALE, H. BARKER, T. FISHER, E. WOTTON, and W. LUXTON. Their services, however, were not required, the case being arranged by the solicitors.

SHATTOCK v. SHATTOCK. - The plaintiff, Mr. Robert SHATTOCK, a farmer and butcher, of Lydeard St. Lawrence, sued Mr. John SHATTOCK, maltster, &c., of the same parish, to recover the sum of £2 10s, the value of three sacks of barley. - Mr. B. PINCHARD appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. P. O. H. REED, of Bridgwater, for the defendant. - The plaintiff stated that in the year 1862 he thrashed out a quantity of barley, which he sold to Mr. HANCOCK, brewer, of Wiveliscombe. There were left three sacks of “seconds,” a sample of which he took to the defendant, and offered him for sale at 4s. 8d. a bushel. The barley was bought by defendant at that price, and delivered by plaintiff and a lad named George HANCOCK. Defendant did not pay for it, and the matter stood over for a time. Shortly afterwards he brought in a bill for malt, and hop goods, and plaintiff then asked him to pay for the barley. He replied, “I have no recollection of having had any; but I will look at my book.” Afterwards received a letter from defendant, threatening legal proceedings unless his bill, amounting to £7 6s. 10d., were paid. In December there was a settlement, and defendant refused to allow for the barley. - George HANCOCK stated that he assisted in the delivery of some sacks of barley at the defendant's house in the fall of the year 1862. He denied that he had said that Mr. RIDLER had taken in the barley, or that he had stated that he did not know what the sacks contained. - Mr. REED: There is one question with I don't like to put to you, but I must ask you to answer it. Have you not been in trouble lately? - Witness: I have. - Mr. REED: Very well; I won't ask you any more. - His Honour: Being “in trouble” may mean that he has lost his father. - Mr. REED: I did not wish to pain him more than I can help; if, however, you wish me to pursue the question I will. - His Honour: Never mind; he has been in trouble lately. - Mr. REED denied that the barley had ever been bought or delivered. - Defendant stated that in 1862 he was a partner with Mr. RIDLER, and that the partnership was disolved in October of that year. Mr. RIDLER had the management of the malt-house up to the dissolution, and then defendant took to it. Had had dealings with the plaintiff, and had his books in court to show them. The last time any barley was bought by the firm of plaintiff was in May, 1862; and he (defendant) had not had any dealings with him since. Plaintiff did not send any account to defendant previous to October, 1863, when the latter delivered his bill. Plaintiff did not say anything about the barley then, but said he would see about the bill. At the latter end of that month defendant again asked him a for a settlement, and he replied, “I think you owe me for some barley.” Defendant said he did not. He showed him his books to prove that there was no barley entered. Plaintiff said he knew he had, and that he had it entered on his book. He fetched his book, but this barley was not entered; but all that had been bought previously was entered. Told him that he was labouring under a mistake – that it was wheat which was had in just at that time. He said, “Mr. RIDLER bought it; he came into the barn to look at it.” Told him it was wheat that was had in about that time; and he said he knew better, observing that he did not know anything about any wheat. Showed him a book, in which the wheat was entered, as being sent into dry on the 16th of September, and he then began to get warm and to swear. Told him that there was no occasion to quarrel, and that the matter might be settled quietly. “Seconds” barley would not be fit for malting; had bought no barley for other purposes than malting. A meeting afterwards took place in defendant's shop, William HALL, George HANCOCK, and Mr. RIDLER being also present. Plaintiff said,” Here are the men who can prove about the barley.” Asked HALL what he knew about it, and he replied that he recollected Mr. RIDLER going down to the barn to look at some barley, but he though it was in 1861. Said to plaintiff, “That evidence is no good;” and HALL remarked, “I don't know anything more about it.” Asked HANCOCK what he knew about it, and he replied that he knew nothing. Plaintiff said, “Don't you remember bringing some barley here about September?” and he replied he could not say whether it was in that month, October, or November. He said he remembered taking some sacks to the house, but he could not say what was in them as they were tied. Asked him who took in the sacks at the malt-house, and he replied, “Mr. RIDLER.” This was denied by Mr. RIDLER. The plaintiff had previously said that William HALL was the person who delivered the barley; after that he said James TOUT delivered it. - Cross-examined: Had threatened plaintiff with an action for assault if he bought this action. - Mr. Joseph Henry RIDLER, late partner with defendant, confirmed his evidence. - His Honour said it was greatly to be regretted that the parties to the action had not kept accurate accounts. The demand for payment was asserted by plaintiff from the beginning, and he must be guilty of wilful perjury unless that which he and his man had sworn were true. There was no reason to suppose that there was such a wilful coinage, and the balance of evidence being in favour of the plaintiff, judgement must therefore be for him for the amount claimed.

BARTLETT v. WEAVER. - This was an action to recover arrears of rent and possession of a piece of land at Stoke St Gregory. The plaintiff is a daughter of the late Mr. WEAVER, of that parish, and is now residing in America; the defendant is her brother, and lives at Stoke St. Gregory. Mr. TAUNTON appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. REED for the defendant. - Mrs. HARRIS, a widow living at Jersey, stated that she was for fifteen years housekeeper to the late Mr. Richard WEAVER, and left the service in May, 1861. He was the father of Mr. John WEAVER, the defendant, and had land at Currymore, of which one BOBBETT was the tenant when she was first in Mr. WEAVER's service. About two years afterwards she heard a conversation between Mr. WEAVER and the defendant about this land. The latter said he would pay for it the same as BOBBETT. Mr. WEAVER said he had not objection, but he could not live without his rents. Defendant said, “If you think I want to wrong you, I will pay you a year's rent in advance.” He also said he would pay the interest to Mrs. GOULD out of the rent. Defendant's brother Richard used to collect the rents and pay the interest for his father. Afterwards heard a second conversation, in which defendant complained of the land, and the late Mr. WEAVER replied that he did not force him to have it. Had since received papers from defendant. Heard a conversation between defendant and the late Mr. Richard WEAVER in reference to Mrs BARTLETT, in America. Defendant said his sister in America was very badly off, and that he would send her something; to which the father replied that his money should not go to America, but if she liked to come home she should have a part of his last shilling. He repeated that he could not live without his rents. - Cross-examined: The land is mortgaged to Mrs. GOULD, I received rents for the late Mr. WEAVER. The defendant's name is not there, because he did not come to settle up. - Lawrence Dare HUNT, of Ash, Stoke St. Gregory, brother-in-law of defendant, having married a daughter of the late Mr. Richard WEAVER, stated that Hannah BARTLETT was a sister of his wife. His brother-in-law, who was ill now, used to collect the rents of the late Mr. WEAVER. Had seen Richard WEAVER, the younger, collect rents for his father, and from BOBBETT among others. The defendant had occupied the land in question for sixteen or seventeen years, paying £5 a year mortgage interest, and £1 a year besides. Witness was the agent of the plaintiff, and signed a notice to quit, which was served by a person named FURZEY. He had received, since the death of the late Mr. Richard WEAVER, money on behalf of the plaintiff. - Cross-examined: Was not on friendly terms with defendant. John BOBBETT deposed that his father was some years ago tenant of the land in question, and had paid £6 a year rent. - Mr. SMITH, of Stoke St. Gregory, deposed that it was the custom of that parish to let the lands from Christmas to Christmas. - Simon FURZEY stated that he served upon defendant a notice to quit at Christmas last, and that defendant said he had rented the land of his father, and had paid Mrs. GOULD £5 a year interest on a mortgage of £100, and that he had made up £1 a year to his father in cider and other things. - Mr. REED called upon Mr. TAUNTON to show that his client was alive; and a person in court proved that he saw her alive in America six months ago. - Mr. REED addressed his Hononr [sic] for the defence. The defendant was then called, and stated that he entered into possession of the land in question at Lady-day about the year 1846. The interest was due in September, and he always paid it in that month. Had never paid his father any rent. Had sent him presents from time to time. Did not say to FURZEY what he had stated. If he (defendant) had told him so he might as well have told all Curry of it; so he was very careful what he told him. - Cross-examined: Never had notice from my father to quit. Defendant denied the conversations mentioned by Mrs. HARRIS and said at the time the first one was alleged to have taken place his father owed him £300. - Mr. TAUNTON: Did it happen that you threatened to shoot your father? - Defendant: I won't answer that question. Mr. TAUNTON: But did you? Defendant: I wont say. It's shameful; you are a gentleman, and ought to know better than to ask such a question. Did you shoot yours? - His Honour said it was clear that the defendant was a tenant, and judgment must therefore be for the plaintiff.

FOSTER v. CRIDDLE. - This was an action to recover arrears of rent and possession of a dwelling-house and orchard at North Curry. Mr. F. A. TRENCHARD appeared for the plaintiff, who stated that he was landlord of the Bristol Inn, Taunton, and owner of an orchard at North Curry. He occupied these until ten years ago, and then he let them for £20 a year. Defendant was the tenant, and had to pay £10 a year to plaintiff, and the other £10 a year to plaintiff's uncle, as interest on money borrowed. In December, 1862, plaintiff caused a notice to quit to be served on defendant. They afterwards met, and on defendant stating that his term expired on Lady-day, plaintiff withdrew the notice and served him with another, requiring him to quit at Lady-day last. Defendant, however, had not given up possession. - For the defence, Mr. LOCKYER, plaintiff's uncle, was called, and stated that he had lent money upon the house in question and not upon the orchard. He had required the tenant to pay the rent of the house to him. - Defendant contended that plaintiff had no authority to give him notice to quit the house; that Mr. LOCKYER was his landlord. - Mr. TRENCHARD replied, submitting that the house and orchard were let together, and that plaintiff was the landlord of both. Mr. LOCKYER being simply mortgagee. - His Honour gave plaintiff a judgement to take possession on the 24th of June.

HELLARD v. POCOCK. - ACTION FOR EJECTMENT. - Mr. F. TRENCHARD appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. TAUNTON for the defendant. The defendant rented three pieces of land at Ruishton, and two at Curry Moor, of which the plaintiff was the trustee, and the action now brought was for the purpose of ejecting the defendant. The main question was whether there was one entire letting of the whole land or a separate letting. Defendant had given notice to the plaintiff of his intention to quit one portion of the land; but plaintiff contended that defendant could not give up one portion without the whole, and he had explained that to defendant's wife. The tenor of the evidence went to show that there was a separate letting, and judgment was given for the defendant.

LOVIBOND v. COGAN. - The plaintiff, a farmer, residing at West Hatch, sought to recover from defendant, a nurseryman, of Taunton, the sum of £3, damages alleged to have been sustained in consequence of the negligent driving of George HURFORD and Thomas GYLDE, two servants of defendant, at West Hatch, on the 2nd of March last. - Mr. TAUNTON conducted the case for the plaintiff, and Mr. F. A. TRENCHARD for the defendant. - The plaintiff said: I was going home from Bridgwater; driving a horse and dog cart, on the 2nd March, a boy was with me. About a quarter past six o'clock I was near the bottom of the hill near the Nag's Head, and could see about twenty yards before me. I heard a waggon or cart coming, and saw that it was a waggon drawn by two horses when it was about ten yards off. They were on my side of the road; I tried to pull up. Three men were in the waggon. Between the bottom of the hill and the place of the accident I was driving at the rate of about six miles an hour. I called out, but the men in the waggon took no notice. Just as the front horse touched my trap the wheel of the waggon came into it, damaging it to the amount of £3. A man named HURFORD was driving the waggon; I and the boy were thrown out. I got up, and asked who the men were, and to whom the waggon belonged. GLYDE came up, and said, “One of the horses is mine and the other belongs to Mr. COGAN” (the defendant). He afterwards said it was Mr. HARDWILL's waggon. After getting the trap free we went into a house, and there I took the names of the three men. HURFORD and GLYDE both and they were workmen of Mr. COGAN's. The other man was a navvy, named BROOKS. When the accident happened, I was as close as I could be on my own side. I asked them why they did not pull up. HURFORD said, “I didn't hear you holloa;” and GLYDE said, “It is nothing to do with me; it's only my horse.” I saw defendant next day, and asked him if he had had a trap on the road on the previous day. He said, “I sent two men with a waggon to Ilminster yesterday.” I told him as I was returning from market they ran into me. I also asked their names. He said his man's name was HURFORD, and the man he had hired was GLYDE. He said he was very sorry for it, but it was hard he could not trust two men without their doing such damage, and that he had not seen the men since. He also said if he was in fault he would pay anything reasonable. I saw him afterwards, and shewed him the bill, but he refused to pay. - Cross-examined: They struck my dog-cart between the wheel and the body and broke the shaft. It did not throw the horse down. I was quite stopped when they drove into me. - Jas. SPILLER, the boy in the trap with plaintiff, confirmed his evidence. - Mary BOARD and Henry BOARD corroborated a portion of the plaintiff's testimony. - Mr. R. HODGE, farmer, of Thorn Falcon, was called to prove that he saw Mr. LOVIBOND and the boy in the gig, and that the former was perfectly sober. - Mr. TRENCHARD submitted that there was no evidence which would make Mr. COGAN liable, and that the person who had been hired was liable. - His Honour, however, thought that as HURFORD, who was a servant of the defendant's, was driving, the defendant was clearly liable to pay, and gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.

BANKRUPTS.

Re JOHN YORK, late a farmer, of Winford. This debtor came up from goal to petition the court to adjudicate him a bankrupt in forma pauperis. Mr. REED supported, and Mr. HAMLIN, of Bristol, opposed on behalf of Sir Edward ELTON, the petitioner's late landlord, and his detaining creditor. - The petitioner stated that his debts amounted to £170 4s., and that he had no property whatever. He had a life interest in some land, but it was mortgaged for more than its full value to Mr. John JAMES, solicitor, of Wrington. Had occupied a farm for thirty years under the family of Sir E. ELTON, and attributed his being reduced to poverty to having to do the hauling for the erection of a new house and buildings on the farm, he having, in consequence of the expense of paying workmen and maintaining horses, to sell his cows to pay his rent. In answer to Mr. HAMLIN, however, the petitioner admitted that this hauling took place seventeen years ago. He also admitted that he owed his landlord a large sum of rent, that the landlord had been obliged to bring an action of ejectment in order to get him out of the farm, of which he held possession down to the time of his arrest in March last; and that he had disposed of most of his property to his son, his brother-in-law, and to other relatives and friends. - His Honour said he would adjudicate the bankrupt, and send him to the Bristol County Court, but he found that the new rules prevented him from transferring cases. The best plan, therefore, would be for the petitioner to be discharged by the Registrar on Thursday, and to be remitted to Bristol.

Re FREDERICK TAYLOR, maltster, Corston. This was also a petition in forma pauperis. The petitioner stated that he had carried on business as a maltster at Corston for the last eight or nine years, and that he had been arrested at the suit of Mr. James CHARD, of Crewkerne, for £25 and costs. The petitioner's debts amounted to £115; his assets were nothing. About six weeks ago he was sued on a bill of exchange for £45 and costs by Mr. FLOWER, of the Queen's Head Inn, Bristol. The petitioner added that within the last three years he had had bad debts amounting to more than £800. The petition was granted.

The petitions of William BILLETT, late of the Little Angel Inn, Taunton, and James FARMER, boot and shoe-maker, of East-reach, Taunton, were adjourned until next court.


Back to Miscellaneous Page

Back to Home Page






<NOTES: Hannah BARTLETT is Hannah WEAVER daughter of Richard WEAVER and Sarah ROWSWELL, married BARTLETT

John WEAVER daughter of Richard WEAVER and Sarah ROWSWELL, married Charlotte DAY>