Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
Somerset County Gazette, Bristol Express, and Devonshire News. Saturday 08 Sep 1877
Page 10 Column 4
TAUNTON COUNTY COURT.
The monthly session of this Court was held on Monday at the Shire Hall, before Mr. Serjeant PETERSDORFF, judge. There were about 180 cases for hearing, but few of them were of public interest.
EJECTMENT. - SMITH v. BURNETT was a case in which the Rev. F. J. SMITH sought to recover of Mrs. BURNETT possession of a house in Tangier, which defendant had rented at 1s. 3d. per week. - Service of the required notice having been given, his Honour ordered possession in seven days.
MORLAND v. WALKER. - Mr. Biddulph PINCHARD was for the plaintiff, and Mr. COOK for the defendant. - Mr. PINCHARD said the plaintiff was Mr. David MORLAND, a draper, and the defendant was also a draper. Defendant engaged the plaintiff to travel for him, to canvass, to sell and to collect monies, at a salary of £1 a week for twelve months the condition of engagement being that if notice should be required to be given or taken the engagement should be terminable by two months' notice on either side. The agreement was entered into on the 10th July, and Mr. MORLAND commenced his duties. On the 16th of July he received a notice from Mr. WALKER terminating the engagement on the expiration of two months. Mr. MORLAND went to Mr. WALKER more than once to arrange matters as to the monthly payment for the two months' notice, and on the 7th August Mr. WALKER sent him a statement of agreement whereby the plaintiff should agree to make no further requirement of his employer in the way of future wages, but that 20s. be paid to him in settlement of all claims. That Mr. MORLAND could not assent to, and he accordingly brought this action for two months' wages, and for board wages for the time. - Mr. COOK said there were circumstances in this case with regard to the points which obliged him to take a legal objection to the agreement. It was perfectly clear from the reading of it that it was intended that the plaintiff should act as clerk to the defendant, and that would necessitate a stamp being impressed upon the agreement. This agreement did bear a stamp, but the stamp it bore was a ninepenny one, and it was marked “bill or note-stamp.” - His Honour: Are you not in this position, Mr. COOK, that the document has been read? - Mr. COOK: Of course it would be necessary to read it in order to see what the character of it was. - His Honour: Have you not made it evidence by yourself allowing it to be read? - Mr. PINCHARD: I have received notice from the defendant to produce it. - His Honour: Of course strict objections ought to be met with strict answers. - Mr. COOK: I feel that there are circumstances in the case which oblige me to take this objection, and I could not take it before the agreement was before the Court. - Mr. PINCHARD: If your Honour thinks the objection ought to be sustained – though I submit it is evidence – I must ask for an adjournment to have it amended. - His Honour: You must satisfy me that the document is not in evidence to put an end to a stamp objection. - Mr. PINCHARD: This is an agreement prepared by the defendant, and he now seeks to take advantage of his own wrong in putting a wrong stamp to it. I must ask you to adjourn the case for a month in order to get the stamp remedied. - His Honour: I will grant the adjournment.