From Western Post, 9th March 1861: SMALL DEBTS COURT Monday March 4 Before E MARLAY and M H LYONS, Esqrs. Ebenezer LOVEJOY was summoned at the instance of FOLEY, the cowkeeper, to shew cause why he refused to pay the sum of three shillings which he lawfully owed for milk. Mr LOVEJOY, after stoutly defending the case, and occupying the time of the Court for a considerable time, was ordered to pay the amount with costs. FOLEY v BURGESS - This was another disputed milk score, but of a far more complicated nature, in consequence of a contra account. Several witnesses were examined, the weight of whose evidence preponderated in favour of the plaintiff; a verdict was therefore given for the amount claimed - 7s 1 ½ d. Dr. KING v T HOLMES - This was a disputed charge for medical attention. The case was adjourned till Tuesday fortnight to enable HOLMES to obtain evidence as to the number of visits Dr KING had paid him. BEAL v GORDEN, for £6 6s. Adjourned. Sandy ADAMS v BISHOP - £1 10s for money received. Plaintiff engaged to plaster defendant's house at one shilling per yard, which he was unable to fulfil in consequence of BISHOP not providing him with lime. Not being able to afford to lose any more time, he took another job, leaving the lathing he had done to be settled for at some future time. R RIGG engaged and completed the work, for which he was paid by BISHOP, who deducted 30s for the work done by Sandy. The money being due for work done, and not, as stated in the summons, for "money received", the case was dismissed. ***END*** Annette Piper Please note: Every effort has been to transcribe the above information correctly, however errors may have inadvertently been made. Spelling of surnames/places as appears in original.