APPLEBY COUNTY COURT. THE USUAL COURT was held on Thursday last, before JOHN BELLO, Esq., Deputy Judge. The attorneys present were MR. HEELIS (Registrar), Appleby; MR. BROWN (from the office of MR. PRESTON, Kirkby Stephen); MR. WILLEY (from MR. G. R. THOMPSON’s), and MR. CANT, Appleby. The business of the day was exceedingly small, and was concluded in half-an-hour from the opening of the Court. A TRIFLING ACCOUNT – RICHARDSON v. NELSON. This was the only defended case. The plaintiff, who was represented by MR. CANT, is a joiner residing at Kirkby Stephen, and the defendant MRS. NELSON, now lives at Drybeck. The amount was for 3-1/2 days’ work at 4s. 6d., and 2s. for nails, &c., making a total of only 15s. 6d. The defence was that RICHARDSON never did the work he was engaged to do, and, moreover, that he had charged 4s. 6d per day, when the previous year he only charged 4s. Of course, plaintiff accounted for the difference by the “rise in the labour market”. His Honor allowed 14s. 6d. of the claim. Appleby County Court. CLAIMS FOR BUTTER SUPPLIED – DOBINSON AND ATKINSON v. GILL. In the above, there were two actions against the same defendant, MR. JOSEPH DOBINSON and MR. LANCELOT ATKINSON, of Warcop,, butter dealers, claiming £5 6s. 3d. and £5 8s. 6d. respectively, from one THOMAS GILL, of Crawthorn, near Yarm. It appears that defendant had purchased butter of plaintiffs, representing himself as a farmer and butter dealer. The butter was sent, but plaintiffs had been unable to obtain payment, though defendant had offered to pay 4s. per month. Immediate order. “BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS” – RIGG v. SALKELD. The above case, which had been set down for hearing to-day, created considerable interest, but did not come off as expected. The plaintiff is MRS. RIGG, of the King’s Head Hotel, Appleby, and the defendant is COLONEL SALKELD of Holme Hill, Carlisle. Plaintiff sued defendant for the sum of £6 3s., the items of which were: - 1867..............To Bill delivered................................£2 2s. 0d. 1867..............To Horse Hire....................................£0 16s. 0d. 1868..............To Bill delivered................................£2 2s. 0d. 1871..............To Carriages, Horses & Driver..........£1 3s. 0d. Total.......................£6 3s. 0d. The bill was not disputed, but as to items £2 2s 0d, 16s., and £2 2s 0d, in 1867 and 1868, notice was given that the defendant, as a “ground of defence”, relied upon the plea that the claim was “barred by the statute of limitations”; whilst as to item £1 3s 0d, 1171 (*should be 1871), “the defendant pays the same into Court with proportionate costs.” ============================================================ BARB, ONTARIO, CANADA.