Ambleside County Court Ambleside Lakes Herald May 29, 1885 Page 4 Friday 22nd before Judge Ingham Edward REED v. Robert ATKINSON An adjournment had been made in order that the defendant might bring evidence as to a counter claim, but failing to appear judgement was given in favour of REED. John WALKER v. John STOREY Mr. WATSON for the plaintiff. Mr. DOBSON, of Windermere for defendant, a quarry master of Kentmere Claim was for £14 19s 10d, the principal items being for board and lodgings The plaintiff presented an account, from which it appeared that STOREY had paid at various times sums of £10, £5, £3 and other amounts on account and was still owing the balance claimed. Defendant denied the debt as an altogether trumped up case. He had paid up regularly at every month end. His Honour was of opinion that the account which had been kept was a genuine document and therefore an immediate order for payment was made. Richard MOORE v John ADDISON An action to recover from the administrators of the estate the cost of the maintenance of a child of a sister of the plaintiff. It appeared that the mother, who was a widow had died recently and left some property. The child having been maintained by Richard MOORE for some time previous to the death and also afterwards, the present claim was made for payment thereof, but the defendant disputed the amount. An order was made for £7 16s to be paid. Robert HAYES v. Thomas THOMPSON Mr. HAYES stated that he let the defendant a field, cow house, loft and pig stys. When defendant took them, he said he wanted them for a week, but he stayed in fifty one weeks, and used the haygrass. Plaintiff valued the field at 5s a week and £12 for a year. Mr. THOMPSON stated that he never took the premises, but in reply to the judge said he had occupied them. His son who had since died, had taken the premises, and it was his wife's cow that had occupied the field. The property was worth £1 a year. The Judge who thought the amount rather large said Mr. HAYES would have to get it valued, and as the defendant had occupied the premises he would have to pay. James HOWE v. Samuel CROFT Mr. HOWE stated that in November 1882 he was tenant of a shop at Greenbank, Bowness which he fitted up with trade fixtures. When he left he sublet it to Mr. CROFT, and made a personal agreement with him as to taking the fixtures. They were to be six pounds, but he (the plaintiff) had taken part of them. He had sent the account in regularly every year. The defendant said he never agreed with Mr. HOWE about anything and the question of fixtures was never mentioned. The account was only sent in in 1884. The case was adjourned in order that Mr. HOWE might produce his ledger to show that he had sent the account in before the time that Mr. CROFT stated. GARSIDE v STAVELEY Action brought by Mrs. Garside, of Ambleside to recover £2 9s 5d from Mrs. STAVELEY, for drapery supplied. Mrs. GARSIDE said that the defendant had come to her with her daughter and bought certain goods. They were put down to the daughter, but she was under age, and Mrs. STAVELEY said she would see it paid, so she had brought the action against the mother. Judgement was given in favour of the defendant, the judge remarking that plaintiff should sue the daughter, as even those under age had to pay for their own clothing. GARSIDE v HOGGARTH This case was adjourned in order that the registrar might compare the books of the plaintiff and defendant. David Leverton Leverton, Stevens, Clibborn, Dodgson, Hird, Stalker ulpha@telus.net