Ambleside County Court Ambleside Lakes Herald August 1, 1884 Page 4 Friday last before Judge INGHAM SPEIGHT v SEVERS Mr. Heelis for plaintiff Mr. DOBSON for defendant Action was to recover price of a pony, cart and harness value of £6 which had been taken away by defendant. Plaintiff resides in Grasmere and had a letter on 6th May from SEVERS stating that if he wished to sell the pony and cart he would be glad to pay for it. SEVERS went to see plaintiff about it, but he was out and plaintiff's wife said they couldn't part with if for less than £6. Defendant put pony in a cart to try it, drove away and never returned it. At the Rothay Hotel where he called he said he bought the horse from Mr. MONKHOUSE of Kendal. Mr. MONKHOUSE: I sold the pony to plaintiff and he was to pay for it in installments. Judge: The pony did not belong to plaintiff until he paid all the installments. There is no case. A man can not sell property that does not belong to him. Ambleside Lakes Herald October 10, 1884 Page 4 Thursday before Judge INGHAM ROBINSON v FELL Mr. FELL had contracted for the after-grass part of a field belonging to the plaintiff in order to make some holes to examine the land to see if it was suitable for a projected new cemetery at Windermere. These holes had not been filled up and the action was to recover the damage caused by the plaintiff's cattle being kept out of the field during the period that the holes had remained open. The defendant said he did not specify any time, when he arranged for part of the field. The judge considered that as he had kept the cattle from the whole of the field and he had only contracted for a part of it, some damage might be recovered. However, from the evidence of a labourer named GILL it seems that he had been sent some time since to fill up the holes for Mr. FELL and ROBINSON had ordered him away saying he would get another man to do it; consequently case was dismissed without costs. MILNER v BONNEY The plaintiff had been supplying goods to Miss BONNEY and sued her for the same. The defence was that she was only getting them as housekeeper for her brother, who had lately become bankrupt. He had told her to get them there, as he had a counter claim against the plaintiff. The judge did not consider that she was purchaser, and a verdict was entered accordingly. Ambleside Lakes Herald October 17, 1884 Page 4 The following cases were held over from last week. John TALLON v MARTINDALE & THISTLETHWAITE Mr. DOBSON for plaintiff Mr. BOWNASS for the defendants. >From the evidence it appeared that plaintiff had sold a quantity of stone to the defendants at 1s 5d per cartload, but finding others were charging 1s 6d per load he informed one of the defendants that in future they would be charged the same. He received answer that he supposed they would have to pay, and in the next statement of accounts sent in, 100 loads were charged at 1s 5d and 88 at 1s 6d. They still continued to be supplied with stone and received about 500 loads more, but now objected to pay the increased price, stating that it was not the price they bargained for. The judge was of the opinion that it was not simply one contract, and as they had been informed of the change in price they should not have gone on getting it if they did not intend to pay. John KITCHEN v Thomas WARD Mr. M. THOMPSON for the complainant Mr. WATSON for the defendant The action was to recover £7 10s on sale of a horse. KITCHEN stated that he sold defendant a mare for £11, but being hay time and as he was busy he said he would borrow it for about a week; at the end of that time he asked for the loan of it for three days longer, but was told that he must ask the defendant's daughter, Mrs. WILSON of Under Barrow for whom he had bought it. When the mare was taken back defendant refused to take it saying it was lame. Witness said that he knew it as lame when he bought it and accordingly left the mare, but it was brought back and put into his field. The plaintiff afterwards sold it at Kendal Mart for £3 10s and he brought the present action to recover the difference - £7 10s In reply to the solicitor for the defence, witness said he did not tell the defendant the mare was lame as he knew it; it was visibly lame. He did not know it had been hurt when mowing. Mrs. WILSON, daughter of the defendant: When the mare was delivered she saw that it was lame and said so, the plaintiff said it got hurt in a mowing machine. The judge then declined to hear any further evidence, being perfectly satisfied that the plaintiff had not been telling the truth, and consequently the case was dismissed. David Leverton Leverton, Stevens, Clibborn, Dodgson, Hird, Stalker ulpha@telus.net