Ambleside County Court Ambleside Lakes Herald November 2, 1883 Friday before Judge Ingham John HILEY sued Thomas GRAVESON for £6 6s For clothes supplied to son of Thomas GRAVESON who unfortunately for plaintiff is now in New Zealand. Case dismissed; it is the son who should be sued. Isaac THOMPSON sued Geo. PATTINSON, both of Bowness, for 19s 4d, the price of some oars made for him. Defendant pleaded that he ordered the oars from THOMPSON on behalf of a person named PALMER, and that the plaintiff understood this to be the case. The judge found for the plaintiff at 8s a month, and that if defendant's statement were correct his remedy would now be against PALMER. John DOBSON sought to recover from J.S. RYLANDS £4 5s being his charge for a man and three horses conveying furniture to Askam. Mr. H. DOBSON for the plaintiff Defendant pleaded that the sum named was an overcharge and that £3 3s would have been the proper price. He had to get stabling for the horses at Askam and had also given the driver a matter of 4s 6d. Plaintiff's drayman stated that there had been no bargain as to price and the charge of his master was a reasonable one. As for the stabling which defendant said he had provided, he (witness) found it not fit for a pig and he had to take his horses to Ulverston. Verdict for plaintiff SHAW v HOLLAND William SHAW, auctioneer, Liverpool sued John HOLLAND, auctioneer, Bowness for the sum of £5 he held of his as stake-holder of a wager which had been between plaintiff and a Mr. LEVY, a picture dealer at Liverpool. Mr. DOBSON for the plaintiff Mr. HOLLAND had received two sums of five pounds from SHAW and LEVY respectively, being a wager respecting some picture or other. He was subsequently satisfied that SHAW had lost the bet, and accordingly handed the money over to LEVY, not however before receiving several communications from the plaintiff in which he first demanded the £10 and afterwards his own stake back again. However, Mr. HOLLAND had satisfactory evidence that he had lost, and acted as above mentioned. In giving judgement for the plaintiff, His Honour told the defendant that if the plaintiff had only given him notice for his money back one hour before paying the same over to Levy it was sufficient. The law allowed a man to claim his money back again at any time before it was paid over. BELL v GIBSON John BELL, miller, Ambleside sued Annie GIBSON, grocer Ambleside for £2 2s 10d for hay sold. Bowman GIBSON, appeared for his mother stated that the hay was not for her but for his brother. Plaintiff's son said that Mrs. GIBSONs cart and horse came for it in charge of the two brothers. The case was dismissed as plaintiff's remedy was now clear as the brother had acknowledged the debt. FELL v WALWYN Robert H. FELL and Son claimed from Arthur Shepheard WALWYN £1 12s 6d for damage done to a machine in charge of plaintiff's man whilst cutting defendant's grass. Mr. DOBSON for plaintiff Mr. THOMPSON for defendant Mr. FELL, junr. said he had made a bargain with defendant as to cutting his grass. He refused at first to cut it as it was not dressed, but eventually did so on Mr. WALWYN agreeing to pay any damage sustained by the machine. The machine subsequently sustained damage through collision with a small rock in the field. Defendant stated that no bargain had been made between them respecting damage to machine. Plaintiff had mown the field last year and there was no contract about damage. The field had been made properly ready for mowing. The Judge found for defendant, saying that if the offending rock had been a loose stone the plaintiff might then have shown that Mr. WALWYN had been negligent in not removing it; as to the alleged verbal agreement - could anyone in court tell him which was speaking the truth. He must find for defendant. BREWSTER v PARK Edwin BREWSTER claimed £1 13s 6d from Noble PARK, debt owing by his wife five years ago, before her marriage. Plaintiff said that Mrs. PARK had property (furniture) when she married which statement was denied. His honour said the plaintiff might seize the furniture if he chose, but it would be at his own risk to prove it belonged to the wife. Patent Pick Co. v CHAMLEY The Hardy Patent Pick Company sued R. CHAMLEY for £6 balance of account. The difference between the contending parties was over price, the defendant stating that he purchased the picks at 6s 6d per dozen and the plaintiffs proving by correspondence that with the exception of the first lot they were purchased at 8s. Order to pay 15s per month and costs. David Leverton Leverton, Stevens, Clibborn, Dodgson, Hird, Stalker ulpha@telus.net