Ambleside County Court Ambleside Lakes Herald July 24, 1880 Page 4 Thursday before Judge INGHAM Remand from last court: Wm. LEWIS vs John EDMONSON Mrs. WALKER, who cleaned the institute, gave evidence that plaintiff had attended there. Mr. DOBSON for defendant said they would consent to a judgement without costs which was agreed to. TYSON vs William Taylor SHAW Claim against William Taylor SHAW for a suit of clothes bought in 1876 from plaintiff. Claims he never bought the clothes. Plaintiff admitted he was unable to identify the man. Case dismissed. PENNINGTON vs MARR To recover £1 7s 8d due on some bags of flour supplied to defendant. Defendant had kept the flour for some months, then found it to be bad, so he refused to pay and plaintiff would not take the flour back. Judgement: Defendant should not have kept the flour for so long. He must pay the amount at 4s a month. YOUNG vs. DRINKWATER The plaintiff who lives at Preston suing defendant for 11s 1d for some bedding Defendant denied receiving the goods. Case adjourned to enable plaintiff to bring person who delivered the goods. Ambleside Lakes Herald October 16, 1880 Tuesday before T.H. INGHAM A sitting of this court was held in the Mechanics Institute on Tuesday last when 85 cases were entered - 64 new ones, 3 adjourned, 10 adjourned judgement summonses and 8 original ones. The undefended ones were disposed of by the registrar, Geo. GATEY, Esq. There were two defended cases. John FOFAR a bill poster of Bowness vs John HARTLEY, a confectioner of Windermere FORFAR sought to recover 15s wages due him for assisting Mr. HARTLEY in fixing tents etc. in preparation for the boat race and fete at Harrowslack which was held a few months ago. Mr. HARTLEY said he only engaged plaintiff on one day, which was the day of the fete. Plaintiff intimated to the judge that he was an old sailor, and he could produce a witness to prove he worked more than one day for the defendant. Joseph BINNS appeared on behalf of plaintiff and asserted that he was assisting Mr. FOFAR on the days in question and both were employed by Mr. HARTLEY. He was paid. He heard defendant say to FOFAR on the Saturday night, that he would be wanted on the Monday, and he was to bring his bell. Mr. HARTLEY did not dispute engaging him for the Monday, but denied employing him for any other day. For that day Forfar had charged him 5s, also 2s for the bell and 3s for the loan of a boat. He also said that plaintiff was in liquor and had helped himself to port wine and lemonade to the value of 4s 2d. On the fete day his head waiter asked him if he had given plaintiff permission to claim any entrance fees from people landing by boat on the field, as a gentleman had told him he saw him take 6s in this manner. He would ask the judge to adjourn the case so that he might procure witnesses to prove his statement. Donald FERGUSON vs Robinson CASSON W.H. HEELIS of Ambleside and Hawkshead for plaintiff who sought to recover £3 2s paid to defendant for a watch. It appeared that CASSON had promised to supply FERGUSON with a watch warranted for three years; but on receiving it, the watch would not go, so, he accepted the watch back again and promised to supply him with a silver chronometer lever. He had tried to put several of an inferior make on the plaintiff which he of course, refused to accept. Defendant maintained that when he supplied him with the watch, he said it was just the one he wanted. He (FERGUSON) was going to pay him by instalments. The judge stated that if defendant did not supply plaintiff with a watch according to the description he promised, within three days, he would make an order for the full amount. David Leverton Leverton, Stevens, Clibborn, Dodgson, Hird, Stalker ulpha@telus.net