Ambleside County Court Ambleside Lakes Herald August 7, 1885 Page 4 Friday before Judge INGHAM HARTLEY v SHAW Brought by Messrs. HARTLEY against Mrs. SHAW of Hawkshead to recover the sum of 12s 3d for meat suppled to the defendant, who acknowledged buying what was stated in the account sent her by the complainant and said she had paid part of the bill leaving a balance of 6s 4d Complainant stated that he had also supplied her with meat since sending her the bill produced, and had not yet received payment for it, but not having brought his account books he was not able to prove the debt. His Honour: The case is adjourned for you to bring your books, and you will have to pay the defendant's expenses. HAYES v THOMPSON Mr. R. HAYES, gardener, of Grasmere sued Mr. THOMPSON, painter also of Grasmere for £11 15s being the rent of certain land and outbuildings let by Mr. J.F. GREEN to the complainant and sublet by him to the defendant. Mr. W.H. HEELIS for Mr. HAYES Mr. J.F. GREEN stated that Mr. HAYES paid £18 a year for the property two thirds of which was sublet to the defendant; the portion sublet he valued at £8 per year. Mr. THOMPSON stated that two farmers had valued the land for him and said it was only worth £4 a year. They had been unable to come on account of the haymaking. Case adjourned in order that the defendant might summon his witnesses. THOMPSON v GOETZEE Mr. THOMPSON, auctioneer, of Kendal sued Mr. GOETZEE of Ambleside for the sum of £1, the value of some carpet, which he stated the defendant had purchased at the sale of Miss BONNY's furniture, of Mill cottage, Ambleside held on the 26th of February last. The day being wet, the carpets were sold in a small room, and purchasers could not inspect them throughout. The defendant said he bought the carpet, but on looking at it he found it was not so good as it was represented to be. He therefore returned it to the auctioneer who agreed to take it back and ordered his clerk to strike it out of the book. Mr. THOMPSON replied he did not misrepresent the goods. He had said "In this small room we cannot spread the carpets out: you must take them as you find them". He also denied agreeing to take the carpet back. Wilson HODGSON, an apprentice working at Mr. DIXON's, joiner, Ambleside for the defence stated: I saw the book and I saw the auctioneer's clerk mark the name out with a pencil; he said at the time he was glad to get such a funny name off his book. The book was examined and the name was found; there was no pencil mark through it, but the witness repeated his statement. Judgement was given in favour of the complainant, with railway fare allowed. SIMON v MILLIGAN Mrs. MILLIGAN appeared in answer to a summons taken out against her by Mrs. SIMON to recover the sum of £1 9s 10d for draper goods delivered. It appeared that the goods had been purchased by the defendant before marriage. His Honour said that as the goods were purchased before marriage, the husband could not be compelled to pay for them, and as the defendant had no private property the case must be struck out. TOWNSON v MILLIGAN Same defendant as in preceding case was summoned by George TOWNSON, draper of Hawkshead for non-payment of £8 14s 11d The facts of the case were similar to those in the other case and it was accordingly struck out. STANFIELD v COCKER Mr. COCKER, boots of the Rothay Hotel Grasmere was being sued for £17 15s 4d; of this £15 9s 2d was for meat sold to defendant and the remainder was for costs. Judgement had been given in favour of the complainant at the Salford Hundred Court of Record, but the amount not having been paid an adjourned commitment summons had been taken out against the defendant, who appeared to answer it. Mr. COCKER stated that some time since he was in business as a butcher and the amount sued for was for meat purchased from the complainant some five years since. He was only getting 10s a week, beside what he got given. An order was reduced to 6s a month instead of the order for immediate payment.