PETERSFIELD.
COUNTY COURT.—Putnam, v. Meeres.—In this case Mr. Albery, of Midhurst, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Mitchell, for defendant. The claim was for 9l. 9s., which plaintiff had paid to defendant for an engine-pump—which pump, for causes which appear in the evidence he never received. Plaintiff being sworn, was examined by Mr. Albery—is a painter, &c., living at Petersfield ; on the 25th of April attended an auction sale at Steep Farm ; defendant was the auctioneer ; purchased an engine-pump, described in the catalogue as lot 83, no objection was made to the removal of the pump at the time of the purchase ; paid the defendant 9l. 9s. for the pump (receipt put in) ; after he had paid the money, found a notice left at his house from the landlord (Mr. Waller), not to remove the pump, as it was a fixture ; went up the morning after the sale. When he paid the money, defendant asked if he had any doubt about the removal of the pump, and said that he (defendant) would not pay the money over to Mr. Berriman until that matter was settled ; defendant then went into another room to speak to Mr. Berriman, and on his return, he (plaintiff) went to Mr. Berriman, and said, when shall I remove the pump? he said, if I did remove it, it would be at my peril. Mr. Meeres was present. I left it, rather than incur the risk of an action from the landlord.—Mr. Mitchell submitted to the Court, that the only question now at issue was as to the delivery of the pump by defendant, according to the conditions of sale, which conditions he put in and proceeded to cross examine the plaintiff. Did you see Mr. Waller at the sale? I did not see him, but understood he was there. Did you hear him object to the removal of the pump? No, but Mr. Tigg, for whom I was about to purchase the pump, came to me and said he understood there was likely to be some difficulty about it. Still, notwithstanding this, you bought it? Of course I did. When you saw Mr. Berriman, did you ask him to allow you to leave it for a few days? I did not. Did he name a day by which it must be removed? No, he said, if I did remove it, I must do it at my peril; I did not feel inclined to incur any risk, and therefore left it—The Judge here offered to adjourn the case, and to try the question of right of removal at the next Court, intimating that any decision upon the present issue would not settle the case, and the parties might afterwards be involved in further and more expensive litigation.—Mr. Waller, who was present having consented to abide by the decision of the Judge upon the question of right of removal, the case was adjourned.
(See also
04-12-1847
24-10-1846
21-03-1840)