PETERSFIELD.]—COUNTY COURT.—A Court was held on Saturday last, before C. J. Gunner, Esq., Deputy Judge, at the Town Hall.
Sueing the Wrong Person.—John Caplan v. Richard Wakeford Attree.—This was a suit for £13 14s., for hire-carting. Mr. Albery (Midhurst), appeared for defendant, who is the valuer under the Liss Enclosure Commission.—Plaintiff deposed that defendant had promised to pay him, by leaving the money with Mr. Wright.—Cross-examined by Mr. Albery: Wright gave me the order for the work, but Mr. Attree promised to pay me. He said he would leave the money with Mr. Wright.—Defendant deposed: I have never given plaintiff any order for the work. He has asked me for the money, but I told him I would pay Mr. Wright, who was the contractor. I never promised to pay defendant.—John Wright deposed: I employed defendant to do the work in question. I am the contractor. He has asked me for the money, and I have told him I would pay him as soon as I got the money from the valuer. I am now prepared to pay him.—The Judge said plaintiff had evidently sued the wrong person, and there must be judgement for defendant, with costs. It was a great pity plaintiff should have made such a mistake.
A Jury Case.—Assault.—William Simms v. William Love.—This was an assault case from Eastmeon. A jury was empanelled to try it, and the damages were laid at £10.—Mr. Britton appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. White (Guildford), for defendant. The case occupied the Court about three hours, but as it was altogether of a most trumpery character, and as many of the details were unfit for publication, we shall content ourselves with giving a brief summary of the facts. The assault complained of took place as long ago as the 16th of February last, at which time plaintiff kept the George public-house, at Eastmeon, and it appeared from the evidence, that on the evening of that day (being Sunday) several persons were assembled in the tap-room, among whom were a person named Porter and his wife, and also the defendant. Some angry words arose between the landlord (Simms) and the Porters, as to the character of a woman who had been in the room in the course of the evening, and Simms, in order to substantiate what he had said, called upon defendant to state what he knew of the woman’s character. The defendant declined to do, and got up to leave the room, but was prevented doing so by Mrs. Simms, plaintiff’s wife, and plaintiff himself also continued to press him on the subject, whereupon the alleged assault ensued, which plaintiff described as a ‟violent blow with the fist on the back of the neck,” but which defendant swore was merely ‟a push with the open hand on the breast,” but whether a blow or a push, plaintiff fell against the settle and considerably injured his arm, whereby he was rendered incapable for some weeks of working at his business, that of a sieve-maker, and incurred expenses for surgical attendance to the amount of £2 6s.—The jury, after deliberating for about half an hour, gave a verdict for plaintiff, with damages, £3 6s., which, together with the costs, was ordered to be paid by instalments of 8s. a month.