 | |
| Folkestone Express 26-6-1880 |
 | |
| Folkestone Chronicle 4-9-1880 |
 |
| Folkestone Chronicle 12-2-1881 |
 |
| Folkestone Express 2-7-1881 |
Folkestone Chronicle 19-3-1881
County Court
Clement Cowell v Samuel Baker: This was an action brought to recover 9s., the price of a firkin of ale supplied to the defendant by the plaintiff, who is a local brewer.
Defendant did not deny that he owed the money, but asserted that the plaintiff promised to outset the amount by purchasing bottles of him.
Plaintiff denied this, and His Honour gave a verdict against the defendant.
Folkestone Express 19-3-1881
County Court
Saturday, March 12th: Before G. Russell Esq.
Clement J. Cowell v S. Baker: Plaintiff, a brewer, sued for the value of a firkin of ale, supplied in June, 1880. Defendant, a dealer, did not dispute having received the ale, but said it was an understanding that the amount was to be outset in bottles, plaintiff having told him he could take any quantity of “imperials”. He failed to satisfy His Honour on this point, and a verdict was given for the amount claimed.
Folkestone
Chronicle 20-5-1882
County Court
Saturday, May 13th: Before G. Russell Esq.
Cowell v Huntley: This was a claim for £2 13s. 6d. for
beer account.
The dispute between the two parties was, as to the
price the beer should be charged at, the plaintiff contending that the
agreement was £1 7s. 6d. a barrel cash, and £1 10s. credit.
His Honour gave judgement for defendant, with costs.
Folkestone
Express 20-5-1882
County Court
Saturday, May 13th: Before G. Russell Esq.
Cowell v Huntley: Claim for 10s. 6d., balance of a beer
account. The case came on at the last court, but was adjourned in order that
the defendant might have an opportunity of going through the plaintiff`s books.
This, however, had not been done, the plaintiff refusing to allow the defendant
to do so.
His Honour ordered the plaintiff to let the defendant
go through his books then, and after a lapse of some little time they returned
into court.
Mr. Mowll, who appeared for the defendant, said that
his client had been charged £1 10s. a barrel for beer and disputed the claim on
the ground that, according to a verbal agreement, the charge was only to be £1
7s. 6d.
The plaintiff stated that he had supplied the defendant
with beer amounting to over £100, and that they had a verbal agreement that the
charge for the beer should be £1 7s. 6d. per barrel for cash, and £1 10s. for
credit. The present claim was for credit.
The defendant disputed this and stated that it was an
agreement only for £1 7s. 6d. a barrel to be charged, and that when the
invoices were sent in he told plaintiff that he should not pay 30s. a barrel.
The plaintiff said that it was a rule of the trade to
charge 30s. for credit and £1 7s. 6d. for cash. They could find several of the
defendant`s receipts with the 2s. 6d. taken off.
The receipts were then referred to, and the plaintiff
found to be correct.
His Honour gave judgement for the plaintiff, with
costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment