OXFORD,

SATURDAY, Dec. 7.

Commitments to our County Gaol.- James Longshaw, charged with stealing a gun, the property of G. Pratley, of Burford.

PETTY SESSIONS.

BAMPTON WEST DIVISION.- Burford, Saturday.

Before the Rev. J.J. Goodenough, Rev. W. Raine, and Rev. A. Neate.

George Pratley, of Burford, wheelwright, was summoned by J.B. Phillips, Esq., of the same place, and charged with obstructing the road leading to his (Mr. Phillips's) house, by putting eight wheels and other articles therein. The case was fully proved, and Pratley was fined 2s. 6d. and costs.

The above J.B. Phillips was also summoned by the said George Pratley, and charged with encroaching on the public highway, by allowing two posts (one on each side of his door, with a short chain to the wall) to remain there. Mr. Phillips clearly proved that the posts had been there for upwards of 20 years. The Magistrates declined to order their removal.

BURFORD.

Parochial Officers.-Overseers.-Mr. T. Reynolds, Mr. Thos. Hall, Mr. George Pratley.

BURFORD.

The New Club.-On Monday the members held their sitting at Mr. George Pratley's, Royal Oak Inn, to receive new members.

PETTY SESSIONS.

BAMPTON WEST DIVISION.- Burford, April 24.

Present, Revs. A. Neate, D.W. Goddard, and W.E.D. Carter.

George Pratley, innkeeper, of Burford, was summoned, upon the information of Inspector Dachus, for keeping his house open on Sunday morning the 28th of March, during prohibited hours. Police Constable Sylvester, who visited the house, proved the charge; fined 8s. and 12s. Costs.

WITNEY.

JUSTICE ROOM, Feb. 22.

Before Walter Strickland, L. Pickering, and W.E. Taunton, Esqs., Revs. Dr. Adams and F.M. Cunningham.

John B. Lambert, of Witney, innkeeper, was charged with assaulting George Pratley, of Witney. From the evidence given, it appeared that Mr. Lambert used very abusive and improper language to complainant because he refused to pay him a beer score, which had been run up by complainant's workmen while doing repairs on the premises, and without provocation requested him to leave the house at once or he would put him out, which he (the complainant) did not comply with, when defendant threw him out and struck him.- Fined 5s. and 16s. costs.

WITNEY.

JUSTICE ROOM, JUNE 14

Before W. Strickland, D. Pickering, and C.C. Dormer, Esqs., and the Rev. F.M. Cunningham.

ASSAULT.-George Pratley, of Witney, carpenter, appeared to a summons, charging him with assault and beating Mary Hunt. Complainant is servant to defendant's wife, and owing to the unfortunate state of things, defendant turned the servant out of the house at ten o'clock on the 11th inst., when the assault in question was committed. Fined, including costs, £2 2s. 6d. Mr. Lee appeared for complainant, and Mr. Westell for defendant.

WITNEY.

JUSTICE ROOM, JULY 5th,

Present-W. Strickland and W.E. Taunton, Esqs., the Rev. F.M. Cunningham.

Assault.-George Pratley, carpenter, Witney, was charged by Henry Jenkins with assaulting him at Witney on the 2nd inst. Mr. Lee for plaintiff, Mr. Westell for defendant. Fined, including costs, £3 10s., or one month's imprisonment. On the application of Mr. Jenkin's defendant was required to give bail, himself in £50 and two sureties in £25 each to keep the peace for six monts.

WITNEY.

COUNTY COURT.

Our bi-monthly court was held on Wednesday, the 3rd, inst., before J.B. Parry, Esq., Q.C., judge.

Pratley v. Jenkins, in which Mr. Harrington, instructed by Mr. Thopson, appeared for the plaintiff, who is a timber dealer at Witney, and Mr. Ravenor for the defendants, who are the trustees under his marriage settlement.

This was a plaint inequity, wherein the plaintiff stated that on the 15th of February 1865, he married one Elizabeth Dix, at which time she was entitled to a considerable amount of property. That a settlement was proposed to be made in which £300 was to be allowed to him for the purposes of his trade, and he executed such a deed without examination, and afterwards found that the £300 was not allowed, and he, therefore, had received no benefit form the property. That about three months certain repairs became necessary to the property, and the trustees and his wife ordered and employed him to do them. On the faith of such instructions he did work amounting to £69 2s. 4d., and incurred a bill of £34 13s. 10d., making £104 6s. 2d. Since then domestic differences have arisen, and plaintiff and his wife have separated. He had since been sued for the £34 13s. 10d. That he had made repeated applications for payment, but they refused, the trustees saying they never ordered any tradesmen to do any work, and the wife pleading overtime, and that he was thereby placed in pecuniary difficulties, having been induced by his said wife to sell his business at Burford, where he was living at the time of his marriage. He therefore, prayed -

1st. That the defendants be ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of £69 12s. 4d., for the repairs done by him, and to pay the amount of the trades man's account, and exonerate and indemnify the plaintiff from all liability in respect thereof, or in case the plaintiff had in the interim been compelled to pay such account, or part thereof, then that they repay him the amount so paid, and all his costs and expenses incurred in reference, to such account.

2nd. For such further and other relief in the premises as the Court should think fit.

3rd. That the defendant should pay the costs of the suit.

Mr. Ravenor demurred, objecting that the bill did not come under any one of the eight cases in which the judge had jurisdiction, and that it was not a case in equity but at common law. Other points were raised, and a lengthened argument took place between the plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Ravenor, and the Judge, the latter commenting on the defendants omitting to file their answer, which had they done he had no doubt counsel's opinion would have been taken on the points raised, and possibly the case would have been withdrawn, and the witnesses (of whom there were many) would not have been put to the inconvenience of attending the court. He considered the plaintiff had a remedy at common law, and he, therefore, dismissed the bill, but without costs.

WITNEY.

county court - Wednesday, Oct. 3.

[Before J.B. BARRY, Esq., Q.C.]

In addition to the ordinary plaints, which were chiefly for small debts, and of no general interest, a plaint in Equity, the first filed in this Court since the County Courts Equitable Jurisdiction Act was passed, came on for hearing to-day, and from the novel nature of the case as a proceeding in this Court, and from the peculiarity of the case itself, it appeared to excite great interest. The parties to the suit were Pratley v. Jenkins and another. Mr. Harrington (of the Common Law Bar), instructed by Mr. F. B. Thompson, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Ravenor represented the defendants.

At 11 o'clock, His Honour having suspended the Common Law business of the Court,

Mr. Harrington (addressing the Judge) said:- Sir, I appear for the plaintiff in this case. Your Honour will have read the bill which is before you, and I will proceed briefly to state the circumstances under which the plaintiff seeks the relief for which the bill he has filed prays. The plaintiff was formerly a builder living at Burford, in this County, and in 1865 he married a widow, living at Witney, and possessed of a tolerably good independency. Previously to the marriage he was induced to sign a settlement which he believed, gave to him £300 of the widow's property, which was to be applied to the purposes of his business. After marriage the plaintiff, at his wife's request, gave up his residence at Burford, and came to reside with her at Witney. Some of the wife's property consisted of houses in Witney, and those requiring repair the plaintiff was employed to do such of the work as was within his trade, and authorised to procure workmen to do whatever else was necessary. When the work was done the plaintiff wanted to be paid, and the differences arose. The plaintiff was informed that he was not employed to do the work, and the Trustees disputed their liability to him; and now, for the first time, he learnt what was really the effect of the settlement he had been induced to sign - namely, that he took no interest whatever under it, and that his wife's property was as much and completely under her own control, subject to her trustees, who, I should mention, are her sister and nephew, a it was before her marriage. One of the trustees (the lady, I believe, in Court here,) emphatically informed him that he had signed his death-warrant. - or something to that effect. Now, Sir, it so happens that I should have difficulty in proving to you that the defendants in person authorised the plaintiff to perform the work mentioned in the bill of complaint, and perhaps the wife's agency can only be inferred. Hence it appears to me that the plaintiff's only remedy is by coming on this side of your Honour's Court, and asking that remedy which he could not obtain at law. I shall prove that the work was properly done, and that it was necessary; and, by a competent surveyor. I shall endeavour to satisfy your Honour that the charge of £104 6s. 2d. is reasonable. The plaintiff has never had a penny of his wife's money, and he is not now living with her. I have no intimation from my friend, Mr. Ravenor, who appears on the other side, and therefore I shall not anticipate the defendant's answer; but I shall submit to the Court that, on all the issues, the plaintiff is entitled to be granted the prayer of his bill.

Mr. Ravenor: Before, Sir, I proceed to answer the plaintiff's case, I wish to draw your attention to the first paragraph of the bill. You will not have failed to perceive that the clause is personally offensive to me, charging, as it does, that the plaintiff, upon an understanding, assurance, and supposition derived from me, was induced to execute his marriage-settlement under a false impression of its contents. Mr. Harrington does not, as I gather from his opening, contemplate tendering any proof of that assertion, and I therefore apply to your Honour that the paragraph may be struck out of the bill for impertinence.

The Judge: In the case of such matters introduced into a bill, it would be in accordance with the practice of the Court to refer the subject to the Registrar to enquire into its truth; and this would be necessary before I could order the paragraph in question to be struck out.

Mr. Ravenor: But assuming, your Honour, that no proof of the allegations will be put in, am I not in order in asking that it may at once be struck out; so long as they remain, they are on record in your Honour's Court, and I am without the means of controverting them.

Mr. Harrington: Let me at once say, Sir, that no personal imputation of any kind is intended against Mr. Ravenor, a well-known practitioner of the highest respectability; the assertions were necessary for the elucidation of the plaintiff's case. The error into which the plaintiff has fallen was his own; if he chose to execute a deed without his own solicitor, and without satisfying himself of its contents, merely supposing that it contained something which it did not contain, he must now bear the consequences of his own error. I repeat that as against Mr. Ravenor there is no personal imputations whatever.

The Judge: I think that under the circumstances Mr. Ravenor may rest satisfied with the declaration of counsel in open Court that no personal imputation is intended.

Mr. Ravenor: Very well, Sir; then I now submit to your Honour that no part of the prayer of the bill comes within the eight matters in which this Court has jurisdiction to grant relief. Your Honour has no jurisdiction in matters called Remedial Equity. Upon the face of the bill the trustees would be liable at Common Law, inasmuch as it appears by the third paragraph that they ordered and employed the plaintiff to do the work. It must be remembered that the plaintiff is seeking here to attach the separate estate of his wife, and whilst I find no case here a husband can become a creditor of his wife, I quite admit that a stranger may.

The Judge: I am bound to say that when I read the bill it seemed to me that, to make the defendants liable, the authority of the wife to act as their agent must be inferred- in this case it would naturally be inferred- and then, I think, the defendants liability would be at Common Law.

Mr. Harrington: I submit to your Honour that the defendants are not entitled to come here to-day, without notice, to set up a defence that their liability (if any) is at law. Such a defence is in the nature of a demurrer of which notice should have been given as required by the rules for regulating proceedings in Equity in County Courts.

Mr. Ravenor: the rule referred to does not prevent the defendants from setting up their defence to-day without notice. They are, by another rule, to come to the Court prepared with evidence and witnesses, and they are here so prepared. But I may add that, although it is impossible for me to say what I might have done if the opportunity had been afforded me; I was only instructed on Monday, and therefore, it was impossible for me to give ten days' notice of our defence.

The Judge: I think, not withstanding the absence of the notice, that the defendants are in a position to set up their defence.

Mr. Harrington: then in reply to that defence, Sir, I submit that the plaintiff cannot recover by action at law. The wife's agency cannot be proved for the purpose of maintaining such an action- and in an action at law the agency must be proved it will not be inferred. Had the plaintiff therefore proceeded at law, he must have joined his wife in the action as a principal, for it is established that where there is no agency all the co-contractors must be joined in the action. How, then, could the plaintiff sue the co-contractors in this case whilst one of those contractors was his own wife, whom he could not sue. On this ground, therefore, I contend that the plaintiff's own remedy is by the adoption of the course here taken, in which he asks on sufficient grounds that the agency of the wife may be inferred, and her trustees ordered to reimburse him his reasonable outlay.

The Judge: I am of opinion that the plaintiff's remedy is against the trustees alone, as his employers. It seems to me a pity that the differences cannot be settled by arbitration. The plaintiff seems to have done the work, and I think the trustees might be successfully sued.

Mr. Harrington: The plaintiff is perfectly ready to submit the matter to arbitration.

Mr. Ravenor: I will advise my clients to come to this arrangement- it being understood that the plaintiff gives credit for what he had received from his wife.

The Judge: Yes, it should be so.

Mr. Ravenor: Your Honour will give the defendants their costs?

The Judge: I think the defendants are entitled to some costs- their professional costs.

Mr. Harrington: Will your Honour hear me on the question of costs?

The Judge: Certainly.

Mr. Harrington: I wish again to draw your Honour's attention to what the defendants certainly ought to have done in this case, which they have not done. It is no answer, as far as the plaintiff's pocket is concerned, for Mr. Ravenor to say he was only instructed on Monday, that is the fault of the defendants, and it operates thus- Had the defendants given notice of their defence, this bill would, doubtless, have been laid before some gentlemen at the Equity Bar, who would have advised as your Honour has now decided, that the plaintiff's remedy was not by means of a complaint in Equity but by an action at Law,- the bill would then have been withdrawn, and the case not sent down here to be tried, at considerable costs, including the attendance of numerous witnesses; all these expenses would then have been saved.

The Judge: I think the expenses of this hearing might have been prevented if the plaintiff had received notice of the defence which has now prevailed; and therefore the bill will be dismissed but without costs.

WITNEY.

Witney County Court. - Pratley versus Jenkins.- Exceptions are taken to the last paragraph of our report of this case, in last week's edition, wherein is stated - "He (the Judge) considered the plaintiff had a remedy at common law." We are asked to correct this report, and state that the Judge said "He considered the plaintiff's remedy, if any, was at common law."

Bankrupts

Notices of Adjudications and First Meeting of Creditors

To Surrender in this Country

Pratley, George, Oxford, carpenter, July 18, Witney

Witney Union.-Contracts.

THE Board of Guardians will, at their next meeting to be held on Thursday, the 22nd day of Sept. inst., receive Tenders from persons willing to contract for supplying the Union with the following articles, from the 6th day of October next, to be delivered, free of expense, at the Union Workhouse, near Witney, or at such places in the several Districts, and at such times, as the Guardians or their Officers may direct :-

FOR THREE MONTHS.

Bread.-Good household bread, in loaves, weighing 4lbs. each, at per loaf. Each tender to state whether for the house or district, and which district. Samples to be produced.

…

FOR SIX MONTHS.

…

Elm Coffins. with ¾ inch sides and inch bottoms, of the following sizes, namely, for children under five years of age, ditto under 10, ditto under 16 and for full grown persons. Each coffin to be fastened with not less than eight screws.

WITNEY

WITNEY UNION CONTRACTS.

for six months.

Witney Union.-Contracts.

The Board of Guardians will, at their meeting to be held on Thursday, the 21st day of March inst., receive Tenders from persons willing to contract for supplying the Union with the following articles, from the 28th day of March inst., to be delivered, free of expense, at the Union Workhouse, near Witney, or at such places in the several Districts, and at such times, as the Guardians or their Officers may direct :-

FOR SIX MONTHS.

Coffins, with ¾-inch sides and inch bottoms, of good seasoned elm wood, planed and blacked, and of the following sizes, namely, for children under five years of age, ditto under 10, ditto under 16, and for full-grown persons. Each coffin to be fastened with not less than eight screws.

Witney Union Contracts.-The following tenders were accepted by the board of Guardians, at their weekly meeting held on Thursday last :-

for six months.

Witney Union.-Contracts.

The Board of Guardians will, at their meeting to be held on Thursday, the 19th day of September instant, receive Tenders from persons willing to contract for supplying the Union with the following articles, from the 3rd day of October next, to be delivered, free of expense, at the Union Workhouse, near Witney, or at such places in the several Districts, and at such times, as the Guardians or their Officers may direct :-

FOR SIX MONTHS.

Elm Coffins, with ¾-inch sides and inch bottoms, of good seasoned elm wood, planed and blacked, of the following sizes, namely, for children under five years of age, ditto under 10, ditto under 16, and for full grown persons. Each coffin to be fastened with not less than eight screws.

WITNEY.

Witney Union Contracts.-The following tenders were accepted by the Guardians, at the weekly meeting of the Board, held on Thursday last :-

For Six Months.- […] Coffins : […] Burford [District], Mr. Geo. Pratley […]

DEATHS.

May 7, at the Union workhouse, Witney, George Pratley, aged 71.