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.

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."

WITNEY.

COUNTY COURT.

The bi-monthly sitting of this court was held on Wednesday last, when the undefended cases were disposed of by the Registrar (F. Westell, Esq.), while the majority of those disputed had to be adjourned until the next court, in consequence of a case sent down from the Court of Chancery, which occupied nearly the whole of the day, and excited a large amount of local interest, the court being crowded during the hearing. This case was as follows:-

Salt & Co. v. Pratley & Jenkins.

Mr. Pritchard, instructed by Mr. Ravenor, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Rolland for the defendants. The following were the jury: Messrs. Stoddard, Robbins, Birdseye, Partlett, and Dale. It appeared from the opening statement of Mr. Pritchard, that Messrs. Salt & Co. had supplied beer to the Cross Keys Inn, and although the invoices were made out in the name of Jenkins, yet Mrs. Pratley was the person to whom they looked for payment. He called

Mr. Bolton, who stated that he was traveller for Messrs. Salt in this district, and had supplied Mrs. Pratley with beer, from April, 1872, to June, 1873, when a writ was issued to recover the amount then owing to his firm. After that they ceased to supply defendant until the September following, when he again called. Mrs. Pratley complained at that time of the firm, being so hard with her, and that she would be glad if they would again supply her; to which he replied that his firm did not care to do so without a reference. Mrs. Pratley then referred him to Mr. Mallam, of Oxford, whom witness saw, and in consequence of his representation, his firm again supplied Mrs. Pratley with beer. On one occasion she explained to him that the reason the name Jenkins was over the door, was that her husband had been in the habit of annoying her, and that the license had been obtained in the name of Jenkins. Mrs. Pratley always ordered the beer of him, but it was invoiced to Mrs. Jenkins by her wish.

In cross-examination, witness said the name of Jenkins appeared in plaintiff's books, and that he had never received any money from Mrs. Jenkins, and that he had solicited other tradesmen to join him in the case, but denied that anyone had declined to do so.

George Whitlock, landlord of the Cross Keys, said that he had taken it of Mrs. Pratley, who took him around the house and pointed out to him the fixtures, & c., which he would be required to take. He (witness) did not know that the name of Jenkins was over the door until he took possession; and when he asked Mrs. Pratley the reason, she replied she had contracted an unfortunate marriage; had separated from her husband, and carried on the business in her sister's name, so that she might not be annoyed. Witness also stated that there was a table and clock which he was told belonged to Mrs. Jenkins, and for which he paid her.

In cross-examination, witness said he was district agent for Salt and Co.

George North, wine and spirit merchant, deposed that he had supplied Mrs. Pratley with spirits, and that previous to his doing so she, with her sister (Mrs. Jenkins), called at his office and told him she (Mrs. Pratley) was about to take to the inn, and wished him to supply her with spirits. He at once took an order, making out the permits in the name of Pratley. Sometime after Mrs. Pratley told him the excise objected to permits being made out in a different name to that over the door. She then explained her reason for using her sister's name was that she would not bear the name of Pratley.

In cross-examination, witness said he drew a bill on Mrs. Pratley which was accepted jointly by herself and Mrs. Jenkins.

This was the case for the plaintiffs.

Mr. Rolland then addressed the jury for the defendants in a very able speech, in which he tried to show them that the business was that of Mrs. Jenkins.

The Judge here intimated that the parties had better try and arrange with each other, so as to prevent the calling of witnesses for the defence.

The counsel acting upon his Honour's suggestion retired. After being absent a quarter of an hour, they returned into Court and said the case must go on. The learned Counsel then called

Mrs. Pratley, who deposed that she had separate property settled upon her; that the "Cross Keys" and other property belonged to her; that previous to her residing there she lived with her sister (Mrs. Jenkins) in Corn-street, and paid 14s. a week for board and lodging; and that when Mrs. Jenkins took to the Cross Keys, she agreed to let her have the place rent free, for her (Mrs. Pratley's) board and lodgings; that she assisted her sister, and although she gave the travellers the orders, her sister had previously told her what to order, and she had never received a penny of the profits.

His Honour pressed witness as to the visit to Mr. North's office, which she at first denied, but afterwards said she "might" have gone.

The Judge told witness to be careful, as if she continued to give evidence in that way he might have to put it to the jury as to whether she was not committing perjury.

Mr. Rolland thought his Honour was rather severe on witness, upon which his Honour said, "I am determined I will not have truth tampered with" - (loud and suppressed applause).

Witness was then cross-examined, and said she did not refer Bolton to Mallam, but after being again cautioned, she would not swear that she did not mention his name, and in short denied the chief points of evidence adduced.

His Honour asked the Counsel for defence if after the conduct of this witness he thought it worthwhile to call others?

Mr. Rolland having ascertained that the jury had heard enough.

The Judge said the question he had to put to them by order of the Vice-Chancellor was, whether the plaintiffs supplied the beer for the use of Mrs. Pratley of Mrs. Jenkins?

The jury replied they were unanimously agreed it was supplied for the use of Mrs. Pratley.

The verdict was received with applause.

WITNEY.

COUNTY COURT - Wednesday.

The bi-monthly sitting of this court was held before W.H. Cook, Esq., Judge.

The undefended cases were disposed of as usual by the registrar, and of those which came before his Honour the following were of any public interest:-

French v. Jenkins.- this was a claim of £45 1s. 6d. for repairs done to the Cross Keys Inn and other property, belonging to the trustees of Mrs. Pratley. Mr. Ravenor appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Lambert for the defendants.- Edward French stated that he was a builder in Witney, and in the year 1874 Mrs. Jenkins ordered him to do certain repairs; he also saw Mr. Jenkins, who mounted the roof and told plaintiff to do what was required, and not to put them to anymore expense than he could help. His bill was a fair one and he looked to the trustees for payment. In cross-examination, plaintiff said that although Mrs. Pratley and Mrs. Jenkins were together, Mr. Jenkins he considered gave him the order, and he made out the bill, in the first place, to the "Executors." Reuben Burden stated that he was employed in doing the roof of the premises in question for plaintiff, and that while at work there, Mr. H. Jenkins came and gave certain orders to Mr. French, which were carried out. Mr. Lambert submitted that the work ordered to be done was so ordered by Mrs. Jenkins and Mrs. Pratley, and that the latter therefore ought to be a party to the suit; and as this was a suit affecting, the property of a married woman, it could not be determined in the County Court. His Honour said he had not any objection to Mrs. Pratley being made a party to the suit if the plaintiff had none.- Mr. Ravenor on the part of plaintiff said he had the strongest objection to such a course.- His Honour said that Mr. H. Jenkins and Mrs. Jenkins being the trustees of the estate, and giving orders for the repairs, were jointly and severally responsible for the payment of the account, and gave a verdict for the plaintiff to be paid in a month, and granting a case for a superior court if defendants thought fit to appeal.

[read at Oxfordshire Record Office]

Probate of the Will of Elizabeth Pratley Wife of George Pratley

deceased

Dated 19 March 1880

Extracted by Abbott & Co

Solicitors & New Inn, Strand

Agents for Lewis & Son Wrexham

This is the last Will and Testament of me Elizabeth Pratley of Witney in the County of Oxon the wife of George Pratley of Witney aforesaid I appoint my nephew Frederick Lewis Edwards Jenkins of Witney aforesaid Grocer Sole Executor and Trustee of this my Will and by virtue of every power enabling me in this behalf I appoint and give devise and bequeath all my estate and effects both real and personal whatsoever and wheresoever and over which I have power of disposition or appointment (except estates vested in me as trustee or mortgagee) unto my Trustee In trust at his sole and absolute discretion to covert[sic] the value into money by sale or otherwise and to invest the proceeds thereof after paying thereout my funeral and testamentary expenses and debts and to pay the income of the said proceeds and the investments thereof to my sister Ann Jenkins during her life for her sole and separate use independent of any husband and so that her receipts alone shall be sufficient discharges to my trustee for the said income And after the decease of the said Ann Jenkins I appoint and give devise and bequeath my said estate and effects and the proceeds and investments thereof unto my Trustee the said Frederick Lewis Edwards Jenkins for his own absolute use and benefit And I empower my Trustee to postpone the conversion of any part of my effects remaining unconverted shall from and after my death go and be applied in like manner as is hereinbefore directed concerning the income of the proceeds of my estate and effects when converted And I declare that any monies hereby directed to be invested may be invested in the name of my Trustee in or upon any of the Public Funds or upon Government or real securities in England or Wales or in or upon the stock shares or securities of any Railway or other Public Company and such investments may be varied from time to time as my Trustee may think fit I give all estates vested in me as Trustee or Mortgagee unto the said Frederick Lewis Edwards Jenkins subject to the equities affecting the same but so that the monies secured on any mortgage shall form part of my personal estate And I declare that the expression "My Trustee" in this Will shall mean and include the said Frederick Lewis Edwards Jenkins his executors or administrators and other the trustees or trustee of this my Will and I revoke all other Wills and Testaments writings hreetofore made by me and declare this to be my last Will and Testament In witness whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name this third day of April One thousand eight hundred and seventy six 1876 ----- Elizabeth Pratley ----- Signed by the said Elizabeth Pratley the Testatrix as and for her last Will and Testament in the presence of us who in her presence at her request and in the presence of each other both being present together have hereunto subscribed our names as witnesses the date of the year having been first altered from 1874 to 1876---James Barnes Plumber Witney---Frederick White Painter VG Witney H---

[joined]

Limited Probate of a Married Woman's Will

The Principal Registry

In Her Majestys High Court of Justice

BE IT KNOWN that Elizabeth Pratley (Wife of George Pratley) late of Witney in the County of Oxford died on the eleventh day of June 1877 at Witney aforesaid having during her coverture with the said George Pratley by virtue of certain powers and authorities vested in her by a certain Deed of Settlement bearing date the 14^th day of February 1865 and made between the said deceased by her then name and description of Elizabeth Dix of Witney in the County of Oxford Widow of the first part the said George Pratley of Burford in the same County Timber Merchant of the second part and Henry Jenkins of Witney aforesaid Gentleman and Ann Jenkins of Witney aforesaid Widow of the third part and of all other powers and authorities her enabling executed her last Will and Testament bearing date the third day of April 1876 and thereof appointed her nephew Frederick Lewis Edwards Jenkins Sole Executor, AND BE IT ALSO KNOWN that at the date hereunder written the said last Will and Testament of the said Elizabeth Pratley deceased a copy whereof is hereunto annexed, was proved and registered in the Principal Registers of the Probate Division of Her Majestys High Court of Justice and Administration of all such personal estate as she the said deceased by virtue of the aforesaid Deed of Settlement and of all other powers and authorities her enabling had a right to appoint or dispose of, and has in and by her said Will appointed or disposed of accordingly, but no further or otherwise, was granted by the aforesaid Court to the said Frederick Lewis Edwards Jenkins the Sole Executor, named in the said Will as aforesaid, he having been first sworn well and faithfully to administer the same

[note at side]

Extracted by Abbott Jenkins & Co & New Inn, Strand, Solicitors, for Lewis & Son, Wrexham

Personal estate under £100

WITNEY.

COUNTY COURT.

The usual bi-monthly sitting of this Court took place on Thursday the 6th inst., before W.H. Cooke, Esq., Q.C., the Judge.

The cause list contained twelve adjournments, sixty original plaints, and one commitment summons. The cases were nearly all ordinary debt cases and were disposed of by the Registrar, R. Westell, Esq. The only cases which occupied any time were the following, viz:

Winning v. Jenkins.-- Claim for grocery £3 10s. -The plaintiff was a grocer living at Hailey when the goods were supplied, and the defendant, her son, daughter, and sister Mrs. Pratley were all living in the same house in the same village. Plaintiff stated that the goods were supplied to Mrs. Jenkins or by her order but upon being questioned by the Judge how he established the fact that the goods were ordered by the defendant he could only answer that the goods were fetched by defendant's daughter. -- His Honor remarked that if this were so, agency must be proved, and they must fetch Miss Jenkins from Hailey, to prove that she was the authorized agent of her mother. Mr. Gregson, who appeared for plaintiff, endeavoured to elicit from defendant that she had at one time paid the plaintiff £1, or if whe did not actually pay it her daughter did in her presence and by her authority, but this defendant emphatically denied, and the Judge gave judgment for defendant, with costs.