CHIPPING NORTON.

CHADLINGTON DIVISION PETTY SESSIONS.

A DRUNKEN FORESTER.-Thomas Pratley was charged with being drunk and disorderly at Leafield. He had been convicted of similar offences since 1861 five times previous to this.

CHIPPING NORTON.

County Court. - May 21st.

John Howse, grocer, etc., Leafield, v. Thomas C. Pratley, of the same place, labourer. This was a claim of £4 5s. 5d., balance of account for grocery, etc. Defendant, who stated that he could neither read nor write, called upon his brother-in-law, William Ferriman, to explain certain discrepancies in the particulars of account, which had been rendered to defendant by direction of his Honour since the last court. Ferriman particularly drew attention to three payments on account shown in the passbook as £1 15s., £1 13s., and a further sum of a like amount, whereas in the particulars rendered by plaintiff, they were credited only the sums of 15s., 13s., and 13s. His Honour called plaintiff's attention to the entries referred to by Ferriman, who denied that the figures appearing in the £ column were in his hand-writing, but had been added since the three payments on account were entered, and had been detected by his wife when examining the passbook a few months since. Mr. Howse also produced his day book and ledger, in both of which the amounts credited corresponded exactly with those appearing in the particular furnished to defendant. His Honour in giving judgment for plaintiff for the original claim, said there was no doubt the three entries of £1 in the pass-book, which made it appear as though £3 more had been paid on account than was really the case, was undoubtedly fraudulent entries, as it was obvious in the most cursory glance that they were different handwriting. Looking, however, at the length of time (since April 1877, which the plaintiff had allowed to elapse before taking proceedings for its recovery, which was within about a month of the time allowed by the Statute of Limitations, His Honour considered plaintiff had to some extent by his dilatory conduct, induced defendant to set up a lying defence. If a plaintiff desires, to be lenient to a debtor he has ample opportunity of this acting after obtaining the judgment of the Court. He therefore thought it would be more conclusive to the order of justice and be discontinuing the very misuse practice of plaintiffs allowing their claim to remain so long unsatisfied, if in this and like cases be refused to allow plaintiffs the costs they would justly be entitled to in ordinary cases. He should therefore direct judgment to be entered for plaintiff for £4 5s. 5d., without costs.