Kentish Gazette, 17 January 1854.

Ashford. County Court. Friday.

(Before Charles Harwood, Esq., Judge).

There were about the usual number of plaints entered for hearing at the court, but most of them were of an unimportant nature. The cases disposed of deeming of a particular notice were the following:-

Renton v. Fowler.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a beer-shop keeper, against the defendant, a builder, to recover the sum of £11, being the balance of £20 placed in the hands of the defendant as a deposit for the purchase of a home, which the defendant was then engaged in building. From the evidence adduced at the last court, when the case was adjourned, it appeared that the plaintiff's father was indebted to the defendant in the sum of £11, and the latter subsequently retained that sum for payment of that debt. The plaintiff objected to such a course being adopted; but in consequence of his being prevented attending to give evidence through illness, the case was adjourned for his attendance.

To-day, however, he was still labouring under severe indisposition, and evidence having been given as to the competency of the plaintiff to advise his solicitor to commence this action, hit Honour gave a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed. Mr. Towne appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Mercer, for the defendant.

South Eastern Gazette, 14 August, 1860.

ASHFORD. Spurious Liquor.

In the Vice-Chancellor’s Court, on Monday, Mr. Daniell and Mr. Rodwell moved for a special injunction on affidavit of service to restrain John Williams, a wine and spirit merchant at Ashford, in Kent, from selling a spurious article purporting to be Bass and Co’s ale, or using or printing labels in imitation of those used by the plaintiffs’ firm, the well-known brewers at Burton-upon-Trent. It appeared that the defendant was one of those to whom Messrs. Bass supplied labels marked with his name as the bottler of ale supplied by them in casks. In 1858, to prevent any mistake as to those licensed to sell their ales, the plaintiffs had arranged a method by which they could tell at any time whom they had supplied with labels, and at what time and amount, by means of a private mark. Having suspected the use of a spurious label to a spurious material, in March last they commenced getting evidence, and from that time had gone to stations on the South-Eastern line, and purchased ale at Tunbridge and other stations, so as to fix the fraud upon the defendant, and on one occasion the spurious label was on the bottle so purchased, and on others old labels had been washed and used again. Dr. Hoffman, a physician, had analyzed the two compounds, and discovered, from the difference of the water at Burton-upon-Trent and at Ashford, that the difference as to the contents of sulphuric acid was as 710 to 227, the mean ratios. Under these circumstances, the defendants not appearing, the injunction was asked for. His Honour made the order.