The Kentish Independent, Saturday, 10 July, 1880.

Woolwich County Court. Town Hall. Wednesday.

Before J. Pitt Taylor Esq., Judge.

Hard-Swearing. Pigeon v. Plume.

This was an action to recover the sum of 16s. from defendant, the proprietor of Powis Street, Woolwich, for breach of contract and other costs.

Plaintiff said that on Whit Monday afternoon, he and a brother of his went to Mr. Plume's yard to hire a trap to take their wives and parents to Chislehurst. They engaged a trap for 12s of which sum they paid 10s. as a deposit, they were to have the trap till 10 o'clock at night, and a man of Mr. Plume's to go with with them. They started and got to the "Bull" at Chislehurst, where the men of the party got out to have a drink, the woman being left in the trap. Shortly afterwards the woman came in and said the man in the trap told them that they were to go inside. He then went outside the door of the house and found the trap was gone. Then then had to take the train to Woolwich at a cost of 6s. He then went and saw the defendant next day and told him of what the taken place, when he said the coachman was silly and deaf. As he would not return the money this action was brought.

Mrs. Pigeon said her husband and his brother ordered the trap. His wife, his father and mother and two babies made up the party. Her husband drove the trap all the way, and was quite sober. The man sent by Mr. Bloom never drove a yard of the distance. When the trap stopped at Chislehurst the man said their husband wanted them to go in the house out of the wind, as he was going to give the horse hay feed. He then drove off and cause them great expense, and spoilt all their pleasure. (laughter.) Complainant's brother said he went and engaged the trap and complainant paid the 10s. down. They were to have the trap from 3 to 10 o'clock. He was to drive, and the man was to go with them to see that the trap was all right. They have very little to drink.

In answer to Mr. Plume, he said that he did not take the reins out of the man's hands and drive himself. He drove out of the yard, and not the man.

Defendant, in answer, said on Whit Monday afternoon he was in the yard with his foreman and another man, when the plaintiff came to hire a conveyance. He told him that he had none but a coke van, and they agreed to take that, and the man to drive. They were to go to Chislehurst and be back by 7 o'clock, as the van was engaged at that hour to remove some goods out of the Royal Arsenal cricket ground for a publican in the Plumstead Road; that was distinctly understood, and they left about 3 o'clock.

Walter Brownfield, manager for Mr. Plume, said the contract was not made with plaintiff, but another man, who was, like the plaintiff, in liquor. He distinctly told them that the van must be back by 7 o'clock to remove the refreshment from the Arsenal, where the clown cricketers were playing. When he told them he had no traps in, the man said they must have something, or they should get into a row with the woman. He would swear on his oath that he distinctly said the van must be back by 7 o'clock.

Complainant said it was all a tissue of falsehood. The van was engaged till 10 o'clock; that he would swear to.

Walter Hudson said he was in the yard when the complainant came for the van, and heard Mr. Plume and Mr. Brownfield distinctly say that the trap must be back by 7 o'clock.

Henry Cumberland said he was sent by Mr. Plume to drive the van for plaintiff and drove out of the yard. As they were going up Wellington Street one of the men took the reins out of his hand and nearly turned the van over. He had to get out and go to the horses heads to study it. The men were all drunk, but not the ladies.

His Honour:- Were the babies drunk to.

Witness:- Not as I know on. (Laughter).

When they got to the "Bull" at Chislehurst the men told him to tell the woman to come in and then he could go. That he would swear to. He then drove home, as he had orders to do so from Mr. Plume.

This witness underwent a long course of questioning by the judge, but is evidence was unshaken.

His Honour then said that he did not believe a word Brownfield nor the last witness said. There would be judgement for plaintiff, with costs of witnesses for two days, forthwith.