The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1855-08-21 00:00:00

cordance with his own views of propriety in such cases,
but that he had also strictly obeyed the injunctions
of the police authorities, and done everything which had been
suggested to prevent accidents and ensure the safety of pas-
sengers.—His lordship summed up the evidence, which he
did with great minuteness, and pointed out how the testimony
of the different witnesses affected the case fer the plaintiff or
for the defendant. He said, if the jury believed that the in-
jury, which there seemed no reason to doubt that the plaintiff
had sustained, had been occasioned by the carelessness or
negligence of the defendant, or any of his workmen or ser-
vants, there could be no doubt that he was entitled to such
compensation as the jury considered proper. The evidence,
he remarked, was very conflicting on several very material
points.—The jury having consulted for a few minutes, re-
turned a verdict for the defendant.
DAMAGES FOR ILLEGAL SEIZURE—TAYLOR V. GARTSIDE.
—The plaintiff carried on business as a tavern-keeper, at the
Beeswing, in Sheffield, and the defendant is a wine-merchant
in Manchester. Up to November, in 1854, all claims due by
the plaintiff to the defendant were said to have been settled,
but in December of that year an account of about £ll was
incurred by the plaintiff. The defendant obtained a sum-
mons in the County-court at Manchester for recovery
of the debt instead of that of York, under the juris-
diction of which the plaintiff lived. A judgment was ob-
tained under that summons, and a seizure was executed 'for
the sum of £2O 93. 2d., debt and costs. In the interim
between the county-court action and the seizure, the plaintiff
granted a bill of sale on behalf of his landlord. The question
to be raised in this case was, as to the incompetency of the
court in Manchester to grant an execution in Sheffield. The
case for the plaintiff rested altogether upoudocumentary evi •
deuce, consisting chiefly of the summonses, notices, and execu-
tions by the judge and officers of the Manchester County.
court, all of which were handed in and read. For the defence
Mr. Gartside was called, who proved that he had received
written orders from the plaintifi, which orders he received
in Manchester, and, in consequence, he sent the goods which
had been so ordered, and which formed part of the goods sued
for in the County-court at Manchester.—After a long and
tedious examination of this witness, and also of his travelle-,
the jury, on direction of his lordship, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff, pro forma, the points of law being reserved for
the consideration of the court above. _ _ .

At a few minutes past nine the court adjourned till nine
this morning.

SHERIFF'S COURT.-WEDNESDAY

(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff Deacon and Mr. Watson, Q.C.)
STAFFORD v. WILLIS AND OTHERS.—In this case, Mr.
Joseph Stafford, publican, Manchester, was the plaintiff, and
the properietors of a stage coach between Manchester and
Derby were the defendants. In May, 1854, Mrs. Elizabeth
Stafford., the wife of the plaintiff, was travelling by the de-
fendants' conveyance. The coach stopped at the Grouse Inn,
Rowsley, a well-known place, and the driver,throwing the reins
on the horses' backs, got down to look after some luggage.
The horses took fright and started off, and Mrs. Stafford, who
was sitting on the top, was thrown off. She was unconscious,
and remained so until she found herself in bed at Matlock
next day, her shoulder dislocated, and various other severe
injuries received, including concussion of the brain, which
caused deafness in her left ear, from which she still suffers.
Mr. Monck and Mr. Fernley appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Higgins for the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff,
damages £2O
TRESPASS IN A COAL MINE.—ATIIERTON v. DALTON AND
Oruuss.—The plaintiff, James Atherton, coal proprietor,
Blackrod, near Chorley, claimed £543 Bs. 2d. as damages from
Messrs. Dalton and Co., proprietors of an adjoining colliery,
for a trespass into the works of his mines. It was arranged
on each side that the quantity of coal worked in the plaintiff's
mine should be taken at 1855 entire yards, and the whole of
the afternoon was occupied in hearing professional evidence
as to the cost of working that much, the probable loss to the
plaintiffs, &c. It was ultimately agreed that a verdict be
taken for the plaintiff for £l2O.