The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1855-08-28 00:00:00

THURSDAY.

nlgAhwi,thtiJoe
hur y.
This
1)e, -ewr
trialGEhWA-aavdsE
bas
enevna. c
gLt irEoan:Gtt e
dr i eA.dN aDI tt aiAv paNsr °eaxTniuo üßa
action
beP
damages for a breach of contract. The plaintiff was a mer-
chant residing in Liverpool, and the defendants were mer-
chants in London. The plaintiff had contracted to sell to the
defendants a quantity of wool, which the defendants refused
to receive. In the early part of 1853, the plaintiff had given
orders in Odessa, to Messrs. Horny and Co., to purchase a
quantity of wool on his account. The plaintiff was made
aware that the purchase had been made, the wool to be
delivered in July or August. Some time in the course of the
spring of the same year plaintiff chartered a ship called the
Science to proceed to Odessa and take on board the wool
which he had purchased. The younger Legg, one of the de-
fendants, expecting at this time that a considerable rise was
about to take place in the wool market, came to Liverpool,
and purchased, through Messrs. Hughes and Ronald, wool to
a considerable amount. On the 13th and 14th of May, 60
tons of the plaintiff's wool were purchased by Messrs. Hughes
and Ronald, on account of the defendants, and contracts were
subsequently entered into. The Science arrived at Odessa in
August, the wool was shipped without delay ; and on the
16th of September a bill of lading for 100 bales was received
by the plaintiff from Messrs. Horny and Co. It was the
custom for the brokers, where the contract was similar, to
receive the declaration of the ship, and it was their duty to
have given notice to the defendants. This was not done, and
some time elapsed ; but on the 13th of October, the plaintiff
seeing in the shipping list that the Science had passed Con-
stantinople, he informed Messrs. Hughes and Ronald of the
fact, and they gave notice to the defendants, which was the
first direct notice they had about the ship in which the
wool was to arrive. This was the disputed point in the
case ; the defendants, on the receipt of the notice, refusing
to accept the wool, on the ground that the terms of the
contract had not been adhered to. Messrs. Hughes and
Ronald wrote several times subsequently to the defendants
on the subject of the contract; but they continued to refuse
to accept the wool on the ground that the contract had not
been .abided by. On the arrival of the vessel the defendants
were apprised of the fact, but refused to have anything to do
with the wool, the market having fallen considerably in the
meantime. Several witnesses were examined as to the custom
of the trade, and, under direction of his lordship, after some
consultation, the following arrangement was come to :—Ad-
mitted, that the custom in Liverpool was such that no ques-
tion was made where there was only one broker between the
buyer and the seller, the seller to make the declaration to the
broker, and that such declaration was made according to the
usage to Mr. Hughei.—Verdict for the plaintiff, £5OO, with
liberty to enter a verdict for the defendants on the first issue.
If on those admissions the court thought him entitled to do
so, .the court to draw any inference which, on the•evidence
and the admissions, they thought the jury' ought to have
drawn. A verdict was accordingly taken for the plaintiff for
£6OO.

COLTON V. THE BIRKENHEAD, LANCASHIRE, ..:!"
CHESHIRE JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY.—This was an
action brought to recover damages for an injury sustained by
the plaintiff on the defendants' railway. The plaintiff was a
clerk in the employment of Mr. Walker, clerk of the
peace at Chester, and was in the receipt of a salary of about
£l3O per annum, and he brought the present action to
recover damages for an injury sustained by him when he was
a passenger by the Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire
Junction Railway, from Birkenhead to Chester, on the 29th
of January last. The plaintiff was a passenger in a second-
class carriage. A collision took place, in which the plaintiff
received serious injuries, and the present action was brought
to recover compensation. After the case had been opened,
and a few witnesses examined, an arrangement was come to,
and a verdict taken by consent for the plaintiff for £S6C.