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

therefore, are entitled to retain to ourselves two-thirds of the
commission which was earned in chartering the vessel." Mr.
Muir urged that Mr. Kirkham would also be entitled to his
share. The plaintiff was nonsuited.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT.—JOHNSON V. HOLLAND.—The
plaintiff in this case was Thomas Johnson, a striker at a
foundry at Newton-le-Willows, and the defendant was
Thomas Holland, a farmer and gamekeeper, residing at
Burtonwood. On the night of Sunday, the 4th of March,
the plaintiff was returning home from Sankey, and when
passing across a field belonging to a farmer named Jackson he
heard a dog making a great noise, at a short distance from
the footpath : he proceeded to the place, and there found that
the dog was fast by the neck in a gin. He released it and
took it to his own house. On the Wednesday following, the
defendant appeared at the plaintiff's house, and being told
that the dog was there, asked to look at it. The plaintiff at
once took him to see the dog, and the defendant then said,
" Loose the dog, loose the dog." The plaintiff good-humouredly
said, " Are you not going to give me something for keeping
the dog and saving it from hanging ? Do you think half-a-
crown will be too much for me ?" The defendant said he
would not give any such sum, and said that if the plaintiff did
not at once release the dog he would give him into custody.
He said he had lost the dog on a Monday, whereas the plain-
tiff found the dog on a nday evening, and he therefore
doubted whether the defendant was at all entitled to the dog.
He therefore said he should not give up the dog. The de-
fendant brought an officer and took the plaintiff away from
his house about ten o'clock at night. He was locked up at
Newton the whole of the night, and brought before the
magistrates on the following day, when he was called upon to
give bail to appear at the sessions. He did appear ; but when
the circumstances of the case were gone into he was at once
discharged. It was for the injuries which he had sustained
by the defendant's conduct towards him that the action was
brought. Several witnesses, including the plaintiff, himself,
were called, but a nonsuit was entered.
ROBINSON V. OLIVER.—This was an action to recover
£2,336 12s. ed.' the amount of two bills of exchange which
the defendant had accepted. The defendant was formerly an
extensive shipowner in this town, but became insolvent and
made a composition with his creditors, but the plaintiff had
refused to sign the deed. A verdict was entered for the
plaintiff for £2,341 Bs. 72d.' with interest, the defendant
having leave to move on points reserved. ,
BRADSHAW V. OLIVER.—This was an action to recover the
amount of seven bills of exchange, the facts of the case being
similiar to those of the last, and the only point of dispute
being as to whether proper notice had been served upon the
plaintiff.—Verdict as in the previous case.
GETTINGS V. OLIVER.—This action was allowed to be
taken as settled by the two previous cases, leave being given
to move on the points raised.
POSTLETHWAITE V. CLARKE.—The plaintiff in this case was
Thomas Postlethwaite, a cotton broker in this town, and the
defendant was a cotton spinner, carrying on business in Man-
chester. The action was brought to recover £257 7s. 9d., the
balance of an account for goods sold and delivered. The goods
had been purchased from the plaintiff by Messrs. Gladstone,
Serjeantson, and Co., of this town, for Messrs. Gladstone, Bond,
and Co., of Manchester, on account of the defendant, but Mr.
Bond stated that Messrs. Gladstone, Serjeantson, and Co. had
general instructions, the defendant's name not being men-
tioned in the transction. His Lordship did not think there was
anything like an agency for a particular sale, and under his
direction a verdict was entered for the defendant, the plaintiff
having liberty to move on the points raised.
BREACH OF CONTRACT.—Ross AND ANOTHER V. NOBLE.
—This was an action to recover £24 25., for a breach of con-
tract by the defendant in not supplying casks for stowing a
quantity of lead ore which had been purchased from him in
July, 1854. The plaintiffs are merchants in this town, and
the defendants are the proprietors of the Newtownheads
Milling Company, who own a mine near Belfast.—Verdict for
the plaintiffs.