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

WEDNESDAY.

WINDSOR v. GIRO AND OTHERS (SPECIAL JURY).—The
action was for damages occasioned by the entry of the defend-
ants into the dwelling-house of the plaintiff which they for-
cibly pulled down, and removed his furniture and fixtures.
The plaintiff, John Windsor, was a beerhouse-keeper in
Queen-street, Manchester, and the defendant Giro was a
Greek merchant. The other defendants were Braithwaite, a
contractor, Joseph Thomson, a builder, and Edward Nichol-
son, an architect. The beerhouse in question was situated in
Deansgate, and on the 13th of February, 1853, the plaintiff
purchased the goodwill and fixtures of the premises for £2OO,
and at the same time was accepted by the agent as a yearly
tenant. The premises were subsequently purchased by the
defendant Giro, for the purpose of erecting a warehouse ; and
although at first the defendant doubled the rent of the plain-
tiff and treated him as a yearly tenant, he subsequently, on a
week's notice, pulled down the premises which the plaintiff
occupied, throwing the furniture into the street. The case
having been opened, a verdict for the plaintiff for £l5O was
consented to.

BURNS V. COOK AND OTHERS (SPECIAL JURY).—This was
an action for a breach of contract. The plaintiff, Mr. F. M.
Burns, was a commercial traveller residing in Manchester, and
the defendants Messrs. Cock, Son, Hocking, and Co. The
plaintiff entered the service of the defendants in March, 1852,
signing a book to leave at a moment's notice; but having been
offered a fouryears'engagement by Messrs. Kershaw,Lees, Side-
bottom, and Co., he consulted with Mr. Cole, one of the de-
fendants, who entreated him not to leave. The plaintiff re-
presented that he did not like to be at the caprice of the firm,
and insisted upon having a three years' engagement. The
result was that a two years' engagement was given him, the
first year at the rate of £3OO, and the second year £330,
thet vdelelfienigi
dexpensesmtios
sbeeda stbheefoprlea.
nAt
fft,h ea ellned of
ging twelvetila that his
months
is
ex-
penses were too great
n3agontfdho
era thep
eyreriaor,s salary, returns uergitliasvt
rozol small,
and
tOl 2t andthat which
. d tpheer pre-
senthaye action Navmaselbrought to recover damages for the breach of
fcoorntract— maintenancen
should have been on his journeys. The defendants had paid
into court a sum of £165, a half-year's salary, denying that the
plaintiff had any farther claim upon them. Verdict for the
plaintiff—damages £144.
THE QUEEN V. HEALD AND OTHERS (SPECIAL JI7RY).—
This was an indictment preferred against James Heald, George
Peel, and Henry Berry, for continuing to maintain a tollgate
on a highway leading from Chorlton-upon-Medlock, near
Manchester. The defendants pleaded not guilty. The in-
dictment was laid against the three defendants to ascertain
whether they were entitled to keep on a turnpike road a toll-
bar called the Rusholme bar. The tollbar was erected under
an act of parliament in 1818, but in 1830 Chorlton and other
townships in the neighbourhood of Manchester had become so
populous that an act of parliament was passed abolishing toll-
bars in towns or in streets where the buildings were erected
on each side thereof. A question for the jury to decide was
whether where the present Rusholme tollbar stood was now a
town, or whether it was a street where buildings were erected
on each side thereof. Evidence was given as to the position
of the tollbar.—His lordship summed up, and the jury retired,
and, after an absence of about an hour, gave a verdict of guilty
against the defendants.
SAWDON AND OTHERS V. THE NATIONAL GUARDIAN
ASSURANCE SOCIETY.—In this case the defendants consented
to a verdict for £250.

COOKE AND ANOTHER V. RTLANDS.—This was an action
for the infringement of a patent. It appeared that the plain-
tiff was the original discoverer of the invention which had
been patented, and he subsequently became connected with a
person named Cochrane. The invention, which was patented
on the 18th of September, 1854, consisted in the use of an
improved check-strap for preventing the rebound of the
shuttle. The defendant pleaded a previous use. The plain-
tiff, in the course of his examination, admitted that a portion
of the invention mentioned in the specification was not new,
and not entered by his authority or with his knowledge.—His
lordship held this to be fatal, and the plaintiffs were nonsuited.
HERNAM AN AND OTHERS (AssIGNEEs) V. BARNES.—
SPECIAL JIIRY.—The plaintiffs in this case were the assignees
of John Christie, who had been adjudicated a bankrupt, and
it was sought to recover from the defendant, the father-in-law
of Christie, a sum of £1,663 4s. 5d., being the amount of an
execution levied on the goods of the bankrupt Christie, in May
last. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, but se-
veral points were reserved for the plaintiffs.
The court rose at half-past seven o'clock.