The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1861-01-07 00:00:00

COURT OF PASSAGE.-SATURDAY.

(Before EDWARD JAMES, Esq.)
DE COSTA v. COGGINS.—This was an action for the
recovery of £3O. It appeared from the evidence, which
was of a volumnious nature, that a contract had been
entered into between the parties at the time that the
sale of a horse took place; that Mr. Coggins, who sold
the animal to the plaintiff, bound himself in a surety
that if the horse did not prove an efficient and well
working anitnal, he would return the money which had
been paid for her. It turned out that the horse was
Wholly incapable to perform the work set her by the
plaintiff, and the present eaten was colisequentlybrotight.
A. verdict was entered for the
WYLIE tkWirmiltErs...=lii this ease Thonias Wylie was
111 Plaintiff, and Edward Willmer was the defendant.
From the opening statement of the learned counsel for
the plaintiff (14._Deighton), it appeared that his client
was an architect of considerable practice in this town,
and the defendant was the proprietor of a respectable
journal—the Liverpool Chronicle. The action arose out
of the following circumstances :—lt appears that about
the middle of July the defendant had some conversation
with Mr. Wylie about finding more enlarged premises
in which he might be enabled to carry on his printine-
business in a satisfactory manner. He observed to the
plaintiff that he had been informed eat Vide rfds an
eligible site in Manesty=l-aite; belonding tti the pro-
prietors of the flue COM Sehodl; which eotild be made
available for his puirptile: Tfie premises in qtfestiOn
Wert tiedOrdingly visited by the plaintiff arid defendant,
etill A mutual friend, and after an inspection had been
made, Mr. Willmer authorised Mr. Wylie to draw plans
giving views of the proposed building upon a rather
extended scale telling him at the same time that the
proprietors of the Liverpool Mercury were in treaty with
him about providing accommodation for their establish-
ment in the building. Mr. Wylie complied with this
direction. But, meanwhile, Mr. Waller consulted Mr.
Samuel Holmes of this town, who advised him not to
embark in the enterprise unless he could preCtfre an
extended lease, The defendant eoriiniunierited this fad
to Mr. Wylie, Who transmitted to him a sketch of a
building that would involve an expenditure of some
£6,000, whereas it was the intention of Mr. Willmer to
erect a structure that would cost only £2,000. Another
gentleman, also in the architectural profession, was
then consulted, and his opinion coincided with that of
Mr. Holmes. The defendant after this wrote to the
plaintiff stating that he should be ,host happy to pay
him all expenses included. Be Mr. Wylie denturred
to this proposition, and accordingly hi-might tlie. pre-
sent action, claiming l;, five pet tentage on ,the £6,000. •
Evidence of ttilisiderajole leidgih *as entered idti fo't the
plaintiff. Mr. Aspinall, for the defefiee, Called 16'1 Will:
mer, Mr. J. Fraser, bookbinder, and others. Mr. Willmer
and Mr. J. Fraser were together on several occasions at
cue °nice of Mr, Wylie, and both positively asserted
that when alterations were suggested, Mr. Willmer
desired to know if the cost in the aggregate would
eideed 8,500 the amount which he had determined to
expend. A letter to Mr. Ward, of Preston, was pro-
duced, and in that Mr. Willmer positively stated that
he meant to expend no more on the premises than the
sum mentioned. Another letter to Mr. Wylie was read.
That was written after the receipts of the tenders; and
in it Mr. Willmer, in consequence of the large amount
of the lowest tenders, broke off his connection with Mr.
Wylie on the ground that he had not prepared the plans
according to his desire. Mr. Wylie in reply remon-
strated against Mr. Willmer's decision, but did not
attempt to prove that his plans were drawn in accord-
ance with Mr. Willmer's instructions. After a great
amount of evidence had been heard, and the Assessor
had summed up, the jury returned a verdict for the
defendant

dOMFERSATION FOR THE LOSS OF A 'fast.
MORRELL V. ADAMSON.—Mr. Deighton appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Aspinall for the defendant. This
action was brought to recover damages for the loss of a
horse under the following circumstances. On a Sunday
lately the defendant,, by his servant, hired the horse
from the plaintiff for' the riiitike d fatulhousd
Called Pannydon-hall, situate 'three miles from tfestott
and twenty-seven from Liverpool. The horse was over-
driven and left at the farmhouse, where, attended by a
veterinary surgeon, it expired from the injuries it had
received on the Sunday. Verdict for the defendant.

WRONGFUL DISMISSAL.
V. Deighton appeared for the
piainti#; and Mr. Aspittall for the defendant. The
action was brottEsht to ret4ovet damages for Wrongful dis-
missal from the efendant's employ. do the 22nd of
October last plaintiff entered into defendant's emplati as
canvasser, on terms including a salary of £52 a year,
payable weekly, and a commission of 5 per cent. on
business done, and three months' notice previous to dis-
missal. In a fortnight, on the first occasion of payment,
plaintiff was dismissed, on the ground that business was
bad.—The defence was that the plaintiff neglected the
defendant's business in favour of the shipping business.
—Verdict for £lO.

EXCESSIVE DISTRAINT.
RYDING V. CALLOW.—The action was brought to re-
cover damages for excessive distraint. Mr. Aston ap-
peared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Deighton for the
defendant, The plaintiff, an old woman, rented a house
from the defendant at 4s. ed, per week. She became
indebted ti is., aiid a distraint Was Made, amounting,
at the sale, to £2 15s. .From the evidence of one of the
brokers, it appeared that the inventory of the
goods distrained upon was taken—not at the house,
but at the office. The learned assessor commented
Weil upon the mode of doing business, and ex-
frtesse his saran' at n?t being able to rectify
g.ress irregularity, The plaintiff valued her
k 00,,, at xld, and ittrirrded that some of them were
not accounted for in the inventory, The goods
were sold by an auctioneer named 'Valentine, and
appraised by him and a man named Sillboden, who
acknowledged on his evidence that he signed the appraise-
ment without even seeing the goods. The Assessor said
that it was a most dishonest proceeding, and wished
they could be punished. The jury returned a verdict
for the plaintiff—damages £lO ; and the Assessor re-
marked, " Gentlemen, I wish I could do something with
these men ; I would be delighted. They'll go on till,
some time or other, they'll be caught."