The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-04-10 00:00:00

COURT OF PASSAGE.

(Before EDWARD JANIES, Esq.,
.Assessor.)

BATES v. RElS.—This was an action brought to
recover compensation for the nonpayment of a bill of
the Plaintiff's for £l5O, which the defendant had advised.
Mr. Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Brett
for the defendant. From the statement of counsel it
appeared that on the 27th of December last the plaintiff
having a bill for .£l5O which would be due on the fol-
lowing day, called upon the defendant, who is a banker
in Lord-street, for the purpose of getting it advised. At
the interview which then took place the plaintiff got an
advice note, the defendant telling him that it would be
all right, and the bill would be accepted. On the 30th
of December the bill came back dishonoured from the
London and Westminster Bank. The plaintiff, in com-
pany with the holder of the bill, then called upon the
defendant, who told them that there must have been
some mistake in London, as he had compared the advice
note with the bill and found it quite correct. The
defendant also said he would write to London and pay
the bill himself on the following Monday. The plaintiff
pressed for payment immediately, but the defendant
persisted in postponing the matter until Monday, giving
as his reason that a bill in the same name and for the
same amount might have been paid a few days previous

to the presentation of the plaintiff's bill. On the Mon-
day the money was paid to the holder of the bill, Mr.
Williams, as promised to the defendant. In consequence
of this refusal on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff
had brought the present action to recover damages
for the injury which his character as a business
man had sustained. The defendant stated that at the
interview of the 27th he had told the plaintiff that he
could not guarantee the acceptance of the bill, as it was
payable at the London and Westminster bank ; but he
had no doubt it would be all right. The defence fur-

ther stated that the present action had been brought oat
Of the spite, as the defendant had refused to discount a
bill of the plaintiff's on the 29th. The jury found for
the plaintiff, with 40s. damages.

CHUBB AND ANOTHER V. HOLLAND.—This was a
claim for £33 17s. for goods sold and delivered. Mr.
Brett, who appeared for the plaintiffs, stated that they
were the celebrated manufacturers of fireproof iron
chests, and the defendant was Mr. George C. Holland, a
gentleman who appeared to get his living by obtaining
goods on credit, and then pawning them two or three
days after. The defendant took an office`in Hanover-
street, and, on representing that he was established in
business as an agent for some concern, obtained from the
plaintiffs a fireproof iron chest and other articles, which
were pawned shortly aftei delivery. The case being
clearly proved, the jury at once found a verdict for the
plaintiff to the amount of £3l.
- HALL v. ENVING.—The plaintiff in this case is a fur-
niture dealer in London-road ; and the action was
brought to recover from the defendant payment for a
quantity of furniture worth about £62 3s. 9d., which
was supplied to her. The defence in this case was, that
the goods were not supplied to the defendant but to her
son, who should, therefore, be made the responsible
party. The jury found for the plaintiff for the full
amount claimed.
PILLING V. BENrcarr.—ln this case the plaintiff was

the owner of some cottages in Clarence-grove, Everton,
and the action was brought to recover damage for

injuries which his property had sustained in conse-
quence of some blasting operations which the defendant
was conducting at the back of the cottages. Mr.
Brett appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.. Aspinall
conducted the case on behalf of the defendant. In
the beginning of Jane last the defendant purchased
a quarry at the back of the plaintiff's cottages,
and commenced blasting operations upon it. The
stones from the quarry were repeatedly thrown
on the roofs of the cottages, and towards the end of
June the plaintiff's tenants complained to him of the
injury caused by the stones. In consequence of these
complaints the plaintiff went to the defendant, and the
latter said he was sorry for what had happened, and
would see that it did not occur again. Early in July
the plaintiff received more complaints from his tenants,
and upon inspecting the houses found that in many
places there were large holes in the roof. At one of
the houses he was shown a crow-bar which had been
thrown into the yard from the quarry. The plaintiff
then wrote a letter to the defendant, stating that, as the
injuries had been caused by the defendant, he ought to
pay for repairing the houses. In reply to this letter the
defendant said that he had now sold the quarry, and had
nothing to do with it : but he had restricted the
purchaser so that he could not blast to the injury of the
plaintiff's property. The plaintiff had repaired the
houses himself, and had brought the present action to
recover the expense which had been incurred in so doing.
Oa behalf of the defendant, it was stated that he had
repaired the damage done by the first explosions, and
also the flag in the yard which the crow-bar had
broken. This was not denied by the plaintiff ; but he
said that the latter explosions had injured the cottages
to the amount of £l7, none of which had been paid for
by the defendant. The jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff for £6.
BARK V. RESNINGTON.-This was an interplesder
issue to try whether certain property seized under an
order of the Court of Passage belonged to the plaintiffs
as trustees. 311.. Aspinall appeared for the plaintiffs,
and Mr. Brett for the defendant. The plaintiffs were
Mr. Henry Bark and Mr. Sylvester Matheson, jun., and
the defendant was an attorney practising in this town.

It appeared that Mr. Matheson, being a man of very
extravagant habits, disagreed with his wife, and they
ultimately separated, the husband going to America.
The friends of Mrs. Matheson purchased some property
for her, which they arranged in such a manner that
none of the husband's creditors could claim it for debts.
Now, however, the defendant claimed it, and the present
action was consequently brought. In the course of the
case 3,fr. Brett withdrew his claim, and the jury found
for the plaintiff.

CLAIM FOR COMMISSION.—HAYWARD v. PRICE.—
The plaintiff in this case was a commission agent in this
town, and he sought to recover as commission the sum
of £B3. The defendant had a mill which he wished to
sell, and accordingly made out an advertisement, but,
the plaintiff introducing him to a customer, he did not
insert the advertisement. The evidence clearly showed
that there was no actual or implied contract between the
parties, and the jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
The court adjourned shortly before six o'clock.

LIVERPOOL POLICE COURT._ YESTERDAY.

(Before Mr. RAFFLES.)
PICKING POCKETS.—WiIIiam 'Wright was charged
with picking the pocket of James Bennett, 23, Chris-
tian-street, of a silver watch. The prosecutor was
listening to a sermon in Islington market place, on
Sunday evening. He felt a man's hand in his pocket
and turned round and immediately collared the prisoner,
at 'whose feet the watch fell. Mr. Bluek appeared for
the prisoner, who was committed for trial.
A CHARGE or STEALING A COAT.—Edward Ellis, an
elderly man, residing at 4, Cavendish-street, was brought
up on a charge of stealing a coat, the property of Mr.
George Horner, commercial traveller, who stayed at
the
.Stork Hotel. On Wednesday. week the prisoner
was engaged to . carry the prosecutor's parcels ; at
dinner time he was given a shilling to get dinner, being
desired to meet his employer at a Mr. Rigby's at two
o'clock. Ho kept his engagement, and he was sent to
the Stork Hotel for Mr. .rforner's overcoat. He went
to the hotel, obtained the coat, and was not seen. again
until apprehended on Saturday. The coat was offered
at a pawnbroker's in Whitechapel, but has not as yet
been found. Remanded.
A CHARGE OF EMBEZZLEMENT.—George Cribb, tra-
velling assistant in the employ of Messrs. Gabriel, den-
tists, was charged with embezzling £6 of his master's
money. Mr. Samuel appeared for the prosecution, and
applied for an adjournment. Three weeks ago, it
appears, the prisoner. was entrusted to deliver a piece of
work to a person named Reed, residing at Bolton, and
it was his duty to hand the money over to his employer
on bis return; but instead of doing so he related a
number of contradictory stories to the effect that the
work was not delivered to the 'party, hut left at the
Bolton branch establishment of the Messrs. Gabriel,
who wrote to Mr. Reed on the subject, and found that
the £6 had been paid over to the prisoner, against
whom there was a number of other charges. In his
defence the prisoner stated that the work was made of
tie old silver, and was not worth 18s. The case was
reminded.
GAROTTE P.ORBERY.—A matt, who gave his name as
Wiliam Armstrong, was brought up on suspicion of
beit concerned in a garotte robbery on a seaman named
Wilsam Burney, in Gloucester-street, on the 2nd of
()etcher last, for which offence another man called
Clarke was sentenced to ten years penal servitude at
the last assizes, but the prisoner then managed to
estate, the vigilance of the police. From a want of
evidinee he was now discharged.
(Before Messrs. PEEL and BOOTH.)
S;AMAN'S WAGES CASE.—Mr. M`Pherson, captain of
the Relief; was summoned at the instance of 'William
Sykes, chief mate, for £l9 1 ls. 4d. Mr. Black appeared
for the complainant, and Mr. Cobb for the defendant.
On arriving. in Liverpool the captain wanted 'to make
the mate responsible for yellow metal valued at 1.',•14
7s. •id , lost while discharging the cargo at Bombay;
andsought to deduct the amount from his-wages.—The
maOstrate found that the metal was lost through no
ncgigenee of the mate, and therefore considered that
he ras entitled to the full amount.

INACCOUNTARLE DEATHS.—The Joru•nel de Mont-
brisil tells a strange story :—" Three peasants of Saint
Jea-Solymieux (Loire) went a few days ago to a fair
at mint Genest-Lerpt, and when they had transacted
thei business they entered a public-house to drink. In
retcning home they lost their wey, and one, named
Modon, became separated from the other. two.' Those.
two sought for him, but in vain ; • the Search .having
bee: resumed the.. next morning, the dead body of
the man was found at the bottom of a ravine ; but
then was nothing to show whether he had died of
con estion of the brain, caused by a fall, or had
bee. killed.. The body was .conveyk to the nearest
villge, that-of Saint Marcellin, and placed in an aban-
dond building, which formerly served as the mairie,,
to ucait the examination of the magistrates. At night,
onePerret was eharged to keep watch at the -place ; but,
at lidnight a person going home found near the building
thedeid body of a man, and it turned out to be that of
Peret! There was a .deep wound in the head, but
thu far no one can say how it was occasioned. Some
perens conjecture that, hating gone up stairs, the man
accdentally fell .headforemost out of the window ; others
—e -being of indifferent character—that he had
attmpted to rob some person who happened to pass, and
ha been felled to the ground by a blow from a heavy
std,"