The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-10-27 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT. ----YESTERDAY ----_ESTERDAY

The court sat at the usual hour, ten o'clock, this morning.
A • WIFE'S IRRESPONSIBILITY—LANE V. DICKERSON.—
Mr. Hime appeared for the defendant. In this case the
plaintiff, Mrs. Lane, sought to recover of the defendant,
a labourer, the sum of £2 3s. Od., which amount she
had •advanced. The plaintiff stated about the month of
Sept., 1852, the defendant's wife requested her to cash a
shipping note for a young man, a sailor, named Hornby,
at that time representing herself as his sister. She did
cash the note, at the time being promised £2 7s. 6d., and
the defendant's wife, in her presence, requested a young
woman• to sign an agreement at the back of the note
to the effect, that she would pay the amount. The
ship went out, returned within nine days, and when it
again went to sea, the young man refused to accompany it.
She had applied to the defendant for payment, at which his
wife was very angry, and he told her, he had no objection to
pay the money at ls. 6d. or 2s. per week, but she must come
again when his wife was in a better humour. A young
woman signed the note because she believed the defendant's
wife could not write,

Defendant (ingignan.tly), I can write madame,

,
His Honor (addressing defendant) : Now, let me give you
a caution, and through you, the rest of the women who
attend this court. I will have no misconduct here. You
shall not disgrace yourselves in this court if I can prevent it.
If you have no respect for yourself—you shall respect this
court.

Mr. Rime, for the defence, argued, that as the defendant
had not given his wife any authority to sign the note, he was
not liable.

The defendant's wife was called.—She stated she was per-
fectly ignorant of the responsibility she had incurred ; nor
did she know that her name was signed to the note. The
young woman who went with her to the plaintiff's house,
was uster to the sailor.

His Honor : I do not believe one word• of your evidence.
You stated you asked the plaintiff to cash the note ; but yet,
you want to make the court believe that you did not know
that you were responsible for the payment.
The young woman, who accompanied the defendant, was
called, but no questions were asked of her, at his Honor's
req_yst,_

Honor, addressing the plaintiff said, the difficulty
for her to get over was, could she produce any evidence to
prove that the defendant had given his o ife any authority to
sign the note.
The Plaintiff said she could not.

His Honor ; The plaintiff must in this case be non-
suited, but he was not certain that an action would not lie
against the owners of the vessel, seeing that the vessel did
go to sea.
A DRUNKEN CHAIRWOMAN.—GUNTER V. PARKE.—In
this action, the plaintiff, an Irishwoman, sought to recover
of the plaintiff the sum of 9s. for services rendered, being at
the rate of ls. per day. In answer to this demand the
defendant alleged that the plaintiff had never been engaged
by the day, but had consented to do the house work at
2s. 6d. per week, and that amount he had paid her. She
left his service in consequence of getting drunk—most
beastly drunk, when she went out, and was committed by
the magistrates for three days for so doing.

His Honor, asked the plaintiff if the allegation was true.
Defendant—Your Honor, I did take a glass of whiskey,
but I was not so very drunk, although I was drunk.
His Honor : Go away with you. If a person gets drunk
and neglects the duties they have to perform, and gets com-
mitted by a magistrate, they are not deserving wages. •
FAMILY DIFFERENCES.—CATTERILL V. RUDLEY.—In this
action, the plaintiff sought to recover of the defendant, a
near relative, wages for seventeen weeks, at the rate of 10s.
per week, for services performed.
The plaintiff alleged that in the course of the year 1852,
George Rudley, a publican, since deceased, had sent for him,
and, upon his going to the house, he (defendant) found him
very ill, so much so that he was not able to attend to the
business, nor his wife, or his bar-maid. George ,Rudley
asked him to take the charge of conducting the business, to
which he assented, and told him that he was to make his
own charge 'for his services. He continued in the house for
seventeen weeks, in the course of which time George Rudley
died, and the defendant, as his executor, had the licence
transferred, and then turned the widow, who was also since
deceased, out of the premises, she, at that time, being in a
state of ill-health. The services he rendered were keeping
a check upon the servants in the house, of which there were
seven, and seeing that all was paid, and that nothing was
destroyed or wasted. The plaintiff was related to Mrs. G.
Rudley, while the defendant was related to Mr. George Rud-
ley, to whom he had left his property, but Mrs. Rudley, on
her death, left some.property to his family. For the defence
it was argued that the plaintiff and his family had been
" hangers-on " upon the deceased's establishment, at which
the former used generally to smoke his pipe, and take his
grog, and that any trifling services he might have rendered to
the deceased was amply repaid by the refreshments which
he partook of generally most freely. This defence evidently
much annoyed the plaintiff, and it was elicited that the de-
fendant was far from a temperate man, which caused him to
retailaw by urn,mi.-6 4,3..4 —a

also most intemperate persons. His Honor, considered
that the plaintiff was entitled to some remuneration for the
§ervices performed, during the illness of the deceased, but it
was quite clear he had no demand upon the estate after the
decease of Geo. Rudley. The Court gave a verdict for the
plaintiff, for four weeks salary at 10s. per week.

UNMANLY ASSAULT UPON A NURSP MAID.—CLAY v.
HONEYBIRD.—In this case, the plaintiff, a respectable-look-
ing young female; claimed the sum of £2 10s., for three
months' salary as wet nurse, according to a verbal agree-
ment made for nine months with the defendant's wife. Mr.
Hime appeared for the defendant, a publican, living in
Myrtle-street. The plaintiff, whose irritability frequently
displayed itself during the case, stated that she had been
discharged from her employ without the least notice, and for
no other cause than that she requested to go and see her
baby, and upon being refused permission, she went without
leave. On her return at eight o'clock in the evening, the
door was closed against her. She waited about until late at
night, when she went in at the front door; upon which the
defendant rushed after her, seized her by the arm, pushed
her down, and turned her out of the house. She had no
place to hide her head, and walked about until early the
following morning. For the defence it was urged, that the
plaintiff was not entitled to receive any salary, she having
misconducted herself by leaving the house after being in-
formed that she was not so to do. His Honor concurred in
the defendant's view of the case, but gave his permission to
enter a plaint for an assault. The plaintiff proved the
assault committed upon her by the defendant on the night
in question, when he turned her out of the house. Mr.
Hime admitted the assault, which he could not justify,
although doubtlessly the plaintiff had been guilty of great
indiscretion. His Honor considered the assault most un-
justifiable, and that the defendant had been guilty of a
most unmanly act, in assaulting the plaintiff, and turning
one so young into the street. Verdict for the plaintiff,
damages 20s.

IMPORTANT TO TRADESMEN.-LIABILITY OF AN OMNIBUS

CONDUCTOR,

Ellis v. Bughes.—This was an action brought by the
plaintiff, Mr. John Ellis, tailor, North John-street,to recover
of the defendant, Mr. Hughes, the conductor of an omnibus,
plying betiveen Liverpool and Aigburth, the sum of £8 the
value of a parcel entrusted to him to deliver at the Aigburth
Hotel. Mr. Hime appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Grocott conducted the , case for the defendant. Mr. Hime
in opening the case for the plaintiff said, the present was an
action of great importance to the tradesmen of the town, it
was an action to recover the value of a parcel sent by the
plaintiff to the Aigburth Hotel, to a gentleman by the name
of Edward Von Euck, to be left there until called for. On
the 19th of August, the plaintiff sent, by a lad, a parcel,
which parcel was delivered into the defendant's hands, the
boy giving him 6d. for the carriage, which was more than
the amount usually charged. As the parcel did not arrive at
its destination, the plaintiff made inquiries of Mr. Hughes to
know what had become of it, and finding that he did not
annear to knew an in about it, the nyesent nm.;"
was commenced. lie (Mr. Rime) had several counts to go
upon, but he did not know which he should elect, until the
evidence was before the court. He then called the plaintiff,
Mr. Ellis, who deposed to sending a parcel by the lad,
directed " Edward Von Euch, Esq., to be left at the Aig-
burth Hotel until called for." The parcel nut arriving there,
he had a communication with the defendant, whom he had
known as the conductor of the omnibus.. In his cross-ex-
amination by Mr. Grocott, he stated 'he ""believed the plain.
tiff was the conductor of the omnibus. The name of
Philips was on the omnibus as owner. The contents of the
parcel had not been paid for.
The lad, Robert Shaw, deposed to giving the parcel into
the hands of the defendant, and paying him 6d. for the

carriage.

Mr;llime said that that was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Grocott replied that he did not see that there was
any case.

Honor wished to know which count Mr. Hime would
elect.
Mr. Hime : That of trover.

A short conversation took place between his Honor and
Mr. Hime, the latter contending that the mis-delivery of a
parcel, although the defendant was not a carrier, would
make him responsible. His Honor thought, that as the
defendant was only a servant to the proprietor, an action
would lay against the owner of the omnibus. Mr. Hime
called the defendant, who stated he was formerly the owner
of the omnibusses, but that they now belonged to his brother.
in-law, Mr. Philips, and that he was only conductor, re-
ceiving 30s. per week as his salary. They did not care
about carrying parcels, when they did take any, he and the
driver divided the money. Mr. Rime said he had proved
sufficient to make the defendant responsible, as he had ad-
mitted that he took the money for the parcel. Mr. Gar-
cott assented, and his Honor gave a verdict for the plain-
tiff. Damage £B, to be paid in four monthly instalments.
Several other cases were disposed off bat none possessed
imy public interest. The Court adjourned.

Last evening, a well-known thief was stopped by
Police Constable 288, Squires, coming from the
Theatre Royal, and there were seven silk pocket-
handkerchiefs found in his possession. Two of the
handkerchiefs were marked ; one with the letters
F. W., and the other with the name Edward Nor-
ris, G. N.