The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-01-10 00:00:00

and resolution, with its recommendatio'

ed,without discussion

..“u from the inhabitants of Newby-
mt-road, complaining of want of sewerage ani

aemonal was re

Town Clerk stated that this
the road was within the bor

was a case in which a;

part of

Ir. Gar

- part
moved that the memorial be referred toouts the
Ith committees, and, in doing 80, remarked
-e showed the importance and necessity of
the boundary, which, he hoped, would
ultimately take place, when all the townships, within a
certain extent, would be under one head, and every town-
ship would bear its due proportion of the expenses.
Mr. Tinne opposed the memorial being referred, and a
division took place, when Mr. Gardner's motion was carried
be fourteen to ten.

tell and

an extension of

The amount of expenses for sessions' prosecutions,
amounting to £2,80519.i 4d, was laid before the council, and

certified

The council then broke up.

COURT OF PASSAGE.---YESTERDAY.
(BEFORE E. JAMES, EEQ,, ASSESSOR.)
CONTRACT. E.OONEY v. HUTCHIPON.—ID. this ease,
Gorge Patrick Rooney, a join r and builder, carrying on
business in Upper Parliament-street, was the plaintiff, and
Richard Hutchinson, a surgeon, residing in Upper Stanhope
street, was the defendant, It was a special jury case, and
the action was brought under the following circumstances.
On the 1 Rh of May last the plaintiff and defendant entered
into a contract, under which the former undertook to build
a house and offices for the latter, at the corner of Catherine-
s:reet and Parliament-street, according to the plans and
designs of Mr. T. C. Clarke, the architect, in a workmanlike
manner, within the period of six months. The work was
begun, and in August last, in consequence of the delay
which took place in i:s progress, the defendant wrote'to the
plaintiff, stating that, in consequence of the delays he would
set men to work and complete it himself, as he was entitled
to do under the contract; and giving notice, that if his doing
so should increase the cost of the erection beyond th 6
amount of the plaintiff's contract, he should hold him (the
plaintiff) responsible tor the difference. The defendant
acted on this notice, proceeded with the works, and the
plaintiff now brought this action to recover compensa-
tion for breach of contract. On his behalf numerous witnesses
were called, to show that no delay had occurred, except such
as was unavoidable, in consequence of the orders of the defen-
dant or his architect. The amount expended by the plaintiff
in part fulfilment of his undertaking was £294, in labour
and material, when the contract was interrupted by the
act of the defendant, A host of witnesses were examined for
the defence, whose evidence went to show that owing to
the inexperience, inefficiency and neglect of the plaintiff,
works which ought to have been completed in a few days,
had taken many weeks. And that such was the dilatoriness
of the plaintiff, that instead of the house being finished in
six months, as contracted for, it would have taken eighteen
months to complete it. The real question at issue however,
was whether there had been such a delay as to justify the
defendant in taking, as he had, the works into his own
hands ? The learned assessor summed up the evidence to the
jury, who, after an hour's deliberation, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed. Mr. Aspinall
and Mr. Conway, (instructed by Mr. J. Yates, jun.)
appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Tindal
Atkinson, with whom was M-. Scott (instructed by Mr.
Boggie) conducted the defence.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT.--iIAYWORTH AND WIFE If.
WATSON AND WIFE.--This was an action brought by the
plaintiffs, Edward and Mary Hayworth, againt Thomas
and Mary Ann Watson, to recover compensation for false
imprisonment. In this case the plaintiff was an iron
founder, working at the Vauxhall Foundry, and
the defendant was a rigger. On the 30th of July
a dispute arose between the two women relative to a dog,
when the defendant took a policeman to the plaintiff's
house, and gave her into custody on a charge of stealing
the dog. She was taken to the police station, where the
case was heard and dismissed. This action was brougnt
compensation for such false imprisonment.
is for the plaintiff, and Mr. A,pinall for the
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff,

to recover
Mr. Scott w