The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-10-12 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.

YESTERDAY

The Court sat at 10 o'clock yesterday.
JOHN Ilnax.n. v. JOHN JONES.—This was an, dot,
which the plaintiff sought to recover £6 from the ne,1,0
a balance of rents which the latter had been employee,;:dto
to collect, The defendant it appeared had been ".o"ellece
rents, for the plaintiff up to January last. Plaintiff aoog
that in several instances parties had been returned as node
sums of money, which; it subsequently appeared, WI aefeir
arrear at all. It was finally agreed that the books woof
dant should be referred for arbitration to a party to be;f,
by both, and the verdict should then be returned in .4g

dance with the award of the arbiters.
ELIZABETH GOULEURN v. THOMAS MACERII"'"--. so
plaintiff sought to recover £5 Bs. being part of ar be.
of money deposited in defendant's hands upon Ile tot
half. On 4ie part of the plaintiff, it was stateaiihs.
her husband, who had been in the employ of the '''sso
dant, was killed at the Corn Exchange, and .3 V
of money was raised by subscription amount ''dot
£3O, which was placed in the hands of &feu. Tile
for the benefit of the widow and her farailY,..,H. apt,
defendant had paid her £24 12s. leaving £5 Bs. snt.
which the action was brought to recover. The deiellt
upon the other hand, put in a set-off for 35 weeks' repot
cottage, with fire and gas, at 4s, per week. Mr. fiff
appeared for the
.plaintiff, and Mr. Wheeler for the de ts/
dant. The plaintiff on examination stated that during
,tsge
husband's life, and subsequently, she had lived in cef
belonging to the defendant, which was allowed to them free
rent, her hnsband attending to the defendant's horse lie
car, and after his death, she herself cleaning his offiees.
Ns
..4,
husband during his life time received 18s. a week
~71111
After his death, Mr, Mackrel told her that she 'le,
occupy the house as long as she pleased. Mr. Mackrel
posed that the husband of the defendant was originallY4
ployed by his father at 245. a week. He was subscane'
employed by defendant, as a common labourer, at Iss
week, and then as a joiner's labourer, for which he rece!ho
the same wages as he had formerly from defendant's f3OOl
245. a week, or 18s. in money, and the cottage, with fired
gas, at 6s. a week. After the death of plaintiff's husball fer
(defendant) had exerted himself to raise a subscriptiono
her, and put down his own name for £5. He also
.—u ~,311°0
her to have the house for 4s. a week instead of 6s°l4si
I do not think, upon the evidence, even of herself, thatit
intended Mrs. Goulburn should have this cottage free'
should put down the cottage as being given to her forfo,
week, but I shall allow her Is. a week to be paid for her
services in cleaning the place.—The COURT finally tt
that the amount in the hands of the defendant was no'than sufficient to cover the rent due, and defendant cow'
to pay the costs of the action.
READ V. WYNNE. —This was an action brought for ple!:
cal and surgical attendance.— Mr. MARTIN appeared for
wife of the defendant. It appeared that defendant biall
had been absent from this country, in Melbourne, for4iit
years, and his wife and family were residing in Eirkenot
occupying different lodgings from those in which def' Jr
himself had resided. A question was raised whether thei
fendant being out of the country, the service of a sin
et,
at the residence of his wife, was sufficient under the A, to
Parliament, which required such notice as would enable
party to appear in person, or by an attorne:ry
agent. His Horton said the question was a very ser/s,',
one, which affected the jurisdiction of the ,
in a great many cases, and he should therefore give "tis:
best consideration, and enquire into the practice of
courts. It was a matter of great importance, and I,
probably affect a greater number of cases there than in
other part of the kingdom. The case was therefore order`
to stand over until the 24th instant.
COMMITTAL OF A WrrNEss.—ln the case of Flete' ?
Richardson, which was an action for wearing apparel 0,
by plaintiff. The wife of defendant, who had ordered go.o
was examined, and gave her evidence in a manner so evasili
as to receive several rebukes from the Court. Positiveip
dente was given by the plaintiff that the goods were ord
which Mr. Richardson endeavoured to deny. His gent
last said—You are a very ill-conducted person, and I do
know whether I ought not send you to trial for perjury' <"
this woman be taken into custody, and locked up ;
swers are such as I cannot allow to be given in a Cot'f
justice without considering what I should do with nit,
shall give no verdict in this case for the present. The, ei
ness was then removed in custody. At the rising °i)
Court, she was again brought up, and his 110Noii sal "col
have been very doubtful what I should do with you, ft
not only did not answer the questions, but you have to vi
a variety of things which I believe are falsehoods. 13311.-foo
at all certain whether I am acting rightly in not sendiloct.
for trial. The woman expressed regret at her orld
COURT : You may be now discharged; but I entertal,4V
doubt whether lam right in doing so. A verdict'
for the plaintiff.but
Several other cases were heard during the day, bn-
possessed no public importance.