The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-08-22 00:00:00

SPECIAL JURY CASES.

His Lordship then proceeded to take up the special jury cases.
BE ATTIE V. RYLAND3.—Mr. Cuttingham opened the plead-
ings in this case, which was an action brought to recover
£1,034 14e. 11d. awarded to plaintiff by arbitrators appointed
by the joint consent of the parties. Mr. Hugh Hill, Q,C.,
stated the case. It was an action brought against Mr. John
Rylands, manufacturer of cotton goods, carrying on business in
Manchester, under the firm of Rylands & Son, to receive an
amount awarded to the plaintiff with a portion of costs under
the same award. The plaintiff, Mr. Beattie, was in the
employment of Mr. Rylands, in the year 1853, and in that
year he went out upon a commission from defendant's firm,
the terms being agreed to in writing between him and them,
to North America, for the purpose of selling their goods. By
the terms of that agreement they were to pay him a certain
commission for the sales he effected, subject to certain deduc-
tions to be made if bad debts were incurred, and a sum of
£3OO was deposited by plaintiff with defendant as security for
the due performance of the agreement, that sum to bear
interest in the defendant's hands. The plaintiff went out to
America and effected sales there to an amount exceeding
£50,000. After he returned in 1855, a dispute arose between
the parties as to the amount of commission payable, the plain-
tiff claiming a larger sum than the defendant was willing to
pay, the latter being, indeed, only willing to pay a very small
sum. The plaintiff was, accordingly, compelled to put himself
into the hands of Messrs. Sale, Worthington, and Shipman,
solicitors, of Manchester, and defendant put himself into the
hands of Messrs. Worthington and Earle, solicitors, of same city,
both firms of high respectability. An arrangement was come
to, that as the dispute would involve questions of mercantile
dealings and several matters of account, which could hardly
be conveniently enquired into in a court of justice, it would
be desirable to refer the whole matter to the arbitration of
three mercantile gentlemen, one to be appointed by Mr.
Beattie, the second to be appointed by Mr. Rylands, and these
two to appoint the third. It was agreed that these three
gentlemen, or any two of them, if the third should differ,
were to have power to make an award. Mr. Henry Pope,
merchant, of Manchester, was appointed by Mr. Beattie;
Mr. George Wadsworth, agent, of Manchester, was appointed
by Mr. Rylands, and these two parties agreed to appoint Mr.
Hugh Fleming as the third arbitrator. Ultimately, in con-.
sequence of Mr. Wadsworth having differed, the award was
made by the two other arbitrators, on the Ist July, 1858,
after eighty-four meetings had been held, commencing on the
14th of January—long meetings—at which the whole matters
between the parties were gone into. The arbitrators awarded
to plaintiff £730 8s 3d, as due to him by Mr. Rylands, and
they awarded that each party should bear a portion of the
costs. They assessed the costs at £456 100, of which Mr.
Beattie was to pay £132 3s 4d, and Mr. Ryland. £304 6s Bd.
If either party, on taking up the award, paid the whole, then
he was to be reimbursed the share of the costs. The award,
was taken up by Mr. Beattie, who then called upon Mr.
Rylands to pay the amount awarded, as due, and the portion
of costs assessed to him, making together £1,034 14s l ld.
Mr. Rylands, however, refused to pay, and this action was
accordingly brought to recover that amount. Tho agreement
under the reference made, was admitted, Mr. Hill briefly
glanced at the nature of the defence, the principal points of which
were that before the appointment of Mr. Fleming as arbitrator,
Mr. Wadsworth distinctly told Mr. Pope he would not consent to
have any person appointed who was a friend of either of the par-
ties or the two arbitrators, and it was alleged that Mr. Fleming
was, without Mr. Wadsworth's knowledge, a friend of MN
Pope's, and also that Mr. Wadsworth did not differ in any such
sense as to allow the other two arbitrators to make the award
without him. Mr. Hill contended that the first of these pleas
was one which ought never to have been put upon the record,
if it attributed to Mr. Pope any unfair object in having Mr.
Fleming appointed, with whom he had no such acquaintance as
could render him a prejudiced arbitrator; and, in regard to the
second ground of defence, he argued that Mr. Wadsworth dis-
tinctly expressed a difference of opinion as to the conduct of
the arbitration, and refused to proceed, so that, as the time of
the arbitration was limited, the others had no alternative but,.
after giving him notice, to proceed with their award. Mr. Pope,
Mr. Fleming, and other witnesses, were examined, to prove the
plaintiff's cage. The evidence of both arbitrators stated that
at a certain stage of the enquiry, Mr. Wadsworth had some
dispute relative to the production of defendant's books. Mr.
Wadsworth said the books were only to be produced m a
matter of favour, and not of right. Mr. Pope said they
were produced as a matter of right. Mr. Wadsworth then, it
was stated, ordered the books to be taken away, and said be
would proceed no further, and after notice had been served
upon him, the other arbitrators then proceeded with their
award. Mr. Noggins, Q.C., who, with Mr. James,. appeared-
for the defence, addressed the jury, contending that
there had been no difference between the arbitrators,
such as would justify two of them in proceeding
to deliver their award, unassisted by the other.
The absence of Mr. Wadsworth, he stated, was due to
other causes, of which that gentleman had given notice, and
the learned counsel charged Mr. Pope and Mr. Fleming with
misconduct in giving their award in so hasty a manner, and
urged that they had done so to secure their own payment.
Mr. Wadsworth was called, and I deposed that he never
absented himself from any of the meetings with the view of
obstructing a decision, and denied that ho ever ceased to be ma
arbitrator. Hie Lordship asked the jury whether in' their
opinion the arbitrators differed. Tho jury expressed their
opinion that the arbitrators did differ. His Lordship said that
was in point of fact a verdict for the plaintiff. The jury found
for the plaintiff accordingly.

r• • J •
BEkRO v. THE SOLVENCY MUTUAL GUARANTEE COM-
PANY.—This was an retion brought to recover the amount of
a bad debt guaranteed by a policy granted by defendants.
Mr. Attorney-General Knowles, Mr. Hugh Hill, Q.C., and
Mr. Aspland, appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Watson, Q Cy
with Mr. Ctuaine for the defendants. The plaintiffs were
Messrs. Beard, well-known merchants of Manchester, and the
defendants an insurance companyelasetabbelsisliinedmnaont
clVt eesrtyer IQanli
since in London, and having bia
other large provincial towns for the purpose of guaranteeing tradesmen from losses by bad debts incurred in the course of
trade. The policy which the plaintiff effected was dated Jug
23, 18,13., and the amount of the bad debts on which they
now claimed £3,020 6s. sd. A verdict was given for the
plaintiff for
and £74b6 l Os., the insurance being for nine-tenths or
the debt, su j ect to several deductions where the amount
on which the elv,im was.: founded exceeded the average of bad
debts returned on proposing for a guarantee.
SEDDON AND ANOTHER V. MATHER.—The plaintiffs in this
case were John Seddon, a bleacher, residing at Bohm*
and William Elliott, a tenant of his, and the defendant
William Mather, a beerseller. The action was one of eject.
ment brought to recover possession of a strip of land in the
township of West Houghton, on the road between Bolton and
Chorley. Mr. Atherton and Ifr. Kempley appeared for the,
plaintiffs, and Mr. Hill and Mr. Millward for defendant..
Several witnesses were- called to prove that the principal
plaintiff, Mr. Seddon, had for many years back exercised
acts of ownership over that piece of land. One witness, an
old man, when asked how long since he first went to live neat
that land replied that he went there " the very year after
the last Preston guild but one." His Lordship appeared
considerably puzzled to understand what particular era this
might refer to, until Mr, Atherton explained in a few words
what " the Preston guild" was. It was ascertained that the
year to which the witness referred was 1823. This case had
not concluded when the court arose.

LIVERPOOL BANX.RIIPTCY COURT.—Yesterday, before Mr.
Commissioner Stevenson, John Stananaught, builder and
publican, of Liverpool, applied for his certificate. His
Honour granted an immediate certificate of the second
class.

STEAMER PACIFIC.—This fine vessel sailed from the
Landing-stage at a quarter past twelve o'clock yesterday
with portions of four regiments, in all, 864 men and
twenty-six officers. It was hoped she would reach Dahlia
in time to land the troops last night.