The Express.
London, England, 1861-04-04 00:00:00

!AMAX V. NORTON.

The attorney for the plaintiff in this action writes to us
se follows :—" In your report of the above ease you state
that it was arranged that all the letters that had pamed
between the parties should he delivered up.' No such ar-
rangement was entered into ; the imputations out upon the
character of my client (Mr. Lomax) by the plea of the de-
fendant were uncouditionally withdrawn."

NORTHERN CIRC CUT.— Ltontroor, Aram S.
(Before Mr. Justice Hill.)
His lordship eat at nine o'clock, and proceeded to try
civil causes.
1111Tril AND AIME= N. TATai.
Thin was an action on a pimento@ given by the defendant
to the plsintiffs, who are bnckmakers, at Liverpool.
Mr. E. James and Mr. Hatton sparred for the plain-
tiffs • Mr. T. Jones and Mr. M'Culloch fer defendant.
Yi:tes, it appeared, is in the habit of giving guaranteeor
bulldoze, to enable them to obtain materials, and gave
guarantee to plaintiffs for bricks supplied to a builder
I aimed Newman Heston. Heaths got into difficulties, sad
the action was brought against his guarantee to recover •
balance of 1021. due from him oe nevem' amount&
The defence was that the contract with Yates bad been
broken, on account of Heaton being stopped in building at
a critical period, whereby the value of the property became
depreciated, and Heaton became unable to mot hie envie-
manta.
At the direction of his lordship the jury returned a ver-
dict practically for defendant.
(Before Mr. Justice Keating.)
WINTON V. MILLIGAN AND OTANIN.-ALLIOND num BY •
PARTNII IN A CONNNDCIAL PiIX.
This case occupied part of yesterday and nearly the whole
of to-day, which was en action brought by a retired manu-
facturer reeidirm at Bradford, in Yorkshire, against Meagre.
Milligan, Forbes, sod Co., extensive merchants of the MOM
place, to recover the sum of 1,2001., with interest, due on a
promissory note in the following form
" Bradford, Nov. 13, 1860.
"We promise to pay Mr. William orator, on demand,
the sum of 1,2001., with interest at the rate of 3 per cent
per annum. " Mn.uoatr, Forme, sod Co.
" Wthuax Warrraasa."
Mr. Whittaker wee • portage in the arm at this time,
and it was with him that Mr. Heaton had the acquaintance.
Previous to this, in 1858, Yr. Denton, who had some money
which be had to spare for investment, had lent Whittaker
2,0001., which (it was alleged for the plaintiff) Whittaker
asked fee as sa amommod to the firm ; end in hammy,
1860, at Whitaker's request, Deltas lent a further sum of
6004 Both thous more. however, were repaid, with the
exception of 1001., which, it was subsequently arranged,
should be included in the • note of the 13th
November, 18E10. The plaintiff asserted that when the note
was drawn he asked how it wee, if the money was
lent to the firm, that Whittaker placed his mine below
their signature. To this Whittaker replied that it was done
in order to show which was the partner who drew the note.
He assured Denton that the firm would pay the amount when
required. Subsequent to this transaction a change of Fortner-
ship Wok place sad Whittaker left the firm ; bat when
the
refund to ff went to request payment of the note the firm
ee the claim.
Witnesses were milled to support the plaintiff's ease.
To-day Mr. Maalety, QC. addressed the jw, for the
defence, denying is toto that Isms. Milligan, end
Co., as a oommemial firm, were parties to the aoha sad
pointing out the improbability of a home when repute
at all times midget to obtain 10,0001. or 10,6001. frwels
their bankers, laying themselves =dee obligatioa to a per
eon like Mr. Dental fee a paltry MOIL It was evident
that Whittaker, who was is powdery embarrassments—
embernmaisets which had ird to hie separation from the
arm—canted the mosey parely far his goo wooer. wed
Mr. Denton was most etthabie ha bad say atiegirisio, ea
in his widows he adatittad be bed) is act eesides for
further infommotioa from the faker prime briars be hut
the mosey.