The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-10-29 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.----YE
STERDAY

The Court sat at ten o'clock, yesterday.
GALLAHER V. MARSTON.—The plaintiff in this case was
a person named John Gallaher, a porter living in Suffolk-
street, who sought to recover £3O ss. 6d., from Henry
Marston, a warehouseman in the employment of Messrs.
Pappianni and Co., merchants. The amount claimed, was
for dinners supplied to the plaintiff during 104 weeks, from
October, 1847, to October, 1349, at 6s. per week, £3l 45.,
and attendance 7s. 6d. which was reduced by cash paid to
the sum mentioned, £3O ls. 6d. Mr. C. I. Aspinall
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Grocott for the defence.
The evidence was of a remarkably contradictory nature.
It appeared that the defendant had employed plaintiff as a
porter in Messrs.. Pappianni's warehouse in the year 1845,
and continued him in that occupation until the early part
of the present year, when plaintiff became ill for some time,
and was finally discharged. _ _

Mrs. GALLAHER, wi(e of the plaintiff, deposed that
defendant had got dinner every day at her house during
that period, and that he entered into a contract with her
to pay at the rate of 6s. a week. The evidence was
corroborated by two other women named Ellen Barrett
and Mary Barrett.

The DEFENDANT was examined, and positively disclaimed
the debt and the contract altogether. He admitted that
he had occasionally dined at Mrs. Gallaher's, but not
frequently, and stated that during the time mentioned,
he had been in the habit of frequenting an ordinary in
Paradise-street, and another dining-house.
Mrs. GALLAHER was again called, and repeated her
former statement.

His HONOR asked what religion she professed.
Mrs. GALLIIIER replied, the Roman Catholic.
His HONOR : How often do you go to confession ?
WITNESS : Once a month.
His HONOR : When where you last there ?
WITNESS : About four weeks ago.
His HONOR : Do you attend regularly ?
WITNESS : Always.
His HONOR : Do you know how you will have to an-
swer for it, if you tell a falsehood ?

WITNESS : I am well aware of it.
His HONOR then called the defendant and asked
him, if, after what he had heard, he still persevered in his
former statement. The defendant again denied having en-
tered into the contract, or dined at the house for the time
alleged. On the part of the defendant, it was urged that
he had not, until lately, heard of the claim, and it was ad-
mitted for the plaintiff, that he was unwilling to send in
the bill while he was retained by the defendant in his em-
ployment. His Honor said : I have felt it necessary to ask
the witness, Mrs. Gallaher, some questions, which I do not
think I ever put to a witness before. However persons may
differ with regard to certain creeds, it will not be denied,
that a woman who attends her religious duties, whatever
may be her creed, is less likely to tell a falsehood than one
who is irregular in these duties. I believe this woman's
statement, and I believe the money was paid as stated, and
that the conversations did take place ' • but I have great
doubt upon one part of the matter, that is the exact number
of times that Mr. Marston dined there. I do not under-
stand, from his own account, how it could be incorrect that
he did dine there very frequently. I also believe the wit-
ness Mary Barrett, when she spoke of his coming there very
frequently ; and I believe that generally she is correct as re-
spects the fact of his having been there a great number of
times. With regard to the actual amount of the debt, lam
not so sure of the accuracy of that matter; but I believe
that Mr. Marston must have been going there repeatedly,
dining there repeatedly, and that he had no fixed place of

dining then, although he has one now, and that as he dined

repeatedly at Gallaher's, he is bound to pay for it. lam in
great doubt as to the exact number of times, and the persons
who spoke of his being there every day were probably not
quite correct in that particular. I dare say he did not dine
there exactly every day. I shall therefore deduct one-third
of the amount which is claimed, and give a verdict for £2O.
One remark was made by Mr. Grocott very properly, as
to the account having been delayed a very long time. At
the same time that is quite consistent with the reason given
by the plaintiff, that so long as he was employed he did
not like to press the claim, but of course that reason ceased
to exist when he left the employment. _ _

PENNINGTON v. BLAKE.—This was an action arising out
of a case tried in the court a short time since, in which the
present defendant claimed compensation for the value of
sheep worried by a dog belonging to Mr. Pennington. In
the present case Mr. Pennington sought to recover £lO from
Mr. Blake, for the value of the dog, which was hanged by
the directions of the defendant. Mr. Pope appeared for
the plaintiff and Mr. Hime for the defence. Mr. Pope was
proceeding to call witnesses for the purpose of establishing
his case, when Mr. Hime said he would save trouble by ad-
mitting that his client was not justified in killing the dog,
which had not been actually found attacking the sheep, and
the action was, therefore, undefended, merely resolving itself
into a question of value.
COURT : The killing of the dog might not perhaps be jus-
tified at all, if you could have prevented him doing the mis-
chief in any other other way.

The plaintiff was then examined, and deposed, that he
was offered £lO for the dog, and that he refused to sell him
for that amount, and that he considered him to be worth
at Ipat,Xlo.
To Mr. Hime : Got the dog about nine months before he
was killed, which was upon the 20th of August. He was a
good house dog. Never received notice that the dog should
be kept out of the defendant's fields. Was told by his wife
that the dog was in the habit of chasing and worrying the
sheep.
Mr. POPE : Has the dog ever been shot over ?
PLAINTIFF : He has.
His HONOR : How old was he when you got him?
PLAINTIFF : About two years.
His HONOR : He could scarcely have been broken at two
years old.
PLAINTIFF : He was well broken.
His HONOR : If he was well broken he would not bite
sheep. Did you use him for sporting yourself ?

..
PLAINTIFF..: No sir. The gentlem-an who owned him
first, and who gave him to me, shot over him.
. His HONOR • Is that gentleman here ?
. ._.

PLAINTIFF; He is

The gentleman who originally owned the dog was called,
and deposed that he bad frequently used him for sporting,
and that he valued him at £3. Would have given that
money himself for him.

Mr: HIME : For what purpose ?
WITNESS : For shooting.
Mr. limn : How old was he ?
WITNESS said about three years.
His HONOR : I will give a verdict for the value which
this gentleman puts upon the dog, £3.

SMITH v. SUTTCLIFFE.—This was a case adjourned for the
production of evidence. Mr. Smith claimed compensation
for injuries done him by a cart alleged to belong to Mr.
Joseph Suttcliffe. It appeared that on the 3rd of August,
the plaintiff was passing along Berry-street, in the direction
of Great George's-street, when he was knocked down by a
cart, which was carelessly driven by a boy. A gentleman,
who picked up the plaintiff and prevented him from being
run over, deposed at the former hearing that just as the cart
was driving round the corner he saw the defendant's name
upon it. Several persons who were standing by also stated
to him that it was the defendant's cart, but none of these
parties came forward at the hearing of the case. On the
part of the defendant it was positively denied that the cart
was his, and his driver, a boy, distinctly swore that he knew
nothing of the occurrence, and that on the day in question,
when he was driving his master's cart, no such thing took
place. The case was therefore adjourned, in order to afford
the plaintiff an opportunity of producing further evidence if
he could.

Mr. Gnocorr stated that the plaintiff had advertised since
the former hearing, offering a reward to any one present at
the time who would come forward and give evidence, but no
one had appeared.
_ _

The boir-who drove defendant's cart was again called, and
repeated his former evidence ; but admitted that he might
have returned home by Berry-street upon the day in
question.

His HONOR : This case has peen investi-
gated, and not more so than it deserves, but I cannot say
that I am clearly satisfied that it was Mr. Suttcliffe's cart
which did the damage. Neither am I satisfied that it was
not, and I regret to state that I am not at all satisfied by
the evidence of the boy, that he knows nothing about the
occurrence. But I must be satisfied clearly that Mr. Sutt-
cliffe is accountable for the damages, before I could give
verdict stc.;..st him. I cannot make him arcu-erable for
what has not been distinctly proved a6dinst him. It is very
clear that a cart did the damage to Mr. Smith, and did it in
a most unjustifiable manner, and that the cart was driven by
a young boy, and that the damage was done at the corner of
Berry-street. A gentleman, who picked Mr. Smith up and
prevented the cart from running over him, appears to have
had his senses perfectly under control, but he had only the
single instant, while the cart was driving round the corner,
to see what name was on it. I must confess that lam not
at all satisfied with what the boy has stated.

,
At his Honor's desire the boy was again placed in the box,
when

His HONOR said : You have been listening very attentively
to what I have said, and I am sure you perfectly compre-
hend it. It has not been proved to day that your master's
cart did not do this damage, and I am not satisfied that you
have told me all you know about it. The day may come
when there will be evidence brought to prove it, and if I
find hereafter, as it may be I shall find, that you are the per-Son
who did the mischief, I give you warning that I shall un-
doubtedly consider it my duty to send you to take your trial
for perjury. At present that has not been done, and I tell
you this that you may !know in what position you stand.
Upon the evidence which has been produced, and as the per-
sons at the occurrence have not come forward, I am bound
to say that the case has not been made out. His Honor,
therefore, declared the case dismissed.
RIME appeared for the defendant.

CLOSING OF TILE DUBLIN EXFIIBITION.—The Dublin
Exhibition of Industry will be, closed on Monday next at
four o'clock. His Excellency' the Lord Lieutenant will
preside at the ceremony, and will confer the honor e
knighthood on Mr. C. P. Rooney, the most active organirer
of the undertaking. A musical performance on a great 4ale
will take place in the building.