The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-10-07 00:00:00

r of t

tof 60

f a person n

fact of I

langht

Sir George Stephen, instruct(
urged, on the part of the defendant, that this did n
that the party calling herself Mrs. Hudson, was his
His Honor replied that the evidence showed there was
cohabitation between the parties as man and wife, and
until. evidence to the contrary was shown, he should con-
sider them to be so ; as to the :public-house, it was shown

Cross. s

,nient by the defend-

Roberts another clerk, but not at n

L
merit, were examined as to the amount of the account, and
the latter proved to having called on Mrs. Hudson, and
asking her for the money in the presence of the defendant.
Mr. Jones,however, stated thatwhen he called for the account,
lie addressed, her as " Mrs. Holden," and that then, (he
being but a short period in the employment of the plain-

that hc

Sir George Stephen contended that the liability of . the
defendant had not been made out. His Honor said that
it was a very peculiar case, and he should, therefore wish to
have the evidence of both sides fully before him. Ile was
not prepared to say that there was not a shadow of evidence
before him, but he should confess he thought it not very

.e Step,

.e most of

1 in tl

500 which

ye her on

The defeiiilar
stated by co.

Plumb-strei
s then examined, and deposed to the fac
He said he finally left Mrs. Buds,

IL after the house in Plumb:street was opened by
,ss-examination by Mr. Hime, he admitted that

r. On

[s sold to Mrs

wes pencung against him. His Honor said
t clilticulty in the case in his mind was, that it
did not clearly appear to whom the plaintiffs gave the credit.
The permit under which the spirits were sent was in
the name of Holden, the name in the licence, but it not
appear that they were at all aware of the existence of Hudson,
or, if aware of it, that they regarded Holden as his nominee
umbra. Mr. lime addressed himself to this point, but
failed to remove the difficulty suggested by the court. His
Honor accordingly said that as it was a very peculiar and
important case, Inasmuch as it was probable that other ac-
tions for a considerable amount was depending on it, he
would defer giving judgment until he had fully considered
it.

JURY CASE--BURY AND arnEus v. JOHNS ON. —A jury of
five gentlemen were empannelled to try this case. Messrs.
Bury, Curtis, and Kennedy, were the plaintiffs, and Mr.
Johnson, 26, Hatton-gardens, builder, defendant.. From
the statement of Mr. Almond, it appeared that the cause of

action arose thus : In the year 1848, the defendant was com-
pleting some contracts for the Corporation, at the Green-lane
Water Works. A portion of these contracts he gave to
Blackett, Rigby and Co, but they not being able to com-
plete the work, the defendant, in company with Mr. Rigley,
called on •the plaintiffs, and requested them to take
it up and finish it. They did so, and they now

sought to recover the amount of the work so done, namely,
£25 11s. 3d. Mr. Kennedy was the first witness examined.
He stated that he was a civil engineer, and a member of
the firm of Bury, Curtis, and Kennedy. In 1848, their
firm was also executing certain contracts for the Corpora-
tion at the Green Lane Water-works, and the defendant, in
company with Mr. Blackett Riley, called at:their office in
the course of that year, and said to him (Mr. Kennedy) —" I
have called here to ask you to finish some work at the
Green Lane Water-works. I employed Mr. Rigley to do

it, but that being now (
your firm to do it for m
tion up to that time with either the def(
and when he called on the defendant

iad nu(

r did not give a very straightfi
elieved he had not ordered the
Dn by Mr. Roby, who appeared