The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-09-29 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT, - YESTERDAY

The court sat this morning at ten o'clock.
TREAKSTONE v. THEAKSTONE.—The plaintiff in this case
resides at Halifax, in Yorkshire, and the action was brought
against his brother, a sharebroker, residing in this town, to
recover the sum of £5 ls. Od. The action arose out of the
sum of Is., the amount of a legacy bequeathed to the plain-
tiff by his father, seventeen years ago, the defendant being
the executor under the will. The amount claimed by the
plaintiff was in consideration of the trouble and expense to
which he had been put, in employing professional services
on application for payment of the legacy. The defendant
paid the legacy into court, together with ls. 11d. cost.—
Air. WILFORD appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Commis
for the defendant. Mr. Wuronn
_stated the particulars of
the case, and asked for the whole amount of costs incurred in
the process which had been issued.—The JUDGE at once de-
clined to comply with the application, and expressed a
hope that it would be the last time he should be called upon
to try a case for a shilling. There was no pretence what-
ever for the claim of £5, and the judgment of the court must
be for the defendant. Mr. Commis was not called upon
to address the court for the defendant. His honour stated,
that he once, in another place, decided an action brought to
recover the sum of Is, and he nonsuited the plaintiff; who
brought a fresh action for the sum of 9d. The pleadings in
both actions were drawn by counsel, and the case was ulti-
timately taken to the Court above, at an expense of £5O on
each side. If the plaintiff's father, in the present case, had
left him some relic, there miht have been some pretence for
the action, but he (the judge did not understand a person,
who had been " cut off with a shilling," bringing an action
to recover it.

BLAKE V. VERDON AND CuLLEN—The plaintiff is a
farmer at Garston, and the defendants, Messrs Verdon and
Cullen, cattle dealers. The plaintiff claimed £8 18s. Bd., the
value of some hay sold to the defendants. The case for the
plaintiff having closed, Mr. YATEs, on behalf of the de-
fendants, contended that the goods had been delivered on
the defendants' premises without orders, and, after some con-
sultation, the plaintiff agreed to a nonsuit, without costs,
and the defendants took the hay.
CLAIM FOR WAGES.--COMMITTAL. FOR CONTEMPT OF
COURT.—Henry Braidman Shields, a rope-maker, was the
plaintiff in this case, and Thomas Malley, rope-maker, was
the defendant. The action was brought to recover the sum
of £1 13s. Bd. from the defendant, in consideration of the
services of plaintiff's son, as his apprentice. The defendant's
wife appeared. The facts of the case having been heard on
both sides, his honour gave judgment for the plaintiff, on
which the defendant's wife, who had been rather discourteous to
the judge during the trial, called the plaintiff's wife a robber
as she left the court. The Jude : Officer, bring that wo-
man back again into court. The defendant having been
brought back, his honour, addressing her, said : Why did
you conduct yourself in a manner so disgraceful to yourself
and your sex ? you ought to be ashamed of yourself.—De-
fendant's wife : She began of me, your honour, and called
me everything. She said I was a dirty slut as I got to the
door.—Plaintiff's wife : I did not ; she called me a robber.
—Judge : Yes ; I heard her call you by that name. Officer,
take Mrs. Malley and lock her up ; and (addressing the
woman) if you do not conduct yourself quietly until the
rising of the court, I will send you to Lancaster castle for con-
tempt of court. In a few minutes the judge again ordered
the woman to be brought before him, and on her re-appear-
ance she looked very much distressed—The judge : Madam,
I am sure you pain me more than yourself, that I should have
had occasion to give you in charge of an officer.—Defen-
dant : She commenced on me, and her husband is continually
annoying me.—The judge: That is of course very wrong;
and if there is any further annoyance on the part of her
husband towards your husband, you ought to apply to the
police. lam very sorry that you should have so miscon-
ducted yourself in this court ; you may be discharged. My
object in calling you back was to prevent a quarrel in the
street by two women who ought to be respectable. After
some further remarks from his honour the parties withdrew.