The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-04-12 00:00:00

THE NORTHERN TI ,1 ES.-LIVHRPOOL, SATURDAY, APRIL 12, 18

COURT OF PASSAGE.-YESTERDAY

COURT
..YESTERDAY

Before Mr. YamEs, Q. C., the Assessor, who took his seat
on the bench this morning at nine o'clock.
LAYER, v. Pnais-ELL.--In thi; action Mr. George Layer,
formerly a shit) br,icer, in Liverpool, sought to recover of
the defendant; Mr. Charles Purnell; dock master, comp-nsa-
ton for having falsely and maliciously, petitioned the
Court of Bankruptcy for an adjudication against the
plaintiff, by which the plaintiff had been permanently
injured in his business. A second count charged the
defendant with having entered the dwelling-house in
Water-street, and illegally seized his goods. The
defendant pleaded the general issue. In opening the case
for the plaintiff, Mr. Blair said—lt was a most serious
matter that he had to present to the court, for, by the act
of the defendant, the plaintiff had been stopped from pur-
suing his avocation as a ship owner and ship broker, and
had been obliged again to become a master mariner. The
transaction arose out of the joint possession of a vessel
called the Neva. The defendant was one of the dock
masters of Liverpool, and, from bolding that position, was
not allowed to be the owner of a vessel. However, having
some money in band he proposed to the plaintiff to become
the owner of a vessel called the Violante, and suggested
that the house of his son should be entered on the register.
That arrangement was carried out, and half of the purchase
money was advanced by the defendant. Mr. Purnell was to
'op the books, and the plaintiff was to act as the ship's
and. Shortly after another vessel, the Catherine, was
sed under the same circumstances. After this some
as arose between the plaintiff and the defendant's
and the plaintiff pressed from time to time for a full
statement of the accounts of the two ships, but those
accounts were never delivered. While matters were in this
condition a proposal was made by the defendant for the
joint working of another vessel—the Neva—and it was out
of the latter transaction that the present question arose.
On this occasion Mr. Laver told the defendant that he could
at deal with his son, upon which Mr. Purnell proposed
the plaintiff's name should appear on the
register as the sale owner, and that arrangement was
at first assented to, but afterwards objected to,
and it was proposed that the son's name should be on the
register as usual. For some time negotiations were going
on upon that point, and finally it was arranged that all the
books and papers should be referred for inspection to Mr.
Oxley. Only a portion of the accounts were given up, but
one of them contained the accounts of all the three vessels,
placing each on the same footing. Mr. Laver, anxious to
know the position in which he was placed, directed his
attorney to threaten proceedings in Chancery for obtaining a
settlement. Up to that time the parties had acted as
partners, and no debt was alleged to be due from one to the
other. The defendant, however, put in a claim for the sum
of £268, and shortly after proceedings were taken in the
bankruptcy court, calling upon the plaintiff to answer the
claim. Mr. Laver put in the usual affidavits to the effect
that he had a good defence, but as proceedings were about
being commenced in chancery, the plaintiff, under the
advice of his solicitor, declined a personal
examinstion. The plaintiff refused to give a bond, and Mr.
Purnell petitioned for au adjudication in bankruptcy. swear-
ing as to the existence of the debt. On the petition being
filed, the plaintiff was adjudicated to be a bankrupt, and
the messenger of the court took possession of his house,
papers, and property, thus consequently stopping him from
proceeding in his business. After this the court of bankruptcy
investigated the matter, and concluded that there was no
act of bankruptcy. It was on account of the injury thus
sustained, by having been made a bankrupt, that the
plaintiff now sought to recover compensation. The pro-
ceedings in the bankruptcy court were then put in, and
those portions necessary to the case were read, Mr. Gee.
Laver, the plaintiff, was then called and examined, and his
evidence fully corroborated the statement of the counsel,
but in his cross•examination gave some very contradictory
answers as to certain cheques being in his handwriting, and
denied ever having had certain sums of money
lent him by the defendant, or that he had
ever given any receipts for such sums lent.
Mr. Aspinall addressed the court at considerable length for
the defendant, arguing that at the time the proceedings were
taken in;the bankruptcy court, the money was owing by the
plaintiff, and therefore that there was no malice on his part
in taking the steps he had done, and called upon the jury to
give a verdict for his client. He called Mr. Purnell, the
defendant, who stated that ho bad been instrumental in
getting his son to join the plaintiff in the purchase of the
ships, but he himself had no interest in the matter, saving
the benefit of his son. The defendant contradicted
the statement made by the plaintiff, about the
money, and distinctly swore that he had lent him
money, and received receipts for it. kir. David
Laver, the nephew of the plaintiff, and formerly
in partnership with him, was next called, an I stated
that the receipt of the 10th of August was in his hand-
writing, and that he had written it at the request of the
plaintiff, who had put his mark thereto. The other re-
ceipts were also in his hand writing, as was also some
other documents. Mr. C. H. Purnell, the son of the
defendant, identified a cheque for .fe6o, as being in his own
hand-writing, and the signature in the hand-writing of
the plaintiff. After the counsel had replied, the learned
assessor summed up the evidence, and in the course of
his observations directed the jury, if they were satisfied
that the defendant really was not interested in the ships,
and that the money advanced by him was' for the joint
interest of his son and the plaintiff, then there would be
reasonable grounds for the proceedings which
had been taken in the bankruptcy court, and
he would be entitled to a verdict, but if they believed
that the plaintiff and the defendant were partners in the
ship Neva, or that the money was advanced to th
alone, then there would have been no cause for such pro
ceedings, they would infer malice, and the plaintiff would
be entitled to a verdict for such damages as they might
think fit. In coming to a decision they would have to
decide whom they believed, the plaintiffs or the defendants.
The jury then retired, and, after some consultation, re-
turned into court with a verdict for the plaintiff—That
he and the plaintiff were partners—Damages £lOO.
HAux Y. SHAND.—This was an action to decide who
was the owner of certain furniture on a certain day. Mr.
J. P. Hauk, formerly a furrier In Bold-street, was the
plaintiff, and Mr. George Shand was the defendant.
Some time since a Mr. Jacob fell into difficulties, and the
present plaintiff purchased his business, but afterwards let
him retain possession of it. Subsequently Hank ascertained
that Jacobs was again in difficulties, and he took posses-
sion of the house and furniture, and had left a man with
them. At that time Jacobs had left the house, a verdict
having been found against him in the Court of Passage on
the day previous. The facts were clearly proved, and
the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
11A.wkm v. CUTHBERT AND ANOTHER.—in this case
the plaintiff was a lumpier at the docks, and the defen-
dants were the joint owners of a vessel called the Templer.
The claim was for £2O for compensation for an assault
and false imprisonment, and likewise for a certain
amount the plaintiff claimed for discharging the cargo of
a vessel, which he was not allowed to do by the defendants,
hence this action. A verdict was re turned for the defendant
Carmichael, and for the plaintiff as against Cuthbert, for
the false imprisonment. Damages 50s.
The court adjourned shortly after seven o'clock.

atssen