The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-12-14 00:00:00

COUNTY COUIiT.---YESTtRD-Alti

(Before JOSEPH POLLQCK, ESQ., JUDGE.)
JONES V. BRISCOE.— This was an action brought by John
Jones against Thomas Briscoe, to recover a sum of 18s.,
alleged to be due by the defendant. The defendant denied
ever having owed money to the plaintiff, and entered
into a long and rambling statement about a partnership
which had existed between plaintiff and himself for the buying
and selling of casks. Plaintiff stated that the money was
lent by him to the defendant, and made an equally long and
unintelligible address. Neither party could be got to give
a direct reply to a question. At last
His HONOR said : You are very intolerable pair. My
only doubt is which of you is the worst. You have occu-
pied ten times as long as ought to be occupied in a case of
the kind. You are two of the most stup d persons I ever
had to deal with, or else the two most determined not to
let me know the truth. There is only one point to lead me
to a conclusion. You, the plaintiff, swear that you gave
this man certain money. I have endeavoured to get him
to explain it.
The PLAINTIFF here interrupted and proceeded to make
some observations.
His HONOR : Remain silent, sir--if you do not I will
find you, or, if that is not sufficient, I will commit you for
contempt of court. I have endeavoured, in vain, to get this
other man to explain how it happened that he received
money from you, and as you positively swear to it, and
he cannot explain it, I will give you a verdict. Now retire
without giving me any more trouble upon either side.
SILBODEN v. BRADLEY.—In tills case the plaintiff claimed
to be paid for loss of time in two, days'. attendance at the
borough court under a subpwna.
M 11,Ymmt appeared for the defence.
His HONOR . No action for loss of time can lie under a
su?pena, and therefort I must give a non-suit.
The PLAINTIFF : I would be fined £2O if I did not
attend.
His HONOR : The law requires that all parties should
attend under a subpoena.
The PLAINTIFF : But there are some funds, your Honor.
His HONOR : Ido not care what funds there are. You
have no grounds of action, and I therefore nonsuit you.
LONSDALE v. HEATH.—This was an action brought by
Joseph Lonsden, printer, against the Mr. John Heath,
proprietor of the Royal olosseum, Paradise-street, to re-
cover the cost of printing some bills, alleged to have been
ordered by a person In die einpltrymont of the defendant.
Mr. POPE appeared for the plaintiff.
The evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses was to the
effect that Mr. Heath usually printed his bills at an estab-
lishment of his own, but that when there was a pressure of
business a person named Keenan in the employment of Mr.
Heath ordered some bills to be printed by plaintiff, announc-
ing the engagement of " Mr. Baker, the Red Man." It was
admitted that Mr. Heath had not given any order for these
bills himself, or for any other printing work, but it was stated
that upon one occasion plaintiff had supplied some chases
and type to the establishment of Mr. Heath upon the order
of Keenan, which Mr. Heath paid for.
Mr. HEATH said he never allowed any man to order any
printing for him. He might have got goods, and when the
invoice came have paid for them, but he never allowed any
one to order printing to be done for him. He had a place for
printing his own bills. Mr. Heath also stated that the bills
produced in court could never have been intended for Liver-
'pool at all, and that they were-never delivered to him.
His HONOR said that the plaintiff had only proved that
Keenan had authority to order matters which were necessary
for Mr. Heath's printing establishment, but had not shown
any authority on his part to get printing done. The case
was therefore nonsuited, Mr. Heath to receive his costs.