The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-04-09 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT. v --ESTREDAY

(BEFORE JOSEPH POLLOCK, ESQ JUDGE.)

CLAIM AGAINST A RAILWAY COMPANY.—DUNHAM V. THE
LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
His Honor delivered judgment in this case, which was an
action brought to recover £5O damages from the London and
North Western Railway Company, for delay in the delivery
of a quantity of meat, forwarded to plaintiff's agent, Mr.
Duckworth, in London, shortly before last Christmas. His
Honour said the injury had in part arisen i❑ consequence of
an unavoidable accident, and as the evidence showed that
some loss would probably have accrued, independently of the
detention complained of, the claim must Le reduced to £25,
which sum he found to be the amount, if any, to which the
plaintiff was entitled. He further found that that sum
represented the amount of injury done to him by the defen—
dants not forwarding the meat within a reasonable time after
it had been entrusted to them. The question then remained
to inquire into whether the company was liable for that injury,
and as this was the first action in which the main question
involved in that case had been raised since the passing
of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1854, and
the principle was one of great importance to such compaties,
as well as to the public, and as moreover the terms of the act
of parliament were so exceedingly obscure that their true con-
struction became a matter rather of conjecture than of certainty,
he felt in this case bound to give the grounds of the conclusion
at which he had arrived. He had arrived at that conclusion
with very considerable difficulty, and he assumed that the
opinion of the superior courts would be taken upon his decision
as soon as possible. The Railway Company contended that
they were not liable in this case for neglect or default of their
servants, because by a special contract, signed on behalf of the
plaintiff, and declaring that the goods were carried at the
owner's risk, they had provided against it. Having dwelt
upon the very obscure language of the act of parliament: his
Honour said he felt at liberty to enquire into the conditions of
the special contract, and be found that those conditions were
unjust and unreasonable. He therefore directed a verdict for
the plaintiff for £25.
CULLEN V. THE LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY
COMPANY.--In this case £6 15s. was claimed from the com-
pany as the value of one carboy, given into the charge of
defendants to be forwarded to Nottingham, and which was
found to have been broken on the way. The grounds of
defence was the same as in the previous case. His Honour
said there must be a verdict for the ptaintiff for the sum
claimed. He directed, however, that execution should be
stayed until the decision in the previous case should be set
right, if it were otherwise than correct.
SHANNON V. PARISH.—This was an action brought by
James Shannon, of 16, Lord-street, to recover £2 7s. Mr.
Rymer appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Barron for de-
fendant. The claim was made for the value of a suit of clothes,
purchased by plaintiff for defendant, at a time when the latter
was his clerk. The plaintiff, who was i❑ the coal trade, ad-
mitted that, being in some difficulties last June, he made over
his business upon the defendant, who was a young man under
twenty-one years of age. The defendant was installed as
owner, and plaintiff acted as clerk. He admitted, however,
that be received all the money derived from the business. A
note for £3OO, signed by defendant, was handed over to the
plaintiff, on the transfer of the business. During the owner-
ship of defendant, plaintiff bought him the suit of clothes, for
the value of which the action was brought. The ownership
of the defendant only lasted a few weeks, and plaintiff
then resumed his place. When defendant was leaving
plaintiffs service shortly after, in consequence of want
of business, plaintiff directed him to make out an account
acknowledging his liability fur the amount now claimed, which
defendant did, and signed. The defendant was examined, and
stated that the plaintiff said to him he should become master,
in order to delude the creditors, and plaintiff would act as
clerk, at 30s a week. This was done accordingly, and defend-
ant's name was put up. He never paid plaintiff 308 a week.
For six weeks defendant's name remained up. During that
time the plaintiff was generally in the office, but be went to
Wales for a little time. Before going, plaintiff told defendant
if any of the creditors came into the office to order them out,
to tell them that the office was his, and that they had no
business to come there. The coals were bought in defendant's
name. The plaintiff said to defendant that the latter was
rather shabbily dressed to have his name up as a coal merchant,
and told him to get in as much money as he could during the
week, and ho would buy him some clothes. Defendant got in
£lO or £l2 that week, and on the Bth of June the plaintiff
went with him and bought the clothes for him. Defendant
never thought he would have any claim for payment made on
him, as the plaintiff never said one word about the matter
until he was leaving the service. When he was leaving, the
plaintiff directed him to make out the account, which he did,
but he said he never thought he would be asked to pay the
amount. Just before he left, the name of James Shannon
and Co.was again put up. His Honour said, he must adhere
to a plain fixed principle. Where a man put his signature to
a plain admission, acknowledging that a certain sum of money
was due by him, it must be taken that that amount was due.
He was sorry to say that he did not place very much reliance
upon the testimony cube: of the plaintiff or of the
defendant, One thing, however, was quite clear to him, that
Mr. Shannon attempted to enter into a fraudulent arrangement
with that young man, and that the young man was quite
willing to agree to it. Tho creditors were the persons who
were to be deluded, as the young man said, and Mr. Shannon
and the young man were to shift the business in this way, by a
young man, under twenty years of age, giving a note of hand
which probably could never be enforced, and thus appearing to
the world as the owner of the business. That the clothes were
given in the first instance, without any intention of being paid
for, was very possible, but inasmuch as a new arrangement
was made when the young man ceased to be
even the nominal head of the concern, and Mr.
Shannon resumed in name the position he had
never in reality left, that new arrangement must be taken
as a new consideration. The transaction was a very improper
one, in which a man considerably older led a young man to do
something which was very dishonest. They now quarrelled,
and the truth came out. He almost wondered that either party
would bring the case into court, and that they did not mutually
prefer to leave the world in ignorance of the arrangement
which had existed between them. His Honour then gave a
verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, to be paid in
eight monthly payments.