The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-12-05 00:00:00

IRELAND

[FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)
ZIU N, SATURDAY.

• BREACH OF CONTZACT.
Anderson v. the Chester and Holyhead Railway
Company.

This case came on in the -Common Pleas yester-
day. It was an action of assumpsit, brought by
Henry Anderson, the well-known horse-dealer,
carrying, on business in this city, to. recover com-
pensation from the defendants, the Chester and
Hclyhead Railway Company*, for an alleged breach
of contract, 1,)37- which he. complained of having sus-
tained considerable damage through the injury of
fifteen horses,which they contracted to carry within
a specified time from Dublin to Chester.
. Fitzgibbon stated the case, which was
briefly as follows :—lt appeared that in the month
of February last, the plaintiff having formed the
invention of bringing some valuable. horses from
this country to the fair of Shrewsbury, which was
held on the Ist of March, went to the office of the
Chester and Holyhead Railway Company on the
Nfirth-wall in this city,. and entered into an agree-
mant with them to convey 15 horses for him from
Dublin to Holyhead by one of their , boats, the
"Roscommon,". on the night of the 28th of
February, and on to Chester the following morn
ing by the nine o'clock train. The plaintiff said it
was absolutely necessary that his horses should go
by that steamer and by that train, and on the
terms that they were to be conveyed by them
.he
paid 171. 10s. for their conveyance, and on paying
it told the company's clerk to take care and have
horse boxes ready on their arrival at Holyhead.
This occurred early on the day that the horses left
Ireland : but on Mr. Anderson's arrival in Holy-
head with the horses, he found that there were no
boxes ready for him to go on with his horses by
the nine o'clock a.m. train, nor were there any to.
be had until the seven o'clock pan. train, the result
of which was that he did •not reach Shrewsbury
until four o'clock on the morning of the fair, when
it .was found that the horses, which were very
valuable (and varied in price from 301. to 601.),
were all more or less deteriorated from fatigue,
&c., and were, consequently, not in good saleable
order. The alleged deterioration in the value of
the horses was considerable, and the loss sustained
the plaintiff 'was from 1001. to 2001. at the very
lowest calculation.

Mr. Anderson was examined, and deposed to
the several facts stated by dounsel. Several other
witnesses were examined to corroborate him. Mr.
Brereton addressed the jury for the defendants.
He contended that the railway company never
undertook -to convey those horses except on the
usual terms they convey everything, which was
" subject to unavoidable accidents and delays "
They, rio doubt, were paid for carrying. Mr.- Ander-
son's horses, and would have sent them on by the
nine o'clock a.m. train on the 29th of February if
they could, but they had not the means. A special
contract was relied on to convey them by that
particular train ; but he (Mr. Brereton) was in-
structed that no such contract was ever entered
into ; and the receipt giVen to the plaintiff for, the
money he paid stated on the back of it the condition
upon which they relied for a verdict, namely, that
they conveyed them subject to accidental delays.
The case was then adjourned to this day, when
Messrs. Binger, Massingberd, Jones, and other
officials of the company were examined 'for the
defence. The case had not concluded up to that
hour. .

KELLY V. BIRCH.—EMBEZZLEINMNP.—This case
came to a rather untimely conclusion in the Queen's
Bench. yesterday. Counsel for the plaintiff. re
quested to have the case postponed, on account of
Mr. Murphy, a material witness, being absent
in London. He had gone there to secure the
attendance of some others also, as soon as the
prosecutrix knew that the trial was fixed for that
day. The Chief Justice refused the application,
unless the applicant would pay the costs of the
day. On this being declined, the court said it was
evident that it was all a sham, and insisted that
the trial should be proceeeed with. No evidence
was then offered against the traverser, and he was
acquitted. You may possibly understand the
meaning of this when it is stated that in the
Chancery proceedings Birch hes filed an affidavit,
in which he says that he believes himself to be the
,son of Mrs. Kelly. The whole affair is now in
course of compromise.
CROTTY v. DOWLING --The circumstances con-
nected with this case were again the subject of ar-
gument in the Consolidated Chamber yesterday.
It appeared in the course. of a very lengthened dis-
cussion, that prior to the month of March, 1852,
the plaintiff had drawn two bills on the defendant
for his accommodation, both for £350, which were
discounted in the Carlow branch of the Tipperary
bank, and subsequently renewed. The plaintiff
was security to the bank for these bills ; the de-
fendant executed a bond and warrant of attorney
to the plaintiff, and he (plaintiff) promised that as
soon as the bills were handed to him he would sa-
tisfy the judgment. In the month of July, 1852,
the defendant was, according to his allegation,
waited upon by the plaintiff and others, to solicit
his vote for Mr. Sadleir, M.P., at the election for
Carlow, promising, as the defendant alleged, re-
newals of his bills in the bank; this the defendant
refused to do, and said he would vote for the
other candidate. Mr. Edward Lawlor, who, it ap-
peared, was entrusted with the confidential business
of Mr. Sadlier, brought from Dublin a writ of ex-
ecution, directed to the sheriff of Carlow, at the suit
of Daniel Crotty, and on foot of the bond and judg-
ment on this writ the defendant was arrested, On
the 23d of August the defendant was discharged
from that arrest by Judge Crompton. The case
now came before the Court of Exchequer an a mo-
tion to discharge the defendant on a secend execu-
tion, on the grounds that he could not be arrested
twice on foot for one judgment, and that. the
parties opposed to him had been influenced by.the
illegal and unconstitutional motives of depriving
him of his right to vote at the election. The case
was discussed on both sides with much ability,and
as the subject partook of a political aspect the
auditory was in a great measure composed • of
persons who might be supposed to be attracted
by such proceedings. The court did not pronounce
any opinion upon the question, but directed an
issue to the jury to try certain questions of fact
which will be arranged by counsel on both sides.
The case, it is understood, will come on for trial at
the after. sittings before the Chief Baron, and will
be tried by a special jury ; Dowling being plaintiff
and Lawlor defendant. Pending those proceedings,
a the arguments and reference to the
affidavits read on the motion, might have the effect
of prejudicing the minds of the jurors who will
try the case, and was prohibited by the court.
IMPORTANT RAILWAY CASE.-The Court of Chan-
cery was occupied during the whole of yesterday.
with the petition of Turner v. the Belfast Junction
Railway. The question for argument was, whether
a railway company, after proving in bankruptcy for
the amount of calls due to them on• shares, calls
made before the bankruptcy •of the owner of the
shares, and after receiving payment of the dividend
in the bankruptcy matter on those shares, could
insist, as against the assignee, upon being paid the
difference between the amount of the -calls and of
the dividend, and in default of such payment, hold
the shares as forfeited. The facts of the case upon
which the -foregoing question arose were as follow:
—lt appeared that a Mr, Higginson, of Liverpool,
the owner of a large number of shares in the rail-
way company, having become a bankrupt, when
three or four calls were due on his shares, the
respondents came -into the Court of Bankruptcy
with his other creditors, and proved for the amount
of their demand, which was a large one, and were
subsequently paid the dividend they were entitled
to, amounting to £1,300: A.,cOnsiderable tiMehav-
ing then elapsed, and the company's shares having
risen in value, the petitioner, as the assignee of Mr.
Higginson, tendered the full amount of -the calls
which accrued due subsequent to the bankruptcy,
and claimed to be entitled to the value of the shares,
whatever they were worth ; but the respondents de-
clined to accept the tender, unless they were .also
paid a sum of £4,000 to £5,000 in addition, being
the difference between the amount of the dividend
paid to them, and the amount of the calls due prior
to the bankruptcy. The case stands for Sudginent.
Major-General MacDonald, who made himself
so remarkable during the insurrection of '4B, met
with an accident on Friday, whilst out with the
Kilkenny hounds, which threatens to result fatally.
His leg has been.broken in two places, and being
a man very much advanced in years, it is hardly
hoped that he will recover.
The inquest on the body of Moylan, the man
killed in the late affray at Moate, was brought to a
conclusion on Wednesday, when a verdict of man-