The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-11-23 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT. v --ESTERDAY.

The Court sat at 10 o'clock yesterday.
STEPHEN v. Corm —ln this case the plaintiff, Henry
Stephen, a journeyman cigar-maker, summoned George
Cope, manufacturer of cigars, Great Nelson-strett, for
45., the value of cigars which he had made while in the em-
ployment of the defendant. The case involved a question
regarding the custom of the trade. It was contended by the
defendant that the plaintiff, while in his employment, had
made a number of cigars which were what the trade called
improper in make and workmanship. The plaintiff was
asked if he was not aware of a certain rule in the trade by
which no cigars of an improper weight or workmanship
were paid for by the manufacturer. The plaintiff denied
being aware of any such rule. Several witnesses were called
upon the part of the defendant to prove that such was the
custom of the trade, and also that a list of rules, including
the one specified, was hung up in the defendant's workshop,
where the plaintiff must have seen it. His Honor said as
the plaintiff had chosen to work in an establishment where
certain rules prevailed, with which, it appeared, he must
have been acquainted, he was bound by those rules, and was
not entitled to receive the money. A verdict was, therefore,
given for the defendant.
.LEONARD V. PITZPITRICK.—This was an action brought
by a girl, named Rose Leonard, a servant, against a person
named Fitzpatrick, to recover the sum of £4. The evidence
of the plaintiff was to the effect that she gave defendant the
money to keep for her, believing he was the best friend she
had in Liverpool, and that he now refused to pay
it. The defendant, on the other hand, alleged
that the plaintiff was in his debt for board and
lodging for fourteen weeks, at 6s. a weeek, amounting
to £3 10s., and that he had also advanced money to her,
making £4 10s. He produced an agreement drawn up by
himself, and to which he stated Rose Leonard had put her
mark, consenting to pay ss. a week for her board. On the
other hand, the plaintiff denied that she ever put her mark
to the paper, or consented to pay any such sum as ss. per
week. She said that the defendant read over the paper to
her, and when she put out her hand to take it up he made a
mark upon it with the pen which he held in his hand. It
appeared also that a copy of the document was given to her
to keep, which differed in some particulars from that which
the defendant intended to have kept himself.
His HONOR said he was of opinion that the young woman
had been imposed upon; and that there was a very gross
conspiracy to defraud her of her money by means of the
paper which was produced. His opinion was, that the girl
should pay something for her board, and also that she would
have been quite willing to have paid something, if the de-
fendant had not made such a charge against her, which she
thought unfair. He would therefore deduct £1 18s., and
give the girl a verdict for £2, which, with the money she
had received, would make up the sum to which she was en-
titled. He would direct the money to be paid immediately,
and would make a memorandum that if Mr. Fitzpatrick did
not find some means of paying at once the money which he
had improperly and dishonestly come by, he should cer-
tainly send him to Lancaster Castle. The poor placed great
trust in their friends, and with justice, for they often
treated each other better than the rich; but in this case this
young woman, who believed she was putting her money
into the care of a friend, had been completely deceived, and
a set-off made up for the purpose of defrauding her of the
saving of her hard earnings.
PRINCE v. SPENCER.—In this case, a woman named
Maria Prince, sought to recover £4 from James Spencer,
Fulton-street, Regent-road, for the support of a little girl,
his child, at ss. a week. The plaintiff stated that she had
had five children, besides the girl, of whom defendant was
the father, and that they had been living together a great
many years, until a short time since, when she was turned
out of the house in which she resided. Plaintiff was unable

to give any evidence of a contract or promise made by
defendant to support the child.
His Howon said, without expressing any opinion upon
the case, he could only say that unless a contract was proved,
the plaintiff had no grounds upon which that court could
compel defendant to pay for the maintenance of his ille-
gitimate children. The case was therefore dismissed.
WGEORGE V. HOARE.—This was a case which had been
heard upon a previous day, and adjourned for the production
of Miss M'George the plaintiff, who sought to recover
£ll 55., a quarter's rent of a house in Grove-terrace. The
plaintiff, not being in good health, was not able to attend.
A nonsuit was therefore entered.
LATHAM V. THE LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY
COMPANY.—The plaintiff claimed £3 12s. from this com-
pany. His evidence was to the effect that he was in the em-
ployment of the company for nearly two years, and that
upon the 6th of Septemuer he was suspended from employ-
ment, but directed to attend the following day. He did so,
and :attended every day successively for three weeks; after
which he was set to work for a fortnight. At the expira-
tion of that time he was paid the fortnight's wages, and
then dismissed. The action was brought to recover the
three week's wages, at £l4s. a week, and it was stated that
by a standing rule of the company a fortnight's notice of
dismissal should be given to every servant. Mr. Campbell
appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Forshaw represented, the
company. Defendant admitted on cross-examination, that
he was aware of one of the company's rules, by which a per-
son absenting himself without leave, was liable to instant
dismissal. Evidence was given by the officer of the com-
pany under whose immediate control witness was, to shew
that he had transgressed the rules of the company by absent-
ing himself without leave, and that he was drinking during
the entire of one week.
His HONOR : I think this is a very daring attempt to im-
pose upon the company, and I shall give a verdict for the
defendants.

CHARGE OF FRAUD AGAINST A CORONER.—MT. William
Webb Ward, one of the coroners for South Staffordshire,
and James Davis, were on Wednesday last committed for
trial at the adjourned Staffordshire Sessions, on a charge of
conspiring to defraud Ann Davis of lOs 6d.

A MAN WITH TWENTY Wivms.—A man calling himself
Dr. Wm. Hunter, but whose real name is said to be
Nathaniel I. Bird, is in gaol at Camden, New Jersey, on a
charge of bigamy, and various other charges. On Sunday
Elizabeth Harrington, a lady of Philadelphia, visited him in
prison, and ascertained he was, the man to whom she was
married on the 9th of July last. On the same day he was
visited by another lady from Kensington, named Mary
Thomas, to whom he was married in May last. It is also
stated, that he has a wife in Reading, another in Wilming-
ton, Del., and another yet in Philadelphia. The prisoner
is only about twenty-three years of age, and it is stated,
declares that he has twenty wives, a statement which may
be true, as more than one-fourth of that num>>er have been
found within a few days. It is alleged, that he abandoned
each wife soon after marriage, and that they never heard of
him after until his arrest. The affair creates the greatest
excitement in Camden, and has induced an immense number
of people to seek admission for the purpose of seeing him.
—American paper.