The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-10-13 00:00:00

COUNTY COU.RT.-YESTERDAY,

•
His Honor JOSEPH PoLLocK, Esq., proceeded with the
business of this Court, at 10 o'clock yesterday.
A considerable time was occupied in hearing clainuints
undefended actions, all of.which were devoid of public ink

rest. ' ASP
SHIP BROKERi PER CENTAGR.—BLYTHE, tbe
COOPER, V. BL SETT.— This action was brought 6(1,
plaintiff,' YS
to recover from the defendantthe sum of llant
The amount of the bill was not disputed, but the defeu
claimed a reduction from than amount of 10 per cent.'l
order for the goods having passed through his hands.
said he was willing to pay the amount, if 10 per cent.
taken off. The defendant handed to his Honor several,oo
counts, for the purpose of showing that in all transaeto' t.
with the firm he had been allowed 10 per cent. disc°l3a4
His Honor said it was quite apparent that 10 per coll. rk:
previously been deducted from the accounts. The Lie ut,
.If such has been doile a higher price must have been
upon the articles in the -first instance, to meet thar
—The Defendant : Some of the items'in the last ueecnTte
are 3s. more than in former bills.—His Honor : It is tot
clear to me, that it has been the custom of the firm to
the defendant the per tentage as his profit, therefore he '
entitled to a verdict. 0
4 6
tt'
AN AGENT TRADDIG ON lIIS OWN ACCOUNT.—,LTr AWE-
.'
v. Wm. ROWLE.—This was an action brought by the Pl'a er
tiffs, the proprietors of the Westminster Breweiy, to reeuacto
of the defendant the sum of £7 155., for goods Supplie°
him by their Liverpool agent, Mr. Blake. A clerk 0;
netted with the firm, stated that he had applied to
defendant for payment, when he (defendant) informed .0 r,
that he had paid Mr. Blake, who Was formerly the Live
„A
pool agent for the firm. 7 The defendant admitted that he Die
had the goods, .except with regard to the first item.
had purchased" the goods off Mr. Blake, .and he had P.
Mr. Blake for them. The defendant produced the illv°ll,ce'
on which appeared only the name of Mr. Blake, and 110t1'5
name of the firm for which he was agent. Mr. Blake Is)
next examined. He said he was formerly the Livetrm
agent to the plaintiffs, Messrs. Thorne, and Co. All gooci
were invoiced to him by the firm, and they always looked ti,;
him for payment. He sold the p,moods to the defendant au
received the money for them. He supplied them in his °I
name. He had had an interview with Mr. Hawes, one °,
the plaintiffs, and in the course of that interview he had tolu
him that the defendant's bill was a set off. The ledger Isis
produced, by which it appeared that the account had beet!
crossed off. The clerk explained that it had been erosseat,
out as a bad debt, but it had since been thought that it mil?
be recovered.—Ris Honour, showing the invoice to plaint
0
witness, said he should like to know how the plaintiff ,'1
account for its not having their names upon it. Had -315
Blake authority to send out such an invoice ?—Witness COl
not say what Mr. Blake's arrangements Were ; but he ha,
sent many similar to that out, and the firm must have bee'
cognisant of the system, as they, about once a year, eufile
to Liverpool, when they inspected all the books and paPers'
and must have seen many such.—The Clerk to Mr. Blake
Had you liberty from the firm to barter ?—Mr. Blake :
but I have done so.—His Honour 'aid he was of opiNon
that if the case rested upon the invoice, that which had bee/
in .
sent with the goods without the name of the firm, 11%
Mr. Blake as agent, but simply with Mr. Blake's name uP°
it, it would have been very different, for then the defendant
would have been liable, as he would not have been justified
in bartering with goods with Mr. Blake without first having
consulted with the plaintiffs, and ascertained if he had au
thority ; but in the present case it did not rest on the invoice
alone, for they had the evidence Of-the clerks in the emPl°/
of the plaintiff, who stated that they had the knowledge
that such invoices were sent out by Mr. Blake, and that b°
Was acting as a principle and not as an agent. Such being;
his views of the case, he considered the defendant was 11°'
liable.