The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-07-30 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.-YESTERDAY.

(BEFORE J. POLLOCK, ESQ,, JUDGE.)
RIGHTS OP MORTGAGEES.-- HURTON V. FORD.—His
Honour gave judgment in this case, which involved the
right of a mortgagee to act as landlord, in so far as draw-
ing rent was concerned. The plaintiff was mortgagee
of property of which Ford was tenant, and he gave notice
during the course of a quarter that he, and not the land-
lord, was to receive the rent. The superior courts dif-
fered in their decision on this point ; but he was inclined
to agree in the view taken by Mr. Justice Pattison, who
considered that a mere notice on the part of a mortgagee
was not sufficient, and that it required some acquiesence
on the part of the mortgagor. Judgment should there-
fore be for the defendant.
ACTION FOR THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSITED STAKES.—
SHALCROSS V. MARSH.—This was an action brought to
recover £2, being the amount of stakes deposited by the
plaintiff under the following circumstances :—The
plaintiff is assistant in a flour and provision shop in
Liverpool ; and in the month of May last, he was with
a party of acquaintances drinking, on a Sunday evening,
in the defendant's pnblic-house, the " Old Swan." In
the course of conversation, the plaintiff offered to bet a
person named Handley £l, that he would produce a man
who would beat, in a foot race, any man that the other
could bring forward. The bet was accepted, and £2
aside deposited as stakes in the hands of the defendant—
the further conditions being, that they should meet again
on that night week, to fix the time and place, and that
they might, if they pleased, increase the bets. On the
appointed Sunday night they accordingly met again at
the Old Swan. Handley attended with his man, who
was one of the " Browns ;" but the plaintiff, who was
also present, stated that his man, who was named
Pearce, was unwell ; that he would, however, run the
race, but that be (the plaintiff) would not increase the
bet. Handley replied that his man would not pull off
his coat for such a sum, and declared that the bet should
be made £5 a-side, or any other sum up to £2.5. The
plaintiff declined to accede to such conditions, and cau-
tioned the defendant not to pay over the stakes. He
subsequently called on him to give back the amount of
his deposit, which the defendant, however, had paid over
to Handley in the interim, and he now brought the pre-
sent action to recover that amount. Mr. Hime appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Gray for the defendant. Mr.
Gray submitted that the action could not stand, the
transaction being illegal, in having taken place on the
Lord's day. His Honour replied, that it was not more
contrary to law to make a bet on that day than on any
other day. Mr. Gray then submitted that the wager in
itself was illegal, and that the stakes could therefore not
be recovered. His Honour said, that the bet was cer-
tainly illegal ; and that, if the event had come off, neither
of the parties could, by law, recover the deposits from the
stakeholders; but that, no matter how illegal the bet in
itself might be, either of the parties was entitled to
reclaim and recover his stake before the particular event
took place. The defendant having also failed to show that
it was part of the bet that, whoever did not " show" with
his man on the Sunday evening, would forfeit his stake.
His Honour said that the verdict should be for the
plaintiff. He was not disposed to say that a foot race
was an unlawful act, but meeting in a public house on
a Sunday evening, and arranging bets on races of any
kind was not a way of spending their time conducive to
the advantage of working, or any other men. He should
give no encouragement to such practices, and would not,
therefore, allow the costs of witnesses in the case.
SAILORS' ADVANCE NOTES.—HEALEY V. SEWARD.—In
this case, John Healey, a casher of sailors' advance
notes, sought to recover of the defendant, Mrs. Seward,
a lodging housekeeper, the sum of £5 10s, on a seamans'
advance note, for which she had given an 1.0. U., with
the understanding that she would be responsible for the
amount, provided the person drawing the same did not
pay. The note was cashed in May, since which the
sailor had refused to go to sea, for which he was im-
prisoned. Mr. Hime appeared for the defendant, and
first contended that the action could not he sustained,
as the defendant was a married woman, but this plea
was over-ruled by his Honour, who stated that, as the
woman conducted the business, she had rendered her-
self responsible, because she well-knew what she was
about. Having given the LO.U., she had rendered her-
self responsible. Mr. Hime then asked to have the
amount paid by instalments. Upon this point his Honour
said, cases of advance notes could not be treated as those
of ordinary debts—there were immense profits attached
to the cashing of them, in which the poor sailor was the
great looser—and the casher and the lodging housekeeper
reaped the sole advantage. Verdict for the defendant
—to be paid in three fortnightly payments.
CARELESS DRIVING.—WALKER V. WHITTA.KER.—This
was an action to recover the sum of £4 2s 94 for damage
done to a phaeton, near the Botanic Gardens, on the day
of the publie rejoicing, the 29th of May. The plaintiff
is a car-owner. On the day in question, his driver
took a fare from St. George's church to the Botanic
Gardens. Between six and seven o'clock the defendant,
Whittaker, an assistant draper, was driving a basket gig
at a most furious rate along the road, when he came in
contact with the phaeton, and did damage to the amount
claimed. Mr. Gray, for the plaintiff, called several
witnesses to prove the above facts, some of whom, the
policemen, for instance, who witnessed the affair, stated
that at the time Whittaker was drunk, and did not
know how to drive. Mr. Daggers appeared for the
defence, and attempted to throw all the blame upon the
plaintiff, for which purpose he called the defendant, who,
in cross-examination, clearly showed that however he
might excel in the measuring of ribbons in a draper's
shop, he was r arfectly incapable of measuring when in
a gig ; and as to a driver, he had the greatest difficulty
of explaining the difference between the " off" and
near side of the "road." His Honour was satisfied
that the plaintiff's version of the affair was correct, and
gave a verdict for £3 6s 6d, to be paid in a fortnight.
DISPUTED JIIRISDICTION.—SLIDDALB V. Bownpu.---This
was an action to recover the sum of £l5 16s Bd. The
plaintiff is a wine and spirit merchant, living in Liver-
pool, and the defendant is a merchant, living at Shrews-
bury. Mr. Grocctt, who appeared on behalf of the
defendant, took the objection that the order was not
given within the jurisdiction, nor did the defendant live
within the jurisdiction of the court. This objection
was valid, and his Honour directed a nonsuit to be
entered.