The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-10-08 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.-YESTERDAY

h is Ilonur, JOSEPH POLLOCK, Esq., sat at ten o'clock.
BATEMAN V. JACKSON AND WILDING.---CUSTOM OF A
TRADE. —This case *as previously heard, and the particulars
published in this Journal. Mr. Bateman, oiner and builder,
of Heath-street, sought to recover from Messrs. Jackson and
Wilding, hosiers, 1/, as preniium for a plan and estimate which
he furnished for the fitting up of a new shop in Ranelagh-
street, and which were not accepted by the defendant, The
case was adjourned to this day for the purpose of allowing the
plaintiff to prove that it was a general custom of the trade
to be paid for plans and estimates furnished under such cir-
cumstances, Mr. Alniond appeared on behalf of the
plaintiff.. Mr. Bateman was examined, and deposed that he
was sent for by Mn Jackson, and ordered to prepare the
plan and estimate, which met the approval of Mr: Jackson,
but plaintiff did not get the job:—Mr: Almond Is there
anything in the trade Nithich entitles a person preparingplans
to any remuneration ?—Witness : I know that I always
make it a practice to charge for plans.—Court : That is not
the question ; the question is whether there is such a custom
in the trade. —Mr. Almond : In the report which I have read
of the trial, it was stated that it was made conditional upon
my bringing the knowledge of the custom directly home to
the defendants, which, of course, I cannot_do.—Court : Oh
lid, ; *hat I said was; that pill must tither bring home
the knowledge of stidh a practice to the defendants, or
shew that it was a custom so gonefdl, that their know-
ledge of it must be inferred. It must be general and well-
established, and not for a mere partial purpose—so general that
you are to presume that all those connected, with that par-
ticular trade are acquainted with it.—Thomas Bage, builder
and joinerj deposed that he was not in the habit of charging
for plans, providing, lie did the Wofk, but if he did not do
the work he would charge for it.—Mr. Almond: Siippdse you
were called upon to prepare a plan for the fitting up of a
new shop, and that you sent in your estimate, which estimate
was not accepted, id there any custom of the trade to entitle
you to make a charge ?—Witness ; I *ould consider myself
entitled to make a eharge.—Court: That is not the answer.—
You must confine yourself to the general custom of the trade,
not what you yourself would do. Witness • I can only say that
I have been paid for such jobs, and consider myself entitled to
it. I cannot say that everybody does it. I have done these jobs
and not been paid.—Court : That is exactly what I expected,
some persons pay, and some persons do not.—John Cooper,
another builder and joiner, was also examined, but said he
could only speak for himself, that he had always charged
such jobs, and got payment too, (Laughter). Court: I
think you are quite right to make the charge, if you can.
Mr. Almond :—I can only corroborate this evidence by other
parties—l do not profess to carry it further. Court : I
think it is plain the custom is not universal. These gentle•
men are all anxious to haVe the jobs, and they are willing to
run the risk of the little comparative trouble and expense in
the first instance, in order to have the benefit of the job.
—Mr. AlMond : Suppose I prove that the plan in this case
was actually adopted and substantially used ?—Court : Of
course, if vou shew that, a new point will be opened alto-
gether.—Mr. Bateman was recalled, and stated that his plan
remained in the possession of Mr. Jackson, up to the 28th Of
last month, and that from his knowledge Of the premises, he
believed it had been used in fitting up the shop. On the
other hand, the builder who actually fitted up the shop was
called, and positively deposed that he never saw the plan sent
in by Mr. Bateman at all.—Court : It is my opinion that
in small jobs of this kind, persons are willing to send in their
estimates and take the risk. In order to establish the
case for the plaintiff, the custom stated by Mr. Bateman,
should either have been a practice of his own which was
known to the defendants at the time of their giving the
order, or else,. a, custom so general in the trade, that they
must, be cognizant of it at the time they gave the original
order. Neither appears in this case. The case was accor-
dingly dismissed.

THOMAS Di4CONNELL V. THE BIRKENHEAD, LANCASHIRE,
AND CHESHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY.—This was a new trial
at the instance of the Railway Company. At the previous
trial, the plaintiff, who is a clothier, sued the company for
the value of a parcel, containing clothes, and which it was
alleged was booked in the office of th eCompany at Liver-
pool, to be delivered at the Bevington station for a lady
named Cartwright, and which was not delivered. The
evidence of the plaintiff's assistant was given to show, that
on the 7th of August, he delivered the parcel to a person
named Bachelor, at the office of the Company, and paid 6d.
for it. On behalf of the company, it was denied that the
parcel had been received, and it was contended that it must
have been left at the landing-stage where the messenger had
been upon the same day to deliver other parcels. A verdict
was then had for the plaintiff. Subsequently to the trial,
the parcel was found in the refreshment-room at the land-
ing-stage, and the Company applied for a new trial, which
was accordingly had. Mr. Hime appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. John Bucke Lloyd for the company. The assistant
of Mr. M'Connell, a person named Milledge, was examined,
and deposed, that upon the 7th August, between nine and
ten o'clock, he took a parcel to the office of the company in
Liverpool, directed to Mrs. Cartwright, Bevington station,
which he delivered to a person in the office named Bachelor,
and for which he paid 6d. He had four other parcels to
deliver, one to go by the Birkenhead boat, and three by the
Woodside boat. He went to the landing-stage, and put the
parcels into the different boats. He did not enter the re-
freshment-room at that time, nor had he ever been there
until subsequent to the finding of the parcel there. He clid,not
ask for any receipt at the railway office, nor did he see the
parcel marked carriage paid.—Mr. M'Connell was briefly
examined in reference to the sending of the parcel.—COUßT :
I am very sorry you do not see your way on either side to
some arrangement of this case. Of course the value of the
parcel is not the consideration. Mr. Lloyd—Certainly not.
Co= : My present impression is, having seen the witnesses
before, that it would be a very hard thing to impute in-
tentional dishonesty to any one of the parties on either side,
and lam sorry it is put in that way. If you cannot your-
selves see any solution of the question, without that, we
must come to a point which is very unpleasant to decide
upon, and which, I confess, I think might possibly be
avoided. I would suggest that this action should be with-
drawn, and that there should be no imputation at
all upon the character of any of the parties. After some
conference between the parties, Mr. Lloyd offered to give
back the parcel, without imputation on either party, and let
each pay their own costs. Mr. Hime, after some considera-
tion of the question, said, he was ready to agree to the
offer, and withdraw the action. Court : I have never seen
any ground for imputation upon either side. I have seen
the plaintiff's young man examined, on both occasions, and
I have observed him giving his evidence with apparently a
great respect for truth, and a great amount of caution. As
to the persons employed in the railway office, I very care-
fully examined, as well as I could, their conduct and de-
meanour on the last occasion, and I saw no reason to impute
to them the slightest irregularity in any way, or any mis-
conduct whatever. I am very glad that the matter has so
ended, for I have carefully considered the question, and it
has given me some subject for thought, and I would cer-
tainly have felt it my duty, had it gone on, whatever the
result should have been, to have given my verdict according
to the impression produced upon me by the evidence. I
think it is liberal upon the part of Mr. M'Connell, to assent to
the proposition as regards the costs of both trials ; and I
think it is quite right that he should have credit for his
liberality. On the other hand, it is certainly quite right
that Mr. Lloyd should not do anything which might impute
or seem to admit misconduct or negligence upon the part of
the Company. All imputation is Snow withdrawn, and lam
exceedingly glad, personally glad, that it has ended. so.—The
action was accordingly withdrawn, each party to pay the
whole costs in both trials.

KERR v. WRITMORE.—This was a case which was ordered
to stand over from an early day in the sitting of the court.
It was reported in this Journal, and relates to a
sum of £3 10s.. which the plaintiff stated he had given
to the defendant to get changed into gold, and
which defendant did not return. Defendant positively
affirmed that he had given the change. Mr. Etty appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Grocott for the defence. The
books of the :defendant were produced and examined, and
witnesses were about to be called, when his Honour said—
My present impression is, that this case had not been made
out, but I cannot assign any dishonesty to either party. I
have watched Mr. Kerr in giving his evidence; and I am
bound to say that he gave it in a very satisfactory manner.
The solution of the matter probably is, that the money was
put down, and that Mr. Kerr, sitting there and having some-
thing to drink, and being tired, did not perceive it at the
time, and other parties having recourse to the room might
have found it. That would leave the balance in the books
right. My impression certainly is, that he did not take the
money. I express this opinion because I suppose he will be
held accountable by his employer, and I am quite satisfied
he did not take it. The case was accordingly dismissed, the
defendant to be paid the actual costs to which he was put in
bringing witnesses. There was no other case of any im-
portance heard during the day, and the Court adjourned, at
its rising, to Monday.

LIVERPOOL DISTRICT COURT OF BANK-
RUPTCY.--YESTERDAY.

Before Mr. COMMISSIONER STEVENSON.)

IN RE THOMAS JA.RDINE.—The bankrupt in this case was
a stone mason, builder, and licensed victualler, carrying on
business in Liverpool, and came up to pass his last examina-
tion. Mr. Martin on the part of the assignees opposed, on
the grounds that the bankrupt had lent £5O to a party whose
address he could not give; that there were no vouchers for
his trade or personal expenses, and that he had not kept
proper books. The Commissioner remarked, that as no
better accounts could be made out by the bankrupt, he would
be compelled to pass them, but the bankrupt must be pre-
pared to take the consequences, when he came to apply for
his certificate. Mr. Evans, solicitor for the bankrupt, ap-
plied to have the accountant's bill paid out of the estate.
The bill contained an item of £4 4s. for making out a second
balance sheet. This the Commissioner refused to allow.
NEW BANKRUPTCY RULES.—IMPORTANT TO THE PROPES.
sioN.—A trade debtor's summons having been issued by the
Court, Mr. Fletcher appeared on behalf of the assignees,
and Mr. Raffles, barrister, for the defendant. Mr. Raffles
said, in this case there was a discrepancy between the par-
ticulars delivered in the notice and the summons as directed
to the debtor. In the particulars of the demand and notice,
the defendant was described as shipowner, dealer, and chap-
man ; and in the summons as shipowner, dealer and chap-