The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-05-01 00:00:00

Mr. Ba'ten drew the attention of the Board to this bill,
which he described as involving questions of very serious
importance to the board of guard ans. Evidence had been
given before the House of Commons to show that some of
the municipal authorities in Ireland had taken occasion to
transport large numbers of their poor to Liverpool, in
order that they might get rid of them. Now, the tendency
of the proposed 101 l would be very much to facilitate such
prOceedings., and he, therefore, thought it incumbent upon
the board to take some action in the matter. (Hear, hear.)
lie did not intend then to -go into the details of the bill,
as a more proper time for doing so would be when the
finance committee brought up their recommendation, if the
board agreed to refer the question to the finance committee.
He concluded by proposing a motion to the effect that the
bill now before the House of Common, entitled "An act
to amend the law for the removal of poor persons chargeable
in England, who have been born in Scotland and Ireland"
be referred to the finance committee, with instructions to
take such steps as should appear to them advisable.
Mr. Abraham seconded the motion.
The Chairman said he saw by one of the Liverpool
papers that it was stated at the select vestry-that a copy of
a statement issued by that body in reference to the bill had
been sent to all the neighbouring parishes. He wished to
ask whether the clerk had received a copy of any such
statement from the vestry ?
The Clerk said he never received any copy of it, or had
intimation from Liverpool at all.
Mr. Whitby thought the bill might be considered as
shelved, and not likely to be brought forward at all—or if it
were brought forward, it was not likely to pass that
session.

Mr. Callis thought they should not lay too much stress
upon a probability. (Hear, hear.) The duty of the com-
mittee would be to take what steps they thought requisite,
and not to place any reliance upon the chance of the bill
not being brought forward. As to the statement not being
sent to them by the Liverpool board, he observed that the
Liverpool vestry was probably jealous of that board as being
the more respectable body. (Laughter.)

The resoltition then passed without opposition.
This closed the public business.

COUNTY COURT -YESTEDAY.

(BEFORE JOSEPH POLLOCK, ESQ., JUDGE
CLEGG v. GuioN.—This was an action brought by the
plaintiff to recover £2 104. for furnishing and fitting up a
caboose on board the It. M. Mills, at the order of the
defendant, Mr. Guion, of Tower Buildings. It appeared
that the plaintiff had received instructions as to the work
from the defendant's managing clerk, and that some time
after its completion he presented his bill in due course.
The ship had then sailed, and the defendant refused
payment of the bill, on the ground that he had
been merely agent of the vessel, and that the captain was
the party liable. It appearing that at the time the order
was given, no intimation as to the captain being the
party liable was given, and his Honour accordingly
gave judgement for the plaintiff, for whom Mr. Hime
appeared.
BURCHELL v. KAYE.—This was an action brought to
recover compensation for injury sustained by the plaintiff
while in the employment of the defendant, who is a com-
mission agent, having offices in Temple Court. The plaintiff
was in his employment as office bay, and in January last
he got outside the window of the third story of the
office for the purpcse of cleaning the glass. While so
employed he by some mischance lost his balance, and fell
into the street, and was so severely injured that he had
to be at once taken to the Northern Hospital. He was
confined for seven weeks, and when at the end of that
time he again presented himself at the office, he was
told by the defendant that his services were dispensed
with, and that another boy had been engaged in his
place. The plaintiff having received no notice before
dismissal, now brought the present action to recover thirty-
shillings, being the balance of seven week's wages, less
five shillings, raid the week he was hurt, and two shillings
and sixpence the only gratuity given to him by the defen_
dant during his illness. Mr. Grccott appeared for the
plaintiff. The defendant, who appeared in person, resisted
the claim on the ground that the boy had gone outside
the window contrary to his instructions. His Honour
gave a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed.

THE SHIPPING DUES