The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-08-19 00:00:00

NISI PRIUS COURT,

His Lordship, Mr. Baron Bramwell, entered the court at
ten o'clock yesterday, and proceeded with the hearing of
records.

HENDERSON V. RYDELL.—This was an action on a bill
of exchange for £3O. Mr. Manesty appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Hugh Hill, Q.C., with Mr. Wheeler, for
the defence. The plaintiff was a wholesale rag dealer in
Glasgow, and the defendant a rag dealer on commission,
in Dewsbury, Yorkshire. The defence was, that the bill
was accepted for the accommodation of the plaintiff, and
as an advance upon goods which had been, and were to be,
consigned to defendant for sale as agent to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff alleged that the bill was given in payment
for goods actually sold, and the question in dispute was,
whether certain quantities of rags which were lying at
two railway stations, in the neighbourhood of Dewsbury,
were purchased by the defendant, or merely consigned to
him as a commission agent. The jury found for the
defendant.

HURST AND ANOTHER V. DUNKERLEY AND ANOTHER.—
This was an action brought to recover the value of a box
belonging to the plaintiffs, containing linen, conveyed to
Norway in the steamer Hamburg. Mr. Watson, Q.C.,
in opening the case, stated that the plaintiffs, Messrs.
Hurst and Steinmann, carried on business in Hull as
shipbrokers and forwarding agents. The defendants were
Messrs. T. C. Dunkerley and Co , who carried on a
business of a similar character also in Hull. The
box of linen for which the action was brought, and
which was valued at £3l I9s 6d, was sent by
the house of Israel & Co., of Belfast, directed to the
plaintiffs, to be forwarded to Bremen. The box, which
was m irked L. S.,No. 1, was put by plaintiffs in the
proper place to be hipped for a foreign port, but after a
few days it was discovered that it had been forwarded by
the defendants in mistake to Christiansand, in Norway.
The defendants had received instructions to ship various
goods for Norway, per the steamer Hamburg. The
forwarding agents for that ship were in the habit of
having a shipping clerk to point out what goods were to
be taken on board. A person named H.tlliday, shipping
clerk to the defendants, went down to the docks on the
16th of May, and pointed out the packages belonging to
Dunkerley & Co. By some mistake the plaintift's box
was pointed out as on • of those which were to go to
Norway. The mistake was discovered by Halliday when
the vessel was laden, but it was then too late to get the
box out, and it was accordingly conveyed to Norway.
His Lordship asked how the defendants could be made
liable for the unauthorised act of their clerk ? Mr. Watson
said he was their general agent. His Lordship: But not
to take other people's boxes. He has not to point out
what does not belong to them. Mr. Watson: But he goes
there for the general purpose of pointing out what is to
go. His Lordship : You must show a 'general authority
to seize all boxes, or else to seize this particular box. The
only authority to be assumed is, that he was there to see
to the shipment of such goods as the defendants
had undertaken to ship. When you go to the jury, I shall
tell them that there is no evidence. The box has been
returned. What damages do you go for? Mr. Watson:
goilf:retohnevefruslilovna.luenoils thLeorbdosxh,
ipashlopeeodntend there has
been
enough to see that absurd form of he should live
long
h action put an end
to.
although he hratiner°l
pay £5,000
fo never forget a case in which a man had to
because the
held to be a conversta Y putting his name to the paper,
papernot touched the goods ; but simply,
Ppened to be a bill of sale it was
h he alwar argued with equal confidence on
The word had a thousand diffe-
e could never thoroughly under-
althoug
either side. (Laughter:
rentst an d meanings,,
prove the shipping of the Evidenhaving been called to
box, his lordshi said there was
no case to go to the jury, a nsuitwas accordingly

entered

WILSON V. HOWARD.—This was an action of ejectment,
to recover possession of a dwelling-house on the east
side of Green-lane, in the parish of West Derby. Mr.

Alston appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Millward for
defendant. A verdict was given for the plaintiff.
LEES V. BRADBUIIY.—This was an action of ejectment,
brought by a lady named Diary Anne Lees, to recover the
use and oecepation of premises from Giles Bradbury.
The 'plaintiff was a widow lady residing at Newport,
in Shropshire, and possessing some property at Saddle,
worth, in Yorkshire, of which the defendant became
ienant, and in respect of which, the action was brought.
Mr. Wheeler appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hugh
Hill, Q.C., for the defendant. A verdict *as returned
for the plaintiff for £( 2s 61, the plaintiff undertaking not
to take further steps in respect of the premises....
PIGITT V. CADAAN.—Mr. Mill Ward opened the plead-
ings, and Mr. Attorney-General Knowles stated the case.
The plaintiff was an attorney, and the defendant a coal
owner, living in the neighbourhood of Wigin, to recover
an amount of £240, of which £lOO at least was stated to
be money out of pocket. In stating the case, the Attorney-
General said that, in August, 1855, the defendant was in
some dread of being arrested, in consequence of having
given an accommodation acceptance to a person named
Peake, which acceptance got into the hands Of bankers at
Welchpool, and a judgment was obtained, and ekeeution
issued against the defendant, On the 3rd of August,
defendant carne to plaintiff to help him out of the
difflOultY. The first thing to be done, was to come to
Liverpool, in order to see Mr. Peake, who was the
drawer ,f the bill, as well as to see some other parties
also. Various interviews took place, an 1 it was at last
arranged that Mr. Peake should give a security to defer'.
dant, the lease of a quarry in Derbyshire, which was
then supposed to be of sonic considerable *aide. The
lease was deposited as a security with plaintiff, Who held
it on behalf of the defendant. It transpired, however, that
the lease had been previously given to a gentleman named
Ritson. It had been got hack from this gentleman to give
it to the defendant, and Ritson demanded it again. The
result was, that it became necessary to institute a Chancery
seit by Peake against Ritson, and Ritson returned the
compliment by instituting a cross suit against Pigott.
Part of, the bill related to business done for Peake, but
this, it was contended, was done by the express directions
and on the retainer of the defendant, who had naturally a
great interest in the matters which concerned Peake.
Various journeys took place, and expenses were incurred,
in counsel's fees and other matters, which made up the
amount of the bill.

The case for the plaintiff was proceeding up to the
rising of the court.