Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-12-23 00:00:00

mates as to the cost. He, concluded by eiptcs§iii,f his
gratifioa' doll at the itermtproffosed by the foroni.
- seconded tho -resolutioni—whioh was
adoptedvc-L,•
Mr. PORTER then moved—" That, in the opinion of,
this meeting, it is .requisite, to,obtain, without chloy, the
apprOpl,of the, Governor, of the Court of Po icy. to a
remunerative tariff of tolls; and alsd a plan of the
intended 'extension of the line to Mahaica, in order
that the company may be enabled, as soon as possible;
to raise a sism of not less thart £30,06'0, for the purposes
mentioned in the Ordinance."
This resolution was carried on being seconded by Mr.
Sandbach.
Thanks' were then voted to the chairman, and alsd to
the secretary; and the meeting separated.

.

LIVERPOOL POLICE COURT.—YESTERDAY.
Before '` J

(Before MT. S. ,ANSFIELD.)
STEALING ROI-E.—Anthony Coyne *as brought up
charged with stealing a quantity of old rope from the
ship Lalla Rookh. He, was caught •in the act by the
mate,' but at the intercession of a bystander' was not
Aiven in charge. The prisoner then risked to be allowed
to go to the heap of old ropes for hishThis was
grailted;but ho neglected to empty it of its contents.
Fie was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment.
(Befere' Messrs. SHAND and RATREGNE.)
STRANGE CITA.AGE BY A POLICEMAN.:--SQSepli Greg-
son, a quiet decent-looking; man, who resides in Frank-
street, Toxtethrpark was, ,summoned to, answer the
o.4rg,c of ,assaulting:, PoliCe-officei Francis Gid-
dens, 357, while in the execution of his day. The
facts of the ease are these :-7-On the day in question the
Officer happened to be passing the defendant's hOuse at the
time -a window. in the second story 'Was broken. A
piece
,of the glass fell upon: the comPlainant's nose,
inflicting a slight wound .upon. this prominent feature.
Mr. Shand said there was ' evidently no' intentional
assault on the part of the defendant, It was only one
of thoSe accidents , which occur every day. The case
was therefOre disthissed. F.
UNMANLY CONDUCT OF A HVSBAND.—Thomas Rice
was summoned by his wife, Nary Ann Rice,: on the
charge .of nsing• threatening language. to her. —Mr.
Cobb appeared for the,eoinplainant, and Mr. Bluck for
the defendant.-LThe couple had scarcely been four years
Married. The specific charge was, that on. Tuesday last
the husband came in to dinner, and asked for a pair of
pistols; which his wife had hid froth him; in`censequence
of the threats he hadon previous occasions heldout against
her. He went out, saying if he did not get therein, an hour
he would'take her life. Mr. Bluck set 'tip the defence
that he asked; the pistols for the purpose of selling them,
which he stated to her.at the time, she had therefore no
right to refuse them. The magistrates said it was
evident that he had iiSed threatening language to his
wife, which he had no right to do. They therefore
ordered 'him to find two sureties of £25 each, to keep
the peace for six months.

LIVERPOOL WINTER ASSIZES. ,
• NISI PRIUS COURT.
(Before Mr:: justice WILLES and a SpeCial Jury.)
Befei!e proceeding with-the, business for the day, his
.Lord,ship intimated that as a dispute had'arisen with re-
spect to the verdict in the case Of the Borough Bankv.
Logan, he would decide it in chambers on-the 16th of
January, execution to be suspended in thiineantime.
CUMMING, SUN., V. SHAND.—Mr. James, Q.C., and
'Mr. Brett appeared. for the plaintiff in this case, and.
Mr. Monk, Q.C. and Mr. Hutton for the defendant.—
Mr James, in stating the case to the jury,a said that, the
circumstances
at, ley ; still when they had heard the facts he thought
the' jury woald be 'satisfied that th4laintiff had been
ill-treated by the defendant. The plaintiff was'a
Chant, principally engaged in foreign transactions, and
the defendant was the registered officer of the Royal
Bank of Liverpool. The action was brought because
'the defendant, in his capacity as regiStered,officer, 'had
refusedtoprovide fora certain acceptance of the plaintiffs
and had omitted to honour &check presented at the bank
at the time there was money deposited to meet the same.
The plaintiff, in 108, opened an account with the de-
fendant's bank, of 'which Mr Chaff6is'is the Manager,
his chief .object in doing so was to provide in
London for the due honour of 'acceptances from abroad:
'This arrangement
4th of ,carriedjvhe t outp plaintiffs wentlainutntilthe to (h
dad in
question. tin ttie o July
hank, saw Mr. Chaffers, and gave him a list of accept
, ahOut tolhcoine disc, anti which when due were
to be met by the bank in London. At that time it
was beliAs-ed that: the'. bank' had sufficient cash in
hand. On the 6th of July some acceptances of the
plaintiff fell due in London whieli were 'advised,
and duly Met by the bank. ' -On the following , day
an acceptant for £l2l 4s. 3d. fbll' due in London,
and on the same day,it was discovered that the plain, '
tiff's account at the bank in Liverpool fell Short of .the
acceptance by some £l6 or £l7, and the plaintiff
accordingly plictinto the bank £2O, thug providing the
bank with a sufficient amount to meet the acceptance.
The plaintiff having paid this £2O; left town on the 9th
instant; and returning on the 11th, he found that the
bill had been dishonoured. As this bill. had been
presented on the. 6th, .there were not Sufficient
funds in the bank to meet ,it ; but it was the
practice in such cases to present it citi, the follow-
ing day. It was presented, but again refitied,
and, the plaintiff alleges that the Liverpool Bank-should
have 'communicated with their London correspondent,
informing him of the payment, of this £2O. AS they had
notsclone so, the, bill was dishonoured, thus injuring the
charaCter of the-1444111We; Mr. Ciiramins afterwards
drew" a Cheek on them for £l2l 7s. sd.,:.Whieli Was paid,
and he then wrote to the directors complaining of the
treatment he had received from Mr. Chaffers,-,their.
managei. On the Ist of AUgust, Mr. Cumming,had a
transaction with the bank in, Liverpool, riThich ended in
a:l)e,rsonAl dispute with 314, Chaffers, And. the withdrawal
of NE. Cuiuming's account with the haat. On the 10th
of the same month Mr. Cumming, was advised by his
brokers;Xessrs. Trneinan and, Rowe,. la London, that
they had Paid £20.4) his account ; in 4ie Landon Joint
Stock Bank. At this time Mr. Cammin& had uot.in-
formed the London bank of his rupture with the Lver-
poolbranch ; and, on the 13th August, h e dre a. check upon,
thebank here fOr £199105., andgot the £2oop.gclin.by thei
Joint-stock Bank of I.,,oirdon, thus leaving ios.
.for the commission.. His clerk presented the cheque at_
the bank, and it was dishonoured, • whic}i the plaintiff,
argued they, had no righttp de, 2s the .money_ belonged •
to the plaintiff.
,The present action was then brought,
it never being. supposed by the •plaintiff that any reels- ,
taupe would be made to the claim; but the bank now
•sought to charge to the . debit of the plaintiff 41,800.
Theleasen for this was, that Mr. Cumming had in the
course of his transactions cargoes- of rum: consigned to
him, upon which bills were drawn by the_ consignees,
the bill of lading being attached as security to the
holders of the bills of exchange. There was part of a,
cargo of rum' shipped by the plaintiff's father for.,
Trinidad in the Enterprise. On this flip consignee
had drawn bills of, exchange, which were
accepted by the, plaintiff, and which ,with the bills of,„
lading attached, .were placed in the Colonial Banks!:
London. The plaintiff, therefore, applied to Mr. Chaf-2
fers, of the Liverpool Bank, to obtain..* possession of-
those bills in the, usual-way. 'rho Bank (at Liverpool)
took the bills and paid the amount on them to 'the
Banh,.deducting discount, £l2 3s. 7d. The
loyal. Bank then placed the bills in the hands, of Messrs.
,Branker and Co. to realise upon thew- and the plaintiff
HOW .urged that the bank had no riilit,te; detain the
£2OO on account of ; the of, lading;l:beefinee the
custom, was, that when a bank had made an advance
'on bills of lading, and did: not :specify a, definite time.
for the rapayment 'of that, advance,,lthey had rio legal
claim. The jury,.found for the plaintiff for the full
I.dinount. claimed. , • . • .)
MELLOR AND ANOTHER? . FE.gaips.s.—.:Thoplaintiffs
;this action wore „Messrs. Mellor, and Stanthabootton mer-
, ,chants, of Liverpool, They Amin, the habit of ,importing
. cotton from Bahia, and seme_Vmeio in the parsec:4 this year
the plaintiff's house at ParaibOhipped a quantity ofootton
to the;ameunt of about.l,6sQiimiles' .at Bd. per lbjAby,the
ships Cora and Francis BarkeL Thissteotton (whl.4.was ,
to be Paraiba cotton) was, consigned , to.; the defendant ;
,and, in the beginning of Augnst last,,negotiationa.took
place between plaintiffs'• broker and the brokoucpf,the
defendant, for the sale of this cotton. At that time it
:had, not arrived ,in Liverpopl,, but Oanko, the
4th." In this contract three qualities of c94.074:Merg.)
specified, firsts' second, , and, thirdsctibut tholgtt these,
,ate. 'called quality; .clasgifieatious, Ake,' ar°,,i'!'ol-
~Folog7);
Iniged in. Liverpool, tile, vPziet:iefs I)ein
',g • tern, Fil9W4
uaefme, good, and. ordiaarvi the,. contract,: nOwever,
that the cotton should be '1) ought oy tho de-
istipulated - • , ~„
fendanti providing it Pa:pilau. coma and, of a,
merchantable . quality. When
. Ere: cotton,, he refused tcetake it in censepenee
its; being ,very inferior to wliat they had eipoC,tect.
The action was, brought, therefore, to m„ak9.the d!efend-