Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-04-04 00:00:00

THE .SPRING ASSIZES.
CROWN COURT.—SATURDAY:
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE WILLES
His Lordship took his seat at nine o'clock this morning,
and proceeded with civil business.
MONK Y. UPTON.—The plaintiff-in this case was a sub-
contractor, under Mr. M'Cormick, who was a contractor for
doing a portion of the work of the Mersey Dock and Har-
loar Board. The defendant was also a contractor, and the
acti3n was brought to recover the price of a horse, alleged
to have been killed by the carelessness of one of the ser-
vants of the defendant. Mr. Brett opened the ease for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Aspinall was retained for the defendant.
Prom the evidence it appeared that in carrying out the works
in the formation of the Birkenhead Docks, a bridge has been
erected across the Wallasey pool. On this bridge a double
line of rails are laid, on which waggons are drawn with
tones and such other materials as are necessary to carry
*a the works. On the 19th of January last, both plaintiff
and defendant's horses were at work, when the plaintiff's
ariser was told by his pointsman to wait till the points
were ready. He did wait, and then started his
horses, when the points were ready for him.
The defendant's driver was behind, and he drove
on with his horse at a trot. The points were shifted by
the defendant's pointsman, and the driver of plaintiff's
horses, seeing that there was danger, unhooked his horses
from the waggons, and let the waggons go on. The defen-
riaat's horses and waggon came up on the instant, and
truck plaintiff's horses and knocked them both over the
bridge, by which one of them was killed, and the other was
seriously injured. It was contended for the defence that
the defendant's horse was as far forward as that of the
plaintiff's, and that the plaintiff's man lingered for a length
of time on the bridge, which he had no right to do,
and during which time the points were turned. The ques-
tilos which his Lordship asked the jury to consider was,
whether there had been a want of proper care ou the part
of the .defendant's servant, or whether the blame was to be
attached to the laxity of action by the man who' was
driving the horses of the plaintiff. The jury found a
serdict for the defendant_
ASSAULT.—KENNEDY v, CHAPHAN.—This was an action
Io recover damages for an assault and dismissal without
notice, from the defendant's service. The plaintiff had been
a merchant's clerk, and from April, 18,52, he had been in
the service of Mr. Chapman, Lloyd's agent at Liverpool, at
a salary agreed to" be £l2O per annum. The plaintiff
was also to receive five per cent. upon certain profits
made by the defendant. On the Bth of February, of this
year, the plaintiff gave notice of his intention to quit the
defendant's serviee. 'On the 10th February Mr. Chapman
**lied upon him, to give an explanation of his account, and
when he could not give the explanation required, Mr.
enapman drove him out of the office, which was the assault
aornplained of. It was contended, for the defence, that no
assault had been _committed, and that the defendant had
only told the plaintiff to go out of the office on the day in
etuestion. The jury found a verdict for the defendant.

• -.7

, NISI PRIUS COURT.—SATURDAY.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE DYLES.
His Lordship took his seat at nine o'clock, and pro-
seeded With the special jury causes.
IWNEE AND OTHERS V. NIMMo AND OT HERS . —This was
pi action to recover damages for the alleged infringement
of a patent. Mr. Monk, Q.C., Mr. Ovens, and Mr. Hind-
marsh, appeared for the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Wilde, Q.C.,
Mr. Manesty, Q.O , and Mr. Fookes for the defence. The
principal plaintiff, Mr. M'Nee, was : a manufacturer and
• rcha n t , living in Glasgow ; and the other plaintiffs, who
- likewise carried on business in that city, were
interested in a patent which he had taken out,
laid which . formed the subject of the present action.
The- action was an issue brought under the direction of the
Court of Chancery, for the purpose
_of substantially ascer-
taining whether the defendants had infringed the patent
taken out by Mr: Al`Nee. In 1852 the plaintiff took out
hie patent, which was a loom for the cheap and speedy
woduction of a fabric extensively used in the East, and
known by the name of zebra cloth. The article thus pro-
sneed by the plaintiffs had, for, a time, a very large sale
in the markets of Turkey and other parts of the East ; but
more recently the sale somewhat declined, and it was dis-
covered that the defendants had introduced into sale a
species of fabric which the plaintiffs averred to be a
colourable imitation of their zebra cloth, and, consequently,
an infringement of their patent. On the part of the defence
it was contended that theie were differences between the
Ssbric manufactured by the defendants and that which the
Viaintiffs had produced, of so substantial a nature as to
seeder the former .quite a distinct fabric. It was urged
that, in the first instance, the plaintiffs' cloth was plain
or twitted, whereas the defendants' was figured ; then
that the back of plaintiffs' cloth was "flushed" or "back-
Sashed" in a certain loose manner, to resemble the original
aebta cloth, by extra threads which were no part of the
sLrie; and in the third part, that the cloth of the defen-
slts might be printed upon both sides, and had, in fact,
two distinct faces. The jury found for the defendants.
Ifis Lordship gave leave to move.
MACDONALD AND ANOTHER V. LONGBOTTOM.—The
Tkaintiffs in this case were Messrs. Alexander MacDonald
aerdor, and Alexander MacDonald junior, farmers, of
Irreernessshire, in Scotland; and the defendant was Mr.
David Longbottom, a wool merchant, of Liverpool. The
action was brought to recover damages for the defendant's
tion-acceptance of a quantity of wool. Mr. Monk, Q.C.,
meted the case for the plaintiffs, from which it appeared,
Vaat, in Sept., 1857, they had a quantity of wool in different
lutes, in regard to which there were some negotiations going
in between them and the defendant, which resulted in a
asentract for the sale- of the defendant. The contract was
contained in letters which passed between the plaintiff and
a Mr. Stewart, the agent of the defendant. The first letter
which was read was one from Mr. Stewart, which contained
See following passage, dated the sth of September 1857:
"I beg to state that I have heard from him (the defendant)
ao day, and he now desires me to offer you for your wool 16s
stone delivered in Liverpool, less two months' ills-
mint." In reply, the junior plaintiff wrote to defendant's
agent, on the Bth of September, a letter, which
etratained the words—" I agree to your offer for the wool
• 16s per stone, less two months discount at the rate of
Eve per cent for ready money," and requesting Mr. Ste Wart
to send him the necessary bags to pack the wool. A reply
was 'received from Mr. Stewart acknowledging the letter,
acid undertaking to forward the bags. The quantity of
zoo? was 2,542 stone 81bs. It was shipped early in No-
- • 'ember, and arrived in Liverpool on the27th of that month.
in the meantime the commercial crisis which commenced
its Liverpool, with the failure of the Borough Bank,
Brad taken place, and it would appear . that the
aerendant changed his mind regardino• the wool.
On the 7th of November, a letter was written by Mr. Stewart
se Mr. MacDonald, jun., stating. that Mr. Longbottom
declined accepting the wool, in consequence of the delay
which had taken place in its delivery. A letter was also
xtetived by plaintiffs two days after claiming, on behalf of
Zefenclant £llO for loss caused to :him in the plaintiffs not
having delivered the wool in time to him, as he had sold it at a
icofit of one half-penny a pound, which he had forfeited by its
deny. When the wool reached Liverpool, it was tendered to the
tleik.adant, who refused to accept it. The wool was finally
,lit i for £1,161 17s Bd, by the plaintiffs, who now claimed
VD recover the amount of the difference between that sum
save) the contract price, being £825 las 2d. The defence,
which was conducted by Mr. James, Q.C., and Mr. Brett,
was, that there was an unnecessary delay in the delivery of
:Ise wool.
.Mr. James also contended that there was no
evidence of the acceptance of the contract. The defence had
ee.-17 opened, when the Court rose.
FRIDAY.
HALSTEAD ROBERTS.-.-- This was an action brought by
Wm. Halstead, a cotton spinner of Buruley, and the defend-
sesta
.were the proprietors of a similar factory, the works
ling separated from each other by a stream, and the action
3rir, brought to assert the right of the plaintiff to a flow of
lunier from that stream, which he alleged that he had en-
, jeved down to August last, at which time the course was
efiverted by the defendant. Mr. Atherton, Q.C., Mr.
lianesty, Q.C., and Mr. Kaye appeared for the plaintiffs,
mai Mr. Wilde, Q.C., Mr. Monk, Q.C., sand Mr. Cleasby
few defence. After the case had been opened, a consul-
tation took place between counsel on either' side, and it
ItEstw.agreed that a juror should be withdrawn.
•
41MY AND AN OTHER v. A r ILNE.-- -The plaintiffs
• k aradTmere tnbli'lleaysnsignees of Thomas Moore, On inn r
ee pe
relof Blackpool, and the action
3oftit to r
-recover
the value of a steam-engine,
who
tojitf, pumps, cern
and hay cutters, and other articles,
witieh the defendant, had purchased the premises occu-
pea' 3by the bankrupt claimed as fixtures Part of the re-
alises had been mortgagedui - • - p
thaBs3, and the mortgagee
made a sale of them, under reprs contained in the
deed on the 20th of August, 1858 p
being bankruptcy. The defendlaiilig. a month previous
sate the- freehold premises, which
.e subject of the
were defendant at that
onwtgage, and under ,that purchase he
he
enned to be en-
*tied to the goods in question, which
&tares attached to the freehold. It was agree alled to be
that a
verdict should be entered for the plaintiff, the defendant
aasTing leave to move.
BA IN E 9 AND ANOTHER V. WO ODPALL —Th iS was an
Sion brought by Messrs. James Baines and Co., to recover
am. amount of a policy of insurance effected upon the
31501tS Baines ship. Mr. James, Q.C., opened the case for
the piaintiff4, from which it appeared that they effected an
ilawance in July, 1857, upon that vessel, with the de-
des dants Messrs. Woodfall and Willis. Messrs. Baines
having ( hirtered the vessel to the Government for the
Impose of conveying troops to India, they entered into
the policy in question—which was a time_ policy, not a
wine policy—on the 30th of July, 1857, the policy being
!tom that date to the 30th of Jnly, 1858, both inclusive.
Ithe vessel sailed upon her voyage, took troops out to
Olia, and returned to this country upon the 12th of April,