Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-02-12 00:00:00

limis between the two parties, in order to have an
imitable settlement. Mr. Morgan eras called, and deposed

to the above statements b
was contended that the collision was purely accidental on
both sides, and that when the two veh

For the d

by the drivers, each pulled up, but the collision was una-
voidable, in consequence of the carriages being so close to
each other. The defendant's coachman did all he could to
avoid the collision, and, in order to do so, and prevent his
vehicle from striking that of plaintiff with full force, bc took
the wrong side of the road. It was denied that Mr. Moss
had promised to pay' for the damage. He merely said that
if the blame was With his coachman be would sustain the

loss. Mr. Morga
up, but tried to (:
however, if Mr.

he did not try to pull
Mr. Moss's carriage,
coachman had pulled up; _no

an's coach►nan sai

collision would have taken place. His Honou
appeared to him that sufficient care had r

taken by defendant's driver to avoid an accident

place where the accident happenned, great care was
necessary, which did not appear to have been taken by
the coachman, who had admitted that he was driving at
from eight to ten miles an hour. The brougham passed.
the corner considerably before the carriage of defendant
came up, and the plaintiff's coachman had a right to
expect that he would be allowed time to cross. The only
thing that was for him to determine was what damage
was done by the collision. No doubt that in repairing
the brougham had been bettered by sundry little matters.
Tie would, therefore, give a verdict to the plaintiff for
£3 14s.
LUGUIN v 13nNiaLo.—This was a case tried by jury,
and was brought by a Frenchman, named Gabriel Luguin,.
against Joseph Bendilo, a Turk, keeper of the Turkish-.
divan, Lime-street, in which he sought to. recover
£l6 10s the value of certain china goods, furnished:
by plaintiff to, defendant. Mr. Gray appeared for
the plaintiff' and Mr. 'lime for the defendant. It
appeared that the defendant had given plaintiff an ordia
for some china cups and saucers, and had submitted
pattern, so that the plaintiff might 'have them made a
particular shape, as it was the object of Mr. Bendilo that
tee bottom. of tho saucer might fit in the top of the cup
to facilitate the waiter in carrying them. The goods
wore made in France, and defendant's name put upon
then‘ but when brought here they were found not to fit
as agreed to do. The defendant refused to, take them.
There were also two vases sent with the cups and
saucers which defendant dik not want. Plaintiff told
defendant to keep them for ten days, which he did, but
never took them out of the paper in which they came.
After keeping them for another ten; days, defendant
told plaintiff that if they were not removed
he would send them to plaintiff's place in Elliot-street,
which he subsequently 4iid. Plaintiff failed in business,
and left in arrears of rent to Mr. Tutor, and Mr. Tutor
having obtained possession of the key of the house. from
a servant of Mr. Luguin, restrained all goods and
°battles found on the premises-, and put them up for sale,
employing Mr. Howell, auctioneer, Mr. Bendilo e,
attended the silo, and told the auctioneer that he might
sell them if he took off his name, but -not otherwise.
The goods were sold for £9 Bs, to 112 r. Templeman, and
to the Turk for
what they • had cost hina,4rreactd to the proposal,her
Mr. Tilton advised him to give them up
dispute. Mr. Templeman than. have a
a
and accepted the 49 ss.Mr. Grey argued that
Mr. Bendilo and Mr. Tutor,en cearntaedtbeentwoenelnv
the whole matter- had be
were not sent till after Luguin had aPnr
left, and
the goods
Tatou might sel them for his rent, and Mi.
Bendilo get et thorn cheaper than at the original cost. His
ilh.iorr a. 4 it ur sitianiza,a up the evidence as brought 'before
as his opinio4, thA gtb,0444 the goa44

had been famished, they were not what had been ordered,
and wore sent back to the plaintiff's place of business.
Under the circumstances, he considered that the present
case of action could not be supported.. The plaintiff was
then snonsuited by the unanimous consent of the jury.

SECON'D COURT FOR FEBRUARY.
The following are the cases to be heard before W. A.
Iltrhon, Esq. :—Monday,l4th,- judgment summonses--
70 cams at half-past ten o'clock, and 60 at twelve o'clock.
Tuesday, 15th, protection cases at half-past ten, and gaol
cases at twelve o'clock. Wednesday, 16th, judgment
-,onses— 70 cases at half-past ten, and 60 at twelve
naseat two o'clock. Thursday, 17th, judg-
, —7O cases at half-past ten, and 60 at twelve
„veic. Friday, 18th, judgment summonses-70 cases at
half-past ten, and 60 at twelve o'clock. Monday, 21st, j udg-
mu" s-130 cases at half-past ten o'clock;
,2n u ~,drrment summonses-130 cases at half
ten o'clock. Wednesday.

ment summon

Taesday

22nd, 1