Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-01-06 00:00:00

TOWN COUNCIL HALL, - -7.
Georgetown, Demerara, 3rd Dec., 1859. ''
ENDERS will be received by the Mayor and Town
Council until the 31st day of March next, from Persons . .
.-vi ling to Supply MACADAMIZED STONE, for the Streets of
ri c
perTehaelesnuNaPrlyattoonbthe.at
Tanheasvteornageemrabtee
ofno ttheexchVesgt
qt2hsuioaBlTiCitoynt,ys. and each piece broken to a size capable of being passed
through a ring of one ineh and a-half in diameter. In case of
the Stone being supplied by any House in Europe, it will be
taken from alongside the 'Vessel conveying it to this Colony,
provided she be moored within a reasonable distance from the
landing place. Payment will be made on receipt of the Stone, -
to the parties contracting, or to their duly -authorised Agents
in
UP; addressed to
the
for-
warded through the Post-office, or delivered, for transmission
to Messrs. John Kingston and Co., of 6, Crosby-square, City of
thisC°un
Undersignedtry.
aTtheTen ders
Georgetown, to
.Dbeemera sealed
.Demerara,
and either
London; Messrs. George Booker and Co., of Liverpool; or
James Templeton, Esq., of 5, Dixon-street, Glasgow. Further
particulars, if required, may be obtained on application to
Messrs. George Booker and Co., or Mr. ,Templeton.
H. J. BLAND,
Secretary to the Mayor and Town Council.

U.SINESS CARDS and CIRCULARS PRINTED
on the shortest notice by GRIFFIN and M`GIIIE,
Successors to Charles Willmer,) GENERAL PRINTERS, 15
UTH JOHN-STREET.

N.B.—BOOKBINDING and RTATIONERY.

COURT OF PASSAGE.-YESTERDAY.

(Before EDWARD JAMES, Esq., Q.C., Assessor.)
STOCKDALE v. BATES.—The plaintiff in this case, for
whom Mr. Deightoh appeared, sought to recover from the
,defendant,who is the owner of the ,ship Rob Roy, the sum •
of £lOl, a balance of wages earned by the plaintiff as
master of the Rob Roy, on a voyage to Bombay and back.
Mr. Aspinall appeared for the defence. It appeared that
the plaintiff engaged for a voyage to Bombay and back at
the rate -of- -£l2 a month, with -a for " finding the
cabin." On arrival at 'Bombay he was taken ill and
placed in the hospital, and,. on leaving, found that ano-
ther captain, had been appointed to command the vessel
on the voyage home. Mr. Scott, the consignee of the
vessel at Bombay, provided the captain with a passage
home in another-vessel.- The plaintiff-claimed- wages
for the voyage out, which occupied six months, at the
rate of £l7 per month, and for the five months on the
passage home at- the rate ,of £12," the-Whole, together
with disbursements, amounting'to £255. The plaintiff
had received money on account of the defendant, and on
account of his wages, and the balance remaining was
the amount claimed. The plaintiff, in cross-examination
by Mr. Aspinall, admitted that the cargo had been broken
into, and that spirits and porter had been supplied to the
crew, alleging in justification that they were short of water.
Though he denied that he had ever been drunk, he
admitted that the port doctor at Bombay had, in his •
certificate, alleged that he was taken to the hospital
suffering from delirium tremens, but explained, in se
examination, that lie had previously quarrelled with
the doctor, and had turned him out of his house. The
defence was that the plaintiff had broken into the cargo
to gratify his own taste for drink, and had been so often
drunk, that on arrival at Bombay he was taken to the
hospital suffering from delirium tremens, and was dis-
missed by Mr. Scott, the consignee. The defendant
therefore only admitted that the plaintiff had earned
wages till his arrival at Bombay, and in opposition to
the claim for that amount, pleaded as a set-off the
money which the plaintiff had received on account of
the defendant. The jury having found that the plaintiff
was properly dismissed, gave a verdict for the'
defendant. _ _ _

THOMFON a. AMAN.—The defendant -ia• this-case, who

•
is a brewer, was sued by the plaintiff, who had been in
his employ as a traveller, for wages amounting to
£l3 10s. A verdict for the plaintiff was returned.
Tnoarcnar v. STEWART.--This action was brought to
recover costs for conducting an action for assault, the
plaintiff being Mr. J. J. Thornley, an attorney, and the,'
defendant Eleanor Stewart, who resides in llotham—
street. The cause in which the costs were said to have •
been incurred was that of "Stewart v. Goodwin," which
was to have been tried. at the last sitting of the Court
of Passage. This action arose from an assault, which
was committed by Goodwin upon the defendant in the
present action; which Was witnessed by Mr. Thornley, • •
who was afterwards retained by Mrs. Stewart to enter -
an action against Goodwin for the assault. The
cause was entered, but, shortly before the _trial, it
was settled, Goodwin paying £7. The costs amounted,
to £24, of which £lO had been paid on account, and
leaving—after credit had been given for £7 received
from Goodwin—a balance of £7, the 'mount of the

present claim. The defence was, that the plaintiff 14ad
undertaken to conduct the cause for £lO ; and further, ,
that be settled the case without the authority of the
defendant. The plaintiff, when called, swore positively
that he had given no verbal undertaking that the costs
should not exceed Lai ; but ho could not swear that he

had not given a written undertaking to that effect.
When asked if he would swear that he had authority to
Settle the action, he at first declined to answer, stating
that Mrs. Stewart had commenced an action against
him for negligence, and that his reply might pre-
judice his case ; but on being told that he must reply;
be said that he had had authority. Mr.. Deighton,
who appeared for the defence, called the defendant and
and a Mrs. Taylor, who swore that in a conversation.
which Mr. Thornley had with , the defendant,
he undertook that the costs should not exceed £lO.

The plaintiff wrote the amount of, the costs on a piece of
paper which the, defendant had destroyed. She could.not _
write ; at least she did not, for she had vowed she would
never write again, after she became security for Madame
Anna. When further pressed, she admitted that she
could not write.—Mr. Littler having replied to Ilut
evidence, the learned Assessor, in summing up;saYllt,
was a question of credibility, and the counseLlor--M4,
Thornley had urged with a good deal of force that Mrs:
Stewart was a very suspicious person, and lived in a
very suspicious neighbourhood,
.and that Mrs. Tayt.for,
was not reliable, because she kept company with'
Stewart. There was a good deal of farce in that, for it.
was often said that persons might be known by the
company they kept. But then it appeared that Mr.
Thornley had drunk" tea with Mrs: Stewart ; the assault,
at which Mr. Thornley was present took place in a dram
shop, where one would not have desired to see him, and
he afterwards took Mrs. Stewart home in a cab, though
he (the assessor) did not know why Mr. Thornley should .
be called upon to act as guardian of the distressed female.
'Laughter.)--The jury gave a verdict for the defendant._ _

. BENNINGTON AND ANOTHER V. JONES.—The plain-
tiffs in this case were the assignees of a commission
agent, named Pringle, who became bankrupt, and the
defendant was also . a commission. agent. The action
was brought to recover the sum of £2BO, alleged to have
been received by the defendant on account of Mr. Pringle,
and therefore payable to his assignees. Mr. Aspinall
and Mr. Littler appeared for the ,plaintiffs, and Mr.
Brett and Mr. Russell fOr the defendant. It appeared
that Mr. Pringle had foi' a long time been .an Rgentet
become
incapable havingantieot the agency, the •
incapable of performing
augbe
ds t i tount e,
the th epar
part
o f condition,the
lltsiteeslsys r sent. peltedandweritsh,
ill
-health,
; but;thlax
'phdrefawiennefivaerffartbhwelgioariParslnsthefTtdashbeaaleldseconsidered as subordinate
to Mr. Pringle, and that Mr. Pringle should be consider-
ed as responsible to Messrs. Manders; This would make
Jones the servant of Pringle, and Messrs. Manders being
responsible to Pringle, it was contended that the money
he had received for commission on sales by him, was in
reality received on Pringle's account. Mr, Brett, for
the defence, said the question was to whom the money
actually belonged, and that the assignees had no claim
if Jones had an equitable right to the money. The ,
learned recorder, in summing up, said the question was,
whether the money claimed was owing to Mr. Pringle _
legally and equitably; .if it were, then the assignees
had a right to recover, and defendant must go in with
the learned
the rest of the creditors of the estate ; but if he had not
arrange"
ela
both a legal and equitable right, if it was an a
ment by all parties that Mr. Jones should do
the work
which Mr. Pringle could not do, but that
./art't should
inliegt-nitoll recover.
should receive the money, and on receiving
no right to
pleagaylit
right—the
Psurie—nglbeuwtow.
retain, and the assignees would
their services, and the
assessor thanked the jury fore ,
court was formally adjourn ,
ThTehjiusryhgeianvge athveerdilasott for
cause the have
d_ef-ot e. nad:ar Tr. il
the

ethe rendance of Brussels,
used caused a considerable
THE EMPEROR AND TSB TUSCA.deN (DUCAL) ENVOY.--
A n Parisspeaking correspondent
nta address to the diplomatic
sensation which was afterwards increased by the affa-
! • h the Emperor
affa-
bility with whic
diplomatist passed round the circle,
and spoke to oath present. It was particu-
th t c
s :—" The lane
larly remarked a _ conversed with M. de Nerli, the
Minister of the Grand Duke of Tuscany at Paris, who
had been invited to be present with the other members
of the diplomatic body?,
thEmpeorof