Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-04-12 00:00:00

COURT ui' PASSAGE.-YESTERDAY.

BEFORE EDWARD JAMES, ESQ., Q.C., ASSESSOR.

SLANDER.—VOLPE v. FERGIE AND WlFE.—This was an
action brought by Mrs. Volpe' a photographic artist in
Renshaw-street, against Mr. and Mrs. Fergie, iron bedstead
manufacturers in the .Roscoe Arcade, in consequence of
certain slanderous statements alleged to have been uttered
by the female defendant, and which statements were cal-
culated to injure the character of the plaintiff. Mr.
Deighton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Brett for the
defendants. Mr. Deighton briefly stated the case, when
the learned Assessor asked if an arrangement could not be
effected between the parties, and so prevent further inquiry
and disclosures of the matter. A consultation took place
between the learned counsel, and, in a short time, Mr.
Deighton announced that an arrangement had been come
to by which the plaintiff had consented to the withdrawal
of a Juror. Mr. Brett said he would not have the least hesi-
tation to say as to what was his duty in the matter. It was
said that Mrs. Fergie had uttered of the plaintiff the things
contained in the declaration. He was instructed that Mrs.
Fergie entirely denied having uttered them ; but, if she
ever did utter them, or anything that would bear that com-
plexion, or might be supposed to indicate anything of the
kind, he (the learned counsel) hereby retracted it, and said
that Mrs. Fergie had no charge at all to make against
Mrs. Volpe, nor never had. Ajuror was then withdrawa.
CLAIM FOR COMMISSION..—LiASKAYNE v. BILLINGTON.
Edward Haskay-ne, an auctioneer in this town, was the
plaintiff in this action, and sought to recover the sum of
£9 17s 6d for services which he had rendered in endeavour-
ing to dispose of a public house which the defendant
formerly occupied in the neighbourhood of Queen's Dock.
Mr. M'Coubrey appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendant
conducted his own case in person. The plaintiff alleged
that he had been engaged by the defendant to dispose of
the house upon the usual terms, which are 5 per cent. upon
the first £lOO, and 24 per cent. on all in excess of that
amount. This commission was to be naid if the house was
ultimately disposed of by private sate. The house was
sold to a person named Findlay for the sum of £l5O, and
the present action was brought to recover the commission.
The defendant contended that the commission was not to
be paid unless the house was disposed of by auction, and
that £1 is was only due to the plaintiff, and the cost of
advertising. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages £4 8s 6d.

EdfiCTMENT.—EVANS v. WINTERS.—In this case, the
plaintiff, who was a rope maker, sought to recover compen-
sation for being unlawfully ejected by the defendant from
his. rope-walk,- near Lodge-lane, and where he had been
carrying on business as a rope maker from 1853 till Oct.
last, when he was forcibly ejected by Mr. Winters, the
defendant. Mr. M'Coubrey appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Simon on behalf of the defendant. It appeared that
the field in which the plaintiff carried on business was rented
by the plaintiff from the defendant, awl for which he paid
him rent, the last payment being made in 1856. On the
11th October last the defendant took forcible possession of
the premises, and detained a prtion of the goods and
chattels on the premises. For the defence it was contended'
that the premises were never let to the plaintiff, but to.his
father, who died on the Ist of January laA; the tenancy
was not a yearly tenancy, but wes.kiv ; and lastly, that the
goods . were not the goods of the plaiiitiff. For plaintiff the
jury found £2 is damages.
ACTION AGAINST A STEAM-TUG FOR COLLISION.—MILLS
V. MADDOX AND On-MRS.—III this case Mr. Brett and Mr.
Aspinall were for the plaintiff, and Mr. Deighton and Mr.
Lushington for the defence. The plaintiff claimed from the
defendants, who are the owners of a steam-tug called the
Independence, damages for having run into his flat, the
Mary, of Northwich, It appeared that, on Tuesday, the
11th of January last, about half-past eleven o'clock, the
fiat Mary, which had recently come down the. river, was
lying at anchor off Scacombe. The wind was blowing strong
from the west, the tide about two hours hio ,d, and runnimr
The fiat had to be brought into the 0—
the plaintiff, finding

in very fast.

it blowing rather harder,
got the assistance of an additional hand, and proceeded
L - I

IleitYC up nis ancnor. in crossing the river the plaintiff
stated that the flat was properly managed by the men, and she
was almost before the wind, but as the tide was running so
strongly, in order to prevent her being driven above the
point at which she was to arrive, her head was put N. E.
She proceeded on her way until she approached a schooner,
Which was lying off the south-end of the south-stage, and
then, in order to go under the stern of the schooner, the
flat put her helm a little to port, which brought her head round
to the east. She was near the schooner when the plaintiff saw
the Independence going from south to north down the river,
and one _of the- crew hailed her : " Steamer, ahoy, where
are you going ? " but received no reply, and the steamer
ran into the flat, amidships, cutting through her channel
and four of the deck planks. The tug then backed astern,
and the plaintiff asked the master to stand by him, as the
water was rushing in very fast ; but she proceeded on her
way, leaving the flat athwart hawse of the schooner. The
steam-tug Great Conquest soon afterwards came up,
and towed the flat off to the dock wall, where she was
beached. In cross-examination the plaintiff stated that the
steamer was one hundred yards off when one of his
hands hailed her, and that no other signal was made to the
steamer than shouting to her. The flat could not have
starboarded, because, had she done so, she would have come
in contact with the schooner. The two men who were on
board the flat were called, And corroborated the evidence of
the plaintiff. Mr. Deighton addressed the jury for the
defence, and called Edward Evans, who said, he was mate
of the steamer, and on the day in question was anchored off
the Albert Pier. They weighed anchor at about half-past
eleven o'clock. When he saw the flat, the steamer was going
at about half speed, and was about 200 yards off. She bore
eight points off the steamer's port-bow, and was steering
right across the river. When the flat was first observed,
the steamer's helm was put a-port, about half over, and the
flat kept on her course. If the flat had ported her helm,
she would have gone astern of the steamer, and there was
,• , .

notning winch witness saw that could prevent the flat from
porting. A. man from the fiat called out "Put your helm
hard a starboard," which was at once done, and the engine was
stopped, and reversed at full speed. The flat was then
comm..' up to the bow of the steamer, and the man
at the helm ran away and lowered his peak haulyards, and
then went back and put his helm hard a starboard. The
wines were reversed two minutes and a half before the
place. The flat was going at about five
21 years of age, and had been
Was in charge of the steamer

Witness w
at sea.

acciden

t the time,

occurred. The captain
Several other witnesses

,If of M

ice of ~pposit