Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-06-24 00:00:00

TRINSFER OF PUBLIC LICENSER,

Yesterday, at the Police Court, before 'Messrs. Sheil,
Peel, Turner, and Bolton, the following publicans licenses
were transferred :

Bankfiet:
Bedford-,
Bell-strec

,mes Scotto!' to WalterWLean

Pobert Sykes to Tho'mas Tally

3hn Thompson to Hannah Thompson

Brownlow-11

yson to William Jones

Brownlow-hill

...John Holmes to William Spines.

Peter Sullivan to Robert Fraser

William Airey to Thomas Plc

Charles-street

...John Reynolds to Tempest Fozard.
...Hannah Jarrington to D. M,Dctigal
Jane Catow to Sarah Dutton.
..Joseph Tier tc Richard Tyer.
Mary Ashcroft to J.Waddington.
.. John Fultar to Thomas Thompsor.
.. Ed. Marsden to Elizabeth James.
..Ed. Gorstage to John Gorstage.
John Ellis to Joseph Barton.
. R. Naylor to Isaac Chambers.

Chatsworth-street

Clement-:

Cockspur-stre

Dickenson-street
Eld

Field-street

Frederic,k-street

William Parker to John Parker.
Charles Brandoa to James Tyer.
Thomas Edwards to Eleanor Edwards
Wm. M'Gce to Thomas B. Wilkinson.

4Gro.fton-street

Great Charlott

,-street .... Henry Hewitt to Geo.Stingsley

Great Home

Wm. James Brockett to Peter Griffith
Joseph Bawsker to Mary M'Millan.

Great Ham

Great Umner-street

Harford-street
Hughes-street

.Sarah Eger to Joseph Arundell.
;Thomas Close to Maria Roby.
. T. Cooper to Wm. Dodds.
Ann Barton to Mary Ann Glover.
Henrietta Quick to Charles Chatham

Henry Booth to S. Morris.
James Gilbertson to Susan Gilbertson,

London-road

Mansfield-.it

H. Tullock to Thomas Holmes

Samuel Brook to Ed. Marsd

Sarah 'Towson to Stephen Parson,

Antonia Mprrisrich to John Martin,

lark Braham to Emanuel Br

William &Lida to John Sateliff.

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT— Yesterday,

BEFORE W. A. HULTON, ESQ JUDGE

LEVI v. Rizen.—The plaintiff in this case, Barnet Levi,
is a watch manufacturer, and the defendant, Richard Baker,
is a watch examiner and finisher. and has his place of busi-
ness in Church-lane. The plaintiff sought to recover the
sum of £l6, the value of a gold watch which he had
entrusted with the defendant to alter. Mr. }lime appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr, Worship for the defendant. The
plaintiff stated that, about twelve months ago, he entrusted
the defendant with the gold watch, in question. He called
afterwards fur the watch several times,' and was told that it
had not been fiuished, or that it had stopped, or something
of that kind. Subsequently he was informed that the
defendant had been robbed of a number of watches, and a bill
was printed, offering a reward for the apprehension of the thief,
and setting forth the number and description of the watches.
In that bill the plaintiff's watch was not mentioned, but
he got information of it being in a pawnbroker's shop, and
£lO being lent on it. The plaintiff's son saw the watch
at the pawnbroker's and identified it. The watch was made
at the plaintiff's own establishment on a new principle which
did not work very well, and it was given to the defendent
to see if he could alter it so as to make it go. He had made
several applications to the defendent for the value of the
watch but could not obtain satisfaction. The defence was
that the watch had been stolen, and that due care and
vigilance was exercised in the care of the property, and that,
therefore, the defendent was not liable. It was explained,
that the reason why the watch in question was not inserted
in the bill referred to was, that it had been discovered
before the bill was printed. This was not
contradicted on the part of the plaintiff. The defendant's
son was called to g,i„e evidence as to whether the watch was
carefully locked up when it was stolen. He stated that the
door of the workshop was
only closed by a latch, which
could be opened by a piece of stick being put through a
hole in the door.' The Judge was of opinion that due care
had notbeen taken for the preservation of the property, and
- "erdict for the plaintiff for £l2 10S.

gave a