Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-04-05 00:00:00

THE SPRING ASSIZES
CROWN COURT.—YESTERDAY.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE WILLES AND A COMMON JURY.
THE MANCHESTER EXHIBITION.—THOMAS D. Joerns
T. THOMAS FAIREURN.—This was an action brought by the
plaintiff, a constructor and civil engineer and contractor,
against Mr. Fairburn, who was the chairman of the Art
Treasures Exhibition in 1857. The claim was -for services
rendered, work done, and goods sold and delivered. The
plea was that the defendant was not indebted in more than
the extent of £125, which sum was lodged in court. In
addition, £238 was claimed. It appeared from the opening
statement of the case by Mr. Atherton, Q.C., that the
plaintiff claimed for three items, the first for materials
supplied, second for services rendered in taking down a roof,
and the third for the superintendence of turnstiles, &c. It
seemed that Messrs. Yong and Co. were the contractors for
the erection of the building, and the plaintiff was the ma-
nager. ,for that Company. Some materials that were left
were purchased by plaintiff, who' had a yard convenient, and
subsequently,-the materials were required by a foreman of
the works, whose name is Mullally. These were the short
facts of the case upon which the action was bronghte Mr. Jones,
the plaintiff in the case, was then examined, arid said I am
a contractor and constructive engineer. I was the manager,
for Messrs. Yong, the contractors for the erection'of the build-
ing, and there were materials remaining which I purchased.
I supplied a variety of things for the exhibition,
whilst it was going on. All the turnstiles were
supplied by me. There was a committee that managed the
exhibition, and the defendant was the chairman of it. A
person named Mullally, foreman of the works. The witness
read a detailed statement of boards and other things sup-
plied by him for the committee, to Mullally, the foreman,
and on the order of Mr. Deane, who was called " the
general commissioner" of the exhibition. He proved
having taken down the roof by order of a Mr. Lampert, who
had purchased it from the committee. The' witness went
into the details of the items, which were very dry and un-
interesting, and his Lordship suggested, two or three times,
that the affair should be settled out of court, as it would
take up so much time, and he intimated that he would
adjourn it to the end of the common jury cases, as he would
not keep other people waiting to hear the termination of
this case. This course, after some conversation, his
Lordship adopted, and adjourned itto the end of the other
common jury cases.
&BEEMAN AND SUDLOW V. RUTHERFORD, TYNDALL, AND
ANOTHER. —TRESPASS.—Mr. Temple Q.C., (withavhom was
Mr. Wheeler) was for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Brett for the
defendants. It was an action for trespass, for breaking and
entering the plaintiffs' shop; for breaking open a money
drawer and taking over £5 ; for breaking and damaging
shop fixtures, &e. There were seven counts in the declara-
tion. The defendants pleaded not guilty as to certain of
the counts, and £5 was lodged in court as satisfaction.
From the statement aif the case by Mr. Temple, it appeared
that the plaintiffs were retail grocers, in Seves-street,
Everton, and the defendants were wholesale grocers
in this town. In May last, the plaintiffs purchased'
groceries from the defendants to the amount of £32 6s. ld.,
and these goods were purchased on the terms of three
months' credit. The date of the purchase was the 3rd
May, 1853, and the credit would not, therefore, expire till
the 3rd of August. The plaintiffs saw no More of the
defendants until the 15th July, when Mr. Rutherford and
Mr. Anderton called at the shop, and the latter saw Mr.
§pekenian, who is a young man, and asked him for payment.
He said it was not convenient then, and that he must wait
a few days, until he got money from his father, when he
replied, We will take your goods, your body, or payment.
There is an attorney outside, who will take you." They
then seized on the goods in the shop, and made out an
invoice to the amount of £33 75., and made, Spekeman sign
it, and then Mr. Rutherford signed his invoice for their
account. Anderton subsequently took over £5 out of a
drawer. The shop was then closed, and, according to
the statement of the learned counsel,' the defendants came
in the evening, sent a joiner over a back wall, broke into
the shop, carried away (in a cart) all the fixtures, stock, &c.,
that was in the place, to the amount of nearly £9O. He
characterised this as a gross outrage, committed in the open.
day, in the streets of Liverpool. The consequence was, he
said, to the plaintiffs that they were quite ruined. The
defendants had lodged £5 in court to compensate for this
gross outrage. He then proceeded to call the following
witnesses :—Joseph Spekeman examined. lam one of the
plaintiffs, and was carrying on bnsiness in May last in
Severs-street, Everton, with Mr. Sudlow, who is my senior.
The defendants are wholesale grocers. They applied to us
for orders, and we gave them two or three days before the
shop was opened. The amount- of goods that came was
£32 5s id (invoice put in). The goods consisted of tea,
coffee, and chicory. We paid £2 duty on the coffee. On
the 15th July I was in the shop, when the defendant Ander-
ton came in, and said it was a bad job that Rntherford was
coming with an attorney to serve me with a suit, and must
have either the money, the goods, or my body Rutherford
then came in, and asked me to settle the small account. I
said he must wait a few days; he said he would not, and
that he must have goods for the money. I said I was agree-
able to tbg, if properly, delivered, and said in the evening'
or next morning.. I gave Mina piece of paper, and he com-
menced putting down the goods by guess. Nothing was
weighed, but he put down the things to pay hii Own bill;
and put down whatever prices he choose. I did not inter-
tau tr ith,-.711nt 110 f down ;he made up the bill and put
down more than he wanted and lett -the paper with me,
taking a copy. Anderton was there all the time, and
assisted Rutherford; He then mit 'a receipt to his own
bill. He then went away. I told him when the things
were properly packed they would be delivered. Anderton
stopped for about half an hour walking about the shop, and
then went to his dinner. I had no authority from my
partner to do what I did. I had not communicated with
him on it. I was not aware at the time that they could
not take my body. and I believed they could. Anderton
came back that day; and my partner came in a few minutes
after. My partner asked what was doing, and I told him ;
and he asked Anderton what right he had behind the
counter, and he said, every right, and that he had authority
from Rutherford. Anderton opened the till and took the money
out, and put it in his pocket. There was about £5 16s in
the till, and he took it all but six farthings. (Laughter.)
He was put out, and the money in his pocket. His Lord-
ship: Why did you not take it from him? Why, because
I had not the chance. Three or four hundred people col-
lected, and he shouted murder. We closed the shop then
at five, in consequence of the row. We went to get our tea,
and came back and found the shop broken open, and every-
thing valuable gone out of it. Had taken stock a few days
before, and had it written out on a piece of paper that was
put in the drawer. Did not see that.since, but looked for
it. The value of the goods taken was between £BO and
£9O. We closed the shop after, and sold the 'remaining
stock. The fixtures were pulled in pieces, althongli newly
put up. Two dozen of wine were taken away. 'We were
obliged to give up the place then. Cross-examined by Mr.
Brett : I was a grocer before that, and was in a warehouse
before that ; was doing nothing before that for a few months.
My father lives beyond Warrington, Ind is a gentleman.
He was a farmer before that. I was an apprentice to Mr.
Sudlow at twelve years of age. I brought a few pounds
into the concern, but don't know how much Mr. Sudlow
brought in. Bought goods at the Bank-buildings and Post
Office-place ; a few pounds to mix with Tyndall s. Bought
tea from Mr. Bubb. Mr. Foden, •of South John-street,
lent me the money. [lnvoices of goods sent to plaintiff's
shop produced.] Borrowed £l5 from Mr. Foden, and had
what my father sent me. Was trying to get £2O from a
loan society, but did not get it. Anderton lent me a pound
or so at a time. I owed him £lO at one time, bat he is
paid. I did not pay him, but he paid himself on the
occasion alluded to. Rutherford did not tell me that he
heard the shop was to be closed, and that I was to go for a
soldier or sailor. Had removed before that to another
lodging. He reeeipted his invoice to us, and I did so to him.
Anderton was in charge of the goods, but notby my consent.
They gave me a clean "sweep out" of the shop. The wine
consisted of ginger, -raspberry, cherry, aulothers. Mr.
Brett : Did not the neighbours drink that, and were they
not ill next day ?: No, it would take a good deal to make
them sick, lam sure. (Laughter.) The witness was re-
examined by Mr Temple, and said nothing whatever had
been removed from the shop before the time in question.
There was no pretence for saying I was going for a soldier.
I had money
from my father before, and got more in three
days after from him, _and I told Rutherford so at the time.
Mr. Sudlow, the partner of the last witness, was then
examined, and corroborated the evidence, and said he saw
the shop when broken °Pen, and saw Anderton and an
attorney (named Gray) there. He proved the removal of
the goo Is in a cart; and that two days before the stock was
worth £9O. They owed for some of had sold about
£5 worth of it in the meantilaoit"
The cash and, day
books, with the invoices, were' gone. There was
about £7 worth of stock left on the premises. Thefixtnres
in
were damaged. They had to give up businessconse-
quence of the proceedings. On cross-examinationbyMr.
Brett, the witness said he failed in business in 1855 and
was in situations from that time up to May last, when he
went into partnership with the last witness. Ile put into
the partnership between £3O and £4O that he saved. Was
engaged to pay 2s 6d a week to Carmichael in 1856 or
1857, but &AI not keep up the payment. They never
tried to (yet credit after that transaction. John Layfield
examined b:
Is a joiner, the landlord of the plaintiffs, stated
that ho assisted Mr. Spekeman to take stock a few days
before the transaction, but he did not remember the
amount. He proved having seen -Mr. Anderton in the shop
on the day in question, and heard Mr. Sudlow tell him to
go away, and that the goods should be weighed
,
and delivered according to bargain. He would not
go away. He saw him take the frle om
fire till, and Tut it In his pocket _
the goods removing through the store-room window; he
saw Mr. Gray, an attorney, Mr. Anderton, and another
person there. Ile saw Anderton get into the cart, and