Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-10-30 00:00:00

COURT OF PASSAGE.-YESTZRDAY.

BEFORE EDWARD JAMES, Q C APSESSOR.
CARNEY AND Win U. CROSBIC AND WIFE.—ID this
ease the two females occnpied fhh-stalls in St. John's
Market.. The declaration charged the defendant with
having used certain slanderous woe's affecting the phi -
tiff's chastity, on the evening of the 9th cf Se-,,tember
last. The case havirg been brit fly opens d, it was agreed
to withdraw a juror, the defendant making an apalogy,
and each party paling their own c tl3. The Assesor
explaked to the jury, that tho .gh on the issue, the c•se
might have rccupied the time of the Court for several
hours, and the jail miakt have returned a verdict for the
plaintiff, aiih £2O or £5OO damages, the plaintiff could n tt
have get one farthing of the money, because the words were
not actionable in law. He thought if p Jties would consider
the resp rtsibil ty which atternks were under to their
clients, it would pet a stop to such ac .ions as these. That
action ought never to ha' e b en brought into that court,
as there could be but one ohject in bringing it, and that
not to vindicate character.
LITTLFWOOD v. Moss.—ln tbia case the amount claimed
was £5O. The plaintiff was Henry I ittletvood a geners,
merchant of Oldham, and the defendant was Barron Mos:1
a merchant of this town. In August last the plaintiff
purchas d s-me guano at a sale by auction, and afterwards
agreed to sell it to the defen 'ant for £5 for his trouble.
The plaintiff had paid a deposit of .-050, for which the
defendant gave him an I 0 U for £5O, and pail him the
£5 in cos\ The I 0 U was produced, and the jury at
once returned a verict for the amount claimed.
SERGEANT v Hayes.--This was an action brought to
recover the sam of £l2 for the value of some flour. The
plaintiff was Itichard Sergeant, a flower dealer, and the
defendant was Mrs. Margaret Hayes, a shop keeper of
Warringron. On the 19th of December, the plaintiff, who
travels about the country called upon the defendant and
got an order for some flour, alledging that he had sold it
by sample. The flour was delivered, but payment was
refused. For the defence it was sta' ed that no sample was
ever produced, but the plaintiff bad said it should be the
same quality es had been sent on a previous transaction.
When the flour was tried, it was found that the flour was
of a very bad crudity and n at fit for human food, and would
be willing to sell it for a half-penny per pound. Verdict
far the plain if. Damages Xi.
WAISTELL 1./..BAS-PIRD —This w s en action brought
in respect to some chests of tea supplied, and which were
alleged to be of inferio- qualty to sample. The plaintiff
was a tea broker, and some time s'nce he was instructed by
Mr. Kendiek to purchase some Congou tea: The plaintiff
gave the def ndant a sampling order to look at s one tea
in bond. There was no complaint of the tea that was
supplied fr,n3 the Spray of the °Jean, but the
chetit from the Combs WES of such an inferior
quality that it w s only what is called dust, an
perfecly utmarke'able, and not worth plying. the duly
upon. The counsel for the defendant contended that there
was no fraudulent knowledge. Tte only question the
jary had to try was whether the tea was sold by warranty,
and whether it was sold under sample. If the sale was
effected uni7.er eitherof the, above conditions, the defendant
was liable, but if it was under neither, then the defendant
w e eatitled to a verdict. The jury f and for the de-
fendant.

HALLIDAY V. SHEIL.—The plaint;ff in this case was a
widow lady, and sought, by the present acti,n, to recover
damages of the defendant, Mr. Shell, merchant, comper-
sati, n for injnri; a she had sustained through the careless-
ness of the defendant's senat,ts. It appeared that on the
19 h of May, 1856, the plaintiff was walking along Phrk,ar-
stieet, when she was knocked down by the defendant's
horse, which Lad run away, and most severely injure'. It
was also shown that the horse had been improlierly bar-
neswel to the carriage, and that • was the cause of its
bolting. A number of witness's wre called, after which
the jury found a verdia for the plaintiff---lamages, £l5O.

HUGHES v. GIBBONS.

TO THE EDITOB OF THE NORTHERN TIMI,E. '

Sir,--Please correct an error of the press in your
report of a trial at the Court of Passage yesterday,
in which I was interested. The defendant, who
was cast in damages, was Mr. Edward Issac
Gibbons, cotton dealer, and not Gibson, as reported
by you —Yours respectfully, T. W. HUGHES.
October 29, 1857.

BOYS' CLOTHING MADE WITH GREAT TASTE, at LEWIS and

COMPANY', Ranelail-street.