Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-07-22 00:00:00

COURT OF PASSAGE.

Mr. Edward James, Q C., the Assessor, took his seat in I
the Court yesterday morning at nine o'clock.
livoii u. LAWTJN.—This was a claim for some furni-
ture. In this case Mr. Timothy Hughes, cabinet maker
and upholsterer, of Bold-street, was the plaintiff, and. Mr,
Thomas Lawton, auctioneer, b)th of this town, was the
defendant. Mr. M'Donald was for the former, and Mr.
Brett was for the latter. It appeared that on the 30th of
January, 1856, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with
Miss Fanny Wilson, a young lady—who it was not known
whether she was a dressmaker, or really what she wae, but
that it was then believed that she was in America, but
who lived in Whitemill.street, off Copperas-hill---ta let
her have some furniture to the value of £ll6 Ils., but for
which she was to pay 40s per week. These Th ireel... 1
meets
were regularly paid until about the 20th of May, when,
from some cause, he went to the premises of the defendant
in Crown.street, with his solicitor, Mr. Starling Day
Worship, where ha saw the furniture, and served Mr.
Lawton with a notice not to sell it, but it was sold, and
hence the present action. Mr. Brett raised some legal
objections, which were overruled by the Assessor, and a
verdict was found for the plaintiff, for the amount of £57.
LAATON V. lluoiias.—This was an action brought by
Mr. Lawton, auctioneer, against Mr. Timothy Hughes.
Mr. Brett appeared for the plaintiff. The damages claimed
by the plaintiff were for injury alleged to be caused to his
business by words spoken by the detendant. Some time
since, plaintiff was about to sell the furniture of a house
in Crown-street. He had previously bought some furni-
ture from Miss Fanny Wilson, the person mentioned in
the previous action of " Hughes v. La yton." This
furniture he placed along with that in. Crown-street, for
the purpose of selling it at the same time. The sale took
place on the 22nd of May. The defendant came to the
sale, and there publicly declared that the goods were
stolen, and that if any one bought them they would not be
delivered. Plaintiff said there was no use in injuring the
sale, and asked him, if he had anything to say about any
of the goods, to come into a private room,
and there show any document he had—for
the defendant held up a document while he
spoke. Defendant, however, would not do so, bat con-
tinued to declare that the goods were stolen, and that he
could prove it. In consequence of this, the plaintiff
alleged that several of the buyers went away, and the
sale he, was able to make was much less than he would
have otherwise made. On these grounds the action was
brought. Mr. M'Donnell appeared for the defence, on
the part of which it was mentioned that the statement was
founded on fact, and that no injury to the general sale
took place in consequence. The jury found for the
defendant.
Wears Delmer AND WRIGHT.—This was a claim for
an over-distress. The plaintiff was Mr. William Watts,
an agent far preserved milk, living in Gill-street, and the
defendants were Mr. John Ewart, the owner of some
hous,s, and John -Wright, a bailiff. The plaintiff was the
tenant to the defendant, and occupied one of his houses in
G.ll-street, and regularly paid the rent of 40s. per month
up to June list, whn there was a months' rent due. On
the morning that it was so due, a distress was put into
the hoese, and £5 was claimed. That amount was paid
under protest, and hence the present action. Mr. M'Don-
nell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Brett for the
defendant. Mrs. Watts, the wife of the plaintiff was
called, and proved that the rent was regularly paid until
the sth of June, when a distress was put in for £6, being,
as was alleged, £4 more than was due. For the.defence
it was contended that the sum destrained for was due, two
months' rent being in arrear, besides the month then
current. The jury found for the plaintiff, with £6
damages.

ACENTEG.IRT GREET.—This was an action brought
by James M'Entegart, custom-house-officer, to recover the
value of a quantity of mahogany, fustic, and log ends. The
defendant, James Green, a landing-waiter, had had several
transactions with the plaintiff. Tae parties had been in
the habit of purchasing mahogany to sell again, and

dividing the profit equally, and the present action was
brought to recover half the proceeds of the last transaction,
which had been detained by the defendant. Mr. Avinill
_ .

appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Brett for the defence.
The case for the defence was, that a sum of £6, equal to
the amount now claimed, had been advanced by defendant
to plaintiff, not as an ordinary part of their business trans-
actions, but as a loan. The jury found aye diet for the
plaintiff for the amount claimed.