Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-07-23 00:00:00

COURT OF PASSAGE.

Yesterday morning, at nine o'clock, E. James, Esq., the
Assessor, resumed the business of this court.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT,--MITCHELL AND WIFE v. DELA-
MERE.—The plaintiffs in this case ware John and Ellen
Mitchell, and the defendant w:s Mr. Delamere, cf 39,
Esskine•street, of this town. It was an action brought to
recover compensation for false imprisonment. Mr. Brett
appeared for the plaintiff-4, and Mr. Scott for the defen-
dant. Up to the 20th of April last, a daughter of the
plaintiffs, a girl about fifteen years of age, was in the ser-
vice of Mrs. Wignall of Everton-road, but on the evening
of that day they heard that she had left that place, sod
gone to the house of the defendants. Not knowing any-
thing of the defendant, they want and demanded her ; at first
she hesitated, but at length got up from her bed. When in
the eteet the girl was struck by her father, when a man,
named Smithson, who lived next door to the defendant,
struck the plaintiff a violent blow with a stick. The police
having witnessed the assault, took Smithson into custody,
and inf•Lted on the pl.aietiffe g dog to the bridewell
to have him booked. The defendant then said, if
they would book Smithson, he would bock them
on a charge of creating a disturbance at his
house. At the bridevvell he repeated the statement-,
and iusisted upon having them booked, although the bride-
well. keeper remonstrated with him, the female plaintiff at
the time being pregnant. However, they were locked up,
and the next morning, when taken before the m,gistratee,
the defendant not at: e ering, they were at once discharged.
A number of witnesses were called, n the part of the
defence, for the purpose of proving justification and in
mitigation of damages. After which the two legel gentle-
men addresehl the jury for their respective clients, and
the learned assessor gummed up. The jury returned a
verdict for the plaintiff's. Damages 15.
Mtrcasen v. SMITIISON.—The plaintiff in this action
was the plaintiff in the previous case, and the defendant
was a person who took some part in the d sturbance out of
which the former action arose. The present action was
brought to recover damages for the assault alleged to have
been committed by the defendant on the plaintiff at the
time of the disturbance mentioned. The evidence was the
same as in the former case, and it was agreed that it should
be received, without again being gone over in court. Mr.
Brett appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Scott for the
defence. The jury found for the plaintiff, with 40s
damages.
GROVES ti Mtatactn—ln this eve George Groves wls the
plaintiff, and William C. Miller defendant. The action
was one arising out of a contract entered into between the
plaintiff and the ,efendant, who is a shipbuilder, fir the
lining of two vessels. Mr. Scott appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr Brett for the defence The plaintiff stated that
on the 27th of November last he agreed with Mr. Sharkie,
the foreman at that time of Mr. Miller, for the lining of a
ship. Mr. Sharkie at first offered 140, but the plaintiff
stipulated for £45. Mr. Sharkie agreed to give that amount,
and a contract was accerdiogly entered into, thci work to be
completed to the satisfaction of Mr. Sharkie. About the 7th
or Bth of March the plaintiff completed the work, and, as he
alleged, to the expressed satisfaction of Mr, Sharkie. He had
received on account of this jab £27 7e. When he went to be
paid the balance Mr. Miller., juo., told him the contract
was entered as for 140, and that the amount entered against
him was £2B 83. This difference, therefore, remained un-
settled. The plaintiff had also a second contract for the
lining of another ship. In a similar meaner as in the
former instance, when Mr. Sharkie offered £2) he stipu-
lat, d for £25, and went to work on the understanding that
the demand Was agreed to. On account of this job he re-
ceived £ll or £l2 He worked up to Friday night the 17th
April, on that ship In the meantime, he had instructed
Mr. Campbell, a solicitor, to apply to the defendant for the
balance he claimed on the first contract. On the 18th of
April he want to Mr. Campbell to know if there was any
money fir him, and found that there was not. When he
returned to his work or the second ceraract, he applied for
the usuAl weekly instalment of the money on account of
that contract, and Mr. Miller, jun., refused to pat him,
told him an.)ther, man had been put in his place, and
ordered him out of the yard. Plaintiff wanted to be
allowed to go on with his work, but Mr. Miller
refused, and finally he had to leave the yard. Under those
circumstances the present actin was brought to recover
the balance claimed by the plaintiff on account of both
contracts, and damages for having been improperly pre-
vented from carrying out the latter contract. Among the
witnesses called for the plaintiff was Mr. Sharkie, whose
evidence, however, was that he distinctly understood the
contract for the first ship to have been closed at £4O, end
that for second at £2O. Mr. Brett contended, on behalf
of the defence. that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover,
inasmuch as the actual contract was, in each case, for the
lessee sum. and the plaintiff had not been prevented from
finishing th 3 second contract, but had left his work of
himself. Mr. William Miller, junior, cashier and general
manager of defendant's establishment, was examined, and
deposed that he never told the plaintiff he should not go
on with his work. The plaint,ff, on the Saturday evening
in question, demanded the balance of the first contract,
and wilness told him as he had put the affair into
the hands of an attorney it must be settled with the
attorney. Plaintiff began to use some abusive langu:ge,
on which witness told him he might gs on with his work,
bat that if he used any such language in the office he
would keep him out. This was the case for the defence,
and in refereree to the first contract, the defendant had
paid into court an amount, which, added to the sums paid
on account, made up £4O, that being the whole sum which,
according to defendant, was agreed upon in the contract.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for £8 13s. 2'd.
on the second contract, and found the issue for the defen •
dant on the first contract.

Sway v. BENNerr —The plaintiff in this case was Mr.
James Swan, one of the teachers at the Collegiate Institu-
tion, and the defendant was a builder. The action was
brought to recover damages for injuries alleged to have
been caused to the plaintiff through the negligence of the
defendant. Mr. Aspinall stated the case for the plaintiff,
from which it appeared that in December last the
defendant was engaged in building or altering a house in
Guilford-street, where the plaintiff residel. During the
bu lding a hole was excavated in the pavement in front of
the house, for the purpose of making an entrance to the
cosl-cellar, Which was to Le covered by a grid. On the
13th of December, the plaintiff came out of his own house
with his wife about half-past six or seven o'clock, it
being then quite dark. When passing the house which
was being built, he being on the opposite footway, ho
observed a light in the lower windows of the building, and
even thought he observed sparks issuing from one of the
chimnies. As it was a late hour, when he did not think
it probable there were workmen in the building, he thought
the house might possibly be on fire. He crossed the street
to ascert,t_in whether this was the fact, but when he came
close to the house he fell into the hole already spoken of,
which wls perfectly unprotected, and of the existence"of
which he was not aware. Two men came out of the
building tin which it appeared the workmen were for
some reason engaged at the time)„ and helped him out of
the hole. He was conveyed home, and it was then found
that he had received some considerable injuries, which
confined him to his own house for about three weeks, and
left some serious effects behind them even up to the pre-
sent day. He was unable to attend to his duties for 12
weeks after the occurrence took place. He had some
interviews with the defendant, who stated that he was
then in poor circumstances, but that he hoped soon to be
in a bett position. On one occasion the defendant
offered plaintiff a sovereign, which the latter at once
rejected. Mr. Brett, who appeared for the defence, con-
tended that a protection sufficient for all ordinary pur-
poses had been made by the defendant round the excava-
tion with the rubble that had been dug out, and that if
the plaintiff had taken reasonable care he would
had avoided any accident. The jury found for the
plaintiff with £2O damages.

SIMONDS V. PaacJcit.:—This was an action brought by
Francis Simonds, a solicitor practising in Liverpool, to
recover the amount of a bill for wurk and labon performed
for defendAnr,J3hn Peaoock,a colliery owner in Gloucester-
s'Are. Mr. Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
11-e' t for the defence. It was stated that before the
defend lai's collieries were worked he wished to raise
£1,500 to proceed with them, and he employed the
plaintiff to obtain a loan for him to that amount. The
aereement between them was, it was alleged, that
dofena.nt should pay plaintiff for his services whether he
succeeded in raising. the loan or not. After considerable
negotiation the plaintiff did not, succeed in raising the
owing, he stated, to the defendant not being able to
give the proper amount of security. An action was,
brrniAt to re over £l4 13s 41 for the plaintiff's
triuhl -. Mr. Simonli, en being examined, stated that the
,zr• oment with detendant was made by his clerk in
Wrt.i.g. As he was unable to produce the letters and
docu:nents a non suit was entered.

SEIcHWR INDTsPOSITION (1. SIR JOHN VILLIERS SHELLY,
RA.n.T . M.P.—We regret to state that Sir John Villiers
WI 11 , bus ben prevented by serious indisposition from
attends re or, his parl:amen'ary duties during the past
7.,*.k. The ho:', baronet was attacked or. Monday, the
13. h, by crisypelas in the face, which threatened to extend
to th,- he id, and caused severe suffering. Stringent
measur-R were at once resorted to, and the disorder was
toms , telv got. under by the end of the week. The attack,
however, has, we r, gni: to learn, left the hon. baronet in a
veri wenk condition, and wholly unable to leave kis room
or attend to busine s matters.—Sussex Advertiser.
• C•Asn AND DEED Boxas.—The next important thing to the po!Ana-
sion 01 , ash is. how (when you have got it) to keep it safely, either in
the ccnuting-honse or at hems. The same remarks apply to deeds
and other valuable documents. We have seen a large and varied
stock of both thee desirable arthles, manufactured expressly for Mr.
E. T. Hall, of South John•street, that challenge attention. Thee
leeonnethwgaennduity ofadm anyired principles, and possess patent
Iboocx: are,e, whichn' ale
the
open, except with the legitimate key. T"opinacker-lcohanck"tsin, so
others, these new safes, one small MAIO, Mug prays Yalu4l:4o ndeod
the world
andta
—Northern Daily Hines, 218 t May, Mt.