Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-02-08 00:00:00

LADIES' CHARITY.

The annual meeting of the friends and subscribers of
the Liverpool Ladies' Charity, was held yesterday, at the
Blue Coat Hospital. The' chair was-occupied by Mr.
Harwood Banner, and the following report was sub-
witted .
On comparing the income of 1859 with-that of 1858, the mon-
anittee have .first to report an increase of nearly 1:40 in the.
amount of annual subscriptions. Although this is c. rtainly a
subject for congratvilation, it must net be forgotten that fifty
year ago, when the population of the' town hardly exceeded
one hundred..thousand, the subscriptions .to the charity' were
fifty per cent, larger than to-day. The.committee, therefore,
earnestly beg that all subscribers will aid-them in their efforts
to add still further to the charity's revenue, and thus.to relieve
it fromthe-somewhat uncertain positien it has occupied of late-
years. As Nvas to to expected, thedegacies and donations in
1859 have fallen very far short of those received in-1063; but
tie sum realised by the annual bait .has been, larger than for
fire.years past. The committee have again .to =flounce an
increase in-the objects of the charitps -relief, thenumber of
patients in .the last three years comparing as follows
£,536.; 1858, 1,513; 1857, 1,414. The mmber ot'children vac-
cinated were-1839, 1,078 ; 1858, 1,15.1.; 1857, 871.

The CHAIRMAN, in moving the adoption of the report,
said there-were one or two very:gratifying circumstances
connected ,with the society. In the first place, they were
relieving more objects than tbey were before, and were
therefore entitling themselves to the support of the
public; .and, in the next place, it was a source of great
gratification that the ball had succeeded .better than it
had done' for the last few years. It was beginning to
fall off, sand to make some of them consider ‘whether it
were wise -to continue it or not. It had yielded a very
handsome sum to the society this year, and he hoped it
would always be a source of profit. The most gratifying
circumstance of all was that they were going on fairly,
if not prosperously ; but they could not, of course, con-
tinue.-that prosperity unless the public would assist them
with subscriptions, and it was therefore necessary,that
all connected with the society shoilld endeavour to in-
crease the number of subscribers. He concluded by
moving the adoption of -the report, which' -was .unant-
.mously. agreed to.

Haying tendered votes of thanks tathe lady pre.gident;
the ladies' committee, the medical officers, Mrs. Henry
,Royds, for obtaining new subscribers, and,to the chair-
man, the proceedings terminated:

LIVERPOOL COUNTY' COURT-YESTERDAY.

;(Before J. K. BLAIR, Esq., Judge.)
His Honour first proceeded to dispose of Judgment
summonses, and to make orders of commitment against
the parties whose names are subjoined :—ltichard. Hart,
1 Court, .Thomson-street, 14 days ; William Haskayne,
• Alontpeliev-villas, Crosby-road, Waterloo, 14 days; John
Evans, Zarber's-buildings, Main-street, Park, .14 days.
.James-Stockdale, an insolvent, came up for his dis-
charge, supported by Mr. Husband, and opposed by Mr.
GrocOtt. ffn the absence of Mr. Husbands (who was in
London); the case stood adjourned.
WOODEEOUSE AND OTHERS V. ADBEY.--T.I.HS was an
action to recover the sum of £4 10s., for goods purchased
from the plaintiffs by the defendant. The defendant was
a major in the army, and the plaintiffs carried on busi-
ness in Henry-street, Liverpool. The defendant's ad-
dress, in -1855,' was 64, Oxford-street, London. It
alipeared that every attempt had been made to have the
defendant served with the summons of the court,
which, up -to the present, had proved fruitless. Mr.
Gi:weft. who appeared for the plaintiffs, applied -to the
Court to have the case heard, and for his Honour to
make' an order for payment in a month, upon the ground
that service might be effected within that time. .His
Honour -said he had no pciwer to make such an-order
under.theiproxisions of the Act of Parliament ; but let
service be effected, if possible, and he (the judge) would
afterwards facilitate the'proceedinn in every way in-his
pow-er. Mr., Grocott said he would be far from urging
the Court to.do anything that was- contrary to the,pro-
•visions of -the Act of Parliament; .but the reason he
threw, .out zt9e suggestion was owing to him holding in
his hand a letter from the defendant, dated at the place
where he last .resided. Judge : I -can do nothing fur-
ther in the matter at present. lam always willing to
go as far as the-law permits me to do; but the letter
you refer -to was written so long baek as. two'years ago.
A SEXTANT'S CLAIM AGAINST A GAY LADY.--ME.R-
CER OLARKF.--This was an action to recover the
sum off)! 11,8 s. 6d. Mr. Gray appeared en behalf of
the plaintiff, and Mr. Hime for the defesidant. The
plaintiff was.a servant girl to the defendant in the years
1857-58-59, whoikept a lodging-house.for'"xay young
gentlemen."' She had lived in the service for upwards:
of two years. Ati the expiration of the _year 1857, the
plaintiff owed the defendant a balance .of 125., and
she (the plaintiff)s.continued in the service up to the-
latter end of the year 1859. At the commencement of
the year 1858, a new agreement was entered into be-
tween her and her mistress, and she was to have received
3s. per week. The defendant had paid the plaintiff
_several sums at ,different times, which rreduced the
amount to the present -sum. There were 68. which the
plaintiff had received from her mistress -to pay a fine in
the police-court, but this sum was given credit for in
:the plaintiff's account. She bad Also given 4s. to
;.:the defendant at the Liverpool'races, which were'
not repaid her, as also some small sums .to ,purchase
wine d'or gentlemen visiting the house. Theie dif-
ferent items, with the balance of wages, made uwthe sum
due. ,The defence was, that the plaintiff had been- en-•
gaged by the month, and Rot by the week, at thesate of
Vs. per month, and that wages 'for the year would
be ,g 7 out of which sum it was alleged, she had
been, paid the sum of £5 Is. At -different times, hiving a
balance of -62155. The .defendant (who sported a gold
watch a,nd chain, and was otherwise splendidly attired,
and who attracted much attention in court), on being
examined, said she acknowledged to owing the plain-
tiff the .sum of £2 155., and nothing further. If
she :(the plaintiff) had purchased anything for the
house of the defendant, it was against her express
orders; for .she always supplied her with money for the
articles requisite for the establishment. His 'Honour
said the only question was whether the plaintiff had
been engaged as servant in this place at 3s. per week,
or 12s. For month.. It was evident, however, the de-
fendant gave no authority to the ,plaintiff to disburse
money for the necessaries- of the house without her
express authority. _He could not, however; but perceive
that the 4s. lent the defendant at the Liverpool races,
and the ss. which was given to the defendant to pay
the fine at the Police-court, were still due to the plaintiff;
therefore, the sum of *2 355. and 9s. mahinr, £3 45., he
felt bound to give a verdict for that amount. This
sum and the expenses were immediately paid.
CLAIM von CO.mmisSION.--PARKINSON GOERNE,
STEPHEN, AND Co.—This was an action brought to
recover the sum .of 3 10s„ as commission on 140
quarters of linseed. The, defendants carry on business
at their office, 21, Exchange-buildings, and the plaintiff
represented himself to be a commission agent. The
plaintiff pleaded his own case,,and Mr. Hime appeared
for the defendants. Ife.stated he had sold the above
qAantity of seed for the firm in question, and that he
wits to receive a certain mount of commissioa thereon,
which was equivalent to tie sum ,Ttow sought. In
replitution, a gentleman frcli the firm Averred that no
-agreement whatever had how entered into With the
plaintiff; and he came there on behalf of the defendants
to defend the case lit on principle: The express stipule- '
Hone with the plaintiff were, that heshould have the seed
at a certain amount, but that no commission whatever
would be allowed. This was told him by the witness in
the office, and so distinctly that he (the plaintiff) could
not misundentamfit. Another witness was produced who
depoied to these facts. His Honour said, in this ease I
is clear, agrees with the defendants to purtincimiaihegytas
have no difficuky whatever in deciding. The plaintiff, it
eptheiPlaintiff
a n purchase,bi
ffori
,ncgt
nfefoymrywtioesu
your
from them at a certain price ; and, in effecting that
t
ilroiadnilietavviiiiiltioelnuterhbeeewipnaollueslloiudnwpepesadtoddljaoonunogrf
e
Judge:. I cannot grant any adjournment. The cage is
claim,—
Pl
t ease, es €
Ide
so clearly put before me, I must direct a nonsuit to be
entered.

STOUR v. NOARES.—The plaintiff (for whom Mr. Gray
appeared) was an agent, and resided at Adelaide-terrace,
Waterloo. The defendant (for whom Mr. Thornley
appeared) was a common carrier, and had been entrusted
with a hamper containing a turkey, hare, rabbit, birds,
pork pie, mince pie, cake, child's boots, gloves, child's
toys, and scarf, which were purchased on 23rd Dec. last,
and given in the defendant's charge to be conveyed from
Oldhall-street to Waterloo. The "hamper of fare,"
when read out by Mr. Gray, produced much laughter in
court. It appeared that the articles had been purchased
—the greater portion of them—for passing away the
Christmas holidays. The hamper was value £2 10s.,
but it never reached its journey's end at Waterloo after
proceeding on its transit thereto. The defendant could
give no account of the hamper, but began to speak much
of partridges, from which topic he could not be moved,
until the judge directed that lie should pay the plaintiff
£1 10s. and 10s. costs, in four fortnightly payments.
After disposing of some uninteresting cases, the court
row alter four o'clock.