Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-12-09 00:00:00

INSOLVEN re,

Final orders was granted in the cases of Joseph Sim-
mends, Frederick Hickman, Edward Davy„ and John
Evans_ Mr. Gzay supported each of these insolvents.
Henry Aarons received a final order unopposed.
Thomas Harrison was supported by Mr. Roby, and
opposed by a creditor in person. The case was adjourned
to the 15th of January.
Robinson Burnett was supported by Mr. Deighton,
instructed by Mr. Chilton, and opposed by Mr. Temple,
instructed by Mr. Tyndall. The opposition was grounded
on the charge that the insolvent had paid certain pressing
creditors to the amount of £2OO, and also that he had
vexatiously and frivolously defended an action His Honour
ordered the insolvents discharge from custody at the end
of three months from the date of the vesting order.
Robert Adamson, lately carrying t n business as a
saddler, in Dale-street, was supported by Mr. Grocott,
and opposed by Mr. Grace. It was stated that no adver-
tisements had been issued announcing that the insolvent
was to come up that day. Mr. Gr tcott contended that
the duty of advertising and issuing special notices
should be done by the messenger of the court, who was
in point of fact, the High Bailiff. Mr. Grocott said, he did
not mean to throw any imputation where none was
deserved, but at the same time he did not wi h to incur
any imputation himself. He had been in the habit of
giving in the schedules, and trusting that the stops which
should follow would be taken in due course by the officers
cf the court. At the time of lodging the documents he
did not pay all the fees, but was allowed credit for a short
time, the bills being usually presented every week, and
he believed they were all regularly paid, In the present
case, after he had lodged the schedule he was frequently in
the High Bailiff's office, but never received any notice that
the former practice was to be changed. Under these
circumstances he contended that if.any fault existed, it lay
with the High Bailiff. Mr. Grace stated, that he had
brought half a dozen witnetses under subpeena. His
Honour adjourned the case until the sth of January,
reserving the decision of the question of costs until that
day,
James Thomason was supported by Mr. Chilton, and
opposed by Mr. Roby, on the ground that he had been
engaged in bringing a vexatious action. His Honour
directed the discharge of the insolvent in three months
from the date of his vesting order.
JUDGMENTS.
His Honour delivered judgment in the following cases:
PARRY V. M'Evov.—ln this case there must bo a verdict
for the plaintiff The defendant sold plaintiff an article at
a certain price, to which he (the defendant) had no title, it
being an article stolen from a third party, who subse-
quently claimei it from the plaintiff The previous sale
to the defendant was not such a sale as would change
the property in the goods, not being a sale in market
overt, within the legal definition of such a sale, aloe
it becomes, therefore, the ordinary case of the sal,
of a chattel with en implied warranty of the title, and the
taking possession of such chattel by the real owner. Is
such a case there is a failure of consideration ; and tle
person to whom the chattel was so sold can, on the fella()
of his warranty, recover the purchase money back. It s,
no doubt, a great misfortune to the innocent party ono
sold it, but he may have his remedy against the peron
aho employed the auctioneer to sell, if he can find line
out ; if he cannot, he must abide by the loss.
Honaoctee v. lawane.—This was entirely a quetion
of account. On a minute investigation of the accents
between the parties, it seems to me that the °tens
recount of the plaintiff, correctly added up, amoutts to
£22 4.t 9d. From that, however, is to be deduced the
sum of £3 6s 6d, admitted to have been paid, and the
sum of 3s, the last item, for loaves, which I thbk was
paid at the time, the total deduction amounting to £3 9s
61. Deducting that amount from the £22 4s 9cl leaves
£lB 15e 3d. In taking this account I allow to theplain-
tiff the first item of £1 sa, and the four items not included
in the first bill delivered, amounting to £4 4s 63,
the omission of which I think is satisfactorily accounted
for. On the other hand, the defendant would be entitled
to a set off of £l5 135 Bd, which, if no other action
had been brought, would leave a balance in favour of the
plaintiff of £3 is 7d ; but as with respect of £3 lts 4d
of that set off a Judgment has been already recovered,
the judgment for the plaintiff would be for £6 1l 11d,
each party retaining his judgment; but to preveit any
wrong to either party I direct that of the sum ineourt in
the first action of Reward v. Horrocks, the sum of
£3 12s 4d therein recovered to be paid to the paintiff in
this action and set oil against the present verdie, and that
execution issue only for the balance of £3 is 7d, which
would be the balance in favour of the preseir plaintiff if
no such action had been brought.
WALLACE v. BARTMANN.—According to Co evidence,
the sailor, Charles Smith, put his name on tb back of the
note, in Mr Bartmann'e presence, and hared it over to
the plaintiff, and Mr. Baztmann, the defe dant and the
signer of the note, received the money hone the captain
to pay it. The only reason alleged for let paying it is
that Smith did not receive the amount fee the plaintiff,
but I have the oath of the plaintiff and hi son that he did,
corroborated by the fact of their being inposseseion of the
note. On the other heed, I have no legs evidence that he
did not receive it. His statements on oard the ship are
not evidence, and it is very unlikely the if his complaints
were true he would have waited nail that time to
make them. Verdict fur the plaintiff.
LINDLIY V. JONES.—It seer.lB to me that in this case it
is not made out that so far as the original contract is
concerned it was made by Hutchinon only as agent for
the defendant Jones. I have, it is true, certai❑ alleged
admissions by Jones to Mr. Aitchson, but Mr. Aitche

son's memory as to the conversation .n which these admis-
sions are alleged to Nava been tade is obviously very
imperfect ; and the evidence of Mr. Jones and 1111 r.
Hutchinson, and the p-obabilities f the case, are against
the supposition that Jones had mos to do with the house

than is a credi'or—advancing Loney and holding h;
papers as a security. If this be st his subsequent under-
taking to pay Hutchinson's debt, ven if made out, would

only be an engagement to pay th debt of a third party,
and would not be binding except a writing The cases of
" Cooper v, Parker," and " Lytbv. Alt," have no bearing
on the case in this viow of it. Inhese cases it was a ques-
tion whether there was a consideation for a modification

of the original contract between the original parties; but
in the case now in question, tb defendant would not be
liable, unless for a new consideation, a new contract alto-
gether was substituted for the 01, exonerating Hutchinson
from his liability. I have no eidence of such a contract.
Verdict for the defendant, withut costs.
KYLE V COBIL—I am not saisfied that in this case there
was a taking for the halt-year r for any specific time. I
think it very likely that expocations were held out to the
plaintiff that the defendant wuld be a permanent tenant ;
but the expression of such expctations would not e •nstitute
a contract, and I am not satis,ed there was anything more.
I know how liable to error tle memory is as to the details
of a conversation, and I do nt impute to either party any
intention to state anythingbut what they believe to be
true; but I think such expctations were held out to the
plaintiff, but short of a bargain for any specific time.
Under these circumstancesthore will be a verdict for the
defendant.

THE FOURTH 01' THE 3ONTII.—We are hippy to say
that in commercial circle Ethe " Fourth " passed off well
in Belfast. All bills wee paid in the different banking
establishments ; in fact, even in prosperous times there
has seldom been a bill-4 on which there was more promp-
titude it payments.—B(fase News Letter.
POLOR INSTRUCT' .re.—We recommend the instructions
issued to the Liverpuip,dice to the careful consideration
of our constabulary :nd their superiors. The intention
or sprit of the law •egulating the vintners' trade is to
precent gross inmordity, midnight debauches, or desecra-
tier of the Sebbath, beyond this, the police are not in
day bound to wahh the trade. It is to be feared that
t!ey have in many we 3 tnforced a penal law, to lengths
rhich the framers never contemplated they should go,
land that our local magistrates are but too ready to sup-
port them in what the vintn:r. complain of as " persecu-
tion." For examge, very respectable and well-conducted
publicans have been repeatedly fined for giving refresh-
ment to country farmers who had arrived at their louses
with b tter or e;rn, and taken up their lodgings there
at two or three ocleck in the morning. The law never
contemplated that this should be an offence —Cork Re-
porter.