Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-05-11 00:00:00

might have taken place through improprieties whicli
could not be morally chargeable against the members
of the Dock Board, but for which, nevertheless, 'they
ought to he held pecuniarily responsible. His
Honour summed up the evidence. In doing so, he
said the importance of being able to decide the prin-
ciple which mnst regulate such questions as the present
one was very great, but it was also a matter of
very great difficulty. This difficulty, arising in a large
measure front the tact that the material concerning which
the dispute arose was susceptible of absorbing from a damp
atmosphere, or of losing. weight by evaporation in a dry one.
He recapitulated the evidence at great length. The jury,
after an absence of twenty minutes for consultation, returned
into court, and gave a verdict for the plaintiff—damages,
£27 7s ld.
The following is the business to be disposed of before the
May court :—May 11 : Judgment summonses, and 130
original cases, st half-past ten o'clock. May
12 : Judgment
summonses, and 130 original cases, at half-past ten o'clock.
May 13 : Judgment summonses, and 130 original cases, at
half-past ten o'clock. May 16: Judgment summonses, and
130 original cases, at half-past ten o'clock. May 17
Judgment summonses, and 130 original cases, at half-past
ten o'clock. May 18 : Interpleader cases, and 130 original
cases, at half-past ten o'clock. May 19 : Twenty cases,
£lO and upwards, at half-past ten o'clock. May 20:
Adjourned cases, at half-past ten o'clock.

'ORMSKIRK COUNTY COURT— YESTERDAY.
BEFORE J. IC' BLAIR, ESQ., JUDGE.
ACTION OF EJECTMENTI/4-IkIAXIMILIAN SIIACKLADY V.
JANE SPENCER.—This was an • action to recover
possession of a tenement at Lydiate, in this county,
and also for the recovery of £1 18s, arrears
of rent. Mr. Cobb, of Liverpool, was for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Dodd for the defence. It appeared that
' the plaintiff is an extensive farmer, and came into possession
some time ago. Finding the husband of the defendant the
occupier of the tenement in question (a cottage), he
accepted him on the terms in 'which he stood with the for-
mer occupier of the farm, to wit, as a weekly. tenant. The
husband of the defendant died some time after, and
plaintiff agreed to let her remain on the same terms
as heretofore, and, in order not to distress her, said
he would take the rent in any way that it would be con-
venient, but still.holding her as a weekly tenant only. In
support of this statement, Mr. Robert Whalley, the prede-
cessor of the plaintiff, together With the plaintiff and his
wife, were called, and proved the case, as opened by Mr.
Cobb. For the .defence, Mr. Dodd set up that the
defendant was not a weekly, but a quarterly
.tenant;
and in support of this position, he called Thomas Spencer,
the son of the defendant, who stated that immediately after
the ftineral of his father, he called on the plaintiff, and
trequested he world . allow his mother to stop as usual, and
he would pay the rent.. He further said it was to be paid
quarterly. On cross-examination by Mr. Cobb, the witness
stated that he said he would pay at three, six, or twelve
months, and nothing was said about weekly pdyments. He
received his wages weekly, but would not say how often he
lent money.to his mother. Here the witness became so in-
sultiog, and conducted himself so ill, that the judge ordered
him into custody for contempt of court. The daughter of
the defendant was examined, and by cross-examination by
Mr. Cobb, she admitted having paid 30s. on account of
"weeks rent," and of course this decided the case, and the
judge ordered a verdict for the plaintiff.. Verdict
accordingly.