Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-12-20 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL WINTER ASSIZES.

CROWN COURT, !Benign/a..
(Before Mr. Baron MARTIN.)
The• criminal business having been disposed of on
Saturday, his lordship proceeded with civil business
yesterday.
ASSAULT AND RIGHT OF WAX : GREEN THE YOUNGER
V. YATES.—This action was brought to recover damages
for an assault, out of which arose a question of right of
way through some fields near Leigh, and this was the
real question at issue. Mr. Millward and Mr. Cross
conducted the case for the plaintiff, and Mr. James,
Q.C., and Mr. Leresche appeared for the defendant.
The plaintiff, John Green, jun., is a farmer near Leigh,
and his father is the owner of some property near that
place. The defendant formerly occupied a shop, and
afterwards came into possession of some land which had
belonged successively to his grandfather and father.
A footpath, leading from Lawton to Landside, passed
through this property, which was used by the people
residing in the neighbourhood, as it saved them a con-
siderable circuit by the highway. The plaintiff
alleged that this path had been open for
seventy or eighty years, and freely used by the
inhabitants during the whole of that time, and no inter-
ference had taken place up to the time when the cause
for the present action arose. The path had been re-
cognised as a public road, and stiles had been erected
on it at vai ions places for the convenience of pedestrians.
It was shown in corroboration of the plaintiff's allegation
that when the railway was constructed over the path
some 30 years ago, gates were placed on either side for
the protection of passengers by the road through the
fields. The defendant came into possession of the pro-
perty in February last, and since that time he had dis-
puted the right of people to pass that way; and a board
was put up, upon which was written "No road this
way." This notice had not been attended to, and the
defendant subsequently took measures to obstruct the
path. Among others the plaintiff persisted in using it
as a road as it was a convenient approach to his father's
place. The plaintiff and his wife were going along the
path on the 9th June last when he was met by the
defendant, and an altercation took place, Yates refusing
to allow Green to proceed, while the latter persisted in
his right to go on by the path. The plaintiff made his
journey by that 'route, and was returning about half-
past eight o'clock in the evening when he found one of
the gates across the path securely locked, and the
openings between the rails closed with hawthorn
branches, while the defendant was acting as sentinel on
the opposite side from where the plaintiff was. The
plaintiff removed the thorns in order to pass, and then
climbed over the gate. The defendant formally warned
him three times to desist, and then commenced to chas-
tise him in a rather unmerciful manner, and concluded by
throwing him over the gate to the side from whence he
came, and where his wife stood. A great number of wit-
nesses were called, some of whom were upwards of eighty
years of age, and they deposed that so long as they
could remember, the path had been used by the public
without hindrance. The assault was admitted, and it
was mutually agreed that in case the right of way
should be proved, there should be a verdict of 40s. and
costs. Witnesses were then called for the defence,
who gave evidence to the effect, that in 1793 the pro-
perty belonged to Peter Yates, grandfather to the defen-
dant in the present action, and he made a footpath across
the fields for the convenience of himself and family, and
not for the public. In 1807 he married a second time,
when he removed to another place, leaving his eon in
possession of his farm as his tenant. This son (the
defendant's father) continued as a tenant at will, up to
1839, when he became possessor by the death of his
father. That portion of the property through
which the path was made was called "Tie
Nine Acres," and this became the property of the
widow under the will, the defendant's father still hold-
ing it as her yearly tenant until her death, in 1845.
The nine acres were then offered for sale, and the
defendant became the purchaser, when he gave his
father notice to quit. His father, in giving up the
tenancy, claimed for himself and family the right to use
the path, but the defendant threatened to resist the
claim at law, and in consequence it was withdrawn.
The defendant's father got into difficulties in February
last, and an arrangement was made that the son should
take the father's liabilities and grant him an annuity,
on condition that the farm should be transferred to him.
This was agreed to, and the defendant, on takingpos-
-1 session, at once took measures to prevent the path being
used by others than himself and family. It was con-
tended that he had a perfect right to do so, as his father,
who was only a yearly tenant, had no right to dedicate
the path to the use of the public. With regard to the
gates put up by the railway company, it was further
contended that they had been put there for the benefit of
the owners of the property, and not for public use. It was
on the part of the defendant, that the present action
arose from family feeling, the plaintiff having married
the defendant's half-sister, by which alliance he expected
to come into possession of part of the property ; but this
expectation ceased on the defendant becoming possessor
of the farm. The hearing of the case occupied the
entire day, a great number of witnesses being examined
on both sides. At the close of the evidence for the de-
fence, the Court adjourned.

NISI PRIUS COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice WILLBS.)
EDWARDS V. DAwsoN.—The plaintiff in this case was
a car driver in the employment of Mr. Ewart, and the
action was brought to recover damages for the loss of
an eye occasioned by a violent blow which was struck
by the defendant. Mr. Monk, Q.C., and Mr. nopwood
represented the plaintiff. It appeared that, on the 2nd
of June, the plaintiff was on the cab-stand when he was
called by the defendant (who keeps a public-house) to
take home an intoxicated man. The plaintiff, however,
refused to put the man in his cab, and a quarrel ensued
in which the defendant endeavoured to mount the box,
but was pulled down and fell upon the plaintiff. The
defendant then went and informed Mr. Ewart, the car-
proprietor, that the plaintiff had refused a fare ; and, as
he was returning, the plaintiff called him a coward, and
struck him a slight blow on the arm. Upon which the
defendant took off his coat and planted a blow on the
left eye of his assailant; and it was this blow which
occasioned the loss of sight for which the action was
brought. Mr. Wheeler, who appeared for the defen-
dant, urged that the plaintiff 's eye had always been
weak, and that the great provocation which had been
given by the plaintiff would amply justify a blow of its
severity. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages £lOO.
GREEN V. THE LANCASHIRE & YORKSHIRE RAILWAY
COMPANY.—This was an action to recover damages for
injuries received in consequence of a railway collision.
Mr. Pope appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Overend,
Q.C., and another gentleman, were for the defendants.
The plaintiffs were Thomas Green and Elizabeth his
wife. On the 27th of June, 1857, Mrs. Green, who
resided in Wigan, came by an excursion train belonging
to the defendants, from that town to Liverpool. She
returned to Wigan the same evening, when the train,
which consisted of some 30:carriages, being delayed a
considerable time at Kirby station to collect tickets,
was run into by a luggage train..' The plaintiff, along
with several others, sustained severe injuries in the
head and back, so severe, in fact, were the injuries
received by the plaintiff, that she has been almost
totally incapacitated from following her business, by,
which, when in good health, she earned about eight
shillings per week. The learned counsel for the defence
contended that the company had acted in a fair and
open manner—that at the time of the accident, the
plaintiff received 12s. in compensation, besides which
she received medical attendance and medicine at the
company's expense.—The jury found for the plaintiff,
damages £l5.
COTTER v. THE LANCASHIRE_AND YORKSHIRE RAIL-
WAY COMPANY.—The verdict of the jury in the last
case decided this also, and the' counsel agreed for £2O
damages.
ROCKS v. Wm:L-74n this case the plaintiff was the
owner of a cotton mill, and the action was brought to
recover compensation for injury done to the plaintiff's
property by the defendant forcing an entrance into the
mill. The defendant pleaded guilty to entering the
house, but offered plaintiff £5 as a recompence. Mr.
E. James, Q.C., and Mr. Wheeler appeared for the
plaintiff, and the defendant was represented by Mr.
Monk, Q.C., and Mr. Kaye. From the evidence of the
witnesses it would appear that in September last in
consequence of an advertisement which appeared in the
papers, the plaintiff was induced to occupy a mill
situated on Cinder-hill. For the fixtures, &c. of
this mill he agreed for the sum of £263, £2OO, of
which was deposited as an earnest of the bargain.
The remainder of the money was to be paid in instal-
ments, the first OT which fell due on the 28th of January.
i The plaintiff entered and commenced working the mill,
I and continued doing so until the last day of 185 S, and
upon the morning of that day he found the defendant,
together with some other men, upon his premises, Be