Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-08-12 00:00:00

made. Evidence of the marriage was given, and also of
the existence of the defendant's husband in Melbourne.
Verdict for the defendant. Mr. Hill, Q.C., with Mr. Segar,
appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Monck, Q.C., with Mr.
1% heeler, f.,r the defendant.

MOJRH AND ANOTHER V. 131781IFLL, P.O.—The plain-
tiff's are merchants at Manchester, and the defendant's are
the Lancaster Banking C reapany, sued through their public
ofEeer,•and the action was brought to recover the sum of
£llB under the following circumstances:—The defen-
dant's had a branch bank at Pres+or, and among their
customers there was the firm of B.,verli-y, Chandler and
Headley, ironfoundere. That firm was dissolved in 1856.
their indebtedness to the balk amounting to over £3,000.
On the dissolution of the firm, Mr. Chandler commenced
business with his brother, and had some transactions with
the plaintiffs, who were well known to the defendants. On
the 16th of February, Mr. Chandler gave the plaintiffs a
bill for £llB. It was his course of business to meet his
bill in London, and when the bill of the 16th February
became due he went to the hank, taking with him a copy
of the bill, and requested them to advise it. The defen-
dants, as Mr. Chandler alleged, undertook to advise it,
and in his pass-ho-1 debited him with £llB on
account of Moore's bill. The bill was not honoured, and
when applied to, the bank denied that they knew Mr.
Moore at all in the matter. Mr. Chandler was indebted
to the bark at the time, and after the dishonour of the bill
stopped, and assigned his property for the benefit of his
creditors. When he requested the b ink. to advise the bill,
he paid in a cheque for £2OO, but in place of meeting the
'i, the bank applied it to the reduction of his balance.
After the case had proceedel some distance, it was agreed
to take a verdict for the defendants, leave bring reserved
to the plaintiffs to move in the C )urt of Exchequer to have
the verdict entered for them. The vise depends on the
question of " priority." Mr. Mark, Q.C., with Mr. Mal-
huish, appeared for the plaintiff's ; and Mr. Atherton, Q.C.,
with Mr. Cross, for the defendants.
lIARGREAVER V. THE EAST LANCASHIRE RAILWAY COM-
PANY.—The plaintiff is an overlooker of power-looms,
and he brought the present action to recover com-
pensation in damages fi r injuries sustained through
1 the negligence of the defendents servants.
In August last year the plaintiff was travelling by the
I defendants' railway, an.l when the train reached Heywood
Bridge, near Bury, the train ran off the line. The carriage
in which the plain iff sat was upset, and he sustained very
considerable injuries. One of his legs was severely cut,
and his thigh was so fractured that the leg is now two-and-
a-half inches shorter than the other. For the defence the
neeligetce was admitted, but it was alleged that the
plaintiff had received £4O in fall compensation. A docu-
ment to that effect was produced, but the plaintiff alleged
that when he signed it he did not know its nature. Mr.
Monk, Q.C., and Mr. Wheeler, appeared for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. Atherton, Q.C., with Mr. Segal., for the de-
fendants. The case had net concluded on the rising of
the Court at-'6 o'clock. It adjearned to 9 o'clock this
moining.