Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-12-22 00:00:00

WAY Costrarrx.-r-Mr. Pepe opened.thepleadings, tyis •
t case, and Mr... James, Q.C., stated the,caae. .The action
was broitgliLlo,..recoverAlamiqes-for injuries caused-ley- -
a collision on the defendants', line of railway. The
plaintiff was a commercial traveller residing in Man-
chester, and, until recently, employed by Messrs. Harri-
"son and Crossfield,' tea; merchants, of London, to conduct,.
their business in the neighbourhood of Manchester,
Sheffield, Bradford, &c. He had been in their employ
one year, and received as salary about £750 per year.
On the 12th day of May last, he had, occasion
in the course of his business to go to Bradford, from
Manchester, by the, defendants' line. He was returning
in the evening by the same line when the train, in.
passing through a tunnel, was delayed for some. time..
Another train passing at' the time, a 'collision ensued;
and the plaintiff, who was in a second-class carriage,
was precipitated from his seat with great violence against
the opposite, side of the 'carriage,causing severe injuries •
to his knee and other parts of his body. 'The-result was ,
that he has been unable to follow his usual avocation ;
and has received an- intimation from MeSsrs: Harrison
and Crossfield to the effect that they considerhiS engage-
ment with them at an end. ' The jury found for the
plaintiff—damages £1,400:'
THE LIVERPOOL BOROUGH BANK V. LOGAN AND AN-
OTHER.—The plaintiffs in this action were the liqui-
' dators. of the .late Borough Bank, and the defendants • -
Messrs, Logan and Nicholson, merchants and brokers in
this town.—Mr. Quinn was for the plaintiffs ;Wand the *
defendants were- represented by Mr.' B. James, Q.C.,
Mi. Overend, Q.C„ and Mr. Brett.—From the state-
ment of counsel it appeared that in 1854 the defendants •
were in partnership with a 'man calla( Nuttall, and the
three gen entered into; a joint speculation with
regard to the cargo of the ship Aurifera, from
Manilla. , On the cargo. of this ship bills were taken by
the consigner; and these bills were accepted by Mr.
Nutter, who requested the Bank Of Liverpool to take up •
these bills. In December, 1854, the Borough Bank ad-
vanced a 'guarantee to the Bank of Liverpool for the
payment ,of these bills ; at that time the cargo had not
arrived. When the cargo did arrive, it was seen that
there would be a loss, and that the proceeds would not
be sufficient, to cover the bills. On the Ist of March,
1855, the Borongh Bank holding the bills of lading and.
exchange on the aforesaid cargo, Mr. Smith, the manager '
of the bank, had an interview with one of the defend r: '
ants. At this interview the defendant reminded him
that they had an interest in the bills. Sometime after this
it was intimated to 'Jas. Logan & Co. that they would he
held liable to the extent of one-half the transaction,
and on the 6th of March a contract was entered into,
being written by. Mr. Smith, and signed by Mr. Nichol-
son, which was that "Tire produce held by the Bank
'on account of S. H. Nuttall per Aurifera, is to be sold
to the best advantage by the brokers in whose hands it
is now placed, and under the advice of James Logan
and Co., so far as- practicable ; and after the account
sales are made
_up and the -amount guaranteed by the
Bank, and its charges dedicted, Logan and Co. will
bear one-half of whatever loss may appear on the tran- .
section." The sales were.made. at' different times, and
were not 'completed till the end of the year, when a loss •
appeared of about £4,200. It will thus appear that
when the transaction finally closedtb.ere was a deficiency
of about £4,000, which would have to be made up to cover
the logs, At, this 'time, Messrs. Logan and, Co, had an
ordinary current account with the BorOugh Bank, and. •
the- bank consectuently did not like ,tp press the fulfil- ,
meat of the contract, and . it remained open until the
bank failed in 1857; and then when a person, by the
authority of the liquidators, called upon the defendants
for payment, he was told that the account had been
closed: The defendants further stated that certain gua-
rantees which were given in'September, 1855, were taken
by the bank, in satisfaction of the discharge and all
claims by the Aurifera. NoW, at the time when the
transaction took place, Messrs. Logan and Co. ,were, as
stated above, ordinary customers of the Borough Bank;
and, in addition' to the account already mention-
ed, they' -hid shortly ' . after a second one.
The first account was in Logan's name only,
the second one was in the name of Logan and Co. Up
the 18th' of April these were the only
,accounts between
the Brill and the bank.‘,` the,firit. account was in- Credit,
the second considerably overdra*n. About the date
above-mentioned, the' bank began, to get anxious, as -
they bad heard some unfavourable repprts respecting the • i
firm of Logan and Co.- The' manager of the bank
therefore wrote to Mr. Logan, intimating that he '
wished him to place account number one in the name of
the firm.
.In accordance with this a third account was ‘,
opened in the name of Logan And Co., the former. ,
account, however,' not being transferred_ to this one.
Matteis continued in this unsettled way until 10th Sept.,
when the partnership was dissolved, and Logan carried
on business on his own aceouut. At that time the
account of Logan was in credit, that. of Logan and Co'
was overdrawn to the ainotnit of £7,000, and the new
.6f.thitcl account was 'also overdrawn to about £l,OO-0.
Thing, being in this state, the bank refused to give
more credit in Legates name, unless he pro-vided some
substantial guarantee,
.Guarantees.
,were accordingly
given for £5,000, and-these guarantees were given up
wben the balanCe on the current account, was paid. The
whole, case turned upon the question, whothere these
guarantees included the claim upon the Aurifera or not.
The plaintiffs contended that the Aurifera liability. wag-.
not incliided,' and,' if that were so, *they were of course.,
entitled to the half, viz., £2,100. On the, other liana
the defendants argued that it was included, and they
were therefore not liable. Verdict for the plaintiffs for
the amount claimed--£2,107 1 Is. 6d.

, . • . ---
WEST,- DERBY BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
The weekly meeting of this board was held yesterday' :-
the meinbers present' being—Mr. Pitts' (in' the chair), :
and Messrs. Shaw, Smith, RiebinOnd, Parkin, Wareham,. ,
'.. - Whitby, Pilling, Abrahams, Wensley, M edaalf, Edwards, . •
and Garrett. :
The. Medical : Officer reported .that .the -number ill .! .:
hospital, as per last 'report, was 119 ; admitted Since'',
16 ; discharged; 11 ;- dead; I. Al present in hospitals
119 ; corresponding Week last year, -112; `4B of this
number belong to Toxtetli-park. It was also- reported
that the number of paiipers In the workhouse-, as per 1W
report, was 669; admitted since, 25 ; diScharged, 12 ;
died, 2. • At present in workhouse, `6BO ; ' corresponding •
week I ast- year, 7/3 ;;. 374. of this' number 'belong '
Toxteth-park. • CheqUes'for out-door relief were issues' -
as follows :,-.--Mr. 'Potts, . £126- ~Olney, Mr. £3o • and `
. ~
Mr. LythgOe; £2l. • ' • '
-' A communication Was 'read from` the Poor-law Board,
enclosing a copy of a letter frein`Mr. Allen, formerly 3
relieving officer, who had been Sisrpinded in 'consequence'
of having been imprisonedfoidebt.-1 Mr. Allen, in h'
letter tb the-Poor-re*. BoardattribUted his' difficulties
to domestic troubles,' and to hiihaving become surety
for one or two parties. 'No complaint-had been ralcicei,'
,• of the manner in which healscharged his duties, no
Ihe therefore prayed tli4 withdrawal of-the siisPension•
After considerable discussiOn, : the board' resolved--
ic That • this - board. from their long. experience of the,
habitiana ehafidti-Of Mr. Allen, are satisfied that. 1,3,-e. •
is not:a fitting petioiito hold the situation .of telinci!l:
officer, . even supposing he. was-- relieied from Pgit,
forthwith; but they'have reason to believe' that he t, .
not obtain his discharge from there fOr a considerably.
0,
time, nrid' they;rnspeetrully retpieif the iminediat4,. der,r,,e)
sion of the Poor-law Board to enable-them to aPP:' .iski
a successoi"- ' aei' VI
. Mr. RObertion, the storekeeper, was appointed to lii
As relieving- officer until Mr. Allen'S successor was-11);',117.
pointed,: and Dr. Lodge and. Mr. ROWlands having bee,, ' e
appointed vaccinators for E'reretin, the prOeeedings tot
mutated-. S:
+
. ..
PorsTfars BATE Btyxs.--A case' occurred at Cli,ft,a°l/
on FridaY which might `have. been attended with fa"
consequences had not prempt 'measures been takel!,er
counteract the effects •of some, poisonous nit, 1,
used in the composition of Bath. buns, and wnivii.4
nearly cost the lives of six young gentlemen, 110.,
in one of the first' boarding-sehook in. the pp nee.
The eircumiiinbeS of the case were as. follow : Tell,j
of the. youths had beezi;,watking„,* Redland,:
,_5711
Firehased some Bath Inins, al, the .walking:
of a confeetar..o
named Farr.- In the course of the afternoon tils`nd
'other lads from the sch?ol'went to the sameitlace,4era
bought some more buns...ln the evening ;all Si toosH i
seized with violent sickness, and:resented the sPLR. W., 1,.,'
'of having partaken of pine poisonous- substance,' ,atliSihra
Cross, surgeon, of Clinton,o was 'Called in, and prescriu'uifig. ''.
necessary remedies, but thepatients Continued se 1114 ~ ye.
the night that two of them were not expected to our all •
.Fortunately, however, but after great suffering, tile' or
-."iecovered. ' Some of the bins' which hid not been, coot.
.".iiitined were subjectedlto'analyste, when' it Was PP: head;
[ . ,each' of them contained 'seven grains of chrora37o lor the
which was used as "a'eheap'substiltutb for eggs' for
fort
1
purpose of colouring the butis. Farr, on being Se ticae.)l
admitted having used' this' pyTnkatina for. feigtatlia el
without being
suppositia tiiitlflalailikei W
i.doeib tliiilisnal!r;
I carelessneis,liiladeirzi the' buns "IW ilia e'