Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-08-08 00:00:00

NORTHERN DAILY TIMES.

COURT OF PASSAGE-.-SATURDAY

PARRY

(BefOre E. JAMES, Esq., Q.C., Assessor.)
AND AN,QTRED. BRADLEY AN ANOTHER.

Acno74.o* n IVAtirriniiit.:This was an action to recover
£6.103. on an -alleol breach of warranty. Mr. Williams
appeared for. the plaintiffs, and Mr. Brett for the defend-
ants. MesSrs. Parry and Hutchinson, the, plaintiffs, are
trustees, under a marriage Settlement, to Mr. William
Williams, an attorney's clerk in this town, who resides in
Church,street, Higher Tranmerb: The defendants ate
Messrs. Bradley Brothers,. the extensive furniture dealerSi
in Bold-street.' It appeared ,that on the 23rd of December,
last 'rear, 11Ir. Williams,' accompanied. by a friend named

• selected a bedstead from their general stock.. Mr. Williams
asked the price of the article, and the defendant told- them
that it was'6 The.plaintiff made the purchase, and
paidihe money on the spot. In reply to a question put to
M. Bradley by the plaintiff, the. former stated that the
'bedstead vas ;well seasoned.. Mr. Williams then desired that
it might be sent to his residence at nine o'clock on the fol-,
lowing-morning, and.the 'defendant said that it shOuld be.
delivered :as early as possible. The bedstead was accord
intrly delivered at Higher Traomere thefollowing_merning,
afhalf-past ten o'clock. Mr. Williams told the man who.
brought the bedstead Oaf he *as very late in coming; he,
however, assisted in talon a part of the bedstead np
stairs, but before the . man went away,• Ire objected
to fle article on the ground that it was not the oue which
he' had purchaSed on the previous day, and refnsed to allow
the bed to be putitip. On' the same day he
,eansed a letter
to be written. to Mr., Bradley; stating that 'the bedstead was
not according:to warranty, and demanding that the .t 6 10S.
with Gs. 8d: Costs, should be returned to him by one o'clock,
or an action would be forthwita- instituted to recover the
amount: Orr the part of the defendant, Mr. Bradley denied
that he had contracted to deliver the bedstead by nine o'clock
in the morning, and said that the,bed was perfectly well sea-
soned; and the same which Mr.' Williains had agreed to
purchase-. Ilia Honour ruled that there- could be no con-
tract or warranty construed from what took place subsequent
to the actual purchase, and there was no evidence of, a con-
tract to deliver the article at nine o'clock in the morning.
If a fraudulent representation had been. made by Mr.
Bradley, plaintiff had other means of seeking redreSs ; but
he held that Williams was not- entitled to reject the bed-
stead in the manner in which he sought to do. The jury
almost imtnediately returned 'a verdict for the defendants ;
and Mr. Williams, on .the part of the plaintiff, 'put in a bill
of exceptions. • - • • • . •
•

31CrEA.R liN9 ANOTHER 2% SCOTT ANIT ANOTHER.—TIIC
plaintiffs in this action were Messrs. MeTear, and ,Eerqd,

in Liverpool,, and -the. defendants were Messrs. Scott and
Co., tea merchants, also .of this town. The action was
brought to'recover the sum of £45, 14s..which the plaintiffs
paid to the defendants for a quantity of tea, which the,
latter had not deliv.ered. Mr. Deightnn appeared on
the' part of the plaintiff' and , Mr. Aspinall on the' part of
the, defendants. : It appeared that in February last the
plaintiffs agreed to pnrchae froM -the defendants a quantity
of tea to the amount of £B3 ss. ld., for which the plaintiffs
gave a bill of oxehane. Part of the tea-was delivered in
due course ; but a portion, amounting to £45 14s. • was, re-
tained, 1k

aecause it was a.,,ged, in the first instance, that.the
tea was in bond ; that the plaintiffs had not paid the duty,
and therefore they urged that they could not deliver it. Ul-
timately they kept the remaining portion of the tea as secu-
rity for the bill of exchange, which was not due on
,the sth of May. The bill was met and paid since the
conimencement of the action ; and though the tea- had not
been delivered, the defendants were now ready to deliver it.
The plaintiffs, however, refused to receive it, stating that
the action.being commenced they were not then bound to
acceptit, and theY hid a right, to' claim a return of the
money: The defence mainly was, that at the time 'the
defendants took the.bill as payment for the tea, they stipu-
lated that they should hold the tea as security for the payment
of the bill, and that the tea was how ready to be delivered
to the plaintiffs. Ultimately a verdict' was returned for the
defendants- . •
hidEoAL DJ,STRAINT.—OLDHAM v. BROWN,—In this
case Mr. Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Deighton,
for the defendant'. 'The' action was brought to recover com-
pensation in damages for an illegal seiziire of plaintiff's
furniture. The plaintiff, Ann Oldham, is a widow, residing
in: Gerald-Street. an the 3rd of March last,- thedetendant
,came to the plaintiff's house; in Gerald-street, mid seized a
quantity of furniture,.stating that it was the property of the
Plaintiff s.brother, a person-named Glover, who was forinerly
a tenant of defendants, and who had clandestinely removed
-all his furniture to prevent a distraint for rent, and that
'the plaintiff, 'who then resided with him, had assisted in the
removal of the furnittfte. The plaintiff was 'called; and
stated that, before removing to Gerald-street, she had apart-
ments in her brother's house, furnished .by,lierself ; and on
hearing from hiM that the landlord was going to put in 'a
distraint for rent, she took a• house inGerald-street, and re-
moved the furniture belonging to her. Her brOther had no
ownership whatever ;in. the furniture which• the defendant
seized and sold. ',lt ivas.entirely her own. She understood
that it was sold odd." It. was worth £2O: ' A Verdict
was.given for. the plaintiff 'for £l5. "

CDMPENSATIO,N.: FOB, Boximy IN:Juay.-,-simrsoN v. TUE
LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN, RAILWAY COMPANY.—The
plaintiff iittlits action, Mr: EdWard Simpson, a commercial
traveller in Liverpool, brthight an action against the London
and North,-wcstern Railway. Company, to reeover damages
for personal .injury caused by the negligence of one of the
company's servants. Mr. Raffles was for the plaintiff. On
the evening of the 7th *of March, about halfLpast seven
o'.elOck, the plaintiff was' crossing Dale-street,'•opposite the
new; police-office, with the iatention- of going', into_ Man-
chester-street, 'when one of the defendants' parcel vans came
up, and he' was run Over Mid knocked down. He suffered a
fracture in the thigh, hid' received other injuris. lie was
for thirteen weeks: confined...to the house, and the greater
part of that time under medical treatment. He was
.still
unwell,. and had received permanent injuries, his left leg

.being shorter' than the right; iri consequence of .he occur-
rence. On' the part' of 'the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself
was called, who. deposed. to .the above-names facts, and the
injuries which he had received. In cross-examination by
Mr. Aspinall, he said that he. did not hear the parcel van
coming along ~befo?e he was 'knocked 'down: Mr. Wail,
surgeon, was 'called, and spoke to the injuries which the
plaintiff, had received.. Ile added . that it would be several
weeks before lie would be entirely better, and able to go about

with activity. A policeman who was on duty at thp time oi
the occurrence was also called, arid stated that-he did not hear
the parcel van coming up before-the plaintiff was kinkked
down.. Mr. Aspinall, on the part of the defendants, said he
,
Was well aware that, generally speaking, there was not
much sympathy for a body such' as those he repregented,
bevnitdehnece..wonuled a ,
adsk the
mitt j
.ed
thatury t
tho be
ere:wgausided
acerstaolieulyl i
degreetle
ofi
negligence to he impute-d
to the defendants' van ; but if they
believed that the plaintiff was' in some degree contributory
to the accident, by not getting out of the way, then theyrY
Would find a. verdict for the' defendants; notwithstanding
7ttlhihaeetp,their driver was, to some extent,
it
ggwuna
sipl guilty of
and fbliaeb atnegligence.that
ae
tni effd-dei counsel unnos
te l
hearsg
tghees tveadntchoanti
ought to have got:out of the way. The learned assessor, in
sufatinmtheing up, told
defendants
jury had stat that
edwasmh ,at,
correct,the learned cqunsel
would not be entitled to a verdict should they be of opinion
that he was contributory to the accident by not getting out
of the way, If they believed that he was not so contribu-
tory,: the question •of damages was one entirely for them-
selves. The jury almost immediately returned a verdict for
the plaintiff—damages, £l5O.- . • ,
BREA.GIi OF CONTRACT.—WILLIAMS i=. Sni•rox.—The
plaintiff is a painter, and the defendant a builder, both rosi-
'dent in Liverpool, and the action - was brought fore a breach
Of contract, and also for an- assault. Mr. Williams appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Deighton for the- defendant. In
May last, defendant had a number of• bouSes in'Hopwood-
street, which he wished to have paint&l., 'it was creed
between the plaintiff and /he d efendant that the plaintiff
'should paint them, and was to receive £3 ss. for the -front
houses, and £1 10s. for the back houses. • -At this rate the
suns to be paid would have amounted to £30.. :The plaintiff
went ou.with the painting, and- before the;work was •done
the defendant called the plaintiff into his bifieC
ing of Saturday, the 4th of June; and asked hint to sign an
agreement. Plaintiff declined, to do so, (having performed
a portion of the work, according to conttitct,)'when the de-
fendant used a very opprobrious epithet towards him,. and
said that he would kill him. He then struck him, and it
• was for that the count of .assault was included. On the
following Monday morning, the defendant again asked the
plaintiff to sign an agreefnent ; and on his refusing to do
so, he would not allow the plaintiff :to prodeed with the
work. . The defendant had paid £l2 55:,5c1: into court; but-
atlesetuladlalyintdioffnseaiwdasthazt2Bthessv.,alauned oft tll,reasmth-orekbyta,lhainecheh, eanhdada-
rFe aocrhoei fe contract,defendat! v,t,,hiitc.hwtahse pelnadi nt
at ivffo u now
no tt
oproperly
work
done, anden,d labonuort
.w"
m
Ithlsfarthing damages for the
further
sought ts ou efcoorvtebr. e.
b
to be shown that the
: jwurorythfotuhnedamfooruntthechr
defendant;
The assault was denied.- The
w-
work
done, and:for the plaintiff,
assault. .

mi the oven-

PRUSSIA

Advices from Berlin of the 4th instant say
The' news of the dissolution of the French Army
of Observation has produced a very favourab
here. Prussia will- at once "Cliuntennand the concen
notion of troops on the Rhine.
According to a communication made to 1"

Le effect

Budberg, Russian Ambassador at Berlin, who returned
to his post yesterday, the- Emperor Alexander will
visit- our court in September: _He will fetch the

attend the grind manceivtes which are to take
.place

near that city

Prussia -is about to send some Vessels of war to
Japan to open commercial communications with that
country. The frigate Thetis and the corvette Areona
have been selected for the' purpose. They will- leave
towards the end of the month, and remain absent for
three years. A councillor of the Prussian Legation

eiations with the Japanese government.
A Berlin letter in the 'Swabian Mercury says

The changes in the organization of the army. Cannot be
made without the assent of the Chinirbers. The following
are the principal features of the reform which is in 'eentem-

The obligation for serving will be again imposed
on every-one. .The-duration-of active service is to be fixed
at three years, with one year in the reserve. The four Years

plation

forming will form the first ban of the laridwehr, which
will not comprise men upwards of 29 years of age,-,instead
of 33; as 'at present,' or married men. The next four years
will form the second ban of the landwehr, which not ga
beyond 35 years. In this Manner the 'defensive forces of
Prussia will' be much increased; without 'throwing any
burden on the finances. With 17,000,000 of inhabitants,
she may raise an' army of 890,000 men. '

.
LEWIS VEDOXIMNY'II Cri Elf - EsTAßlasll*ENT .F.QR
exoTutii.o.—Number of boy 3 clothed for the week
ending Saturday; July 9th; 1,025 ; ottespouding week last
yeah 969.—Loureasei, 36 bp.

. . ,
_ •
, •
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE. ,ibject.,)." It would have been more exact to h:ave'
---'-" Is there in the -world a'-sovereign so clement-as 7,0 t; to
be opposed to taking such a measure ?" But the intention
is' taken for the fact, and we; must be .thankful to the
Roman Government for its ,clemency !

Unfiiftattatcqv

however,- before granting an amnesty to our •gonero