Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-04-07 00:00:00

THE SPRING ASSIZES.

CROWN COURT.---,-WEDNEsDAY.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE WILLES.
This court sat at nine o'clock.
BAKER v. THomrsorr.—This was an action brought to
recover the sum of £5O, the balance of an account of £52,
for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defend-
ant. On the part of the plaintiff it was proved, as far as a
portion of the amount was concerned, that the defendant
was liable ; but !kith regard to another part, it was alleged
that a witness, named Wright, had no power of selling.
For the defence, it was urged that a portion of the pro-
perty was placed with him as security for a debt.
The case was totally devoid of public interest,
although it la3ted a considerable portion of the day, Mr.
Millward for the plaintiff, and Mr. Pickering and Mr.
Manesty for the defence. A verdict for the plaintiff for
535.

STAREIE v. THANE. —This was an action brought by the
plaintiff to recover of the defendant the sum of £2O 15s 6d,
as compensation for his trouble in making purchases for him,
or; correctly speaking, for commission. Mr. Temple ap-
peared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Brett for the
defendant. The plaintiff is an agent living in Liverpool,
and the defendant was a merchant formerly living in Liverpool.
The transactions connected with this case arose in the year
1857, when the plaintiff was introduced to the defendant,
as a person desirous of purchasing goods at sales by auc-
tion. At that time it was alleged, on the part of the
plaintiff, that the defendant entered into an agreement
with the plaintiff to purchase goods for him at auctions,
• for which he was to receive 21 per cent, as commission for
his purchases ; the signal to purchase being that, when attend-
ing these sales, the plaintiff was to put his thumb in the arm
hole •of his waistcoat, and while it remained there, the
plaintiff was to keep on bidding, but when he withdrew
the thumb he was to cease. The transactions between the
parties continued for some time, and during which a quantity
of gambier was purchased, upon which some dispute arose.
For the defence it was urged, that the commission alluded
to was only to be paid in cases where a profit arose, and
in other transactions, the purchases were made on their
joint interests, and that as there had been a loss in most of
the other cases, the plaintiff had no right to, recover for
commission. Verdict for plaintiff, damages £l6 is. 10d.
JONES V. GREENACK.---'Phis was an action on a promis-
sory note, to recover the sum of £so,,and one year's interest,
for money lent. In this case, the plaintiff was a female,
named Jones, and for upwards of twelve years lived as a
servant with the defendant, a farmer, living at Garston.
For six years a sister of the plantiff's also lived in the same
house. Some few years since plaintiff lent the defendant
£5O, for which he was to pay her three per cent., and gave
her a promissory note to that effect. The interest was
annually paid by the plaintiff, who wrote a receipt on the
back thereof on each occasion. In October of last year,
through circumstances which were not stated, the plaintiff
and her sister both left the defendant's house, and subse-
quently he paid them their wages, and a month extra, in lieu
of notice. The £5O was also applied for, but the defendant
refused to pay it until the time the interest was due. She
positively swore, as did also her sister, that on the night she
left the house, the money was never paid. For the defence,
it was stated by the defendant that he had paid the money,
and this was corroborated by his sister. Other witnesses
were called, who proved that, on the night the plaintiff left,
the defendant had borrowed £5O, as he said, to pay the
paintiff. The judge having briefly summed up the evidence,
said he would not offer a single comment, but leave the jury
to decide the matter, as it was a case especially coming
within their provence. The jury gave a .verdict for the
full amount claimed.
ORD, lIINDSON AND HAYES V. INGLEDEW.—In this case,
Mr. James, Q.C., Mr. Millward, and Mr. Deighton were for
the plaintiffs; and Mr. Wilde, Q.C., and Mr. Baylis for the
defendant. The plaintiffs are lessees, under the Crown, of
the Kooria Mooria Islands, and sought to recover the license,
fees on two cargoes of guano, shipped by the defendant from
those islands. A verdict was given for the plaintiffs, for
£1,200 and costs, the defendant's counsel stating that he
was instructed to withdraw all imputations of misrepresen-
tations on the part of the plaintiffs with reference to the
above islands.
The court then rose.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—WEDNESDAY.
BEFORE THE HON. JUSTICE BYLES.
LIBEL.—ADDISON V. ALKER. —This case was resumed
this morning. Mr. Monck, Q.C., addressed the jury for the
prosecution. The learned gentleman proceeded to enlighten
the jury on the law of libel. He analysed the evidence,
and endeavoured to show that the •libel complained,of was
a most malicious one. The letters of 'Mr. Alker to the
President of the Missionary Society were not bona fide
privileged communications. .The learned judge proceeded:
to sum up. He said, he was of opinion that he should
hardly let this case have come before the jury at all. Ile
should leave to them, however, whether the letters com-
plained of were privileged communications, but . as to the
conversation between Mr. Alker and Mr. Power he must
decidedly tell them that it was privileged. If a friend
came for the character of a servant, his former master might
say, I would advise you not to engage him, he stole my bed
This would be a privileged communication
comunication; but if his, former
master had come forward voluntarily, and said that servant
of mine committed a felony, that would not be privileged,
and it would show malice. His Lord Ship proceeded to point
out the law of libel, and was decidedly favourable to the
'defendant. The jury immediately returned a verdict for
Vie defendant.
BARBOUR v. PoTrs.:--Plaintiff is Alfred Barbour, carry-
ing on business as a merchant in Liverpool, and defendant;
James Ansell Potts, official assignee, at Manchester, in the
estate of one Pickford, a commission agent, and lately a
• bankrUpt in Manchester. The action was brought to
recover the sum of £lBO 7s 7d. Mr. Manesty appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wilde, Q.C., for the defendant.
It would appear that Barbour engaged Pickford to pur-
chase him a quantity of goods amounting to £853 15s sd.
Mr. Barbour, of course; had to supply Mr. Pickford with
money for these purchases, and he gave him three bills.
Potts discounted two 'of these bills, but it appears he only
paid Messrs. Scott and Co., of Manchester, from whom the
goods were purchased, a portion of the money, and shortly
before Pickford became bankrupt, Messrs. Scott instituted.
enquiries, and foundewhoni Pickford was acting as agent
for, and they intimated that they should look to Mr. Barbour,
for payment. When Pickford failed. Tie had not discounted
the third bill, which was for £lBO. is 7d, and it came, into
the hands of the Official assignee, niid the latter gentleman
having endorsed it, sent it to_the back, where Mr, Barbour,
for his own credit, lifted it. Barboiir has since paid Scott
for the goods, and he now brings an action against the
official assignee for the full amount of that bill. For the
defence it was contended that the goods for which Mr.
Barbour paid Messrs. Scott, was not n•oods for which the
particular bill for £lB7 was drawn, anethat, consequently,
it belonged to Mr. Pickford. It was further contended
that the official assignee was obliged to pay in the bill to
the accountant of the Bank of England, for the credit of
the bankrupt's creditors ; also, that by the provisions of the
recent Act of Bankruptcy, the official assignee could not be
prosecuted or proceeded against for anything he felt neces-
sary to do in the execution of his duty. His Lordship
ordered the jury to return a verdict for £193. subject to be
brought before the court above.
TIIF FALL OF A WALL AND Loss OF LIFE IN STAFFORD-
STREF.T.—DUCKWORTH V. JOHNSTON. - David Duckworth
was the plaintiff in this case, and James Johnston the
defendent. The plaintiff sued as friend of his .son, sixteen
years of age, who' had been severely injured by the fall of
a wall in Stafford-street. :The plaintiff also sued for,damages
for the death of a younger son from a like cause. Mr.
Edward James, Q.C., appeared fo'r the plaintiff, and stated
that the jury would have to consider whether the youth
was injured through the gross carelessness of the defondent,
and whether the younger son had died from the effects of a
like cause. Duckworth is a poor man' residLo• in Stafford-
street, and on the evening of the 16th of November last,
about six o'clock, the two youths were sent on ,a. errend, they
completed that errend and were returning home, and passing
down Stafford-Street. along:the wall of the defendent, when
they heard a great rumble and noise, and were immediately
overwhelemed with the debris of the wall .which had
fallen. Assistance was procured, when the eldest
youth was tal,ea oat and found to have had
his thieli
injuries. The and received several other severe
Younge3t lad was. found to be dead, and two
women were found to be severely injured. The injured lad
was t.ilien to the Infirmary, and it was found that his thigh
was broken, and had other. severe injuries.He stayed there
and then left the Infirmary, but he is still
twelve weeks,
unable to go about the streets Without diffichltv and pain.
His eyesight has also been severely d'h
injured, an e trembles
and shakes all over his body. lletililspouiffde. much pain.
The learned gentleman said that he
it,
and
sativ evidenceght t
to
to show that the wall was in a most dangerousstate, and
that many persons had spoken of
have been long previously repaired.. The was. a
poor -man, and he had lost the services of his two boys
coilseplencer.
of the fall of this wail, and the jury
would
have to consider whether that wall fell through ihoear'''
lessness of Mr. Johnston. George John Duckworth was-
then called. lIC said he was sixteen years ; that he had
been to school in Manchester, and could read and write. He
was engaged by Dr. Watson, of Manchester at 3a 6.4 par week,
with beard. lie had only been three days in Liverpool when
the wall fell. Re had been sent . with his brother to 1
a pawn-shop in London-road. They were returning, and
when passing the wall down -Stafford-street, the wall
.er was
.
suddenly fell, awl buried himand:his broth
ihortly afterwards rescued and taken to the hospital.
lie
Was there for twel.vo weeks, and since his leaving the
he fv> •
L. I piin. Cannot walk without
Sd •
d 'Acuity. His eviAght has burr .severely tried, and is now
quite nervous. John Aspinall, a millwright and engineer,
said that he was in the vicinity when th accident took: