Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-05-11 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT.-YESTEUDAY.

BEFORE T. B. ADDISON, ESQ.
His Honour, on taking his seat, said, he had been
requested by his friend, Mr. Fulton, judge of the court,
to preside here to-day, in order to facilitate the transaction
of public business. 'Mr. Halton was unable to attend on
account of the death of a relative, Mr. Lowndes, of Preston,
whose death all must regret, and which took place last
night. As he himself was a stranger here, he mast throw
himself on the kind indulgence of 'those having business to
transact in the court. .
IMPORTANT ifIDGMENT kS TO CO DINT LAND PROPRIETORT.
CROSSLE? V. TURNER.—This was an action raised to
test the liability of the indiviioals joining in purchasing
land on joint account, principally with a view of acquiring
the elective franchise. The case was argued at great length,
and a considerable body of icvidence was addnoed on each
side. ' The learned judge, .after hearing the case, appointed
this day for delivering judgment, and as, from the cause
above referred to, he was unavoidably absent, the judgment
was read by Mr. Statham registrar of the court. It was as

JUDGMENT.—I reserved my judgment in this action:'
from the court, held in April last. -The action'was brought'
under the following 'circumstances : The plaintiff, the
defendant, and other persons, altogether to the number of
fifty, agreed to purchase some property in Cheshire,
for the 'purpose of . obtaining qualifications to vote
in the election of members for the county. The purchase
money amounted to £2,500, and the, purchasers raised
.$ )00 by equal-contributions amongst themselves, and by deed,
dated the 145th January, 1846, they agreed that the remainder
of the purChase money should be paid by them in equal
proportions, and that the premises should be conveyed to
two trustees, who should have power, with the consent of
the major part in value of the purchasers, to mortgage.
-the property for the sum of £1,600. This consent was
-given ; and by deed, dated in May, 1846, the premises
-were mortgaged by the trustees to Mr.' Hunter, to secure
the repayment of £1,600 and interest. In November,
'lB IS, the mortgagee called in the mortgage money, and
in order to induce him to permit the principal to remain'
for tire period of one year longer, seven of the pur-
chasers,- who, either personally or by their representa-
tives, are the plaintiffs in this action, joined in a joint
and 'several bond as a further security to him for the
'payment of the principal and interest. The property
was eventually sold by the mortgagee, in. 1854, and
realised the sum of £1,160 only. On taking the accounts,
there was a deficiency of £505 5s for principal and interest,
and it was proved that this sum was disbursed by the
-seven purchasers who were parties to the bond. It was
'also alleged that. they had paid other siting, amounting
to' £389- 13s 'Bd, for repairs, insurances, interest, expenses
of collecting the contributions, and other charges. Under
these circumstances, the plaintiffs commenced-this action to
enforce contribution from the defendant of his share of such
payment. The claim was strongly resisted by the defendant
.at the hearing, but I am of opinion that the plaintiffs are
'entitled to a verdict ; indeed, there cannot be any valid
'objection to the principles •on which the action is founded.
Both by the express words of the agreement, and on general
principles of law, there was a contract that each purchaser
should bear his proportion of the common liability; and, as
sonic have paid more than that proportion, the law will
imply a promise by the rest to contribute aliquot shares for
repayment. And it is immaterial by whom, of all the parties
liable, such over-payment was made. But I think that an
objection which was taken, that there was no proof that the
payments were, in fact, made, is material. It was, indeed,
proved by Mr. Crossley that £505 5s had been paid for
principal and interest upon the security; but there was
no proof either .of the actual fact of payment, or of the
circumstances under which the remainder of the claim
was paid.'; Mr. Crossley only referred on that point to
the evidence of :ilk Holt, and he only spoke -to the
accounts as drawn up by himself from documents in his
possession; and 'I may remark that some of; the charges
in those accounts appear to be of that nature' that I
should have hesitated before admitting them, even if
' the fact of, payment had been clearly made out, The
remaining objection which was taken V the joinder of
the parties -is certainly strictissimi juris, and points to
the necessity of seven actions against the defendant instead
of the present one. But I think that it cannot prevail as to
those paynaentS which were made in discharge of the prin-
. cipal and interest, and which were proved by Mr. Crossley
to have been made. I consider that such payments were
made in discharge of a joint liability, and, therefore, that
this action may well be joint. I direct, therefore, that the
verdict he entered for the sum of £lO 2s, being one-fifteenth •
part of the sum so proved to have been paid.
INSOLVENCIES.
The following individuals appeared on their petitions,
and had their eases disposed of as follows :
Horatio Nelson MiGrath Williams, supported by Mr.
Chilton, wag unopposed, and had fits nnat order granted.
John Priddin, butcher, supported. by Mr. Campbell, in
the absence of Mr. Worship. The insolvent was opposed
by Mr. Husband, and; after a protracted examination, his
final order was fixectfor the 7th of June.
John Robert'Bell, supported by Mr. Husband, and un-
opposed.ate insol-
vent had his final ^-1 After some examinatioy
_.,„ J tie 7th of June.
• -""JURY CASE:
• LIABILITY OF THE DOCK BOARD FOR SHORT DELIVERY
OF WHEAT— M`HENRY AND OTHERS V. THE Menssy
Dome AND HARBOUR BOARD. —ln this case, the plaintiffs,
Messrs. M'Henry and Co., of this town,' sought to recover
the Sum of £27
,75 ld from the defendants, that being the
value of nineteen, sacks of wheat alleged to have been
short delivered on a quantity of wheat brought to Liverpool
by the Windsor Forest. Mr. Aspinall, instructed by Messrs.
.Hollin'and Son, appeared for the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Danson,
instructed by Mr. North, the solicitor to the dock board, ap-
peared for the defence. Mr. Aspinall, in stating the case,
explained that the action was brought to recover the sum
of .£27 7s id, the supposed value of nineteen sacks of
wheat alleged to been short delivered, out of the carol) of
the Windsor Forest, from the Stanley Dock WareCouse.
Evidence, he said, would be brought forward to show
that the quantity delivered .to the defendants, was not
the quantity delivered by them to the plaintiffs, but that it
was short by the amount stated. There would, he con-
sidered from the evidence, be no difficulty in 'satisfying the
jury that the deficiency was a deficiency which could not be
accounted for on any other ground than that of negligence
or impropriety in the discharge of their duty by the defen-
dants. It would he for the defendants to prove to the jury,
if they 'could, that the deficiency arose from such natural
causes as they could not be supposed capable of eontrouling.
There was no doubt a deficiency of 19 sacks ; the wheat,
it would be shown, was in good condition when it was
disharged, for it was sold at the best market price for that
description of wheat at the period: The Dock
Board, he said, contrary to the practice of every
respectable warehouseman in Liverpool, pursued
a practice very likely to lead to differences
of the kind complained of. He should call several witnesses,
who would prove the condition in which the wheat was
delivered to the defendants, and also as to the absolute
quantity delivered by them as that was found upon
re-weighing. The evidence for the plaintiffs, for whom
several witnesses were called, went to show that the wheat
was in good order when unloaded from the ship in January,
1857, and weighed 4,367 cwt 7 qrs, but on being sold to
Messrs. Richardson and Spence, one month afterwards, and
when re-weighed by them, it was found to weigh only
4,325 cwt 2 qrs 13 lbs, being a deficiency of 41 cwt 1 qr
22 lbs ; the value of which, at 8s 3d per bushel,
amounted to £27 is id. One• of the witnesses, named
Byrne, who had been_ a delivery foreman in the
Stanley-doek warehouses at the time, deposed• that,
when the wheat was originally weighed, there
was a mistake equal to 19 sacks, owing to some of
- the men skipping the wheat into the bulk'. Mr. Danson,
on behalf of the defendants, impugned the testimony of
Byrne as to the facts stated by him,- saying the whole of
them were entirely new to the defendants ; and lie remarked
on the fact that he (Byrne) had been discharged for impro-
per conduct. He stated that not one of the persons in the
employment of the Dock Board had received the slightest
intimation from him of the facts which he-had just stated,
although if these had been true, it was his undoubted duty
to have reported it to his superior 'officers. The evidence
for the defence was to the effect that the wheat was heated
at the time it was taken out of the ship's hold ;
that it was very dusty, and that on these ac-
counts it would naturally lose weight. Further-
more, that the weight alleged to be deficient was not
more than, under such circumstances, might have been.
expected, Mr. Denson claimed to address the jury on the
evidence. dence. Mr. Aspinall objected to, his doing so, stating
that such an application had been again and again refused
inthat court, both by Mr. Pollock and Mr. Blair. He
was aware that the practice in the higher courts was in
favour of Mr. Dansows claim . ; but had been refused in
that court. His Honour said,
looking to the Act regulat-
ing such practice, he found o
thatoil
the direction was general •
no mention was made of superior inferior courts
but contained a general direction that thre counsel four title
defence should, it he claimed it, be a
these circumstances he should accede to Mr. Dansno( e'rs
claim. Mr. Danson then, at great length, addressed the jury,n
commenting on the evidence adduced on both sides. Mr.
Aspi nail replied, and in doing so commented on the fact
that the large diminution which had admittedly taken
PURR ie ,the instance under investigation, was one which