Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-03-24 00:00:00

VOCALIST.

The Grand Jury have returned three bills of indictment
against Archibald Mann, for an abominable offence.

NISI PRIUS COURT.
Mr. Justice Byles took his seat on the bench at nine
o'clock this morning, and proceeded with the hearing of
civil causes.

Sunni v. SMITH. —This action, in which the plaintiff s
case concluded at the rising of the court last night, was
resumed. The defendant was examined, and deposed that
he had paid the whole of the claim which his brother had
against him, arising out of their mother's will. He stated
that he paid the amount by instalments at various periods,
and in confirmation of his statement he Ireduced a document
which contained the following words : This is to certify
that Tim Smith has paid all demands to Abel Smith, April
12, 1839." This document bore signatures which defendant
deposed to be those of his brother, the plaintiff, and of a
witness named Hanson. The defendant denied that he had
ever undertook to pay interest upon the amount claimed,
and positively declared that the memorandum produced
yesterday by the plaintiff, and purporting to be an acknow-
ledgment of the debt with interest was not in his
handwriting. The witness referred to, Hanson, was also
examined and confii med the statement of the defendant. In
it•liv.:r to Mr. Atherton, witness said he sometimes signed
his name Hanson and sometimes Anson. (Laughter.) He
did not know why he sometimes left out the " H."
(Laughter.) Many people spelt it both ways. His Lord-
ship : I suppose becanse many people pronounce it both
ways. • (Laughter.) A woman named Hannah Smith,
sister of the parties, deposed that the plaintiff frequently
came to the defendant's house and received, payments in
money. She also stated that she saw the plaintiff aid the
witness Hanson sign the document referred to above. This
clos d the case for the defence. More dieectly contradictory
e ;idea e than that which the case on both sides disclosed .t
would be scarcely possible to conceive. His Lordshir, in
summing up the evidence, dwelt especially upon the docu-
mentprofessins to be the acknowledgment of the debt of
principal and interest from the defendant. This document
was on a piece of blue wove paper, and was dated March,
1838. His Lordship said, on looking at the paper against
the light, an observation at once occurred to him. The
water mark upon it bore the first three figures of a date.
He would, therefore, before expressing any opinion himself,
hand it to the foreman of the jury, and ask him what the
third figure of the water-mark was. The Foreman having
looked at the document declared that it was clearly the
figure 5. His Lordship said he was decidedly of the same
opinion, and that so much of the water-mark date as 185
was decidedly ciscernible. Mr, Atherton (plaintiff's counsel)
took the paper, and having examined it, declared the figure
to be, in his opinion, 3. Mr. Russell (for plaintiff also)
expressed a similar opinion, amid much laughter. Mr.
Monck and Mr. Willward, for defendant, were
of the opinion that the disputed figure was 6. His Lord-
ship said, as counsel upon either side had given their
opinions according to the emergencies of their cases—
(laughter) —he should press the document again up to the
uy. SeveiarJuroi s having looked at the paper declared
that the figure was 5. One Juror said he believed blue
wove paper •was an invention of more recent date than
1838. His Lordship said, so far as he could at present
judge, it appeared to him that that document which pur-
ported to have been written in March, 1838, was written
(Ai paper whose water-mark showed a date, at least,
subsequent to 1850. His Lordship then proceeded to
C imment upon several other passages, and concluded by
commending to their especial attention the document upon
which so much discussion had airpsiiv pinro. The
~nei a very few minutes consideration, found a
verdict for the defendant. His Lordship : Is that
a 5, gentlemen, or a 3 ? The Foreman : It is a 5,
my lord. His Lordship : Are you all agreed upon that
point ? The Foreman : All, my lord. His Lordship :
There really can be no doubt about it. The Foreman :
None whatever.
HoLT v. BANKS.—This was an action to recover damages
upon an al!eged warranty of a horse. The plaintiff and
defendant were both farmers, residing in different parts of
the county. The case for the plaintiff was, that the first
,
transaction in reference to the purchase of the horse took
place at the fair in Preston, where the plaintiff saw the
defendant's horse in the Castle Inn stables. Some negocia-
tion took place about the purchase of the horse, for which
the defendant asked £3O, or 30 gnineas, and the plaintiff
offered a smaller sum. The plaintiff asked the defendant
to allow the horse to be tried in the streets, but the de-
fendant refused, saying he would not allow his horse to be
dragged about. The bargian did not proceed that
day, but on the following day the transaction was
renewed. The plaintiff said he wanted a good sound
horse, fit for drawing timber, and the case for the plaintiff
was that defendant distinctly told him the horse was sound
and fit for such a purpose. It was then agreed that £2B
should be given for the horse ' • and the bargain was made
and the money paid over. Plaintiff stipulated that the
horse should be tried under a cart in defendant's presence,
and the defendant went for a cart. He did not, however,
return, and plaintiff could hear no tidings of him. It
appeared that he had got over a wall at the back of the
stables and so went away. When they, went to examine
the horse they found, they found he had some difficulty in
getting up, and upon looking at him more closely, it was
found that he had a lame back. He was not fit for the
purposes for which the plaintiff required him, and was
shortly afterwards sold for a much smaller sum, the defen-
dant having in the meantime been written to, and having
efused to take the horse back. This was the case
for the plaintiff, which was conducted by Mr.
Attorney Bliss and Mr. Aspland ; Mr. Seger,
Q.C., and Mr. Aster appearing for the defence.
The ground of the defence was simply that there was no
warranty whatever, and that the plaintiff had offered to
take the horse with all his faults. An ostler employed in
the stables deposed that he had urged the defendant to get
out of the stables by the back way, because he stated that
lie was afraid the old man (the defendant) might be tricked
or in some way harmed by the plaintiff and the " gang" he
saw with him. The hearing of the case occupied a consider-
able time. His Lordship having summed up, the juay
re-
tired to, consider their verdict.