Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-08-10 00:00:00

COUAT OF PASSAGE.--YEsTERDAT

(Before R JAMES, Esq., Q.C., Assessor..)
RICIIARDS V. RODERTS.—The plaintiff, Wm. Richards,
in this case was formerly a linen and woollen draper,
carrying on business in this town ; and the• defendant,
Charles Roberts, carried on business as an auctioneer in
Great Homer-street. Mr. Fenwick appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr: `Williams for the defendant. The action
was brought to recover compensation for loss sustained by
the defendant selling a quantity of linen and woollen drapery
at a.lower price than ,he had engaged to do. The reserve
prices amounted to £5O 135., and the goods only realised

Setlel SOS. Is was UOllLeuut:". --- -
price was fixed, and that the defendant was to do the best
he could ; and, further, that the words "without reserve"
were put in the catalogues, also in advertisements; in presence
of, the plaintiff. ,The jury.retutned h verdict for the plaintiff
fnr ,Al 2 155.. the full amount claimed

This action was

n ff Robert Davidson,.-wa
ecial 7,NTheANIDaiAI,JOI:II DAVIDSON
111 , atehaven,
and formerly. resided Wif
atr
ji.eodurnb by
ysmap.
but was since an the employ of thedefendants, and the action
was brought to recover.compensataon for an 'allemed:breach
of contract on the part 'of the. defendants,: the ontract
being that they had engaged to provide the plaintiff- with
twelve months work. Mr. Aspinall and Mr. Williams
appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Brett for the defendants
It appeared that an the beginning of last year the defendants,
in consequence of the strike among, the sawyers, caused an
-advertisement to be -put into the Whitehaven papers. for
twelve pairs of hands. The plaintiff replied to that adver-
t tisement, and as the advertisement stc.ted that twelve
_mouths' work was guaranteed,, he disposed of his effects in
Whitehaven, and came across to Liverpool. After three:
:weeks'. work, the plaintiff said the men who had been out'
on strike began to, come in to work, and the work for the
new men consequently diminished. They were paid by
the piece, and suffered' considerable loss in consequence of
not being fully employed. Instead of earning about 355.

He was ci

and vas unemployed from that date until

the rebruary of this year. When he was turned o.
Mr. Bland, one, of the defendants, offered him £1 as com.
pensation, but he demanded that he should either have
constant employment or pay to the end of the year. Mr.
Bland replied that he would not pay men for walking about.
The plamtiff, on cross-examination, admitted that he was
working over-time for about a month, but even then much
a time was lost in wa'`' "-- work. It was contended for

e was a

ways p,

chosen. to do it, .anc

hey. hac

sessed ordinary .skill they would have earned from. £3, to £4
per week, each pair. Mr. Royden,. jun., was examined.
He said the men had
.plenty of work, and up, to the
beginning of October or the latter end of September
the men had been . working over-time. He then
stopped the . over-time. 2n cl n.that. thrtrA was

sufficient work to employ the .men during the
ordinary working hours. The men complained of want
of work; and the plaintiff, with several other men, who had
come from Whitehaven, said they ..would leave. He did not
turn them off ; b b-

, out he said. he -1;:ould let them go if they
chose in a month or so, and he would give them Z 1 to.pay
their expenses home, which they said would be sufficient.
They refused this, and said they must have more,'or they
would bring an action. To this he replied that they might

JONES' 2'; BuuuES&—The'plaintiff in this action,
.Charles
Muirhead Jones, was .a commission agent, and the defend-
ant was a gentleman who owned a piece of landin White-
field-road, which he wanted to sell fi
The p

0 r r
intiff was employed.to dispwe of.theland at 21 per
minision. The plaintiff, after several negoe cations,

from
,1854 till 18.57, introduced a

named: Hug

Mi. Hughes

ivere sold for £4,825, the per Centage on which was £l2O,
the amount claimed. The jury returned a verdict for the
full amount claimed.

COLLISION ON TILE RIVER.—COLBORN -AND ANOTHER V.
THE RIGHT HON. BARON EEURY AND OTHERS.-The
plaintiffs in this case, Messrs. Colborn, are the proprietors
.of the New Brighton and Egremont ferry, boats ; and the
action was brought. to recover compensation for damage
done in a collision which took place, on the river, between
the plaintiff's boat James Atherton, and the defendant's
boat the Alice, arising, as was alleged, from negligence on
the sart of the defendant's servants. Messrs. Aspinall and
R. II es appeared for the plaintiffs, and Messrs. Brett and
Deighton for the defendants. About seven o'clock- on the
evening of the 30th January last, the James Atherton was

at Liver!