Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-10-13 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.

Mr. Pollock entered C. at ha'f-past tetn o'clock yes-
terday, and proceeded to deliver jn3g neat in some cases
which had been standing over fir some time.
ITKINNELL V. THE LONDON NoRT ti 'WESTERN RAILWAY
COMPANY.—This was a case affecting the liability of the
Company, as carriers, which was tried some time since
His Honour directed a verdict to be entered for the
plaint iff.
\Yams v, THE SAME; ABBOTT V. SAME ; CYTTER V.
SAME; IVAN'S V. SAME —These acti,ns rested upon the
same point, and were decided by the judgment in the pre-
ceding case. •
Bauoit V THE T ONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RATLWAT
COMPANY.— His Honour remarked that this WAS a very
peculiar case. The plaintiff, a cigar manufacturer, of
Liverpool, sent a box of &gars to a correspondent in
Newark. Inside the box there was sent a card, belonging
to the consignee to be taken out and fastened upon the
outside of the box when it was being returned, so that it
should be returned as what was called an empty package,
free of charge. The cigars were found to be unequal to
the sample, and were sent back in the box to Liverpool.
Bat by some accidoot the card, which was to
be fastened upon the box only incase it was retuned
empty, was fes•ened cutside, althouqh the cigars were
in. ide The box was charged by the railway company
as a box of cigars, and safely for warded to Liverpool,
where it arrived. When it arrived, however, finding it
marked as empty, the porters p'aced it in the usual
deposit for empty packages. It was sought for some
time in vain, and when it was at length discovered the
cigars were found to be spoiled. The question was,
whether the railway company were liable for the
negligence, as between the company and their servants
there might be some cause for supposing a slight deg-ee
of negligence, but as bate een the company and the
consigner his Honour Paid, he had arrived at the
conclusion, that the consigner had materially contributed
to the mistake made by the company's servants, and
having so contributed by the aid of his agent in affixing a
card marked empty to a box really co ;mining valuable
property, he was not entitled to rec ever. His Honour,
therefore, gave a verdict fit the defendatrs, without costs
PoLvp.a.v CHAPMAN —His Honour said this was a
very peculiar case, into the merits of which he did flit
intend to enter, and he should bequeath to his succeasor
the pleasure of investigatirg it. It involved a very
considerable amount of Admiralty lees, and some dispute I
facts. He had adjourned the case that evidence might be
produced more fully, and inasmuch as the evidence had
not yet been producetke thought it better that the case
should be re-heard by his strcessor.
Trims v M'CORQUOD ALE.—In this case His Honour
said the doctrine contended for was, that a man who
bought goods, which ho ex ,acted to be of a given quality,
who received the goods, and after ascer:aining them to be
of inferior quality, kept them an unreaeonable time, and
disposed of hem to another, was afterwards entitled to
give in evidence in reduction of damages for the inferior
condition of the goods. His Honour was of opinion that
the defendant having retained the goods for an unreason-
able_
able time, and disposed of them, was precluded by his own
act frOm such a defence, and must be taken to have
acquiesced in the contract. A verdict was therefore given
for the plaintiff'.
A LIARDYCIO v Pot.—Verdict for defendant.
GEEMAEN v Cnaiteze.—This case 'stands over to be
re-argued. .
Julgement was also given in one or two cases of no
public interest.