Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-08-27 00:00:00

CAUSE LIST

F1RE,7,11 LIST.—SALFORD 11:13N,DRED.
Flaint'ffe Attorneys. Plaintiffs. Defendants,
2 QB —Slater and Co Hampson and ano (sa) v Haropson..
9 x Svz, Moorhout,e.. (s.) V A lcock
10 QB...Eame•
..3 he Qieen (sa v Spence ..
36 Fx.. Hold en and ETarnE-r (sa) v Knowles and ors ..
20 QB Ar drew .. Mackay and ers.. .ea) v Stephmson . ..llulme an 3. J
31 QB.. Worthington and E.. • . Nowell.. s.;;;:v The MAicr, &c of Virigan .. • • Lora ant A

..Frinc.l; and R.
..1-Tigham an i C
..Fletcher and H

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

SOUTH LANCASHIRE-LIVERPOOL, AUGUST 26.

CROWN COURT.
Ws Lordship, Baron Watson, entered e-mrt at nine
o'c'ock this mornir g, and proe:eded wish the hearirg of civil
eases.

FITZPATRICK V. THE LANCASHIRE AND YORKSFIIRE RAILWAY
COMPAIIY.—In this case, which was an action for (latrines
for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, and less of
bullocks, and which was partly heard on Tuesday night, his
Lordship suggested that it would be very well some
arrangement shou!cl be come to between the parties. The
counsel on either side consulted for a few moments ; after
which, Mr. Atherton, Q C., said, on the part of the
company, that his crents could not admit their liability
for the cat le, but they would consent to a general verdict
for £lOO for the personal injuries, with costs, and
they would not object to make a small allowance for
subsistence money. He stated that the company were no:
aware of the plaintiff's having sustainel such serious
injuries. The plaintiffs counsel having intimated their
acceptance of the proposal, his Lordship rail he was very
glad that an arrangement had been come to, as he saw no
end of litigation in the matter. There ware several nice
points of law involved in the case, as to the breach of
contract, the effect of loss, &e., which must be decided by
another tribunal, and before the plaintiff got anything like
satisfaction, ha would be involved in five or ten times the
expense of the-present action.
Ravels V. Been—This was an action brought to recover
damages for breach of promise of marriage. The pl .intiff
was Miss Elizabeth Raven, and the deferalent was Mr.
Bithngton Bell. It will be perceived that the case was
devoid cf almost all the features; of interest which give a
"spicy" ch9racter to such actions generally. Mr James,
11" Q.C., and Mr. A spinall, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Conway represented the defendant, Mr. Aspinall stated
the case, from wheli it appeared that the pleintiff was the
daughter of a master mariner, who had formerly lived in
Whitehaven. but mote recently in Liverpool. The Vain-
tiff and her sister were milliners, and also took in lodgers;
and it so happened that the defendant, who was now a per-
son in a respectable position in life, and manager of a
colliery at a place called Broughton Hall, but who was then
in by no means good circumstances, became a tenant. This
was in 1849. An attachment sprung up between the
plaintiff and defendant, but the parties were at that time
by no means anxious to marry, but were waiting in the
Lope that defendant's circumstances might improve, and
that by his industry and attention to his pursuits, he being
then a clerk to a corn merchant, he might
realize sufficient to support a wife. It unfortunately
happened, however, that through illness and other causer,
instead of becoming better his prospects became consider-
ably worse. He remained for some y, are in the h Jose of
the plaintiff and hog sister, whose kindness to him was
exceedingly g set. He was allowed by them to remain in
the house, although he had contracted a very considerable
debt, and they tick care of him and suffered him to live
upon them for some years. Some time after he got a
situation at a considerable distance from them, at a place
called Broughton Hall, near Wrexham. When this
removed
.from the plaintiff he soon forgot h's attachment.
He met some other parson, for whom he contracted a in re
recent. if not a more sincere attachment, and very shortly
after he had gone to the colliery, the plaintiff was very
mush surprised at hearing that he had actually married
another woman. The plaintiff went over to see him. A'
good deal of reproach took place, but the defendant, feel-
-mg, no doubt, as any man must, the injury which he had
inflicted upon the plaintiff by h s conduct, wrote her in
her own presence, a latter which the jury would hear read
to them. This document was the on'y letter which
passed between the parties, for the feet that they were
always so much together far so many years precluded the
necessity of exchanging letters. Air. Aspinall then read
the letter, which was as follows : Southsea, 31st May,
1854. My dear Elizabeth, as long as I live and have the
power, I 'will be your friend, having ganed your affectons
and promised marriage for upwards of five years, and I
shall not fail to write to you very often, with an enclosure,
as I am very scae y for the part I have acted towards you
knowing I have blighted your happiness. I now promise
to make you all the amends in my power, provided you do
as I have wishei you, and that you promise to look upon
my wife as a sister. Should I fail to do so, you are tnen
at liberty to do as yon please and to use your own die-
cretion.—Your's, very faithfully until death, &c. At that
very time the defendant was indebtod to the le aintiff and
her sister in a very large sum of money, for board and
lodging. He remitted from time to time 134, of which
£l7 was towards the debt, and £l7 for compensation to
the young lady. He then ceased his remittances, and this
sum being considered altogelher too small fur the
injury he bad inflicted, the 'resent action was
accordingly brought. His Lordship asked if the parties
could not arrange between themselves the amount of
damages. If the letter read was genuine, there was an
end of the case, so far as aoy issue was concerned. Toe
case was quite hopeless if that was- a genuine letter. Mr.
Conway said the defendant west not present, and !here was
some difficulty, therefore, about coming to an arrangement.
His Lordship : Well, then, go on. Miss Anne R=aven,
sister of the, plaintiff was examined, and briefly proved the
facts stated. 31r. James, QC , having spoken on behalf
of the plaintiff; and Mr. stonwey having eddressed the
jury for tho defendant in mitigation of damages, his lord-
ship summed up, and- the jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff—damages £lOO
CALLAN V JAMESON —Mr. Aspinall opened the pleadings,
and lir James, Q.C, stated the case. The plaintiff, a
saek.ng dealer in Liverpool, soueht to recover damages
from the defendant, a military officer, now retired, and
living at Roby, for an act of trespass. The plaintiff, in
March last, tock a cottage bslongieg to defendant, at Roby,
at a rent cf 3s 6d per week for twelve mouths, the rent to
be paid monthly. The Plaintiff lock possession, and the
tenancy commenced on the ninthof March 1857. The first
month's lent was paid on the %.b. of April, 1857. It
would appear that after this the plaintiff was one day
coming fa-one Liverpool by the railway, and had a couple
of hens alone with him. The defendant met hineat the
station, and objected to his keeping hens, laying if he
kept them he should turn out. Ttie plaintiff said he
had taken the place for twelve months, and he would not
turn cur. On the 12th of May the defendant called for
his rent, which was duo upon the 9,h. The pliintiff had
left a sovereign for the purpose of paying the four weeks'
rent. When the servant offered it to the def ndant he
said he had not got any change, and tbat it did not matter
at all. The next day the plaintiff; knowing that the
lefendant had objected to the hens, left the exact amount
of rent, 143, with the servant. The servant endeavoured
to see the defendant, bat could not see him. On the 19th
of May, without any further intimation, the defendant's
bailiffs came to the house, demanding five weeks' rent,
17s. 6d. and costs. They refused to wait until she e eat
to Liverpool to see her master, saying that all taey wanted
was possession of the premises. Finally, thee turned her
cat of the house and locked the door. Mr. Cole, who
appeared for the defence, contended that there was no
engagement to lot the cottage for twelve months ; that it

• sima
• Cooper and Sacs

SECOND LIST.—WEST DERBY HUNDRED.
3 Q8..1.,,,wm'es and Co ... .. Smith .. (9.1) v rile Yonng and QB..Race ide .• ..Brown and ano (sJ) v Laic. wet' . ..StorioCo
5 Ex... " o'y • . .. • • .. ..Peet .. • . • . ..v Ha lam .. • • .. Henry
S QB..Binney.. •.. Yeomans .. v Gray and ors.. .. .. Chambers and iirj
10 Ex.— it XI ells . LBof Id ealth King upon Hull (r) v T Ho se of Hull.. E b Wilson
11 Ex— Cowson and Co .. . (sJ) v Beattie ..
;5 CP— Grimmer —Same .v Frown
16 CPL.J Y,tcs jun.. .. ..MeManus v Lan. and York. Railway Co
17 CP.. Same .. • . (rJ) v Barber
15 Ex..., tamp and J Parkes: rth acd ano (ea) v Mason ...
19 Ex... Pell and Holmes .. ..v Kidd and ano .• ..EV2ns a'i Eon
20 QB.. Statham and. Co .• ..`z• lemon ..v Rawns ey Irrier!ey
32 Ex... Barrow Manley admix ...v St Eviens anal and Rail Co .. Whin y
23 Ex—.game Hawkrey v Carter
24 QB.. Ho'.den and Son ... ..Woolhcroft v Watron
„Bell and S
25 Ex.. . T Ees,-Larn ...Fastham . •• v Whaley .. • • .. ..Colt4n and B
i 6 Ex...FletcLe, and H —Taylor (5.7) v Neal and
2$ CP...1 P Mnrreaigh —Hargreaves . • • .. ..v Thorn at Chester and Co
20 Ex,..Thackera'i Fitzpatrick. .. • . ..v Lan. and York. Railway Co ..Lewin on :Co
21 CP J Tate; jun .. Raven .• • . ..v Bell .. PembertonCP..Sarne
..v Jameson .. . Ward
33 QB.. It Stevenson .• .. —Ye d (s.) v Lon. and N. West Bail. Co.. ..Swift and Co
34 F x... Rowe Warirr: jun.. .. v Everth Woodcock and Co
ZS Ex—Heald
••..v •
Acton .. • • ..Leigh
3$ CPL.ltlai khnrst .. Wright
.• ..v C ov:es
37 QB..Carron and E..• • .. ?rooks and ors exors 7 c.. ..v Bainbecice ..Pr and Co
32 QB.. Moss and .. • • .. Samnelton and ors ~ (ss) vll ins ai.cl ors.. .. .Preston
BO C'P.• Good win and .. Cooke v Wilson and ano owndes and Co
41 CPL Fenwic.: .Vc,se admix ... ..v Lan. and Yorx. Railway Co . ..T Aa.d J G undy
44 CP.. J Yatcs, jun.. .. .. Wright •and ano ..v Kirby.. .• • • Hinds
42 R Moore Seott and aro .. .. • . ..v Hernanasn
44 P..r vans and 2on Stevens and ano ..v •
Clementton
45 QB.. C and II Frost Wadswor h ..v Well=.. Wells and S
47 Ex—Lb-Mbar ar,d 1.. .. Higgin
..v Robins .. Chilcott
.. Hatton and ano .v •••. S,aikle on and Co
4 Ex...Cohtvay.. Neisnn (as) v Seddon .. Holden and Son
CPLA tamer and Son.. .. Waddington adnaor ..v Lan. and Yora. -Railway Co. _ll and W Ascrott
41ame ,
,„ „.
..v Same.. (demurrer) Same
52 QB..Littleda/e and B Pemberton Arkin and ano..
53 CP.. Peg ie ..Buxton . v Venn and ano.. .• Francis and A
54 Ea .T , Smith .. ••CollinS Murphia - •
„Sw.ft and Co
$5 CFL.Ectekbon
•e Saaar and ano ..v Brent:land and ano .. Sale and Co
$5 CPL .S.- me .. • . ..Snme v same..
•(demurrer) Same
47 CPL.ssme . • • • • • • • Sagav • • • • • • • • • • - • •• v &me.- •
• • • • • •• - • • • • Same
CP .Snowball .. • • ..Woodhead v I,lackhurst W Blackhurat
59 IPL.Breihe ton .. ..A.ssop ..v Yates.
.Ward
41 FA— Cab —Giant • • .v Denham . .. • .
QB..Littledaie end. Co .. Day es ... ..v Crirchley
_Holden and Son
03 Ex...ltarber.. Weisman ..v aylor Hiebam and C
64 Ex... Co-way.. Nelsnn •
..v Brownel and ano and P
Ex— .T S Smith Muir ead .. • . v Moore end ano. ..J B Lloyd
47 CPL-. 11 and t% Ascrott ..p..B]ackburn and ano Adam: arat Co

Darendants' Attozneys.

was taken at a weekly rent, and that a week's notice was
given to him, to remove. The jury found for the plaintiff,
with £25 damages.
WARING, jun., v. EVERT!! —Mr. Aspland opened the
pleadings, and Mr. James, Q.C.. stated the case. The
action was brought by the plaintiff', an agent for the supply
of bone dust, against Mr. Ever,h, the proprietor of bone-
geindirg millet to recover damages for injury done to a
quantity of bones entrusted to the defendant to grind
The &legation was, that a quantity of foreign and noxious
matter was mixed with the bone-dust, which caused the
plaintiff to lose the advan age of a contract he bad made
with Mr. Scatter. the agent of the Earl of Darby. In the
early part of 185 G, the plaintiff imported from South
America a large quantity of bones, which ho contracted
with defendant to grind, at lOs. a ton. He also entered
into a contract with Mr. Stater, to supply 100 tons of
bone-dust, at ..E7 10g. a ton, of which samples had been
previously submitted to Mr. Statter, and, after analysis,
approved of by him. The ground bones were delivered to
the plaintiff by defendant in due course, and two quantities,
together amounting to about 20 tons, were forwarded by
the former to Mr. Statter. The plaintiff, however, received
back a telegraphic message from Mr. Scatter to the effect
that the bone dust was not equal to sample, and that it
was adulterated. The plaintiff wrote at once to the de-
fendant enclosing the telegraphic message, and received a
reply from the defendant's manager, stating that there
mast be some mistake, as there had been no adulteration,
but that the bones when received contained, as shown to
the plaintiff at the time, a large quantity of old iron,
stones, and bricks. In order to make up for the rejection
of these, the writer stated that he ordered to be putin each
ton of bones about half a hundred weight of gypsum
Tne plaintiff replied that be did not expect gypsum to be
substituted, and that defendant had no right to substitute
it. Mr. Statter refused to take any more, as the contract
had bean brckeu, and would only give for the quantity
already received £G 3s 9J, instead of 101 per ton.
About 40 tons in addition, which had been forwarded to
Mr. Statter, he refused to receive, and they were left at
the railway station. The plaintiff (Mr. Statter) and the
defendant conferred as to the disposal of this bone du-t,
as the railway authorities demanded its removal. It was
finally agree i that the defendant should take the bone
dust front the plaintiff at cost price, £G 21 GI per
ton, The plaintiff now claimed compensation for the
loss he had sustained upon the quantity delivered to Mr.
Statter, in the difference between the price for which he
had originally contracted, and the price which he had to
agree to accept. Mr. Millward, who appeared for the
defence, contended that the arrangement made about the
quantity of bone-dust lying at the railway station was a
final adjustment of all claims. The jury found for the
plaintiff the amount claimed.
Vose v. THE LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY
COMPANY —Mr. Aspinall opened the pleadings, and Mr.
Overend, Q.O , stated the case. It was an action broueht
by Alice `rose to recover compensation for the loss of life
of her hush tad who was killed, as it was alleged, by the
car-dessneas of one of the servants of the Lancashire and
Yorkshire Railway Company. The deceased man was in
the employment of the East Lancashire Railway Company,
as a backsmith, and was about forty years' old at the
time of his death. The East Lancashire Company and the
defendants have a station in common in Tithebarn-street,
and use the earns rails up to the Walton Junction.
Half-way between these stations there is the Great How-
ard-street goods station, and dote t:djoining are two
sidings, one on the west belonging to the East Lancashire
Company, one on the east to the defendants. On the 10th
of January the deceased was engaged with another man in
putting a buffer upon a waggon belonging to the East
Lancashire emptily at their siding. Au engine and
tender belonging to the defendants were engaged in shunt-
ing some waggons. The driver, it was stated, did not
weistle when the engine was corn'ng near the siding. The
engine struck the waggon where the deceased was at work,
and he was killed.

The plaintiff's case had not concluded when the court
aaj)urned.

NISI PRIUS COURT.
BEFORE MR. BACON MINN/ELL AND A SPECIAL JURY.
MACKAY si o OPIIERS v BTIMISNSON.-011 the sitting of
the court at nine o'clock, this cause was resumed. Mr. W.
Askwith, the proprietor of the King's Head, Salford,
deposed that Me. Hunt, the assured, had visited his house,
and dined almost daily there for many years. He always
appeared to enjoy good health. Mrs. Hunt, the widow of
the deceased gentleman, and Miss Elizabeth Hunt, his
eldest daughter, were also examined as to the state of his
health. They deposed that he had invariably enjoyed
gold health, except one or two attacks of bile. They never
heard of his having an attack of brain fever until
of er his decase, when they heard of it front the
agents of the cohipany. This concluded the plaintiff s
case. Mr. Hill, Q.C., then addressed the jury for the
defence. He said that he would be able to show that the
deceased withheld important information as to his
health at the time the policy was ccmpleted. and that
he had himself admitted that he was recovering from an
attack of brain fever; and that, when his bankers desired
him to obtain a policy on his life, he replied that it would
be impossible, as no office would insure him his health
was so bad. Dr. Risk was examined, On his dicect
examination, he said that the deceased's illness at
Blackpool was brain-fever ; but on cross-examination he
admitted that it might be congestion of the brain, or an
effict of a severe bilious attack. Dr. Clayton, who also
saw the deceased at Blackpool, said that he considered
he had been labouring under severe inflammation. of the
brain, and that is was calculated to have a permanent
effect on the system, rendering the brain more liable to
disease —Mr. Henry Winterbottom deposed to the death
of the deceased, from apoplexy, in July, 1856.—Sir Jas.
Birdsley, Medical Referrae of the Economic Life Assur.
auce Company, stated that the deceased, when he pre-
sented himself far examination, did not say anything
about his illne3s at Biaekpool. He had not heard from
any one about the illness at Blackpool, er he should cer-
tainly have considered it his duty to have instituted strict
inquiries respecting the residual effects of such a malady
which was I,k.ely to leave residual effects. On cross-exa-
mieseion, he said, when he spoke of residual effects, he
m =ant rather with regard to acuteinflammationof thebr,in
than brain fever H did not discover any symptoms of
organic disease when the deceased presented himself for
examination. Dr. Nola!e was examined, and expressed it
as his opinion that the deceased had suffered from au
acute attack of inflammation of the brain. On cross-exami-
nation, he said that the disease at Blackpool might hive
been produced by the deceased's bathing and conducting
himself as described whilst suffering under a bilious
attack. He had, however, a positive opinion that it was
nOt mere congestion of the brain. Mr. Gwathorpe,
accenetant and general agent, of Manchester, produced
a letter w:eich the deceased wrote to him on the
13th September, 1855, in reference to the settlement of
some claim. In this letter he spoke of haviug been
confl -ed to bed for about three weeks with brain fever.—
Mr. Edward Atkinson, inspector of the Provincial Bank
of E gland, deposed that when, in September, 1855, he
Dressed the deceased to insure his life in accordance with
the promise which he had given to the bank, he replied