Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-08-28 00:00:00

SIfiCOND LIST.-WEST DERBY HUNDRED.

I...qrß...LOwnees and Co
Qll.. Rade itre

. —Brown and ano .. .. ..

6 Ex.— ••ohy .. • • • . ..Peet .
QB..Binney.. • • • • ..Yeomans
/4 Fa... it Wells • • ..L Bof Health King upon Hull (s.r)
11 Ex... Eowson and Co .. ..linghten . (sr)
16 CP ..Grimmer —Same
CPL.J Yates jun— .. .. ..Mt•Manus
17 CP.. Same (s.i)
10 Ex... tamp and J Barkworth and ano (sr)
22 Ex... Pell and S Holmes
70 QB.. Statham and Co .. Solomon
12 Ex... Barrow .. Manley admix ..
.13 Ex... Same ..Hawkny
34 QR.. Holden and Son ... Wool iscroft
33 Ex... T Eastham ...Eastham . • .
34 Xx... Fletcher and H .. —Taylor .. (s.y)
211 CP ..J P Mnri,tigh —Hargreaves . • • ..
3 Ex,..Tht.ckerah Fitzpatrick.. .
21 CP ..J Tate 3
.11111 . . . . . Raven .. .
32 CP..Same ..Callan
33 QB..R Stevenson ......Ted .. (sr)
34 J. x... Rows ..Waring Jun .
34 Ex...Ffee.ld 0' Nail ..
CPL.Blackhurst Wright
37 QB..Carson and E Brooks and ors exors 8 c .
33 QB.: Moen and f,.. Samuelson and. ors .. (sr)
30 CP—Goodwin and A Cooke (3.7)
CPL.Fenwick ..Vose admix ... .
23 CP.. J Yates, jun.. Wright and ano
41 Ex.. R Moore .. ..S,ott and ano
44 CP.. Evans and Son .. Stevens and ano
QB.. C and H Frost .. Wadsworth ..
Ex...Fl, tcher and H.. • . Higgin ••
Ex. —Bcoker.. .. Hatton and ano
4 Xs— .Coit way.. .. —Nelsen
10 CPL.Turner and Son.. .. Waddington aclmor
11 C L.. ame . . . . . . . Same
32 QB ..Littledals and B. .. Pemberton

it CP.. Bogie ..Bnaton .
14 Ex...T 8 Smith .. ..Collins
$5 CPL.Tla,klionte Sagar and ano
C.PL.Same Same .. • ..
ST C PL.Sa me Sagar . ,
11 CPL.Snowball .. • • ..Woodhead
11 IPL.Brethe-ton ..2Vsop
SI Es.... Cobb ..Grant .
0 $l3 L ittledale tad Co .. Day es ...
4$ Ea., .Barber.. ..Wellman .
64 Ex... Co ,way..
Ex... T S Smith
CPL.I", and W Ancrott ..9..Elackburn and ano

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

SOUTH LANCASHIRE-LIVERPOOL, AUGUST 27.

CROWN COURT.

Mr. B Watson entered court at nine o'clock this
Atorning, and resumed the hearing of

Y 0816). THE LANCASHIRE AND -fORKSITIRE RAILWAY COM-
7ANT.—Mr. Pickering, Q.C., contended cn the part-of the
defendants that the negligence, if any existed, was not
attributable to the pery flute of the company. Ho urged that
'the neglect was on the part of the deceased man himself
not having given notice that he was about to work on the
aiding, or else to the point4man or shuntsman employed
by the East Lancashire Company. He denied that the
eneine-driver of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Company,
erh% had received no warning that any person was on the
siding, cou!cl be held responsible far the accident which had
occurred. The jury found for the plaintiff—damages £3lO.
HATTON AND ANOTHER ?". ROYLE —Mr. Brett stated the
case for the plaintiff; from which it appeared that the de-
fen lent, who was a shipbuilder, wbo was now in partner-
'hip with Mr. Clover, but who prior to the dispute which
was the subject matter of the present action, was partner
of Mr. Robertson, under the title of Robertson and Royle.
This firm had various business transactions with
the plaintiffs, Messrs. Hatton and Cookson, of Liver-
pool, for whom they ware in the habit of doing work
• the repairs of ship& Some years ago, Messrs. Hobert.
ion and Boyle got into diffieulties, and a meeting of their
=editors took place, at which they were bath present, and
at which the creditors agreed to a composition of 15s in
the pound. On the sth of December, 1850, an agreement
vas drawn up to this effect, and it was also agreed that
Xr. Robertson should collect the debts which were then
tine to the firm, and should apply them to pay the compo-
vitien. As that naeting, the names of the present plain-
tiffs, Messrs. Hatton and Cookson, ware put down as
debtors to the firm. An action was subsequently broug'it
in the name of Messrs. Robertson and Royte, against the
present plaintiffs. This action was referred, in 1850, to
Mr. Massy, to make an award. Mr. Massy was a ship-
builder, who hed once been the foreman of Messrs.
Robertson and Boyle, and the action was referred to his
arbitration in consequence of his knowledge of the affairs.
Tee reference was made it was contended by the plaintiffs,
-with the full knowledge an-1 consent of Mr. _Hoyle, who
would have been a gainer if the award had been in his
favour, as the amount reccvered would have gone to pay
Ste composition. On the Ist of Sept , 18.56, the arbi-
trator gave his award against Messrs. Robertson
mid Moyle, and in favour of the defendants, who
were plaintiffs in the present action. The award was
made a rule of court, and the costs were taxed to £4O ls. ?
Mr. Robertson left the company and the partnership was
dissolved. The plaintiff made a demand upon defendant
far the costs, and then were told that he was no party to
the action which was brought against them, and that he
had nothing t 3 do with the award or the payment of costs.
The present action was accordingly brought to recover the
meta under the award made a rale of court. A verdict
vas taken for the plaintiff, subject to a special case to be
3)11:led as to the right of Robertson to collect the debts in
e name of the firm. Mr. Atherton, Q C., and Mr. Brett,
were for the plaintiffs, and Mr. James, Q.C., with Mr.
-Upland for defendant.
PEMBERTON V. ARKLE.—The plaintiff in this case was
Miss Isabella Pemberton, and the defendant was Mr.
Cteorge Arkle, of the firm of Leyland, Bnlien, and Co.,
bankers, of King-street, Liverpool. Mr. Aspinall stated
the case for the plaintiff, from which it appeared that a
young Russian merchant, named Stephanoff, who settled
in Liverpool, obtained an introduction to the defendant, and
(tarried s n basiness transactions to a very large extent.
Atr. Stephanoff became acquainted with the plaintiff, Miss
Pecnberton, and took a house for her in Sir Howard.
street, Liverpool, where she received his visits and
lived under his protection. At the time of his taking
the house fur her Stephanoff also gave her a quantity of
furniture and some plate. She got into bad health and
went to live for some time at Broad Green, in the
aeli,ghbourhood of Liverpool. During that time the fur.
elture was warehoused for her by Mr. Stephinoff. She
afterwards came back to Live-p-,01 and took a house in
ifelville-place. to which tae furniture that had been
warehouse.' for her was removed with some additional
birnitnre. The connection between her and Mr. Ste-
hanoff appeared to cease, for during the time of her
residence in Meville-plsce she only received about .E 1
from him, and finally he discontinued his visits altogether.
Mr. Stephanoff subsequently became bankrupt. and Mr.
Atkle, who was one of his creditors, was appointed
assignee. Mr. Arkle tent a bankruptcy messenger to
Miss Pemberton's house, to take possession of her
furniture. The messenger remained eight days in the
house and took the key, of it, to recover damages for
the trespass—this action was accordingly brought. Miss
Isabella Pemberton, the plaintiff, a very mild and
demure looking young lady, was examined and stated
that in March 18;5,5, Mr. Stephanoff took a house
.tor her in Sir Howse d. street, and furnished it
for her. Ehe always paid the rent and taxes herself..
Mr. Stephanoff at the time lived in Mount-street, and
afterwards at Ilayton. In June 1856, she herself went
to live at Broad-green, and when she left her house
be Sir Howard-street, Mr. Stephanhoff put her furniture
in a warehouse. She remained et Broad green until
,October 1856, when she took a house in Melville-place.
Her furniture was taken out of the warehouse, and the
'warehouse rent was paid by a friend, not Mr Stephanoff.
This furniture was put into the house at Melville-place,
along with some other furniture which she got from a
friend, not Mr. Stephanoff. During her residence in
Melville-place she only got about £1 from Mr. Stephanoff.
She always paid the rent, taxes, and bills in her own
name, and acted in every respect as the mistress of the
honac- On the 28th February, 1857, possession was
taken. She was asked for her keys, and gave them up.
Possession was kept for eight days. On being cross-
examined by Mr. Je'nes, Q.O , who appeared with Mr.
Brett for the defence, the plaintiff stated that she was
living in a house with some other young ladies when she
irst became acquainted with Mr, titephin off. She had no
servant when the messenger came. There was a
loan left in possession after the messenger had taken
en inventory of the furniture. He sometimes made
himself useful. He lighted the fire, and on one
occasion washed the tea-things. (Laughter.) Ere allowed
her to take the keys when she wanted anything and get it,
bat he said if it were known he would get into tr,uble.
Other evidence was given of the fact of possession being
taken, and of its being done by the authoriey of Mr. Arkie,
through Mr. Evans, junior, one of the solicitors to the
assignees. The possession was subsequently withdrawn
after repeated notices had been sent by tie plaintiff's
solicitor. Mr. James addressed the jury for the defence.
The jury, after several hours' consideration, were unable
to agree to a verdict, and at six o'clock were therefore
discharged.
GIANT V. DIENITAIf.--The plaintiff in this case was a
lour dealer, and in December last bought from the
defendant a quantity of corn, for which he paid .£32 on
account. The corn subsequently turned out to have been
Wien, and the defendant, with two other persons, named

File .. Young and Co
Leicester... . ..Stone
Hallam .. Henry
Gray and ors.. .. Chambers and W,
T. inity Howe of Hull.. .. E S Wilson
Beattie ..
Brown .. Francis and R
Lan. and York. Railway Co .. High= ani C
Barber .. ..Fletcher and H
Mason .. . ••• • •
Kidd and ano —Evans and ion
Rawns ey Prier;ey
St Helens Canal and Rail Co .. Whitley
Carter ..
Watson .. _Bell and S
Whalley Coltfn and B
v McCalman 1-sal and If
,v Thomas .. Chester and Co
v Lan. and York. Railway Co ..Lewis an Co
.v Bell .. Pemberton
v Jameson .. ..Ward
v Lon. and N. West Rail. Co.. ..Swift and Co
v Everth —Woodcock and Co
.v Acton .. .. Leigh
.v Cowes
,v Bainbridge —Gregory and Co
vH, ins and ors.. .. .. Preston
v Wilson and ano owndes and Co
..v Lan. and York. Railway Co.. ..T A and J Grundy
..v Kirby. . .. • • .. Hinds
.v Henaaman
v Clementscn
.v Wells.. _Wells and S
.v Robins .. ..Chilcott
..v Royla . ..S`qatkle'on and Co
v Seddon .. Holden and Son
.v Lan. and York. Railway Co. ..R and W Ascroft
.v Same.. .. (demurrer) Same
~v Arkie and ano..
v Venn and ano.. Francis and A:
. v Murphie _Swift and Co
..v Brennand and ano Sale and Co
. v Same.. .. (demurrer, Same
v Same .. Same
. v Blaclihr_rst ..W Blackhurat
..v Yates . ..Ward
.v Denham ..
. v Critchley .. „Holden and Son
..v Taylor .. Higham and C
▪ ..v Brownel and ano _Miller and P
• v Moore and ano. ..J B Lloyd
▪ ..v Adams ... Sale and Co

Murphy and M.lntyre, were tried at the January Sessions
in Liverpool. The defendant was acquitted, and the other
men were convicted. The plaintiff had to give up the
cern to the police, and the present ac ion was brought to
recover the amount which he had paid to he defendant.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, with leave to
defendant to move for a nonsuit.
ELLIS 0. BARBER.—SPECIAL JURY CASE.—In this Case
the plaintiff was the well-known veterinary surgeon of
Liverpool, and the defendant was the Rev. Mr. Barber,
of Grasaendale, Aigburth. The action was brought to
recover c-mpensation for damages arising from a breach of
contract. Mr. Sergeant Atkinson and Mr. Jones appeared
for the plaintiff, Mr. Atherton, Q.O , and Mr. Cross for the
defendant From the statement of Mr. Sergeant Atkinson,
that the plaintiff, in the summer of 1855, sent three sons
—one named William, aged 15 ; a second, Pater, aged
13 ; and a third, Thomas, aged 11 —to the school kept by
the Rev. Barber, at Grassendale, Aigburth. The three
lads had been previously at a school near Chester, from
which they were removed, and in August, 1855, placed at
the Rev. Mr. Barber's school. They were placed there as
boa dere, Mr. Etlis agreeing to pay £l4O a year for the
three. Mr. Ellis received very favourable reports of the
progress of the boas each half year, and in some instances
prizes were obtained. In January, 1857, plaintiff gave
defendant notice that he was about to remove his
eldest son, William, and, in the summer vacation of
that year, William accordingly left No complaint of
the conduct of the boy 3 was made, except that Peter was
somewhat more irritable in temper than the others. It
appeared that on the 27th of February, 1857, Peter and
Thomas were engaged with some other boys in throwing
stones at a dog, when the defendant came up, and, it was
stated, used very violent language to the boys. The school-
bell rang, and defendant came with the boys to the school,
where, in presence of the scholars assembled, defendant
expelled them, accompanying the act cf expulsion, it was
stated, with many opprobrious names, such as " brute"
and " liae," applied to the boy Peter. The defendant told
Peter to go out of the school at once, but said Thomas
might wait until he was sent for. That day, at a late hour,
the defendant came into plaintiff's place of business, and
said he must take his boys away. Plaintiff asked for
what reason, and defendant said they had been
throwing stones, and that Peter had been imper-
tinent to his (defendant's) sister. The plaintiff said
he was busy then, but if the defendant would step
into his office. and wait a few minutes, they could speak of
the matter. Defendant said, "You will not take them
away ? Then, you may do as you please, for I expelled
them both this morning." The examination of witnesses
to prove the plaintiff's case was proceeding when the court
adjourned.

NISI PRIUS COURT.
BEFORE MR. BARON CHANNEL, AND A SPECIAL JURY.
THE LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH OF KINGSTON-UPON-
HULL V. THE TRINITY HOI.7SE OF HALL.—This case was
resumed on the sitting of the Coart at 9 o'clock. The
jury returned a verdict for tie defendants.
In the case of SAMUELSON AND OTHERS V. HEINS AND
OTHERS, a verdict was taken for the plaintiff by consent.
Damages, £1.633.

,N V. BSATIR —This was an action brought by
the plaintiff to recover damages for breach of covenant by
the defendant. Mr. Hill, Q.C., with Mr. Mellish, appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wilde, Q.C., with Mr. Aspland,
for the defendant. The plaintiff is the owner of considerable
estates in this coun'y, and on the Ist of January, 1850,
leased to the defendant certain lands known as the
Moat Farm, for a period of 21 years, at £651
103. per year. One of the covenants of the lease
was, that the defendant should keep a stock of
cattle in the premises sufficient to consume all
the has', straw, fodder and grain crops grown on the
land, and that fcr every ton of produce so removed,
he would bring in a certain quantity of manure.
The defendant became insolvent, and while in Lancaster
gaol, his brother and a party of the name of Clarke
to whom his brother was indebted, entered the lands
and proceeded to remove the growing crops. The
plaintiff obtained an injunction in Chancery against them,
and they, maintaining their right, gave security for any
damage which he might sustain, and hence the present
action. The defendant now alleged that he did not hold
under the terms alleged by the plaintiff, and that he
performed to substance the covenants of his agreement,
The case into which much extraneous matter was im—
ported, was of no interest, except to the parties imme-
diately affected. The jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff, damages one farthing.
It is probable that the assizes will be brought to a
close to-day (Friday.)

BOYS' CLOTHING MADE WITH GREAT TASTE
At LEWIS & COMPANY'S, Rarielagt street.

The estates of Mr. Vincent Scully, whose unfortunate
connexion with the Tipperary Bank has iavolved him in
a sea of litigation, are to be geld in the Encumbered Estates
Court in November next. Tne property lies in the coun-
ties of Tipperary std Cork, and comprises in the gross
3,-166 acres, and yielding a net rent of £2,100 a-year.
THE SCARCITY OF GILCUSX.—It is, at all events. an in-
disputable fact that for years past grouse have been be-
coming more and more rare, and that this year they are
scarcer than ever, both on the moor and in the market.
The boxes of game sent as presents bj steamer, coach, and
rail were never known to be so few in number. This is
the report from the " booking offices." Were we pre-
pared to admit that the birds, though fewer than last year
are healthier, the admission would only be to the effect that
the bird; were rather better than last year. The old dis-
ease is still ravaging the scanty stock. Perhaps its ravages
are not quite so active as before. There has been no ener-
getic attempt made to discover the cause, or supply a re-
medy, of a disorder which threatens ere long to make the
glorious sport of grouse shooting a matter only of history.
Ought it to be so ? Are we right in suggesting that the
increasing interest attaching to deer-stalking is causing an
unjustifiable neglect of groare? Not only do the deer
retests seem to withdraw the attention of the sporting
world from the rapid declension in the value of the grouse
grounds, but they are allowed to injure them in other
ways. To prevent the timid deer frets] disturbance, the
extensive districts kept as forests are not cleared of
" vermin" as they used to be. These mischievous ani-
mals have found in various district; a secure sanctuary.
This is not, all. The watchers of the deer forests in some
localities dislike the grouse, as they attract pacbers. To
prevent the disturbance which would be occasioned by
these marauding intruders, the, watchers of the deer sys-
tematically destroy the eggs of the grouse. If this des-
tuction of eggs is carried on over large districts of coun-
try, as we suspect it is, the eradication of the maratonatie
disease will not be snfricient to restore the groP.-,e to the
moors and mountains of Scotland.—Mornitto Poss.

BOY'S CLOTHING MADE V_CrI2TH GREAT TASTY"
At LEWIS do cObirAP, es. uncingt, Amt.,