Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-08-26 00:00:00

CAUSE LIST

FIRST LIST.—SALFORD lI:(JNDRED.
Plaint:ifs' Attorneys. Plaintiffs, Defendant!.
2QB Sloter and Co .. • . Harnpson and ano (sJ) v Hamp.on..
9 vx..Same .. • • .. • • ..Moorhouse.. (sa) v Alcock sims
10 QB....Same .. •• ..The Q seen (sa) v Spence .. ..Coaper and Sons
26 Ex.. Hold en and .. Flamer (sJ) v Knowles and ors ..
30 QB v Andrew .. Mackay and ors.. (sJ) :-tepbenson . ..mulme ani J
31 QB.. Worthington and E .. Nowell.. .. (s.1);:v The Mayor, Sze of Wigan .. • • Lord and A

SECOND LIST.-WEST DERBY HUNDRED.
3 QB..Lownees and Co ... —Smith (as) v rile Young and Co
4 QB..Ratic ..Brown and ano (sr) v Leicrref . ..Stone
Ex... Potty .. • • ..Peet . , ..v Ha•lam Henry
3 QB—Binney„ .. Yeomans .. v Gray and ors.. Chambers and W
10 Ex... it Vella L B of Health King upon Hull (sr) v T inity Ho se of Hull.. E S Wilson
11 Er— Bowson and Co .. „Ifoghtoti . (sr) v Beattie ..
15 CP ..Grin-rra er .. —Same ..v Frown
16 Cf L.J Yates jun.. .. .. 31.-Manus „ v Lan. and York. Railway Co
17 CP.. Same .. Ellis (as) v Barber ..
18 Ex... stamp and J Bark ve,rth ard ano (sr) v Mason ..
19 Ex... Pell and S Holmes ..v Kidd and ano .• Evans and Son
20 Q8..-Statham and Co ...Salomon ..v Rawns ey ..Brierley
22 Ex.— Barrow .. Manley admix .. .• ...v St Helens Canal and Rail Jro .. Whitley
25 Ex.— name Hawksey v Carter ...„
24 QR.. Holden and Son .. Wooliscroft v Watson .. —Bell and S
35 Ex.— T Eastham ...Eastbam . ..v Coltan and B
Ex.•.Fletche, and H ..Taylor (ss) v McCalman Neal End Ji
28 'CP ..J P Mnrrealgh —Hargreaves . • • .. ..v Thomas Chester and Co
29 Ex,..Thackerali Fitzpatrick.. . .. v Lan. and York. Railway Co ..Lewis a.n Co
31 CP J Tate; jun .. Raven .. ..v Bell .. Pemberton
v. CP. -Same ... • • .. • • ..Callan . v Jameson .. .. Ward
33 QB..R Stever-son • • .. ..Ye'd (ss) v Lon. and N. West Rail. Co.. ..Swift and Co
awl a x.. Bowe .. —Waring jun.. . v Everth Woodcock and Co
35 Ex... Heald ..;) 'Nail v Acton ..
35 CPL•aI rt khnrst Wright .. .v C owes ..
37 QB..Carson and E ..rooks and ors esors..v Bainbridze..Gregory and Co
39 QB.. Moss and •.. Samuelson and ors .. (sr) v H- ins and ors.. .. Preston
CP• • Goodwin and A —Croke (es) v Wilscn and ano I owndes and Co
41 C.L. Fenwict —Vow admix ..v Lan. and York. Railway Co.. ..T Aryd J G. undy
43 CP.. J Yates, jun.. .. Wright and ano ..v Kirby.. .. .• Hindu
42 Ex.. R Moore .. -.Scott and ano ..v Hernaman
44 c r.. vans and Son .. .. Stevens and ano v Clementson
45 QB.. C and H Frost Wadsworth v We 11... .• .. ...Wells and S
47 Ex tcber and H.. .. Higgin ..v Robins .. ..Chilcott
S Es—Booker.. Hatton and ano ..v Boyle . Shackle on and Co
4 Ex.. :Couway.. ..Nelson (es) v Seddon .. Holden and Son
SO CPL.-furner and Son.. .. Waddington admor ..v Lan. and Yors. Railway Co. ..R and W A scroft
51 CP L.'ame . .. .. ..`aa-e ..v ..(demurrer) Same
52 Q3—Littledale and B Pemberton v Arkle and ano..
33 CP.. Bog Buxton . v Venn and ano.. Era, cis and A.
54 Ex- ..T a Smith .. v Murphie ..Swift and Co
53 C OL.l?arkhon' e Sagar and ano ..v Brennand and ano Sale and Co
1$ CPL.S ime Same v same.. (demurrer) Same
47 CPL.4ame ..Sagan ..v Same.. Sarre
511 C7l..9nowball .. • • ..Woodhead v I.lack burst ..W Blackhurst
119 CPL.Brether ton .. Aesop ..v Yates. ..Ward
61 'Ex. .Cobb —Giant ..v Denham ..
62 .. tattled:de cad Co .. Dav es ..v Critchley Holden and Son
53 -Ex.—Barber Weisman ..v Z aylor Higham and C
.. Nelson .. .. v Brownel and ano _Miller and P ,
Ex—. T S Smith Muirtead v Moore and ano. J B Lloyd
CPL.R and W A 'croft . . Blackburn and ano ..v Adams Sale and Co

.. Francis and R
..111aham ani C
..Fletcher and 11 ,

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

SOUTH LANCASHIRE —LivzarooL, Avousr 25.

CROWN COURT.

Mr. Baron Watson entered the c)ttrt at nine o'clock this
'morning, and proceeded with the hearing of civil cases.

WOOLSCROFT V. WATSON —This was an action to recover
a balance of freight account received by the defendant, as
broker for plaintiff; on a charter cn plaintiff's ship. the
Euphrates. The action was originally brought to recover
Xl3O, but there was a sutn paid into court, and the differ-
ence was left to be regulated by the verdict of the jury.
Mr. Forsyth, 'Q C. and Mr. Quain appeared for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Wilde, Q.O , and Mr. Burnie for the
defendant. The plaintiff was Mr. William Wooliscrofr,
shipowner, of Liverpool, and the defendant Mr. Caleb W.
Watson, also of this town. It appeared that the defendant
had entered into a charter party, on behalf of air.
Schilizzi, merchant, of Liverpool, with the plaintiff for his
ship the Euphrates, to go on a voyage to the Black Sea
and back. It was stipulated, as usual in the charter
party, that the defendant was to have five per cent. corn-
miseLn on that charter. It was contended, however, on
the part of the plaintiff, that a subsequent agreement was
made, by which, in consideration of an alteration in the
vessel's route the defendant agreed to retn n 21 per cent.
-to plaintiff. The defendant received the whole commis-
sion, but did re'urn the amount stated. The defence was,
that there was no consideration for the second agreement.
Evidence, documentary and otherwise, was gone into at
great length. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff
for £5.3.

HARGREAVES V. Tnosets.—Mr. Digby Seymour opened
the pleadings, and Mr. Janes, Q C., stated the case. The
learned counsel stated that the plaintiff, James Hargreaves,
was the keeper of a place called the Britannia beerhouse,
in Medlock-street, Manchester, and the defendant was one
of the bailiffs of the Manches-er Court of Record. Upon
the 10th of June, 1856, the plaintiff and his wife left their
house and locked it up, leaving everything in a state of
perfect security. On the 29th of June they were again in
the house, and found that the furniture which they had
left there was in the condition in which they had left them
on the 10.11 of Zane. Upon the let of July, in conse-
quence of certain information which had reached them,
they went to the house, and discovered that it had been
broken open. Tne furniture had all been taken away ;
• ilia fixture', of which there was a considerable amount,
had been torn down in a reckless manner ; great damage
do le to the house -itself, which was the property of the
plaintiff, and various acts of mischief committed. Upon
ciscavering this, and having some information given
to him, on the :3rd of July, the plaintiff, who had
previously consulted his attorney, went to the defendant's
rooms. The defendant' besides being bailiff of the Man-
chester Record Court, likewise carried on business as an
auctioneer, so that he was enabled to kill his birds outright
himself When he seized goods in his capacity of bailiff,
be sold them in his capacity of auctioneer, and thus had
the whole benefit of the transaction. Upon arriving there
-the plaintiff informed the defendant what his object was,
but the defendant professed at the time to be very busy,
.and told the plaintiff to come back at twelve o'clock, as he
could not then attend to him. At that time the plaintiff
sa* his goods in the front room, or at least the greater por-
tion of them, which had been taken from his premise.
He went away and according to appointment came back
at 12 o'clock. Matters were very much altered then, for,
in the meantime, the goods which had been in some degree
of order and easily recognisable, were removed into another
room, where they were heaped together in the most indis-
criminate way, and could not save with considerable diffi-
culty be recognised and inventoried. The plaintiff claimed
the goods, but the defendant said whoever was the owner
of them, he would sell them, and sell them he did.
He would not deliver them up, and they were
actually. sold by auction. The learned counsel said he be-
loyal he could anticipate the defence which would be set
up to this action. In June, 1855, it would appear that a
person named Strafford, being a creditor of the plaintif
brought an action against him. A compromise was entered
into, according to which the plaintiff agreed to pay Straf-
ford by certain instalments. An execution had been put
into the plaintiff's house prior to that arrangement, by the
present defendant, the goods seized were,however, partly re-
stored to the plaintiff Some instalments were paid, but the
plaintiff finally becoming embarressed in his circumstances,
endeavoured to effect a compromise, in cyder that he
might not give Strafford a preference ovor his other cre-
ditors. He went away, and locked up his house, for the
very purpose of preventing his goods from being seized
before he could .effect such an arrangement. For some
reason he was .not able to effect this arrangement with
S:rafford, and hence the defendant would, no doubt, en-
deavour to show that his otherwise utterly outrageous acts
were justifiable under an execution, at the suit of the man
Strafford, for the remainder of the amount due to
him. The plaintiff, and other witnesses, were
examined to prove the case opened by coon el.
Mr. Overend, Q.O , who, with Mr. Wheeler, appears i for
the defendant, denied that any breaking-in whatever took
place. He stated that, iroceedioge having been taken by
Mr. Strafford against the pleiatiff, a writ was put into the
hands of Mr. Thomas and Mr. Hatton, officers of the Court
of Record, to execute on plaintiff's property. On the
morning in question, he contended that the door was
partly open, and that the officer Hutton, before entering
the honse, called the attention of a policeman to the feet
that it was so open. The seizure was then made, and the
learned counsel contended that under those circumstances
it was a perfectly lawful transaction. Witnesses were
called to prove the defence set up. Mr. James having re-
plied and his Lordship having summed up, the jury found
a verdic, for the defendant.
FITZPATRICK V. THE LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE
RAILWAY C cuspAzirr.-21r. Mdlward opened the pleadings,
and Mr. Pickering, Q.c., stated the case. The learned
counsel said it was an action brought against the Lancashire
and Yorkshire Railway Company for an injury which had
been done by an accident upon the railway to the plaintiff
himself, and to some bullocks, his property. The plaintiff
was a cattle dealer living in the queen's County, Ireland,
and in the Course a his vocation had come to this country
with a large stock of cattle, which, having been landed in
Liverpool, were conveyed to the different markets through-
out the country. It appeared that in April last the plain-
tiff came over with 43 head of cattle, which he was going
to take to a place near Harrcwgate with the view of
selling them. He started from Liverpool by the Lanca-
shire and Yorkshire Company's line upon the 25th of
April. It seemed that the custom was, when there were
a great many head of cattle and drovers going that the
in
to
the were placed in trucks, and the drovers went
the van along with the gun d. On this occasion there
were eight other drovers besides the plaintiff; and the
number of heads of cattle amounted altogether to 180-12
out of the 43 belonging to the plaintiff were placed in a
truck next to the engine. After the cattle had been placed
upon the wagon and the plaintiff had paid his money, one
of the servants of the company came to him and handed
him a ticket. It so happened that the plaintiff could
neither read nor write, and he therefore asked what it
Z 4014114 "Oh," the reply was, " you know," That was

Defendants' Attorneys.