The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-08-16 00:00:00

GEORGE NV lIITTAIIER'S CASE

Previous to the rising of court, "aeo;;;Whittaker, the
man who was yesterday found guilty of assaulting his wife
with intent to murder her, was -placed at the bar. His
LORDSHIP said " Prisoner, you have been convicted of a
most barbarous assault upon your wife. I have taken time
to deliberate upon your case, because it is of a nature for
which you might have had to forfeit your life ; there are,
however circumstances connected with it which will warrant
me in recommending you to the mercy of the Crown ; but
you must expect to be transportedior a great length of time
beyond the seas. I shall recommend your case to her Ma-
jesty, and perhaps the sentence I have named will be awarded
you."

NISI PRIUS COURT.-YESTERDAY.
SHARPE V. NEWSHOLME AND OTHERS.

This was an action to recover a number of pieces of worsted
stuffs, or their value, which had been detained by the de-
fendants, who were assignees of the estate and effects of
Sharpe Bailey, a nephew of the plaintiff, who had become
bankrupt,—the plea for so doing being that they were his
property, and therefore available by his creditors.
Mr. Cresswell and another conducted the case for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Alexander and another appeared for the de-
fendants.
Mr. CRESSWELL stated the case—Mr. Jonas Sharpe was
a manufacturer of worsted pieces at Bingley ' • and was in the
habit of sending goods to Bradford, where he had a ware-
room. In the month of March, 1838, Mr. Sharpe had a con-
siderable stock on hand, for which he could not find a market,
and Mr. Sharpe Bailey, who had been in the trade, advised
Mr. Sharpe to send his goods to be dyed and finished, so that
they might be sold at the London market. They were ac-
cordingly sent to Bradford, and were then delivered, 246
pieces in all, to the carrier of Messrs. Holt and Bedford,
dyers, of. Leeds, by whom they were dyed and finished. Be-
fore they were delivered, however, Sharpe Bailey became
bankrupt, and they wore claimed by his assignees, and also
by Mr. Sharpe, who denied having sold the goods to Bailey,
—the sole transaction between them merely being that Mr.
Sharpe availed himself of Mr. Sharpe Bailey's advice and
assistance in selecting the pieces, and giving directions rela-
tive to their being dyed. The value of the property was about
£469.
James;; Pearson, said he,was foreman to the plaintiff Jonas
Sharpe, at Binglev. Saw 220 pieces belonging to him,
packed up on the 28th of March: They were sent next day
to Holt,and Bradford, by the carrier to be dyed.
Thomas Folds, said he was the carrier, and took the goods.
They Were &err to the by 'Mr. Shaipe's two sons. I saw
Edward, one of therm,, at ,Brindford,. and served them, by
his direction, to Holt 'and Bedford's cart.
EdWatcl Sharpe, said he had been employed at his father's
worsted mill for six years. He knew Sharpe Bailey, and heard
him conversing with his (witness's) father—after which some
pieceS'w6te selected by witness and Sharpe Bailey, for the
purpose of being dyed, and sent to London market. The
ldst witness's cart was loaded with 220 pieces, to be
finished.' Witness afterwardi'ivent with his father to Brad-
ford; where his father had a warehouse. The pieces were
given to Holt and Bedford's carter, and directions given as
to the dying of them. Twenty-six other pieces were' also
given out' of the warehouse at Bradford.
Mr. Alexander addressed the jury for the defendant, con-
tending that Mr. Sharpe Bailey, who had 'become bankrupt
soon after the goods were sent away, had exercised such an
ownership over the goods as rendered them liable to go
towards the liquidation of his debts, under a provision of the
,tiankrapt act. It appeared to him, indeed, that he had pur-
:eihas,;4,the goods of his uncle, or at all event was the reputed
owner, and on the pieces, he would also prove, were the
private marks of that individual.
John Leycock, .said he had been in the service of Sharpe
' Bailey. The pieces were marked with the private marks, a
letter used by Mr. Sharpe Bailey—taken from the word
Nebel, hadnezzar." On cross-examination, witness said
that he had not mentioned this before, because he was not
asked. He was asked the question this morning by Mr.
Leigh', attorney of Leeds, and said they were so marked.
-The witness's replies relative to the Marks were involved in
considerable confusion. .
Another, witness said he heard Mr. Sharpe Bailey say what
market he selected the goods. He said they were for the
London market. They were marked by letters.
George Bedford was a partner in the firm of Holt and
Bedford,stuff-dyers, Leeds. On the 22d March, 1838, their
man received the goods at Bradford. Witness saw Mr.
Shatp'e Bailey in the street that day. He gave no direction
then ; but in a day or two after, he directed them to send
for 110 pieces more, and they were sent for. On the 30th
March, Bailey came and gave instructions respecting the
dying of them. He IVished them to be finished as soon as
possible. He called again and gave directions that they
should be sent to Mr. Leycock, in London. I took them
to be Mr. Sharpe Bailey's. We never dyed for Sharpe the
plaintiff.
Samuel Hall was in the employment of Holt and Bedford,
and received goods on 22nd March. Edward Sharp said
they belonged to Mr. Sharp Bailey. Bailey came up after-
wards, and spoke about the goods. Edward Sharp took me
to a room and showed me 26 pieces more. Sharp' was
present, and said' Jonas knew nothing about the goods.
Witness took the 246 pieces to the dye-house.
Mr. CRESSWELL addressed the jury for the plaintiff, con-
tending that there was no power of sale to Sharp Bailey,
that the goods never were in his possession ; that they were
in his order and disposition of them as owner, with the con-
sent, of Mr. Sharp, and therefore that his client was entitled
to a .verdict for the amount sued for.
The learned judge summed up in a very lucid manner,
explaining the Cause of the bankrupt act, which affected the
case.,
The jury returned a verdict for . the plaintiff—damages
£469, they being of opinion that there was no sale of the
goods, and no Order of disposition of the goods by Sharp
Bailey, with the consent of the real owner, so as to be
available by. Bailey's creditors.
RICHARDSON AND ANOTHER V. DUNN.

This action was instituted for the purpose of recovering
the value of £127 tons of coals, shipped from Stockton, by
the plaintiffs, in compliance with the order of the defendant.
The vessel in which the, coals were sent, was lost at sea—
having been run down by another vessel and was lost,- and
the defence was, that 200 to 300 tons being ordered, and
only 127 tons sent, the contract had not been completed, and
that:the defendants were therefore released from liability to
pay. It appeared, on the other hand, they had employed the
best vessel they could procure to send the coals, and that, had
the defendant agreed to a proposition of the plaintiffs, the
remainder of the order would have been completed by
another vessel. •

Mr. Turnbull being sworn, said, I am agent for Richard.
son and Co.'s., Stockton. In November 1838, of last year,
I received a letter from the defendant. The letter was read,
to the effect-that the plaintiff should send to the defendant
froth 200 to 300 tons. 1t was difficult at that season to get a
ship, and the coals were not sent until the 31st of December.
About 152 tons were sent, but only 127 charged for. The
amount was £46 4s. Bd. A bill at two months was drawn for
the amount. The vessel was afterwards lost. She was lost
on the 6th of January. Witness wrote to defendant on the

10th, stating that the vessel had been run down by the
W dham.
Mr. CRESWELL said that he considered the plaintiff had
not made out a case. An order was sent for from 200 to
300 tons, and only 127 tons were sent. He was not obliged
to receive the coals; and when he knew of it, he repudiated
the bill drawn. The learned counsel contended that the
original contract was not completed. The bill was sent back
without being accepted. It was paid into the bank and re-
turned: He
.addressed the jury in amplification of his
position.
His LORDSHIP summed up. It appeared that the defend-
ants had pointed out the " Navigator" as a proved vessel in
which to send the coals by; but that vessel could not take
more than 150 tons ; so that it appeared that the defendants
contemplated that the coals should be sent by more than one
vessel—but as opportunity-offered, by two vessels. . He con-
sidered it might be difficult to find a vessel that would con-
tain the precise quantity ordered, and the jury would, there-
fore; be guided by what might be considered a reasonable
compliance with: the coni ract, of which their experience of
mercantile affairs would enable them to judge.
The jury in a feW minutes returned a verdict for the plain-
tiff—Damages £42 2s. 2d. :
SHOOTING A DOt.—.LITTLE V. AINSWORTH.
This was an action to recover damages for the death of a
dog. Mr. CRE.SSWELL stated the case for the plaintiff.
•Mr. EdWard Little, lived at a plaCe called Handstile, near
West Derby; and had a valuable shepherd's dog, which he
purposed to send out o Australia. The do; was used to drive
and take care of sheep, and was considered a fine useful
animal. An impression might have gone abroad, that as the
dog'pursued sheep, he might also run after' leverets ; but
even if that were the case, (and he did not anticipate any
proof to that effect,), that would be no justification for de-
stroying it; for it had heenheld by Lord Ellenborough, that
the mere running after a hare, did not justify the killing of a
dog. He should show that the defendant, who was permitted
occasionally to look after Mr. Bevan's preserves, had gone to
a plantation where the dog was, and wantonly shot it. He
should also prove the value of the dog, and he trusted the
jury would award damages, not only to the full amount, but
with an additional sum for the vexatious and affronting na-
ture of the act.

Henry Rushton, a youth, said he livedat West Derby, and
kneW tl;e defendant, who was a carter On the evening of
the 22d of May last, about half-past eight o'clock, he saw
the defendant go into a plantation near Mr. Bevan's house,
and he had a gun with him. He soon after heard a report,
arid then heard a dog yell a howl. He remained till Mr.
Little went up, and then went to the • plantation with him,

where they found the dog so much wounded in all his legs,
that to put it out of pain, they threw it into a pit.
Mr. HARDEN cross-examined this witness with a view to
show that the defendant was not seen to shoot the dog, and
that it was probably done by Lucas, Mr. Bevan's game-
keeper. Nothing important was, however, elicited.
Thomas Rushton also sew the defendant go to the planta-
tion, and saw also the smoke of the gun which he fired. He
went for Mr. Little.

Richard Lunt said he was employed by Mr. Little, and
knew the dog to be a valuable dhimal, which was to have
been sent abroad. On the day after it was shot he saw de-
fendant with another man, and he said, people would be glad
to hear that Little's dog was killed. He (defendant) added
that he had shot it. He (witness) looked at him, and was
going to say, something, when defendant said that he was at
Mr. Ashley's, about a mile off, when the dog was killed.
James Lunt gave similar testimony as to the above conver-
sation. He was employed by a butcher, and had frequently
borrowed the dog to drive sheep. He considered it worth
5 ss. He had paid that sum for a similar dog.
Mr. HARDEN addressed the jury for the defence, and the
case being left in the hands of the jury, they returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff. Damages £2, costs £2.
CASE OF ARBITRATION.—HEWETT V. HEWETT.
By this action the plaintiff sought to recover a sum of about
£l5OO, being the amount of an award fixed by arbitration.
The defendant's declaration contained several pleas, amongst
which were that the arbitration had not been duly enlarged,
that the deed was not duly signed, &c. The attesting wit-
nesses to the several successive enlargements were, however,
produced, and all the documents being proVed to be legally
correct, the jury, under the direction of the learned judge,
gave a verdict for the plaintiff, including interest. Damages,
£l6OO.