The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-08-30 00:00:00

,Ille ease;tir,•\‘'.v,„swas one of much corn leaky and of little inteirt.
,%li' which- took a greatnumber'
of objections on points
Nib,
,-"ez were entered h lordship's note-book, and
'4lltaire".6erTed forcconsiderationsn°ns
in the higher court. The
a verdict for the defendants on both points.
,The alG.Asktia, AND OTHERS V. JACKSON.
\'''4f,la 'tifrs Were Mr James Gaskill and Mr. George
Npt, -, the to the. estate of Peter Ilughes, a bank-
ktio," the defendant was Mr. George Jackson, and the
'tji,,pa bro
, , ,tight to recover damages for certain property
'llednt,L, he bankrupt, and taken by the defendant and
'll4de" "11 purposes. The jury found for the plain-
1a r the direction of 'the learned judge, damages £7.
1411itsa,,'Nfs ."D ANOTHER V. JONES AND OTHERS. n
then67-'O,ll, bdamages of the arties, a verdict was ta e
1 —l4tiffs, £lo,oooP—subject to a reference.
14qttil.
~ ~. 11AGSHAW V SARDINSON.
I,;:r3d'new"ont. Mr. John liagshaw, a shawl manufacturer
,t R. j: pas the plaintiff, and Mr. Edward Sardinson and
'''bodeferoah'fanningt carrying on business in London, were
4..`°14 `s• Theplaintiff sought to recover the sum or
4tl' the value of dssold and delivered. The jury
41447.,r.te1Y retur.
ed agvoeordict for the plaintiff, for the sum
imAiii V. LAING.
Ililtlielitni'd 4 efended action on •a romisory note for £loo.
the Plaintiff for £lOl 12s Gd.

CROWN
COURT-THURSDAY.
°Pened at nine o'clock.
gaze,
1,
tAnt ,Sa
111 S Tines was indicted for a riot at Bolton, on the
knirti
it,ilita./.cnr_ and CROSS conducted the prosecution,
'Ne,Parrican‘ls defended the prisoners.
Nike. 'Li's of the case will be found in the following
-,,tHeid•-1 am- warehouseman to Messrs. Orm-
hier. akr.eastle, of Bolton. I was at the works on the
t Runs
two o'clock, when a crowd, armed with dif-
i4o,l7lls came to the mill. They pointed out Mr.
?it:ea-as aad cried, " That's the man." Mr. 0. at this
oat. the watch-house door, which is the entrance to
Zeotaiti'he mob began to throw stones at Mr. Orinrhod.
4er, tilig-liouse windows and frames were broken. Mr.
e book-keeper, was on the counting-house steps :
tar hfe thrown towards' him, and after the mob had left,
h14.-roltllith his head much wounded.
altileaea Makin, book-keeper to Messss. Ormrhod and
stated, that on the 13th of August, he was in the
rse, and hearing the clatter of feet, he went to
„Ita of 'men oor and stood upon the -steps. He saw a.large
OttkbOrat eonnng quickly towards the mill. This witness
eraateld the evidence of Ormrhod, as to the proceedings
Nikt, el 01 hie mill. He said a stone struck him on the,
uead, which stunned him. He went into th:
were and and locked the door, and a great numbfert_
of
31",:to we?: thrown through the windows. (Some o
ohus
4.), Produced and most of them were of tremendous
pltrorod atsoti stated that she was in the employ of Messrs.
ri,twlliaPtlT,Hardeastle, and worked in a mill called " the
$t st Remembered on the 13th seeing a crowd coming
14, ("rowd
~•eet about two o'clock in the afternoon. When
the rto`2le near the mill, about five or six persons He
Ilezt ,I`ll* I think the prisoner was one of them.
kh,,,•°with 44,00 r to me, and I know him well. The party who
kral,le Prisoner took up stones and threw them at the
Ole irsbilt they did not reach. The soldiers came up,
tit ti L retreated.
, said he thought this evidence not s..uffi-
qo,u•l tormally acquitted the priso.ner.
lloiro•128 and Edward Glennon, were indicted for a
eatoell°ll the 14th inst.
?Itr,t4A,?ounsel as in the last case.
att.:cle the said the particulars of the casewere similar
•more
oNeed
te ~ue previous trial, but the circumstances of a
IVoti Geo rarod stated, that on the 14th inst. he was at the
oae rp Mill, belonging to Ormrod and Hardcastle.
he tar, ° el°ek, a large mob, probably consisting of 500
'lidh lOrksdine to the mill and demanded that the hands should
iva:llt• The prisoner Morris was one of the foremost.
hev- eat the flute. When the mob left the George
jotto ke'sDsrrsace,Fd.ed in the direction of another mill belong
uinirod and Hardcastle.
~..qardea „nrst.-I was in the employ of Messrs. Ormrod
ht 1.1" e• Was in the street when the mob came to
wolo the 'u,eY had sticks and stones with them. When they.
44! ha,, It'll the mob called out " turn your hands out ,
rne,l,li out ; all the mills in the town are standing,
"" Your's stand." A rush was made at the
cognised the prisoner Morris amongst the par-
tt ,s b..
o Toe mob then proceeded to the Sovereign
411eA-street, and broke about 30 windows. Some
et *ore ra.,`l` by
came up, and we made a rush_ at the mob,
111P(I'rho'L °Y a volley of stones. My hat was. knocked
rtetl cias Ormrod was injured. The soldiers came
lltl/ afterwards, and the crowd dispersed.
the I'M as (Ps" was employed as a watchman to Messrs.
.„/Jardcastle's mill at the time the mob came _
the t ta,t,ll-.ols witness corroborated the statements made_
ilaisone vitrtiesses
taa,tl.l:s ; but said he did not recognise either of
e.
itlltticastl4dea•--Wa- • th rvice of Messrs. Ormrod and
tht,tl44tlzio•b Ivtebcoe vweed:eointroeswsfeiruogm Mr. 0 rin rod, ent
stones at the Royal Sov.e-
-1,4t,' Bt,,* Edward Glennon was there, and I saw him.
ahtil ii•ilee at one of the windows. I never lost sight of
ititoso.taaa was taken into custody-
illisea,‘,3oldea deposed to the last witness giving Glennon
•'Ltody.
kiL,',iva ,tixs addressed the jury for the prisoners. In
40 to' I,e ease of Morris he called upon them to try his
tttlll(4 political
he were on hi's trial on a capital charge, and
the W"tival offence. He contended that there was.
to Cub for
~!e evidence to show, that the prisoner was. with
The °tile, 1!gal purposes, but merely from curiosity. As
tJgrv. Prisoner, he could' not combat with facts.
11(444 lit Tund both prisoners guilty. Sentence deferred..
ttaa,°4• ?Chi-I°n was charged with taking part in a riot at
Alt qthe e particulars are of a similar nature to those in
,tiraer t 6 Previous cases.
fired for ease had been gone into, Mr. COBBETT, who ap-
-4.4 oed fri the
~ Prisoner said he would not trouble
.his
w his pie-a"s to go further, the defendant wished to with-
Tile and plead guilty.-Sentence deferred.
BaiPolerldme s4Nt'irieWSZCING OF THE CilleAer
herd,his LORD-
difrel!red the psreisoneerssityleg brought up for judgment.
nt PlllllBlllllenta awarded will be found attached
"rues the calendar below.
11(')41)
Ita 44ing THE BOLTON RIOTS.
WN 4, his ,gentence on Eastwood and others, for rioting. at
tf a 1-3°unsiiip said that the cases of riot at Bolton
444a:1e:era serious and aggravated nature, from the -
the tiee of et,their being continued throughout the uay,
he °titer,'" law, and great violence had been Used towards
tktpliait4,while in the due execution of their duty.. It
log eters "'see persons of decent habits, and bearing good
lt4liatt
exaP to the time of being betrayed into these un_-
4„.a.esses, brought up to receive judgment for of-
.ue 1,1 Past the law • the due enforcement of the law
ilivs.,alutained ; and, however painful it might be to
ttit",,Lord-:l„`ds bounden ut to pass sentence upon them.
l;tes't upolll, thien passed sentenc of one years' imprison-.
lia eaun of the prisoners, with the exception ot
t,O 44(1 he said in his case he had been induced to
Nhtaarkte,,,teeollatnendation of the jury. He had borne. a
"faiat -1‘4., and he did not think that his present mi.s-
i‘rsbe s-e4'd injure it. He thought the ends of justee
'l4 r.*: lihaer,,ved, it he ordered him to find two sureties in
10-kluet and receive sentence when called upon. If
th ''.as good, he would never be brought up.
tlee e riot ease'
kta b., and hat Bolton, his L.Lordship passed similar
4111,a drew the same distinction an the cases of the
It d Parkins.
tntOin b TRE
e seen
.SES OF INTIMIDATION._
t 4 fel- that in all the cases of parties going
.to fa. c-
trh.the,,i 'e out the hands, his Lordship drew a distinction
tatti'd that t eases at Bolton which he said he did on the
Ned
witthheauthorities of the law had not been resisted
sFßhile violence.
tai and •
TRAINING TO ARMS.
dl .14i4g inraiMY, alias Coupe, who had been convicted.
kove, Military evolutions, and for whom Mr. COB-
khelltkele an arrest of judgment, on the ground that the
' (the not framed according to the act of parlia-
'thielsoll,
,°loection was overruled,) were placed at the bar.
tot '1%111,;1111' said they 1 • d been convicted of an offence
lobPt) t acted Ihnerta to transportation ; however, he should
toll that exte
tp1444411 ipeadse of the two Bardsleys, Cox, and Wardle, his
rea•4sed zr-rew a distinction, inasmuch ch as the prisoners had
atiabettenisii•iiecatioenon.trition for 'what they had done. He also
ree, in the case of Naylor and Dansfield, who
namended to mercy by Mr. Sergeant Atcherley.
it tAN Ile, ALLEGED PERJURY.
r'ria 'letro, t "IT Maunsell was charged with this offence.
else rY, charged the defendant with wilful and corrupt
141 (.Irawearing that he had served the prosecutor, in the
ittal• C 40,11 • Parsons, with a'copy of a writ of summons.
!I,sthietit eV'illoN, for the defendant, contended that the in-
(11 .4t I 44 110 t be maintained, inasmuch as there was
iocis.ll°w that the summons had any object in the suit
tlo Th
ko,e J tt,
4. thought the objection good, and the case was
t~L
aatorueath THE CALENDAR.
le of will be found a summary of the sentences of
ftioliNet prisoners tried :-
/gildittesllsly asqle, .22, for having, at Ashton-under-Lyne,
otie
hsaulted one Patrick Donally, and stolen from his
,r4tkileh tilaelilii[jootrnaanidiyone pair of shoes, the property of the
•-Two years' imprisonment, hardlabotur,
1) Ilk, ranee 11eleY, 23, for having, at Manchester, assaulted
Ile wruas Ni•---One week's imprisonment.
ry; ~,crati, 35 for having, at Warrington, assaulted
1444-trge4-httatkker•Two years' prisonment.
ketlt ato '1 el', 33, for having, at Mancheater, feloniously
to struck one Sarah Whittaker, his wife, with
intexa,, arder her
t:l4,l(ler al -Death recorded.
5a.441. one bee, 23, for having, at Manchester, feloniously
••• "dler:d so,,,"alPh &yes, and stolen from his person four
f qep,-Tet:lleigns, the property of John Howard and
•Re Koppers' transportation.
,t 1, I,„t, 23, charged with having, at West Derby,
oalloriAe(lexiittioadwfullY, and carnally known one Margaret
labor Scot •
clack 811, 24, for havin at Wigan, killed and slain
Pre,; Qu'thng•--Three months' imprisonment, hard
'he h‘!triet
4111 4'l Gill
4meil
Carringt9o, 23, for having, at Lathom, assaulted
q(1.1,, Westwell Srx months' imprisonment, hard labour.
, 40, for havina• at Culcheth, assamted one
O" N L-six months' hriprisonment hard labour.
usly allti.,an, 27, charged *th havin•; at Liverpool,
t•riitlittetitiu unlawfully killed and d slain one, Ann Costello.
l• r'rna, •
1•11411etlis
041. mo e, 32, for having at Bury, killed and slain one
reale.-Four months' imprisonment, hard
l'orio°Ne td„
o 4 -11' 54, charged with feloniously and violently
OVied. e Hannah S:Mth, at Ashton-under-Lyne.-
late `Watts44,(ll;ll,,itelawft'aGn2d, for havin at Heaton-Norris, feloni-
iiiillaiz; taida'e•lth
recorded.
char known one Mary Anne Smith.
ot,' slain 1 "3, 25, charged with having, at Liverpool,
.4::1
othrieaoviniengJ naites Ath
Prestwich
-Acquitted.
144111 orl with h lat!Y, James Coker and Abraham Hardy,
o ~, killed and
and Hard three months imprison-
Y, acquitted.
97111t14 4t
1101roY, 2G, and John Lowe, 23, charged with
tited- 18
.killed and slain one Betty Haslam.-
}l,7illlcalrl a ""1 imprisonment, hard labour ; Lowe ac-
"P "es 20
No endie' , and John Smith, 21, charged with
ellttuerl, Wi„ too, broken and entered the dwelling-house
for Pro boot3fiChl, and stolen two airs of shoes, one pair
1° PertY six ir 1111 P
year of the 8 C ren shoes, and two coa.ts,
fel eurg, s• said Thomas Wingfield.-Transportation
ta°11lo„ tor,,
ho a-rnh 2,
4,,iraer ,e.as and ,1, Charged with having, at Liverpool,.
b ;tal?bed one George Hogarth, with intent
ea?oss, 20, 4-_,qUltted4
itiou4t,tiekti stabi(:;e"p*ged with having, at Liverpool,.feloni-
, (:o.aaisqUrphy, Vile Barnard Campbell.-Acquitted.
'tl,) !Ist° "Ilea a_ ,), committed for having, at Liverpool,
I,Ltioti4Plier Jan nu slain one Henry Mooney.-No
e Todd 2- f • having, at Liverpool,
c4zled the 1 ' for ut tor , aria e several sums of £l5O, £3O, £l4,
tbe-`ttai„ Eds„
_f'loo, which he had received for and on
WhaQoo.,, Dalai:4' Wilson the public and registered officer
11'4°Y or spearrYing' on business under the name of
e said c.roprietors of the Bank of Liverpool, to
Wiettlaß b j' TOdd Was clerk.-Transportation for
'a.or7
Ow e, 22 r
or having at Liverpool, assaulted one
'lx Months' imprisonment, hardlabour,

James Harney, 30, John Harney, 35, and John Carty, 19,
for maliciously stabbing John Degan, at Ashton-under-Lyne.
—The Harneys each two years imprisonment, hard labour ;
Carty 12 months, hard labour.
ham Prosser, 26, for having, at Liverpool, feloniously
married one Ann Mark, his former wife being then living.—
Two years' imprisonment, hard labour.
John Willson, 21, charged with having, at Liverpool,
killed and slain one Hugh Jones.—Acquitted.
Robt. Lockhart, for maliciously stabbing Thos. Fazackerly,
at Manchester.—Transportation for 15 years.
George Lister, 56, charged with unlawfully possessing a
mould for coining—acquitted; and Mary Lister, 44, for
having, at Manchester, knowingly held in her possession,
certain patterns and moulds for coining base shillings, and
one false and counterfeit shilling.—Transportation for life.
Betty Taylor, alias Mary Carbutt, alias Elizabeth Mary
Carbutt, 45, for having, at Great Bolton, feloniously uttered
to one Ellen Hart, one base half-crown, she well knowing
the same to be base, and having been previously convicted
of uttering base coin.-10 years transportation.
Edward M`Mahon, 45, for having, at Manchester, feloni-
ously had in his possession certain moulds for coining base
shillings and half-crowns.-15 years' transportation.
Michael Grogan, 37, and Bridget Dolan, 38, for having at
Manchester, feloniously made and counterfeited twenty-four
shillings and eight sixpences ; Michael Grogan, 3 years and
hard labour; Bridget Dolan, 2 years and hard labour.
Ellen Rowley, 41., and Elizabeth Farrell, 50, charged with
the same offence, acquitted.
William Henry Maunsell, charged with perjury.—
Acquitted.
Michael Grady, 50, for having, at Ince-in-Mackerfield,
unlawfully uttered, to one Margaret Holding, one base
shilling, he well knowing the same to be base, and with
having in his possession seven other base shillings, well
knowing the same to be base.-2 years' imprisonment and
hard labour.
James Gorman, for possessing moulds for coining.-
3 years' transportation.
Daniel Cole, 30, for the manslaughter of David Bailey, at
Liverpool.—Transportation for life.
James Heywood, 22, charged with the wilful murder of
Mary Heywood, at Bury.—Acquitted.
Francis Joorens, 23, charged with the wilful murder of
Mary Milligan, at Liverpool.—Acquitted.
THE CHARTIST CASES.
James Coupe, 46, and Edward Riley, 26, for having, at
Newton, attended a meeting to be trained and drilled to
arms, and for having, at the said meeting, trained and drill-
ed others to the use of arms, military evolutions, &c.-18
months' imprisonment, and hard labour, and at the expira-
tion of the term to enter into recognizances and find sureties
to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for two years,
themselves in £5O each, and two sureties of £25 each.
William Naylor, William Stansfield, John Wright, Thos.
Ward, John Hodges, and William Darren, for attending a
meeting to be trained to arms, and in military evolutions, &c.
--Four months' imprisonment, and to enter into the like re-
cognizances and sureties.
John Bardsley, Samuel Bardsley, William Cox, otherwise
William Braithwaite, and Jas. Wardle, for the same offence,
—Six months' imprisonment and hard labour, and to enter
into the like recognizances and sureties.
Richard Eastwoo[l, John Pilling, Thomas, Heywood,
Robert Gillebrand, Andrew Morgan, Thomas Farrell, Jona-
than Mert, John Gill, Joseph Bostock, James Heywood,
James Wild, James Morris, and Edward Glennon, for riot-
ing at Bolton.-12 months' imprisonment and hard labour
each, and to enter into the like sureties, &c.
John Wightman, Charles M`Millan, John Latchford,
Adam Dootson, John Smith, John Green, Thos. Ratcliffe,
John Holmes, and Joseph Booth, for rioting.-6 months'
imprisonment each, and to enter into the like sureties, &c.
John Pearsall, Isaac Crompton, William Openshaw, John
Holt, charged with rioting.—Acquitted.
William Baldersher, Joseph Fitton, and William Harvey,
committed for riot, &c.—Bills ignored.
In the above summary, no doubt, a few cases will be found
wanting, as we could not with certainty ascertain the names
of the parties ; as far as it goes it will be found correct.

The following persons are bound over, themselves in £lOO
each, and two sureties of £25 each, to appear to answer the
charges against them at the next Assizes :
William Tillman, 35, George Henry Smith, 35, Christopher
Doyle, 29, and Joseph Linney, 30, charged with having, at
Manchester, unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously conspir-
ed, with divers other persons, to resist the laws of this realm,
and with then and there having unlawfully and seditiously in-
stigated and incited divers liege subjects of our Sovereign Lady
the Queen, tumultuously to assemble together, and with force
and arms, to resist the laws of the realm, and to cause riots
and breaches of the peace.
Samuel Scott, 29, charged with having, atManchester, un-
lawfully and maliciously had in his custody and possession, a
gun, a quantity of gunpowder, bullets, and ball cartridges, for
an unlawful purpose ; and with having, at Hulme, unlawfully
and maliciously conspired, with divers other persons, to resist
the laws of this realm, and to cause riots and breaches of the
peace.
Timothy Booth, 60, charged with having, at Manchester,
had concealed in his dwelling-house, sundry guns, daggers,
and pistols, 200 leaden bullets, a bayonet, a quantity of gun-
powder, and sundry printed and written books and papers of
a seditious tendency, such guns, daggers, pistols, &c., being
then and there so concealed for an unlawful purpose.
John Fagan, for attending an unlawful assembly, and sedi-
tious speeches.
Wm. Vernon Jackson. 26, charged with having, at Man-
chester, unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously conspired,
with divers other persons, to resist the laws of this realm, and
with then and there having unlawfully and seditiously insti-
gated and incited divers liege subjects of our Sovereign Lady
the Queen, tumultuously to assemble together, and, with force
' and arms 'to resist the laws of the realm, and to cause riots
and breaches of the peace.
CIVIL SIDE.
The whole of the criminal cases having been gone through,
his lordship proceeded to try civil causes. Only two were
cases brought on for trial, and possessed no general interest.

NISI PRIUS COURT—YESTERDAY.
GIBSON V. WARE.
In this action the plaintiff sought to receive the sum of
£2l 4s Gd, being for attendance on a horse, placed under
the care of the plaintiff, who was a veterinary surgeon. The
question was, whether the debt was contracted by the defen-
dant or by another party. It appeared in evidence, that the
horse had been sent to the veterinary hospital in. March,
1835, and remained under attendance until August, 1836,
and that the defendant had rendered himself liable for the
debt.—Verdict for the plaintiff to the amount stated.

FIELDEN V. SEDDON AND OTHEILS.

This was an action to recover debt for interest on a sum
of £2,800 lent by the plaintiff to a Mr. Baker, since de-
ceased, and of whom the defendants were the executors.
The debt was secured by a bond and a mortgage-deed, and
the interest to be paid at stated periods ; was to be 5 per
cent., or, if paid earlier, 44 per cent. The amount required
was or interest unpaid on the amount stated since the death
of Mr. Baker. The case (as stated by the judge) resolved
itself into a form of law. The amount sought was £315.
The jury, under direction, found for that amount.
SMITH V. BURDEKIN.
This was an action in trover, the object of which was to
recover the title deeds of an estate belonging to the plaintiff,
and placed in the hands of the defendant, one of the directors
or proprietors of the Bank of Manchester. It appeared that
Mr. Smith had been in business as a cotton spinner, and he
opened an account with the bank. At the end of the first
year after the opening of the account, he became indebted to
the bank, and his father deposited with that establishment
the title deeds of his estate as a security. After the death of
his father, in 1834, the plaintiff came into the possession of
the property, and the account between him and the bank ran
on as before. He paid all he individually owed them, and
claimed the title deeds from the bank ; but these were refused,
be having, by an agreement, become liable for a Mr. John
Middleton, who was in arrears to the bank. Middleton, it
appeared, had deposited two policies of insurance on his life
with the bank, but they not liking that security, the plaintiff
gave a written agreement, to the effect that he engaged to
pay, or cause to be paid, to the bank, on account of John
111iddleton, the sum of £53 Bs. 10d., on their producing a
receipt for that amount, yearly and every year, that sum
being the amount annually payable on the two policies of
insurance—one of £2OO, and another for £5OO, effected at
the Atlas Assurance Company, at Stockport. The bank had
r.id the premiums for five years, amounting to £267 4s. 2d.,
which was due to them.
The case was heard and argued at considerable length, and
the jury gave a verdict for the defendant—so that the bank
will hold the title deeds until the amount due to them, by the
agreement regarding Middleton, is refunded.
KENT V. DEANE.
The plaintiff is an innkeeper, and the defendant a black-
smith, and the action was brought with a view to recover
Aciuble rent or value for a cottage at Stretford, let to the
defendant by, the plaintiff, who owned the premises, and who
had served due notice to quit. The sum claimed (the rent
being £l4 a-year) was £2B for one year's rent, and £7 for a
broken period afterwards. The case was of minor interest.
The defendant had tendered the usual rent, which was re•
fused. The jury found a verdict for the defendant.
FIELDEN V. SEDDEN AND OTHERS.

This was an action to recover from the defendants the sum
of £420, being the interest on a debt and mortgage of £2BOO,
at five per cent. The interest had been paid in 1834, 1835
and 1836, and the amount sought had accumulated since the
year last named. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff,
damages £315.

BUCKLEY V. MARTIN.
The plaintiff, in this case, sought to receive the sum of
£241 14s. being the amount of two bills of exchange not
paid when presented. The defendant, who belonged to the
Imperial Bank," said, in bar of the action, that they had
not endorsed the bill. It had, however, been admitted that
it was signed by procuration, by a Mr. Whittenbury, a clerk
of the Imperial Bank of England. He had endorsed the bills
by authority of his employers. A verdict was given to the
plaintiff to the amount sought. ,
WORTHINGTON V. BARLOW
In this action the plaintiff sought to recover an amount
from the defendant, alleged to be due as a deposit, on the pur-
chase of a public-house, and four houses adjoining, at Ashton-
under-Lyre, which were sold, by public sale, and knocked
down for the sum of £740. The plaintiff had paid the £74—
being 10 per cent. by way of deposit, and this he never sought
to recover on the ground that lie had made the purchase as
freehold, whereas there was a reservation of mines in the
ground, an annual rent was also required; and, as he con-
tended, the title was not a good one. The sale took place on
the 25th of April. The payment of the deposit money was
proved. It appeared, however, that the plaintiff had seen an
abstract of the conditions of sale, and that he had no good
ground for not completing the payment for the purchase.—
The jury found a verdict for the defendant.
NEWTON V. WERNAM.-WARRANTY OF A HORSE.
The plaintiff (it was stated) resides at Manchester. Being
desirous of purchasing a horse, and hearing of an animal which
he thought would suit him, belonging to Lieut. Wernam (the
defendant), he went to thebarracks to see it, taking with him
a veterinary surgeon, and a groom to watch his interests in the
bargain. It was a bay mare. The price asked by Mr. Wee-
nam was forty guineas. The plaintiff offered 35 guineas, but
this offer was not acceded to. The mare had, as it was stat-
ed, a slight scratch or hurt on one of her knees, caused by a
recent accident in leaping a stone fence in Ireland. The
plaintiff, it appears, was not fully aware of this defect, if, in-
deed, he knew of it at all. He finally corresponded with the
defendant, and agreed to purchase the mare for the sum of
£37 10s. The defendant's groom, who brought the horse to
the plaintiff, together with a note from defendant authorizing
him to deliver the horse on payment of the money, was asked
by plaintiff if he could give a warranty of the mare's soundness.
To this he replied that he could ; but that, as he could not
'write, he could only put his mark to any warranty that might
be drawn out. A warranty was accordingly written, to the effect
that the mare was " perfectly sound in every respect," and the
groom put his mark to it on behalf of his master. The mare was
afterwards brought out, and a veterinary surgeon and others
found that she was unsound • that she had what is termed a
" splint" on one leg,—a kind of swelling between the small
and the large bones of the leg. It appeared that the plaintiff
and his friend had previously trotted and cantered the mare,
and did not then discover any defect. The " spline' after-
wards became apparent, and the defendant was informed, by
letter from the plaintiff, of the fact. He stated, in reply,
that he was sorry ; that he did not know that the mare was
lame, and that he would make all right. The plaintiff, who
had written to the defendant that he made it a rule never to
purchase a horse without warranty, finding the mare .thrown
upon his hands, the defendant not coming up, advertised the
mare for sale, and she was sold for £l5. The action was
raised for the purpose of recovering the difference between
that amount, deducting the expenses, and the sum paid for
the mare.
The evidence was heard at considerable length, and went
to show that the purchaser of the mare and his friend had
had ample opportunity.to examine the mare before the pur-