The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1852-08-17 00:00:00

NEILD V. WARHURST
The plaintiff in this case, Mr. Robert

REACH OF CONTR

to. 1

Tas brought to reco-

,fendant, was a

builder in Manchester,
turer at Newton Heath ; the action
ver a balance for work done to two building
fendant, and to recover damages for the hl
contracts, for the completion of buildings, wh
tered into between the plaintiff and defendant
lance due at the commencement of the ac*'
£l5O, and that had been reduced, by the

ney into court,

was ao(
payment of n

agreement was entered into between the pal
the plaintiff agreed to erect a mill, &c., for I
which was to be ready on the 20th of July.
the agreement had been entered into, the d
desirous of having a residence in the neighh
the mill, and requested the plaintiff to funds'
the list of prices for which he would be willin2
work. The plaintiff furnished the list of pri
was approved of by Mr. Pilling, the architect
fendant, and returned to the plaintiff signet
tract, not in writing, was entered into between the
tiff and defendant. Under those two contracts the

:o do t

tiff proceeded to work, and completed—with respect t
the contract for the mill, work to the amount of £ISC
and, with respect to the contract for the house work, t
the amount of £2o—when he was stopped by the plain
tiff ; and it was for the balance of those two sums the
the action was brought. The amount of contract for th
mill was £2,390; and, in addition to the balance due, da
mages to the amount of the profit likely to be realise
from the performance of the contract, estimated at be

tween £4OO and £5OO, were sought to be recovered. The
work done was estimated by Mr. Pilling, the defendant's
architect, at £l3O. The amount actually paid by the
plaintiff, on account of the contracts, was £126 17s. 9jld. ;
of this, £llO 4s had been paid in cash, and the balance
was for timber furnished. Witnesses were called to prove
the facts of the case. For the defence it was contended
that the contract was drawn up by Pilling, who was a
friend of the plaintiff, and that defendant had never read
it. The stoppage of the works was entirely the act of the
plaintiff. A verdict was found for the plaintiff, damages
.t'32l, over and above the money, £lO6, paid into court.

CASSON AND OTHERS V. EVANS.
An action for a bill of exchange for £25. drawn by Mr.
Roberts, on the 14th June, ISSI, accepted by the defen-
dant and endorsed to the plaintiffs. bankers, at Port
Madoc, North Wales. Mr. Hugh Hill, Q.C., was for the
plaintiffs ; Mr. Atherton, Q.C., for the defendant. —Ver-
dict for the plaintiffs ; damages, £2O, with interest.

TOWNSTIEND V. GORDON

In this case the action was for work done by the plain.
tiff, a plumber, in Manchester, in building three houses at
Cheetham-hill, the defendant having had extra work done
beyond what was agreed for in the contract. The defen-
dant bad paid £4O into court, which, he alleged, was the
amount due to the plaintiff. The jury returned a verdict
for the plaintiff. damages, £34 165., and costs.
At six o'clock, the court adjourned until nine o'clock
on Saturday morning.

SATURDAY.

Mr. Justice Wightman!ook his seat on the bench at a

few minutes past nine o'clock.
TETLOW V. HOLDEN.--A FOOT-RACING SQUABBLE

This action was brought to recover the stakes of £lOO
aside on a foot-race run at Aintree, in September last,
between the plaintiff and a man named Hayes, which had
been placed in the hands of defendant as stakeholder.
Plaintiff complained that he had been knocked down
during the race and thus lost, yet Holden had paid over
the money to his opponent. It transpired, in evidence,
that the money deposited was not paid by Tetlow ; and
that therefore the action could not be sustained. Verdict
of noncnit ornq pntered_

GARTSIDE V. BRADBURY

This was an action by plaintiff, a farmer in Saddleworth,
to recover from defendant, who holds an adjoining farm,
damages alleged to arise from a diversion of a stream
which flowed through the lands of both. It was con-
tended that by working a quarry, and cutting drains in
the stream. plaintiff had caused the water to be so foul
that defendant's cows would not drink it. On the part
of the defendant it was contended that the action was vin-
dictive, and that the diversion complained of arse from
natural causes. The jury found a verdict for the defendant.

JOHNSON V

TAYLOR

This was an action brought by plaintiff against his
mother-in-law for a balance of account of £ll4, arising
out of !some loan transactions and a sale by her of the
Albion Inn, Rochdale, which had been conveyed to her
as security, and with a view to giving her a preference over
plaintiff's other creditors. The details were rather corn-
plicated, and are totally uninteresting. The jury found a
verdict for the plaintiff, damages £9O and costs.