The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-03-29 00:00:00

Young lady in October, 1850. S:ie had not before that
asked him to introduce her to some of his family. S
wrote to his father, and expressed fears that he was in
danger ; she was fearful that he would commit suicide.
The defendant was annoyed that she wrote to his friends.
His sister did not accuse them of hoaxing her about 11-r
brother. Miss Delemer was not ill in consequence of
What occurred. She obtained a written promise from the
defendant ; and when she had got it she did not sa to her,
husband, " Now it is all right, send him away." She
did not, at the time she obtained the promise, tell him
that her niece was likely to die, and that the promise was
necessary to save her life. Her niece was in good health
at the time. Her husband's income is £2. 10s. a-week.
Previous to 1851 her husband received £l2O a-year from
houses, after interest and mortgage money was paid. Her
sausband received it ; she never received any portion of it.
att. Delemer occupied a sitting-room besides the bed-
t°,oo3. He occupied part of the sitting-room with Gautier.
She put her niece's name over the grocer's shop, because
her husband had another business of his own, as clerk of
the works, and was at that time superintending the
building of a bakehouse.
Mrs. Marie Jeannette, wife of the Rev. R. Dunning,
earate of Haydock, said she visited Mrs. Ostler in Nov.
1848, and saw there the defendant, Mr. Delemer, whO was
frequently in the company of Miss Richardson. She heard
Delemer almost every day say something about mar-
ling Miss Richardson. He invited her to visit them ; she
Was to go with them to Paris. He said it would not be
'Convenient for him to be married until he received the
money for the patent from Messrs. Bird. The defendant
APPeared to be very much attached to Miss Richardson.
Mr. Gautier said he was present when the defendant
i;ras married to Miss Mather in November last. He had
een payine his addresses to Miss Mather a very short
s,
"me. Delemer was indebted to him now £3OO or £4OO.
'e could not say whether he was able to pay him.
kr. Sergeant WILKINS then addressed the jury for the
defence. If it was meant for a single moment to be said
that his client had seduced the young woman, the law gave
a remedy. This was not an action for seduction, but an
action for breach of promise of marriage. It was, in
Point of fact, an action for breach of contract, and the
lerY had to say, as men of business, what damage, what
the breach
young woman had sustained in consequence of
Ilae breach of contract. He should not be a bit surprised
eloquent in if, at the next assizes, they found his learned friend very
tnhmaenaction of seduction against the same man.
lke
not to be led astray by the representations
which had been made of the wounds which this young
lady had received in her heart. These things were all
very pretty to be talked about ; they very easily excited
Youngladies in novels; but broken hearts were notcommon
things, and generally speaking, at the age of 21 nature
Was so buoyant, the world presented so many objects of
attraction, there was so much to divert, to please, and to
Make one forget, that without indulging in any spirit of pro-
phecy he would undertake that this young lady would
13,..haw no symptoms of a broken heart that day twelve
months. He left the case in the hands of the jury, feeling
that they would do justice between the parties.
His lordship summed up, and remarked that whatever
the notions of those who climb to this country from
abroad might be, they must either conform to the law
"hen here, or take the consequences.
jury, after retirin for a short time, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff, g damages £lOO. The damages
Were laid at £l,OOO.
THURSDAY, MARCH 24.
t, bACRE V. DAWSON.—In this action Susan Deere was
,Pse Plaintiff, and James Edward Dawson the defendant.
declaration was on a claim for money lent plaintiff,
damages £5O, subject to a reference.
kePAWSoN V. DACRE AND ANOTHER.—This was acros-
sforll34 arising out of transactions involved in the preceding
ease• A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, by consent,
E3E3 14s. 10d., subject to a reference.
ate JONES AND ANOTHER V. HARRAP. The plaintiffs
sad the
Chorlton-upon-Medlock, Manchester,
th: the defendant is a builder and contractor residing
14" e• The declaration was for debt, for work, and
us,aur, and materials. A verdict was taken for the plain-
Vor £6O, subject to a reference.
stated Holt V. BIGLAND AND OTHERS. The declaration
,„ that the defendants, as the brokers of the plaintiff,
ivoPeresented to him that they had purchased for him 25
psi,! of palm oil, to arrive by a certain vessel, at a certain
pee, whereas the defendants had not purchased the palm
DI en the terms aforesaid, but upon different terms. The
-es'ltiff was nonsuited, leave being given to move in the
Litt above.
poJe to LE V. JOULE.—The plaintiff is an extensive ale and
b .er brewer at Salford. The defendant is now ut of
pauslness. The action was brought to recover two porinci-
ter sums of £l,OOO and £2,000 with interest for a long
of years, and also money lent on a promissory note,
Dial• expenses incurred. The jury gave a verdict for the
ntiff for £1,560, upon the first two counts in the de-
claration, and for the defendant upon the other counts.
ANTHONY AND ANOTHER V. BRADFORD--A verdict
4s taken in this case for the plaintiffs, by consent, for
subiee‘ to terms.
411 e court`Vose shortly after six o'clock, till Saturday
Morning.
SATURDAY, MARCH 26.
corrnsm. AND OTHERS V. LATHAM.
deTile plaintiffs are bleacers at Great Lever, and the
fendant a boiler-maker, at Bolton. The plaintiffs con-
tracted with the defendant to construct a boiler for them,
Which he warranted to work at a pressure of GOlbs. to the
square inch. Whilst the boiler was being worked at a
Pressure of from 501bs. to 521b5., it exploded, and blew
lip th*e entire of plaintiffs' premises. The plaintiffs
Sought to recover £3,176, the value of the building and
Property destroyed. Mr. Knowles, Q.C., and Mr. Sow-
?r appeared for the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Serjeant Wilkins,
7,„laff
rinetiowling and Mr. Cross for the defendant. For the
it Was shown that the explosion took place on
the 18th of September. The pressure at which the boiler
worked was from 301bs. to 401bs. to the square
▪ and at that pressure an escape of steam from the
rivet holes was observed by Mr. Cottrill's engineer, who
bbected attention to it. On the day of the explosion the
v,!erwas being worked up to a pressure of 531b5., at
Which point steam blew off from the safety valve, which
Rork the pressure to 501bs. or 521b5., and whilst
tersi,,lng at this pressure the explosion took place, the
and other guages indicating that everything was in
th! er order to secure the safe working of the boiler, and
'questions
concern destroyed.—His lordship left three
fade to the jury :-Ist, Was the boiler properly
squaer; ?d, Was it fit to bear a pressure of 601bs. to the
Ito._ a. inch ; 3d, Was it, in point of fact, working at
set(reelhan 601bs. at the time of the explosion.—The jury
eottrt.", and after an absence of about an hour came into
pedy Their finding was, that the boiler was not pro-
lific' t• hat they had no evidence to show it was working at
of th"llre of above 601bs. to the square inch at the time
Alcnt„explosion.—His lordship : That is a verdict for the
'us. The question of damages was referred.
COLLIER V. JAMIESON.
'wkaticiai Was an action brought by a machine agent, at
sksht ester, for £42, against a machine-manufacturer, at
lead:sttunder-Isyne. The plaintiff procured for the de-
g() e'', an order from a millowner, named Haigh, for
siop 'truing engines, at £l6 each, and claimed commis-
lallth‘t
.te rate of
Thep cent., the ansount which he
vesdi.! to recover. defendant dented the agency.
The
for the plaintiff.
u court adjourned to Monday.
• till • THE NEW COURTS.
)4ty ring the proceedings, on Saturday, the judge, the
to he the counsel frequently declared it impossible
etslis'er the witnesses ; or that the business of the assizes
o b
e conducted satisfactorily under the present
bei4Way .4entents of the court. Whilst witnesses were
examined in the very inconvenient and out-of-the-
intended as a witness-box, they were in-
Vaed tr Judge and jury ; and when, with a view to
, se shss
site side
the witnesses were made to stand on
oar, "Waite side of the court, they were inaudible to the
arranD.:lls_ lordship expressed his disapprobation of the
and 07uents of the court; and the Attorney-General,
that, 'ger leading counsel, expressed their astonishment
had berl2torithstanding the repeated' representations which
444.,1:1:1ade upon this subject, at two or three previous
of the' 'present absurd and inconvenient arrangements
der court should be allowed to continue. The same
assileat exists in the Crown Court ; and, at the present
s/,,,5-s, all the witnesses examined have been placed be-
th,7eo the bench and the jury-box, standing upon one of
art.w seats intended for attorneys. Another defect in the
fora,4,getnents of the court is the want of accommodation
definite
press, which appears to have been quite overlooked,
uefinite place being set apart for the reporters. At
present they are " tolerated," when they can find room,
et the end of the attorneys' table ; but there they are
'objected to all kinds of annoyance from witnesses,
Solicitors, and court-loungers, who are constantly passing,
rendering it almost impossible to discharge their some-
``h• at "at times, difficult duties. The attention of the St.
?:?rge's.hall Committee should be immediateiy directed
`l'e removal of these inconveniences.

MONDAY, MARCH 28.
wetly
(Before Mr. BARON MARTIN.)
AND KENNEDY V. FISHER AND SON.—ACTION
AGAINsT AUCTIONEERS.
Tili3 was an action brought a.ainst tile defendants (who
are extensive auctioneers at 'Manchester), by Messrs.
takeßury and Kennedy, formerly the well-known machine
rs
Court. of this town. The defendants had paid £lOO into
th slr.
Knowles, Q.O
M., and Mr. Holland, appeared for
for the defendants. e plaintiffs and r. H. Hill, Q.C., and M M
r. onk,
t
kr. HOLLAND having opened the pleadings,
NWn'LES Q.C., stated the plaintiffs' case. The
ellre gentlemen who, until recently, carried on an
brtei_lllfirtal.iffsK,s
e lasinessinLiverpool as iron founders, and they
t.,2giat this action against the defendants to recover a
which the defendants had received,
t,';,`Lain sum of money
ecil which belonged to them (the plaintiffs). The two
and he (Mr. Knowles) be-
i.vvendants were auctioneers,
N were in a very large way of business ; and from the
L'UOY r •
,e respectable manner in which tliey weresbd havesopuolkenof,
all was much surprised that the defendantsthe wed this action to come into court. In the year 1851
tin, Plaintiffs arranged to go out of business ; and at this
x,ilie the detendauts were employed to sell their stock,
that Was a very large one. It was known.thawtotuhled sumbe
ea,, would be received for the stock usiderable ; and instead of giving the defendants
dotter tentage on the proceeds, as was frequently
40," when the stock was not very large,
they
Of ed with the defendants to accept a certain sum instead
the mission, amounting to £3OO, and in addition to thisex_
were to be paid certain other expenses, but no _
the4.,es cut of pocket. The necessary steps were taken by
•,,th'iefendants, and in August of 1851 the sales took place
1,74.dat is, the main sale, for a small sale took place aofteor-r
18 3--he proceeds amounting to some £l7. ,00
4lltt'Vri• ATost of the purchasers resided in Liverpool,
,teot,„" was agreed that the plaintiffs should collect the
.51.,—Y• Certain of the purchasers, however, resided in
tho-11Fhester, and it was arranged that the defendants
to 4,41 receive the money from those parties, and it was
11_,(1:4,,tain the payment of that money that the plaintiffs
de feed before the court. After it was known that the
'tL-gants had had sufficient time to get the money paid
Qleferil42_,. the. plaintiffs asked
.for an account, when the
,t,'ltitt "invs said they had received the money, but they
on the plaintiffs for a considerable amount,
P'aintiffs on that replied, " Well, then, give us