The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-04-02 00:00:00

• £5O from him on account. He purchased wool from them
on the Bth of February, on the terms already mentioned, to
the amount of £251, and a few days subsequently he bought
another lot, of £26 value. These lots of wool were delivered
to Law on the 14th February, and on the following Monday,
the 18th, Longbottom, whom he would produce, would state
that he heard George Law was going to stop payment. He
(the learned counsel) need not, he thought, tell the jury that
a trader could not lawfully prefer one creditor to another ;
but to establish fraud it was necessary to show that the
transfer of the goods it question was the volition of the cre-
ditor, and not the demand of the debtor; for where a trans-
fer is made under the influence of a bona fide pressure, it
cannot be looked upon as a fraud either in law or morals.
It would be proved that Longbottom, on the 25th February,
went to the bankrupt, on the part of the defendants, and
demanded from him satisfaction for the debt he owed them,
and if he had not money to return them their goods. George
Law and his brother Edmund, who was taken into partner-
ship, agreed to give up the goods, and they settled the former
account due to the Messrs. Rouse, by the payment of £5O
in cash, and by the transfer of 74 pieces of flannel, that were
in the stores of the Messrs. Howarth. For these flannels
they gave an order on Messrs. Howarth to deliver them up
to the defendants, and also a bill of indemnity for the act.
Then as to the wool, they agreed to cancel that transaction,
and to return the wool. In conclusion, he submitted that
the transaction of the 25th February was a fair and honest
one on the part of the Messrs. Rouse, and that in point of
law there was no conversion of the property by the plaintiff
to maintain this action of trover.
Joseph Longbottom was called, and corroborated the state-
ments of the learned counsel.
Sergeant ATCHERLEY replied, and
His Lordship then addressed the jury. He said they had
three questions to try—first, did the bankrupt commit the act
of bankruptcy on the 15th February ; because, if he did, he
had no right to dispose of the property—none but the
assignees had the right; secondly, was the transaction of the
25th February an act of bahkruptcy • for if the insolvent
parted with his property without a bankruptcy;
fide pressure, the
transfer was a fraudulent one; thirdly, were George Low and
Edmund Low tenants in common, and did the defendants
hold the property by the authority of Edmund. His lord-
ship, in elucidation of these issues, referred at much length
to the evidence of the witnesses, and to the documents,
invoices, &c., that were produced, and concluded by repeat-
ing the questions that the jury had to decide.
After a few minutes deliberation, the jury returned a
verdict for the plaintiffs, £414 and costs.

THE CONSTABLES AND BURGESSES OF CHORLTON-TJPON-
MEDLOCK V. THE MANCHESTER GAS DIRECTORS AND
COMMISSIONERS, FOR NOT SUPPLYING PRIVATE CON-

SUMERB.

In this case, the declaration stated that a contract had been
entered into between the plaintiff and a Mr. James Fernley,
to supply the township of 'Chorlton-upon-Medlock with gas;
that this contract had been transferred to the Manchester
Gas Directors, and that they placed themselves under the
same liability for its due performance as Mr. Fernley ; and
finally, the declaration set forth that they had violated the
contract. To this declaration three pleas were put in—first,
that the pipes were not laid agreeably to the contract ;
secondly, that they supplied gas in all the streets that Mr.
Fernley supplied, and that they had performed the contract.
Mr. CRESWELL said this action was brought to deter-
mine the extent to which the defendants were bound to sup-
ply gas to the inhabitants of Chorlton-upon-Mecllock, in
the due performance of a contract entered into about seven
years ago, between the plaintiffs and a Mr. Fernley. The
question to he decided ultimately is one of law, and is rather
for the court than the jury, but there are some facts also for
the jury to decide. In 1833 the commissioners and bur-
gesses of Chorlton-upon-Medlock, entered into a contract
with Mr. Fernley, of Rusholme, to light that township with
gas. Under the Act of Parliament, the commissioners and
burgesses published advertisements for tenders in conse-
quence. Mr. Fernley proposed a tender, and by contract,
for a period of seven years, to lay down main and service
pipes, subject to certain limitations. to convey gas from his
works to the streets of the township. It was agreed that
the commissioners should find lamps, and that Fernley should
supply the gas, and light the lamps, which were to be placed
at an average distance from each other, of not more than 50
yards. This was done so as to secure him a remuneration for
the capital he had invested. There was also to be a fixed
price for each lamp. It was provided also that he should
light private houses and buildings, at a price not ex-
ceeding what was charged in Manchester. In this contract
there was a remarkable passage. The commissioners con-
tracted not to allow any gas works to be erected for the
purpose of lighting either Chorlton or Rusholme—that they
would not contract elsewhere for gas, nor manufacture gas
to light either township, nor permit any company to supply
either with gas—and it was provided that Mr. Fernley or
his executors should not be obliged to expend more than
£5OOO. for pipes, &c. unless for alterations and repairs. Such
was the-contract, and under it Mr. Fernley expended £5OOO.
It was then seen that this sum would not be sufficient to
supply gas to all the township, and the commissioners in
consequence agreed to supply the requisite capital to lay the
mains and service pipes, and then to call upon Mr. Fernley to
light the whole of the lamps, which was a good bargain for
him, as he received the price of the lamps the same as if lie
laid the pipes at his own expense. The commissioners agreed
to take these pipes off his hand at the termination of the
contract, at the same expense he was originally out of pocket
for them. So matters continued till 1837, when the act in-
capacitating the Manchester Gas Company was passed, they
then were obliged to take Fernley's contract, and to abide by
the provisions of it. They on the contrary say they are not
bound to supply gas to any but Fernley's pipes, so that a por-
tion of the township is now not lighted. He (Mr. C.) appre-
hended his lordship would tell them, the Manchester
Company was bound to light the streets that the Chorlton
commissioners laid down pipes in, in pursuance of that con-
tract. They have actually extinguished some lights, believ-
ing they are not Fernley's lights, though, when he had the
contract, their lamps were lighted by him. In conclusion,
be said, the question to be decided was, were the commis-
sioners bound to light the whole of Chorlton-upon-Medlock
at the contract price or not ?
J. Stuart, (Clerk of the Chorlton Commissioners,) was ex-
amined. He proved the contract entered into between them,
and Mr. Fernley ; and, that the latter had expected the sum
£5OOO, in pursuance of the said contract.
Mr. Piling, (one of the principal officers of the township,)
proved that several of the streets and, lapps which Mr.
Fernley supplied with gas, were now not supplied by the
defendants, as they were obliged to do, according to his in.
terpretation of the contract.
The learned Judge here observed, that if the jury found
that lamps and streets that were lighted by Fernley were
not now lighted by the Manchester Commissioners, the lat-
ter, of course, would be bound to light those hereafter.
Counsel for the defendants assented.
His LORDSHIP.—Then let the jury decide the fact, and,
the question of law may be left to the court above, as to the
obligation of the contract.
Mr. Sergeant STARKIE was then proceeding to address the
jury, with a view to shew that the contract was open to quite
a different interpretration from that given it by the learned
counsel opposite, when
His LORDSHIP requested. him to confine himself to the
facts as to the lighting of the lamps, he having, as he had al-
ready stated, reserved the point of law for the court above.
Witnesses were then examined to shew, that in the streets
in which it was complained the defendants did not light the
lamps, none of the Fernley or £5OOO pipes had been laid
down, viz. in Greek-street, Higher York-street, and Brook-
street, Chorlton. On this point the evidence was somewhat
contradictory.
Mr. CRESSWELL briefly replied to this evidence.
His LORDSHIP said, he had a very strong feeling that the
defendants were obliged to light all the lamps of the town-
ship, for evidently a correlative duty was implied by the
exclusion of all other companies from lighting the streets of
it and Rusholme. The only questions for the jury were—
first, were they of opinion that the defendants had neglected
to light 'the lamps that were included by Mr. Fernley's
£5,000 main and service pipes. They would be so good as
to state their opinion on that fact. They would next say if,
after they had lighted the lamps included in the £5,000 pipes,
they had supplied the other lamps connected with the mains
laid down by Fel nley, and adopted by the commissioners of
Chorlton.

The jury, without leaving the box, decided as to the first
question, that the defendants had not been guilty of any
omission ; and as to the second question,-'they gave it as their
opinion that the defendants had omitted to supply the addi-
tional lamps with gas.
It was then agreed that a nominal verdict for the plaintiffs
should be taken for £lOOO, reducible to Is., in case the court
above decided against them ; and if the opinion of the court
was in their favour, then the learned. Sergeant would be at
liberty to move that the verdict be reversed.
The Court then adjourned.