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

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD, TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 180..

your account, and show us your vouchers." Now,
the jury would he surprised to hear that for a great
length of time Mr. Bury, one of the plaintiffs, re-
peatedly called at the offi.ie of the defendants in Man-
chester, and he could not get an ac:•-i ant, from the defend--
ants, and consequently he was unahl, to ascertain whether
the defendants were entitled to retain all the money. The
matter was at length placed in the hands of certain attorneys
in Manchester. Letters were written to the defendants
by these attorneys, but to none of these letters did the
defendants make any reply. At length, Mr. Bury had a
last interview with the defendant, Mr. Fisher, jun., and
during that interview, Mr. Fisher snapped his fingers in
Mr. Bury's face, which, of course, put an end to all fur-
ther negociation. He (Mr. Knowles) should be obliged to
call one of the defendants into the box, in order to prove
that they had received a certain amount, and he believed
that amount would turn out to be from £BOO to £9OO. No
set-off was named, but he was willing to allow £3OO, and
he would also allow any fair and reasonable amount of
expenses to which the defendants might have been put.
He presumed he must be entitled to a verdict for the
plaintiffs, as there was no plea of set-off on the record.
Mr. Bury called.—l am now living in Sheffield. Up to
1851,1 was in partnership at Liverpool, as an ironfounder,
with Mr. Kennedy. *ln the year 1851 we agreed to dis-
solve partnership, and employed the defendants to sell the
stock by auction. We agreed to give them £3OO, and a
further allowance for men and expenses of advertisements.
The sale took place on the ith of August, in 1851. There
was a small sale afterwards, and I asked Mr. Fisher if the
£3OO we bad agreed to give him was to include commis-
sion for that sale, and he said it was.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hill, believe the first
sale occupied 35 days, and the second three days. We did
not agree to give the defendants' man ss. a day, and 3s. 6d.
expenses. for lotting. We agreed to give him 6s. a day.
Mr. Fisher. jun., examined by Mr. Knowles.—l am
one of the defendants. We were authorised by the plain-
tiffs to receive the money for goods sold to people,at
Manchester. We received the sum of £839 18s. 2d.

By Mr. Hill.—Out of the £839 I paid my travelling
expenses, amounting to £34 ; I also paid £lO to the man
for lotting the goods. He was employed at the plaintiffs'
sale from April sto November 30. His usual wages were
£2 Bs. per week, but he was paid on this occasion at the
rate of £2 ss. We advertised the sale in the Liverpool
and Manchester newspapers, and also in several other
newspapers in England, Ireland, and Scotland. When I
called upon Mr. Bury at Liverpool, I did not snap my
fingers in his face. Mr. Bury was very offensive to me.
He asked me why I had come to see him, and said he
did not know that there was such a person. I then said
to him that the best thing I could do would be to take up
my hat and walk out.
Mr. Kennedy examined.—l was present when the
bargain was made with the defendants. The agreement
was that the defendants were to have £3OO, and, in
addition, the expenses for catalogues, advertising, and
the defendants' man for lotting.
Mr. HILL, Q.C., then addressed the jury for the
defendants, altogether impugning the case as made out
on behalf of the plaintiffs. He said that Mr. Fisher
would be put into the box, and he would prove that the
defendants were to be paid all their expenses, in addition
to a fixed sum which was agreed upon ; and when they
considered that the catalogue of the sale occupied 251
pages, that there were 5811 lots, and that the sale
actually occupied 34 selling days, and that after the sale
considerable time was occupied in delivering the lots, it
would be for the jury to say, after they had heard the
different witnesses whom he should call, what the real
bargain was between the plaintiffs and the defendants. It
would be proved that the £l9O paid into court, by the
defendants, was more than the sum which they were
called upon to pay.
Mr. Thomas Makin Fisher, the senior defendant, ex-
amined.—ln consequence of a letter I reeeived from the
plaintiffs, I went over to Liverpool. I saw Mr. Kennedy.
He asked me what my charge was for selling. 1 said 24
per cent. Mr. Kennedy then. said, " This will be a large
sale, and we had thought of paying you £lO a day, but I
cannot say anything until I see Mr. Bury. I afterwards
went to Liverpool again, and saw Mr. Bury. We then
agreed upon terms. I said the sum named to me by Mr.
Kennedy would be perfectly satisfactory to us, together
with all expenses.
By the Judge.—There was nothing said about £3OO at
the time the agreement was made. I heard nothing about.
that sum until after the sale was over.

By Mr. Monk.—l was personally employed in the sale
sixty days. We were altogether employed 92 days in the
sale ! Mr. Sowler, of Manchester, printed the catalogues
and posting bills. I considered his charges_ were rea-
sonable.

Cross-examined by Mr. Knowles.—No sum besides
£lO a day and all expenses was ever named when the bar-
gain was made.
Mr. Thomas Sowler, examined by Mr. Hill.—l am the
proprietor of the Manchester Courier. I also act as
agent for inserting advertisements in other newspapers.
The advertisement for this sale was inserted in thirty-
two newspapers. Altogether the defendants paid me
£163 18s 6d, for catalogues, posting-bills, and advertise-
ments inserted in the different newspapers.
Other witnesses proved different payments made by the
defendants for expenses incurred in the course of the sale ;
and the defendants themselves deposed to their travelling
and other personal expenses, which they said amounted
to £lO3.
Mr. Knowles replied, on the part of the plaintiff, and
the learned judge having summed up,
The Jury, after a few moments' deliberation, returned
a verdict for the plaintiffs. Damages £94 19s 11d. This
was 'n addition to the £l9O paid into court by the defen-
dants.

KINNAIRD AND ANOTHER V. FITZMAIIRICE.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, who are
engineers at Manchester, to recover from the defendant.
Captain Fitzmanrice, of London, the sum of £56 lls. 10d.
for puttink together an engine for the defendant.
Mr. Hill, Q.C., and Mr. Mills, appeared for the plain-
tiffs ; and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Cowling for the
defendant.

Mr. Hill, in stating the case, said that the amount now
sought to be recovered from the defendant was incurred
at a time when Mr. Kinnaird (since dead) was a leading
partner in the firm of Ellis and Co., at present "engineers
in Manchester, and the action:was therefore obliged to be
brought in his name, although it was in reality brought
for the benefit of Ellis and Co. In October, 1850, a letter
was received from the defendant [letter read], to the
effect that the plaintiffs were to put together an engine
for him. Defendant found the materials, and the plain-
tiffs were only to charge for the workmanship.
Evidence having been tendered on the part of plaintiffs,
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins addressed the jury for the defen-
dant, alleging that the plaintiffs had broken the contract
in several ways. The engine was to be of 10-horse power,
but turned out not to be so. The plaintiffs had also
broken their contract by not completing the engine in the
stipulated time.
The learned counsel called, amongst other witnesses,
Captain Fitzmaurice, who stated, amongst other things,
that the engine, instead of being ten-horse power, had
scarcely a donkey power. (Laughter.)
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
CURIOUS BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.-ALEXANDER V.

SYDDALL.

AN USUCCESSFUL TRIP TO GRETNA GREEN.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the
defendant for a breach of promise of marriae. The
damages were laid at £3OO.
Mr. Monk appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant
Wilkins for the defendant. _

The opening statement of the learned counsel for the
plaintiff caused considerable amusement in court. It
appeared that the plaintiff was a domestic servant in the
family of the defendant, a young man who resided with
his parents at Manchester. An attachment was formed
between the parties, but in consequence of an objection to
the marriage, on the part of the defendant's family, being
suspected, the plaintiff and defendant eloped, and set out
for Gretna Green for the purpose of having the marriage
ceremony performed by the well-known functionary
in that locality. The ceremony, however, was not per-
formed. for reasons which would appear, and the par-
ties returned, and ultimately came to Liverpool, where
they took lodgings in Commutation-row, at the commer-
cial boarding-house of Mr. O'Connell. They resided
there for six weeks, during which time Vie defendant
wrote to the plaintiff's mother, telling her that they were
lawfully married, and that she was his lawful wife.
Shortly after this time the plaintiff gave birth to a child,
and since that time the defendant had refused to fulfil his
promise of marriage.
Witnesses were then called in support of the plaintiff's
case, and several of the defendant's letters to plaintiff were
put in and read. _ _

Amongst the witnesses examined was the plaintiff her-
self. She detailed the circumstances connected with the
elopement to Gretna in company with the defendant.
When they set out to Gretna-green it was for the
purpose of getting married there. On their arrival
there they found out the old parson, but they could not find
the chapel, and consequently she (plaintiff) refused to
be married there. The " parson " was pointed out to
them, and they had some talk with him. He kept the
toll-bar close to. (Laughter.) On telling him their
errand, he told them that he was the party they wanted,
and then they asked about the chapel; he told them that
there being no chapel was of no consequence, as it did
not matter where he married them. He had married
hundreds at the houses in the neighbourhood. (Laughter.)
On leaving Gretna, witness and the defendant stopped,
on their return, at Carlisle, where they slept together
that night. They afterwards returned to Liverpool, where
they lived together as husband and wife.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins addressed the jury for the
defendant, which frequently elicited roars of laughter;
after which, his lordship summed up the evidence.
Ultimately a verdict was returned for the plaintiff,
damages, £5O.
The court rose a few minutes after six o'clock.
THE CAUSE LIST.

The common jury cases in the Salford list were finished
last night, and the West Derby list will commence this
morning. It is not expected that any of the special jury
cases in either list will be taken before Friday or Saturday.
There are six in the Salford list and nine in the West
Derby list.

A MAN SUFFOCATED IN FLOUR.—On Saturday, a man
named Beal. employed at the steam flour-mills, Messrs.
White and Ponsford's, in Upper Thames-street, London,
while :shovelling flour' through an aperture to a lower
room, was precipitated through the aperture into a heap
of flour, amounting to about 100 sacks, and before he
could he could be got out he was suffocated.
LAUNCH OF HER MAJESTY'S SHIP " ST. JEAN
D'ACRE."— On Wednesday afternoon this magnificent
ship was launched from the dockyard at Davenport, in
presence of Admiral Sir John A. Ommanney, Comman-
der-in-Chief ; General Sir Harry Smith, the Gommander-
in-Chief of the western district, and a vast concourse of
other spectators. Shortly before four o'clock, all being
ready, the shipwrights knocked away the shores, and left
the noble vessel resting securely on her keel. At the
stem of the ship there hung suspended a bottle of wine,
adorned with flowers, and it was with this wine the cere-
mony of christening was performed by Miss Ommanney.
As soon as the dog-shores were knocked away, she
glided out of the slip amid the shouts of the spectators.
burden,
accordingto
The length of the vessel from forepart of figure-head to
and,bur according
d
tanf t enrlpd measurement, art on
af
atua
rfferma iel
nits,
new measurement, 2,048. The engine is a 600 horse.
power. 2i5733,f2e0e0t. tons The
;