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

MASON V. RAMSDEN.

Mr. CRESSWELL said this was an action brought by Mr.
Thomas Mason, a livery stable keeper in Ashton-under-
Lyne, to recover a small sum of money for the hire of a car
and a horse. The whole sum of action was was only £4, and
of this £2 was admitted to be due. The party brought his
action in a county court, but the defendant though it neces-
sary to have the assistance of my lord judge and a jury to
know whether he ought to pay £4 or £2. In the month of
August the defendant hired a car to go from Ashton to Leeds
to convey three persons. Plaintiff said he must have £1 for
each day, which defendant promised to pay. Plaintiff, hearing
that the party was to be larger, followed the defendant on
horseback, and found him with six persons in it..He objected
to this, saying that the work was unfit for his horse • but in
the end defendant agreed to pay £2 a day, and the Whole six
got in again, and went on. Defendant now denied the agree-
ment.
Sarah Ogden called.—Knows the plaintiff and the de-.
fendant. Was living at Mr. Mason's last August. Defendant
came on a Wednesday, in the last week of that Month, for a
spring-cart and horse to go to Leeds for two days. He said
there were only three going, himself and two little girls. Mr.
Mason asked £1 a day, and would take no less for that
journey; and it was agreed to on those terms.
By Mr. ALEXANDER.—I am the plaintiff's wife's sister.
There was a young man by at the time.
William Ramsden.--I live at Ashton; am a wheelwright ;
was at the plaintiff's house when the agreement was made.
Witness corroborated the statement of the preceding witness.
Cross-examined by Mr. ALEXANDER.—I recollect the
trial in the county court in January last. I was rot there.
Patrick Burns.---Going to Mosley, near Ashton, last
August, saw Rarnsden with the car, and five in it betide
himself. Was there when Mason overtook him. Mason
ordered him to stop and get out, and complained of his hiring
a car for them, and putting six into it. Witness detaiied the
subsequent conversation, and Mason's threat to tarn them
all out, which was partially executed. Mason demanded
double hire, and Ramsden agreed to pay it, and to make
good any damage done to horse or ear, and then he was
allowed to drive on. •
Mr. ALEXANDER addressed the jury for the defendant.
He regretted, with Mr. Cresswell, the case could not have
been settled elsewhere, but the reason was, that in conse-
quence of the absence of the defendant's witnesses in the
sheriff's court, he was compelled to come here, after paying
the costs in the other court. His defence was this. De-
fendant was taking his children to school, 32 miles off, in,
plaintiff's cart, as he had often done before. Plaintiff's
witnesses were either forgetting or mis-stating, the case.
The invariable price has been 10s. for the first day, and 7s. 6d.
for second ; or, at the utmost, 10s. for the second. It was
taken on the usual terms. If the defendant's witnesses were
to be believed, and the plaintiff's did not state any circum-
stances why the charge on that particular occasion should be
doubled, why should defendant agree to pay him ? The
learned counsel proceeded to contend that the double hire,
demanded on the road, was only the double of the usual
charge, and not the double of £1 a-day, which would almost
pay for posting. When defendant returned, he was adYised
to tender £2, and did so, and this the learned counsel con-
tended was sufficient satisfaction. The plaintiff commenced
his action, but defendant was unable to get his witnesses in
time, and was compelled to remove it into the Court of Com-
mon Pleas at Lancaster.
Samuel White.—Knows the defendant. Went with him
to hire the car. He said it was for himself and party. Mason
asked 10s. the first day, and 7s. 6d. for the following. It
was engaged on those terms.
Cross-examined.-4 lived then 15 or. 16 miles off. I had
gone to Ashton on that day to buy hosiery of Ramsden. I
stand in Ashton Market. Nobody else was present when the
agreement was made. It was in the yard, between four and
five o'clock.

George Heaton proved the price of a car for plaintiff's
to be ordinarily 10s. 6d. the first day, and 7s. 6d. after.
John Spencer.—The usual charge is for one day 12., and
if they have it more than one they make it into 10s. a day
Alfred Lee.—ls attorney for the defendant. Sought out
the plaintiff, and told him what I had learned was the regular
charge, and tendered £2 on condition of settling the case,
which he refused.

The COURT said this was no tender, as a tender should be
unconditional.

Mr. CRESSWELL.—Thc defendand could have had no diffi-
culty, on their own showing, in calling his witnesses at the
inferior court, and the removal was entirely vexatious. The
learned counsel also contended that the charge of £1 a day
for a rough journey of 32 miles each day was not extravagant.
There was no option but to suppose wilful misrepresentation
on the one side or the other, both stating the place and the
nature of the bargain differently. Mr. Cresswell argued at
some length that the pr6balities were that the plaintiff's wit-
nesses were speaking the truth.
Verdict for the plaintiff, £4, including £2 paid into court.

ASTON GAS AND WATER WORKS COMPANY V. LEES.
_ _

Mr. Cresswell appeared for the plaintiffs.
The object was to recover the value of certain gas fittings
taken under a commission of bankrupt. As an inducement
to the owners of the mills, the company offered to find pipes
and fittings and other fixtures for gas at a certain per centage.
The factory of Messrs. Garside and Oulton, and other manu-
facturers, were then lighted. In 1834 the partnership be-
tween Garside and Oulton was dissolved, and the former
carried on business alone until his bankruptcy. Some of
factories bought their fixtures, and took their gas at a lower
rate, but Mr. Garside did not, and he could call half Ashton
to say that it was perfectly well understood that the com-
pany, was the reputed owner of the property, and not Gar-
side, and that cases to the contrary were exceptions to the
general rule.
John Oultom.—Had been Mr. Garside's partner. Was so
in 1826. Was supplied with gas by the Ashton company.
They put up the gas fittings at their own expense. The case
was similar in other factories. I ceased to be a partner in
1834. Up to that time they were at the charge of the fittings.
It was the case generally in Ashton, and well known.
Cross-examined by Mr. ALExANneii.--Southam and Sons'
mill was so fitted up—Kenworthy and Co.'s—Wright and
Co's, and a number of others. I don't recollect any sending
their own. (Defendant's counsel here handed up an invoice.)
I don't recollect seeing this invoice. I have lived since then
hi Ashton.

Jdhn Travis.—l was overlooker to Mr. Garside—was with
him in 1836. I recollect putting up the fittings by John Tay-
lor, who was employed by the company. Many other fac-
tories were fitted up at the same time. It was well known
that they were fitted up by the company. I attended the sale
of Mr. Garside's effects. Those fittings were taken down
and sold for £4O. Charles Dee and others took them down.
I cannot swear,to their value before they were taken down.
Cross-examined.—l don't recollect a sale at Mr. Andrew's
in Ashton. I was not at Mr. Chapman's sale, nor at Stans-
field's and Rigby's.
James Atchell's.—ls clerk and manager to the gas com-
pany. I came into the company's employ nine years ago.
Many of the factories had then been fitted. In every instance
the fittings belong to the company. Three or four years
after, there was a strike to get the charge for sas reduced.
The company had the fittings then valued. None of the
factories bought them, but it was agreed the price of the gas
was to be lowered, and a rent to be paid on the value of the
the fittings. All the mills—about 40—made this arrange-
ment, M. Garside's amongst them. After that, about seven
purchased the fixtures ; the rest pay a rent. The fact was
well understood. I saw Mr. Lees, the defendant, and claimed
these fittings as our property. They were afterwards pulled
down and taken away. Their value, as they stood, was &69—
the rent was paid.on that, reduced 20 per cent.
Cioss-examined.—l made the arrangement with Mr. Jas.
Garside in 1834 (an invoice was handed up). These invoices
were issued by the company. Witness detailed his conversa-
tion with Mr. Garside. Mr. G. declined purchasing.
By the COUUT.—There are some parties who supplied
themselves since 1834 with fittings at their own expense.
Cross-examined.—Messrs. Kenworthy supply themselves
with both gas and fittings ; they bought their fittings of the'
company, and the old fittings supply themselves with gas. In
Oldham the companies supply fittings; in Manchester I don't
know how they do.
Witness was examined at much length as to the nature and
mechanical description of the fittings, and how fastened, to
know whether they came within the legal definition of " fix-
tures" or not.

Mr. ALEXANDER replied —The defendant acting for the
creditors thought it right to defend this claim. He found
among th 3 papers of the bankrupt a series of invoices from
1833 totally silent as to rent of fittings, and he found an in-
voice of them, which he concluded had been selected on ac-
count. This was now explained for the first time by the last

witness—that Mr. Garside had been asked to buy them, and
had had an invoice furnished him. It appeared that he had
declined, while the sum as actually credited in the bank-
rupt's books as paid. He (Mr. A.) could not ask to disbelieve
this respectable person on his oath, but he could only express
his aeep regret that, in justice to Mr. Lees, this extraordinary
fact had not been known before.

A verdict was accordingly taken for the plaintiff for £5O.

PRICKELL AND ANOTHER V. PICTON AND ANOTHER.
Mr. WATSON stated the case for the plaintiffs, who are
ironmongers, the defendants being common carriers from
Manchester to Bury. The action was to recover the value
of some iron which had been misdelivered.
Mr. Whalley, traveller and salesman for the plaintiffs, proved
the admission of the defendants that the iron had been sent to
Bolton instead of Bury, and that they promised to pay.
Verdict for the plaintiffs, £2l Ns.
Mr. Watson then made application for speedy execution,
and was about reading an affidavit, when

The learned JUDGE said there was no real defence, and
every body should have in such cases speedy execution.

LAMB V. MASON.

This was an action On an agreetnent under a 'ewe of certain
premises in Manchester, the object being to recover rent and
repairs from the lessees: _

Verdict for the plaintiff, £2B 14s.
THE QUEEN V. CROSSLEY AND ANOTHER.
Mr. PEtt. opened the pleadings. This was an indictment
against William Ciosslev and William Robinson, overseers
of Todmorden and Walsilen.

Mr. STARKIE said, that the charge against the defendants
was, in substance, that they had disobeyed the poor law act,
in not having produced their accounts before the auditor ,of
the union of Todmorden, in obedience to the.preeePt of that
officer, and the'provisions of the act; The point that was
really at issue ivas, whether the poor law act should be car-
riod into effect at Todmorden or not, for the offence charged
against the defendants was only; a part of a systematic "resist-
al-16e to the bringing thai act into operation. He would not
detain the jury by any trite remarks on the necessity of every
man obeying the law, of the land, no matter' what were the
private opinions of individuals relative to the merits of thole
laws, but would content hirriself with stating the c*,unistalices
of the case. On the 28th of January, 1837, it seemed good to
the poor law commissioners to direct the formation of an union
at Todmorden And several other places. The Order went
down to be acted on, different steps in pursuance of it took
place, guardians were appointed, and an order was made for
the appointnient of auditors for the pnrpose oranditing the
accounts of the overseers of the different parishes or townships
members of the union. But since then, down to the prcsent
moment, these defendants had neglected to lay their accounts
before the auditors. It was directed by,the act of parliament
that the accounts should be laid before the auditors or the
justices of the peace every three months at least, but the com-
missioners had the ppwer to order them to be inspected often-
er ; and in the case of this union they had Made an order that
such auditing should take place within thirty days ensuing
after certain days in the year, and one of those was Christmas
day. It was therefore, their duty to render their accounts on
this appointed day, of which they had due notice ; but not
only had they neglected their duty on this occasion, but on
every preceding one: Those facts he would prove, and he
apprehended that - hiS lordship ' would tell them that they
amounted to a violation of the law, and it becaine their duty
to convict the defendants under this indictment.

The order constituting the union was then put in evidence.
Mr. DUNDAS called the attention of the court to various
parts of the order on which he meant to found technical ob-
jections. _ _ _

The rules of the poor-law commissioners, directing the au-
diting of the accounts, '&c. were read, and put in evidence.
James Stanstield.—ls a solicitor at Todmorden, and clerk
to the board of guardians. Was appointed Feb. 18, 1837.
Thirteen guardians were present. They were returned for
Stansfield, Heptonstall, and two others,. and one ex officio
guardian, Mr. Crossley. I was present also at a meeting held
at Stansfield on July 27, 1838. An auditor was appointed—
John Glennell. I have- been concerned for the defendants,
and know they are overseers of the township. •
Cross-examined by Mr. DUNDAS.—Four came from Stalls -
field, three from Heptonstall, three from Wadsworth, two
from Ebrington, none from Langfield ; there have never been
any returned from Langfield. We- had none- from :Todmor-
den and Walsden at first. It was in 1838 they sent first
from those townships ; only one was sent. In July last there
were present twelve : none from LaAgfie/d, one from Tod-
morden, and the others the same as before. I know Lang-
field. There is no resident justice. Todmorden is in Lan-
cashire, the other townships of the union in Yorkshire. In
January last I spoke to the defendants as overseers. There
has been an application to the Court of Qdeen's Bench against
these defendants, by the guardians, and the mandamus is
now depending on a rule nisi.
Mr. DUNDAS.—The question now depending is whether
there is a valid board of guardians at all. ' The learned coun-
sel referred to a. 38 of the poor-law act, with the provision
that "one' or more guardians be elected from each parish
included in such union." His 'argument was, that a guard-
ian must be elected for each parish of the union, and Lang-
field not having elected, there was no efficient board of guard-
ians.

Mr. STARICIE.—This would only, be for the first year by
Mr. Peel. The object of the mandamus was only to compel
the payment of rates to the union, by the overseers.
The COURT.—This is the same question.
John Gledhill,—Was appointed auditor of the union.
Have audited the accounts twice within the thirty days. On
December 26 I gave notice for the 'auditing; then on Janu-
ary 2. Delivered notices to Ashworth., Have never received
any accounts from those defendants.

Cross examined.—Have never seen either of them. Live
three miles off. Summoned them to the Woodmill Inn.
Re-examined.—Other overseers came there.

George Ashworth.—l am clerk to Messrs. Shuttleworth,
solicitors, at Rochdale. Received the notices spoken of by
the last witness. Served them personally on Robinson.
John Fletcher.—ls clerk to Shuttleworth and Co. Served
the notices on-Crossley on December 28.
Thomas Harris.—ls a solicitor at Preston. Produced 'an
examined copy of a conviction before the clerk of the peace
there, of another oifence under the same act, for the purpose
of proving an admission on their part that they were a part
of the union. •

The information was then read. It was laid before two
magistrates in Rochdale, by Mr. Power, the (poor-law com-
missioner, for his neglect of paymentof £5O duly payable to
the defendants, Crossley and Robinson, pursuant to order of
the board of guardians' and the record of the conviction was,
that both admitted the whole of the allegations were true,
and that they were both thereon convicted.
Edwin Collingwood.—as clerk to the clerk of the magis-
trates at Rochdale, Was present at this onviction. I saw
the defendants present.
" Mr. DUNDAS contended that this conviction did not
amount to pleading guilty, but the court held the objection
not to be good.
Mr. DUNDAS referred to s. 38 of the act. He contended
that there was no legal appointment of either guardians or
overseers ;. on the whole they fell to the ground, and again
referred to the proviso that one or more guardians 'shall be
elected for each parish included in the union, and therefore,
here there was six townships, no one place must he unrepre-
sented. The act also provides for filling up of vacancies—a
loss, of course, of that which has been full ; or in case the.
full number of guardians shall not have been elected, the
other shall continue to act as if such board had been full.
Mr. Stansfield was recalled by the court to state if any
magistrate was present at the appointment of the auditor.
It appeared that one magistrate, Mr. Taylor, was present.
Mr. DUNDAS submitted that Lang-field had never been
represented, and neither had he, but any resident justice,
who, as ex officio guardians, could represent it readendo
singula singulis.
The COURT seemed to be of opinion that every magistrate
resident within the union was a representative. ex officio, of
every township in the union.
Mr. DUNDAS said, that was one of the points before the
court above now. He also called the attention of the court
to the order of the commissioners, directing Todmorden to
send four guardians, and La.ngfield two, and again submitted
that the board, both upon their order as well as the act of
parliament, would be bad.
The COURT had a doubt, but thought the intention of the
act was, that if the commissioners made an order for a union,
without giving each township a representative, the order
would be null.

Mr. DUNDAS referred to another clause, directing, that
each member of the union should have one representative,
for the purpose of legalising a general rate. He contended
that the power of filling up vacancies only applied where
there had been a good board at first, and to subsequent elec-
tions, while here the board was bad at first, and could not be
cured.

The COURT.—There never can be a good board at all, if a
mistake is once committed.

Mr. DUNDAS.—A new order for a union might be made out.
Mr. STAaalE.—And they might do the same thing again
.refuse to elect.

The" COURT.—As no mandamus can be obtained from the
court in less than twelve months, they may go on vitiating
every order by refusing to elect, and there can be no remedy.
Mr. DUNDAS next objected that the parties were not liable
to indictment, but must be proceeded against under the act.
He also objected that there ought to have been a positive
averment that the demand had been made ; and also, that
the poor-law commissioners should be styled not merely so,
but by their proper names.
All these objections were discussed at some length on
grounds purely legal, but .the learned judge declined inter-
fering to stop the case, leaving the defendants, if they
pleased, to move the court above.
Mr. DUNDAS next objected that the disobedience was not
contumacious ; and if, under a firm conviction of legal right,
was not criminal.

The COURT would reserve the point, but did not think it
would amount to anything, as the object was merely to enforce
the act.

The learned JUDGE then briefly charged the jury.
SHAW V. BROADBENT.

A verdict was taken by consent of parties, subject to a
reference. - •.

' RIDEIIALGH V. COLLIER.
This was an undefended action for the recovery of a promis-
sory note for the sum of £lB2 Is. 10d., with interest thereon.
Mr. WILKINs stased the case, and said that the plea of the
defendant was, that he had not made the promissory note.
The note was produced and proved by the attesting wit-
ness to have been signed by the defendant. •
Verdict for the amount claimed, £202 15s. Iod.
The court rose at twenty minutes to six.