The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1852-02-03 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT.

This court was open from Monday to Friday last. The
causes, though numerous, were, for the most part, devoid
of interest for all except the persons immediately con-
cerned.

ILLEGAL EXACTION OF TOLL.—Sumner F. Shuttle-
worth.—Theplaintiff was Mr. Richard Sumner, of Formby,
surgeon, and the defendant was Mr. Wm. Shuttleworth,
town-clerk of Liverpool. The claim was for the value of
a sack of peas, which had been seized by an officer of the
Corporation, because the plaintiff had refused to pay the
toll of ls. 6d. thereon upon their delivery to Mr. Taylor,
in Great Charlotte-street, he alleging that he could not
legally be compelled to do so, as the sale had taken place
in Everton, out of the jurisdiction of the borough. The
defendant objected that his honour had no jurisdiction in
this case, for which the remedy must be sought by appli-
cation to the justices of the borough. His honour, how-
ever, overruled that, and then the objection was stated
that one calendar month's notice shall be given to the
mayor for the time being " prior to the commencement
of proceedings, and the action shall be brought within six
calendar months after the act committed." These con-
ditions, it was contended, had not been complied with.
The Judge consequently ordered the plaintiff to be non-
suited, giving the defendant power to move, at, the next
court, to enter a verdict for the defendant instead of a
non-suit.

LOST PROPERTY.—Francis v. Dowling.—lt appeared
that the plaintiff, Noah Francis, about November, 1850,
found a gold ring in Back Houghton-street, said to be
worth £6 Os. 10d., which he delivered to the police, and
which they had detained. He had been told, in the first
instance, to call for the ring at the Police-office after three
months had expired. He called accordingly, and saw
Mr. Clough, who told him he was going to the Exhibition,
' and on his return, if the ring had not been claimed, he
would return it. After the present summons was taken
out, an offer was made by some of the police-office officials
to return the ring, and pay costs ; but, plaintiff declined.
It turned out, however, in the course of examination, that
Francis was under age, and consequently ought to have
sued by his next friend. The Judge, therefore, had no
alternative but to strike out the case; but suggested that
it would be better to carry into effect the arrangement
which had been proposed than to bring t he ease there again.
LIABILITIES OF HUSBANDS.—George Hayes, roach
and car proprietor, 13amber.street, Paddington, Edge-
hill, sued William Walker, of the same street, watch
finisher, for £6 12s. 6d., chimed for the board and
lodging of defendant's wife, and money advanced to her.
It appeared that defendant and his wife had lived unhap-
pily together on account of his intemperance, and, there-
fore, carted in September last, when plaintiff received her
into his his house, and, according to his account, obtained
from the defendant a promise of payment for the wife
board, &c. The judge, at the conclusion of the evidence,
thought the plaintiff's case had not been made out, and he
must, therefore, give a verdict for the defendant without
costs.

SEAMEN'S SHIPPING NOTES.—In this case, Patrick
Green sued a man named ✓ones for the value o a ship-
ping note entrusted to him to cash on the 12:h of April
last, together with £2, which he gave the deft•udant to
cash it. It. appeared that there bad been a transaction
with plaintiff respecting three other notes, one of which
was dishonoured, and defendant averred that having paid
£5 to the wife there was a balance due to him of ss. in
consequence of the note that was not paid. The judge
held that Patrick Green's wife could not pledge his credit
in the business, and therefore the defendant was respon-
sible for what he had received from the husband. The
verdict must therefore be for the plaintiff.

POOR-LAW A DM INISTRATION..IFranCeB Hews/0/1 sued
Thomas Philips, her uncle's executor. for X5O, the
amount of a legacy bequeathed to her by William
Mackay, in 1838. The plaintiff was now of age, and
claimed what she conceived due to her. On the part of
the defendant, it was contended that there ha. not been
sufficient funds to discharge all the debts, legacies, and
funeral expenses of the testator; and also, that as about
nine years ago the plaintiff's inother had been to the
parish for relief, when an arrangement was wade that the
defendant should pay £1 per month for the maintenance
of plaintiff and her sisters, which was more than the
interest of the sum in hand, the difference ouvt to be
deducted. Some points of law were then raised as to the
jurisdiction of the County Court in a dispute of the kind;
and the judge said, that as the point was new and impor-
tant, he would take time to consider the case, and deliver
judgment at the next court.

MR. RAMSHAY, THE LATE JUDGE.—Application was
made to the court on Wednesday evening, for a summons
against a party who was stated to be out of the juris-
diction of the court, though the alleged debt had been
incurred in Liverpool.—His Honour, having looked at
the particulars of the claim, said the application had
better not be made at present.—Mr. Duke : We have
wasted a great deal of time over it, your honour.—The
Judge : You had better not proceen at present. The last
day of the term is Friday.—Mr. Duke : Very well.—
[The name of the individual against whom the summons
was applied for did not transpire, but it was generally
understood in the court that Mr. Itimshay, the late judge,
was the party, and that the cl: im was for the expenses
of one of the witnesses at the Pi Estill inquiry.]
_

- • • a
" HALF PAY."—An action was tried between John
Rolm ris and Francis Strong—the latter a half-i ay officer
in the royal navy—for £8 154. Bd., the amonnt due for
lodgings, Bt.e. It was alleged that defendant was in the
habit of obtaining credit, and then leaving without mak-
ing any settlement. Part of the money had been lent,
and defendant left the house before his half-pay became
due, in order to avoid payment. Ordered to pay half the
amount in April next, and the other half in July. The
same defendant was also sued by John Jones, butcher,
for £3 ]3s. 7d., a debt which he had incurred and then
set his creditor at defiance. In this case it was proved
that the defendant had midered himself ao notorious for
this sort of conduct, that when on duty up the Mediter-
ranean be had been tried for it by court martial.
LIABILITY OF AN INFANT.—A claim for £2 lls. 6d.
was preferred by William Slater, bootmaker, of Ba-nett-
at eet, against a Mr. Brownoit, for goods sold two years
ago, when defendant was under age, The judge made an
order for payment of the costs on Monday next, it having
been shown that defendant had ample means to do so.
and the debt by monthly instalments of Bs.