The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1849-08-21 00:00:00

NISI PRIUS COURT.—THuRsDAT.

-.-- -
SPOTSWOOD V. BARROW.—MarkhOnSe G. Spotswood
was the plaintiff, and Thomas Barrow and James Morris,
the defendants. The action arose out of a refusal on the
part of the defendants to pay the plaintiff a balance of
salary which he alleged to be due to him for his services
in the capacity of traveller. The Attorney-General, with
whom was Mr. Hill, appeared for the plaintiff, and Ser-
geant Wilkins and Mr. Atherton for the defendants.
From the opening statement of the plaintiff's counsel it
appeared that the plaintiff was, and had been, for a num-
ber of years, a commercial traveller. The defendants
were warehousemen and merchants at Manchester, and
dealt largely in shirts and shirt-fronts. On the 26th of
March, 1846, the defendants entered into an agreement
with plaintiff to become their traveller, at a salary of £2OO
per annum. The plaintiff travelled in the north, and
obtained a number of orders on behalf of the defendants ;
but, in consequence of the pressure of the times, the
amount of business he was enabled to do did not equal
the expectations of the defendants. This, and other cir-
cumstances, induced the defendants to discharge the
plaintiff, which they did without assigning any cause. A
number of witnesses were called, and the case occupied
the attention of the court for a considerable time. Ver-
dict for the plaintiff, damages £B6.
COWELL AND UX V. CHADWICK,—This was an action
brought by the proprietors of the late Manchester and
Salford Advertiser, to recover £74 for advertisements
relating to a bubble railway scheme inserted in that paper.
It was not clearly proved that the defendant had given the
order, and the plaintiffs were nonsuited.
BLAND V. WILLIAMS AND ANOTHER.—In this case,
John Bland, of Liverpool, was the plaintiff, and Owen
Williams and John Jones, estate agents, the defendants.
The action was brought to recover a sum of £79 17s. 10d.,
being rents of property received by them, and which it
was alleged was due to the plaintiff. The property, which
was situated in Prince Edwin-street, Everton, originally
belonged to a Mr. Holmes, and was mortgaged to a Mr.
Highton ; but latterly some of the mortgage had been
paid off, and the plaintiff made advances on the property.
The defendants were, in the first instance, appointed by
Highton to receive the rents, and continued to do so at
the present time ; and the only question at issue was, on
whose behalf they were now legally held by the defer-
dents. After several witnesses had been called, a nonsuit
was directed for the plaintiff, with liberty to move to enter
a verdict for £3O.
KEEP OF A LUNATIC—COODE V. ALLIMY.— The
plaintiff, Miss Coode, is proprietor of the Haydock-lodge
Asylum, and sought to recover the sum of £4O from the
defendant, a tradesman at Birmingham, whose daughter
had been, for some time back, kept in that establishment.
The action was undefended. Verdict for the plaintiff for
the amount claimed.
PRESTON AND OTHERS, EXECUTORS, V. BENNETT,
EXECUTRIX.—The plaintiffs were the executors of Mr.
John Leyland, and the defendant the executrix of Mr.
Thomas Rawson, formerly a merchant in this town. Mr.
Leyland died on the 29th of March, 1847, and Rawson,
the testator to the defendant, also died on the 20th of
December, 1847. The action was to recover such a sum
of money as the jury might think the plaintiffs, as execu-
tors of Mr. John Leyland, were entitled to, for the use of
certain premises and the services of Mr. Leyland, between
the 30th of April, 1846, and the 30th of March, 1847.
The question was, whether offices and warehouses in
Hanover-street, rented by Leyland, and used, as was
alleged, for Rawson's business, were to be paid for by
him, or whether the use of them was to be allowed gra-
tuitously. After a witness had been called, whose evi-
dence went to show certain transactions between Leyland
and Rawson, as to the former having taken the business
from the 30th of April, 1846, Mr. Watson wished to
withdraw the record. His lordship objected to this, and
the plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited.

CROWN COURT.—FRIDAY.
His Lordship proceeded to pass sentence in the follow-
ing cases which had been tried the previous day :
Isabella Crook, twelve months' imprisonment; Wm.
Snee, seven years' transportation; Jonathan Chatham,
nine months' imprisonment ; William Boardman, and
James Massey, seven years' transportation ' • Geo. Cross-
ley, six months' imprisonment; and Joseph Davies, four-
teen years' transportation.
John .Lynam, 23, was indicted for having, at Manches-
ter, killed and slain James Massey. Guilty ; nine months'
imprisonment.
Ann Bray, 27, was found guilty of burglary at Wor-
sley, near Manchester, and sentenced to six months' im-
prisonment.
Adam Hamilton, William Johnson, Peter Ellames,
Abraham Shone, and Mary Parkington, were charged
with a burglary at the house of Mr. Exton, at Pendleton.
Johnson, Ellames, and Parkington were found guilty,
and Shone and Hamilton were acquitted. Johnson and
Ellames were sentenced to seven years' transportation
each, and Mary Parkington to one months' imprisonment.
Wm. Ryan, 17, and John Houghton, 15, were charged
with a burglary at Manchester. The prisoners were found
guilty, and Ryan was sentenced to one year's imprison-
ment, and Houghton to seven years' transportation.
John Sharrocks, Holt Holt, and Betsy Sharrocks,
were charged with a burglary at Heaton Norris. John
Sharrocks and Holt were found guilty, and sentenced to
fifteen months' imprisonment; Betsy Sharrocks was ac-
quitted.
Wm. Neales, 21, was charged with having forged and
uttered a promissory note for the payment of £5, at
Manchester, with intent to defraud Thomas Cresswick
and others. The prisoner was acquitted.

NISI PRIUS COURT.--FRIDAY.
SMITH V. CRIPPIN.—This was an action brought by
Mr. Humphrey Smith, of Manchester, against Mr. John
Crippin, for having pulled down a fence upon the land of
the plaintiff, near the Oxnoble public house, Campfield,
Manchester. Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cowling appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Martin and Mr. Hugh Hill ap-
peared for the defendant.—After Mr. Knowles's opening,
and the production of some deeds upon which Sir Oswald
Mosley was examined, an attempt was made by Mr. Mar-
tin to get the case referred. The learned gentleman sug-
gested that a portion of the land in question had been sold
to both the plaintiff and defendant; and he thought that
some mutual friend could best settle the matter. Ulti-
mately an arrangement was come to.
BARTON IRLAM AND HIGGINSON V. HIGGINSON AND
OTHERS.—Mr. Watson, with Mr. Cowling, appeared for
the plaintiffs, and Mr. Martin, with Mr. Crompton, for the
dtfendants. The plaintiffs were Mrs. Sarah Higginson,
executrix, and Messrs. Jonathan Higginson, H. B. Hig-
ginson, and Richard Deane, executor of the late Mr.
John Higginson, of this town, and Messrs. C. Turner and
others, assignees of Mr. Jonathan Higginson and Richard
Deane, were the defendants. The action was brought to
recover the value of a quantity of shares in various Joint-
stock companies belonging to the executors, but which
the defendants seized, as being the property of Mr. Jon-
athan Higginson. Mr. John Higginson died in 1833, and
by his will he bequeathed £6OO a-year to his widow, who
is now alive, and .f.. 5000 each to his sons, and investing
his property in his executors. Upon Mr. Jonathan Hig-
ginson and Mr. Deane, his partner, becoming bankrupts,

their assignees seized the shares which was the subject o
the present inquiry, and which compri3ed shares in the
St. Helens Canal and Railway, the Liverpool Commercial
Bank, shares in the Cemetery, &c. The proceeds of
these shares were now required to pay the annuity of the
widow, and an application was made to the assignees for
their restoration. In reply to this application, a letter
from Messrs. Lowndes, Robinson, and Bateson was w-
ceived, stating that the assignees would not restore the
shares unless they were compelled by a court of compe-
tent jurisdiction. The requisite proof of the possession of
the shares, with the exception of the Greenwich Railway
shares, by Mr. Higginson sen. having been given, a ver-
dict was taken for the plaintiffs for £422 12s.—Mr.
Crompton said he was perfectly satisfied with the verdict,
as there had been an injunction granted and a receiver. ap-
pointed.—Mr. Watson : Weil, so am I ; but this is the
first time 1 ever heard my learned friend, Mr. Crompton,
satisfied with a verdict against him.

CLEMENT V. MARTYN.—In this case a juror was with-
drawn. Mr. Martin, for the defendant, said that the
plaintiff and the defendant were in business at St. Helen's,
and it was supposed that the defendant had slandered the
plaintiff, waking a number of imputations against him.
The defendant distinctly denied having said anything
against the plaintiff, whose credulity had been imposed
upon by some busybody, who had told Mr. Clement some
story that ought never to have been mentioned.
BOARDMAN V. COODE.—This case (after having been
partly gone through) was arranged. The plaintiff is a
tailor at Ashton-in-Mackerfield, and the defendant is Mr.
Coode, one of the keepers at the Lunatic Asylum, Hay-
dock-lodge. Some time ago, Mr. Coode was unfortu-
nate, and was obliged to call his creditors together. The
plaintiff, who was a creditor, attended the meeting, signed
the letter of license, authorising Mr. Coode and his sister
to continue carrying on the establishment, and to accept
the terms contained in the license. In ten days after the
execution of the letter of license by the plaintiff, he in-
duced the defendant to renew a bill of exchange for £3O.
This, it was contended, was done to the prejudice of the
other creditors, who had defended this action. _

FRANCE AND OTHERS V. ANDREWS AND OTHERS.—
This was an action in ejectment, brought by Thomas
Wilson France, and another party, to recover possession
of certain land and building in Banastre-street, Free-
mason's-row, of which possession had been retained by
the defendants. The case was one of considerable intri-
cacy, and would not be very interesting to the general
reader. There was no doubt but that the party for whom
the plaintiffs were the representatives had received the
rents from several houses on the land in question; but
there appeared to be some doubt as to the lapse of one of
the lives, upon the decease of which the plaintiff was
entitled to recover the reversion. Ultimately a nmsuit
was entered, with liberty to the plaintiff to enter a ver-
dict.

HARTLEY V. THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COM-
PANY.—This was an action brought to recover the value
of a quantity of glass, which had been sent from the
premises of the plaintiff, at Sunderland, to the railway
station at Lincoln. The glass had been packed inside
two trucks, with stays, so as to prevent breakage ; but
instead of being forwarded by railway to their destination,
they were unloaded, and shipped across the hater at
Grimsby, and the contents reloaded into three trucks.
Upon their arrival at Lincoln it was found that a great
part of the glass was broken. The defence was that the
carrier's act applied in this case; and his lordship ruling
that a railway truck was a package, and that glass was one
of the articles for damage to which a carrier was exempt,
unless an extra price was paid thereon, a verdict was
entered substantially for the defendants, with liberty for
the plaintiff to move the court above.