The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-08-16 00:00:00

FRIDAY,

LOWE AXR ANOTHER V. BRADSIIA.W.-11.4 was an
undefended,aation on a bill of egohange for £ll.O. Ver-
dict for the plaintiff.
KELL•ARD ANOTIIER v. TA.Tl.oll.—This,• also,, was an
undefended, action on a bill of exchange DR' £ZS 19e, 6d.
Verdict for the plaintiff.
Ilix7ox V. GARNETT AND. Onizus,—This action was
brought to recover damages. ibr the destruction of certain
houses in Strangeways, in Manchester, which fell into the
river- Irwell in the month of February last, caused, accord-
ing• to the allegation of the- plaintiff, by the defendants
overweighting the river wall, upon, which the houses in
question were built. Themail gave way, and the houses
fell into the river. After the case had been opened, an
ineffectual attempt was made to have the case arranged
out of court. Several witnesses, were called in support of
the plaintiff's case, whn stated that the giving way of the
wall, and the consequent fall of the houses, was occasioned
by overweighting-the wall with rubbish, and stopping the
surface-drain, which carried off the drainage into the river.
The stoppage of this drain caused the saturation and ex-
pansion of the rubbish, which pressed out the wall. For
the defendants it was attempted to be shown that the
wall was badly constructed ; it was short of binders, and
bad mortar was used. The wall was not water-tight, and
this was the cause of the fall, rather than any improper
filling hl of rubbish. His lordship, in summing up, put
the following questions to the jury :—whether the defen-
dants had caused the wall to fall, and whether the plaintiff
had himself contributed to bring about that result ? The
question as to the amount of damages (E 230) was reserved.
The jury retired, and, after a short absence, came into
court with the following verdict :—" 'We find the defen-
dants caused the wall to fall, and that the plaintiff contri-
buted to that fall, and that the parties should bear the
loss between them." His Lordship : " That I consider a
verdict for the defendants! A verdict was then entered
for the defendants, with leave to the plaintiff to move to
have a verdict entered for £ll5.
ACTION AGAINST AN OMNIBVS PROPRIETOR.—Ro-
BINSON ADMINISTRATOR., a. BOSWELL.—Mr. Knowles,
Q.C., who appeared for the plaintiff, said this was an
action in which the plaintiff sued as the administrator of
his late wife to recover damages for the loss he had sus-

tained by being deprived of the society, the assistance,
and comfort of his wife by the negligent act of the defen-

dant. By that negligent act plaintiff's wife NZ,s;
The plaintiff also sued for the benefit of his infant daugh-
ter, three years of age, who was entitled to some compen-
sation for the loss sustained, the loss of amother at the

age he mentioned, and of her care, attention, and guid-
ance. The circumstanced were these. The plaintiff was a
stone-mason by trade, residing at Rusholme, in the out-
skirts of Manchester. On the night of the 4th of April,
the plaintiff, his wife, and infant were returning from
Manchester along Oxford-road, where omnibuses run.
It was rather a wet evening, and the plaintiff was desirous
of taking an omnibus, and accordingly he and his wife
and child remained in a shop opposite the 'Clarendon
Arms until an omnibus came up. The omnibus which
next came up happened to be MTwen's, which was
drinn in oPPOlititicrn to the clefvudant'o =gm§ along thB