The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-08-31 00:00:00

SATURDAY

LYON V. HAYES.
This was a special jury case. The jury having been sworn,
Mr. Cresswell, on the part of the plaintiff, said he was happy
to inform them, that this case would not give them any
trouble. It was a question arising out of the affairs of the
Northern and Central Bank of England, which had pro-
duced some very complicated pleadings upon the record,
which. it investigated, would give a very great deal of trouble,
and end, at last, in a point of law. An arrangement had,
therefore, been made, by which it was agreed, that a special
verdict should now be 6ntered for the plaintiff, and an in-.
vestigation into the facts made by a gentleman at the bar.
The duty of the jury, under these circumstances, would be
to find a special verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the award.
Mr. DUNDAS, on the part of the defendant, said this was
the better course.
Mr. CRESSWELL said it had been agree'd to refer the case
to his friend Mr. Robinson, and it was proposed that he
should have the same power to make amendments in the
record as the learned Judge.
The JUDGE.—Certainly.
Reference to Mr. Robinson, as an arbitrator, to take the
evidence and state a special verdict.

COBB V: STEWART.
. ,
• This was also a special jury case. The declaration stated,
that, by a certain memorandum in writing. addressed to the
plaintiff, signed by the defendant, and sent to the plaintiff,
the plaintiff made-an engagement to deliver to the defendant,
on or before the 10th of October, twenty-five shares in the
London and Birmingham Railway, at £99 premium per
share, and that, if the defendant failed to pay for them at the
time agreed upon, the plaintiff should be at liberty to resell
them, and charge the defendant with the difference between
the prices on th day of delivery and the day of sale.
Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Crompton conducted the plain-
tiff's case; Mr. Martin that. of the defendant.
Mr. CRESSWELL said this was an action in which the
plaintiff, Mr. Timothy R.-Cobh, sought to recover from the
defendant the sum of about £900; the.difference in the value
of twenty-five shares in the London and Birmingham 'Rail-
way, on the 10th and 19th of, October last year: On the 17th
of June, 1840, a contract was made between the plaintiff and
the defendant, Mr. Stewart, in the presence of Mr. De Cute,
to deliverand receive the shares named in the declaration on.
or before the 10th of October. The learned counsel here
read the contract. The defendant was not ready to pa y
them on the 10th, and he so informed the plaintiff, asking
him to hold them over till the 14th. This was agreed to,
and the defendant not paying for them on that day, they were
sold on the 19th. The action was to recover £902, the
difference in the value of the shares on the 10th and the 19th.
Mr. MARTIN, for the defendant, said, his client never
attempted to dispute Mr. Cobb's. right to recover the dif-
ference upon these shares ; but he said the plaintiff was not
entitled to that which he demanded, but only to that which
the plaintiff was ready to pay. The only question for the
jury to try was, what was the amount of the difference which
the defendant ought to pay to the plaintiff ; but he (the
learned counsel) submitted that he ought, to pay only the
difference between the price on the 10th and the price upon
. the 14th. Before that time his client found himself unable
to pay for them, and he immediately communicated the fact
to them, also proposing some' terms, which were declined.
The defendant requested that the matter might stand over to
the 14th, which was acceded to : this being a departure from
itshe original contract, he contended, that the plaintiff was
:,.,entitled only to recover the difference in the price on the
The JUDGE' in summing up, told the jury that the only
question for them to consider was, whether the loss should
be calculated as if the shares had been sold upon the 14th,
or. as from the actual sale on the 19th.
. The Jury, after a few minutes. conversation, returned a
e:-verdict for the plaintiff, and that the loss should be fixed
h from the sale upon the 19th : damages, £B5B, the difference
th between .the verdict and the sum claimed being caused by
money received in dividends.
• HORNBY, CLERK, y._DEARDEN
•

•
This case, after the opening of Mr. Wortley, was referred.
The question was as to the minerals unde some land belong-
ing to the plaintiff, at Heywood, near Rochdale. Mr. Cress-
well appeared for the defendant.
•OCCLESTON AND OTHERS V. ROONE.

This was an action to recover the value of 13,009 horns
from the defendants, William and Joseph Roone, dealers in
iron and steel, at Sheffield, by the plaintiff, a tanner, at Hoo-
green, Cheshire.
Mr. eresswell with whom was Mr. Atherton, appeared
for the plaintiffs; Mr. Baines and Mr. Martin for the de-
fendants.

It appeared;
wtha 1839,
t; in
named Winks ho the plaintiffs sent to a person
was carrying on business, in Sheffield,
as a commission-agent,horns till the yeai4 13,000 horns. Winks kept these
sale
when, intending to go abroad, he
advertised his stock for
A Mr. Mitchell was employed
to value it. The boughtdocentdefabnyets.cl the stock, including the
horns, and paid i
which had been taken Up byl three bills of exchange, two of
!iri, and the third was still
running. Some time afterwards Winks became bankrupt,
• •
and now the plaintiffs sought to recover the value of the horns,
alleging, that Winks being only a factor,
fior.de had no right to sell
the goods, and that there
juDGE
was
no bong sale.
After hearing the evidence, thedirected the jury
that the only question for their
considerationsoi a was, whether
he
they were satisfied that the horns were bt y Winks to
Roone with the rest of the stock, and
whether
for the horns and the rest of the stock was includedpayment
in the
three bills, the amount of which was £6OO. There was no
question as to whether the defendants got the horns : the
jury would have to consider whether they had Paid
for them
.or not.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendants.
TAYLOR V. TAYLOR AND ANOTHER.
'This was an action in replevin to recover the value of eel,_
tam cows detained by the defendants, in consequence of their
trespassing uon their fields.
Ma. Watsopn and Mr. Hill conducted the plaintiff's case.:
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Wilkins that of the defendants.
The defendants justified the taking.of the cows, on the
ground that the cattle were trespassing in their grounds. The
plaintiff answered, that, after and before the taking of the
cattle, he tendered the sum of £1 in compensation for the
damage done by-the trespass, which sum was sufficient. In
their replication, the defendants said the sum tendered was
not sufficient.
A discussion arose as to the right to commence. After
some argument, the- learned JUDGE decided, that, as the
defendants undertook to prove that enough had not been
tendered, they (might to commence.
Mr. KNOWLES then opened the case. The plaintiff, Tho-
mas Taylor, kept the farm called Hill's Mount, Butterworth,
-near Rochdale, in this county, and the defendants kept an
adjoining farm. The plaintiff was in the habit of overstock-
ing his farm with cattle, and keeping his fences in bad condi-
lion, in consequence of which his cattle frequently trespassed
Upon the delenclimts' fields. On the 26th September last six
,of the defendants' cows being in one of his fields, the plain-
tiffs cattle got among them, a fight ensued between them,
and, it being a wet day, considerable damage was done. In
consequence of this the cattle were impounded by the de-
Ifendants, as the plaintiff refused to pay more than £1 for the
damage done inasmuch as it
.amounted to between £2 and
£2 10s. The present action was brought to recover the value
of the cattle. Evidence was produced to show the amount
of the damage done.
Mr. CRESSWELL then addressed the jury ou the part of
the defendant, contending, that sufficient had been tendered.
The jury returned a icrdict for the plaintiff.