The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-08-23 00:00:00

NISI PRIIIS COURT. —TVESDAY
(BEFORE Mir JUSTICE EREE.)
LIRMAY v. WRIGRT.—This was an action for an

AUGUST 16

plaintiff; and Mr. Serjeant Wilkins and Mr. Tomlinson
for the defendant.—lt appeared that at the latter end of
last May die plaintiff, a commsrcial traveller, was drink-
ing at night in a public-house called the Wel'
Manchester, when the defen

entered with some dogs
as• Mr. Justice

The plaintikaddressed him immediat

Erle observe& to the jury, "civilly, for hii class

him familiarly,- "Will yOu have glitss with me, shall
I with you ?" to which invitation the defendant gave " a
most distinct and definite notice to the plaintiff that he
did not wish to join company with him," by replying, " he
would see him d—d first." The plaintiff immediately
rejoined, " Quite' right." A match at " trotting" then
commenced, or as another witness called it ""chaffing,"
the plaintiff remarking that " the defendant's dogs were
very valuable dogs, worth £50," and asking, " what he
would sell them for," and a great many " disrespectful
words" passed between the plaintiff and the defendant,
finishing with a declitration by the plaintiff that "the de-
fendant was far too\ clever to die a natural death." At
tbis time the dogs growled, or had been made to do,so, and
die company complained of them as a nuisance, and called

to have lhein tunled out. An attorney's clerk out of em-
ployment, named Haudforth, iyho was present, then made
some observation that "the defendant was a pretty fellow
to be growled at by his own dogs," and the defendant,
provoked, pushed him down on a chair, and seized him by
the leg to upset him,. and, getting hold of his boot, it
came off in the defendant's hand. The plaintiff cried
out; "For God's sake don't strike him, he's a cripple;"
the defendant immediately swung the boot round, and
said; "Then I will strike you," striking at the plaintiff
with the boot, the heel' of which struck the plaintiff a
violent blow on the temple, cutting it, and nearly render-
ing him insensible. The wound bled considerably, and the
praintiff's nervous system received a severe shoeic.—For
the defence, Mr. Serjeaut Wilkins cross-examined the
plaintiff, endeavouring to show that he was given to dram-
thinking, and that his nervous system had reeelied its
" shock" from that. In the course of his cross-examina-
tion, the plaintiff, in an impudent manner, said he had
chunk wine at Dick's Coffee-house with the learned ser-
jeant—not at the serjeant's expense, but sitting:in the
same.box with him. This-the learned serjeant denied; and

said the plaintiff was one of that style of men who seemed
to live only to work mischief. It was his indulgence in

thii spirit which had brought' on this pot-house row, and
he celled on the jury to mark their sense of his conduct by
the amount of damages . which they gave.—His lordship
Having summed up, the jury found a verdict for the plain-
#ff—damages is.
DAVIS v. LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAIHITA:Y.—
In this case the plaintiff applied for damages for injuries
sustaind by a collision which. took place at the Bootle-
lane station, on the 26th July last ; and, after the Attorney-
general had stated the particulars at some length, the case
was settled, a verdict having Veen taken for £350.
BnLTON (ASSIGNEE, BRADBURY.—Owing to the
alisence of the witnesses in this case, the plaintiff was
non-suited.

MsBTIN AND ANOTHER (ASSIGNEES) v. LAWTON.—Mr.
Serjeant Wilkins and Mr. Monkappeared for the plaintiffs,
and Mr. Knowles and Mr Cobbett for the defence. The
action was brought to recover a sum of £220, held by the
defendant, and which, it, was alleged, belonged to the
estate of a Mr. Holland, commission agent, of Manchester,
for which.the plaintiffs were the assignees. A great deal
of evidence was adduced, some of which was exceedingly
contradictory ; and the Judge, in summing up,. said that
on one side or the other there had been wilful artifice and
forethought in framing a story, and then coming into
court and swearing to itt. The jury, after an. absence of
two hours from court, returned with a verdict for the
plaintiffs for the amount claimed, namely, damages, £220;
costs, 40s. WEDNESDAY.
CORRIGAN v. ST. TIBLENEI CANAL AND RA/LWAY COM-
BANT.—The plaintiff in this case was a labouring man,
44 years of age, with a wife and family, who claimed com-
pensation for having his arm crushed by an engine
belonging to the defendants, as alleged, through the care-
lessness of their servants. The railway of the defendants
is a branch running from the main line, called the
Gerard's-bridge branch, about a mile from St. Helens.
There is a single line of rails over the branch, which is
worked exclusively for goods supplied by the neighbouring
works. About a mile and a half from the main line a
shunt, called Evans's, runs out of the branch, and upon
this there is a very sharp curve and a great deal of traffic.
On the 14th of December the plaintiff,, who was in the
employ of Mr. Evans, was pushing up some waggons
to the curve, and whilst so employed an engine belonging
to the company, and driven by one of its servants, ran up
this shunt at a rapid pace, struck the waggons which
plaintiff was pushing, and the result was, that the plain-
tiff's arm was- crushed and broken between the waggons.
For the defendants it was contended, that this was an
accident, and that it was in a great measure caused by the
negligence of the plaintiff himself; and witnesses were
called. to prove that the driver sounded his whistle three
or four. times ; and that it was the plaintiff's own care-
lessness that he did not get out of the. way.—Mr. Serjeant
Wallas having replied on this evidence, his Lordship
summed up, leaving it to the jury to say on which set of
witnesses they relied. If they believed the plaintars wit-
nesses they must give the plaintiff such compensation as
in their judgment was in some degree adequate to the loss
he had sustained by being rendered incapable in future to
earn his living.—The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff,.
damages, £l7O.
SOUTHERN v. HmA Tox..—This was an action of ejection
to recover possession of part of a house at Aspull, near
Wigan. It was to determine whether a kitchen was a
'part of a house. The plaintiff was a hand-loom weaver,
and the defendant a man of eccentric habits and consi-
derable wealth. When the notice of action was given, the
defendant gave up all claim to the house except to the
kitchen part, to which he had a right. The house in
question is situated at Morris's-fold, Aspull, near.Wigan,
and is one of six houses built by a man named Morris,
and devised separately to his different children. To his
daughter Ellen he devised the house in which John Win-
stanley lived (the house in question), and to a second
daughter he devised the house in which he himself lived.
The plaintiff, who was a son of Ellen, claimed the kitchen
as belonging to the house devised to his mother, whilst
the defendant alleged it was the house occupied by Morris,
and devised to another of his daughters, from whom he
purchased it. The question for the jury to decide was,
to which house the kitchen in question originally be.
longed. It was also alleged that the defendant had pur-
chased the kitchen in question from the father of the
plaintiff and his brother William, who was proved to have
been born before the marriage of Ellen with plaintiff's
father, consequently the purchase was not valid. Under
the direction of his Lordship, the jury found a verdict for
the plaintiff.
CHAPLAIN, Exon. v. LEVY.—The plaintiff sued the
defendant on a bill of exchange for a sum of £32. The
plaintiff, Mr. Chaplin, was executor under the will of Jas.
Hannan, and the defendant was Daniel Levy, who
pleaded that he had never accepted the bill. After the
bill became due, a letter was written to the defendant,
asking him for payment. To this he replied that he had
to see the drawer of the bill, Mr. Holme, and that after-
wards his request would be complied with. After this the
defendant's attorney made this admission : " Chaplin v.
Levy. I hereby admit that the acceptance of the bill of
exchange on which this action is brougbt is in the hand-
, writing of the defendant. Henry Bradden, July 26th,
1853.' This, it was contended, was a proof of the accept-
ance of the bill by the defendant. After some discussion
between his lordship and the learned counsel on both
I sides, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff, for the
amount claimed.
BARBER v. DA.WSON.—Benjamin Barber, the plaintiff,
was a gardener and nurseryman at Walter Clough, near
Halifax, and the defendant is Arthur Dawson, of Walter
Clough-hall, and the owner of the ground occupied by the
plaintiff. The action was brought to recover a sum of
£l5O, which the plaintiff alleged he was entitled to re-
ceive from the defendant as the amount of a valuation in
which the defendant refused by his valuer to concur as to
the Yalue Qt certain Pmts, fic., which the Pktutiif