The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-05-16 00:00:00

COURT OF PASSAGE-YESTERDAY.

(Before E. JAMES, Esq., Assessor.)
Tuts court opened, simultaneously with the Sessions,
yesterday morning, at St. George's Hall. Theundefended
actions were first disposed of.
11Ansnati, AND ANOTHER V. JONES.—This was an
action upon a promissory note for £3O. Verdict for the
plaintiffs.
LIVERPOOL TRADESMAN'S LOAN COMPANY V. GLED-
nILL AND ANOTHER.—This also was an undefended action,
the defendants being Win. Gledhill and Sophia Scarlett,
on a promissory note for £l3O. Verdict for plaintiffs.
CHAFFER AND ANOTHER V. HoPsiss.—Thomas and
Benjamin Chaffer were the plaintiffs, and Thomas William
Hopkins the defendant. An action on a Bill of Exchange
for £26 Os. Bd. Verdict for the plaintiffs.
GILBERT V. BELPORD.—ThiS was an action to recover
the rent of a house and shop, and certain monies lent, the
total amount being £36 13s. Verdict for the plaintiff.
KIRBY r. ODELL.—Another undefended action, to re-
cover £3B 4s. 101, on a bill of exchange. Verdict for the
plaintiff.
ALLEGED ILLEGAL SEIZURE.—FARRELL V. MILLIGAN.
—The plaintiff, Samuel Farrell, is a butcher, and the
defendant, John Milligan, a grocer and general trader.
The declaration stated that the defendant, on the 12th of
January, in this year, broke and entered the dwelling-
house and shop of the plaintiff, and expelled the plaintiff
therefrom, and kept him out of it. It also stated that, on
a subsequent day, the 31st of the same month, he entered
the same dwelling-house and shop, made a great noise
there, and severed and seized certain fixtures of the plain-
tiff, and also took away the goods and chattels of the
plaintiff. Mr. Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff: and it
appeared, from his opening statement, that Mr. Farrell
had been for years on very intimate terms with Milligan,
the defendant. Early in 1853, Mr. Farrell got married,
and Mr. Milligan let him this house and shop, which are
situated at Saltney-street, in this town, for the purpose of
commencing business as a grocer. Mr. Farrell entered
the shop, and carried it on profitably and respectably ; but,
some tune after he had commenced as grocer, he and Milli-
gan entered into speculations ; they entered intothepotato
trade, Milligan finding the money, and Mr. Farrell travel-
ling about and disposing of the goods. This did not
answer so well as the grocery business had done. Dis-
putes arose between the two, and on the 12th of January,.
rent at the time being due, the defendant came down to
the shop. Farrell was away, but his wife was there, and
both the defendant and Farrell's wife were in a state of
intoxication. Defendant sent Mrs. Farrell out, and, whilst
she was away, he put the servant out:and locked up the
house and shop. Afterwards there was some further
negotiation, and in the course of it Mr. Milligan called
several times and saw Mrs. Farrell. A good many mat-
ters took place between them, one relating to an assault
committed by the defendant upon Mrs. Farrell, and which
would form the subject of another action. But on the
31st the defendant put in a " distress," and sold the
furniture of the plaintiff, including in the sale a variety
of fixtures which the plaintiff had put up, and which a
landlord under such circumstances had no right to sell.
He estimated their cost at £9 or £lo.—Mr. Millward
appeared for the defence, the principal point in which was
that when defendant and Mrs.. Farrell were drinking
together, the latter had sanctioned the proceedings that
he adopted. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff
on the first count, as to the locking out, with one farthing

damages. They found also for lam in reference to the
fixtures, with 258. damages ; and fixed the value of the
furniture sold at i 5. The case, it was intimated, would be
taken to the court above.
ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE I!.1 CARRIAGE.—MONIES V.
Locii.—ln this case Mr. Aspinall appeared for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Blair .for the defendant. The declaration
stated that the defendant was a common carrier, and that
the plaintiff had delivered to him a puncheon of gin to be
carried from Runcorn to Liverpsool, and delivered to him
iu Liverpool, and, that the defendant carried it so negli-
gently that part of the gin.was lost, and the rest spoiled.
The plaintiff is a wine and spirit merchant in this towioi,..
and the defendant the representative of the 1 Duke I
Ilridgev:ater's trustees. Mr. Monies
bought
from a party giving up business at Mincer?... Arils
j:ew3 Put
After it had
I into a puncheon when it was 23 node* Pr°,43,_ be 20 wider
I been put in, it WAS again tested, and 11)"4 to