The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-04-10 00:00:00

rather than not have any cotton, he was at liberty to send him
200 bales, when he thought it would be in,st to-his (defendants)
benefit, though his forin,!r limits should not be practicable. The
• next letter was on the 13th of October. 1930, which did not at
all notice the 2;.X) bale, but. reduced the limits for the 590 to 9,1
per Lb. and in case the market increase 1, to repeat the shipment
of a fair quality at 81 On the 3.1 of November the defendant
wrote again to 111`Kenzie, saying he "had that pleasure on the
15th tilt.," and reducing his former limits Oct per lb, with this
order, "my limits now stand 41 for good,' al for fair,' and
if this should not be practicable, then TO bales to be seat when
you think your market is at the lowest." The defendant's limits
not being "practicable." 111•Kenzie, on this order, purchased
201) ;tales, and shipped them to Liverpool, at the invoice price
of £3016, which drity arrived in 'Liverpool, but to a falling mar-
ket. Under these circumstances the defendant refused the cot-
ton, and it was sold by other parties for £1593. On the 7th of
February, 1837, some time after the 290 bales bad been bought,
the defendant Wrote to 'Ai:Kenzie that he was to consider the
order given to hiaion the 501 of December as null and void, the
market being iu the most "awful" state. It was on this re--
scinded order that the defendant refused to pay. The action
was brought to recover the difference between the price for
which the cotton was briught and sold.
A verdict was taken for the plaintiff for £1175 8s 3d; subject
to a motion.

HUMBLE AND ANOTHER V. MITCHELL.
The plaintiff in thii case sought to recover the difference in
price, between two stated periods, in the value of 100 Northern
and Central Banking Company shares. On the Bth of July,
1837, it was stated by the plaintiff that be bought the shares in
question of the defendant, at £2 Ws per share, and that the de-
fendant refused afterwards to sign the transfer note, and com-
plete the contract. On the 4th of August, 1837, the plaintiff
•maile a tender to the defendant of the amount of the purchase
ihoney of the shares, which he refrised, and the act►on was
brought to recover the difference between the price of the shares
when bought and when the tender was made. The sale and
the tender were proved, and two gentlemen, named Barber and
Sinclair, of Manchester, were called to prove the value of the
shares at those pehods. They, however, proved the value of
the shares when the tender was made at £2 7, G 1 lesti than the
purchase price, though no actual dealings had taken place at
that rate. The first actual transaction after the 4th of August
was at £3 10s, which, being within a " reasonable time" of the
date of the tender, was taken as the price, the defendant object-
ing. A verdict was accordingly entered fel the plaintiff,
damages, %EMU, costs, 40s, subject to a Motion in court.

• YESTE )AY. •
RANDLESON V. MURRAY AND ANOTHER.
Mr. CRESWELL. and Mr. CowLING, appeared fur the plain-
tiff; and Mr. A LEXA N DER for the defence.
The plaintiff in this case is a labouring man, and the defend-
ants, Messrs. Thomas and Henry Murray, are persons in a
respectable station -in Livei pool. The action was brought by
the plaintiff to recover compensation in damages from the de—
fendants for a serious injury he received, in consequence of the
neglect of the defendants' servants in lowering a barrel of
flour, which fell in consequence, and broke the leg of the plain •
tiff. It appeared that Randteson was enaplosed by a carter,
and sent to the defendants' warehouse in Gibraltar-row to bring
away some flour, when the servants of the defendants lowered
some flour so carelessly, by means of can-hooks, instead of by
nippers or slings, which are much safer, that it fell a height of
six stories upon the plaintiff, injured his back, and crushed one
Of his legs and thighs to pieces. He was obliged to have his
leg amputated in consequence, and was thus, when quite a
young man, rendered a cripple and unable to get his .iving.
For the defence it was urged that the men who lowered the flour
were not in the iimnediate employ of the defendants, but in the
employ of a master porter natned Wharton. It was, however,
contended in reply, that the men were in fact and in law em-
ployed by the defendants. Several surgeons were called, who
spoke to the injury which the plaintiff had suffered. lie had
lost his leg, and had never since been well in health in conse-
quence. Witnesses were called who deposed to the extreme.
carelessness of the porters who lowered the flour. His Lord-
ship said•he hail no doubt the master porter employed by the'
defendants, was their servant, and he did not think the men
employed by the master porter were the less servants of .the de-
•

feuil flits.
For the defence it was contended that this action was t!ot up,
not by the plaintiff, but by his attorney, Mr. Blaelthurst, of
Preston, who made a tool of the plaintiff, and brought the ac-.
tion to put the costs in his pocket. A witness was catled,named.
Newton, who devosed that the plaintiff had told him that Mr.
Blackhurst.wanted him to enter an action against Messrs.
Murray, and promised to dO it for him fot' nothing. That he
(witness) advised him to do no such thtng as he (plaintiff) was
very comfortable; and •Mr. Wharton, who would have to pay
the expellees, had been very kind to him.
His Lon DS IP, hi summing up, said one part of the defence
was, that this was a stale action brought long after the-acci-
dent, awl that it would not have been brought had it not hap-
pened that Mr. Heury Blarkhurst, the attorney, had heard of
it. Any attorney.who thus hunted out actions on the principle
of “. no cure no pay,' in his opinion interfered improperly, and
in a manner disgraceful to an honourable profession. But the
jury must take care and not mix up with the cases of •Randle-
son the plaintiff, and Blackhurst, the attorney for lt andieson.
might be entitled to damages,. though he had had the misfortune
to fall into the hands of Mr. *lackhurst the attorney.
The jury, after a short consultatioil, found a verdict for

plaintiff—Damages £lOO.
SIENCE AND ANOTIIER ASSIGNEES, V. ROLLO.
This was au action brought by the assignees of a bankrupt
firm, Messrs. Moleson, Peaison, and Dempson, to recover front
the defendant the price of the third part of a share in the
Laten Mining Company. It appeared that the three partners
of the film had purchased a a bole share in the Mining Com-
pany, each 'paying a share. Mr. Moleson afterwards sold his
share of the share to Mr. Rollo, at the price of £3OO, of which
auto he had paid £270, leaving a balance of £9j unpaid. For
the defence it w, s contended that Mr. Rollo was h creditor to
the bankrupt estate, and that the share gas purchased from the
partnership, and ridt from Moleson individually, which was de-
vied hy the plaintiffs.
Verdict fur the plaintiff—Damages £9O.

JARDINE V. AVNEILE AND ANOTHER.
This was an action brought for a breach of contract in the
not“fullihneut of a charter-party. The plaintiff chartered -a
vessel with the defendants, the vessel being then at sea on her.
way to New York; that the vessel, (the Eliza .Grant,) if she
had not taken in a cargo before-the intelligence of the charter
reacted the captaio, was to proceed toltichihucto, and take in
a cargo oryellow, pine limber• and. br,ing it to Liverpool. The
intelligence of the charter went Otit, and arrived in New York
before the Eliz I Grant. The captain, however, was short of
money, and his owners had made no provision for him, so was
obliged to break the charter, and take a cargo of timber from
Miramichi,for which he received an order. The case was not
fully gone into, but was referred, and a verdict was taken for
the plaintiff, subject to a reference.
BRADLEY V. HOCLDSWORTH.
This was an action brought to recover a sum of £439 I7s. 61.
part of the amount of a bill of Exchange for £772 Os. 61. It
appeared, that in the month of April, 1836, the plaintiff and de-
fendant entered into a contract respecting ten shares in the
London and Birmingham Railway, which the defendant
agreed to sell to the plaintiff the shares in question at a distance
of time of six months, at £SS premium, the plaintiff paying for
them in a bill of Exchange, to become- due at the time of the
sale of the shares. Afterwards the contract was altered to five
shares instead of ten. The defendant wrote to his pgerif in
London to purchase the shares, and two were transferred to the
plaintiff. The plaintiff, meantime, had given a bill for £772
Os. 6d. in payment. he defendant fur .want of money was un-
able to complete his purchase of the remainingthree shares in
London, and had discounted the bill given by the plaintiff,
which, when it became due, the plaintiff had to take up to the
full-amount. The present action was brought to recover the
balance of the bill after the price of the two shares transferred
bad-been subtracted from the amount.
Verdict for the plaintiff £139 17s. 6d.
CASE AND OTHERS V. PHILLIPS. •

The action in this case was to try whether Messrs. Case and
others, the assignees of Messrs. Hardisty and Kilshaw; were
entitled to recover interest on an amount' of money which
Messrs. Phillips and Co. had in their hands belonging to Har-
disty and Co. Hardisty and Co. formerly carried on business
at Buenos Ayres, and Phillips and Co. had a house at Monte
Video. Hardisty and Co. sent out a cargO to Buenos Ayres,
but owing 19 that port being blockaded, the goods were landed
at Monte Video, and Messrs. Phillips and Co. sold the cargo.
It appeared them had been a long-running account hetWeen
Messrs. Hardisty and Co. and Messes. and Co., gene-
rally in favour of Hardisty and Co., and that they charged 18
per cent. interest on both•sides for money advanced by either
party. But early in Janharv. 1831, on the landing of the cargo
of Hardisty and Co. Monte Video; the balance ot account be-
came turned greatly in favour of Hardisty and Co., and then
the defendants refused to allow Hardisty and Co. 18 per cent.,
the usual interest of the country, but contended that it was not
usual to pay interest to En,4lish merchants, or at most, that 5
tier cent. was all they ought to pay. The amount claimed, was
interest upon £533, the balance in the hands of the defendant
at Monte Vile. Interest was claimed to June 33, at IS per
cent., at which time the money was alleged to have been remit-
ted by the defendants to their agents; and from that time to
May, 35, at five per cent., at which time the principal was
invested in Exchequer bills. The jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff with 18 per cent. interest till the money was remitted,
and 5 tier cent afterwards, till it was invested.
coat.t,TT, PUBLIC OFFICER, &C. V. MADDOCK AND ANOTHER.
This was an action brought by Thomas Arthur Corlett, the
public officer of the North and South Wales bank against
Daniel Maddock and a person natned Edwards, to recover front
theta £4,700, advanced io them by the North and South \Vales
Banking Company. It appeared that the Clwyd and Liver-
.pool Steam Packet Company were anxious to purchase_ a steam
boat for the use of the company, and sent Maddock and Ed-
wards to Glasgow to purchase a steam-boat. These two
indi-
viduals, having credit on the North and South Wales Bank
to the .amount of £SOIXI, purchased a boat fur £4700, and
a bill was drawn bY the seller on the company, and accepted
by the company, and duly honoured; and now the action was
brought_ by the Banking Company to recover this amount.
For the defence, it was contended that the Clwyd and Liverpool
Steam Packet Company gave a guarrantee for the amount to
the Bank, and that the action ought to have been brought
againit the Clwyd Steam Packet Company, and not against
these individuals, who acted merely as their agents. Edwards
had suffered judgment to go by default. The batik came on
the other defendant as the person who accented the bill, and as
one of the shareholders.
Verdict for thulaintiff, damages £4700.
GRIFFITHS V. FEGAN AND ANOTHER—WIGAN LAW.

Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Cowling appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Alexander and Mr. Wightman for the deiendants.
The deelatation stated, that Joseph Griffithi was the phi;
_ .

tiff, and Richard Fegan end John Whittle the defendants; that
the defendants assaulted the plaintiff, and dragged hint through
the town, and forced him' to go to a certain Town-had, and
there imprisoned him, to which the defendant pleaded not
guilty; and second, that the outrages were committed by hien
in the execution of the duties of his office; and that within a
calendar month he tendered the plaintiff £5 amends, which the
plaintiff refused to have. The plaintiff denied the tender.
Mr. CRESswELL, in opening the case, said, thiS was an aCtiiih
brought by a Mr. Griffiths. whom he understood to be a person
of great respectability, filling his position in society with the
respect of all those to whom he was known. In the town of
Wigan, Mr. Griffiths edited a newspaper called tbe.Wiorio Ga-
zette. Ile was so much in the enjoyment of the esteem of his
fellow neighbours and townsmen, that he alSo tilled the office
of churchwarden. Mr. Fegan was one in high station, being
One olthose to whom the important office of Magistrate was
assigned under the slew jurisdiction there. Mr. Whittle
was the chief constable.. Sorry was he to detail to them the
subject matter of this inquiry, because it was always grievous
to l;im to have to bring before a jurya complaint against any
one tilling the high station of magistrate. It was a most im-
portant office, and he for role had alway 3 been of opinion that
it was of the utmost importance to the well-being of society
in thiS country that those holding, that office shonal so conduct
themselves as to secure the admiration of the public by the calm
and dispassionate adminishailan of the laws. Arid tie thought
that the jury would say that Mr. Fegan, in his ,:onduct to Mr.
Griffiths, had totally forgotten the duty which was incumbent
on him as a magistrate, and, instead of using his power for the
purpose of protecting those placed under his superintendence as
a magistrate, had exerted that power, or, rather, by the exer-
cise of a power wholly uneutrusted to him by, law, had, with tha