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

vasing for Mr

his return

the 30th Ma

duced to hini:and on several d
with the defendant canvassin

Scully acting as his alter

looked -apon-him_ as the niost important person to ca.rr

dant withdrew from the contest, and after that the plaintiff
called upon him to fulfil the bargaia which Johnson had
entered into, but he refused. Mr. Hughan lost the elec-
tion, but ho.ought, said the learned counsel, to have paid

his agent. Application was again made for payment to
the defendant; but the plaintiff not tieing able to obtain
anything, tha. present action was brought. There were
ninety-four registered electors in the borough, and ten
agents were employed, one of whom, named Laffan, having
two brothers Roman Catholic priests, hadlreceived £7O as
his share of £874 6s. ld. which the election had cost the
defendant.— :verdict was returned for thmplaintiff.
r:. WiLsoN.—The defendant was George
Is, ciga, dealer, London, and the defendant was

SIMMONDS

Simmon

Hotel, in

lerland

Letion was

brought to recovr £25 16s. for a quantity of cigars pur-
ported to be sold to the defendant. The defence was that
the quantity sent had never been ordered, and that the
cigars were of a very inferior quality. A verdict was given
for the defendant. FRIDAY.
BREACII OF EN GA:GE3IENT.—PARIS V. CIIATT:LE.—This
was an action in which Charles Bigham Paris sought to
reeover compensation in damages for the breach of an
advantageous engagement into which the defendant, Fre-
derick Chapple, had, entered with him, and which the
defendant, without sufficient and reasonable cause, had
broken. The plaintiff, the son of Dr. Paris, a physician of
eminence in London, and an author of several literary

works, who was now about thirty years of age, at eighteen,
having completed his,education in Germany, was appren-
ticed to Mr. Mongredien, a merchant, carrying on a. large
business in Liverpool. He entered this gentleman's office
He remained five:years with Mr.

nominal salary

Mongredien, and he-then entered into bnsiness a=ka ship-
owner, on his own account, and afterwards, for a year and
a half, with a Mr. Prieoe: At the end of this period he
made an arrangement with the defendant, Mr. Chapple,
who carried on business under the title of " Viannai.do
and Chapple " preseni
to avail himself. Ai
3rd of September, h

es of which he was glad

ti into on the
which it was contracted that the

nent was ent

service of the defendant, as

Manager and clerk for a period of seven years; and should
devote, under the defendant's superintendence anddirec-
tions, his best attentiowth the conducting of the business
and the house, and thatthe defendant should pay for his
services a salary commencing at not less than £2OO, gra-
dually increasing until, at.the end of the seventh year, it
should not be less than E4OO. This was a minimum salary,
and there was an understanding that, if the profits of the
house increased considerably, there was to be a risein
the salary, and, eventually, a partnership to be established.
The plaintiff, on these terms, entered into the service of
the defendant. The plaintiff had devoted a good deal of
time to the subject of correspondence, and was, conse-
quently, extremely well. able to conduct correspondence.
The plaintiff entered into the service of the defendant on
the let of January, in this year, and left on the 12th of.
May following. Very early in the course of the engage-
ment the defendant had shown uneasiness for having
entered into the engagement, and ultimately intimated
that the plaintiff might leave, and on the 12th of. May,
peremptorily ordered his discharge. After a conversation
the plaintiff retired to the clerks' office, where he was
followed by Mr. Chap*, who roughly placed his-hands
on his shoulders, and said, " Get out of this." The plain-
tiff refused to go out,. under the circumstances, and the
defendant sent for police-officer, who refused. to take
him (plaintiff) into custody. The plaintiff went away,
and had not since.- returned. On the following day
he received a letter from the attorneys of the defendant..
The letter requested'the plaintiff not again to cal Lat the
office of the defendant, but to consult his attorney, also
stating that the plaintiff had shown himself to be incom-
petent to discharge the duties of managing-clerk, and that,
therefore, the defendant had put an end to his engage-
ment. It was attempted to be shown that the plaintiff
was incompetent for his duties, and was discourteous to
the defendant, and also to his fellow-clerks. After two
witnesses had been called, intimation was given that an
arrangement had been come to. The pleas of incompe-
tency were withdrawn, and a special verdict taken for the
plaintiff, damages £3OO. His lordship said he thought
this litigation would end in mutual respect.. The differ-
ence had really arisen from a misfortune with respect to
temper. The termination of the case was meat satisfactory.
MORGAN. .AND ANOTHER (ASSIGNEES) V., MARQUIS
AND Anna:lnit.—The plaintiffs are assignees to the estate
of W. J. Perrin, a bankrupt, and the defendants are
Messrs. Marquis and Baxter, commission merchants,
Liverpool;; and the action was brought to recover the sum
of £900„ being the balance of the valae of aopoo bags of
flour bought by the defendant for Mn. Perrin, the bank-
rupt. Mr.. Perrin, before his bankraptcy, was a member
of the firm of Moore, Wood, Brothers, and Co., and
speculated to a considerable extent on his own account, on
shares in flour. In March, 1852, he employed the de-
fendants to purchase a quantity of flour for him. He
shortly afterwards absconded, and the defendants re-sold
the flour, and deducted the amount of their account,
leaving a small balance for the creditors of Perrin. The
assignees sought to recover this amount, and a collateral
issue was raised that the transaction was a partnership
one between the defendants, Mr. Perrin and Mr. Shute,
and that Mr. Shute should have been included in the
action, and that the flour having been sold on the partner-
ship account, the plaintiffs could not recover. Verdict
for the defendants.

BBAuGH AND ANoTnEit (E.TECUTOES) HORSMAN.—
This was an action brought by plaintiffs, the executors of
Edward Horsman, to recover a sum of £5OO from Mr.
John Horsman, the brother of testator. After the case
had been partly opened, a verdict was taken by consent
for the plaintiff, subject to a reference.
KEAY v. NICHOLS.."—The plaintiff, Philip Henry Keay, a
coal merchant, residing at Eggbridge, near Chester, sought
to recover a sum of £4O from the defendant, Joseph
Nichols, a carrier, at Gaspel Oak, in the county of Staf-
ford, for injury done to a flat belonging to the plaintiff by a
collision with a fiat of the defendant's, occasioned by the
neglect of the defendant's servants. On the 15th of June,
the plaintifrs fiat, the Morning Star, laden with slack, ar-
rived at what is called the Chemistry Lock, and whilst
there two boats came out that were in the lock. The
plaintiff's boat was on the proper side of the canal, at a
distance of about two yards from the bank, and there were
ten or twelve yards between her and the opposite bank.
The first boat came out of the lock and passed the plain-
tiffs boat without touching her. The second boat, belong-
ing to the defendant, followed at the distance of about one
hundred yards, and when she came out there was no one

on- board of her. A boy who was standing on the bank
jumped on board, but, instead of going to the tiller, he
stood on the cabin,- and the consequence was that the de-
fendant's boat struck the plaintiff flat on the starboard
bow so violently that it took three horses to extricate
them. The plaintiff's boat sunk, whereby a great portion
of the slack was lost, and the rest damaged ; and the action
was brought to recover damages for the loss sustained.
Verdict for the plaintiff, damages, £l5 10s.

WILCOX ANDANOT.HER 17. gFENCE.—This was an
action on a breach of contract relative to the supply of
cordage, rigging, &c., to the ship Evangeline, which the
defendants refused to supply, unless an acceptance of the
Messrs. Clint (owners of the ship) was handed over as the
goods were delivered. By consent, a verdict was taken
for the plaintiff for £156, leave being given to move for a
verdict to be entered for the defendant in the court above
—a demurer in the case to be argued at the same time.
ACTION ON A ROND.—TIIE GUARDIANS OF THE POOR
OF STOKESLEY V. STOTHER.—ThiS was an action brought
to recover the sum of £l5O owing on a bond into which
the defendant had entered as one of the. sureties to the
plaintiffs for Robert Neasham, lately a relieving officer to
the Stokesley Union. A verdict was returned for the
plaintiff. The court rose a IittIeATURDAY before seven o'clock.
S.
(Before Mr. Justice Erle and a Special Jury.)
ACCIDENT ON THE LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE
RAILWAY : CARATI, EXECUTOR, V. THE LANCASHIRE
ARP YOBS6IIIIZ RAILWAT COMPAITI,-1114 vas an