The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-08-20 00:00:00

weavers met the " putter out" on certain stated days. The
loom, which was the subject of the present action, had been
made during the time the defendants had been manufactu-
rers. They had a warehouse at Leyland, where the weavers
in the neighbourhood were in the habit of assembling to pro-
cure work, and to be paid for what they had executed; and
the defendants were in the constant habit, when they fell
short of money, to go to the plaintiff, and to borrow money
to pay their weavers. The question for the jury to decide
would be in respect of a loan made by the plaintiff on the
26th April, 1829, upon a note received in this form :
" Please to lend us £5 until next Friday.
" JOHN HEAP and Co.
"JOSEPH EDGE."

" Mr. Kellett.
It would be proved by the person who took the note and
brought back the money from the plaintiff, that the sum so
borrowed bad been paid for work (lone on account of the
defendants; and it would be further proved that the defen-
dants were cognizant of this mode of conducting their busi-
ness, that various persons who had held the same situation
as Mr. Edge had pursued the same course, and that the
money they had borrowed had been subsequently repaid by
the defendants. Evidence so irresistible would entitle the
plaintiff to a verdict. There was one difficulty in the case,
namely, that Mr. Edge had been subsequently guilty of
misconduct in the defendants' employment ; but as the
plaintiff had nothing to do with the acts of that gentleman,
and as the money had been unquestionably advanced by him,
there could be no doubt of the fact that he ought to be re-
paid.
Several witnesses were then examined to prove the case ;
after which,

Mr. CRESSWELL contended that the authority given to
Edge to borrow money was conditional, and that the plain-
tiff was bound to show that the defendants had failed to sup-
ply him with sufficient money to pay the weavers, before he
borrowed any from the plaintiff.
The point was argued at some length, and eventually the
jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for £5, subject to a
motion for a nonsuit, if the court above should be of opinion
that there had not been sufficient evidence to sustain the
action.

GASKELL V. PATES.
In this case, Henry Gaskell was plaintiff, and Elizabeth
Yates defendant, and the action was brought for the recovery
of the amount of a promissory note for £B4 19s, payable by
instalments. The defendant pleaded that she had been in-
duced to make the note by fraud upon the part of the plain-
tiff.
Mr. CRESSWELL stated the case. He said the plaintiff
felt himself aggrieved at the form the proceedings had taken,
and was extremely glad at having an opportunity to refute
an imputation on his conduct in the matter. The defendant
bad thought fit to plead fraud and cunning, but the circum-
stances would amply prove that no such means had been
used. It appeared that the defendant's late husband had
been indebted to the plaintiff, who treated him with the
greatest possible indulgence, but at last brought an action,
and got a judgment, which he allowed to remain over. The
defendant's husband died worth money, and the defendant
possessed herself of his stock in trade. The plaintiff, con-
ceiving that she ought to pay him the amount due, proceeded
to her residence at Waterloo, in company with Mr. Cross,
an attorney, where she gave the promissory note, and subse-
quently refused to pay the first instalment, which made her
liable to the full amount.
Verdict for the plaintiff for the sum claimed.

HALL V. PROCTOR

In this case Thomas Hall was plaintiff, and James Proctor
defendant. The declaration was on the case. It stated that
the plaintiff was a colour-manufacturer, and that the defen-
dant had spoken certain slanderous words, which imputed
insolvency to him in the way of his trade.
Mr. CD.ESSWELL stated the case. The plaintiff in the ac-
tion was a person carrying on the business of a colour-mer-
chant, of respectability and good credit. The defendant had
formerly been in business in Liverpool, but was at present
living on his own means. The plaintiff was under the neces-
sity of seeking the reparation of his character at the hands of
the jury, it having been affected by a very gross and injurious
imputation cast upon it by the defendant, under circum-
stances which showed that the latter had not been labouring
under the effects of passion at the time. When a person said
to a trader that he was an insolvent man, unable to pay for
purchases made, it chewed a deliberate intent to do an injury.
Such had been the course of conduct pursued by the defen-
dant in this instance : but what added to the enormity of his
offence was this, namely, that after saying he was sorry for
what he bad previously said, he afterwards retracted, and
repeated the offence, without the slightest provocation on
the part of the plaintiff. The first occasion upon which the
offensive language had been used was in the month of April
last. The parties met by accident at a public-house called
the Robert Burns, situated in Brownlow-hill. The plaintiff
happened to be there with his friends, when the defendant
entered. They had previously dealt together, but had ceased
to do so for some time. The defendant came up to the plain-
tiff and said he wanted to sell him a quantity of ochre, upon
which the plaintiff said he had no great objection to deal with
him. The conversation immediately after dropped. The
defendant then proposed that some of the company should
play at drafts with him. None of the plaintiff's friends agreed
to play ; the defendant got displeased at their refusal; and
in his passion he struck the table with his hand. The-force
of the blow broke one of the glasses„. The defendant ex-

pressed a hope that the company would subscribe a penny a
piece to pay for it. The plaintiff refused to subscribe, where-
upon the defendant, addressed the plaintiff, said he was not
like him, a poor scrawl ; that he could pay his way, a thing
the plaintiff could never do ; that he had been watching the
plaintiff of late; that the plaintiff was one of the biggest
scoundrels and wastrels in Liverpool ; that be had heard the
fact from a thousand ; that he was acquainted with a party
who would do the plaintiff up before long; and that he should
have rapped at the plaintiff himself, but that he was not
worth powder and shot. This language was calculated to
injure the feelings and circumstances of the plaintiff. The
defendant, however, never retracted it, but, upon the con-
trary, boasted afterwards that lie had succeeded in driving
the plaintiff out of the public-house. The plaintiff said at
once that the language was insufferable, and requested his
companions to take notes of what had been said, whereupon
the defendant observed that it was all true, and that he was
ready to prove it. Subsequently the defendant had notice
served upon him, that an action of defamation of character
would be commenced. A. friend then interfered, and after
some negotiation, it was arranged that the defendant should
give a dinner to a party of twenty persons. and make an ac-
knowledgment in their presence, of having done a wrong to
the plaintiff; but, when the day for sending rc,t,nd the invi-
tations arrived, the defendant refused to comply with the
terms of the arrangement. Accordingly the action pro-
ceeded, and since it had been brought, the defendant not only
refused to make any reparation, but he actually said over and
over again, that the plaintiff was a swindling scoundrel, and
that he was ready to prove the fact.
After the examination of several witnesses, to prove the
facts, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages

NEWHAM, JUN., V. GEIGER.
Verdict, by consent. for the plaintiff for .£295 Gs

ht‘GLEN V. BROWNE•
This was an undefended case. It was brought by the plain-
tiff, Robert M`Glen, against William Browne, for the reco-
very of a bill of exchange for £392 7s. 2d. Verdict for the
plaintiff for the sum claimed.

PROCTOR V. Nl' ANDREW AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, James Proctor,
against the defendants, Robert M'Andrew, Joseph Roscoe,
and Ebenezer Roe, for the recovery of a puncheon of gin,
which had been lost through the negligence of the defendants.
Mr. KNowLEs stated the case. The plaintiff is a spirit mer-
chant in Liverpool, and the defendants are known by the name
of the London and Liverpool Shipping Co., and the action
had been brought to recover the sum of £4B, being the value
of a puncheon of gin, which bad been lost. The facts were
simply these :—the plaintiff sent an order to Messrs. Segar
and Evans, of Mil'bank, for twenty-five puncheons of gin,
the whole of which were shipped on board one of the defen-
dant's vessels, called the Fabius, in the Thames, to be brought
to Liverpool on payment of the freight. The puncheons were
placed under a quantity of oil. The ship arrived safely, and
on the 6th of March, the plaintiff received notice that the
gin was ready to be delivered to him. The warehouseman of
the plaintiff accordingly went to the dock where the ship had
been lying, to superintend the delivery. The mate of the
vessel then informed him that one of the puncheons had leaked
out ; and it was then ascertained that by some means or
other nearly the whole of the puncheon of gin
had either leaked or been taken out of the puncheon.
The other puncheons were got out comparatively safe, but
the oil had done some damage to them ; but the present
action had not been brought for the recovery of the damage
sustained by any of the puncheons except the one which had
leaked out. The question for the jury to decide would be,
whether the puncheon in question had leaked, or whether its
contents had been taken out designedly.
Several of the witnesses were then examined to prove the
case.

Mr. CitEsswELL addressed the jury on the part of the de-
fendants. He contended that it was impossible, from the
situation in which the puncheons had been placed under the
main-hatchway of the vessel, that pilferage could have-taken
place, and that the loss had been caused by leakage.
A number of witnesses were examined for the defence ;
after which
His LORDSHIP charged the jury, who, after an absence
from court for half an hour, returned a verdict for the plain-
tiff—damages £3O Bs.
The court adjourned at half-past five o'clock to nine this
morning.