The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1849-04-03 00:00:00

Mr. Knowles, Q.C., and Mr. J. Pollock appeared for
the plaintiff; and Mr. Martin, Q.C., and Mr. Cleasby for
the defendant.

The plaintiff, it appeared, was a young man of respect-
able connexions, his father having been a major in the
army, who at the time of the trespass complained of was
cashier and bookkeeper, at a salary of £250 a year, to
Messrs. Glendinning and Co., manufacturers, of Man-
chester. It appeared that Mr. Glendinning resided in
Kent, but carried on business in Manchester, coming over
at stated times to conduct his business and check his ac-
counts. The most complete trust and reliance was placed
in the plaintiff, who had authority to draw checks on the
defendants' accounts, and large sums passed through his
hands. He conducted the business for some time very
much to the satisfaction of his employers, so much so
that they had expressed their intention to take him into
the concern as a partner. In October last year, however,
they heard that he had become a little unsteady, and Mr.
Glendinning appointed the 12th of that month to be at
the office and examine the accounts with the plaintiff.
On going there the plaintiff never appeared, and after
waiting till the afternoon the defendant, Mr. Glendinn-
ing, became alarmed arid began to search for the books.
The keys of the safe were not there, but a rough cash-
book was found, in which .it was the proper course to
enter all sums received. In this book there was no entry
of several sums which Mr. Glendinning knew to have
been paid. 13;., nming more alarmed, the police were sent
for, the plaintiff's desk was broken open, and in it were
found the books, not entered up, and irregularly kept, and
also two T 0 U's and a bill, whic'i further excited the

defendant's suspicions. Thereupon the manager and
friend of the defendant Glendinning, Mr. Heald, advised
and directed a police-officer to go to the plaintiff's resi-
dence and take him into custody. They went to his
lodgings, and not finding him at home, an officer waited
for him, when he came home late. at half-past nine

o'eto
thrt he

k, rather intoxicated. The officer then told him
mid not take him to the police-office that night,

hut would take him in charge. The constable accordingly
slept in his bed-room, and next day he was taken by the
officer in plain clothes to the office of his employers, and
requested to enter up the books, the officer remaining
there, and in fact having him in custody for two days.
On an undertaking being given by his brother-in-law that
he would enter up the books and abstain from drink, the

and he was never taken before a magistrate

It was for this imprisonment the action was brought.
The learned counsel for the defendant admitted that
the verdict must be against his clients, but submitted
that this was no case for more than nominal damages.
The defendants had gold reason to have their suspicions
excited by the plaintiff's conduct, and the course they had
adopted was one least calculated to injure the plaintiff.
There had been no exposure of the charge at a police-
office, and no publication of it in the newspapers ; and
the course taken was devoid of malice, and what most
merchants would have adopted. _ _ _

RDSHIP Navin; summed up, the jury found a

MIS-LOADING OF GOODS

PAPADACFII v. BIBBY.—The plaintiff in this case was
John Pan lachi, merchant, Manchester ; and the
were Mr. John Bibby and Mr. James Jenkin-
merchants, Liverpool. The declaration con-
counts: the first alleged that the defendants
loading a vessel at Liverpool, by the negli-
eir servants, put on board their vessel, bound
a bale of goods belonging to the plaintiff,
lying on the quay, and was intended to go to
and that the bale had thus been lost; there was
count in trover. The defendants denied that it
its whose negligence caused the mis-load-
and with reference to the count in trover,
there had been no conversion. It ap-
lecember last the plaintiff sent down to
agents, Messrs. Papaganni, two bales of

m• Oporto

as thai

ley plea

. .
oods, marked F., P. C., in order to be sent to Trieste.
Messrs. Paplganni accordingly sent the goods down to
he George's Dock, where they were deposited on the
play, near to a vessel, the William Kerry, which was
oading for Trieste, by which it was intended that these

bales should go. Tn a day or two it was found that only
one of the two bales was on board the William Kerry ;
and it was subsequently discovered that the other had
been taken on board a vessel called the Ann Powell,

which was lying near, loading for Oporto. and which had
sailed when the discovery was made. This ship was the
)f a Mr. Powell, and was chartered in the lump
The ship was loaded by the men em-

y a stevadore.named Roberts, and the first ques-

tioti ti

was, whether this Roberts was the servant
of the Bibbys or of Powell, the owner of the ship. Then,
besides this question, another arose under the trover
count or declaration, in this way :—lt was discovered

before the sailing of the ship, that this bale was on board,
for which there was no bill of lading ; but instead of hav-
ing the bale taken out, the captain and mate went before
the Portuguese consul at Liverpool, and having had some

entry made upon the manifest, the ship sailed with the
hale on board to Oporto, where it was lAt. Was this,
then, a conversion by the defendants ?—lt appeared from
the evidence, that although Robert., the stevadore, was
recommended by the defendants to Powell, he was really
appointed and paid by the latter, and was therefore his
servant; and with regard to the subsequent question, the
evidence went to show that the conversion was entirely
by the stevadore and the mate and captain of the ship,
all servants, not of the defendants, but of Powell ; and
under these circumstances, therefore, the Judge directed
the plaintiff to be nonsuited.

BREACH OF CONTRACT

RIPLEY v. MACLURE.—This was another special-jury
se. The plaintiff, Mr. Thomas.Ripley,is a merchant

mg in China; anc
merchant in Belfast.
action was brought to recover damages for the non-
acceptance of the third of a cargo of tea, which he was
alleged to have purchased by a contract alleged to have
been entered into in March, 1847. The evidence con-
sisted chiefly in a correspondence of enormous length.
When Mr. Martin had opened the case for the plaintiff,

partner resit
lure- i

Mr. Knowles, who was on the other side, suggested that
the case should be referred. Mr. Ripley, being consulted
On the matter, said he had already done all that be could
do. It was resolved to leave the matter for consideration
till the morning.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-FRIDAY

RIPLEY V. M'CLURE.— This case was proceeded with
by the reading of a lengthy correspondence, after which
two witnesses were examined in support of the plaintiff's
case, their evidence going to prove the circumstances in
connexion with the contract.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then addressed the jury for
the defendant, and read several letters from the plaintiff in
which he expressed a wish to release the defendant from the
contract, which he, in the first instance, refused ; but
afterwards, on finding out that the cargo of the teas
brought by the Mary Ann Webb had been purchased
with goods sent out on the plaintiff's sole account, and
which had been - 'd at a -- rate th-

soh. tower rate than —le goods sent
out as the joint adventure of the plaintiff and defendant,
(with the produce of which the teas were to have been
purchased,) the defendant declined to have anything fur-
ther to do with the contract, as it had bean broken in the
first instance by the plaintiff himself.

The Learned JUDGE summed up, after which
the Jury retired, and were out of court. several hours.
In the course of the afternoon, the jury returned into
court, with a verdict for the plaintiff, in all the issues
except the fifth, the amount of damage to be settled out
of court.

The jury found expressly that there was no fraudulent
representation on the part of the plaintiff.

CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF INDIAN CORN

WOLLHEIM v. PAULETT.—The plaintiff in this case
was Salmon Wollbeim, and the defendant was Etrenne
Paulett. The declaration set forth that in February,
1847, the plaintiff employed the defendant to make the
contract for the sale of about 2,000 barrels of Indian
corn from the Danube. That the defendant made no
such contract, but that the buyer did not take and pay
for the wheat, and the present action was brought to
compel the defendant, as broker, to make good the
default of his principal. The defendant pleaded a variety
of pleas, some denying his liability, others alleging a
variety of trenches on the part of the plaintiff, and one
plea alleging a set off.
A verdict was returned for plaintiff £3,576.

The case occupied the attention of the court the re-
mainder of the day.

NIST PRIUS COURT,

.-SATURDAY,

BURROWS V. PAPAYANNI AND ANOTHER.—This action
was brought to recover the loss sustained on a charter-
party, which the plaintiffs had made with the defendants,
who are Greek merchants in Liverpool, on the ship An-
glesea. After the case had proceeded some time, it ap-
peared that at the time of the contract the defendants had
made it known that they ,were merely agents, Messrs.
Steres and Co., who were mentioned at the time, being
the principals. The plaintiffs were accordingly nonsuited.

Mum): SIR JOHN GERARD.—In this ca;e Daniel Jo-
seph Rice, Roman Catholic schoolmaster at Great Eccles-
ton, about fifteen miles north of Preston, was the plaintiff.
The defendant is well known as a branch of an old esta-
blished family, of the same persuasion, in this county.
The action was brought to recover damages against the
defendant, for having arrested the plaintiff on a charge of
having published a libel upon him (the defendant.) The
libel was contained in an anonymous letter, and contained
gross calumnies on the plaintiff. The evidence was very
voluminous, and at the close the Judge said that the
defendant had reasonable and probable cause for institut-
ing the prosecution against the plaintiff, he (the defendant)
having a deposition that the libel was in the plaintiff's
handwriting, though afterwards other persons proved that
it was not so. The plaintiff was nonsuited.

UNDER-SHERIFF'S COURT.—SATURDAY.
(Bgfore Mr. Watson, Q.C., Acting Assessor.)
CRIM. EON.-HARTLEY V. THOMPSON.

This day a jury was empanelled before the Under-She-
riff of Lancashire, to assess the damages in a case of crim.
con. in which the defendant had allowed judgment to go
by default.

The plaintiff, Mr. J. B. Hartley, is a surveyor in Liver-
pool, and is in partnership with his father, who holds the
office of surveyor to the Liverpool. Dock Estate. The de-
fendant, Mr. Thompson, is a civil engineer, and for the
last year or two hp been residing in the neighbourhood
of Liverpool, having been employed by the Lancashire
and Yorkshire Railway Company as their acting engineer
during the construction of the Liverpool and Bury portion
of their line. In constructing a part of the line of railway
which comes near the Liverpool docks the defendant had
frequent interviews with the plaintiff of a business nature,
and these repeated interviews laid the foundation of a
close intimacy which subsequently sprang up between the
parties. This led to the defendant being received as a
frequent guest at the house of the plaintiff, to whose family,
and, the friendship bel ween the parties increasing, the de-
fendant was in the habit of paying complimentary visits to
the plaintiff's house, and often there during the absence
of the plaintiff from home. It was during the time the