The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-08-17 00:00:00

BOOTH V. PRESTON

Mr. CRESSWELL said this was a Yorkshire case, in which
himself and his friend Mr. Wortley were retained. As a
number of witnesses would have to be brought to Liverpool,
it would be convenient if his Lordship would fix a day on
which it could be tried.

His LORDSHIP thought the application was premature.
He could not say anything on the subject at present. It was
understood that the application was to be renewed in a day
or two.

PEMBERTON V. WHITE.
In this case Thomas Pemberton, a cabinet maker, of this
town, was the plaintiff, and Caroline White, milliner and
dress maker and keeper of a lodging house in Seymour-
street, the defendant. The action was brought to recover
the sum of £29 3s. for goods sold and delivered.
Mr. CROMPTON appeared for the plaintiff. The action
was undefended.

Mr. CROMPTON stated that the defendant applied to the
plaintiff to make her some articles of household furniture.
The plaintiff required security, upon which the defendant
referred to a learned friend of his, Mr. Sergeant Atcherley.
The Sergeant said he had a good opinion of Mrs. White,
and would do anything for her, but he had made it a rule
never to be security for any person. (Laughter.) This was
communicated to Mrs. White, who referred to another per-
son in the law, a constable. The constable said he also had
a good opinion of Mrs. White, but he did not become secu-
rity. The goods however were furnished.

Two sons of the plalntiffwerecOe7,Who proved the ma-
nufacture and delivery of a 100 table and a set of hangings,
and other articles, to the amount claimed.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintifffor £29 3s. 6d.

BUTLER V. BUTLER.
The plaintiff in this case is Mrs. Elizabeth Butler, of
Sheffield, and the defendant Mr. James Butler, of the same
place. The action was brought to recover the sum of
£237 Bs. Bd., for meat, drink, washing, lodging, &c. fur-
nished to the wife and child of the defendant.
Mr. Baines and Mr. Pashley appeared for the plaintiff.
It appeared that plaintiff is sister to the defendant's wife.
The defendant, on his marriage, received with his wife a por-
tion of £9OO. Soon after the marriage he began to use her
very ill, and his severe treatment continued till the 27th No-
vember, 1837, when he turned her out of his house. She
sought refuge with her sister, who had become a widow, and
who had a house of her own. In the course of the following
year the defendant's wife, who was pregnant when she was
sent from her husband's roof, was delivered of a child. The
plaintiff had continued to support both wife and child ever
since. It was proved that sbe had made application to the
defendant for payment, and that he bad admitted his liabi-
lity.
The jury found for the plaintiff, damages £237 Ss. Bd.

SIR THOMAS STANLEY, BART., V. BIRCH, PUBLIC OFFICEV.
Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLEY made application to his Lord-
ship to have the above case taken on Monday next. Sir
Thomas Wilde was retained in it, and as there were a num-
ber of witnesses to call together, it would be convenient to
have it fixed.

Justice WIGHTM A N.—lt is too early to make these appli-
cations. Have you any particular reason for wishing me to
fix Monday ?

Mr. Sergeant ATCIIERLEY.—Saturday or Monday, my
lord, will be convenient. Sir Thomas Wilde wishes to be
informed, and the other party are agreeable.

Mr. CRESSWELL.—No : 1 am very disagreeable.
Sergeant ATCHERLEY.—My friend, my lord, says he is
very disagreeable. I can only say, my lord, that this is the
first time I have ever found him so. (Laughter.)
His LORDSHIP thought the application came too early. It
was understood that the application was to be renewed to-day
(Tuesday) or to-morrow.

LEVICK V. RICHARDS

This was an undefended action, brought by Robt. Leviek
against John Richards, to recover the sum of £93 18s. 7d.,
on a bill of exchange, at six months, accepted by the defen-
dant. The defendant pleaded that he did not accept. The
acceptance was proved, and the jury returned a verdict for
the sum claimed, with interest, amounting altogether to
£94 10s. 4d.

ASHTON V. ROBERTS

In this case James Ashton was the plaintiff, and Ellis Ro-
berts the defendant. The action was brought to recover a
balance of £9 17s. 10d. for goods sold and delivered. It
was proved that the defendant had admitted a balance of
£9. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for that
amount