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

RRETRERTON V. PALMER

In this case Joseph Bretherton was plaintiff, and John
Palmer defendant. The action was brought for the recovery
of money lent, advanced, and paid, and for stabling and
medicine supplied to the defendant's horses.
Mr. CROMPTON stated the case. The plaintiff is a
veterinary surgeon, in Liverpool, and is in the habit of re-
ceiving and stabling horses which arrive from different parts
of the country. He is also in the habit of advancing money
to his customers to enable them to make purchases of horses,
and on the sale of them afterwards he charges a guinea a
week and 5 per cent. commission. Having had dealings with
the defendant, who was a horse dealer at Northampton, and
who had horses at his establishment in the year 1839, ac-
counts were settled between them on the footing of the
charges mentioned. From the month of April to that of
June of the present year they had had considerable dealings
together, and at one period the sum of £350 was owing by
the defendant to the plaintiff, of which he had subsequently
paid about £250. A balance of £97 4s remained due, and for
the recovery of that sum the present action was brought, he

having disputed the payment of the five per cent. commission,
upon the ground that it should not have exceeded two and a

Lawrence Walsh having proved that 5 per cent. was the
isual commission charged at the plaintiff's concern, the jury
•eturned a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum claimed.

FLETCHER V. GREY.
Verdict, by consent, for the plaintiff, for £l4 13s. 5d

HEATON v. YATES AND ANOTHER

This was an action in replevin, brought by the plaintiff
fohn Heaton, against the defendants, Henry Yates and Johi
aye, for the recovery of the value of certain articles of fur
liture, sold by the defendants for a quarter of a year's rent
amounting to £22.
Mr. JAMES appeared for the defendants. No counsel ap
peared on behalf of the plaintiff, and the witnesses on botl
sides having been absent from court, a nonsuit was entered.

DOE DEM FARNIVORTH AND OTHERS V. JOHNSON

This was an action of ejectment. Verdict for the plaintiff.
BATEMAN AND OTHERS V. PINDER. _ _

This was an action brought by the executors of James
Bateman, against the defendant, Robert Pinder, for the re-
covery of the amount of a promissory note for £75 ls. Bd.
The note was drawn in the year 1830, and had been signed
by several persons of the name of Pinder and Pinn, who were
severally related to each other. Various small sums had been
given in part payment of it, which went in discharge of the
interest and a portion of the principal, but a balance of £55
remained due, for the recovery of which the action had been
brought. The defendant pleaded that the note had been
made upwards of six years since, but as as a payment of £1
had been made subsequent to the bringing of the present ac-
tion, it was contended by counsel that such payment amounted
to an acknowlegment of the debt, and took the case out of
the statute.
His LORDSHIP ruled that the payment in question
amounted to an acknowledgment of the debt ; and a verdict
was returned for the plaintiffs for the full amount of the sum
claimed.

ELLISON V. BLINKARN

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Richard Ell
son, against the defendant, William Blinkarn, for the recover
of the amount of a bill of Exchange for £4O. Verdict f

the plaintiff for the sum claimed

DEO DEM HUGHES V. JONES.
This was an action of ejectment brought by the plaintiff,
Thomas Hughes, against John Jones, to recover possession of
a certain lease, which had been seized under a fierifacias,
and sold by the sheriff at a low price. The execution credi-
tor was the purchaser, and after satisfying the debt and costs
for which the execution had been issued, a small surplus was
handed over to the leasor of the plaintiff. The defendant
obtained possession of the premises under this proceeding.
The question for the jury to decide was, whether the defend-
ant was entitled to retain it, the sheriff not having executed
any assignment of the lease.
Verdict for the plaintiff, subject to a motion for a non-
suit.

TODD V. WELLS AND ANOTHER.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, James Todd,
against the defendants, John Wells and Margaret Fitch, for
the recovery of the amount of a promissory note fur £lOO.
The plaintiff was a fanner residing at Huntingdon, near
York, and in the year 1827 had lent the defendants the sum
in question upon their promissory note. They continued to
pay the interest on the money regularly until October last,
when the plaintiff said he would require £5O of the principal
in the present, and the remaining £5O in the next year. The
first £5O not having been duly paid, the action was brought
for the recovery of the full amount.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum
claimed.

HORNBY AND OTHERS V. BROWNE.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, Joseph
Hornby and others, assignees, against the defendant, Ellen
Browne, for the recovery of the amount of a bill of exchange
for £5OO. Verdict for the plaintiffs for the sum claimed.

KELLETT V. HEAP AND OTHERS.
In this case William Kellett was plaintiff, and John and
William Walker Heap were defendants. The action was
brought for the recovery of money lent on account stated.
Mr. MARTIN stated the case. The plaintiff was an inn-
keeper at Leyland, and the defendants were cotton manufac-
turers, but had subsequently resigned business. The ques-
tion the jury had to decide was one of considerable import-
ance, as a great number of other cases would depend upon the
fate of the present one. It was whether the defendants were
liable to pay money which had been horrowed by a person in
their employment, named Joseph Edge, and for their use
and benefit. In Lancashire it was the practice fur manufac-
turers to put out work to be woven by weavers, and to send
a person, who was called the " putter out," to the different
towns to collect the work done, and to deliver out materials,
and there was generally some appointed place whom the

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 bad been manufactu-
rers. They had a warehotwe at Leyland, where the weavers
in the neighbourhood were in the habit of assembling to pro-
cure work, and to be paid fur 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 liecide
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 had been paid for work done 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,

Mt. CIESSWELL 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. YATES.
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-

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
had 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 lie 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 io him in the way of his trade.
Mr. CRESSWELL 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 shewed 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 had 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
_ _

r J
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 he 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 he 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 round 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 defendiht 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

NEW HAM, JUN., V. GEIGER.
Verdict, by consent. for the plaintiff for £295 6s
M‘GLEN V. BROWNE.

This was an undefended case

MN,
dt was brought by the plain-

tiff, Robert M`Glen, against William Browne, for the reco-
very of a bill of exchange for £192 7s. 2d. Verdict for the
plaintiff for the sum claimed.

PROCTOR V. M'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 had been lost. The facts were
simply these :—the plaintiff sent an order to Messrs. Segar
and Evans, of Milibank, 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. CRESSWELL 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-batchway 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 emit 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.