The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-03-28 00:00:00

MANSLAUGHTER AT MANCHESTER.

William White was charged with the manslaughter of
CatherinellTarthy,with whom he lived, in Manchester,
on Tuesday, the 28th February. From the evidence itap-
peared that the deceased, who was of very dissipated
habits, had on the night in question been drinking in
several public-houses, and got very tipsy. On. going
home with.the prisoner, they commenced quarrelling, and
he struck her, and shefell down. He took their child from
her, and, pushed or kicked her while she was on,the
ground. She became very ill, and was suddenly found to
be drenched in blood : the prisoner had her conveyed
home, and in the course of the same night she died. For
the defence it was. contended that the deceased, having
become weak and incapable of taking care of herself
through drink, fell, upon a chair or some other article of
furniture, and inflicted on herself such. injuries as caused
her death. His lordship summed up,. and pointed out
the nature of the. crime of manslaughter in its v,arious
bearings, and showed how the law stood as applied to the
present case. The jury having consulted for a few minutes,
returned a verdict of not guilty.

TUESDAY, MARCH .428, 1854.

d
bourhood of Manchester. The defendants, Messrs• Booth
man and Babington, are extensive manufactturee flu of
dealers in lime, and are owners of boats. On 11 -4'
Of
August, the boat of the plaintiff; with a cargo. pre.
under the charge of two servants of the PlaFl`,','",„t to
ceeded towards Macclesfield. When the boat 11a1;_16;y,
the Beswick aqueduct, which goes over the ran"
up O
we
horse that was drawing the defendants' boat was _ ,
stern of the other. In the short space between tu!,;ro
wick aqueduct and the Beswick lock no boat is..e.nTota,
tp
pass another by the rules of the canal. The "ting
boat did, however, attempt to pass, but,
do so, it went right over the plaintiffs boat anutsoailli in
The plaintiff sustained considerable damage, done
the expense of weighing his boat, and from the ill.lo.o,:_ohe
to it, but also from the injury done to the car,,
jury found for the plaintiff; damages £35. verdict Wel
in atteug it.
KERSHAW V. KERSHAW.—In this case a _,:,reea
taken for the plaintiff, by consent, subject to terms at,
upon between the parties. TinApsilAW.
A WIFE'S MAINTENANCE.—WORSWICK V. board,
—This was an action to recover payment feli.iff had
lodging, washing, and necessaries, which the Plai",. The
provided for the wife of the defendant by his re lea,
defendant, William Ormerod Bradshaw, by his Pleao The
his liability, but did not appear to defend the acti ; from
amount claimed was £37 10s., being a-w_ecr far the
June, 1852, to October, 1853.—The jury
plaintiff for the amount sought, and his lordship
immediate execution. the deci'v
SLA.NDER.—OLIVO v. HA.MSON.—III this case ided riot
ration was for slander, and the defendant plea_nseyor
guilty. Mr. Atherton and Mr. J. Russell were defew
the plaintiff; Sergeant Wilkins appeared for La'
the Pillj
dant. Mr. Atherton, in stating the case, said carrk-
tiff, Mr. Marco Olivo, was by birth a Greek, auu
~hester•
on the business of a commission agent in -e!-Itiajoes
The defendant, Mr. Joseph Harrison, was also 111„-amsoh,
found for
at Manchester. He was the son of Mr. Joseph r‘i_
wboot
carrying on business at Constantinople, and ivitunnd the
the plaintiff some time ago was in partnership' :for the
plaintiff had been compelled to bring this actioi.__t the
purpose of vindicating his credit, which the defeluLniops,
thought proper to impugn by slanderous esr6o ttil
which he refused either to qualify or withdraw•d by
4th of January last the defendant, acconlPesThe Per
younger person, went to Mr. Lee's warehouse, f°
,Air (ir
pose, apparently, of making a purchase of
purchase was made on that occasion; but in the 1. gorY
the interview between the defendant and Mr. Will'i,ras ,
Lee, who acted as salesman for his brother, the sc." &Or
which the plaintiff complained were used.
menced with a question put by the defendant tel
Henry Lee—" Do you do business with Mr. Olive 000'
answer was, "We do." " Does he pay cash r
and-a-half in a month. Why do you ask
sue ortlY•
tions ?" The defendant answered, " You will see sbf
He was then asked, " Have you heard anything °0 yon
or do you know anything of him ?" The answer 'Lee at
will see shortly." These words being used, 3,1,.r._d the,
once looked into the- account between himself ""oce of
plaintiff, and in the coarse of the day the circuresteacut 0.4
this imputation having been made upon his er
communicated to the plaintiff himself by Mr. J°11,,,,11,,rge0,1'
Lee. The plaintiff sought reparation. Mr'
Wilkins, for the defence, contended that there
i.4.'
l' ton
slander contained in the words made use of.-39',ttha
Platt, in summing up, said that if the jury thoug
defendant meant to impute that the plaintiffs ill P"' vith
ratter as a trader,, was an unfit person to be traste`la, to
goods upon credit, then the plaintiff was euti: alto'
recover in this action.—The jury, after a short co:ont
tion, found for the plaintiff ; damages 405.-31 r.
,shed to
Wilkins asked that'execution might be stayed. -4,°4
JOULE v. VARLEY.—The action was not defeata—,;ahau.
defendant, John Daniel Varley, is an estate ageilt,s"goleti
received the rents of the plaintiff's property.
was returned for the plaintiff for £67 ss. 01.
A RAILWAY ACCIDENT.—TISON AND WIFE V,
LANCASHIRE AND, YORKSHIRE RAILWAY COMEA_
In this case the declaration stated that the female plaiPts:
was a passenger by a locomotive carriage of the defendeli,„o
that by reason of the negligence of the company sliSa_;e
knocked about and forced against the sides of the earMi,
that she suffered very' much in her own person ; `-.-!t•
in consequence, her husband was deprived of her a,,Tto
ante and domestic management. The plaintiffs sour,Wiey
recover compensation in damages for the injury43
respectively alleged they had suffered. The railwaY,Caer
panyhad not denied that theinjuriesresultedfrom the°
r mid
ligence, but they had paid into court £3O, which the rfor
was sufficient compensation. The juryreturned a veralc•
(1
1-11 to
*
the defendants, thereby affirming that the money P wee•
court was sufficient compensation under the circuolotll..."
AGREEMENT BETWEEN MASTER AND S.ol°'_,ysA
TYSON V. DICKINSON.—TiIe plaintiff', Thomas Tysca!Ajog
machinist, and was one of the plaintiffs in the pre chine
case; and the defendant, William Dickinson, is krineorp
maker, having an establishment at Blackburn. DI h the
1853, the defendant entered into an agreemenb 740,
plaintiff, that he should serve him as general ruauagefaiiities
establishment for three years, at £4 a week. Then strap'
under the agreement, entered:into the defendants,oo
and was willing to continue to the end of the three year
by
but when about half a year had gone.by he was di Ascb3r,, t
the defendant, who alleged flub the plaintiff ha" -°
cient ability to discharge the duties of the situatiovr-os co;
the plaintiff had been examined, an arrangement .`4 verdic
to, under which the defendant submitted -
against him for £l5O. Icqoe•
The court rose at twenty minutes past five o e

WEDNESDAY;. MA Ecir 22,
r tres 311 0551
MELLOR a. TAELOR.—This, was an action of ~:„(
the declaration charging the defendants with tires
entering the plaintiff's house, shop, and premiseS,ll
cheater,re and taking his goods, and keeping those AV,
There were also counts for converting the goods 01)"0,
posing of them. The defendants pleaded not goluife4' oat
also that the goods were seized under a Avar 'llaiiiss iff is 6
of the Manchester Court of Record. Ther3-t Itt4a xcet
joiner, and Taylor, the defendant, is sert;featni:dbailibeel,ls;
and Cowell, the other defendant, is one
The original debt was paid after judgment lead 11311
obtained, and an execution issued. After the A to 1)6
proceeded to a considerable, extent, it was agre7ort ill
referred. Shortly before the adjournment of the e_oor
the evening, Mr. Hill, one of the-counsel for the defence case
informed his lordship, that the. attempt to refer
TO'
had failed.
DISPUTE BETWEEN, INSURANCE A CA3
cigNTS.--- by
v. RonsoN.--The detlaration was for money lenthy the
plaintiff to the defendant, for money receive(il,,ood cl,,,tie
defendant for the plaintiff's use, and for money 'i,26 I'''
upon an account. The action was to recover - the -4,1
alleged to have been received by the defendant for The re,
of the plaintiff, and which he.had not paid over. &off 1
defence would be,,whether the defendant had 3 fined' et
that amount. After the plaintiff had been exa„driliced,_&re;
several letters and documents had been P'-'1 o ow-110
James, on the part of the defendant, said he sawcfed to to
of keeping up the case, and did not wish to Prntiff ferli,
jury. A verdict was . then given for the Plain, eseeabr"
amount claimed. Mr. Hill applied for fee days''
jsY•
and his lordship granted execution after fourtelho pll:o
buss FURNISHIN,G.-11IILME v. SICIIEL.--'-o(Ut•
tiff in this case was Joseph Hilton litilnie rest'
defendant was Augustus Sichel. The laintiffrisinotreet 9
able cabinet-maker and upholsterer,P
Manchester;. and the- defendant -
Is a g raerea,
Jewish •
persuasion, carrying on business as 3 4 ss• the
the same city. The a • °'.-6 t action was to recover '4Ol a 0.4
a balance
for work done and materials siiPrpoiat 4,.41t
request of the defendant. The whole aerhees,,P•eti:
£1,308- 7s. 101 d. Of this, £1,061 19s. 4d. /lau " clisil at
leaving a balance due amounting to the SUM 1,103",4113 0,
A good many clashing accounts, and no Slal3,,ttc, olio
ineDtlll33s23 . antt-13
conflicting evidence was given. Mr. Baron r'fi'orol old
ming up, said the question was really a TerfAis did
which the jury had to try. It was reerelY "- - " iojobi tho
believe the plaintiff or the defendant ? If thelet. I ji"ct.
to, be believed, he was entitled to tbR the certes,
defendant was to be believed, he was entitled to oioato,
The jury retired, and after an absence of 1.801146 Ss•Ltio;
returned a verdict for the plaintiff, daniages;;'A s°.,,r't a
txhneEpßiam.—. Itniff. t,hcios
consented DAwsom (ADMINISTRATOR) v. Mlastll-7,-n the r
105 i
teldlrto. Saerngoeantnsuir:ilkins, --
A5O A ot
BRADFORD AND ANOTHER V. WATERS 15.4.4cifOr''et1'
—The plaintiffs in this action were jonie_na Viii;g Se: joa
Henry Rawson, trustees of the League Bu', and v'
at Manchester, and the defendants were Josep, dents De,o
Waters. The declaration stated that the defenual'ea Su' that
called
tenants of the plaintiffs of certain premises -nditioa, tile/
Side Mills, at Manchester, and upon thee buttr, ; beel
they should keep them in tenantable repair, „ ia,°,l.,
had failed to do so. After the plaintiffs' case 57 0,,
opened by Mr. Hugh Hill, it was agreed t°l.' prdie" de'
d a sr- fere-
' matters in dispute between the parties; a°there
, taken'i for the plaintiffs for £2,000, subject to ~ocii'
The court rose about ten minutes before, SiX "

__
.----- Attu
Maxon, v. JARITTLeR:DAY,.A.ND :2;1-toirlsclir.u23.ttllaelerreDteel:*
of the court this morning, a verdict was- takea tr,o."'ltt `ll
plaintiff, by consent, damages £5O, subject tcl Ig" Ofs'
ASTLEY V.. LAING.—This was an submit
till
fo,,t . ton
recover £55 Os. 9id., the balance of an aceSe 13nforr'
and labour done and materials supplied. aear.,,,,:
Mr. John Astley, is a plumber,,at Pend" ,et°_,,,ll' is a.,d,'"'",'
Chester ; and the defendant, Mr. Robert La''' '''l '
ear, A 0
lecturing chemist, having works at Inc..,,ned w ~
After the case had been opened, it was ag-,,,,,,- 05c.
verdict for the plaintiff, subject to a reforitenllttrsT:sl.-0
Iclfmnetntestes late
beas
.... CLAIM BY THE BRIDGEWATHR. CA:7Th 11-4.1'11e /‘,.
THE EARL OP DEVON AND OTHERS r. coder ..-00,.
The defendant,
elope:......:hlopflaiEnritdiffgsewsuaetderas,
muitruasstetresosooittleeds
otlite,ebooti4,
the owners and managers of several c.antu" -water rov
B the actioO fa
colliery at S Nathan ..,,c ers s') this doe
hackerley, near Tyldesley, and..nooeys cept
..
brought
against him for the recovery c'',,,t-gonte en,, tlYe.,,%'
Mr. the veryv
klargiee 13ridge oviDe qs;
tonnage and tolls. There would be no t",,"t in v"„a0,1
to whom credit was given. It appeared hindt" grs,"del,w
1851, the defendant, Mr. EckersleY, seu7tbe efv" tl/0
named Nathan Ramsdell, to ask if he „e %e sent ''ltq
might have monthly credit for the go°',,al fts.feo4cal,el't
canal. Mr. Fereday Smith, the Prini:r4. aid ,l/i;acill;
proprietors of the canal, at once grantecv" the cle-co;
went on regularly for months; but at lust„Teat sow
went to the office and said it would endinga very hros e II! °., d Olt
thence indeed to him if, instead of s his gill,lr DK(
accounts to him, they would send them. teo_,4, ,asel
who was carrying on business at Mancla ,s'faatlt ,li)pe",,'
of lading which had been sent to ~waterdeleA,ol; P.,,`,". thy
before this time were headed " Bridg,_L:ool vrVijtelt
b Nhan Eckersley." Then at nth PI, p;
words," To be charged to the account 01 ftion t,c,s/,‘ to i,
ley, Shackerley Colliery." After this alnpad 01,, 011,0
the bills of lading were altered, and nir„,P bewito l',,
charged to the account of Nathan Eckoei,sele•Aiargepeg4
ten at the bottom, the words were mini"ue of tier the 1)1,1'15
account of Nathan Ramsdell." The ths OfteroatilWel
ley was still at the top. For some months reg ay ct*;rs,
were sent in to the grandson he 3150 111.1 r. 6rtill srre sll.l.
at last he fell into arrear. Last MaY, 4 the ~,,,. s,„
upon Mr. Eckersley for the amona.. "felcerroli o'd;
£93 2s. 9d. Upon that occasion . ot.L;s, kith
_.s:;'
he was very sorry; he believe,c,l,f,c, be ';', 0%10
going on the same as before erred,ort mo fo. oi,o
for the future you must no ow notvhs
defendant it was submitted that thOlit of tolls thoi-ae'
The case for the plaintiffs having cloagon Ic°paysh„ole's!,
Upon a declaration to recover the Won
cods ,tiolLso4. tie
the defendant for the carriage Of his g 0004',10 tilll
la
It was quite clear there novo* VfOrel daollo
fondant carried along the canal at au

TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 1854.

Which the Plaintiffs' bill of particulars referred. After an
Vt,,rnent on the point, his lordship amended the declara-
striking out the words " of the defendant." After
hafe'lendant and Mr. William Ramsden, his grandson,
theise'°en• evidence, 11Ir. Sergeant Wilkins said he was
faide° represent very illustrious clients, not to con-
h r what he was thoroughly convinced was a mistake ;
nat ',felt that he was doing justice to his clients, and
co.ll;_ey would have done themselves if they had been
fie. he he admitted that they were under a mis-
liopi7:• jury then gave a verdict for the defendant.
*as ji '84311 P. MORTON.—The plaintiff in this case
defeti Mes Hopkinson a stonemason at Bury, and the
lAe %1411 Jesse Morton, a shopkeeper at
.the same place.
alltl on rau°7l Was for work and materials, goods sold,
iza account stated. The defendant pleaded, as to
Ithe•Z: PaSment of that sum into court, and that as
ts case of the plaintiff's demand he was not liable.
cate Lavolved an inquiry into volumnious and intri-
too-kmtints, and a verdict was taken for the plaintiff for
ipa_stibieet to reference
dreg 7. was the last commo. n jury case in the Salford hun-
setethau,s.t, and the following undefended causes in the
'lst were disposed of :-
I,llth:v tend ,Z v• SMEE.—An action for work and. labour done
,ultiff, who is an attorney, at Halifax, for the
'444 a builder, in Herefordshire. Verdict for the
vlVii-iyalnages £42 19s. 4a.
%ai, ;Is 1-X1) ANOTTIER, EXECUTORS, v. Moss.—This
alts th.-.11"°,n to recover a balance due upon a promissory
DIZ °Y the defendant, Joseph Moss. Verdict for
1, 147'1,4 for £352 15s.
-}1"" t• WILFOThe plaintiff; Edward May-
nlB an attorney ' London and the defendant, Ed-
tNeo"lat.°„rd, an 'attmorney at Liverpool. The action was
Fratt f',Vae amount of charges by the plaintiff oi
the defendant, as his_ agent in London. Verdict
Intlf, for £6l 18s. od.
ytiff";er FOR HEMP.-31001IE v. CAMPBELL.—Theas
1,4.44 es Ca as William F. Moore, and the defendant
of liatnPbell. The plaintiff lived at Douglas,n in was
Cit kin' Where he carried on sor sort f annfae-
g2tw, was in. the habit ofemployinge in Liverpool Mr.
4"..,kt_lia his broker. On the Bth September, Mr.
the plaintiff to purchase for
g an order from ent to the de-
:4t Otity of St. Petersburg hemp, w
made a contract with him for a quantity,
tZe qtta-Lgy, altogether to 100 tons, at £34 per ton, from
The contract note, as signed by the defendant.
I%e-•:1!50 tons of the hemp were expected to arrive
0b,,','11 George Green, and 50 tons by the Trim.
Zro be in a six months' acceptance, or cash in 14
etto 2/ discount, at the buyer's option.
eAatt
stehae,
ItrPak_ing the then.thethre vesseel r
1a:e:poor Septemb7thempG senwearrived at
ith 50 onge board. The, hemp
andthns puto under sheds, near the dock.
qtes:PPbeations were made to the defendant by the
for the delivery of the hemp,
Mar' lkscouldlil'not or would not deliver it.
ilgederei;,Lera remained for a day or two, but in the end
thetei4D, at Gant offered two orders for the delivery of the
ArD, Ilfferent warehouses. One was an order upon
°' 1301-itlingk and Co., for about 30 tons of hemp,
2f) t 44 other was an order upon Deane and C 0.,. for about.
4111,.(1 imArr Wilkerefused to accept orders so indefinite,
C„ttsth„-`` if *f would give him a guarantee
t.,'t4eCe Was that a ntity of hemp. The defendant
ateZ,ht, orders,
a—gua-rauantee, and Mr. Wilks would not
tit_f katuers. Thus matters remained for some time,
t1e442,,at a formal demand was made by letter upon the
444, for the delivery of the hemp. The defendant.
4tt;
er it, and it became necessary to bring this
defe
e dispute was
_confined to the 50 tons which
"" George Green. It was admitted that the
we°Litrktilt_did sign those papers, intending them to be a
d4siQllfotiriee Bth of September. Ultimately a verdict
plaintiff upon the first four issues,
bkrtt e 125. t
Execution to be stayed to the fifth day of
ft.,7„NtrfTh_in order to give an opportunity of moving in
e 1
the fttuoe.—A point had been raised by the.counsel
IZact-enctant as to whether the notes constituted a
and leave was given to move in the superior
4411 d, )0!)1 PARTY AND SPECIAL CONTRACT. —NEIIL
44,0Patk:"E RIDLEY.—The plaintiffs, Messrs. INeill4l,ih'; t °l3, are' merchants and shipowners in Liver-
41eieI`Lefendmits, Messrs. Ridley, Son, and Co., are
1 1. 'tnts and shipowners in this town. The action
to°ll4ht to recover £lOl for the conveyance of a bull,
Vae,,han sax cows, and a pig, on the deck of the ship
from Liverpool to Halifax, Nova Scotia. On
km• Dal. 'ay, 1853, the Guisacban was in the port of
t ti
vessel belonged to the plaintiff's,and by
h;"'ent dated the 30th of M, the lain s c
(,t vtei..L'essel to Messrs. Oxley. ay
By the terms oft he
th e Messrs. Oxley were to have the full reach
tr,` 4k;7lBe,"'s hold, from bulkhead to bulkhead, mclud ng
tZtu id he
except the cabin or state-room and sufficient
f•
iht,,ne' cables,ship's stores provisions, water, and
me month of June, Mr:Oxley mentioned to the
kevi_of the vessel that he had some cattle which he
"elg„. htuv glad to send upon deck. The captain said any
carriedLners.,, upon deck must be for the benefit of the
01%, 1,7 On the 11th or 12th of June, one of the Messrs.
h_ita tha4.ent to the captain's private residence, and told
144y,' some cattle had arrived at the railway station,
tlkaoe,,_go, on board the vessel ; whereupon the captain
4 went to the railway station, and there found
f"balals •11' • ich it turned out were the property 9f thoe_
t:411, "1'8) and which they wanted to send on the deck.
-t
ifLe"el• The defAndants agreed to pay to the plain
1414 '43
3:°s• for each head of cattle, Xt3 10s. for.the calf
other sums, making the
llPC'l4igr and there were t
amount •pien 'Various° applications were made to
efendan; and at last they alleged that
teo4l,llad made-" ".; contractr
payment,with Messrs. Oxley, the char-
the vessel, to whom they had paid the money.
alLtsr".l3hley it was said, were no doubt the real defen-
at lb- th '
thLalltd the The learned counsel for the defence
bargain was entered into between the
S~em andthe defendants, and that there was .a po
captain stated.—The jury gaveverdict
le'--vee t:1‘„017:411?,,tor the amount sought_ to be recovered,
• stn toe „I Of the specific contract.—His lordship gave
Whethi• opt
olaintiffs to move for a new trial on a point
collt
~.,71. the a construction of the charter party, as to
"1et.,,,/,°wLers had the power to make a special
-'kt Court rose at 20 minutes past six o'clock.

mother. He is the son of a farmer,who resides at Cartmel,
in this county, and was brought up and educated by Mrs.
Rawlinson, who is a lady of property and great respect-
ability residing in the neighbourhood. He was originally
apprenticed to a cabinet-maker, but, from ill health, was
unable to continue. A few years ago he was apprenticed
to the defendant, Mr. Bell, who is a printer and stationer,
in Cartmel, and he remained there till August in last
year. He kept the stationer's shop, and had a book where
he had to enter what he sold, and put the money in the
till. He boarded in Cartmel, but went each night to his
grandmother's, two or three miles off. Matters went on
agreeably till the month of August, when there was a
charge of embezzlement and felony against the plaintiff.
The accusation, Mr. Watson said, was an extremely
anxious one to the relations of the young man, because
of his prospects in life, and whether he was to be branded
as guilty or acquitted of this charge depended upon
the result of the trial that day. The slander was contained
in this,ithat Mrs. Bell had called on a Mrs. Copperthwaite,
with whom the plaintiff boarded, and stated that they
wished to see Mrs. Rawliuson, as the boy had taken
lOs. M. out of the till. The circumstances respecting the
lOs. 6d. were these. The defendant, Mr. Bell, was at the
Liverpool assizes in August last, and was absent from
Cartmel from the 11th to the 15th of that month. The
boy had attended the shop during that time, and he had
sold in all articles to the amount of 375. 7d. On the
Monday, Mr. Bell took the money out of the drawer, and
on the Wednesday asked the boy "did not Mr. Dodgson
buy a pocket-book from you ?" The plaintiff stated that
he had, and stated that he had omitted to put it down.
The defendant called his wife, and said to her " the
money is gone again, and the book is wrong." On this,
the plaintiff left defendant's service, and never again
returned to his employment.
The plaintiff, Isaac Pearson, was called in support of
the case. On cross-examination by Mr. Sergeant Wilkins,
he admitted that his cash was 7s. short at Whitsuntide,
and that he could not account to his master for the defi-
ciency. He also admitted having made presents to one or
two friends of several small articles, such as penknives,
pocket-books, &c., but he alleged that he paid for these
with money allowed to him by his grandmother. He also
admitted that he was in the habit of frequenting public-
houses. _ _ _ _

Mrs. Copperthwaite deposed to the fact of Mrs. Bell
having called in on her, and saying that she wished to see
Mrs. Rawlinson about 10s. 6d., which the plaintiff had
taken from the till.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, at great length, then addressed
the jury for the defendants. He contended that no proof
of slander had been given, for it could not be said that the
conversation of Mrs. Bell with Mrs. Copperthwaite was
anything but a friendly intimation of what was certainly
a very suspicious circumstance. It was, he maintained, a
privileged communication, and they would not have heard
of the action that day but for the interference of an
attorney.
The two defendants were called in evidence, and Mr.
Watson then replied, after which his lordship summed up.
The jury then retired, and after an absence from court
of about half-an-hour, returned a verdict for the plaintiff;
with one farthing damages.
Mr. Aston applied for a certificate entitling the plaintiff
to his costs.
His Lordship said that he had no power to do so.
Some of the jury then observed that they had imagined
the verdict would carry costs, and that if such were not
the case they had given it under a misapprehension.
His Lordship replied that, as the verdict had not been
recorded, they might reconsider it.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins objected, and his lordship took a
note of the objection.
The jury then again retired, and returned shortly after-
wards with the same verdict as before.

r'es'd"Gt FRIDAY, MARCH 23.
V. STOREIL—The plaintiff is a merchant
44 towC" aples, and the defendant is a merchant in
01 Co • Mr. Makin, of the firm of Barnchsou, Makin,
tia°l this.town, received an order in October, 1852,
in tor_ defendant, to purchase from the plaintiff either
it d, o' of Calabrian dry raisins, at 19s. a cwt. free on
Icee 0/1 blo' five tons of the same fruit at 19s. 6d. per cwt.
,b,ard, payment to be made by a bill at seven days'
trilteasjhna three months' interest on the amount
pla,cl la- it. Thereupon Mr. Makin sent an order to
i_erp:loe__,,to ship by the first steamer from Naples to
Aevenikvfflaer five or ten tons of raisins. On the 15th
kttelia,ledyer, the plaintiff, through a broker in Naples,
50 canters of raisins, weighing nearly 6 tons,
)4Zitfort.-", 11'.° grai_ ns per canter, and shipped them by the
ga 4'B.l42ehatng the invoice to the defendant through
da-ux, uchson, Makin, and Co., also a bill at ninety
1tc44441 not
'When the fruit arrived here, the defendant
ets,dell' hare it, and it was warehoused. In May Mr.
of this town, examined the fruit, and found
ktel.; th
.orato e. Warm weather it had become very much
tost, kid b'" in value.; and after having advertised it, it
of t Y Public auction, realising only £3l ss. The
ili-Kts, we fruit per invoice, together with freight and
4el.4:l'ese„as £lO9 15s. sd. nett ; and the plaintiff brought
to In action to recover £7B 10s. 5d., being the dif-
lii£N,ll-Iveeti the cost price of the goods and the sum
their subsequent deterioration, as the plain-
ot 6!tti4loY defendant breaking his contract. A variety
4.Pqy c/r.f.' Made by defendant's counsel were overruled.
4,134) ecience, it was urged that the question for the
4414 oit'Vder was whether there was an agency con-
Shi"st,jaer• Makin by. the. 'defendant. His Lordship
(4e qr -'l,llled up, the jury returned a verdict for the
k50;11to '"anlages £6B 195., being the difference between
krealised at the sale and the prime cost of the
ftlier..d,educting the value of 14 cwt of fruit, in ex-
„ko4tliToi: lons ordered.
er t$ :co V. RIIDD.—This was an action brought to
kcAtol24 125., in compensation for damage done to
\%eketlV-I,,eat, Ramsgate, plying between Liverpool
oa sate, by-the Wirral, one of the Woodside
. ferry-
-1,7,Av.,°t the 11,rdaY the 13th August last, running into the
-11Znig to Ramsgate. The defence was, that in ma-
derem_get her head round, the Ramsgate, backed on
N w'ant's ioat, and thus damaged herself. Several
LICe called in support of the defence. Verdict
ortifr, damages 230.
tile'allged that the case of Lamb v. Seed, which
°tiler jt‘. question of a patent, and is to be tried by a
BPetizi6hould be token on Thursday next, and the
”4eteed 6:4 jury cases in their order after it. It was
Le ",at the special jury case of the Queen v. Petrie
thL:ken on Moncloy next. The subject of the
Art ~_4re at lea of a road near Manchester, and
ruse at tnn
100 witnews to be examined. The
a quarter to seven o'clock.

ktt%).1,1.,/.. SATURDAY, MA.RCH 25.
i 4 .I.A.
ttle"tilnabn °s TITE RIVER : PREETOPINO V. BOLpHAW
Thomas Prestosno is the plaintiff;
tit:"°BePh Bolshaw, and Co. are the defendants.
possessed a steamboat, plying hi the River
Le ktlie„
~....e,gremont,) and the defendants a sloop,
i,Yriiteii,,'"uanag.ed so negligently as to run against
oNimeq, ;f,nt, and damage it. The defendants pleaded
mleattion-""_, action, of the sum of £52 10s., as full
ec;'sa, t 'nu' discharge of the action. Verdict for the
fl"r
ku, azt, lON rot FALSE IMPRISONMENT : &EAR,-
o'loo fort",!irssorr.—The action was to recover c?m-
h'kNe' a very wanton, unjustifiable, and inexplica-
ti „inn the liberty of the plaintiff, Mr. Joseph
tz:meraeoi I°legale chemist and oil colour manufacturer
case before the jury was undefended,
tr 'e' as-i'n for them to decide being the amount of
the defendant did not pretend to justify the
41' g.a had been guilty. After a protracted trial,
BreliNts ve a verdict for the plaintiff: damages, £l5,
;th 4,4,141;
4444 trade Ai"-fp ormuuts v. BARBER.--The plaintiffsa
At • 481gnees of the estate of James Burgess,
,0411,, fronaaln theerecover certain
action was brought to
case
qer',,4(lllo .defendant, said to be The
non nterest for the general reader. His lordship
44
l'ai to be entered.
b,1'41.'"11, 0 pr,
T-RS V. EAST LANCASHIRE RAILWAY
for ' this case, in which compensation was
% NI "ileay a railway accident a verdict %as
ea sent for the defendants. This was the last
alid the court adjourned at five o'clock.

N SIONDAY, M
_ARCH 27.
Nt *Ake CASE OF SLANDER.
&t'll Psa 1:' DELL AND Uxou.—The plaintiff in this
4 N hiß—e Pearson • the defendants, John Bell. _anod.
, ~,,,.,e . ,
Vtt es ~,07..i:__ , and the declaration complained t
ttli;l4iet the Zinup.efcfl by the female. defendant, to the
been guilty of embezzlement.
e1te11115141414t8 PleaLi had
.and also that Pearson
tSi,i. %le 1 i.„ not guilty,
Z . wall-;08 id., the property of his master, John
was Mr. Aston, ap-
ttillt4a4Bthe war,t9.C., with wholii
IS 44 • Th n_ iff, and Mr. Serjeant Wilkins for the
• tly e Dia/Luta is a young man between nine-
-111
testitili,...t? Years of age, and, as a minor, t.he aetio,n,
7 9rOtight by a Mro, Rwitipon, Ills grAti

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD, AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL ADVERTISER.

Sir W. W. WYNN'S HOUNDS meet

This day, March 28
Thursday, March 30 Hollybush Gate
Saturday, April 1
Each day at half-past ten o'clock.

The steeple-chase mare Topsy was destroyed a few days
since.
Frank Butler is now convalescent, and enabled to take
a ride occasionally. _ _ .

(Oscar pulled up lame after running in the Steeple-chase
at Warwick.
Sister to Aphrodite has been struck out of all her
engagements.
Forester and Herbert have been struck out of all their
engagements at Northampton.
Mr. Fenning has changed his colours from violet and
white stripe, to brown body, orange sleeves and cap.
Grimston (formerly the property of the late Sir John
Gerard), was sold at Tattersall's last week for 152 gs. ;
and Mokanna, by Gladiator, for 145 gs.
Mr. Danby has sold Olive Egg (late Holderness), the
winner of the Beverley Steeple-chase, to James Hall, Esq.,
the master of the Holderness hounds.
Brother to Little Swift, 3 years, has been christened
Swiftsure ; the colt by Alarm, out of Southdown, 3 years,
Sussex; the colt by Sir Tatton Sykes, out of Southdown,
2 years, Shoreham ' • and Col. Peel's ch c by Orlando, out
of Hurry Scurry, Messenger.
The Earl of Lichfield, for many years a staunch sup-
porter of the turf, died on the 18th instant. The deceased
was brother to the Hon. Gen. Anson, and was the intimate
friend, and, for a considerable time, the confederate on the
turf of the late Lord George Bentinck. He won the St.
Leger in 1836 with Elis, the Two Thousand Guineas in
1839 with the Corsair, and a great many other races.
Elis was the first horse in modern times that travelled in
a van, having been conveyed to Doncaster by that means.

BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, and DEATHS.

BIRTHS.

On the 22nd ult., at Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S., the wife of
Mr. John H. Caine, late of this town, of a son.
On the 17th inst., at Wade-brook, Norwich, the wife
of Mr. Thomas Fowls, gardener, of three children.
On the 17th inst., the wife of Mr. Allen 31`Cabe, Pres-
cot-street, of a daughter.
On the 18th inst., Mrs. Thomas M. Magget, Walton-
breck-road, of a son.
On the 18th inst., the wife of Mr. Thos. Blackey, of
H.M.'s Customs, of a son.
On the 19th inst., the wife of Mr. E. Jardine, Oxford-
street, of a daughter.
On the 21st inst., at Prince Edwin-street, Evertun, the
wife of Mr. R. Gregory, of a ion.
On the 21st inst., Mrs. Richard Banks, Berry-street, of
a daughter.
On the 21st inst., at the Parsonage, Rock Ferry, Mrs.
Thos. Simpson Paterson, of a daughter.
On the 21st inst., at Oxton, Cheshire, the wife of J. J.
Gate, of a daughter.
On the 22nd inst., at Grove-park, the wife of Daniel
Baugh, Esq., of a son.
On the 22nd inst.; at Montpelliei-terrace, the wife of
Thos. B. Hall, Esq., of a daughter.
On the 24th inst., Mrs. Edward Williams, Windsor-
street, of a son.
On the 25th inst., Mrs. Frederick F. Law, of a son.
On the 25th inst., at South Bedford-street, Mrs. Henry
A. Grey, of a daughter.
On the 26th inst., the wife of Mr. Geo. Tyrer, of a son.