The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-08-30 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY,

TICORNTON 27. REDHEAD--This case (adjourned from
the preceding day) was resumed, and after some additional
witnesses had been examined, it was agreed that three of
the jury should go down to the vessel and examine the
work. They were to be accompanied by two surveyors,
one acting for the plaintiff and the other for the defendant.
After an absence of two or three hours they returned, and
gave a verdict for the plaintiff for £2B 16s.' in addition
to the sum of £66, which the defendant had already paid.
WI:Iin:IAN V. WIIITRAM.—John Sutcliffe Witham was
the plaintiff, and George Witham the defendant. The ac-
tion was brought to recover a sum of £250, which it was
alleged the defendant had received from the plaintiff in
the course of some business transactions. The defendant
pleaded a set-off; that he was never indebted ; that the
plaintiff was not a partner; and also, that the statute of
limitations barred the claim. It appeared that the plain-
tiff is the surviving partner.in a concern carried on under
the name of the Apton Colliery Company, at Burnley.
The plaintiff's partner, Cornelius Radcliffe, died in 1848,
and some time afterwards it became necessary to balance
the accounts. The defendant was then, and had been for
some time previously, cashier to the concern. The accounts
were made up by two eminent accountants, who were as-
sisted by the defendant, and up to the sth of May, 1850,
the balance against the defendant was £627 4s. 11d. This
was submitted to him, and he admitted its accuracy ex-
cept as to an item of £250, which was the subject of the
present action. Several witnesses were called, and a
number of books and documents put in, to support the
plaintiff's case. There were entries of the £250 in some of
the books, but it did not appear clearly whether the money
belonged to the account of Mr. Cornelius Radcliffe, the
plaintiffi partner, or to that of the defendant.—The jury
gave a verdict for the defendant on all the issues except
the statute of limitations and the set-off.
A CLAIM POE SALVAGE.—LRPSON V. HARRISON.—
This was an action to recover an amount of £5OO, alleged
to be due from the defendant for salvage. The plaintiff, a
mariner, was one of the crew of the ship Swiftsure, which '
sailed from this port in October last for Bonny, on the
African coast. In January last, he, with another seaman,
the surgeon of the ship, and some blacks, went to the
assistance of the Lady Worsley, which was stranded in
Bonny Harbour, the crew having made their escape from
her, and she being a derelict. The defendant was the
owner of the Lady Worsley. The plaintiff and his com-
panions with difficulty reached the vessel, which was then
in possession of the natives, who were stealing the cargo,
and at the peril of their lives cut away the masts and
sails, by which she was lightened, and floated off at the
next tide, ultimately saving the cargo, valued at £lB,OOO.
It was elicited that -the plaintiff, and those who assisted
him, acted under the orders of the -master of the Swift-
sure. For the defendant it was contended that no action
could lie for salvage; that the plaintiff acted under the
orders of his captain, and was bound to give his services
as he had done; and if there was any claim at all it must
be by the master or owners of the Swiftsure ; besides, if
an action could lie, it must ,be jointly by the whole of
those engaged in the service rendered to the defendant's
ship. His lordship proposed that the opinion of the jury
should be taken as to the amount to which the plaintiff
was entitled, and that a nonsuit should be entered, with
liberty to the plaintiff to move to enter a verdict for the
sum so found, if the court above should decide that the
plaintiff's action was maintainable. Ultimately it was
proposed that, if the court above should decide that the
action was maintainable, Mr. Tobin, the owner of the
Swiftsure (plaintiff's own vessel), should then decide as
to the amount to which the plaintiff would be entitled.
This arrangement, after some conversation, was agreed to
by all parties.
In another action, arising out of the same circumstances,
" Matheson v. Harrison," the record was withdrawn.
ARNOLD c. BAINBRIGGE.7—ThiS was an action arising
upon an award made a short time ago by Mr. Baron Platt
requiring the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of
£2258 14s. 6d. At the outset of the case his lordship
stated a legal objection which was fatal to the defendant's
claim, and a verdict was immediately given for the
plaintiff.
There being no more causes which could be brought
over from the other court, his lordship intimated that, so
far as concerned his court, the business of the assizes was
terminated. The court adjourned shortly after three
o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-TIIESDAY, AUGUST 23
(BEFORE MR. JUSTICE ERLE.)

ONIONS V. 6iowLny.—The trial of this cause was
The jury gave a verdict for the defendant.
re-
sumed this morning, the plaintiff's case having been heard
Ee—The plaintiff was Walter Richd.
dfendant Thomas Nathaniel Webb.
il
and.ryLaEtilronyt.whWeas for the goodwill of a business, and for
toCrihneeetlscidthloioelneckecdalaYll'
and fixtures of a business sold and given up by
the plaintiff to the defendant, and for money,paid and on
an account stated. There was also a count for malicious
words spoken by the defendant of the plaintiff. The de-
fendant pleaded that he never was indebted, and that the
plaintiff caused him to enter into the supposed contract,
and to incur the said debts by fraud. The plaintiff is a
starch manufacturer and manufacturing chemist, carrying
on business at Openshaw, near Manchester ; and the de-
fendant, Mr. Webb, was formerly a bookseller, but at pre-
sent carries on business as a manufacturing chemist in
j3jActOtccii-Arecta LiyQrPool, wbich busiuer a puNage4