The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1847-08-17 00:00:00

this me

This was a w

[nst WE

lUS COI

ler the sentence a
ay, from 18 monl

) court, returned
Ind a
3)use, 12 cal
o'cloel

Mouse

Mr. Jristi

-YES

STON V. GELI

7erdict of
;ted John

lencinr months.
k, and will sit

Ir. Richard

of error, brought by A'

Preston, to reverse a judgment obtained in the Court
of Exchequer; and the error assigned was, that at the

time of entering the judgment,-the plaintiff was an
infant. The defendant, Frances Thomas Gell denied
this fact, and issue was joined upon it.
Mr. KNOWLES said the simple question for the jury was
-whether at a certain date, to which attention would
rected, the plaintiff was or was not an infant within

the age of twenty-one years, because if he was he would
be entitled to a verdict ; if he was not, then the defendant
would be entitled to it. In the course of last year the

crew a out cat exchange upon his brother, and
that had got into the hands of the defendant. who was an
attorney in London. The defendant brought an action
on the bill; he served the plaintiff with a writ ; and then,
of ernivsP- an .ppearance was to be entered. If the
do that within a certain time, then, by
of an Act of Parlaitnent, the defendant
' . The plaintiff here did not appear,
ut in an appearance for him ; and it
be mode of entering that appearance

Ff did not

defendant

A writ

-ould be fully

t the plaintiff was an infant. The plaintiff wa
- 16th of October, 1825, at Boulogne, an'
Octob

ri his m

result r

credit upon the plaintiff

846, and that v

took occasion to c

t be, the c

jury returned a verdict for the defendant, they not
been satisfied that the plaintiff was under age.

DBACH AND °THE

S V. SII

in action brought by Messrs. Sandbach, Tinne,
t the defendant, Mr, William Sharpe, for
a sum of £392 for work and labour done,
money paid, interest, and on account stated. The defend-
iot liable ; he also pleaded a set

This VQ
id CO., agai

the recovery of

pleaded

Co., ha,

at he was

Sandbach, Tinne, and

d carried on business for a long time in Liverpool,
.t the defendant was a Liverpool gentleman also,
vessel called the John Campbell. The

I the owner

ments upon t

John Campbell at
,sed for her, and

Demerara, the cost of
about £lOO, being the

coinmissioinUPon a return cargo, making altogether X 392.
The plaintiffs had been long connected with the Deme-
rara trade, and had a house there ; and they had entered
into an agreement with the defendant, who was sending

out the John Campbell, to ship a certain quantity of goods
by her. The goods were accordingly shipped, and the
vessel sailed. At Madeira, she took in emigrants, and on
her arrival at Demerara disbursements were met on be-
half of the defendant, a hawser was purchased, and com-
mission to the amount of £lOO was owing in respect of
freight on the homeward voyage. The defendant insisted

that the plaintiffs were indebted to him, instead of he
being indebted to them, and most probably the nature of
the defence mould cause one or more questions of law
•

he close of Mr

artin's statement, and before any
evidence was taken, a verdict was taken by consent for the

'et erence,

SYERS t

JONAS

This was an action brought by Mr. William Hugh Syers
against Emanuel Jonas, for the recovery of a sum of X 222,
being the value of certain goods sold and delivered, and on
an account stated. The defendant pleaded that he was not
liable. It appeared that the plaintiff was a merchant in
Liverpool, and that the defendant was a tobacco.and cigar
manufacturer in London, and the £222 sought.to be reco-
vered was the value of 51 bales of tobacco sold in Septem-
ber, 1846, to the defendant. The sale was effected through
a broker of the name of Samuelson, and copies of a very
long correspondence, which had taken place previous and
subsequent to the sale between the broker and the defen-
dant, were read and put in. It was contended, on the part
of the plaintiff, that the sale was not by sample, but that
it was a clear case of goods sold and delivered, in which
the plaintiff was fully entitled to recover.
Mr. WATSON, for the defence, alleged that the bulk of
the article sold differed essentially from, and was much
samples forwarded, and that the contract

inferior to, the
was void.

Verdict for the_plaintiff for goods sold and delivered

The plaintiff was John Shaw, and the defendant Richard
ay. The action was in covenant on_the declaration

stated, that the defendant covenanted with the plaintiff to
keep a certain house and premises in repair, and not to
assign a lease of the premises to any other party. The
defendant pleaded, first, that the indenture was not his
deed, and secondly, that he did not destroy and prostrate
part sof the dwelling-house, and that he did not assign
over the lease. Issues were joined on these three pleas.
Mr. Knowles said this was an action to recover damages

for the breach of a covenant, or rather of two covenants,
into which the defendant entered with the plaintiff on a
lease that bore date July, 1845. The plaintiff was a wire-
worker at Sheffield, and was possessed of a house which,

used as a grocer's

defendant was a grocer' and, for the purpose of carrying
on his trade, he took alease of that house from the plain-
tiff. He was to pay £3O a-year for it, and he entered
into the usual covenants. One of those was to keep the
premises in repair, and it was expressly mentioned that
he was to keep the interior of the house in repair ; and
there was another covenant, which restrained him from
letting the premises. The allegation was, that the defen-
dant had broken these covenants, for he had taken down
a partition between the shop and the parlour, and he had
admitted into the shop a person of the name of Wood.
burn. He received from Woodburn the sum of XlOO for
the goodwill, and he had let the premises for £4O a-year,
beipg £lO a-year more than be had agreed to pay the
the plaintiff. Damages were sought for the alterations
made, and also for the letting to Woodburn.
Verdict for the plaintiff, damages one farthing.
Tidyman v. Hiles. —An undefended action. The
plaintiff, Mr. John Tidyman, keeps a boarding-school at
liawarden, in Flintshire, and the defendant, Mr. Law-
...,
" '3ury. The action was brought
tion of the children of the de-
dant. The charge at the school was only at the rate
of £l9 a-year. The eldest son of the defendant was sent
to the school, and then two others. They went there for
about three years, and the whole amount for the educa-
, • ,

Lion, board, 'washing, tailors' bills, and money furnishe
to return home was £lO4 14s. 11d. A sum had bee
paid on account, and the amount now claimed was Cz
Verdict for the plaintiff.

Blanchard v. Earle and others.—The plaintiff Was Mr.
Edward Blanchard, flour-dealer, of Liverpool, and the
defendants were M. William Earle, Mr. S. Thornley, Mr.
Bright and Mr. Ferguson, four of the Overseers of the

of Liverpool

Mr. Martin and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Baines and Mr, Pashley for the defendants.
Mr, MARTIN stated the case. He said that Mr.
Blanchard was a respectable tradesman of the town, and
that he lied been in the habit for years of sending to the
office of the Select Vestry large guns of copper and silver,