The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-08-16 00:00:00

tlt f% ,C7444-rstiV,- .14b
3.z.ii).4 I,c6t, 4 '""

FROM 0

MY old ii

few nigh

he has been ye

stitueuts s

as posy

? LONDON CORRESPONDENT.

Sir DE LACY EvANS is an old sol

ways than one

CHARLET

under the

le weut t

DE LA

was a re

in the Ga

with u

the valiant of

Words of l

and r

" Put 'money in your d

not pay -yottr riven a

loaned to

re all quiet r

EVANS

rich wiao

been a

poor fellow ! i

body corpo:

who have an
always turn

LAND W&

no avail

) have

well as Lout

he eve

KAPOLEON, whose

•orld" of 1

; but, 1

Jorm ELLI

) India t

for Indi

e; Lord Auc

,-JAMIE

ters
Earl of DALHOUSIK, is now nearly home of

Seltzer in No. 5, Bennett

nswer to their wolfish inquiry

The varmintry of tl

Let us

interests hiindreds

eing go-

ars of age

wind" or

leria viE

Liow-subjects it

the Sr

members Prese

The measure

was reac

the mast

referred to is the I

mee of

1 review at Spitheai

lelly Societies Bi:

Tes of bills, bearing the same title

the institut

cries, or persons

wed, as Lord BYRON used tt

Sunbeams awaken

nation I

As a- dramatic c

MONDAY

tion ti

nd its a

ae when I state that I have eaten 1 COMMERCIAL 4. MONETARY NEWS

NIGHT.

Inas a piece
who said, in THE termination of all apprehensions as to im-
mediate hostilities in the East—the recent de-
aly, you can
spatches having been of the most pacific character

LIVERPOOL ASSIZES

CONTINUED PROM OUR SECOND PAG

NISI PRIUS COURT,ThIoNDAy, AUGUST 15
Before Mr. Justice Erle.

LYON V. CARNE.—This was an undefended case, and judg-
ment was given for the plaintiff.
BLAIR AND OTHERS V. NICHOLS.-ThiS was an action to
recover the sum of £67 15s. Si., amount of damaged allezed
to have been done by the defendant to premises occupied by

him as dye works, in .Hodge.lane, near -Salford.! It appeared
that the defendant, Nichols, had occupied the premises for
sixteen or seventeen years. On the part of the plaintiffs, who
were tru.tees under the will of the late Mr. Joseph Blair, it
I was st I ►►—' - 1 • ,ttager its

...atect that dei ~cant hate used co, ,es as depots for
chemicals and other matters, and had so deteriorated the
floors and other portions of the premises as to render
them unfit for habitation or use. For the defence it was
contended that the premises were very old ; that they

damages sustained by theme were such as arose neces-
sarily in the ordinary course of business ; and that defend-
ant was not liable to maintain or leave the premises in a
state of repair ; and that he had to leave the premises
conseqn

!iced to some

he case r

e of their want of rep
on the part of the plaintiff to have t
competent parties in Manchester,
to, and the case went to trial.—After several witnesses had

enancy. The question, he said, arose out
of a case of trustees for the late Mr. Joseph Blair. This could
only be established by writing, which had not been adduced.
—His Lordship could not admit such a relation as that of trus-
tees. The court could only deal with owner and tenant. That
relation was established; by the defendant, who gave notice
to plaintiff that he syletnld quit the prernise&—]lr. James

Willed a note of his objection taken, which his toil
agreed to.—Mr. James nest said there was nu eviden

show that the defendant ryas bound to do anything but use
the premises in a tenant-like manner.—His Lordship: The
presumption of an ordinary tenancy is, that the premises
shall be used in a tenant-like canner, and left in a tenant-

able condition. The claim in this case-is for wilful damage.—
Mr. James then addressed the Jury, contending generally
that the damages. arose in the ordinary course of tear and
wear, and-that many of the alterations set forth as damage
were effected with the concurrence of the late proprietor (Mr.
Joseph Blair) who had seen the mode in which the premises
were occupied, and tacitly acknowledged the propriety of such
alterations and uses. •He also maintained that much of the
dilapidation had taken place prior to t fle occupancy of the
defendant. Nothing, in fact, had been dome in the premises
inconsistent with their legitimate uses. The condition of the
premises wa not better when they came into the possession
of the p!aintiff in 1849, than they were when, the defendant
left them.—A juror was withdrawn, and the matter was settled
out of ct,urt.

3,226,701

WILD V. HogSoN.--This was an action brought by Eliza-
beth Wild, an unnlkirried woman, who keeps an establishment
for teaching millinery in Corporation-street, Manchester,
against John Hobson, who is in the employment of Mr. Dun,
draper, Newcastle•on=Tyne. It appeared that on the 30th of
December last defendant ceed at the establishment" of 'Miss
Wild, and having °brained an interview with her, Mid he had
called forpayment of theaceount ; on being asked what account,
he sail, "Oh, you know very well; it is for money dile to
'lf. Dun, a draper in Newcastle, and I was told you' would
He then said that plaint-

deny it

tvro-years at the instance of 111 r. Dun, on a charge of having
forged a bill.! On plaintiff denying this, he said he knew it to
be trua, and further, that iti• addition to the charge of the
forged-1 bill, plaintiff had been detained in a top room
of Me. Dun's house in Leicester, for a debt of .4'50, from-
which she had made her escape: These statements lie
repeatedl in the hearing of several parties, and as they
were calculated to do seriotar injury to plaintiff in her
business, and as she utterly denied the truth of any part'
of the allegainons, tile present action was brought to recover
compensation for such damages- as she might have sus-
tained through the misrepresentations. On the part of
the defence it was stated to have arisen out of a mistake as

to the person ,p and it was attempted to be shown that reason-
able means had been adopted to maii,e such reparation as the
case required. It was also admitted that the plaintiff was a
highly respectable person, and an entire retractation of the
averments as against the plaintiff was read by the counsel
for the defence pwritten, however, affkr the present action
had been commenced.:--The learned: Judge, in summing un.

it nect
Boners
_ _

dwelt at consideruble length on the reciic;sne;;;ith Wag
the charge had been made against Miss Wild in the first in-
stance, and also en the tardy nature of the proferred repara-
tion. He likewise pointed out tLe prolishilit of some portion
of the stigma attaching 0 tht plaintiff, unless the jury, by
,arriint inclinsarda the

she•had sas6ined.-7

1 the exci

urned a verdict fOr the

till; and awarded the sum of damage
SitiPTON V. BEAU:SONT AND ANOTHER

-,This was an ac-
❑rnished by the

tion as to the efficiency of some machinery fl
plaintiff to the defendant. It having been agt

WH-ARTON v. Ilinorrott.—This was an action for the sum
of .4,280,, alleged to be due to the plaintiff for work done in
erecting some buildings it the city of Manchester: Thecase,
as stated by the counsel for the plaintiff, was that, prior to
commencing operations, a-contract was entered,lnto between
the parties, a condition orwhich was that certairPpayments
were to be-made to the plaintiff; from time to time, as the
work was proceeded with. In coarse of the operations such
alterations-had been ordered-by the defendant as• to. amount
to a nulligktion of the original contract, and the plaintiff
claimed to•have the work paid- for by measurement, at a rea-
sonable rate- of charges. Tae amount in all as under the
original and• subsequent contracts was to be .',1,1V-1435. ; by

various instalments the sum of .e 407 88. lid. had been. paid,
and the disgreuce between the turn claimed and the appa •
rent balance arising out of tbz- proposed mode of measuring
the work, iustead of having it ruled by the contract. After

a lengthened- conference &tweet' the counsel on•
the case was• withdrawn, with a view to its set

reference

both eides,
tlament

SHAW V. MADSLEY.—This *.vas an action to determine
whether the plaintiff was not entitled to obtain poesession of
certain goods which he had onchased from one Cliak-Hunt,
which goods linnt bad purchased at an auction Sale.. - From

the evidence it' appeared that the- plaintiff's fatiler,..vh,;;;;-
riled on business in Salford as a painter, having become em-
barrassed in his-circumstances, sold off his stock-in.-trade and
household furniture, for the purpose of aiding him-in liqui-
dating his debt; ansi that the goods-having been duly-adver-
tised to be sold by auction, Hunt became the purchaserof the
whole, which be bought in one 3Ot. The plaintitr,-...wh0. is
szeontt son to the-vendor, is the course of the same day
mrchased the whole from Hunt._ The latter had purchased
the lot for .e34,--and the plaintifrallowed him .e-to for it,
and paid him in, two instalmeata- of ..e2l and L 9. it
also appeared that,:vrior to the sale,. the defendant had ob-
tained a judgment execution against- the plaintinp.father„
and, under it, he-sought to secure the-goods and furniture- in
question.—On theTartof the defence, it was attempted to-be
shown that-a col naive arrangementhact been entereil, into be-
between the plaintiff and his father. This, hole

pletely failed:andthejary gave a verdict foithe plalnfiT:-
PAIPPS v. was -an. ar-tion to recover the
sum, of .e 1,144 lOs.t.the. principal: and interest due by the

defendant to the-plaintiff on a promissory note. Va.
the-plaintiff by consent.
AT.STON V. GattNT AND Alvornma,--This was an action to
recover compensation for damage ttieged-to have been done
to goods belonging to the plaintiff; through the negligence- or
imperfectly constructed works which had. been made and
maintained by-thedefendants. The -plaintiff is a grocer at
Itainsbottom, an dtbe defendants are extensive manufacturers
and:cloth printers-at the same place;-they also are extensive
proprietors in the neighbourhood of Ramsbottoin. It was
admitted, on the part of the defendants, that the sewer by
which the alleged damage was occasioned, was constructed ley
them-for their own benefit. One part of the sewer,- near its
upper portion, was of larger dimensions than the part
below, which was nearly level. The level part was con-
structed of flag. bottom and top, with what is called
random walls at, the sides ; that is,. the walls were
loose,- and built without mortar. In February, 185/, and
again in February, 1352. extensive tloods took place,- which the
sewer was unable to carry off, and in consequence of the loose-
ness of the walls of the sewer and its small dimensions, a
portion of the-water escaped inte- the cellar of the plalsztiff.
Inc the flood of 1852 the water rose in the cellar to.a height of
about•three feet. In consequence of this access- of water, the
plaintiff sustained damage to thearnount of .ttat or upwards
on . a quantity of war, and a less of .WI4 12e, sd. cox soap
and candles... It had, in addition to the actual loss, occasioned
an outlay of £. 15s. for clearing the water out of the cellar.
The plaintiff estimated his loss-by comparing the amount he
bad in stock. before the floods-with what had been laid in
and what had been sold in the interim. [lt wee agreed to refer
plaintiff's books for inspection on this point to Mr. Asplin,
who:was appointed to exam:ne the books and report.]
Subsequent: to the occurrence of the second flood, the de-
fendants made such improvements in the sewer, as, it was
contended,.woeld, if effected earlier, have- prevented the in-
fliction of the injury complained of.—The Attorney-General,
for the defence said no cause of action had been made out.
The defendants built the cottages at their,-own cost, and let
one or more of them to the-plaintiff. In doing so, they gave
no undertaking beyond the existing state of things. The
whole was their own preperty, and in their buildings they
accommodate the sewer to the property, and the property
to the sewer. In doing so, they only did what any one was
entitled to do.—His lordship said, if the sewer was not
so, constructed as to he of a reasonably perfect kind, the
defendants were liable for such damage as might arise from
it. He might illustrate this by considering the effects which
might arise from the action of another element. If a
party wall between Mr. Grant's house and his neighbour's
were by him so imperfectlyconstracted as to admit of lames_
passing through it, and burning the adjoining house,
,Mr.,
Grant would be liable, if it couldbe shown that reasonable
care and skill hattnotJmen exercised in its construction. It
was, he considered, a continuing duty to maintailLail such
works in such a, condition as In be a reasonable security
against accidente.to the property of the tenants, in-the same
way as if it were the property of a separate party. It
might be left-for the jury. to consider whether-the sewer
in question was. constructed with due care and
For the defence witnesses were called, who proved that
under ordinary circumstances the sewer was amply, sufficient
to convey away. all the water which was likely to run into it.
They likewise stated, that en the two occasions.referred to in
the cause,., the floods were unusually heavy,. His lordship
then summed up, enforcing his previously intimated opinion
as to the importance of settling the proper construction of the
sewer, and its capacity for carrying off thewater. The jury
consulted for a short time, and returned, a verdict that the
sewer was not properly constructed. Judgment stayed till
the fifth day of next term.
The Court rose at half past six o'clock.
CROWN COURT, YESTXRDA.Y.
(131C110BE *B. JUSTICE W,IGHTMiaO

edict for

His Lordship took his seat at sine o'Ciocli..
ALLEGED ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AT SALFORD.—
Richard Vipond, 21, and Wiliam Brier/Jay, 21, were
charged with having, at Salford, on the morning of the
9th of July, violently assaulted William Isherwood, and
feloniously stolen from his person the, sum of three
shillings and sixpence. Mr. Higgin conducted the prose-
cution, and Mr. Sowler defended the prisoners. The
prosecutor stated that about oneo'cleek on the morning of
the 9th of July he was going home along Cannon-street,
in Salford, when he was attacked by the prisoners, and
after being violently assaulted by them, was robbed of
three shillings and sixpence. In cross-examination the
prosecutor stated that he had had some liquor during the
night, but was not drunl. On behalf of the prisoners,
Mr. Sowler denied the charge of robbery altogether, and
called, amongst other witnesses, Mrs. Richardson, who
keeps a public-house, in Xanchester, and who stated that
the prosecutor was at her louse until twelve- o'clock on the
evening of the Bth July, and was very drunk. Before he
left the house he asked for ► quart of ale,bnt bad not enough
of money to pay for it. de turned out all his pockets to
shew witness that he had no money.—Mr. Higgin was about
to address the jury in repy on behalf of the prosecution,
when his Lordship remarked that there was no evidence that
the prisoners had robbed the prosecutor. The jury almost
immediately acquitted both the prisoners, and on the appli-
cation of Mr. Sowler his Lordship ordered their discharge.
EXTENSIVE BURGLARIES AT MANCHESTER.—WiIIiam
Langford, 25, Patrick Delaney, 19, John Buckley, 21, Richard
Price, 28, and Catharine Kelly 22, were charged with having
at Manchester, on the night o' the 14th of May, burglariously
broken and entered the dweling-house of Thomas Turner,
and stolen therein three coats, ten waistcoats, ten gowns, ten
petticoats, and various other articles, of the value of .e2O.
The prisoner Langford was father charged with having, at
Manchester, on the 16th of April, broken and entered the
dwelling-house of Edward At Loughlin, and stolen therein
one shawl, one shirt, one pairof sheets, and other articles, of
the value of 44. The prisoner, Patrick Delaney, William
Langford, and Catherine Kell, were further charged with
having, at Manchester, on thesight of the 30th of April, bur-
glarionsly broken and entered the dwelling-house of John
Leonard, and stolen therein trio shawls, one sofa cover, ten
pounds weight of meat, a qtaitity of wearing apparel, and
other articles, of the value of O. Langford pleaded guilty,
and the others not guilty.--Nr. Monk conducted the prose-
cution, and stated the Acts of the case in connexion
with the burglary at the house of Thomas Turner, from
which it appeared that the burglary took place about
eleven o'clock at night, cluing the absence of the family from
home. Evidence was , thin adduced which implicated the
prisoners Langford, Buckby, and Kelly in the burglary, and
also the prisoners Delaney and Price in afterwards receiving
a portion of the property, knowing it to be stolen. The
prisoners, who were undefended, were all found guilty,
Langford, Buckley, and telly of burglary, and Delany and
Price with receiving the property, knowing it to be stolen.

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD, AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL ADVERTISER.

thirteen w