The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1849-08-21 00:00:00

NISI PRIUS.-SATURDAY.

ASPINWALL V. FORSHAW.—The plaintiff in this case,
Mr. Aspinwall, is a licensed victualler, near Ormskirk ;
the defendant, Mr. Philip Forshaw, a brewer, carrying on
business at Ormskirk, and also in Liverpool. The present
was an appeal from the decision of the Ormskirk District
County Court, which had issued a warrant for the eject-
ment of the plaintiff from some premises he held from the
defendant. In 1845, Mr. Aspinwall took from the de-
fendant a beer-house, at a rental of £5O a-year, afterwards
obtaining a wine and spirit license. The house is one of
those which the landlord himself supplied with the ale,
&c. consumed. On the Ist of February, that being the
day on which the year's holding terminated, the plaintiff
paid his annual rent. On the 7th of the same month he
was much surprised by a visit from the defendant, who
was accompanied by his clerk, and demanded possession
of the house. No previous notice, it was alleged, had
been given him to quit. The defendant laid a plaint in
the County Court. On the 20th of February, the matter
was heard, and, under, the 122nd section of the County
Courts Act, a warrant was issued requiring the plaintiff
to deliver up possession of the house. He still retains
possession, however, and the present, as we have stated,
was an appeal against the decision. The evidence was of
a conflicting character. The jury retired at half-past
twelve o'clock, and at four sent in word that they had not
agreed, and were not likely to agree. The learned counsel
on this mutually consented that a juror should be with-
drawn.

ASHWORTH AND OTHERS V. POCKLINGTON AND
OTHERS.—This was an action for the recovery of £574,
the amount of a disputed account.. The plaintiffs are
masons and architects, at Newchurch, Rossendale, and
the defendants reside at Boston, in Lincolnshire. The
amount claimed had been contracted for the building of a
church, in this county, a dispute having arisen out of the
measurement of the work. After the ease had been
opened, it was referred to surveyors, to be appointed by
the respective parties interested.
THE MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, AND LINCOLNSHIRE
RAILWAY COMPANY V. BLINKHORN.—This was an action
brought by the plaintiffs to recover from the defendant,
John Blinkhorn, alleged to be a shareholder in the railway
company, the sum of £lOOO, the amount of four calls for
shares held by him. The case was tried at the last assizes.
The defendant denied that his name attached to documents
requesting to be registered for one hundred shares was in
his handwriting. The jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiffs. A bill of exceptions was handed in.
DETENTION OF FURNITURE, &c.—GORDON v. Rus-
SELL.—Mr. Robert Gordon, the plaintiff, is the steward
of an East Indianian, and sought to recover from Mr.
John Russell, the defendant, who is an oil-merchant, in
this town, the value of a quantity of clothing, household
furniture, jewellery, and other things, improperly detained
by him. In 1840, the plaintiff married the daughter of
the defendant. At their own request, she continued to
reside with her father and mother after marriage, being
their only child. In the intervals of his voyages the
plaintiff also stayed there. This continued till 1848, when
some dispute arose with his father-in-law, and the plain-
tiff took a house for himself and wife in Slate-street,
Bootle. They lived together there for five or six weeks,
when he again went on a voyage to sea. Shortly after
that, in consequence of the defendant's interposition,
Mrs. Gordon was induced to return to her father's house,
and give up housekeeping. The furniture and other
articles were taken to the defendant's house. The plain-
tiff, on his return, applied for the goods, but they were
refused. The articles that he claimed were chiefly fancy
articles he had brought from the East Indies, wearing
apparel, trinkets, &c., of the value altogether of £5O or
£6O. Mrs. Gordon died in January last. The jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff for £5O.
CLEWORTH V. SOUTHERN.—This was a like action, also
undefended, brought to recover the value of a quantity of
wb raeswdi
devoid
utensil st
e,
rwehs
ti
.ch
Verdict
hee def
endantthe
phlaad detained. It
It
£45.

•
A FACT FOR DRUNKARDS.—As an instance of the
sharp look-ont kept by the police on " gentlemen bemused
with beer," in order to protect them from falling amongst
thieves, we learn that the amount of money taken from
such persons and restored to them when sober, was, during
the past year, £628 7s. 9d.—Manchester Courier.