The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-04-11 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY, Antu. snr.

EXPIRY; OAP TENANCY.—HARGREAVES V. WALLWORK
AND OTHERS: —This was an actiontorecover a sum of £lB5,
being the half-year's rent of mill premises, occupied by
the defendants at Chorley, from May; 1850, to November,
1853. The plaintiff had, a short time prior to May last,
become owner of the property, and in. November; 1852,
the defendants gave a notice to Messrs. Ainsworth,
Hollingshead, and Kaye, attorneys for the plaintiff, inti-
mating that, at May, 1853, they meant to quit the-pre-
mises. An acknowledgment, by the attorneys, of the
receipt of the notice sent was given to the defendants.
Subsequently it was said to have been discovered that the
holding was for a November, and not a May termination,
and they, consequently, wrote to the defendants, inti-
mating this fact, and refusing to allow the termination of
the holding. Verdicb for the defendants.
ACTION FOR EJECEiiENT.—AITKIN AND'ANOTITER V.
BARKER AND ANOTIMR—In this case Thomas Aitkin and
John Aitkin sought to eject John Barker and Fletcher
from two cottages, situated at Tottington, higher end..
The cottages had been, built by the father of the defen-
dant, in 1823-4, and constituted two of a parcel of five
cottages. The defendant was put into possession; of one of
the cottages by his father about the year 1830. From
1843-4 the defendant managed his father's business,
letting the houses, drawingthe rents of the other cottages
for his father, and paying-no rent for the one he occupied.
In 1817 the elder Barker died, without making any will ;
and his eldest son, William Barker, took out letters of
administration to his father's property. Under these-
letters of administration William Barker ordered his
brother John to quit the cottage that the whole might be
sold for the general benefit of the family. In course of
the evidence it appeared that considerable misunderstand—
ing had arisen between the brothers Barker after the
death of their father, a considerable portion of
involving pecuniary disputes, had been submitted to arbi-
tration. Verdict for the plaintiff.
ASSAULT.—BOUSICILL ANTI WIFE V. HAIGIT.—This
case was an assault of a very gross and aggravated nature,
on Mrs. Bouskill. It appeared that some time in the
month of March, 1853, Mr. Bouskill became tenant of a
beerhouse belonging to the defendant, in Leeds-street,
Liverpool, he (the defendant) carrying on business as a
brewer at Everton, the plaintiffs paying a deposit of £2O,
to be repaid on their leaving the premises. The plaintiffs
not finding the business answer their expectations, in
August gave notice to quit in October. On the 24th of
August a distress was put into the house for rent ; at that
time no business could be carried on, as the defendant
refused to supply any more ale to the plaintiffs, who had
been under contract to takeall their ale from him. In
the middle of September another distress was put in for a
forehand rent, and on the 19th of that month the defendant
himself went to-the premises for the purpose of expelling
the plaintiff and his family. Mrs. Bouskill, it appeared,
went into an upper room, into which the defendant also
went ; here some conversation took place between the
defendant and Mrs. Bouskill, in the course of which the
latter said she would not leave the premises until some
settlement was made, as she believed some of the money
originally deposited ought to be returned. On this the
defendant tucked up his sleeves and said he would make
her leave. He then laid.hold of her, and attempted to.
expel her from the room. This was the assault complained
of.—After the case had ,proceeded so far, Mr. Sergeant.
Wilkins, on the part of the defendant, agreed to withdraw.
any further defence, and a verdict of £2O damages was
by consent.
BREACH OF CONTRACT.--SALISBURY V. EDWARDS.—
This was an action in which the plaintiff, a bleacher, at
Burnley, sought to recover £153 10s. damages for a breach
of contract entered into for a certain quantity of flour
with the defendant, who is -a corn-dealer in Liverpool.
After the examination of several witnesses, a compromise
was effected, and a verdict for £BO was recorded.
SALVAGE.—STRO AND ANOTHER V. MA.LCOIXSON.—
In this action the plaintiffs, Messrs. John and William
Strong, proprietors of the Victory and Gleaner, steam-
tugs, sought to recover for salvage and for service ren-
dered in saving the screw steam-ship Kangaroo, belonging
to the defendants, Messrs. Malcolmson, (the. Waterford,
Steam Navigation. Company.) On the evening of the 28th.
November last, the Kangaroo, being on her return to.
Liverpool from Bordeaux, with a valuable cargo, consisting
chiefly of fruits- and wines, in coming up the. Victoria,
Channel, during a fog, struck the ground with great via
lence, and stuck fast upon the rocks and sand. To get
her off, the steam-tugs Gleaner and Victory were both
employed, and, by great exertions they succeeded in, get-
ting her afloat. For this the plaintiffs made a charge of
£l5O for services rendered ; this was refused, and, after
some demurring., the defendants offered £lO ;• but subse-
quently, and previous to the present action being tried,
they paid the sum of £27 6s. into court. From the evi-
dence, it appeared that on the morning, in question the
plaintiff's steam-tugs were called to,aid in getting off the
screw-steamer Kangaroo, which was lying on the rocks
and sands near the fort, in such a position as to be high
and dry at low water. Great difficulty was experienced in
getting, the Kangaroo off, and if she had remained for
another tide there would have been considerable risk of
her being entirely lost. The two tug-boats passed haw-
sers round, the stranded ship, nearly amidships, and, by
their united efforts and a sudden,jerk,,the Kankaroo was
got off, and towed up the river..—At the conclusion of the
first- witness's evidence, which was. about five minutes be-
fore- seven o'clock, the court adjourned till next morning.