The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-04-05 00:00:00

- 'kr. Sergeant Wilkins.—Yes, but surely a judge is not
absolute.
His Lordship.—Certainly not, but he ought to be re-
spected.

Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.—No doubt of it, and no one has
a greater respect for the court than I have; but I am
here to do my duty, and I shall do so, despite of any
interruptions.
His Lordship.—l must say that this cross-examination
is the greatest waste of time I ever witnessed in a court of
justice.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.—l say that no one has done
more to save the public time during this assizes than I
have.

His Lordship.—T am not talking of any time but the
present.

Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.—I must say that, in the course
which I have been pursuing towards this witness, I have
only done what I have seen your lordship do scores of
times.
His Lordship.—Then, if I did, I can only say I did
what was very wrong !
Mr. Sergeant 'Wilkins wished to know what it was his
lordship wanted him to do ?
His lordship explained the course which he thought
proper should be pursued with respect to the produced
account, but of which the conflict of opinion arose.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.—Then I had better throw up
nay brief : this account in question is all false—a fiction
from beginning to end.
Mr. Atkinson.—That is not so, Sergeant Wilkins.
Serjeant Wilkins.—l am instructed that it is.
Mr. Atkinson.—Then prove it, and don't say it.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.—Really, let me not be schooled
behind as well as before; one is quite enough at a time.
Mr. Atkinson.—l have a right to watch my client's'
interests, and I shall do so.
His Lordship.—Go on : let us lose no more time.
Sergeant Wilkins.—l am anxious to lose no time. I.
have done as much as any one to save the time of the
courtdLuorirndes
Lordship.—•l say
yisaae.
His
again that I am not speaking of
any cause or time but the present.
The learned counsel soon after proceeded to address the
jury, and, in the course of his speech, expressed his re-
gret at having manifested any intemperance. He also,
at a subsequent part of the case, apologised to his lord-
ship, who readily and courteously accepted the declara-
tion. Witnesses were then called for the defence; but
ultimately the record was withdrawn, at the suggestion
of the court, and it was understood that it should be
referred.

LITTLE V. JONES.—This was a case of disputed liability
to pay certain expenses incurred in laying out Fairfield
and other streets, on property belonging to the Freehold
Land Society. The plaintiff had been employed to do
some work thereon by a Mr. Mansfield, to whom the
work of laying out the streets had been entrusted by
Jones on the part of the society. Mansfield became em-
barrassed, and applied to the plaintiff to do the work for
him. and the plaintiff agreed to do so on obtaining from
the defendant an undertaking to pay him. The defendant
paid £l3 14s. 7d. into court, and denied his liability as
to the rest, contending that the work was inefficiently
done, and also that he had only undertaken to pay him
the amount of Mansfield's contract, which he had done.
At the close of the case the jury, after a brief deliberation.
returned as their verdict—that they believed the plaintiff
did the work, but they could not bring it home to the
defendant.—His lordship said theirs was a very sensible
notion of it : it was a great hardship, and really the man-
should be paid.

HIGHAM r. THE EAST LANCASHIRE RAILWAY COM-
PANY.---The plaintiff was a small farmer at Longton, near
Preston, and the action was brought to recover £5O, the
amount of damage sustained in consequence of one of the
defendants' engines, attached to a locomotive, setting fire
to a heap of moss, &c., upon his land.—The case was
adjourned till the following morning.

SATURDAY. APRIL 2.
HIGHAM V. EAST: LANCASHIRE RAILWAY

This case was resumed from Friday. The defendant, a
small farmer at Longton, near Preston, sought to recover
a sum of £3B, the amount of damage caused by one of the
defendants engines setting fire to the plaintiff's moss.
The defence set up was, that the moss had been for
several days before on fire, and that the flames came
from a direction opposite to that of the railway. Verdict
for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.
ELLIS V. UTTLEY AND OTHERS.
The plaintiff in this case, Jane Crook Ellis, residing at
Preston, brought an action to recover the sum of £lOO
from the defendants, who were the assignees of her
father's estate under a fiat of bankruptcy. After the
father's bankruptcy, the plaintiff, who had previously
lived with her grandfather, the keeper of a dining-rooms -
in Liverpool, returned to Preston, purchased her father's
furniture, &c., with money which she had saved in Liver-
pool, and did so, it was alleged, on the representation
and with the knowledge of the defendants. Uttley had
subsequently seized and sold the furniture, treating it as
the property of the plaintiff's father. On the suggestion
of his Lordship, a juror was withdrawn, and the case re-
ferred. MORGAN AND OTHERS V. FRY.
The plaintiffs in this case were assignees of the estate of
Patrick Hayes, oil-merchant, Widness, and the plain-
tiffs sought to recover £6O from the defendant, his an
ac-
countant, in Liverpool. On the suggestion o
ship, a juror was withdrawn, and the case referred.

BETTELY V. ROBERTS.—This was an action brought
by the plaintiff to recover a sum of £lOO. The defendant
was the proprietress of the Liverpool Hotel, Water-
street, and owned forty-two sixty-fourths of the ship
Agenora, which vessel was mortgaged to Messrs. Lamport
and Holt. The plaintiff and his partner, and the son of
the defendant, owned the rest of the ship in question.
Messrs. Lamport ar.d Holt having refused to advance
more money, a second mortgage was made to Messrs.
Wilson and M'Lachlan, to whom the plaintiff paid £lOO
to pay off the balance of the first mortgage. A disso-
lution of partnership having taken place, plaintiff sought to
recover this amount. Verdict for plaintiff. Damages £lOO.
WILLIAMS V. HOLMES.—In this case the plaintiff
sought to recover a sum of £8 12s. A person, named
Marshall, rented a yard from the defendant, in Wood.
street, and Marshall had sub-let the premises to a person
named Hill, an auctioneer, who sold several lots of goods
there. The plaintiff was a purchaser, and paid for the
goods which he bought ; but these goods were seized on
a distress for rent, and resold by the defendant. Verdict
for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.
HILL V. HOLIES•—By consent a verdict was taken
in this case for £2 is. The action was similar, and arose
out of the same circumstances as the former one.

was brought to recover the sum of £l5B 16s. 5d., the
amount of a bill discounted by the defendants, which was
dishonoured, but of which they had not given plaintiff
notice in proper time, and charged to his account. The
plaintiff, Matthew Isaac Wilson, is a merchant in Liver-
pool. The real question to be tried in the case was
whether the defendants, who in the year 1851.52 were
bankers to Mr. Wilson, were entitled to debit him, on
account of a bill of exchange for £l5B 16s. 5d., which, OTh
the sth of May, they discounted for the plaintiff. The
beennon- rpercoe
vi pe
dt obfy
Thee noticenotice
iuffn, thi
his the hl
oe
r7dt
shhoi
pf Ns
toovpepme
db et rh
eh ac
av igneg,
intimating that it was the duty of the bank to have put
the notice in the post office, so that it would go by that
night's post. They had not done that, and the verdict
must be for the plaintiff.—Verdict for the plaintiff;
damages £l5B 16s. sd.
FRIDAY, APRIL 1.
WHIITAKER AND ANOTHER V. this case
the jury this morning returned a verdict for the defendant
on both counts.
SMITH V. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAIL'
WAY COMPANY.—This was an action for money claimed
under these circumstances : In the year 1846 a project
had been set on foot to extend the Manchester and Hud-
dersfield railway and canal to Bradford, the intention
being to have a branch into that town. This would have
had the effect of interfering very much with the streets of
Bradford ; and a meeting of the town commissioners under
the local act had been held, in order that the inhabitants
might consider the best course to be adopted. At that
meeting the plaintiff, who was a surveyor, was present.
As it was for the purpose of effecting a friendly settle-
ment, it was resolved, in order to disarm opposition, that
certain protecting clauses should be inserted in the bill ;
and it was also arranged that the plaintiff, with others,
should go to town for the purpose of seeing that all was
done as agreed on ; and it was likewise come to an under-
standing that the Manchester and Huddersfield Railway
and Canal Company should pay all the costs. The plain-
tiff acknowledged that, while in attendance in London on
this business, he was also on pay for attending upon other
interests. A verdict was taken by consent for the defend-
ants ; but, from the statement of Mr. Knowles, who said
the company had behaved very handsomely, it would
appear that some money had been agreed to be paid.
KELLY V. APCOOEY.—A " SCENE " IN COURT.—Mr.
Tindal Atkinson for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins
for the defendant. It was an action to recover £27 9s. 3d.
for work and labour done and materials found. The
defendant was an Irish cattle-dealer' and the plaintiff, a
countryman, was employed by him driving the cattle ;
and, when a sum of money was due to him for his ser-
vices, he left it in the defendant's hands to keep for him.
When he demanded it, however, the defendant would not,
as was alleged, pay it to him. It appeared, during the
course of the cross-examination, that several of the items
were put down for the Manchester journeys, which were
understood to have been on Saturdays, Tuesdays and,
Mondays, as upon particular dates, &c. ; and, in the'
almanac those dates did not correspond with the days in.
question. His Lordship thereupon observed that this
mistake was not very unnatural with an uneducated person..
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins protested against such interrup-
tions : those observations could not fail to influence the
jury, and must obstruct the advocate in his duty.
His Lordship.--Go on.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.--I will, if your lordship will'
permit me, and I must say that these interruptions are
most extraordinary,
His Lordship.—Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, I will not permit
you to address me in that way !
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.—lf your lordship will interrupt
me in a way in which, most assuredly, counsel ought not
to be interrupted, I cannot help myself.
His Lordship.--Recollect that I am sitting here as a
judge.