The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-08-26 00:00:00

RAMPLING V. PRESTON.

Mr. Cressw•ell and Mr. Brandt appeared for the prosecution,
and Mr. Aiexnder for the defence.

This was an action to recover 1:141 from the defendant, by the
plaintiff, who is an architect in this town, for preparing plans
and original designs, and for superintending the erection of a
house in this town. In 1832, the defendant Was desirous of
erecting a house in this town, and employed the plaintiff, and
he had charged the usual charges. A dispute had occurred,
and the defendant refused to pay him; saying, that he had not
engaged him,
Witnesses were called as to the liability of the defendant,
and the amount due. It was agreed that the question of liabi-
lity should be determined by the jury, and which was to deter-
mine the succeeding action, i❑ which the same plaintiff, was
concerned, under similar circumstances, and that the amount
should be referred to arbitration.

The jury expressed u wiqh to retire, and after a short absence
.hey returned with a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to a re-
ference.

RAMPLING V. BEVAN.
Verdict for the plaintiff by consent, subject to a reference.
MILNES V CLEGG.

Verdict by consent for the plaintiff.
I'AINTER V. LIVEI:Pool. NEW GAS AND COKE COMPANY.
TROYER.

Mr. Alexander and Mr. Wig,htman appeared for the plain
iff, and Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Watson l'or the defendant.

The defendant's case was opened first.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who was a car
owner, for £2OO against the New Liverpool Gas Company for
trover. The plaintiff became indebted to the Gas Company,
and they not being able to obtain paynient had taken summary
proceedings before the magistrates, and obtained a distress
warrant, and subsequently his car and two horses were sold.
The defendant imagined that this warrant was unlawful, and
instituted proceedings, and tyre Court of King's Bench held
that it was so, that a summons shouid hay. been first issued.
This being an action for trover, they could not go for damages,
but only for the value of the goods. Mr. Jones, auctioneer, was
called. He deposed to having sold the car and horses fairly,
and they sold only for £l6 4s. 6d. Other witnesses were
who deposed to the horses being very poor, and the car a rough
one. For the plaintiff a witness was called, who deposed to
both horses, the harness, and the car being worth near £6O.
The horses were " rum uns to look at, but good•uns to go." The
examination of this witness caused much merriment.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages £2O.
The court then adjourned at six o'clock.
WEDNESDAY.
TARBUCK, ADMINISTRATOR, V. BISPHAM.

The plaintiff in this case was the administrator of Mr. James
Tarbuck, who had resided at Prescot, and was an ironmonger
there. In 1811 Mr. Tarbuck exhibited symptoms of insanity,
and in the following year they were obliged to send him to a
lunatic asylum. A year or two after one of his sons died, and,
at the request of the family, he was permitted to attend the
funeral. After this he remained at home for some time, and it
was thought at first that he was considerably improved in health;
but after a time the symptoms returned with increased violence,
so much so, that his family were obliged again to send him to
the asylum, and he remained there'till his death in 1833. The
defendant was a respectable gentleman, who resided also in
Prescot, and also acted as a banker, and in that capacity re-
ceived the money and kept the banking account of the lunatic.
After he was sent to the asylum, both his suns, who carried on
his business, were in the habit of making drafts on the defen-
dant, which were duly cashed by him as heretofore. The ac-
tion was raised by the present plaintiff, as administrator of the
late Mr. Tarbuck, for the amount of those sums so paid to the
order of the sons on the ground that he had no authority to
make such payments, and that the money, in fact, belonged to
Mr. 'Farhat s estate.

A number of witnesses. were called to speak to the insanity
of the late Mr. Tarbuck, and to the fact of his confinement and
liberation and reconfinement; and in proof of the debt, the
book kept by the banker was put Apstrand from that
book, that during the period that the plaint4r—contendeifthat
the defendant had no right to make payrnentson the sous' or-
der, that he had received money on account of, Mr. Tarbuck,
and acted in the capacity of an agent. '•
Mr. Justice COLENIDGE, in summing up- laid if one side of
the banker's book was taker, they must allow the defendant the
benefit of the other; and, as it appeared that he acted as agent
to receive money, they could not deny the authority to pay.
Upon that ground the plaintiff's case had failed, and the verdict
must be for the defendant. Verdict accordingly.

GERARD AND ANOTHER V. NIGHTINGALE.
Mr. Alexander and Mr. Brandt appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Wightman for the defendant.
The action was first tried at last summer assizes, when Lord
Abinger presided, and on that occasion his lordship directed a
non-suit. A motion was made in the Court of Exchequer, and
after bearing the arguments of counsel the court decided that
there should be a new trial in order that additional facts might
be ascertained, so that the points of law might be argued iu a
special case as it was of some importance in a commercial point
of view. The nature of the action was as follows :—The plain-
tiffs were assignees of a bankrupt named Seagre, who was an
extensive general merchant in Liverpool, but who, it appeared,
kept no warehouse of his own, but was in the habit of allowing
his goods to remain at the carriers' wharfs, or stores, until he
had orders for their shipment. On the 22d of Noveniber, 1833,
Mr. Seagre left Liverpool under pretence of visiting Chelten-
ham; after the lapse of several days it was ascertained that he
had not gone to Cheltenham, and on further inquiry it was
found he had left the country, and it was understood was now
residing at New Orleans. In the interim a cask of cutlery,
about which the present action was brought, had been forwarded
by a Mr. Frost of Sheffield, by a carrier named Johnson, who
brought it as far as Manchester, and there he delivered it to the
defendant, who is also a carrier, and to whose warehouse the cask
was brought. About the 14th of Nov., upon the absconding of
Seagre, the creditors took measures to make him bankrupt, and
the messenger was sent to demand from the defendant the cask
which had been placed in his care, and which the messenger
was instructed to say was the property of the bankrupt. The
defendant refused to give it up. A gentleman was afterwards
appointed provisional assignee, and renewed the claim for the
cask, when the defendant again refused to give it up. The pre-
sent plaintiffs, upon being appointed assignees to the bank-
rupt's estate, sent a formal notice to the defendant, demanding
the delivery cf the cask, and along with the notice sent 95.,
which, they concluded, would be the cost of storeage. He still,
however, retained possession. The defendant was then ex-
amined before the commissioners, and was required by them to
give it up, but his Eel answer was, that he would not part with
the cask, and that he had received an indemnity to absolve him
from the consequences. It further appeared that the defendant
had sent two notices to the house of Seagre, informing him that
the cask was lying in his (defendant's) store, at his (Seagre's)
risk, and requiring that he should have it removed... Mr. Alex-
ander called several witnesses to dePose to the facts above stated;
after which Mr. Cresswell addressed the jury in reply, and said
he was prepared to prove that the cask had been directed to
Mr. Seagre's private residence. No. 62, Faulkner-street, and he
was, therefore, justified in maintaining that the cask had never
reached its destination, and that not having so reached its des-
tination according to the address, it never had become thspro-
perty of the bankrupt, and the claim of the vendor, Mr. Frost,
had not been damaged. The learned council concluded by
calling a witness to prove that the cask had been so addressed
to No. 62, Faulkner-street.
: • he should Mr. Justice COLERIDGE, in summing up, said
them whether
sim-
ply call the attention of the jury to
wanted their opinion • and he would first a k
a. few fads on which he
they conceived, from the evidence heard,they.had.alH.theouv,tt.huhiai(tit
tthhhaeedncnadsoekt.
had in point of fact reached its destinat
gone further than the carrier's store-house..
sire them to tell him whether, in their opinion, the defendant
had absconded and left the country, and was insolvent when he
did so.
The Jury on all these points answered his .Lordship in the
affirmative, and a verdict was therefore entered for the plaintiff,
damages £4l, subject to the decision of the courts above upon
the argument on the special case.
The Court was then adjourned.

THURSIMY.
MEADOW V. JOHNSON.

This was an action to recover compensation froth the defend-
ant, for the loss of a mare, which the plaintiff alleged had been
caused by the defendant's furious, and negligent riding.
Mr. Peel and Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Alexander and Mr. Brandt, for the defendant.
The defendant was the son of a tradesman, in Manchester,
and went' to the stables of the plaintiff, who keeps a public-
house in the same town, and persuaded his wife to lend him the
mare to ride. The defendant had scarcely mounted when he
started off at full gallop, and in endeavouring to turn one of the
corners of St. Ann's-square, the head of the mare came sud-
denly in contact with the pallisades. She fell immediately from
the effects of the stun, and the injuries she received were so
severe that she died in the course of a few minutes. The pre-
sent action was brought to recover her value at the time. The
defendant had pleaded that the mare was of so vicious, and in-
temperate a disposition that he was unable to manage her.
Several witnesses were called, who deposed to having had
ample opportunities of knowing the mare's temper, and that
although a willing, and spirited animal, she was wholly free
from vice, and so well broken, that any
.person who knew how
to ride, would find no difficulty in managing her. The servant
of a gentleman named Briggs, to whom she hadaforhniisemr y
aster
be-
longed, deposed to her being exceedingly quiet, 0.001
She was
had only parted with her in consequence of 'll. hseta
get fi h
perfectly sound, and he had never received instructions
his master to sell her for what he could
that the mare
witnesses were called for the defence to provewhen
ionSseyfreormal
was awadset
mana reable and
earcmcoiunnedtedruonnaewaoYf't'baendbetstr
horsemen
nr-sennienthein defendant,
Aianeiles_
Td--that he
' that it was imp
ter, mounted her, she bechatmaie
- ossible
for
rrd but had done his utmost to pull her
had not urged her
.forwa being
topecrofencttrloyuluhner speed—that '
per-
fectly sound and-well shaped, yet , .
.4d.ha
d
been up. She
advantages anti
haabeet purchased for the sum of £9 bf thevlautti an pievious-

by Mr. 13.riggs fur £B. Mr. Bri ge. in hie evidence, depose
to never having been able to use her as she was sowild,,and ha
accordingly directed hif servant to sell her on any tends, The
plaintiff at the time the, accident occurred was, collecting ,subs
scribers for a raffle for a mare and the defendant was gobig '
subscribe. if she proved satisfactory. .
His LORDSHIP, in summing up, remarked vii the conflicting
testimony and the Jury immediately returned a verdict for the.
defendant..
BREACH OF CONTRACT.—HIGGINBOTTOSi V. BARLOW.,
The parties in this case reside at Manchester, anclihe defend
ant, who is a silk manufacturer, entered into a contract to sup-
ply
the plaintiff with a large quantity of silks at 28s. per.piece,
which contract he failed to pertorm, and the plaintiff brought
this action for damages. It was proved in evidence that the:
plaintiff could have afterwards sold the same goods at 375. per
piece. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages'
£4,15.
. , .
ILLEGAL DISTRAINT.—BOOTH V. HARROP AND OTHERS.
Mr. Alexander and Mr. Brandt appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Wightinan for the defendant.
The declaration stated that the defendant had distrained
goods for rent to the amount of £3OO, the arrears of rent being
only £l2 10s. . ,
The defendants id this case were Mr. Harrop, a person of
considerable property, and who was the defendant on the re-
cord; Win. Mears, a bailiff; and James Lowson, a son-its-
law of Mr. Harrop. The plaintiff was a tailor and.dreper.re:.
siding in Glossop Dale. , In 1833,
.the.. plaintiff becamettenant
to the defendant Harrop for his
,premises, at a rent of £l5 pet
annum. In the month of Februarylast, when his rent became
due, the plaintiff was from home on business. His wife; who
was in a delicate state of health,, was at house,. and four children
were ill in the house of the measles. On the first of March, the
day on which the rent became due, the defendant sent a bailiff
into the house, the plaintiff being at that time from home and
his wife ill in bed, and the children all suffering as above stet.:
ed. Without waiting, the bailiffs proceeded to ,distrain for.the
rent, taking three or four cart loads of the.plaintiff's stock in
trade, drapery goods, toys, ready-made clothes, &c., in which
the plaintiff dealt. They directed Mrs. Booth to get up, as
they must have the bed from under her, and took the infant. out
of the cradle and laid it upon the Boor. The things were re-
moved to a house iu the neighbourhood, and impounded.
When they had sold as many as amounted to £2O, the sale was
stopped and notice given to the defendant that the goods which
remained were at his risk where they had been removed. The
plaintiff had afterwards actually sold a part of what remained of
the first sale, from the stock alone, without touching the furni-
ture, for £29, and £ll worth still remained. This. harsh pro-
cedure had been mainly instituted for the purpose of getting
rid of the plaintiffas tenant.
Witnesses were called to the above facts, and it was deposed
that the infant had afterwards died from the exposure it had
received. Many of the more aggravating circumstances were;
however, not proved, and the evidence did not connect Mr'
Harrop with the proceedings.
His Lososiiip in summing up strongly animadverted on the
practice freiiieLigy resorted to in thisac.,,cases,,Pf.takieg adva.n7.
Cage of every technicality and required.rirm of law, not having
been observed by landlords, acid recunnuepdval the jury to show
their sense of it by their verdict. , ,

, ..
. , . ..,.
The jury expressed a wish to. retire, and after an absence of
half an hour returned with a verdict for the plaintiff on the two
first counts of the indictuithit, damages la), and acquitted
Janies Ilarrop, one oft he defendants.

DICKErr,.BARI. AND ANOTHER, V. IVALKER.

Mr. Brandt and Mr. Wightman appeared for the Plaintiff;
and Mr. Alexander for the defendant.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, who are trustees
of certain fisheries iu Ireland, against the defendant, who is a
fish-monger in Manchester, for a stun of £l-10 for fish sold and;
delivered. The defendant pleaded that be had paid
.a 1.:20
note which was charged him over again. Witnisses were called
to prove that they bad seen him pay this money, and it was
proved that the agent of the plaintiffs had been very unsatisfac,:
tory in his aecouuts. The sum demanded was not entered upon
the record, licid the defendant put in an account which was
initted, with the exception of the £2O, and which giving credit
for the Et), left a balance due to the plaintiffs of -±3 14s.
The jury found a verdict fur the plaintiff, damages .C 3 Ns. 111 d.
itoocults V. HINDLEY.

Mr. Cresswell arid Mr. Wightman appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Alexander and Mr. Cowling for the defence. ;.
. ,
The plaintiff in this action is a gentleman of, some property,
residing at Manchester. He had amassed his propertyln trade,
and was, wishful to retire, and contracted with the agent of the
defendant to take a farm and house at Pulcheth, near Man-.
chester, for a tern of eight years. Subsequently a difference
had arisen between. the parties relative to some repairs to
,he
executed on the premises, which ended in an open quarrel; and
they mutually agreed to cancel the agreement before the. WO
first agreed upon. In April, in the present year, the defendant
had sent some person into the garden of the plaintiff, who ms-
ceeded to dig up and destroy a quantity of flowers, and to insult
the sister of the plaintiff. For this an action for trespass had
been brought. A number of witnesses were examined, and the
cause occupied a considerable time. It was contended for the
defence that the garden was used as a field, and was included in
that part of the agreement which had been cancelled, to prove
which witnesses were called to prove thatcattlc had been. turned
into it. There was a great deal of conflicting testimony.
His LORDSHIP, in summing up, directed the jury to give an
opinion whether or no the garden *as part of the.ftirm, or be-
longed to the house as a garden, judging from the uses to Whieli
it had been applied.
The jury found that the field had been used both as a pasture
field, and as a garden.
His Lout:null' then decided that he thought the plaintiff re-
mained in possession, and that the tenantcy had not expired;
and directed a verdict to be-recorded for the plaintiff, damages
Is„ costs 405., with leave to enter a non-self. ' _

The court was then adjourned at half-past seven

LIVERPOOL POLICE.

. ,
DESERTION OF A SEAMAN.—Jonathan Warren, a seaman
was placed before Mr. Hall, on Monday, charged by Thol.as
Eskdale, commander of the Ship D'Evereux, under the follow-
ing circumstances. The latter stated, that he had, on Wednes-
day last, engaged the prisoner to go with him to Quebec, as
cook, at the monthly wages of £2. 108., for the due performance
of which he signed articles. On Saturday, the vessel hiving
hauled out into the river, the prisoner, with' two other men had
stolen his four-oared boat, and had gone ashore with it. Mr.
Hall: * "Did they not merely-use the boat to convey them on
shore ?" Witness " yes, but when they got ashore they turned
her adrift." Mr. Hall. "But that was not stealing the boat, so
there is an end of that. We must now examine well the charge
of absconding. The taking of the boat to go on shore is not
felony." Mr. Hall then inquired if the articles had been read
to the prisoner. Mr. Hall said he had here frequent occasion
to warn masters of vessels on this subject. They were liable to
a heavy penalty for such neglect. The prisoner in excuse for
having absconded, said that he felt himself very poorly, and see-
ing the other men going ashore, he thought he would accompany
them. Mr. Hall said, that was a very poor excuse: In reply to
a question, the captain said that the vessel Was to sail that even-
ing (Monday.) Mr. Hall said all he had to do was to comply
with the directions of the act, and ask the prisoner if he were
willing to return to his duty; in case of a refusal ho had the
power to punish. The prisoner said he was willing to return.to
the ship and go the voyage. The captain declared that be Would
not take him, upon which Mr. Hall said there was an end of
the case, and the prisoner was discharged.
„ ..
ASSAULT ON THE HIGH SEAS.-011 Monday; at the Police
fine of £2 a"
"smtsvih resides
office, James Murray, a seaman, was charged with having stab-
bed the second mate of the barque Brighton, of St. Juhn's N. 8.;
from whence she was on her voyage to Liverpool. The coin..
plainant, John M`Kay, stated that the assault was committed
when they were off Cape Clear, at about six o'clock in the even-
ing. He (complainant) was standing in the main rigging, and
Captain M'Keswick, the commander of the barque, was on the
poop. He heard the prisoner use some foul language to the
captain, which he believed.had arisen from some orders which
the latter had given. The prisoner became exasperated and
drew forth a knife, with which he was rushing at the captain
when witness went forward and interfered. As be passed be=
tween the prisoner and the captain, the former seized him, stud
inflicted two wounds on him, one at the lower part of the belly
and the other in the knee. The first mate of the Brighton, M.
Mills, stated that the prisoner bad full wages for the voyage,
namely, LIU at St. John's before the vesselsailed. The prisoner
•hsaoo.fnite4 dissoluteuests, young
.it h ha v i n g resisted
had been on another occasion very violent, having paraded the
deck with as axe in his band and threatened the seamen, who
Wit-
ness
default
nweesrse
:vasall exceedingly cee
opiniondingl yt
haantxtiloi
eu sp
rithatsonbeer should
made i be
pl u
nsecured.
e
lain, but that the blow was received by the second mate. The
eNpnlaAN OFFICER OF TUE COURT orli.x-
-street, was charged by John
prisonerto
VIOLENT
b e coal •
na
committed
toesrdsdAe forur eLdTotnoo
execution, and with having at the same
hima. a
at
Foster,Uali S
housei rn s
t.
ah—ne
officer Sos service
rmv ui ce ill-fame
el oSmethurst,,t).i.the
nn Dxoyoetai
cni
ut:
time violently assaulted him. It appears that on Saturday the
complainant went with another officer to serve the execution in
question on the person of Mary Phillips. The latter was !saluted
out to him, and as he 'advanced to fulfil his duty, she rushed into
a house, the door of which was standing open. The complain-
ant followed her. She rushed into the kitchen, and he was
following her when the prisoner met bins. and struck hini several
blows oil the face and head with a poker, buying him at last
senseless at his feet. His colleague iininediatefy called a police-
officer, and the prisoner was taken into custody. The case was
fully proved, and the prisoner was fine.d 20s. and costs; or id
default to go to the House of Correction for fifteen days.

The British Association commenced their annual sittings ai
Bristol on Monday last. We shall endeaVoUr to find room for
an analysis of the proceedings in our next.
. .
The Operative Conservative Society of Chadderton; :neat
hfoerrdeipTieradcFtoroom a
parl
Oldham, had a public dinner on Monday last.
DEATH of Loan KERRY.—We announce With regret the
death of au amiable and promising young nithleinan7-Lord
Kerry. His disease was that wasting away of the system Which'
is called atrophy.
RERPRESENT-ATION OF DUBLIN.—At the last Meeting of the
trades' union it was announced that Mr. O'Connell and Mr:
Henry Grattan would start for the city of Dublin at the next"
general election, .
CH ASII EXTH A onntNARY.—A greyhound belonging, to a gen-
tleman of Devizes, on passing the road near Potterne a tete
days since, being apparently frightened at the sight of tbrie
foxhounds which catne by; started off a full speed: ' The fo_x;
hounds immediately started after it ; and, notwithstanltutp.
greyhound gained upor: then they continued in fulbehas , r
nirrg through the greater part 4r the town, until the greyhound
took shelter in its masters house in Devizes.. . _a . ,
se.,, ..,,,.._
An officer of rank, " well known in the politicanlearndea 191alatulicci
world," advertises that he bail discovered a.a
fty., nTII
ff places if
rocket that will set an enemy's ship on a
sfiti e I
i le. il tiiice as later
discharged two thousand yards off, ar!(;.coistiot articles to,
pri j
mtviavteveli
reaßtzssit,hfrNAe..
Asof
Rurl
iclEctvacAiniiNn
cRe
t. r a
dHe er g offers, g: c th, e,
si;r7i:ided with such weans,
called to account on the western'
N besideso i
oseveralH o others,No i, the
HONOUR
eci smallestonce
p anylv,oesFstiEesrl
sswti:oirllcye,b:speh siTipiiiyossi)Lcii naa ftwa...l,-1 i -
bsleyrgdeeasntrtoyDoary
ycon beingpel to surrender
rog
the pkesoifievsesii.o
bnebeya
ns,it accepting
en ulledsswillnovtreirtr
itfromno
and
d at;
the fellow had .11 tl
iimentary statement tecently
but I took every sixpence.
_.
..
don't call that disgracing the professton:"—Late
hope you
cclifecluiti,t
published it appears, that the amount of property insured against
lire, in the year 1835, in England alone, was 5,-17,530,500. The
a amount
£737,597,0 of
aduty t
hpea idut
amountmn fireo f
farming
stock
inexttemtetairnr3heleawmaes:
year, was £37,187,000.
ICT.—Last week; a man, Mined Chaiiei
Harvey, was
gwtlrhiiieei
guilty."
.ti,hn,
eJjeurrsye yu,
nfaonr
iaincriminaluonffdelnitme o f.nriutopruebilnie
importance, .
no cent it than He was accordingly discharged`.'' ' '
A M o PEST YOUTH.--The following advertisement'ariiiears in'
a London paper:—" t young man of Unquestionable.ittiriet#'
and modest demeanour is desirous of engaging Witil'atir siide-.
pendent gentleman, to whom, without egotism, he OA time a
most valuable acquisition;" can manage an estateAtirfalioot,'
ride, sing as required, determined to -pleasr,*thakeltinktielf ilei.;:
, tenletLy-dnnr to a o
comfortable,
ntotanenntduiren...liis hind to any tlit* frail is