The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-08-21 00:00:00

PARTRIDGE V. LAWTON

This was an undefended action upon a bond, the debt under
which was £2O, and the penalty £2OO. Verdict for the
plaintiff.

LEWTHWAITE AND OTHERS V. DE LA PRIME AND OTHERS

This was an action to recover £277 12s, due upon a bond
and promissory note. A verdict was returned for the plain-
tiffs.

BARWICIC V. BROWN

This was an action brought against the defendant as the
drawer and endorser of a bill of exchange for £5O is. The
bill was due on the 29th of June last. The defendant pleaded
that he did not sign the bill, that he received no considera-
tion, and that he received no notice of dishonour. The par-
ties reside at Bradford. Verdict for the plaintiff.

EARL OF SEFTON V. WIGGLESWORTO.
This was an undefended action upon a promissory note, to
recover the sum of £231 10s. Verdict for the plaintiff.

FOSTER V

MORRIS

Mr. Foster, a large iron-master, carrying on business at
Stowbridge, was the plaintiff in this action, and the defendant
lives at Brighouse, near Leeds. The action was brought to
recover the sum of £lO5O 95., for iron sold and delivered.
A verdict was found for the plaintiff.

BANKS V. EDWARDS.
This was an action to recover £33 15s 3d, for coals sold
by the plaintiff to the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff.

REYNOLDS V. SHERIDAN

In this action, which was brought by the plaintiff, as pub-
lic officer of the National Bank of Ireland, to recover several
amounts due from the defendant on rive, bills of exchange, a
verdict was returned for the plaintiff—damages £174.

1101.11 E V. BARRY

This was an action to recover the sum of £2BO, due upon
a bill of exchange. Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Watson for the defendant.

Mr. CROMPTON stated that the plaintiffs were Messrs.
Samuel and James Holme of. this town, and the action was
brought against the defendant, as the acceptor of the bill.
The defendant pleaded, in effect, that before and at the time
the bill was drawn there had been an account between him
and Messrs. Morrall and Woodward, that the balance of it
had not been ascertained, but that for the accommodation of
Messrs. Morrall and Woodward he accepted the bill ; that it
was agreed the bill should be deposited before it became due
in the hands of the plaintiffs, as collateral security for the
payment of any balancethat might be ascertained to exist be-
tween himself and Messrs. Morrall and Woodward. The
plea, in fact, was, that there was an agreement that the bill
should not be enforced, but this was denied in the replication.
Mr. WATSON said be appeared for the defendant. The de-
fendant and Messrs. Morrall and Woodward had had tran-
sactions together, and some time ago an arrangement was
made between them for the settlement of their accounts, it
being supposed that there was a large balance due from him
to them. The bill in question was drawn on the supposition
that a balance was due, and it was to be returned if the balance
should be in his favour. The accounts were gone into, and
a balance was found to be due from Messrs. Morrall and
Woodward to Mr. Barry of upwards of £l,OOO, so that the
bill had been given without consideration. It had, however,
been passed away to some other parties, and as he (the learned
counsel) could not connect the plaintiffs with the transaction,
and as his witnesses were not present, he must consent to a
verdict for the plaintiffs.

A verdict for the plaintiffs was then returned—damages
£282 ss. 3d. .

RAWDON AND ANOTHER V. BARRY

Mr. CROMPTON said the circumstances of this action were
the same as in the last, and he dared say the defendant's plea
was equally true. It was brought to recover £314 6s. 6d.
due upon a bill of exchange. A verdict was returned for the
plaintiffs.
Mr. CROMPTON applied for immediate execution, on the
ground that there was not the slightest pretence for the pleas
set up by the defendant.
Mr. WATSON said, if his witnesses had been in attendance
he should have been able to have established the pleas.
Mr. Baron ROLFE said he would grant execution in the
same way as in other ur defended causes—in a fortnight from
the commencement of the assizes.

STEPHENSON V. BERRY

The plaintiff in this case is a type-founder at Sheffield, ant
the defendant is a printer, carrying on business at Clitheroe
The action was brought to recover £99 Os. Gd., for type sole
and delivered. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff foi
the amount claimed.