The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-04-03 00:00:00

CHANTER V. LEESE AND OTHERS.

This was an action brought by Mr. Chanter, of Blackfriarg,
the patentee of various improvements in the manufacture of
steam-engines, and was brought against the defendants, Jame,
Lees, George Cousens, and James Lignum, engine-makers, of
Manchester, for the non-performance of a contract whereby
they were indebted to hin► £2OO. The plaintiff entered into a
contract with the defendants togrant them the right of manufac-
turing and vending his patented improvements at Manchester,
and in Lancashire generally, with the exception of Liverpool,
and in Cheshire, within ten miles of Manchester Exchange, 00
their paying him the consideration of £460 per annum, in two
different instalments of £230 half-yearly. The contract wao
entered into in February, 1836. The two first payments were
made, but the third was unpaid, and the action was brought to
recover that amount, 1:200.

A point of law was argued at great length between the coun-
sel for the plaintiff and the defendants, a demurrer having to be
heard iu the court above, when, by his Lordship's direction,
verdict was taken fur the plaintiff, damages £2OO, less £7 103
and a fraction for goods furnished by the defendants to the

MADDRELL V. MAXWELL AND ANOTHER.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a cobbler,
against Messrs. Maxwell, merchants, of Liverpool, for damages
from their having pulled down certain buildings adjoining the
plaintiff's house, in Litherland-alley, Liverpool, whereby the
plaintiff's house was greatly cracked, damaged, and injured, and
in consequence he was put Co great expense, and lost his lodgers
fur which the action was brought.
After the case had been heard, the parties came to an agrees
meat to withdraw a juror.

TINDER V. HARRISON.

This was an action brought to recover £4O demurrage. The
parties reside in Hull, and the plaintiffs chartered a vessel of
the defendants to go to Pictou, in Nova Scotia, to fetch timber,
thirty running days to be allowed for loading and unloading the
ship, and £5 a day demurrage to be paid beyond this. The
vessel had gone out ; and on the part of the plaintiff it was
contended that there were eight days' demurrage, owing to
neglect in obtaining cargo in America. For the defendant it
was contended that the particular cargo required to be loaded
by the charter contract could not be obtained, and that that was
the cause of the delay. The jury found a verdict for the plain-
tiff for £2O, which, with £2O paid into court, made up the
amount sought to be recovered.

PICKARD V. DEMPSEY.

This was an action, brought by the plaintiff, to recover the
sum of £l5O, on a promise give❑ by the defendant. The plain•
tiff, Mr. Pickard, is a timber merchant, in Liverpool, and the
defendant is a timber broker, of the firm of Dempsey and
Benbow, also of Liverpool. The action arose from Mr. temp-
sey writing a note to the plaintiff, to the effect that he thought
Mr. Gaebel was ill used by his partner Mr. Benbow, and
wanted £3OO to complete sonic purchase with Dempsey and
Benbow, and begging Mr. Pickard to give Gaebel an accept-
ance, and that he would bear half the risk, and pay him £l5O
to meet the bill ten days before it came due if he did not receive
it from Gaebel. For the defence,a set•off was pleaded, in which
it was stated that the defendant wanted £20,000 from the plain-
tiff, and that that amount was in dispute between them.
A verdict was taken fur the plaintiff, with leave to move to
enter a nousuit.

GRIMSHAW v. ROTHERHAM.

This was an action brought to recover the value of 173 bales
of New Orleans cotton, from the defendant, at £l3 per bale.
It appeared that the plaintiff resided at New Orleans, and by
the instructions of the defendant, a dealer in cotton in Liver-
pool, purchased 500 bales fur him at the close of 1835. A part
of these, namely, 173 hales, were shipped on the Tagus, which
ship afterwards took fire, but not till after an insurance had
been effected on the cotton. The plaintiff on this purchased
another 173 bales, to make up the 500 bales, thinking that the
best he could do, and wrote to Liverpool to get insurance
effected on these bales. The cotton art ived in due course la
Liverpool, but to a falling market, and the defendant sent the
whole of it to a broker to sell, telling him to keep two accounts
of the cotton, one of the 173 bales, and the other of the re-
mainder. In the proper course, the plaintiffs bill, for £1835
14s. 7d. was presented by Messrs. Ridgway, the agents of the
plaintiff, for the defendant's acceptance, but this be refused to
give, saying he had not authorised the purchase of the 173 hales.
After wards he honoured part of the hill,super protest, for £l3OO,
and though the defendant dealt with the cotton as his owu, and
sold it, he had never further paid for it. If the 'cotton were -not
his, urged the plaintiff's counsel, he ought to have refused it
altogether, and it would then have remained over till the plain-
tiff arrived in Liverpool, at which time there was a good market
and there would have been no loss. As it was; whatever loss
!here wasßuin the cotton having been sold iu a falling market,
the defendant having dealt with it as his own, and never having'
advised the plaintiff to the contrary, must be liable for the full
amount.

The case w•as not gone into, but a nominal verdict was taken
for the plaintiff fur £lO,OOO subject to a special case.

CROWN COURT.-MONDAY.

His Lordship took his seat at a few usinutes past niue o'clock•

FORGiiit Y.

John Kinnear, aged 57, UnciJ;Xi; Jones, aged 69, irereklaced
at the bar, charged with having, at Manchester, coritprred to
obtain credit and raise money by issuing false and fictitious bills
of exchange.
A highly respectable jury was impanelled.
The prisoners having been arraigned, and the jury seforliLi
Jones was ordered to stand hack, and the Court proceeded vita
the first indictment against Kinnear.
Kinnear addressed the Judge, and said he wished to makean
application, on an affidavit, for the postponement of the trial
for two or three days, under a particular indictment which .he
named.

•
Mr. BRANDT said he did not intend to goon that indictment. •
Kinnear then asked if this were the proper time to snake any
objection to the indictment.
His Loa DSHIP said that the prisoner had already pleaded "not
guilty" to the indictment. If he had any objection to the form
of the indictment he ought to have taken it before. His Lord-
ship, however, allowed the prisoner to proceed.
The prisoner said he objected to the indictment, that the bill
alleged to have been drawn by him was improperly described as
a bill of exchange. it was not a bill of exchange. The pri-
soner went on to describe according to the law, as he averred
laid down by Chitty and Bailey, what he conceived was neces-
sary to constitute a document or bill of exchange. The maitt
point for which he contended was, that a document was not a
bill of exchange till it was complete in all its departments. He
insisted that it was essential that a bill should be accepted be-
fore it was a bill of exchange. The bill in question was not
'my not accepted, but it contained a positive direction that it
was dot to be accepted, as there were on the face of the bill the
words " without acceptance."
His Loll PSHIP and such was not the law certainly. A bill
was a bill of exchange the moment it was drawn, and it was not
at all necessary that it should be accepted before it was a bill'ef
exchange.
Mr. Betoner and Mr. L. Page, who were retained for the
prosecution, briefly replied to the point urged by the prisoner.
His LORDSHIP said he did not remember ever to have seen
an instrument in that shape before, but that was no reason why
it should cot be a bill of exchange. A person bad a right-to use
what terms he pleased iu the drawing of a bill. Bills were
sometimes drawn at sight—then would they not be bills of ex-
change till they were paid. This bill would be a hill of exchange
the moment it w.,s drawn ; and, in fact, the London and West-
minster Bank, or where it was drawn, might have accepted it
if they pleased.
Mr. BRANDT stated the case. The present bill of exchange
purported to be drawn by the Flintsbire District Banking Com-
pany, and was signed by a person named James Watkins, who,
it was described, was manager of the Company. He should be
enabled to show, that no such company as the Flintshire Die"
trict Banking Company existed, and that the name of Walking
was also a fictitious name. Ile should prove that, on the 22a
August last, Jones, who would be connected with the prisoner
in his transactions, app,ied to a Mr. Swain, an engraver, at
Manchester, to engrave a plate for the purpose of striking en
impressions. Jones twice subseqUently applied to Mr. Swain
to alter the address of the bill plate. This plate, with a good
many blinks, and some bill forms filled up, were found in Kin-
near% possession. Inquiries were made at Flint respecting the
Banking company, and it was found that no such company ex-
isted. The learned gentleman went on to detail the comae or
evidence by which he intended to establish the case.
Joseph Wood stated, that he had lately been unfortunate in
business. He was a genet al Manchester Warehouseman. Knew
the prisoner at the bar. Had known him many years. Had
recently had occasion to write to him, and he requested him
(witness) to address his letters J. K. Donaldson. Those were
letters that were to pass through the post; but if he had had tort
address a note to him at Manchester, he should have addressed
him in his own name of Kinnear. In the utonth of October"
last, witness asked Kinnear to lend him seine money, asill
latter told had him he had a great command of money. He"
seen him in possession of various bills 'of exchange. On the.
tlhi4,iast t
lOgstcitltee.r!
eettehteoeiutvg(cold,nhatealileintaetdedrsail:nriloremenbcLtlioli ypErrleii.ot
.o 1 in reply to a let :et
one for £7O and one lot L3O. 'the letteWirtcciot°lluuettasasilOclesl:)euald4kir::':bi4(l4):l'97:
fonrdhhi tins to
Twrietnan
eistst,isti) e-h elf t tot proceeds in cash of the £3l) hill'.
a
note, of hand at 14 days for the other 101.1.
nFeosres)
the.£7o bill hey ms to remit £35 in casis and 1:35 in his (eil'
note at 14 days. It was to be remitted immiedititelY...
Witness returned it in a letter, (Letter produced.) liitt.letn,ter,
was addressed'' .1. K. Donaldson, post-oice, EAT
date of this letter was 14th October. He returned the 430 Di".
to the prisoner. Another letter of the same date was, produceddi
Witness said, that was his letter inelosing the cash (£35)
his note for £35 at 14 dais. That £7O bill purported to be
the..Flintshile Bunk fled received a smaller bill for £.6 Os. en.-
the same batik before, A bill handed too witness,) That
the same bill. At the time when be gave witness that
he said, it was a good hank, and they were doing a P',,;',„:
business. be said, also, Watkins, was' a Welshman— w 4 eas
manager of the batik and was a clev,er man. Believes tonne:,.;
is is a Scinclisnan. £7O hilt was here proditeed,"and idelat
tied by the witness..), At, the time wh.en witness received that
bill he believed it to be agood bill. Would not have pan:l'th
with so large a sutra a £35, if he had trot been impreisedo'
the conviction that it was a good bill.
The pi isomer, at. his own request, boat the' bills-handed to bill/
and.lie examined then'.
The last witness was then cross-examined by the prisoner'
;any
Ilad known the prisoner nearly 20 years. Had not 10,a.,,ing
transactions with hint until near April or May. Had ol%iito,
that time received several bills of exchange limn bun. %on.
of them were piotested previous to the prisonex's appreqflou,,ht
The six guinea bill was duly paid, The prisoner h,ad ; brjsi.
from and sold goods to the prisoner in the regular waY tok he
tress. The prisoner never proposed auV tri}aaaCtiol;l wun •
considered dishonourable, • s *ere
tie-examined by Mr. the other transaction in
small bil:s, and they were drawn upon Jones and NePhee was
Broard-street. hey were drawn by dopes of Dublin. h e tiCo.
om• Edinburgh bill for I.!S route abillings,drawn by Vewle,f„ty, Was
There was also a Sheerness and Queeosborough bill, "
benst(
paid to bim ouly two (lays before the prisoner's app'e
Edward Wright, head waiter at the Star Inn, Al"' ":
and David Webster, a putter at the rei,way station in to
tl chester
ehester. were called to trace a portmanteau front , ced
Liverpool- The porimanteau was seen at the Star I,l3;stPaltl„n,
in a coach with the prisouer, set down at the railway •
ud
office, taken from the euttoli by Webster, -carried into tlpe
from tl*nce to the train in the )htd.
The prisoner crass-examined the witness Webster at. scil