The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-04-15 00:00:00

COURT OF PASSAGE.

(Before WILLIAM -WALLACE CURRIE, Esq., Mayor, and
JAMES CLARKE, Esq., Recorder.
SPENCER V. M`KNIGHT.

Mr. Venal)les appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Henderson
for the defendant.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of £8 45., the
value of seven packs of seconds flour, furnished by the plaintiff
to the defendant, which were eventually returned by the de-
fendant, the flour being inferior in quality; £4 had been paid in
part payment.
John Clarke deposed to being a carter in the employment of
the plaintiff. He recollected taking seven packs of seconds
flour to the defendants in Atherton-street, in August last.
Cross-examined.—He first took the flour to Mrs. Thompson,
who refused it, and afterwards took it to Mr. McKnight. .
Re-examined.—He could not swear that the flour he took to
Mr. M‘Knight's was the same as he took to Mrs. Thompsons.
Mr. Joseph Cowell and Mr. Henry Jones, flour dealers,
proved that the value of seconds flour deteriorated towards the
end of last year, and that flour would get worse from being
kept in a baker's warehouse.
Mr. HENDERSON for the defence, contended that the quality.
of the flour was such that it was unsaleable, and that his client
had had much of it returned on his hands from his customers, it
was so bad.
Charles Pearson deposed to being in the employment of the
defendant, who kept a flour shop, and to his master having some
very bad flour from the plaintiff.
Cross-examined.—He did not know when it was.
Mrs. Ellen Thompson deposed to keeping a flour dealers shop
in Dale-street. She recollected having some packs of flour
from Mr. Spencer last summer. She returned the flour because,
itwas not good. Mr. Spencer sent for it away.
Cross-examined.—She only tried a part of it, not all.
Alexander Pattison deposed to being a baker, " ever since
he knew anything and nothing else," He had examined some
flour at the defendant's shop the day before. It was very in-
different in quality, and iu his opinion had never been good.
He had a sample of bread made from it, if the court wished to
see it. (He produced a small loaf of black bread, the exhibi-
tion of which created much merriment.)
Mr. VENABLES replied.
The REconnEa summed up, and the jury not being able to
agree upon the verdict, were locked up for the greater part of
the day. They had not come to a decision when the court ad-
journed.

WALKER V. BILL.

Mr. Venables appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cotting-
ham for the defendant.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is clerk to
Mr. Sinclair, glass manufacturer, against Mr. Hill, who is a
chemist, for compensation for an assault.
Thomas Long deposed to being in the employment of Mr.
Sinclair, glass manufacturer. Mr. Walker was clerk with srr.
Sinclair. He recollected going with some carboys to Mr. Hill,
who is a chemist, in Vauxhall-road, in April last. Mr. Walker
went with him. Mr. Walker told Mr. Hill that he had come
to settle an account and to fetch some empty carboys. Mr.
Hill told him to go to his attorney, that be could not receive
any money. Mr. Hill then ordered his men to tie a rope to the
carboys and hang them about their necks, and shut the gate to
prevent them going out, and told his son to fgtch a police
officer. They could not get out of the yard, and Mr. Walker
attempted to do so, and. before he had got out. Mr. Hill struck
him on the breast; he then pushed him round out of the gate,
and effected his exit by giving him a kick on the seat of honour.
Mr. Walker made use of no offensive language whatever. Mr.
Hill would have used him worse if his own men had not pre-
vented him.
Cross-examined.—Mr. Hill wanted them to take the carboys
away. He did not tear Mr. Walker's coat or trousers. There
were nine or ten persons in Mr. Hill's yard. Mr. Hill's sons
were in the yard; he never heard plaintiff call them young
puppies or blackguards. He never heard that the debt that
Walker was going to pay had been owing twelve months.
William Strout deposed to being in Mr. Sinclair's employ-
ment, and going with the last witness to deliver some carboys
to Mr. Hill. He corroborated the last witness.
Cross-examined.—There was a dispute whether they should
leave the carboys or not. It was not a very hard blow, not a
"regular knock-downer." Mr. Walker would not soil his lips
with such words as blackguard. Mr. Walker was not "sick,
sore, nervous, and lame for five days afterwards;" he did not
see much difference in him.
Mr. COTTINGHAM spoke in defence.—A verdict must go
against his client because there was no doubt but that the as-
sault bad been committed ; but the assault was of such a na-