The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-08-19 00:00:00

ELAND AND OTHERS V. GOFF

This 'was an. action brought by the plaintiff; who is a wine
and spirit merchant in Liverpool,_against the defendant, who
is the captain of the Prince Llewe4n steam-btiat, which Makes
trips between Liverpool and Wales, for £2-1, the cost of plain-
tiff's bill for sut-iplying the defendant's ship with spirits and
porter. The action was brought against the captain, the profit
made by the sale of litluots being the perquisites of the. captain
Mr. Cresswell defended the case, and Mr. Wightmau ap-
peared for the plaintiff.'
The plaintiffs failed in proving to whom the goods had. been
delivered, and consequently. a verdict was given for the de-
fendants.'

McCOY V. GLASOCITT AND OTHERS.

Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiff,
and the Attorney-General for the defence.
This was an action brought to recover the balance of
£l5. 14s. 2d. on a debt due by the defendants, who are marine
store-keepers in London, and carry on business in Liverpool by
itti agent named Stoneham. The plaintiffs were dealers in cop-
per in Liverpool, and had sold a large quantity of old copper to
the defendants at the rate of 81d. per lb., amounting altogether
to £51.195. 10d., for which £25 was paid on account. For
the defence it was set up that a quantity of this copper was bra-
ziery, and of inferior value, and on that account, defendants re-
fused to pay the plaintiff's bill. The plaintiff proved that he had
paid Bd. per lb. for the capper sold to the defendants, and that
all the profit he got was one farthing per lb., for which he had
the trouble and expense of purchasing, carting, and giving cre-
dit; and the total profit on this sum obtained by defendant was
only El. Bs. The defendants had since the action was brought
paid into court £7B, which was the debt and law expenses, but
that 'a balance of 1;15 was still due to the plaintiff. The case
occupied a considerable time, a number of witnesses being ex-
amined to prove that a distinction was made in the price of old
copper and braziery. There was considerable variation in the
evidence, some of the witnesses not before having heard of the
term " braziery."
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £15.45.2d.
BROWN V. LEDDINGTON.
_ .

In this case a verdict was taken by consent for the plaintiff
Damages, ..£2l
FOULKS, GENTLEMAN V. MERCER.
In this case Mr. Foulkes, solicitor, of Manchester, i§
and Mr. William Mercer, defendant.
This was an action to recover the amount of a bill due to the
plaintiff for conducting an assault cause for the defendant at the
Court of Common Pleas, at Lancaster. The hill had..treen de-
livered in September, 1835, and amounted to .453 195.,2d. The
defendant 'had repeatedly promised to pay. The presentatien
of the bill and the debt were proved.
, The cause was undefended.,
verdict
The jury, by his lordship's direction, found a for the
plaintiff—. Damages, £53 19s. 24. '..uo no 1,19 i '
GREGORY V. WARD. .71'+‘.,.7, ,!ii
Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Wightman appearedfor the plaintiff,
and .Mr, Alexander for the defence.
The plaintiff in this case complained that the defendant hav-
ing possession of some scaffolding timber of his converted it to,
his own use. The facts of the case were these :—!The plaintiff
and defendant were both very young men, and.had served their
apprenticeship together. The plaintiff resided at rOrmskirk,
and was attempting to establish himself as a bricklayer theie.
The defendant lived at Southport, and was a joiner. The de-
fendant undertook to build some. houses at Southport, and was
desirous of employing the plaintiff. The plaintiff, for that, pur-
pose, removed with his scaffolding to Southport. It appeared
that the plaintiff and defendant then quarrelled, and the plain-
tiff sent for his scaffolding timber, and defendant said, " No, he
shan't have it; if he dares to set a foot on nay property I will
bring an action against him." It was true that the defendant
would have had a right of action for trespass if the plaintiff had
gone on his premises, but be had rendered himself liable to an
action for converting this scaffolding to his own use. The
value of the scaffolding was £7 or ES. For the defence it was
urged that the plaintiff and his brother had a dispute which
should possess the scaffolding after it was erected by the plain-
tiff opposite the defendant's house, the father having given it. to
one of the brothers, and that the two brothers had a race, along
With their men, to obtain possession, and finally a fight, when
defendant ordered. both off his premises; 'the result of which
was, that the plaintifrs brother got possession of and kept the
scaffolding, for whiCh the plaintiff brought an action against the
defendant as • keeping possession. Witnesses were called on
both sides to prove this. His lordship, in addressing the jury,
said it was entirely a question of credibility of the several wit-
nesses.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant.
EATON V. BAXTER AND OTHERS.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
Mr. Alexander and gr. Tomlinson appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Cressviell for the defence.
The declaration stated, that this was an action brought for
assault and battery, and keeping the plaintiff in false impri-
sonineat for several hours, and bringing him handcuffed through
the 'Streets of Pr'eSCot;
Mr. ALIiXAN DER, in opening the case, designated this a most
wanton attack on the liberty of the subject. The plaintiff, Mr.
Eaton, was an-accountant's clerk in Prescot. On the evening
of, the 4th of ,fuly,-the plaintiff was assisting person of the
name of Parkinson, who is an innkeepor at Prescot, in settling,.
his tieetinnts, And lb bottling some porter. He been work-
ing all day,;uni was lying on the settle fast asleep, and there
were several other persons in the room, when five persons, three
of whom were constables,' entered for the purpose of taking
Parkinsoninto custody for an assault. After.,scirne resistance
on the part of Parkinson, he was taken into
,eu,stoily ;, after
which their iblzedihe plaintiff, who was dying' `asleep; and took
,hirn aw g ay,,alon with another person named-JOnes, to the dun-
geon of the town, a place where there was no window and no
chair; and with"nothiug but some 'straw on" the door. They
were kept there till next day at eleven o'clock, when, they were
handcuffed together, and taken through the. public streets be-
fore the magistrates. The plaintiff was then kept in a public
room till five o'clock waiting tO be brought betore the magi-
strates, when one of the defendants named Webster. Caine to
him, and told him he might go, as they had no evidence against
him ; they found he had been asleep. The plaintiff went away,
and now brought this action to recover compensation for the
gross injury he had received.
Witnesses were called for the plaintiff who proved that the
plaintiff had been imprisoned as stated. A witness named
Jones, on his cross-examination, admitted that he was present
in the public room on the night in question, and that when the
constables came the candles were blown out, and one of the
constables was severely beaten. He himself was fined 40s.
Whilst the examination of the witnesses was proceeding Mr.
Alexander, in reply to a question from his lordship, admitted
that he should be unable to prove the plea entered on the re.
cord for the defence that there were two assaults committed by
the plaintiff on the defendants. His lordship said in that case
it was clear bow the verdict must go. Mr. Alexander, conse-
quently, stopped the case for the prosecution.
Mr. 'CRESSWICK, for the defence, contended that the plain-
tiff was one of the active parties who had committed the assault
on the constable, and was the party who had first blown out the
candle. He called Finney, one of the constables, who proved
that Eaton had blown out the candle, and that he (witness) was
most seriously injured and beaten in the row whlub succeeded,
and that Eaton was a person who got his living where he could.
Mr. ALEXANDER replied. •
His LORDSHIP. in summing up, said that the defendants ad-
mitted the fact, and pleaded a justification, which plea they had
not fully borne out. The question, therefore, was merely one
of damages for the jury to decide on. He strongly deprecated
the use of the handcuffs, and the mode of confinement of the
plaintiff.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff; damages LIO ;
costs 40s.

The court was adjourned at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY.

The court was opened this morning soon after nine o'clock.
moo itE V. HOUGHTON.

Mr. Cresswell appeared for the plaintiffs, and Messrs. Wieg-
man and Crompton for the defence.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a merchant
at Belfast, against the defendant, who is an underwriter at
Lloyds, residing at Liverpool, to recover the sum of £5OO, in-
sured on the ship Margarite, in March, 1833, and £4OO on the
cargo. The defendant's case in this instance was opened first.
Mr. WIGHTMAN contended that certain facts relating to the
state of the vessel. known by the plaintiff, were concealed from
the defendant in effecting the insurance, and that an insurance
had been effected on the vessel and cargo under a wrong im-
pression as to the time of her sailing from Trinidad, from which
place she never returned, being losi on her voyage home to
Liverpool, the day after the insurance was effected. He con-
tended that the defendants had in their possession letters which
stated that this vessel had sailed on the 17th of January, and
that Mr. Bushby, the agent of the owners in Liverpool, bad
other letters from Mr, Moon of Belfast, the owner, expressing
serious apprehensions for the safety of the vessel, which facts
he had not communicated to the underwriters at the time the in-
surance was effected. That under apprehensions for the safety
of the vessel from these statements, Mr. Bushby, by ordn of
the consignees, Messrs. Murray of Liverpool, had caused the
insurance to be effected in his own name, a previous endeavour
to get the vessel insured in London in the name ei the owners
having failed. it was represented to the underwriters that the
vessel would sail on the 19th of January or after, instead of on
the 17th, which was the fact,-and which was known to the plain-
tiffs, and which, if it had been known to the defendants, Would
have so far influenced them as not to undertake the risk at all,
or at a ranch higher premium.
Thomas Murray, a merchant of Liverpool, and correspond-
ent of nessrs. Murphy, of Trinidad, the owners of the cargo,
and also of Messrs. Moore, of Belfast, the owners of the vessel,
was called.—He deposed to receiving several letters (which
were put in and read) from Messrs. Moore, of Belfast, from the
6th of March to the 14th, 1833, inclusive, expressing fears fur
the safety of the vessel, and finally, that she was thought to be
lost; and also a letter from Trinidad on the 21st, requesting an
additional £4OO insurance, to be effected on the cargo. Insur-
ances were generally effected in London. They had tried to
get the insurance effeetedthein, but had not succeeded.
Cross-examined.—There were other insurances on the goods
amounting to about £l6OO. He was consulted by Mr. Bushby,
an agent for the owners, with regard to effecting an insurance,
and as to the amount of premium which should be given. After
that consultation he (witness) agreed to give five guineas per
cent., which was an extra premium.
Samuel Martin, of the firm of Messrs. M‘Murdo, Rathhonef
and, Martin, insurance brokers, of Liverpool, deposed to being
the broker who effected the policy in question. He was ap-
plied to by Mr. Parker, of the Alliance Insurance Office, to
effect the insurance in question. He learned from him that he
had applied the day before to get the insurance effected. Mr.
Bushby gave him the particulars of the vessel to write' down,
and afterwards read and altered those particulars. The time
mentioned for the ship to sail was put.down the 19th of January,
He said he would engage that she had not 'tailed 'before the
19th, but that she might have been detained after. Ile after-
wards learnt that a packet had arrived from Trinidad, bearing
letters up to the 31st of January, and told Mr. Bushbvihat he
was sure the sailing of the vessel must be known. He replied
he was certain his friend Mr. Moore, the owner of the vessel,
did not know. He afterwards offered the risk in the under-
writers' room, telling the underwriters what Mr. Bushby had
said, and effecting the insurance at five guineas per cent.
Cross-examined.---He had seen Mr. Parker, the chief clerk in
the Alliance Insurance Office, the day before the insurance was
effected, and learnt from him the particulars of Mr. Bushby's
application to him of the day before.
John Parker, chief clerk in the Alliance Insurance Office,
deposed to trying to get the insurance effected the day before it
was done, and that the date of the sailing of the vessel was stated
to him to be the 19th of January.