The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-03-29 00:00:00

Tenag lady in ()Jobe, ,
asked him to introduce her to some ni
!rote to his father, and expi esseu
~ ger ; she was fearful that he wc
Vie
defendant was annoyed that she
VI sister did not accuse them of ho,
',rather. Miss Delemer was not ill in consequence of
!hat occurred. She obtained a written promise from the
defendant ; and when she had got it she did not say to her
husband, "Now it is all right, send him away." SE,
did not, at the time she obtained the promise, tell 1'
that her niece was likely to die, and that the promisp
necessary to save her life. Her niece was in good
Prep time.
_Her husband's income -
Ous to Iflal her husband receivec
I,",ses, after interest and mortgage me
husband received it; she never receiveu
t• Delemer occupied a sitting-room besidFs
0!ce• He occupied part of the sitting-room with Gauti
hue Put her niece's name over the grocer's shop, bee
telt husband had another business of his own, as
h„?, works, and was at that time superinte-
‘l'ding of a bakehouse.
Mrs. Marie Jeannette, wife of the Rs-
118114.ate of Haydock, said she visit(
and saw there the defendant, Mr.
iTiaently in the company of Miss Richai
`".r. Delemer almost every day say something about mar-
Peg Miss Richardson. He invited her to visit them ;
mar-
,
Peg
to go with them to Paris. He said it would not
convenient for him to be married until lie recr:-
tn °IleY for the patent from Messrs. Bird. The defendant
appeared
to be very much attached to Miss Richardson.
Mr. Gautier said he was present when the defendant
beenrried to Miss Mather in November last. He had
r„.s Paying his addresses to Miss Mather a very short
Delemer was indebted to him now £3OO or £4OO.
e could not say whether he was able to pay him.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS then addressed the jury for the
aef
enee. If it was meant for a single moment to be said
that his client had seduced the young woman, the law gave
a t!llledy. This was not an action for seduction, but an
"Jon for breach of promise of marriage. It was, in
Paint of fact, an action for breach of contract, and the
len' had to say, as men of business, what damage, what
'las, this young woman had sustained in consequence of
the breach of contract. He should not be a bit surprised
If, at the next assizes, they found his learned friend very
eloquent in an action of seduction against the same man.
He. asked them not to be led astray by the representations
!finch had been made of the wounds which this young
lady had received in her heart. These things were all
'very pretty to be talked about ; they very easily excited
??Ingladies in novels ; but broken hearts were notcommon
things, and generally speaking, at the age of 21 nature
3/1s so buoyant, the world presented so many objects of
attraction, there was so much to divert, to please, and to
snakeone forget, that without indulging in any spirit of pro-
phecy he would undertake that this young lady would
""ow no symptoms of a broken heart that day twelve
thathey would do justice between the parties.
els lordship summed up, and remarked that whatever
me notions of those who came' to this country from
When
might be, they must either conform to the law
,1,11 here, or take the consequences.
ve kle jury , after retirin for a short time, returned a
_ rdict for the plaintiff, g damages £lOO. The damages
were laid at £l,OOO.

alcl Co

ear from
aid. Her

)stler in N

)elemer, who was
rdson. She heard

ed the

THURSDAY, MARCH 24.
thbAcaß V. DAWSON.—In this action Susan Deere was
,p,!' Plaintiff, and James Edward Dawson the defendant.
bad declaration was on a claim for money lent and money
and received. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff,
"nlages £5O, subject to a reference.
--,,soN• DACRE AND ANOTHER.—This was a Cross-
ea n arising out of transactions involved in the preceding
f 0.8% A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, by consent,
,4'BB 14s. 10d., subject to a reference.
doN„,
are AND ANOTHER V. HARRAP. The plaintiffs
4.,_,urieklayers Chorlton.upon-Medlock, Manchester,
ti:u the defendant is a builder and contractor residing
late. The declaration was for debt, for work,. and
tifrourp and materials. A verdict was taken for the plain-
far X6O, subject to a reference.
Stat" 4 v. BIGLAND AND OTHERS. The declaration
ed that the defendants, as the brokers of the plaintiff,
tons rented to him that they bad purchased for him 25
pri: Of Palm oil, to arrive by a certain vessel, at a certain
oire,Whereas the defendants had not purchased the palm
9n the terms aforesaid, but upon different terms. The
urtepl°tiff was nonsuited, leave being given to move in the
above.
oloe
port LR V. JOULE.—The plaintiff is an extensive ale and
bu,der brewer at Salford. The defendant is now out of
kile• The action was brought to recover two princi-
te trt;c43, 9 of £l,OOO and £2,000 with interest for a long
and °L Years, and also money lent on a promissory note,
expenses incurred. The jury gave a verdict for the
plaintiff for £1,560, upon the first two counts in the de-
otarationp and for the defendant upon the other counts.
„ANTHONY AND ANOTHER v. BRADFORD .—A verdict
sl6ntaken.in this case for the plaintiffs, by consent, for
up subjec` to terms.
The courCrose shortly after six o'clock, till Saturday
morning.

SATURDAY, M.Aucx 26.
The
COTTRILL AND OTHERS V. LATHAar.
en anplintiffs are bleachers at eat Lever, an th
aef -
ta a boiler-maker, at Bolton. Great
d The plaintiffs con-
e
tracted with the defendant to construct a boiler for them,
'Which he warranted to work at a pressure of 60ib s. to the
square inch. Whilst the boiler was being worked at a
Pressure of from 501bs. to 52ibs., it exploded, and blew
11P the entire of plaintiffs' premises. The plaintiffs
'ought to recover £3,176, the value of the building and
no
Fv.P6rt destroed. Mr. Kwles. Q.C., and Mr. Sow-
-I..er. appeared fory the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Serjeant Wilkins,
'lr. Cowling, and Mr. Cross for the defendant. For the
Plaintiff it was shown that the explosion took place on
the 18th of September. The pressure at which the boiler
usually worked was from 301bs. to .101bs. to the square
Inch, and at that pressure an escape of steam from the
rivet holes was observed by Mr. Cottrill's engineer, who
directed attention to it. On the day of the explosion the
boiler was being worked up to a pressure of 531b5., at
which point steam blew off from the safety valve, which
Would reduce the pressure to 501bs. or 521b5., and whilst
Working at this pressure the explosion took place, the
Water and other guages indicating that everything was in
Proper order to secure the safe working of the boiler, and
the entire concern destroyed.—His lordship left three
restions to the jury :-Ist, Was the boiler properly
3 acie Was it fit to bear a pressure of 601bs. to the
:lure inch ; 3d, \Vas it, in point of fact, working at
71(It.re than 601bs. at the time of the explosion.—The jury
ceo 'rd, and after an absence of about an hour came into
peptlitt• Their finding was, that the boiler was not pro-
ati-4 Petty made ; that it was not fit to bear a pressure of 601bs. ;
a e,,Leat they had no evidence to show it was working at
oft'essilre of above GOlbs. to the square inch at the time
14osion.—His lordship : That is a verdict for the
-fluffs. The question of damages was referred.
Th. COLLIER V. JAMIESON.
1% Is was an action brought by a machine agent, at
Astlitehester, for £42, against a machine-manufacturer, at
fel-la-Under-Lytle. The plaintiff procured for the de-
-110 ant an order from a millowner, named Haigh, for.
sion-arding engines, at £l6 each, and claimed commis-
,at the rate of V, per cent., the amount which he
Arel.gPt to recover. The defendant denied the agency.
The
for the plaintiff.
ue Court adjourned to Monday.
• THE NEW COURTS.
itip,-11tig the proceedings, on Saturday, the judge, the
and the counsel frequently declared it impossible
eou'lar,the witnesses ; or that the business of the assizes
atrat ee conducted satisfactorily under the present
bei„ Cements of the court. Whilst witnesses were
ora:g examined in the very inconvenient and out-of-the-
aliciiVstrum, intended as a witness-box, they were in-
terned ,t,e jude and jur ; and when, with a view to
the 0 Y Leis defg ect, the witnesses were made to stand on
bar. PITT to side of the court, they were inaudible to the
arrange";,? lordship expressed his disapprobation of the
and otC rents of the court ; and the Attorney-General,
that , - leading counsel, expressed their astonishment
had bnotwithstanding the repeated representations which
assiz_en made upon this subject, at two or three previous
of tLes. the present absurd and inconvenient arrangements
defeue court should be allowed to continue. The same
as,. et exists in the Crown Court; and, at the present
t:zes, all the witnesses examined have been placed be-
t}, een the bench and the jury-box, standing upon one of
seats intended for attorneys. Another defect in the
l'rangetnents of the court is the want of accommodation
or the press, which appears to have been quite overlooked,
tlO definite place being set apart for the reporters. At
Present they are " tolerated," when they can find room,
at the end of the attorneys' table; but there they are
subjected to all kinds of annoyance from witnesses,
solicitors, and court-loungers, who are constantly passing,
rendering it almost impossible to discharge their some-
What, at times, difficult duties. The attention of the St.
t'eorge's-hall Committe should be immediateiy directed
the removal of these e
inconveldences.