The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-02-07 00:00:00

medicine and surgery, and he stated that he did so con-
duct himself to the best of his knowledge and ability, and
that the said damage did not accrue to the plaintiff by
reason of the gross negligence or gross ignorance of the
defendant. Mr. Aspinajl said the simple question would
be, whether that amounted to a denial of any maternal
allegation in the declaration. It was admitted in the plea
that the defendant undertook the duties for hire or reward.

Mr. BRETT, at some length, supported the plea. He
contended that it set up a different undertaking from that
in the deelaration, and, if so, it amounted to a traverse of
the promise. The defendant, at the time of undertaking
the cure, limited his liability, representing that he was not
a medical man, but that such skill as he had he would use.
Mr. Brett contended, first, that the defendant was in the
position of a gratuitous baillee ; secondly, that assuming
he undertook it for hire or reward, he limited the general
liability which would follow from the position of a party
acting for hire or reward,—so that the plea, in one way or
another, amounted to a traverse of the promise on which
the declaration was founded. Then he contended that the
duty arising from the facts stated in the declaration was
only a duty to avoid gross negligence or gross ignorance.
Mr. AsPrtflLL, in reply, maintained that it did not
matter at whose request the employment originated, sup-
posing that it became an undertaking for hire or reward.
It was his duty to act with due care, and he had not done so.
The AssEssou said his opinion was very strong against
the plea, but he would take time to consider it. He thought
he might mention now, as it was a special jury case, that
Wednesday would be a good day for hearing it.—The trial,
which excites considerable interest, was then fixed for
Wednesday morning.

COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL INJURIES.—SMITH
v. MOONEY AND WIFE.-Mr. Hornby for the plaintiff,
and Mr. H. Tindal Atkinson for the defendant. This was
an action to recover damages for an assault upon the
plaintiff, whereby he had suffered considerable bodily
harm, his leg hating been fractured and his hip joint
dislocated.

Mr. HORNET stated the case. The plaintiff, William
Smith, is a man 74 3-ears of age, and has been in the ser-
vice of Messrs. Hornby and Co. 60 years of his life. On
the sth of November last, he was walking along the para-
pet of Price-street, near the Custom-house, with three
empty bottles slung from his shoulders, two behind and
one before. When he got half way down the parapet
he observed three women, of whom the defendant was
one, standing talking and stopping up fhe road. When
he got up to them, he addressed them, " ladies, please, by
your leave." Mrs. Mooney made no move to get oat of
the way, but said, "go round." One of the other women
made Ay, when the plaintiff, Smith, tried to get through
the gap. On this, Mooney seized hold of him, gave him a
tremendous shove, and sent him into the street. He fell,
and his thigh was fractured, and his hip hone dislocated.
A policeman came up, and the man, who seemed not
aware at first of the injury he had sustained, thought
more of his bottles, one of which was broken. Reapplied to the
isoliceman to make her pay, and she did, at last, give him sd.
Vhe man was then taken home, and attoßded by Evan
Thomas, the well-known bone-setter. He was confined
'to bed for five weeks. _ His wages were ,18s. per week. _

_
The defence was, that the -plaintiff, Ttushing against
Mrs. Mooney, who had a lame arm.at the time, in a sling,
she had gently shoved him .off, and that it was owing to
his being intoxicatedat the time that she fell.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £5.
AN ATTORNEY'S BIEI.--`OROBS 't) . rtAvins,—The plain-
tiff in this case is an attorney in this 'town ; the defendant
a publican and car 'proprietor, and ,the action was brought
to recover a bill ref £2 3s. 4d., for drawing an agreement
and other professional-services. Mr. Simon appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Davies 'personally defended the
action, and said that the plaintiff was a visitor at his
house, in Great Homer-streets; that he had eat and drank
of the best in the house, and he had thought that he was
acting for him 'not-professionally, but as a friend. The
jury returned 'a verdict for the plaintiff for £1 les. &I.
The learned ASSESSOR observed, that a deal of time had
been lost in the case. There was a County Court in this
town, to which such cases should be sent, and the legis-
lature was evidently of that opinion by depriving all par-
ties of oasts ,cases •of contract under £5. Parties by
coming there in trivial teases got no costs ; whereas,
they went 'to the County Court, they would gat 'costs.
But instead of that, they brought gentlemen of -the. jury
from their businesses, wkere their time would be much
better employed.

Frottirr .DIPFEEENCES.—COCKSHOOT v. COOVITOOT.
—Mr. Bolton for the plaintiff, and Mr. Aspinall for the
defendant. The plaintiff, Mrs. Cockshoot, is a widow.
Her ,busband died :Met August. He was a nrenilier in
threeelifferent burial-societies. On the day subsequent to
his ;bath, the 9th of August, (according to fire ,tase for
the plaintiff,) she went to draw the different 811 MS, to which
he was untitled, whirl amounted in all, to £22. The de-
fendant, who was her step-daughter, accompanied her,
and 'received the money. The plaintiff, at that period,
was in great trouble, having just lost her buibsrad, and
game the money to her step-daughter for the ;purpose of
paying the expenses rf the burial of the deceased. The
defendant, who wasZaughter of the deceased by a former
marriage; came to rceside with the plaiutiffirmnediately
lifter the fathers death, at a shop which he:4la kept in
Riehmond,row. The plaintiff, as widow, had not taken
*QV:letters of administration, and there was -no will left.
,Thedaughter made -some claim to the proper ty, and not
only; interfered with the goods in the shop (the deceased
was a watchmaker,,who worked at home, ,attil the shop
,Ivas kept 'for the,aale of herbs), but hattalse sold the
voidewvill of the business. There was a set-off pleaded that
•. the:money had been.applied to paying off the debts of the
deceased, but'it was .contended for the ilaintiff that the
money was the absolute property of the plaintiff, to which
•,She;:had become entitled as his widow. For the defence,
'AfissCockshoot, thaftfendant, was called. Site said that
she tad gone with the plaintiff to draw the money ; that
she '(plaintiff) had.rot drunk, and that ahahnd handed
berme money to par the funeral expenses ,and all debts.
She had done so, amongst the debts being cueefE7 odd, due
by her father to a loan society.—The plaintiff,in answer
ton question from Mr. Aspinall, in ernss.oramination,
whether she was not often very tipsy about the time of
her intsband's death,- she was sometime;, as she was
so much excited ;:the defendent told her that,ilie had mur-
dered her father. It appeared that nine days after her
husband's death, she had left, or been oompeled to leave
the ;horse, and was 210 W living in a cellar.—The jury,
after an absence of about an hour from court, returned a
verdietfor the plaintiffs £l4 6s. Bd.
SURGEONS TO EnlarANT SHIPS.—HMLY v. SAUL
AND A.siornsn.—Mr. Aston for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Millwadl for the defendants.—The plaintiff in this case,
Mr. Hi y, is a physician, surgeon, and apothecary, at
Manchester ; and the defendants, Messrs. Saif and Mar-
tindale, .;emigration agents, in this town. The case for
the plaintiff was as follows :—On the 25th of June he
agreed with the defendants to go as surgeon in the ship
Millicent to Quebec. He,agreed to take claw of the
steerage, -as,d second-elasseabin passengers on the voyage,
and to asoiet the captain ha writing out a passengers' list
and distributing passenger& .stores, if required; sand the
defendants, engaged that they would give him e 25 and
a free passage, paying £lO Jere, and the balance.on the
vessel's arrival out in Quebec. It was also stipnkted in
the agreement that the vessel :.should sail on orabout
the 27th of July. At the time he made the ,agree-
ment, he left with the defoiniants his diploma, and
other certificates of qualification.. The plaintiff 'came
over here; but the ship did not sail till three weeks after
;the time appointed. He then demanded something for
the delay to which he had been subj-4ted, and that hifing
Teen refused, another surgeon weirt.out in the ship. The
Rlaintiff retained the £lO, and the defendants kept :his
.diploma, s,c.—The defence was thattthevessel had been
,anuovoidably detained the time statedowing to. the , want
of .-passengers, and that when it was ready the plaintiff
hail refused to perform his contract, Although the Ale-
fendants were willing to take him. Mr. Saul, one, of the
.defendants,.called,:sa that the diploma And othendoeu-
ments load been-leftns security till the vessel had sailed,
on the £lO advanced. it was unusual to got Quebec ves-
sels ready, as soon as New York ships, owing to the want
of passengers, and they :were usually detained from ten to
fointeentlitys.—Mr. Simi:, and Mr. Charles 51:Ii.11, passen-
ger brokers, both stated that they thought fourteen days
a moderate time of detention for a Quebec vessel.—The
learned Asse..%or then carefolly summed up, and the jury
returned ;a:general verdict fi.r the defendants, Air. Mill-
ward offeriug,,on behalf of 441 defendants, to give sip the
diploma ,and(otlier p7peron .re -payment by the ;Plaintiff
of £lO,

ACTION ON A. BILL OF 'EXPICtiNGD AND PROMI.BSOR"j•
NOTE.—This was an undefended action, in which Sir
George Stephen •ap,mared for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs
were the Accidentld Insurance C 0.., and the defendant
Mr. Wm. Tomlinson. The action was brought upon a
bill of exchange for CM is. 6d., while the defendant had
endorsed to the plaintiffs ;and also upon .a promissory note
for £2l 3s. 6d., which the defendant dad signed. Mr.
Rymer, solicitor, spoke to the handwritiox of the defend.
ant ; and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, for
the joint amount with interest. The court yen adjourned
witil nine o'clock this morning,