The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-03-31 00:00:00

WOODS V. TWEEDLE AND ANOTHER.

The plaintiff in this case was an attorney at Rochdale, and
the defendants are woollen-taanufacturers, carrying on busi-

ness at the same place. The action was brought by the.
plaintiff for the recovery of £124 95., the amount of plain-
tiff's bill for .defending . the defendants in an action brought
against them. by a person named Smith, at the Liverpool
Summer Assizes for 1838. In this action a verdict was 647-
tained for the defendants, but the plaintiff. either from po-
verty or some other cause, preferred imprisonment. to pay-
ing.
the costs of the action, and the conseqUence was, that
Mr. Woods, the defendants' attorney, (and in the present
action the plaintiff,) Chained his bill from Messrs.. w eed .
Mr. ALExANDun (with whom was,4lr. IlOuGtss.) stated
the case to the jury. lie said the action out .of which this
debt arose originated as follows :—Messrs. John and Robert
Tweedle had taken from Mr. Chad Wick, of Rochdale, a
piece:of ground in the neighbourhood of their manufactory,
for the purpose of building upon, and they had built upon it
to the height
.of two stories, when a farmer named Smith
said they had built upon laud of which he was tenant,
and brought his action for recovery of damages. Messrs.
'Tweedle defended them Selves upon the ground that Mr.
Chadwick had, when he sold thetn the land, the right reserved
to him of selling the land occupied by SiLith. In this de-
fence, which was conducted by Mr. Woods, the present
plaintiff', they succeeded, and after some delay, Mr. Woods
sent in his bill, which amounted to £124 19a. The defend-
ants intimated that they 'did not intend to pay the bill, on
the ground that Mr. Chadwick was the proper person, inas-
much as the action arose through him. This probably was
the fact, but Mr. Chadwick refused to pay, and as Mr.
Woods had no Oahu upon him, be was compelled to seek the
recovery of his bill from the present defendants, Messrs.
Tweedle.

Mr. CRESSWELL (with whom was Mr. WATSON) ad-
dressed the jury for the defendants disputing the retainer,
and contending that the plaintiff, being the solicitor of Mr.
Chadwick, had attended the Liverpool Assizes in the action -7'
in question as his solicitod and not as the solicitor to con-
duct this case for Messrs. Tweedle ; and, in fact, he observed
that his learned friend, in opening the ease, said the defend-
ants had refused to pay the bill on the ground, which he ad-
mitted was reasonable enough, that Mr. Chadwick having
brought the defendants into this difficulty, was bound to see
them harmless out of itt: The learned counsel then called
witnesses to prove that there was an understanding through-
out the case; that the Tweedles were only nominal parties in
the action, and that Chadwick, being the landowner, was the
only person having an interest in the action, and consequently .
responsible for the expenses • that witnesses in the action •
were paid by Mr. Sutcliffe, fand-agent to Mr. Chadwick's
estates, for their attendance at the assizes, and that he also
paid for the plans of the estate. Amongst the witnesses
called by Mr. Cresswell were several of those subpoenaed in
the former action, and one of these proved that Mr. Woods,
in a conversation with the Messrs. Tweedle, before the
action, when they objected to' it, that they would rather lose
the cost of the buildings, than dispute the matter, replied,
" Never mind, you will not have to pay a farthing, but your
names are necessary to carrying on the. action."
Mr. ALEXANDER replied. . .
Mr. Justice ERSKINE said, the learned counsel .for the
plaintiff had put the case to the jury as though the question
was whether Mr. Chadwick, Messrs. Tweedle, or any one
-else had retained Mr. Woods, and whether Mr. Woods 'vas.
to lose the remuneration for his professional labours. Now
this was not the question. The question was whether
had or hail not a retainer from Messrs. Tweedle; because,
if an attorney to a landlord undertook to defend the tenants
in an action, under the supposition that the landlord would
pay him, and gave the tenants an assurance that he would
not come upon them, he was not to turn round when he'
found out his mistake and that he could not get it from the
landlord, and claim his bill from the tenants. Prima facie
there was a case for the plaintiff, but the question was, whe-
ther tlrt was not satisfactorily answered by the witnesses for
the de endants. -
Thejury found for the defendants.
ROCKLIFFE V. TOPPING.
The' plaintiff in this case, Mr. Richard Rockliffe, was
blacksmith, residing at West Leigh, and the defendant Mr.
John Topping, a gentleman residing at the same place. In
the year 1828, Mr. Topping commenced working some coal
;mines in that neighbourhood, and had employed the plaintiff
to mariutlicture implements required in the working of these
)ruined. The action was brotight to recover £2B. Is. 5d., the
balance of an account due to plaintiff for the work. The
~action was undefended. Verdict for the plaintiff.

MARSH V. COLLARD.

John F. Marsh, the plaintiff, is the owner of a house at
New Ferry, and some time since let that house to the defend-
ant, Mr. Abraham W. Collard.. The rent became due, when
the defendant being unable to pay, gave the complainant a
promissory note for the amount, at four months, which, on
its becoming due, the defendant denied. The amount was
£46 Is. fid. The action was undefended=—verdict for plaintiff.
GREENALL AND OTHERS V. HUMPHREYS.

This was an action brought to reserve the amount of two
bills of exchange from the defendant John Humphreys, one
for £6O and the other for 469. The bills were drawn so far
back as 1832, and the interest accumulated upon them brought
the claim up to £155 17s. 3d. The defendant when called
upon denied that he was the party who signed the acceptance.
The action was not defended, and the jury round for the

BROTIIERTON V. SOTHERN.

Mr. Brotherton is a tailor in Liverpool, and this action
was brought by him for the recovery of £l2O 17s. due from
Mr. Benjamin C. Sothern, for clothes supplied to him by
the plaintiff. The action was undefended. Verdict tor
plaintiff,
. .

JONES AND ANOTHER V: GORE.

•

Messrs. John and William Jones, the plaintiffs, and Mr.
Gore. the defendant, are builders in this town. The action
was brought to recover £2l 8s 2d., the amount of a bill due
from the defendant for the work of two men whom he had sup-
plied to defendant for seven weeks. Action undefended—
verdict for the plaintiffs.
SPENCE V. ETRKETT. •
The plaintiff is a merchant in this town, and in the course
of last year built seven cottages. The defendant, Robert
Birkett, is a joiner, and undertook to erect the seven houses
for Mr. Spence, at the rate of £7O each. The defendant, as
was stated by Mr. Wightman, was not in very good circum-
stances when he undertook the contract, and the mode of
doing business between the plaintiff and defendant was,
that the former supplied the money and materials. At the
conclusion of the contract there was a balance due to plaintiff
of .-t:104 3s 11d, for cash and materials supplied over and
above the contract. The case appeared to be undefended.-
and his Lordship was about to address the jury, when the
defendant appeared in court. and said that his attorney was .:igg
out of town, and that was the reason why he was unprepared 'l,lO
to go on with the case. He wished the case, however, to go on,
and his answer was that he undertook to build the cottages for
£490. He commenced the buildings', but before a week was
over, he came and set his men off their work. He then came <ll
again, and set to work part of the men.. He set four, with a
painter of the name of Jones. When Jones- had completed'
his work, he called upon Mr. Spence for the 'payment. He •
would not pay Jones, and lie employed an attorney, and com- .1 0.,
pelted him to pay the amount. He let the plastering- and
slating to a person named ..M`Neile.. There was a person • '
whom defendant employed for the masonry, and .plaintiff
turned him away. He.turned others away in the same man- r
tier. Under these circumstances, defendant asked his lord-
ship whether the contract.was not broken ? His Lordship said
he must see the contract ; but the defendant had not a copy of
it. Defendant then called witnesses, who proved what he
had stated, and also that plaintiff had repeatedly said defend-
ant had nothing to do with the buildings. Notwithstanding
this defence, the defendant admitted a written document,
acknowledging a balance of the sum claimed, and under the
direction of the learned judge, the jury found a verdict for
the plaintiff. The defendant in this case had an action in

the cause list against the plaintiff for £39, arising out of the
same transaction. The case had been called on in the morn-
ing, but was withdrawn. Mr. WIGIITMAN, however, stated,
that in order to secure theMselves against the cause being
re-entered, they were willing to deduct that amount from the
present verdict. A verdict for .Eti4 only, was therefore re-
turned.

STOCK AND ANOTHER V. IDDON.
This was an action on the part of the plaintiffs, Messrs.
Stock and Co., to recover from the defendant, Mr. Richard
Iddon, of Charley, £l5O Is Bd. the amount of a bill of ex-
change accepted by defendant, and Al 12s Bd. The action
was undefended, and the jury found a verdict for the plain-
tiffs.
GOSLING AND ANOTHER V. KMDROSE.
The plaintiffs in this case are spirit merchants in this
town, and the defendant a publican. The action was brought
to recover a balance of £45 10s. on an amount remaining • ,
from 1830. The defendant's plea was that the money had
been paid, and as the case would involve an examination of
the books, the parties consented to a verdict for the plaintiff
for the .amount claimed subject to a reference. The court
adjourned at half-past five.

IMPORTANT DECLARATION OF THE KING OF

HOLLAND

(From the Handelsbladd
(BY ExpitEss.)
I hasten to communicate to you the highly important news
that his Majesty the King, yesterday made known his reso-
lution to desist from his marriage with the Countess d'Oultre-
mont. _ _

AMSTERDAM, MARCH 25.—The King has vanquished him-
self ! Let us rejoice at a triumph to which so few of the
heroes whose names once tilled the world can pretend ; a
triumph not gained at the expense of blood and tears, but
will be recorded in history among the glorious deeds of the
House of Orange. The prince who governs us has conquered
his own heart, which is a greater act of self-denial than sa-
crificing his life for his country. The prince, who manifests
such virtue, excites admiration, but when he does it to avoid
grieving his faithful subjects, to turn their mourning into
joy, he deserves our sincerest, and most affectionate grati-
tude.

THE HAGUE, MARCH 26.—From the information which
we have from good authority that the (above) news given by
the Handelsblad is correct, and that it causes a lively and
deep sensation in this town.—Journal de la Hoye, Mar. 27.
MARCH 25.—" I am happy to send you to-day the joyful
news that our revered sovereign moved by the manifest
wishes of his faithful subjects, has renounced his intended
marriage with the Countess d'Oultremont. His Majesty
yesterday evening announced this happy news to his assem-
bled family."
Though another correspondent yesterday sent us this news
by express, we thought it right to give our readers this second
letter.

01*

4O
Her Majesty, we understand, intends giving a series of 12 139 Ertl
state balls at the new Palace, the first to take place imme- 51v
diately after Easter. ;31
9

The high repute which E. and T. Taylor's Concentrated 13*
Meat Lozenges have acquired in the opinion of the faculty , "
has caused a most unprecedented sale, and when we consider•"
tb ,
how essential they are in families where prompt nutriment is
the object, we recommend them without hesitation, more IQ: 3i;
especially to those who have been prematurely deprived of ~.„016 ,
their masticatory power, as well as to those who have passed
the meridian of life ; in fact, they arc invaluable to the 001. a 0.
invalid, whose digestive organs cannot bear the tardy process
of animal nutriment in the usual course of nature. None are T.' • '
genuine but those bearing the signature of E. and 'l'. Taylor, ,14
(on the small portable box which contains them,) of 17, .sift
Lower Holborn, London, which may be obtained in every -,
principal town throughout the kingdom.—See adrt.

There are to he gay doings at Badminton. The Hereditary 11.
Prince of Saxe Coburg and Gotha, who is fond of hunting, bil;-;
has arrived at that elegant seat, and it is stated in the Lon-
don papers that his Royal Highness Prince George of Cam- --
bridge leaves town in a feW days for Badminton, on a visit to
the Duke and Duchess of Beaufort, during the sojourn of ,
his Serene Highness. The Earl and Countess of Chester aai,-
field, the Earl and Countess Wilton, Lord Adolphus Fitz- ,k
clarence, the Hon, Captain Macdonald, Mr. Wombell, &c.. Ito?.
are expected to join the circle.—Bath Chronicle.
DEFEAT OF THE CORN LAW REPEALERS AT BRISTOL.—
3;'1"
A meeting of the radical corn-law azitators was held at the eif.
Corn-Exchange, on Monday last. The chair was taken by 1.}91 )0'
Mr. Reynolds. Mr. R. Bruce professed himself in favourof
of a gradual abrogation, but an amendment demanding their Ago-df,
total and immediate repeal was moved by Mr. Tuthill and bos
seconded bY
--k
Mr. Cox, amid the rising discontent lot
leading radicals and cries of " The Charter," and,!`-bril;Si-iq
from the \vhigs." The clamour increasing;
tempted to pacify the people, but was. Interrul‘Prit.eidlul-ty!eiNnrfoialt:--
gan, a well-known chartist, who carried the inegAigg! such 51''' a r
as it was, befdre him. The whig-radical
tempted to put him down, and he was followed by abother. " 9 01"
Great were the efforts to counteract the opposition, but the
h Isll/
'
radicals were compelled to leave the platform to
thechartists,
•
who gave three cheers in token of their triumph. The re-
pealers were totally routed, and the petition which they in-
tended
to adopt was carried off unsigned.—Bath Chronicle.