The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-10-28 00:00:00

of law as laid down by the Assessor, not placing the slightest

credence on the evidence.
The A ssESSOR said, if he should find he was wrong in point
of law, he should allow the defendant to enter 8. 11011-Stlit. .
TUCKER, EXECUTOR, SCC., V. MASON, EXECUTRIX, &C.
Mr. VENABLES appeared for the plaintiff, and stated the
case. John Tucker, the plaintiff, was the executor of lohu
Lutterbe, decea,ed_ and the defendant, Jane Mason, was
the executrix of John Mason, chiceased, and the action was
brought against her as such for goods furnished to her husband
during his life time. The plea raised in defence was, that the
administrati ix had not fully administered to the goods and chat-
tels which came to her hands. The question to try was, whe-
ther o r nut the defendant had fully administered? He should
give prima facie evidence that the deceased Mason had left
property to a considerable amount, and amongst the rest one or
two pilot-boats. It would be for the defendant to show that she
had not fully administered. The amount ;might for was
135. lls. 9d.

Mr. COTTINGLIA m appeared for the defence.
Mr. John Lease, the collector of the pilot's committee, was
called to prove that the deceased pilot Mason had a share in
No. 10 pilot-boat, which share was worth £5O, and had since a
share in another boat, the boat being worth £1,200.
On being cross-examined, the witness said the deceased Ma-
son died very poor. The defendant owed them money, which
had become due since her husdand's death. The privilege of
the pilot-boat was worth £l,OOO.
Mr. David Rowland deposed that the eighth of a pilot-boat,
with the privilege, would he worth about £5OO.
On being cross-examined, he said the boat was worth about
£BOO, and the privilege £1,600. The eighth of that was £3OO.
Mr. Cottinghaei called the son of the defendant to prove that
his mother had paid a sum of £65, which more than covered the
£5O, value, of the boat, which came to her.
The Assassoa said the question now was, whether this privi-
lege wds to he taken into account, which was a question of law;
and the jury would give a nominal verdict for the sum sought to
be recovered, reserving the result for his opinion on the point
of laiv..:--Virdict accordingly.

YESTERDAY.
MURROW V. CLEMENTSON.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of £2O, the
amount of an attorney's bill, due by the defendant to the
plaintiff.
Mr. Murphy appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Venables for
the defence.
It appeared that the plaintiff was the son-in-law of the defend-
ant, having married the defendant's daughter against her fa-
ther's consent. The father was in difficulties, and the son-in-

law, the plaintiff, who was an attorney's clerk, undertook to
rescue him out of his difficulties, as a friendly act, and in order
to procure a reconciliation. This was consented to, and in
process of time the defendant got through his difficulties. The
plaintiff then sent him in a bill for his services and legal
charges, amounting to £2O, for what the defendant had under-
stood was a friendly act. The defendant would not pay the
amount, and the plaintiff then brought this action to recover it.
The defendant paid £5 into court, which he considered a suffi-
cient compensation for any services the plaintiff had done him.
Mr. yenables for the defence strongly commented on the con-
duct•_ of the plaintiff, and called a witness named Wild to prove
the above facts ; the witness, however, on entering the box, was
taken suddenly ill, and had to be carried out.
The ASSESSOR, in consequence, proceeded to charge the jury
as the case stood, and they found a verdict for the plaintiff, minus
the £5 paid into court, for the full amount of his claim.

SPEID V. LANGFOR

Mr. Venables appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cottingham
'or the defendant. _ _ _

The plaintiff claimed a large sum of money for work and la-
bour done, and for money paid tm behalf of the defendant. The
defendant pleaded the general issue, and that be had paid a
great part of the sum owing.
Mr. VENABLES, in open►ng the case, said that in the year
1835, about the latter end of August, Mr. Langford employed
the plaintiff to sell for him certain skins, who was to allow him
12s. a-week for that, and during the time that the plaintiff was
the defendant's servant he had paid for the defendant various
sums amounting to £250. The present action was brought for
the recovery of a balance of this sum, and for the weekly salary
from August, 1835.
Several witnesses were called to prove the various payments.
After some discussion, on the recommendation of the Assessor,
the counsel agreed to refer the case and all matters of difference
to Mr. Lawrence, for arbitration.
BRETHERTON AND ANOTHER V. DONALDSON.

This was an action brought to recover the costs of am action
brought to recover an empty barrel which the defendant held
belonging to the plaintiff.
Mr. Harden appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Venables for
the defence. . . _

Mr. HARDEN, in stating the case, said the circumstances were

these :—About fifteen mouths ago, the plaintiff supplied the de-
fendant with a small quantity of ale, in a single barrel. The
ale was paid for in two or three months, and nothing was said
about it; but when the plaintiff sent for the barrel, the defen-
dant's wife said " No, tell Mr. Bretherton he must send 30s. for
bad ale before he gets the cask." A number of demands were
made for the cask, but the same answer was invariably returned.
At length the plaintiff thought it his duty to proceed against the
defendant to recover his cask, and a writ was taken out against
the defendant, and the brewer sent along with the attorney's
clerk who was to serve the writ, to show h►m where defendant
lived. On arriving at the defendant's residence, the wife of the
defendant, seeing an air of something like law going on, said,
on this application before the serving of the writ, " Oh yes, you
may have your barrel, it is in the cellar, take it." They got
the barrel back, but found themselves minus the expenses of the
proceedings they had taken. For the recovery of those ex-
penses this action had been brought. It was unnecessary to
quote authorities to prove that the plaintiff was entitled to the
costs which he had been subjected to. He called
William Seddon, who proved being in the service of Messrs.
Bretherton, that he had left the ale at the defendant's, and had
repeatedly applied for the cask, but had not been able to obtain
it. On his cross-examination, he said be got the cask before
the writ was served. There was ale in the cask when he got it
back. It was customary to allow the publicans to keep the
casks till the ale was done. Thete was about eight inches of
ale in the cask when he got it away. The cask was worth 78s.
David Jones, clerk to plaintiff's solicitor, deposed to taking
the writ to serve, but got the barrel arid did not serve the writ.
Mr. Vestaimus addressed the jn:y for the defence, and desig-
nated the action as a most trumpery one, got up to suit the
plaintiff's brother, who acted as his solicitor. He called wit-
nesses to prove that the custom was to detain casks even longer
than the time which the cask which was the ground of the
present action had been detained, and that the cask was half
full of ale when it had gone back.
The Jury enquired if they could not draw aline between 305.,
the price of the ale, and tLe price of the cask ?
The Assessor replied that they could not do this. It would
have been much better if the defendant, when he had incurred
the cost of the writ, which was only 55., had paid it.
The jury said they were of opinion that the defendant had a
right to detain the cask, and found a verdict accordingly for the
defendant.
The Foreman of the Jury said that perhaps they would be
stepping out of their province to express an opinion about the
action, but it was very strong.
Mr. HARDEN wished to know what it was.
Foreman of the Jury.—" That the action is most discredit-
ale."
Mr. HARDEN said the verdict was contrary to the evidence
and gave notice that he should move for a new trial.
JONES AND ANOTHER V. AULT. _

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs Robert Jones &
Son, of Rose-hill, brewers, for the recovery of a balance of £ls
for ale sold to the defendant, who keeps the Duke's Dock tavern,
in June last.
The sale and delivery of the ale was proved. The defence
set up was that the ale was "pricked," and not fit for use.
Witnesses were called to prove this, and also that the ale was
good sound ale. The case occupied some time,
Mr. CoTTINGHAM appeared fur the plaintiff, and Mr. WIL-
KINSON for the defendant.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff £l5, as well as El()
paid into court.

TAYLOR V. MARSH.

This was an action brought to recover a balance of £7 al-
leged to be due by the defendant to the plaintiff for work done.
The plaintiff is a master joiner, and was employed by the de-
fendant, who is a timber merchant, to build some houses, the
defendant finding the wood. The billof the plaintiffs amounted
to £3O, but they had received £23 on account, and for the ba-
lance the action was brought. The plaintiffs had done the work
in a satisfactory manlier, and had been dismissed from their
work without any reason stated.
At this stage of the proceedings, as soon as Mr. VENA BT,ES
had opened the case, an arrangement was come to to refer the
matter to the arbitration of one of the jurors.

LATI-10M V. BAXTER

Mr. VgNAnt.us appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. ll A RDEN
for the defendant.
• • ' • •

v•Mr. VENABLES, in stating the case, said this was an action
brought to recover the value of some damage done to the plain-
tiff's cart, by a cart of the defendant's, through the negligence
of her servants. The defendant's servants were driving two
carts near Salthouse Dock, each having two horses, when one
of the defendant's men left the carts, and, in consequence, one
of her carts ran against the defendant's cart, and broke the
shafts, damaging it to (lip amount of £2 10s. On the accident
taking place, the son of the plaintiff went and told the defendant
of the accident, and begged her to lend him a cart until he had
got his repaired. She replied, she would not, that it was the
act of her servants, and she had nothing to do with it, and that
they might do what they pleased with her servants. All the
plaintiff sought for, was the amount of damage which had been
done to his cart, and, in point of law, the defendant, Mrs.
Baxter, was clearly responsible for the acts of her servants. He
called witnesses to prove the amount of damage, and that the
cart ,which had run against the plaintiff's cart, was unattended
by any driver.
Mr. HARDEN, for the defence, contended that where the in-
jured party was guilty of any degree of negligence, an action
could not be brought: He called witnesses to prove that the
accident had occurred as much from the negligence of the plain-
tiff's carter, as from that of the defendant's.
NIT. VENARLES replied.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant, there being ne-
gligence on both sides.
ROTHWELL V. THOMPSON.
Mr. COTTINGHAM and Mr. WILKINSON appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. HstsnsesoN for the defence.
The plaintiff in this case is a man of property at Wigan, and
the defendant is a publican in this town. The plaintiff au-
thorized his son-in-law, who was in indifferent circumstances;
to enter into an agreement with the defendant to give up pos-
session of a public-louse in Mersey-street,for which the plaintiff
agreed to pay a consideration of £l5O fot the possession and
fixtures, possession to be given up in 10 days from the date of
the a'greement. The plaintiff performed his part of the contract,
but on going to take possession, the landlord, who before had
not been mentioned, refused to allow him to take possession,
unless he would enter into an agreement to leave the house at
at any time, without the usual process of ejectment. This being
quite foreign to the agreement, the plaintiff refused to acceed
to it, and brought the present action to recover £5O which had
been paid down when the agreement had been entered into, to-
wards the fixtures, and for £5O which the defendant agreed to
forfeit if he should not perform his part of the agreement.
The parties entered into an arrangement, the defendant to
return the £5O which he had received, and £5 towards the costs,
to the plaintiff.
Verdict accordingly.
This concluded the cause list. An inquiry was afterwards
heard, and. the court then broke up about 6 o'clock.

CAPTAIN J. E. GORDoN.—Tne marriage between that zealous
Protestant patriot J. E. Gordon, Esq., and Miss Smith, niece
of Lord Carrington, took place in London, on Tuesday. The
ceremony was performed by an intimate friend of the parties,
the Rev:E. Bickersteth, rector of Wotton, of Worcestershire,
and, in the language of Hymen's votaries, the happy couple
were preparing to leave town to spend the "honey ITIOCID.:,
Captain Gordon had only recently returned from attending the
great Protestant meeting. at Hereford, where he delivered a long
and animated speech, and at the conclusion of which soma
frends conwratulating him, expressed an opinion that IM had
triumphantly
exhausted the subject. "Wait a while," said
Captain Gordon,
"there is yet one to follow toe, who will give
you a much greater treat." Mr M`Glaec's speech occupied Op-
wards of three hours iii the delivery 1.