The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-08-16 00:00:00

FRIDAY.

LowE AND ANOTHER V. BRLDSHAW.—This WAS an
undefended action on a bill of exchange for £llO. Ver-
dict for the plaintiff.
KELLY Alin ANOTIEER v. TA.Y,Lons—This, also, was an
undefended action on a bill a exchange for £7B 19s, Gd.
Verdict for the plaintiff. _

HILTON V. GANNETT AND °THUM—This action was.
brought to recover damages for the destruction of certain:
houses in Strangeways, in Manchester, which fell into the,
river Irwell in the month of -February last, caused, accord-
ing to the allegation of the plaintiff, by the defendants
overweighting the river wall, upon: which the houses in
question were built. The-wall gave way, and the houses
fell into the river. After the case had been opened, an
ineffectual attempt was made to have the case arranged
out of court. Several, w itnesses were called in support of
the plaintiff's case, who stated that the giving way, of the
wall, and the consequent fall of the houses was occasioned
by overweighting
the wall with rubbish, and stopping the
surface-drain, which carried off the drainage into the river.
The !toppage of this drain caused the saturation and ex-
pansion of the- rubbish, whieh pressed out the wall. For
the defendants, it was attempted to be shown that the
wall was badly constructed ; it was short of binders, and
bad mortar was used. The wall was nob water-tight, and
this was the cause of the fall, rather than any improper
filling in of rubbish. His lordship, i summing up, put
the following questions to the jury :—whether the defen-
dants had caused the wall to fall, and whether the plaintiff
had himself contributed to bring about that result ? The
question as to the amount of damages (Z 230) was reserved.
The jury retired, and, after a short absence, came into
Court with the following verdict :—" We find the defen-
dants caused the wall to fall, and that the plaintiff contri-
buted to that fall, and that the parties should bear the
loss between them." His Lordship : " That I consider a
verdict for the defendants." A verdict was then entered
for the defendants, with leave to the plaintiff to move to
have a verdict entered for £ll5.
ACTION AGAINST AN OMNIBUS PROPRIBTOR.—Ro-
DIMON ADMINISTRATOR, v. BOSWELL.—Mr. Knowles,
Q.C., who appeared for the plaintiff, said this was an
action in which the plaintiff sued as the administrator of
his late wife to recover damages for the loss he had sus-
tained by being deprived of the society, the assistance,
and comfort of his wife by the negligent act of the defen-
dant. By that negligent act plaintiff's wife was killed.
The plaintiff also sued for the benefit of his infant daugh-
ter, three years of age, who was entitled to some compen-
sation for the loss sustained, the loss of a mother at the
age he mentioned, and of her care, attention, and guid-
ance. The circumstances were these. The plaintiff was a
stone-mason by trade, residing at Rusholme, in the out-
skirts of Manchester. On the night of the 4th of April,
the plaintiff, his wife, and infant were returning from
Manchester along Oxford-road, where omnibuses run.
It was rather a Wet evening, and the plaintiff was desirous
of taking an omnibus, and accordingly he and his wife
and child remained in a shop opposite the IC/arendon
Arms until an omnibus came up. The omnibus which
next came up happened to be M`Ewen'!, which was
driyou oppo§itim t 9 the clefeuclant'o 9nuubui iikeg the
•

T 1 A V ATT

1, the

1853.

uo the
bout three yards of
‘vith the child

..nibus belonging
..nd the plaintiff and
not injured. The poor
.Le was knocked down, and
omnibus went over her heads
Under
, his action, and
nether the death
by the neglect of
of room to have
uc omnibus, which was his
Instead of taking his own side
nt's driver came up, and passed
n M'Ewen's omnibus end

s, and killed her on the spot

those circumstances the plaintiff brou,
the question the jury had to decide was
of the plaintiff's wife 'had been cause(
the defendant's servant, who had plea

driven on the other side of t
proper side of. V

the de

space left betrvee

Luc pa,
Witnesses were called, who proved the facts stated by
counsel, and which were in the main admitted by clefen.

that's counsel.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, for the defendant, submitted
that the death of the plaintiff's wife was occasioned 11
want of care and caution on the part of the plaintiff Oa
his wife, and that no blame could be attributable to the

driver of the omnibus,

n called to support the defendant!
of the occurrence, and his lordship having sunanLn
after some consultation, returned a verve„on
he plaintiff, and xxv

Witne

up, the j

fOr the pla

Damages £2l

'or his infant child

BARLOW AND °TREES. V. GLEDHILL.—This was all
action for goods sold and delivered, and money found to be
due on an account stated. The plaintiffs were merchant
at Manchester, and the defendant was a draper at Chester"
field, in Derbyshire, and an action was brought to recover
a sum of £548. 6s. Bd., being the amount of goods sold and
delivered to the defendant in the month of December,
1852. The question the jury would have to consider W'
whether the goods were sold by the plaintiffs to the defeat
dant, or to a person named Richardson, also a draper at
Chesterfield, without whose order no goods would be sap'
.
plied to the defendant by the plaintiffs. The goods
question were sent to Mr. Richardson, instead of to the
defendant, who refused to pay for them, alleging thl
were-ordered for Richardson, from whom defendant agw"
purchased them.
At the conclusion of the plaintiff's ease, the court

minutes to seven o'clocl

(BEFORE

SATURDAY.
3 ME. JUSTICE EBLE.)

defended actions, each for a bill of eltchancg°'
were taken- first. In the one case, " Clavelly v. .Bonne'
vialle," a verdict was returned for the plaintiff ; princilxd;
£lOO, interest, '2l. 16s. In " Fauntleroy v. Murchison,
the amount of the bill was £3OO, and though the defend'
ant had at first denied his acceptance, he had subsequent
through his attorney, admitted it. Verdict for the Awn;
tiff; principal; £3OO, interest £l. 13s. Bd. The "Duke
Norfolk v. Loxley" was an undefended action for eject'
ment, in whicfi,- however, under the advice of the learned
judge, counsel for the plaintiff declined to take a verdict'
(in consequence of the non-appearance of the defendant,l
choosing rather to, wait the proper day for undefended"
actions, when he could do so without risk.

have--k'
latter i

at-go v(

in - M.IAU.)
certadays the w(
Dl
at all times i as ocew
duty.

AN ACCIDENT, ilk

consequences, occurred to
Friday
e

Tternoon. Tli

,t be 1

Vehicle irom, in which we
was much trampled
within a hair'.

[le conk

3iill ~c

men?, i

is, came in contact with a
seated two medical men. The child
by the horse, and the wheel went

gentle-