The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-08-20 00:00:00

STANLEY BART. V SIR THOMAS BIRCH.

This was an action against the High-Sheriff of the county,
and Mr. Watson, on the part of the plaintiff, applied to the
court for the Learned Judge to appoint a day for the trial,
for the convenience of the Attorney-General, who is specially
retained in it. He applied for Friday or Monday next, or
Monday to be appointed.
Mr. CRESSWELL had no objection to Monday, as he could
very well imagine why the Attorney-General wished to have
it over before Tuesday.
Mr. WATSON said he could understand why many other
members of parliament should wish the same.
The JUDGE appointed the case to be tried on Monday
next.

SHORROCKS AND ANOTHER V. MILLER AND ANOTHER

In this case a verdict was returned to the plaintiff, by con-
sent, for £640.

LUCAS AND ANOTHER V. GIBBS

This was an action against the acceptor of a bill of ex-
change for £54, with £1 6s. for interest. Verdict for the
plaintiff for the amount claimed.

MOTTRAM AND ANOTHER V. SLACK.
This was an undefended action on a bill of exchange to re
cover £2O. Verdict for the plaintiff.

WOODS AND ANOTHER

NOKENZIY

This was an action brought by Robert Bryce Wood, Hugh
Mackay, and George Bolton, trustees of the Liverpool and
Manchester Coal Company,, to recover the sum of £l3O,
being the balance of an account due from the defendant,
who is a coal-dealer at Rock Ferry, Cheshire. _ _

Mr. CRESSWELL and Mr. Cii.omrroN appeared for the
plaintiffs, and Mr. Watson for the defendant.
The delivery and receipt of the coals were proved on the
part of the plaintiffs. Mr. Watson then took an objection to
the action, contending that it was not properly brought. It
should have been brought by the copartners instead of the
trustees, as the copartners had no right to give any three in-
dividuals the power which they had exercised in this case.
The JUDGE said, he had some doubts whether the action
was properly brought. He would, however, consent to a
verdict for the plaintiffs, and give leave to the defendant to
move to enter a nonsuit.
A verdict was taken accordingly.

The declaration in this case claimed compensation in
damages from the defendant for having by his negligence
killed a horse and damaged a carriage belonging to the plain-
tiff. .

Mr. Murphy appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. James for
the defendant.

On the part of the plaintiff it was shown, that he is the
proprietor of certain omnibuses which ply between Liverpool
and the Old Swan. The defendant is a cartowner, and one
of his carts was engaged in carting coals to Liverpool, the
direction it was going being opposite to that in which the
omnibus was going upon this occasion. The driver of the
omnibus was going upon the left or proper side of the road,
when he overtook some carts which were going, upon the pro-
per side, towards the Old Swan. When he reached them he
was obliged to swerve to the right in order to get clear of
them, and on so doing be saw the defendant's cart coming
in a direction to meet him. He called out to the driver of
the cart, but there was no person who appeared to have
charge of it ; in point of fact the only person with it was a
boy between 13 and 14 years of age, who was walking behind.
The horse in the cart, on seeing the omnibus, started, and
the result was that the shaft of the cart entered the breast of
the off horse belonging to the plaintiff, and it died imme-
diately. The shaft and harness was'also injured. The acci-
dent, the cause of it, and the amount of damage was proved,
among other witnesses, by Mr. Lawrence Heyworth.
Mr. JAMES, in reply, contended that the accident had
happened through the negligence of the plaintiff himself, in-
asmuch as the omnibus might have retired on the other side,
although it was contrary to what was called " the law of the
road," before he met the cart. He admitted, however, that
the defendant's carter had been guilty of neglect, but never-
theless, it was not his neglect which had caused the accident.
Several witnesses, among whom was the boy who had the
care of the cart, were then called by the learned counsel.
One of them, named Wm. Mason, said, that he had a glass
of gin with the omnibus driver before he started, and he then
appeared the " worse for liquor."
Mr. MuarHY having replied, the Jury found a verdict for
the plaintiff, damages 4:15.