The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1847-04-06 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD. •

SOUTH LANCASHIRE ASSIZES.

CROWN COURT.-TUESDAY.

Elizabeth Johnson, aged 33, who was attired in widow's
.weeds, and was accommodated with a seat in the dock,
was indicted for the wilful murder of William Henry
.Johnson, on the 27th of November last, at Barton-upon-
' Irwell, by administering arsenic to him. The jury retired
for about half an hour, and at twenty minutes past seven
o'clock returned into court, and delivered a verdict of not
guilty. The prisoner bore .her trial with great apparent
fortitude; and after the summing up of the judge, her
countenance betrayed no symptons of uneasiness whatever
as to what might be the verdict of the jury.
The trial occupied the Court the whole of the day.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-TIIESDAY.
DOE DEM MOLESWORTII V. ELLIOT AND OTHERS,

This was a special jury cause in which the Rev. J. E.
Nassau. Molesworth, the present vicar of Rochdale, was
the plaintiff, and the defendants were a numerous party
of individuals residing at Rochdale, of which Mr. Elliott,
attorney, was the principal, who had become tenants
under leases granted by the predecessors of the plaintiff.
The action was one of ejectment to recover possession of
certain glebe lands, and to test the validity of the leases
under which it was held by the defendants.
Mr. Knowles, Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Robinson ap-
peared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Martin, Mr. Watson,
and Mr Cowling for the defendants.
Mr. Knowles stated the case. By an act passed in the
year 1764, power was given to the vicar for the time being,
and his successors to make a lease for 90 years under cer-
tain conditions, and let land to parties applying for it, in
order to improve his possessions and render them more
profitable. The conditions of the lease were, that the
most improved ground-rent should be obtained, and that
there should also be a covenant to, build and keep in re-
pair. At the time of the passing of the act the Rev. Dr.
Drake was the vicar, and he afterwards exercised the
powers granted by it, but not with discretion, and for the
benefit of the church ; he granted several leases, and
among others was the one in question.
Some discussion took place between the opposing coun-
sel, with the view of settling the matter, as the question
was considered merely a legal one for the opinion of his
lordship ; but no agreement took place.
A number of documents were then put in, showing the
rights of the plaintiff, and the leasing of the glebe lands,
&c., by the Right Rev. Dr. Drake, in the manner stated
by Mr. Knowles. Subsequently another attempt at com-
promise was made, which resulted in a verdict being
taken for the plaintiff subject to certain conditions.
After the arrangement had been made,
11,1 r. MARTIN complained that the terms obtained for
the defendant were not very liberal, and remarked strongly
npon the case.
A verdict was returned for the plaintiff.
A bill of exceptions to the summing up of the Judge
was tendered by Mr. Martin, which will have to be argued
in the superior courts.

LEES V. THE HUDDERSFIELD RAILWAY AND CANAL

COMPANY.

This was another special jury case, in which Thomas
Lees was the plaintiff, and the Huddersfield Railway and
Canal Company were the defendants. The declaration
stated that the defendants had seized and caused to ibe
removed certain buildings belonging to the plaintiff, for
which he was entitled to compensation to the amount of
£5OOO. The defendants pleaded four pleas, upon which
issue was joined.

Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cowling appeared for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Martin, Mr. Hoggins, and Mr. Robinson
for the defendants.

Mr. KNOWLES stated the case. In the year.lB4s, the
defendants obtained an act of parliament authorising them
to make a railway, and to purchase land, &c., for that
purpose ; and under the provisions of this act they took
possession of the premises of the plaintiff, and were there-
fore bound to make adequate compensation.
Mr. MARTIN, upon the part of the defendants, admitted
that the facts were not disputed, but he contended that
£5,000 was an exorbitant demand, about £2,500 over and
above what a competent appzaiser had valued the property
at.
A verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the full
amount claimed.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—Tntinsnay.
ACCEPTANCE OF A BILL.
KENDALL AND ANOTHER v. BROWNELL (s. J.) ,
In this case Messrs. Martin, Noggins, and Robinson
appeared for the plaintiff, and Messrs. Knowles and
Atherton for the defendant, and the action was brought
upon an alleged acceptance of a bill of exchange for
£B2BO 14s. 2d. The plaintiffs are the executors of Mr.
William 'Brittain. who died in the year 1838, and Mr.
Brownell is the partner of the firm of Messrs. Brittain,
Wilkinson, and Brownell, an, old-established house in
Sheffield. Mr. Wm. Brittain was formerly a partner in
the firm constituting this hoase, but ceased to be so in the
year 1821, leaving a large sum of money belonging to him
'43. the then existing partners, to be used for business pur-
poses, in trust for himself. The business was carried on
some time, Mr. Geo. Brittain being a partner. Connected
with the house at Sheffield there was a house at Rio Ja-
neiro in the name of Brittain, Scheiner and Co. In 1828
Mr. Wm.Brittain had retired, and the house-in Shef-
field was carried on by Mr. Charles Brownell and Mr.
Robert Robinson and others. On the death of Mr. W.
Brittain, his executors the plaintiffs, became entitled,
and the present action was brought upon a bill
of exchange alleged to have been accepted by the
Sheffield house, drawn by Mr G. Brittain, payable
to Mr. W. Brittain. This bill was said to have
been drawn at Rio Janeiro by Geo. Brittain, upon the
house of.Brittain, Wilkinson, and Co. The bill was ad-
dressed for Mr. William Brittain, and remitted to Eng-
land, and arrived here in due course of time, and, it was
alleged, accepted by the Sheffield firm. The question at
issue between the parties simply and shortly was, whether
the liability to pay was absolute liability or conditional to
pay in the event of George Brittain's interest in the Shef-
field house. Mr. Knowles was proceeding to contend that
it could not have this meaning, when Mr. Baron Rolfe
interrupted him, and said it was clearly no acceptance ;
the defendants refused to accept the bill, but said that
they would pay over certain sums, if directed by Mr.
George Brittaln. Mr. George Brittain wrote them ac-
cordingly, and the letter which, in consequence, they
wrote to Mr. W. Brittain on January Gth, 1830, must be
taken to be the carrying out of that previous agreement.
The learned Judge, then addressing the jury, said that in
the case of oversea bills like the one in question, it was
not necessary, as in the case of inland bills, that the
acceptance should be on the face of the bill-; it might be
by letter, or even by word of mouth; but, in the present
case, there seemed to be a positive refusal to accept on
the. part of the defendants. They said they could not
accept the bill drawn by Mr. G. Brittain, but that they
would pay over any sums that they might realize on his
account. A letter afterwards comes from Mr. G. Brittain,
authorizing them to do this, and they then said they were
glad to have received instructions " to credit the draft,"
which could not mean to "accept the bill," but to do
that which they had' said they would do before.—Verdict
for the defendant.

LIABILITY OF PROVISIONAL COMMITTEE MEN.

SOWLER v. SIMPSON.—In this case Messrs. Baines,
Pashley, and Sowler appeared for the plaintiff, and Messrs.
Martin and Hugh Hill for the defendant, and the action
had been brought to recover £lO 17s. 11d. for work
and labour done. The plaintiff, Mr. Thomas Sowler, is
the proprietor of the Manchester Courier, and the de-
fendant, Mr. Samuel Simpson, was an attorney at L4n-
caster, but is now living independent, and the action was
brought to recover the amount named from the defendant
as a provisional committee man of a contemplated line of
railway which was to have been called " The Newcastle
and Carlisle Railway Company." The company was pro-
visionally registered on the 22nd September, 1845, after
which several advertisements appeased in the different
newspapers, which contained the list of provisional com-
mittee men, and a copy of these advertisements was sent
to Mr. Simpson, he having consented to act upon the
committee. The advertisement for the payment of
which the action was brought appeared on the 18th
and 25th of October. The evidence to render the de-
fendant liable was to show that he had taken an ac-
tive part in promoting the formation of the line, and had
recommended the solicitor, Mr. Coulburn, to advertise in
the provincial papers. Mr. Martin addressed the jury
for the defendant. He said the attorney in the case for
Mr. Sowler was Mr. Coulburn, the very man who had
acted for the railway company. Mr. Sowler had nothing
whatever to do with the action more than having lent his
name, and it had been brought by Mr. Coulburn, who
was really the responsible party to Mr. Sowler, to save
himself and those who acted with him from their respon-
sibility ; for the truth was, Messrs. Coulburn and Norris,
attorneys, got up the company, conjointly with the three
promoters whose names had been mentioned, for their
own benefit, and they were the persons who had taken
the steps for the purpose of carrying the project out.
Mr. Simpson, being a provisional committee man, was
not liable merely because he had manifested a desire that
the matter should be made public. The learned Baron
left it with the jury to decide whether, in their opinion,
the defendant had rendered himself liable by the part he
had taken in the different interviews which had been de-
posed to. If they should have any doubt that he had
authorised the insertion of the advertisements, then the
plaintiff was not entitled to a verdict. The jury retired,
and after an hour's absence returned a verdict for the
plaintiff.