The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-03-21 00:00:00

TUESDAY, MARCH .‘2l, 1854.

et, 060'
very of £23 125., being the balance of an aceencirce
nally amounting to £26 14s. 6d., for tea and 13.'!,roeet
nished by the plaintiff to the defendant, who wssd34,'lldee,
at Newmills, in Derbyshire. The case was un• foot
and the jury, under direction, returned
of the plaintiff for the sum claimed, and 40s- costs.
L)3E AND ANOTHER V. SMITIL—In this case the #
tiffs are assignees under the bankruptcy of Janle.
_dot
packer in Mulberry-street, Manchester, and the defreee_,,,
is J. B. Smith, Esq., M.P., the proprietor of theupi.,,t;ii
occupied by Pollet. These premises were held
whatever
agreement, by which Pollet covenanted to expend 1:1.'7w
was under the agreement to pay
was necessary for alterations and internal repal7._sd
a verdict favour
vance, the first quarter's rent to be £l6, the see:navel,
and the annual rent to be £lBO for the first th ee belti
and £2OO yearly for the subsequent years of 3 I°loll'
by another party. In August last Pallet beanie pet
his rent
COln,
rupt, and on the 11th of that month a distress ""'
into the premises for the quarter's rent, which Tent able°
due at Midsummer previous, and also for the ref!. but
would be due on the 29th of the following Septembe!"o ad
which the defendant contended was in reality de,e,itoder
vane, in terms of the agreement. Goods were so.'" f both
the distraint more than sufficient to cover the rent of quarter!) !psis,
quarters, the difference being paid over by the defendant
for the benefit of the estate. By the present act
sought to recover the E 45, which had been aePr°Prl„ ceded
payment of the second quarter's cent, it being' ee" e,rce
that the agreement referred to was illegal and of 11,0ee
In point of fact, the rent never had been paid in 3
cog'
c -
There was no dispute as to the facts, and there was gig
quently no case for the consideration of the iurY:oel ig
lordship said that the agreement, though no doubt ‘vaelei
its character as a lease, was not to be looked 011 tee tllO
less in explaining the terms of agreement on w oject,
premises were held. He must enter a nonsuit, s pro'
however, to the raising of a new action for the a;ded
vided the judgment was found to be wrong as re'
the facts. Execution stayed till next term. Mich the
LEE V. NOTTAL.—This was an action in w4.:0 pre'
plaintiff sought to recover two sums due upon ".
missory notes, one for £4O, dated the 19th JannsrY„' a the
the other for ielOCe dated the 16th of November saal;
security of which. the plaintiff' advanced the to bed
bTheeen tirtothceorur. wtitalindinttbereesptroamndisac:yter;fe:sn'eftot,bs:e4
amount withdrawn from the suit. The Pl3'-- er"
sale fa
been a farmer, and had, a good man eamag°,
1830, lent the defendant the £l4o,yiYn consideratilsh
which one of the promissory notes was gr.-Orli/oge,
parties resided in the immediate neighbouriaoo°....„,' ,se':
Towards the latter end of 1850, James Nuttal, J.
_4r:feria
of the defendant, made application to the plall34ll,,diee
loan of £lOO, which plaintiff refused to lend. 41)4.P,fie, feC
was subsequently made to the plaintiff severs'.
the £lOO, to which request he ultimately did it„issol2,
condition that the defendant should give hire a Pr"-then
note for the £4O, and also forthe £lOO which vistlio tbe
beadvanced. For the defence it was contended gee
£lOO was not advanced to the defendant but t°_,l-T; an°
the•note being signed by the son, by the son's
by Thomas Knowles as a witness to the signateritaies
Monleappeared for the plaintiff; and Sergeant
and Mii...Millward for the defendt. M° •
Thomas Knowles, landlord of the Bank Inn, defer
said ozethe 16th November, 1850, the plaintiff, h 00
dant, the son o4' the defendant, his daughter, and ho,gre
wife, came to his house, and two promissory notes 0,
also the witness, as a witness to the
written.by the defendant, who signed both notes, el
these notes-was for £4O, the other for £100; the
was signed:by the son and daughter-in-law of 1.,61
dant. Witness was quite positive the elder Nuttal
the
tbe
the note for the £lOO. lee 4
Samuel lam, the plaintiff, stated that in 1830 he mtete2.,
defendant £4O, but got no obligation for it. The ear,
was paid. In. October, 1850, James Nuttal, .illll';ised
ef
and wanted the loan of £lOO, which witness 1' „, to gef
lend. Young:Nuttal came to witness several timf;tef
SiglaatHreS. Vi;tta
fo
the loan, and the elder Nuttal applied also/to Pi3lo.aeo'
the money for his. son, stating that the son was dojo,' rcoog
business, and that his wife was entitled to omeif
left her by an uncle, and further that he hiEssLfeaclas,'
see the money. repaid. Plaintiff remarked t° £4"
that he had not got any acknowledgment for
jbis
and requested that he might then have a note for ant Away
proposal gave offence to the defendant, and hei‘oteee, 901
dissatisfied. In .a. day or two old Nuttal canine 70„,till'
he would not lend the money
urging that his eon might have the £lOO. the u"
fendant, who agreed to give a promissory note fooroo,
the sums. On thisunderstanding they all went t.l)_. es
and at the Bank. Inn of that town the transactlen
completed as described by the preceding witness ; 11:iciftine
£lOO was given over to young Nuttal, he and Aftert
signing the £lOO note as well as the defendant. rof.
this young NuttaL became bankrupt, and tPent
action was brought, against. the elder Nuttal for Pa en
both sums. Sergeant Wilkins, for the defence, M. tether:
that the £loowas lent toyoungNuttal, and not t0h1,•!,,t 004
and he said the signature attached to the note for 111 "for
purporting to be that of old Nuttal, was not his
gery. James Nuttal, the defendant, was the 7010_,.:
tl"' his son, but to each of
ness called for the defence, he denied that hie AeireeeW;
rowed the £lOO sued for. He swore with eetw."es4.l• in
that he had not signed the £lOO note, and neveroaees:,,-„,
asked to do so. He detailed with much inion„.,oo„9„`",a"-;
the course of a long examination and cross-e1..„,,e-seei',„a
many of the circumstances connected with the t - or 14'47,,
but he persisted in denying that he ever sig
fl chug
asked to sign, the note for £loo.—Alice Nuttae dart
of the defendant, James Nuttal, jun., his son, 0,1,1- -
vrest_,
Nuttal, the son's wife, were severally examined at;;oo4'
length, all of them, in the main features of their.rev^rodY
corroborating the 'testimony of the defendant. 111
details, however, they differed from him and from' 0i
ether.—Mr. Monleaddressed the jury at great leniet„Rre--;
commented in severe terms on the nature of the Jefe-bilei
His lordship summed up, and the jury, after
v° e ftze r rio the
consultation, returned a verdict for £ll7 iii fa
plaintiff, with 40s. casts. This N:"-
GIWTHORPE B.ARTON AND BUBC110"--, bea'e,
an action brought to recover the sum of £217- ,Ln''#er Ole
the amount of money received by the defendant,s,r.
the
sale of railway. shares belonging to the plainui:,
1847 the defendants were partners, and carried u_atoot
business of sharebrokers, in Manchester. In the ne;
of that year the plaintiff empowered them to sell!Yi sea.
a certain number of railway shares, which they lito
intimated to him that they had receivedn,the„aotol
however, eir°s, thnoet been
net pricpeaid veduoetro,
in con
which the present action was brought. Bur oer;cl
11 -
judgment to go by default, and Barton did few.
the action.. The jury, therefore, under directio Wl3lO esY'
a verdict for. £217. 10s., in favour of plaintiff'
costs. brolfro
SIDEROZTOXV.CLEMENT.—This was an acties'_...ne a be,
to recover £43. 3s. 4d, being the balance due 14,;73.1L-:
of exchange, which had originally amounted iffary''
No defence was. offered, and a verdict for the P*l- es'
returned,accordingly.
The Court then adjourned till nine o'clock tI
day) morning..

POLICE COURT.—YESTBI3O'
• ficsgyn
REFUSAL. TO PROCEED TO SEA.—Frano.- j
. to pro,,,eS
Spanish sailor, was brought up for refusing ~' bow
sea, after being shipped on board the Lady 10L" os
to Carthagena. The Spanish Consul being • peed -40
.1 111**-
gentleman explained that the prisoner 0 The
board an El ish instead of a Spanish vase,-
end
was- consequently discharged. air°-
v." ft''
STEA.LING ROPE.—PatrickMoore, a lumPer, w
to be imprisoned seven days, for stealing rope f •ttl
sel on which he was engaged. P
cbArgeCi_;tig 'T
STREET ROBBERY.—Ann Clusky was
robbing John Marsden, a sailor, of a purse cont3Loer,e,
The girl met the sailor in Tempest-hey on Satullppii
and asked him to treat her, when he pulled ties'
which she instantly ran away with.. Remandlittle
JuvuitiLE ilbank, 3,..„tes I,olr
whose head barely reached above the. magist'' .-As 5" p
was charged with robbing the till of Francis' o:Tim' sVilt
keeper, on Saturday. The little fellow eaten' , oft ,At
barefooted, stole some money from the till and Oro. 0,-
was pursued and taken. He was remanded, iu°
„tt,geti
his parents might be sent for. 1, as etiviil,.
STEALING A GOLD WATCIL.---Ellen W- O.
with stealing a gold watch and half a soverei° 0
hose
carpenter belonging to the ship Lightning, at 5 130
ill fame. She was committed to the sessions. , who .0,
A BAD CRARACTER.—John Mangan, a
petty
already been three times imprisoned for Peuihe sb°'o,o
was charged with stealing 10 lb. of ham from Alio 00
Mary Phillips, Prince Edwin-street. Mrs. P,°;: wiLie
this was the third time her shop had been rouiwyor 11P-
a short period. The prisoner was sent to gti°' 001-,
months. 1404,-03(
Docx ROBBERY.—David Davis and Georg of tlto
carters, were charged with stealing 11 euct' taking U•
springs from the Clarence dock quay, and
stolen property away in a cart loaded with ot e
The evidence being only of a suspicious Ilatur,ittect
Norcross, he was. discharged. Davis was eon'''. 0.
two months. 0 J
robs
A CRUEL HUSBAND.—James Carroll,
dam fed heti Jo
low, who had repeatedly beaten his wife, ri:,„1,1 se
left her chargeable to the parish, was fined '"
default committed for three months. ,05 10111
STEALING GLASSES PROS! PUBLIC 00.-- a-
t 't ge
species of theft is of frequent occurrence, bil-+ ell „ilree
happens that the publicans do not prosecute .111-foi.
This morning Ann Campbell was sent to g3° blic;,ll°,o4
months, for stealing three tumblers from the OP 11P
c.arsb of
of Mary Green, in Sawney Pope-street. lts Oe.
charged with a similar offence in the liquor ,_'-uosir
iSnykheser,
eninraGpraenayt
wChhaernlotthtee-restrheheetr,ybuteet
kaspteor
Plate'
ofe
wo
discharged.
„„ 11096.
PASSING BAD MONEY.—Frederick Patterson' o'l
been remanded from this day week, on a c)1,1,147;
ing a bad half-crown at the public-house of "'""' 01'
was committed for trial.
Cr)CIO. 0 f tP_A
DISPUTE IN A SICK AND BURIAL
John Yates, jun., on the part of the luenw7celer
Knights of. St. Patrick Sick and Burial Society, s Oro
e, la
against Mr. Robert Ward, at whose public licisutoig
sey-street, the society was held, for illegally ue, ing
society's box, containing £l2, and other articles g
to the society. Mr. Yates said that a dispute itsilrefa•los
between Mr. Ward and the members, the lat'eeting
to pay an increased charge for the room, a ni„„,ioa 1;11
held ou the 16th of January, on which oertheiloet
Ward, who was inebriated, threatened to left 0.1'„,i 0
out of the room. The members, however,
bmerin. glvidardck,edwohuet ;retfoonskedanthothgierrreoonmp,
tahned
ptbreeidieTtef.
vieothe
Chilton, on the part of the defendant, rePnto 1)0_,.)1t.
charge, and explained that there was a disit'nisce„,.
the members, and a regular division had take.ribrory
Yates then called the following evidence :
elve the
utline
secretary to the society, had held office t,fk.ad scrbia.9 tile
Thomas Mitchell was president ; Robert money• the
treasurer in January last, and kept the _ rent, ore
,
9th January Mr. Ward proposed that tn!.ns skijeklifsro
room should be increased, and the meeting. w,710,.
to the 16th of that month. On that occasell.
then
was intoxicated, and insulted all the metaoe''',,ibole_.„oo;
the tier 1"-P
in-law struck one of the members, acid
„net
left. The society is now carried on at
societl, "1004,
the
There were 37 members formerly in
now remain in it, meeting at the new room_,eutton sot
field said the trustees ought to bring the yW afire`r..Chit tl>a
This brought On a discussion between
as
Mr. Yates, at the conclusion of which it ‘v
•ratiQiu
the Aatto; mould be ;submitted to arbit