The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-16 00:00:00

ent aetion. No agreement between the parties appeared in
evidence.

Mr. WATSON appeared Tot the plaintiff, and Mr
for defendant.

MURPHY

The witnesses of the former represented the lodgings and
attendance as worth considerably more, during the period
alluded to, than the weekly sum which the amount tendered
would cover. Those on the other side, on the contrary,
placed a much smaller value upon the lodgings and services
rendered, stating that the house, which was small, was at
first in an unfinished state, and that when it was afterwards
made rather more comfortable, the greater portion of the
furniture, bedding, &c., was provided by the defendant. Mr.
Magrath had a wife and several children, but these were
waited upon by his own servants. The plaintiff claimed com-
pensation for the occasional services of Mrs. Occleshaw in
domestic matters ; but this, it was contended in the defence.
was given optionally and gratuitously, and that the defendant
had given more than an equivalent in the suppiy of coals to
the plaintiff's family. The charge made was 18s. a week for
nine weeks, and 265. a week for twenty-eight weeks, and the
amount admitted to be reasonable, and which it was con-
tended by Mr. Murphy was ample, was 12s. 6d., making the
debt only £l6. 4s. 6d., which was tendered in November
last. The final balance sought for, taking into account the
£l7. paid into court, was £9. 12s. 6d. The examination of
the witnesses excited some merriment in the court, but the
case did not present any features of general interest. The
witnesses variously estimated the value of the rooms occu-
pied at from Gs. a week up to 245.
The learned JUDGE, in summing up, dwelt upon the extra-
ordinary fact that, so far as the evidence went, the plaintiff
had taken the defendant and his falnily into his house with-
out making any agreement as to the amount to be paid.

The JurY immediately returned a verdict for the defendant.
PARTNERSHIP CASE.-BORROWING MONEY.-BOULT AND

ANOTHER V. HOLLINS

This was an action of very considerable importance to the
commercial community, inasmuch as it involved the decision
of the liability of one partner in a firm to debts or engage-
ments contracted, under certain circumstances, by a co-
partner, without the express consent of the former, and also
other matters connected with partnerships.
Mr. KNOWLES, in stating the case to the jury, said,': that
the plaintiffs were Messrs. Boult and Addison, stock and
sharebrokers, and the defendant was Mr. Francis Hollins,
late of the firm of Booth and Hollins, cotton-brokers--both
of this town. The action was brought to recover an amount
of a little more than £BOO, a balance claimed by the plain.
tiffs on a loan of money of within a trifle of £l,OOO. The
whole amount was included in one item only, being the
balance of the sum lent.

Mr. Boult, of the one firm and Mr. Booth, and Mr. Hol-
lins, of the other, were on the most intimate and friendly
terms, but between Boult and Booth alone should he be en-
abled to show had the transaction which gave rise to the ac-
tion taken place. The concurrent circumstances, however,
would, he trusted, sufficiently show the liability of the de-
fendant, the partner of Mr. Bitioth: In the month of Octo-
ber, 1839, Booth and Hollins experienced some pecuniary
difficulties, and after borrowing several sums from other par-
ties, and having a bill to retire in London, Mr. Booth applied
to Mr. Boult for a loan of £lOOO. That sum was, by the
cashkeeper of the firm to which he belonged, paid to Mr.
Boult on the 11th Oct., 1839, and on the sante day paid by
Mr. Boult to Mr. Booth, as a matter of accommodation
granted through the intimacy of the parties, and he trusted
he should show, though not by direct evidence, that it was
borrowed with the authority of the defendant Mr. Hollins,
Mr. Booth's partner. Booth and Boult were alone present
when the agreement to lend it was come to. To the first ap-
plication made for the loan Mr. Boult demurred ; but it
would appear, from circumstances, that Boult had afterwards
consulted Mr. Hollins ou the subject, and that the latter had
sanctioned the borrowing. The money, almost as soon as
received, was paid into the Albion Bank, in Castle-street,
the bankers of Booth and Hollins, together with an addi-
tional £5O, and it was placed in the bank books to the credit
of Booth and Hollins, for the purpose before mentioned.
Boult and Co.'s cashkeeper, on that day, paid to Mr. Boult,
who paid it over to Mr. Booth, precisely £lOOO, as directed
by Boult,—namely,-£915 in Bank of England notes, a bank
post bill for £B3 ltis Ild, and one sovereign three shillings
and a penny, making the sum of £lOOO. The identical mo-
ney was paid into the bank, with the exception of the minor
item of £1 3s ld (which Boult had forgotten to pay to Mr.
Booth, but had returned to his cashkeeper the same after-
noon); and to this was added the additional £5O from Booth
and Hollins's own resources. As the bill to be retired was
to be taken up by the latter firm, the defendant had of course
the benefit of the money as a partner ; and as Booth had left
the country, he was consequently liable to the balance sought,
some amounts having since been received, making the diffe-
rence between the sum lent and that now claimed, including
interest thereon. The learned counsel then called a number
of witnesses. .

John Smith, cash-keeper at 'Boult and Addison's, proved
the payment of the thousand pounds to Mr. Boult, to be
lent by him to Mr. Booth, and described the kind of money.
Mr. Boult the same afternoon returned the £1 3s. ld., which
he had omitted to pay to Booth, thereby making the sum
lent £998 16s. 11d. Booth and Co. were indebted to Boult
and Co. at the time. Witness identified a cash-book of
the defendants, in which (as it afterwards appeared) the
£998 16s. 11d. was entered as received by the firm from Boult
and Co. On cross-examination, he stated that Boult and
Booth were not brothers-in-law, though Booth and Boult's
brother Charles were. Booth had since gone to New South
Wales. The money was paid on the 18th of October. He
did not know that on the previous Monday Booth and Hol-
lins had dissolved partnership.
Charles Book, brother of Boult the plaintiff, proved that
on the 22d of October Hollins expressly admitted that the
loan was for the benefit of the firm, and that he (Hollins)
was liable to it ; but witness could not prove that Hollins
had, previously to the loan, expressly sanctioned it, that
sanction being stated to have been given in a conversation
between the plaintiff Boult and the defendant Hollins, and
and therefore not admissible in
-evidence.

Mr. Coppock, the attorney of the. defendant, gave evidence
of admissions by Mr. Boult that the money was lent after
the dissolution of partnership, and absolving defendant
from all liability.
After the examination of several other witnesses, the
learned JUDGE summed up, laying down the law as to liabi-
lities of parties in such cases. If Booth borrowed the money
after the dissolution of partnership, without the express
authority of his late partner, that partner was not liable.
The jury retired for a short time, and on their return gave
a verdict fur the defendant.
The only other case which remained to be tried was Ellis
Taylor and others, which was an action for an excessive
ilitratnt. The details were perfectly uninteresting. With
this case finished the spring assizes.