The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-04-04 00:00:00

FRIDAY, MARCH 31.

The Court opened at nine o'clock. As the criminal
cases were finished on the previous evening, Mr. Justice
Cresswell sat to hear civil cases.
LAMB V. SEED.—This was a long and uninteresting
action, founded upon the infringement of a patent for an
improved spring for a roving flyer, for which damage was
sought to the amount of £l,OOO. The plaintiff was Joseph
Lamb, of Bengal-street, Manchester. The defendant was
William Seed, spindle manufacturer, of Preston. To
facilitate the comprehending of the case, several kinds of
"flyers," and pieces of machinery, plans, and drawings,
were produced. The whole case turned upon the point as
to whether the plaintiff's specifications alluded to or con-
templated the use of a flyer without a spring to regulate
the weight. The action lasted until five
o'clock, when
nonsuit was declared.
The locckom,
court
at half-past five o'clock.

SATURDAY, APRIL 1.

•
CHARNELEY V. GRUNDY.—this was an action brought
to recover three yearly instalments of £2OO, with interest
thereon, part payment of a promissory note for £2,000.
In or about the year 1845 a Mr. German, of Preston,
lent £2,000 to the firm of Grundy and Co., machinists, of
Manchester. Mr. German died in 1847, and the plaintiff
was his executor. The defendants continued to pay the
annual instalments until the year 1851, when they objected
to pay any more, on the ground that the promissory note
could not be produced. It had been admitted in the year
1850, after the decease of Mr. German, that the note
could not be found. Verdict for the plaintiff, £790.
GBUNDY a. GERMAN.—This appeared to be a cross-
action,
and the real plaintiff in the last case the
defendant. It was brought to recover damages for an
alleged breach of contract. The real defendant was Mr.
German, a barrister, nephew to the deceased gentleman of
now
paintiffs, arising out of the last case. The defendants were
that name, and having a life-interest in his will. It ap-
peared that the present Mr. German' the defendant, was
at one time a partner in the firm of Grundy and Co.
During that period he exTressc4 his ipteuttou of erecting

a cotton-mill of his own, and that the firm should supply
the machinery for it. He subsequently left the firm, and
became a barrister, and the intended mill was not built.
On the promise alluded to the plaintiffs grounded their
action. In support of the case an estimate of the expenses
of the machinery, drawn up at the time, was put in by
the plaintiffs ; but his lordship, observing that it was not
signed by both parties, informed the jury that it was no
proof of the existence of any contract. A verdict was
accordingly returned for the defendant. _ _

HEYWORTH V. BARNES.—This was also an action for
an alleged breach of contract. The plaintiffs were
Messrs. H. and G. Heyworth, who carried on the business
of chemical works at Church, near Blackburn. The de-
fendant, Mr. Joseph Barnes, was proprietor of a colliery
close to, so close that a bridge over the canal connected
the two works. November, 1851, the defendant sent
in a note to plaintiffs, having the signature of Mr. Baillie,
son-in-law to the defendant, offering to supply coal at
4s. 6d. per ton for three years, for the plaintiffs' works :
payments to be made quarterly. On the same day a note
was sent by the plaintiffs to defendant accepting the offer.
For some time the supply went on as the contract pro-
vided, and the payments also went on, but perhaps not
always made on the exact day. There were certain pre-
vious transactions between the parties about the payment
for a patent, which remained unsettled. On May 1, 1853,
a note came to plaintiffs from Mr. Baillie, saying that no
more coal could be supplied unless for each night, and, in
consequence of present high prices, at not less than ss.
per ton. On the 10th of June, plaintiffs sent a note by
their carter, requesting to be supplied with coal on the
terms provided by the contract. Since the time, however,
that Mr. Baillie sent his note, the plaintiffs had not been
able to get coals at the price agreed upon in the contract,
and had been put to considerable expense and loss in con-
sequence. After two witnesses had been examined for
the plaintiff, and the various notes put in, a legal point
was raised on the validity of the contract. On examina-
tion of the notes it appeared that the defendants had sent
in an offer to supply coals for three years, at certain
terms, commencing from the Ist of January ; and the
plaintiffs, in their reply, accepted the terms, but stipulated
that the supply should not commence until the Ist of
October following. On this it was contended for the de-
fendant that the terms of the contract were not recipro-
cal.—His LORDSHIP said he must rule against the plain-
tiffs, on the ground that the contract had been voided by
them. He was sorry for it, because it was on purely
technical grounds. The plaintiffs were accordingly non-
suited.

HALSALL V. AINSLEY.—The plaintiff in this case was
Mr. John Middleton Halsall, stock and share broker, in
this town, and the defendant, William Ainsley, a dealer in
provender and horser of coaches, at Fort William, in
Scotland. The claim was for commission on certain trans-
actions between the parties i t the share market, the plain-
tiff buying for the defendant,. On the 31st of December,
1851, the plaintiff rendered to defendant the first account
of transactions between them, showing a balance due to
the defendant of £2lO. Plaintiff paid him £2OO of this.
The second account was made on the 15th of January fol-
lowing, when there was a balance due Mr. Halsall of
£328 15s. They went through the items of the account,
and some charges were withdrawn, previous to that sum
being agreed upon. The defendant gave plaintiff a bill
for £3OO, leaving an account against him of £2B 15s. The
third account was rendered at the end of January, when
there was a sum due from the defendant to the plaintiff of
£59 4s. 10s., and for this sum, and 2s. 6d. additional
charges, the present account had been brought. The de-
fence, on several pleas, was that the money was not due,
that the transactions were merely wagers as to the prices
of stocks and shares, and that the shares were never in-
tended to be taken up and paid for. John Middleton
Halsall, the plaintiff, was examined at great length, and
spoke of the several transactions alluded to, and gave fur-
ther details. He said that the business was effected about
the time of Louis Napoleon's coup d'etat, when there
were many rises and falls in the market. On the 15th
December, 1851, he purchased for the defendant about
£5,000 worth of Midland stock, and on the 17th another
£5,000 worth of the same stock. The purchase-money
of the two transactions amounted to £5,692 10s. He
expected the defendant would take up the shares. They
were resold on the 29th Dec., and again re-bought, and
the profit on these transactions was £2OO in favour of
the defendant. In the early part of January more Mid-
land stock was purchased to the amount of £5,000, the
purchase-money of which was £2,932 6s. 3d. This made
the whole purchase-money about £8,500 on the 13th Jan.,
1852. Subsequently, Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln-
shire stock was purchased to the extent of £1,600, and on
one day the whole of the shares were re-sold. The total value
of the stock sold on that day was about £10,32050, The de-
fendant had informed him that his previous brokers were
Messrs. H. Davies and Co., and that he had an account with
them. He had often asked the defendant for-the balance
due, but had never seen him from the time of the last
account until he had commenced proceedings against him
in last September. Mr. Millward, in defence, said this
case was one of those which were heard of every day, but
which very few persons had the courage to bring into
court. He regretted that such cases were not oftener
brought into court, and there shown up in all their defor-
mity. There was no doubt that they were gambling
transactions throughout. They were certainly not in-
cluded in the old law respecting stock-jobbing, but it
would be for his lordship to say whether they were
included in the present law or not. Mr. Millward called
the defendant, but his evidence threw no fresh light on
the case, except that he had told the plaintiff he would
not pay him the balance claimed "till .he had won him
his money back." His Lordship, in summing up, said,
the "work" had no doubt been done by the plaintiff.
There was nothing illegal in making a time bargain for
shares. But you had no legal right to make a wager
with a man, and say, " I will bet you so much that shares
are at such a price at such a time." The question was
whether these were real contracts for shares, or mere
shams. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for the
amount claimed.
GARDINER v. ROWETT : CLAM FOR DEBT.—Mr.
Samuel. Gardiner, ship-storedealer, South Castle-street,
plaintiff, and Mr. William Rowett, sailmaker, &c., de-
fendant. Mr. Cowling for plaintiff, and Mr. Mellish for
defendant. A claim- for £270, balance of an account for
stores supplied to two ships, fitted out for Icheboe,
belonging to Messrs. Campbell, Tomkins, and Company,
of this town. The stores had been ordered by.defendant,
and the only question in the case was, whether he was
merely an agent for the owners or a partner in the firm.
The jury gave a verdict for the defendant. It is said
that an application is to be made for a new trial.

ASHWORTIE V. TRYMAN.—Frederick Ashworth, mar-
ble-mason, Manchester, plaintiff, and Andrew Tryman,
architect, London, defendant. Mr. Knowles for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Atherton for the defence. Plaintiff
claimed £49 Is. for a number of marble chimney-
pieces supplied by him in October, 1851, to a mansion
called Bardsea-hall, built near Ulverstone, under the
direction of the defendant. The contract for the hall was
let to a Mr. Waring, a builder, and the chimney-pieces
were included in the specification. They were ordered,
however, by the defendant, but at the latter end of October
the plaintiff received a note, signed by the defendant's
clerk-of-the-works, a person named Machland, informing
him that the defendant was leaving for London, and that
his account was to be made out to Mr. Waring. Upon
this note the plaintiff was nonsuited, Mr. Knowles remark-
ing that he must now try an action against Mr. Waring.

MONDAY, APRIL 3.

BREACH OF CON TRACT.—RAFFERTY V. HAYES AND Co.
—This was an action to recover the sum of £44 3s. 10d.,
being the amount of the alleged difference between 100
tons of coal contracted to be furnished by the defendants
to the plaintiff, at the rate of 18s. 6d. per ton, and the
value for which they would have sold in Dublin. From
the evidence it appeared that, on the 20th of October last,
the defendants, through an accredited party, contracted to
furnish the plaintiff with 100 tons of coal, to be delivered
on the following Tuesday, alongside a steamboat on the
quay of the Trafalgar Dock. The money to be paid on
delivery of the coal. The coals were not delivered ; and
the action was brought to recover the above sum as the
loss of profit which would have arisen through their sale
in Dublin.—For the defence it was contended that no
vessel had been provided for the carriage of the coals, as
conditioned in the contract.—His Lordship concurred in
this view, and directed the jury to find a verdict for the
plaintiff, to the effect:that the coals had not been furnished
in terms of the contract ; but for the defendants on the
second and third issues, which were to the effect that no
means of shipping the coal had been provided as contracted
for by the plaintiff.
ASSAULT.—IRwIN v. MILL—The plaintiff in this case
was Thomas Hastings Irwin, and the defendant was Mr.
Mill, deputy chairman of the Liverpool Stock Exchange
Association. On the 11th of February last, whilst the
plaintiff was hi the room of the Stock Exchange, he was,
at the instance of the defendant, expelled from the room.
No personal violence was offered to the plaintiff, and, in
point of fact, the ejection was effected in the mildest
manner possible. For this ejection the present action
was brought. The question really at issue turned upon
the construction of a rule (No. 27) of the Stock Exchange
Association, which provides that, in the event of any mem-
ber failing to fulfil his pecuniary engagements, a com-
mittee of three members of the association, one chosen
by the defaulter, one by his creditors, and one by the
association, shall make an examination into his affairs,
and report to the association ; the party in the mean
time being suspended from transacting business on the
Exchange. At the end of last year the plaintiff became
unable to meet his engagements, and gave the usual
intimation of that circumstance. On this, a committee
was appointed to examine into his affairs and report.
The report, it would appear, had not been favourable to
the plaintiff, and a notice was posted in the room, inti-
mating that he had ceased to be a member of the Stock
Exchange. Subsequent to the posting of this notice, the
plaintiff entered the room of the association, and, on being
requested by the defendant to withdraw, he refused to do
so ; the defendant then called the porter, and gave him
instructions to have the plaintiff removed. This was
done, as already stated, without any violence, and con-
stituted the assault complained of. For the plaintiff it
was contended that the rule only provided for the suspen-
sion of a member from transacting business on the Ex-
change, but did not contemplate the expulsion of any
member, and that, in point of fact, the plaintiff had
never ceased to be a member of the association, and, as
a member, he had a right to be present in the room,
and that forcibly to eject him was an assault. The
plaintiff was examined at some length, and it turned out
that the report of the committee of inspection had
not been communicated to the plaintiff's creditors, as
provided for in the rule of the association. Under
direction of his lordship, the jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff, with 40s. damages, reserving the question as
to the legality of the expulsion of the plaintiff from
being a member of the Stock Exchange for consideration
of the higher court.
SHAREBROSING CASE. --.OIOELL V. CORBET.—The
plaintiff in this case was a sharebroker in Liver-
pool ; and, in; August last year, he and the defend-
ant had been engaged in some share transactions, which
continued up to the end of October, at which time there
was an alleged balance due to the plaintiff, amounting to
£143 Os. 4d. It appeared that the plaintiff and the de-
fendant had been on intimate and friendly terms. On
rendering an account of the transactions, and claiming
the amount of balance above stated, the plaintiff had it
returned, with the words written across it, " Never
ordered the Leeds shares," thus, as it were, repudiating
the amount of commission charged upon the sale of
op° wQrth Qf railway shares, but otiil tacitly ackliQw.
•

ledging a sum of £llB 45., contained in the account, and
as part of which £2O was paid by him. For the defence,
it was contended that the whole of the transactions were
merely speculative and gambling transactions; that, in
point of fact, no bona fide sales or purchases of stock ever
took place as between the plaintiff and the defendant,
the latter never, in reality, having had any shares.
Evidence was given on both sides proving that the
defendant was a clerk in a merchant's office, and was
well known to be so by the plaintiff; it was also proved
that little or no money had passed between the parties.
His Lordship, in summing up, pointed out to the jnry the
distinction existing between rash speculations and mere
gambling, in the sense contemplated by the recent statute;
and said, if the transactions which had been submitted to
their consideration were in their estimation such as to
bring them under the latter denomination, the plaintiff
could not recover; if, on the other hand, they were satis-
fied the transactions were bond fide, they must find for
the plaintiff, remarking that £llO 4s. seemedtobe admitted
by the defendant. The Jury, after a brief consultation,
returned a verdict for plaintiff, damage £9O 45., being the
full sum claimed, minus the *C2O paid, and the commission
on the £2,000 Leeds shares.
DISPUTED PAYMENT.—MA.CGILDOWNY P. GREGORY.
—ln this action, which was for the sum of £l5, being the
interest for one year of the sum of £3OO of money lent by
the plaintiff to the defendant, it appeared that the de-
fendant is married to a niece of the plaintiff, and that in
December, 1848, he lent the defendant the sum of £3OO,
and that some time after the latter granted a promissory
note for its repayment, along with interest, by annual
instalments. The first year's interest was paid, or offered
to be paid, by the defendant's wife, for which purpose she
tendered £l5, but at her own request was allowed to re-
tain £lO of it, to be repaid by her in a short time. The
£lO, it appeared, had, in point of fact, been repaid, but,
through some confusion in recollection as to dates and
circumstances, she also considered she had paid the next
year's interest. This latter fact was denied by the plain-
tiff, and hence the action. Evidence was given, and after
having been addressed by his lordship, the jury consulted
for a few minutes, and returned a verdict for the plaintiff
for the sum claimed, at the same time expressing their
conviction that no imputation as to the motives of the
defendant was in any way attributable.
The court adjourned at three o'clock, in consequence of
Mr. Justice Cresswell having to return to London.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—TUESDAY, Mecca 28.
(Before Mr. Baron PLATT.)

In Hodgson v. White and another, an action to recover
compensation for personal injuries received by an up-
holsterer, by the falling of a gate belonging to the de-
fendants, a verdict for £2OO was agreed to by consent.
ALLEGED BREACH OF A CONTRACT FOR IRON.—BULL
v. ROBINSON.—The plaintiff is an iron-master, at the
Ravendale-works, near Tunstall, Staffordshire, and about
the end of last year he entered into a contract to make
and supply to the defendant, who is a metal merchant in
Liverpool, a quantity of iron, to be delivered at different
times. Iron to the value of £1,325 was received by the
defendant ; about this there was no dispute ; but two
boat-loads, one sent on the 24th December and the other
on the 2nd January, were rejected on their arrival at Li-
verpool, on the ground that the iron was wholly unmer-
chantable, and for this alleged breach the plaintiff claimed
£555, or such damages as the jury thought him entitled
to. The defendant submitted that, even if a verdict were
given for the plaintiff, only is. damages could be given ;
for all the compensation he could be entitled to was the
difference, upon the quantity refused, of the price per ton
at the time of contract and the refusal ; and in this case
there was no loss. There was a great deal of evidence as
to the iron-makers and merchants ; and it came out in
the course of the case that the defendant had a cross action
for non-delivery by the plaintiff. The jury retired about
twenty minutes before four, the case having occupied about
six hours. After half-an-hour's absence, they returned,
and stated that they were of opinion that the iron was not
merchantable at Liverpool or at Ellesmere Port. Verdict
for the defendant.

LIBELLING A SHIP-STORE DEALER. Meadows and
Another v. Mottram was an action brought by Messrs.
John Meadows and Thomas Sampson, ship-store-dealers,
17, Strand-street, in this town, against John Mottram,
trading under the. firm of A. Robinson and Co., and a rival
in the same line of business, a few doors from the plaintiff's
shop. The libel complained of, which was cutting out or
reprinting a report of a police case from a newspaper of
November 4th, 1853, and exhibiting it in his shop window.
The inquiry before the police authorities was as to the
quantity and weight of various kinds of provisions sup-
plied by the plaintiffs to a family of the name of Brooks,
passengers by the Marco Polo, on the 31st of October
last. The consequence of this was, that the plaintiffs'
business entirely left them. The defendant had been re-
monstrated with personally, and a letter from Mr. Rymer,
solicitor, had been addressed to him without effect, as the
report was printed in larger type, and again exhibited,
headed " Caution to Emigrants." Mr. Hill, for the de-
fence, said that the defendant had done wrong to plaintiff
in continuing to exhibit this placard in his window ; and
informed the court that he now withdrew all imputation on
the plaintiffs' character. With this explanation and ac-
knowledgment the plaintiffs' counsel expressed himself
satisfied, and stated that,. as his clients only sought to set
themselves right with their neighbours, they would con-
sent to a verdict of 40s. This the jury found.
In Thompson v. Walsh, an action arising out of an
alleged illegal restraint, a vote was returned for the plain-
tiff : damages, £l6 10s.

WEDNESDAY, MiLBCR 29.

LIBEL.-SITRIVAJ.L V. 2.I.`CLEiLLAN.

This was an action to recover compensation for damage
alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff, through
statements contained in a letter written by the de-
fendant, and published in the Liverpool Mercury in
November last. The plaintiff, Mr. Frederick Shri-
vall, professor of music in Liverpool, and residing at
Huyton, had been summoned at the instance of Jane.
Wilcock, as the putative father of her illigitimate child.
Wilcock had lived in the house of the plaintiff as servant
of all work, at the time the alleged intimacy between her
and the plaintiff was said to have taken place ; and. in one
of the hearings, under the summons of affiliation, (for the
case was adjourned oftener than once) a girl who had been
a fellow servant of Wilcock's made a statement as to re-
marks uttered by Wilcock relative to alleged familiarities
between her and a former master, named McClellan (the
defendant in the present action). This, the plaintiff
averred, was done merely to show the character of the
girl, and not in any degree to impugn the moral character
of the defendant, of whose person or habits he had not the
slightest knowledge. In the letter complained of the de
fendant described the circumstances of the hearing before
the Magistrates, and commented upon them, as well as
upon an'account given in the Northern Daily Times ; he
charged the plaintiff with being guilty of improper inti-
macy with Wilcock; and he made imputations of conspi-
racy and perjury as connected with the (now) plaintiff's
case.—The defendant pleaded not guilty, and a justifica-
tion; the justification comprising a recapitulation of the
statements in the letter, and alleging that the letter itself
was no more than a fair comment upon an examination
before the magistrates.—ln his opening address, Mr.
Sergeant Wilkins, who was for the plaintiff, commented
at great length upon the value of an unimpeachable moral
character to one, who, like the plaintiff, was engaged in
the tuition of young ladies, and who, if tainted in reputa-
tion, would not be permitted to enter, as a teacher, into
any respectable seminaries or families. He also touched,
in forcible language, upon the vindictiveness, which he
maintained, could alone have actuated the defendant in
publishing a letter of the nature alluded to, which con-
tained, among other assertions the following :
" There was certainly no necessity to hear a word in
support of the girl's claim, or in condemnation of the
course pursued by Mr. Shrivall and his witnesses. The
impression made upon the minds and consciences of all
present will never be erased from the memory. The
evidence on behalf of Mr. Shrivall appeared to be of the
grossest character. •
"It is impossible to convey to any one not present any
idea of the character of the evidence given by the Shrivall
conspirators. There was the semblance of falsehood in
every expression of feature, every ticulation, and every
intonation of voice.
" Shrivall and his witnesses come there prepared
to swear through thick and thin that the girl was scarcely
ever sober ; but, in the hurry of their arrangements, they
had forgotten to agree among themselves as to the details
that each would have to swear to. Therefore, although
they all made oath most unblushingly as to the constant
drunkenness of the girl, they contradicted each other as
to many important details?'
He, the learned Sergeant did not find fault in the first
instance with the Mercury's report of the proceedings ;
but how any paper or journal, laying any claim to re-
spectability, assuming to be the censor of public morals,
setting itself up in this town as the leading journal (as
he supposed it did), and as the advocate of all that was
enlightened and for the public good,—how any journal,
laying claim to respectability, under any circumstances,
could lend itself to publish such an infamous letter he
could not understand. He supposed they were indemni-
fied. He supposed they were indemnified as far as money
was concerned. But if the conductor of that paper
would condescend to take a hint from him (and very
probably he would deem it a condescension), he would
tell him that there was something against which money
could not indemnify him. If he wished his paper to
take a high position and maintain a high reputation, he
would take advice from him (Mr. Sergeant Wilkins), and
content himself with giving a fair report, without ap-
pending to that report, either in his own name or that of
any other person, such infamous comments as those to
which he was about to call the attention of the jury.—
The plaintiff, his wife, and several witnesses were called.
The plaintiff totally denied the truth of the charges
against him, contained in the libel ; and the other wit-
nesses stated, in substance, that instead of being likely
to take liberties with a servant, the plaintiff was cold,
and rather harsh and distant towards them—that the
girl, Wilcock was charged for habitual drunkenness,
although otherwise an honest and good servant—and that
she had denied the truth of certain statements reflecting
upon the plaintiff, which was sent to Mrs. Shrivall,
and which had been written for her (Wilcock) and
in her name.—Mrs. Shrivall admitted that after
Wilcock left her service, in March, 1853, (having been
engaged in June, 1852), she gave her a character for
cleanliness, honesty, and being a good waiter at table.
Wilcock was discharged three days after being found so
drunk that her master had to be called to assist in getting
her upstairs ; but she was paid a month's wages. In
cross-examination, Mrs. Shrivall said that when the lady
called about Wilcock's character, she (Mrs. Shrivall) sim-
ply replied to the questions ; nothing was asked or said
about the girl being sober or otherwise. Witness only
consented to give the character after Wilcock had called
upon her several times. At the last ,interview Wilcock
went on her knees, and begged for a character, as the only
means of saving her mother and herself from starvation,
Wilcock solemnly promising never to get intoxicated again.
Mr. Atherton, in his address for the defendant, denied
that his client was the volunteer in this matter he had
been represented to be. In fact, the girl Wilcock had
lived as a servant with his (Mr. McClellan's) mot her, and
he was compelled to see so much of her general conduct
as to be utterly incapable of believing that she could be
so drunken or so dissolute as she was represented to have
been. He believed that she was unprotected while de-
serving of protection ; and looking at all the surrounding
circumstances, 49 l)clieved that he did right in penning