The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-04-13 00:00:00

PLUMBS V. BUCHANNAN•

This was an action brought for the recovery of a debt of
£4l 10s. Od. for 5 years rent of some premises near Orniskirk.
For the defence it was contended that the title of the landlord
was in dispute, and even now pending .on a chancery suit, and
the defendant might have to pay the rent twice over if he paid
it at all. Verdict for the plaintiff, for the amount.

WILMOT V. WILSON-ASSIGNEE

The plaintiff in this case is a timber merchant, at St. John's,
New Brunswick, and the defendants are the assignees of Mr.
Robert Wilmot, his son, who, for some time; carried on busi-
ness in Liverpool, as a general commission agent •and mer-
chant; but became involved. At this time the father sent over
another son,. Mr. John Lemuel 'Wilmot, with two cargoes of
timber consigned to his order, and , which 'Mr. John Lemuel
Wilmot, on arrivinc in England, sent to Messrs. Beyson and
Oyer, timber merchants of London, for sale. Hearing of his
brother's difficulties, he came r.‘lown to Liverpool with a view
to endeavour to snake a settlement of his arldits on a deed of

inspectorship; and agreed, provided his brother's affairs
were wound up under this deed, to transfer the cargoes of um-
ber, consigned to his order by hid father. tot,ite inspectors, for
the benefit of his brother's creditors. Bet if the inspectorship
did not go on, then that this transfer of the timber should be
void. The inspectorshin went off, and his brother was' made a
bankrupt; •and then the defendants, his assignees, claimed the
two cargoes of timber on the ground of their being given up fort
the benefit of the creditors. - Messrs. Boyson and Oyer re-
ceived notices from the parties that they. would be responsible
for the amount of the timber, which Still remained, iu their'
hands. For the defence it was stated that the father in Ame-
rica and the son' in Liverool were joint traders, making mutual
consignments "to each other, one. in timber and the•other in
Manchester goods; and that the father -was largely indebted to
the son, and the two cargoes in question, were, in fact, con-
signments to him, and belonged to his cre-ditots. '
His LORDSHIP said the defendants could not go against the
bill of lading of the cargoes in question, which specifically con-
signed them to the order of John Lemuel Wilniot, and directed
the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff. •

. , BARRER AND ANOTHER V. TAYLOR.
This was an action brought to recover damages on a quantity'
of cotton shipped by the Romulus, to the defendant. Ou its ar-
rival in Live, pool, the defendant made a tender to the consignees
to accept the bill of liidint.,„ but the cotton not being landed it was
refused, and the defendant repudiated the cotton. It wrs con-.
tended by the defendant that the bill of lading was not tendered
in reasonable time-4hat it ought to have been tendered within
24 hours after the arrival of the cotton, according to the usage
of the place. Witnesses werl
.called as to this point, who
proved generally that the case Was one of such unusual occur-
rence, that there was no such .usage. The case was then
agreed to be argued on a point of law, as to what should consti-
tute a reasonable time of tender of the bill of lading, un atx
article of fluctuating value like cotton, and a verdict was taken
for the plaintiff, damages £3OOO, subject to a special case.

HOENBY V. STUI3BS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a clergy-
man, to recover compensation from the defendant, for setting
his premises on fire, by means of a locomotive engine. It ap-
peared, that the plaintiff's premises, called Alderhrooke.Farm,
are situated on the Warrington Railway line, and the defend-
ant's locomotive engines ply on that line. By using improper
fuel, and baving an imperfect bonnet on the top of the chim-
ney, some red hot cinders flew out of the top, and set fire to a
hay stack on the plaintiff's premises, and burnt down some of
the buildings. This case decided another, brought by the tenant
of the farm, against the same defendant. Verdict for the plain-
tiff, in the first case, damages £2lO, in the second £248.
•
THE QUEEN V. CALCRAFT.—INDICTMENT.
This was an indictment ordered to be instituted against the.
defendant, Thomas Calcraft, by oneof the judges. Our readers
will remember the circumstance of a female named Grace
Avery, living as cook, in the service of a family in Rodney-
street, being shot dead by a man named William Duffey, be-
cause she refused his addresses. The only witness against
Duffey being his own daughter, Sarah Duffey, who lived ser-
vant at the Caine place. Duffey was apprehended on the coro-
ner's warrant, for wilful murder, and immediately before the
assizes Caine on, Sarah Duffey was inveigled from Manchester,
where she resided with relatives of the family in Rodney-street,
who were hound over to produce her at the trial, under the pre•
tence that her mother at Nottingham was dying, by Calcraft,
the present defendant, who was brother in-law to the prisoner
Duffey. Sarah Duffey had never sinne been heard of, though
the most diligent search had been made for her, and, in conse-
quence, Duffey, after standing over three assizes, was at length
obliged to be discharged on his own recognizance of £2OO.
The judge by whom he was discharged, ordered the present in-
dictment to be laid against Calcraft, for inveigling the witness
away. Evidence was gone into to prove that he had taken her
from Manchester to Nottingham, and that he was seen the fol-
lowing day setting her out of the town. The defendant did not
appear to answer the charge on his recognizances. The jury
found him guilty.
This concluded the business (ilk the assizes, and the court rose
at five o'clock, having sat for three weeks.