The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1847-08-17 00:00:00

FRIDAY

plaintiff
Dignr----wlLsox In .1-dotfili.i.r.eszorq
Mr. Attorney-General Knowles and CruMpton were for
the • Mr. Martirillsfoor the defendant.—The plaintijamobli.enrstnoni7cahajonitneait.
tiff in this case, Mr. W
Manchester, an the defendant,n's
A
and builder, in the same place ; a
brought
to recover the amount of a bill of exchangeinnf'ovraa.ts
a further sum due for goods sold and delivered. The de-
fendantand
indebted ; that he had become bankrupt, and that the
prosecutor and his other coeditors had agreed to take a
composition offered of ss. in the pound. £l3 Os. Bd. had
accordingly been paid into court. Mr. William Haig, an
accountant at Manchester, said he was employed by the

defendant. In May or June, 1846, a meeting of Mr.
Johnston's creditors was called, whisk the plaintiff did
not attend, but at which it was unanimously resolved to
annul the bankruptcy and accept the composition offered.
He afterwards waited on the plaintiff •to induce him to
accede. Plaintiff at first refused, but at last said he would
not stand as a barrier in the way of any man settling his
affairs ; that he would see the assignees, and if he found
everything right and straightforward he would consent.
A few days afterwards witness called again, when plain-
tiff told him that he had seen the assignees, he was per-
fectly satisfied, and would take the composition. It
appeared, however, that he never called for the amount.
The witness stated that there were in all twenty-five cre-
ditors. It appeared, however, that only twelve had signed
the composition deed, and it was necessary, to sustain the
action, that all should have agreed, the case broke down ;
and thei jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £39 2s.

TRESPASS—WIIITWORTH V. MADEN AND ANOTHER.
Mr. Martin with Mr. Segar appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Atherton for the defendants. The facts of the
case are as follow. The plaintiff is a woollen dyer, resid-
at Holcombe-brook, near Bacup, and the defendant is a
gentlemar residing in the same neighbourhood and the
landlord of the plaintiff, and the action was brought to re-
cover damages for special injury inflicted upon the plain-
tiff by irregularities done by the agent for the defendant,
in a distraint for rent which the defendant made upon the
premises of the plaintiff. The plaintiff occupied the pre-
mises in question at the yearly rent of £BBO, and in April
of this year he was indebted to the defendant in the sum
of about £240, and the defendant determined to distrain
for the amount. He accordingly sent a bailiff of the name
of Stott, who took possession of the place, and caused the
plaintiff's goods to be sold, without having taken the pre-
caution to leave
.the usual distraint upon the premises.
The defendant paid £52 into court, and pleaded that that
was sufficient to cover any injury the plaintiff had sus-
tained. Several witnesses were called, who deposed to the
principal facts of the case, and stated that the goods were
sold at £l5O less than the cost price. Mr. Atherton ad-
dressed the jury for the defendant, contending that under
the statute they had not committed any illegal act, that
the sum paid into court was sufficient to cover any
damage to which the plaintiff was entitled, and that the
good* had not been sold at Price* below their real yam.