The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-05-17 00:00:00

LIABILITY OF PROJECTED TUBLTC COMPANIES.

POOLE V. EIiLIOTT AND OTHERS.—Mr. Tindal Atkin-
son stated that the plaintiff in this case was Mr. William
Poole, law stationer, and the defendants were Messrs.
Elliott and others ; and the action was for £94 17s. for
work and labour done. The parties were sued as trustees
of a certain projected company, called the " Atlas Marine
Insurance Company." and it appeared that the plaintiff
was consulted by the defendants upon the subject, in
March, 18.7 d, when it was agreed to start the above com-
pany, which, like many other similar speculations, had
not realised the golden expectations of its projectors. Mr.
Poole had been engaged at a certain salary, and he had
been appointed to proceed to London on two occasions to
transact the business of the society, for the expenses .of
which, and his salary, the present action was brought.—
Mr. Poole, the plaintiff, was called., and stated that he was
engaged for a salary of £l3O a year, as secretary and
manager. He received directions from the chairman and
directors of the Company, and ,proceeded to London to
establish a separate board, as the Phoenix Society was
then acting for them. He went to London in October,
and remained till the end of ,December last. Had a long
correspondence with the manager and directors—about
forty letters. He came from London, and attended a
meeting of the directors at which there was a deal of
uproar, and he was dismissed.; but-was subsequently reap-
pointed and again sent to London by Mr. Ritson, solicitor
to the company. He received £.5., on account of £lO. on
that occasion, for his week's expenses. He went and re-
mained in London till yesterday. Was not dismissed,
nor had he sent in his resignation. On the first occasion
of his going to London he charged two guineas per week,
which would not cover his personal expenses. On the
23d of January last a balance was due to him of £59 Bs.
2d., and for his subsequent services he charged com-
mercial traveller's expenses, a guinea a day. Mr. Simon,
for the defendants, cross-examined the plaintiff, who
stated that he was projector of the company. He was not
told to remain only a week in London on the last occa-
sion, nor was he told that £lO must cover all expenses.
No arrangement had been made with him to receive 30s.
a week for his personal expenses in London on the first
occasion, and £3 for railway fare. Could not say whether
the projected company was a losing affair, but had put
down his own name for fifty shares. The learned as-
sessor heard some arguments from Mr. Atkinson, for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Simon, for the defendants, upon several
items of the bill, at the conclusion of which, he suggested
that it woeld be much better for any gentleman to take
the accounts, and ascertain what was the fair balance be-
tween the parties. Mr. Atkinson ultimately agreed to
take a verdict for the plaintiff, by consent, damages
£2O Os. 6d.
ASSAULT AND BATTERY.—SUMNER AND WIFE V.
GREEN.—Mr. Atkinson stated that, in this case, Miles
Sumner and,Catherine, his wife, were. plaintiffs, and Jane
Green was the defendant. The defendant was sister-in-
law to Mr.. Miller, a railway contractor, of this town, who
owned several houses, and Mrs. Green,
icollected his rents.
On the morning of Monday, the lath of June last, a
dispute occurred between the plaintiff and defendant, who
,a
answered
raeldr Green
otehoti
cn
ncaaf
ml eedo
foFn
leo
roa
ahwneedrr edaonngoes
hgwehrbhoiqcuuhrsiet animal named Turk, and set them
upon Mrs. Sumner ; at the same time she broke Mrs.
&miner's arm, by striking her with a broom-stick. It
was for the surgeon's expenses and other losses occasioned
by this ill-usage that the present action was brought.
Fanny Roberts, wife of Charles Roberts, was then
called, and stated that she lived near to the parties, in
Miller's-terrace, Hornby-street. She saw Mrs. Sumner
go across to Mrs.,Green's door, and some words occurred
between them, when Mrs. Green called Turk and Flora
to " worry the bitch," and struck Mrs. Sumner with a
knotted stick. Mrs. Sumner said " Did you send for me
to use me in this way.?" Mrs. Green then threw a
broomstick at her. The.only cause for this outrage was
Mrs. Sumner's neglectingsto tell Mrs. Green's nephew to
go to his aunt's to dinner an the previous Sunday. Mrs.
Sumner had a child in her Arms when she was assaulted.
Mr. Blair, for the defendant, cross-examined the witness,
who denied that Mrs. Sumner wanted Mrs. Green to
fight, nor did she resent the blow struck by Mrs.
Green.—Catherine Sumner, the plaintiff, was called,
and said that Mrs. Green's .nephew lodged with her,
and generally went to dine with his aunt on Sun-
days. On the morning in ,guestion Mrs. Sumner
went across, having been sent for by Mrs. Green, who
.asked her why she did not tell her nephew to come to
dinner on Sunday. firs. Sumner said she delivered the
message to him, upon which Mrs. Green flew in a pas-
sion, called her dogs'Turk and Flora, and told them to
" worry the bitch," and struck her an the arm with a
stick. She gave no other prpvocation. Had been
attended by Mr. Evan Thomas, who set her arm, and had
a woman seven weeks to do her work.—A son of Mrs.
Roberts was called, who swore to the assault. Mrs.
Green ,was often " agate" with the neighbours.—Mr.
Evan Thomas, who has had much experience in setting
bones, deposed that he set the bone in Mrs. Sumner's
arm. The large bone of the arm was fractured, and there
was considerable swelling, which must have been attended ,
with great pain.—The case was adjourned until nine
o'clock this (Tuesday)morning, and the court rose at five.