The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-08-24 00:00:00

ORMROD V. BRIDGE.

The plaintiff in this case was the tenant of a Miss Green,
of Bolton, and occupied for many years a stone quarry there.
The action was brought against the defendant for an alleged
trespass, in his having forcibly taken possession of the quarry,
and also of a smithy which was situated in the quarry, and
to recover damages for such trespass. It appeared according
to the plaintiff's statement, that, at Christmas last, the plain-
tiff flaying received no notice to quit, the defendant Bridge
came and took possession of his quarry, and also broke open
his smithy and took possession of it, and had since used his
tools. For the defence it was contended, that the plaintiff

had received a verbal notice that his tenancy was to expire
. .

at Christmas, that the quarry was then let by ticket, and
that the plaintiff was a bidder at the letting, but was outbid

_ .
by the defendant, who became the tenant; and accordingly
took possession.—The jury found a verdict for the defendant
as to the trespass, and a verdict for the plaintiff, damages
£lO, for the seizure and use of the tools, or the tools to be
given up.

YESTERDAY.
LATIMER V. HATFIELD.

Mr. Alexander and Mr. Wightman appeared for the
plaintiff and Mr. Wilkins for the defendant
Mr. ALEXANDER in stating the case said, this was an ac-
tion brought by the plaintiff against the defendant to reco-
ver damages for an unprovoked assault committed upon
him, and a trespass committed upon hii dwelling-house,
which was committed in a way in which a vulgar rich man
would treat a poor man. The plaintiff was tenant to the
defendant of a small tenement at the rate of 4s. 6d. a week.
He had been the plaintiff's tenant for three years. In con-
sequence of the illness of his wife and children he became
reduced in circumstances, and got five weeks in arrear in his
rent. The plaintiff was a schoolmaster, but obtained a very
inadequate remuneration in that way, and, perhaps, that
would account for his rent being in arrear. The plaintiff
resided in Durham-place, Manchester; on the evening of
the 18th of April last, the defendant went to the plaintiff's
house, demanded admission into the house, struck the
plaintiff aJdow on the face, and forcibly entered the dwelling.
He told the plaintiff he believed he was parting with his
goods and wanted to cheat him out of his rent. The plain-
tiff told him that such was not the case, and told him to look
about and see if there was not furniture sufficient to more
than cover the rent. The defendant, in an overbearing
manner, walked about the house, and it became necessary
to send for a constable lo eject him. He again assaulted
the plaintiff, asserted he was a gentleman, called the plaintiff
an "Irish scrawl," said he was worth £BOO a year, and
was finally taken away by the constable. The learned
counsel was sorry to say, that in a case like this, it was better
for a poor man to put up with a little injury rather than to
come into a court of justice. The plaintiff would, perhaps,
have acted wiser in putting up with the injury rather than in
incurring the risks of bringing an action.
Witnesses were called who proved the assault and forci-
ble entrance of the plaihtiff's premises by the defendant,
and one of them, the plaintiff's daughter, said "the defend-
ant called her father everything that was good for nothing.
Mr. WILKINS, for the defence, said the employment of a
learned Queen's counsel, and also of another very eminent
counsel, in this case so trumpery, reminded him of what Dr.
Johnson had once said of a trumpery work with a very
ponderous preface; "it was like a thirty-six pounder placed
before a pi stye." '(Laughter.) It appeared to him that
the plaintiff thought like the celebrated veal pieman in
Pickwick, that "the seasoning was every thing;" and 'that

the seasoning of his learned friends' eloquence would make
the case go down whatever it might be. (Loud laughter.)
His LORDSHIP said, that unquest►onably the evidence had
made out the case if the jury believed it. They would de-
termine what amount of damages they should give.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages one
farthing, costs one farthing. This verdict will carry costs.