The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-04-03 00:00:00

NISI PRIUS COURT.-THURSDAY.

FREEMAN V. com Ft.
This wai an action to recover £2B 15s. Od. alleged to be
due as wages. Mr. WORTLEY appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. CRESSWELL and Mr. KNOWLES for the defendant.

It appeared that the plaintiff and the defendant's wife are
sisters. The defendant is the captain of a vessel belonging
to this port, and lives in a house in Upper Pitt-street. The
plaintiff's rather, nearly six years ago, being unable to main-
tain her, she went to live with the defendant as a servant,
and evidence was produced that she was to receive five pounds
a year. On the other hand it was contended, and evidence
to that effect was produced, that the plaintiff was taken in
merely from motives of charity, and that clothes were pro-
vided for her in consideration of her services. It was also
urged that this action had been brought by way of revenge,
because the defendant had insisted upon the repayment of
£2O which he had, some years ago, lent to the plaintiff 's
father:

The Learnd JUDGE summed up, and after a trial of up-
wards of three hours, the jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff for £25 ss.

WILSON V. MARSON.

This was an undefended action to recover two sums of
£lOO each, the amount of two bills of exchange. The jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff for £2OO, and £3 12s. for in-
terest.

SMITH V. HOWARTII AND ANOTHER.

This was an action to recover the sum of £lOO lent to the
defendants on a promissory note.
Mr. CRESSWELL and Mr. VV IGHTMAN appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. ALEXANDER and Mr. TIMLINSON for
the defendants.

Mr. WIGRTMAN opened the pleadings. The plaintiff was
Joseph Smith, and the defendants John and Samuel
Haworth ; and the declaration stated that the plaintiff had
lent £lOO to the defendants on the 16th November, 1829,
on a promissory note, and that they were indebted to him
that sum with lawful interest. To this the defendant Samuel
pleaded the statute of limitations ; and the defendant John,
that he had been a bankrupt, , and also the statute of limita-
tions. The plaintiff withdrew his plea as to John Howarth.
Mr. CRESSWELL stated the case. This was an action
upon an old promissory note, in which the defendants,
Samuel and John Howarth, joined many years ago, for money
lent by the plaintiff. Down to the year 1831 the defendant
John paid £5 a year for interest ; he afterwards became
bankrupt, and the following year, 1832, the defendant Samuel
paid the interest. After that John recommenced business,
and continued to pay the interest from year to year, as it be-
came due, but he became bankrupt again. At last the plain-
tiff wished to have his principal, and his attorney wrote to
and met Samuel Howarth, who said, " I hope you will not
press for your principal at present, as you have had your in-
terest punctually, and I have ordered my brother John to
attend to that." He now said the cause of action had accrued
more than six years ago; and two questions would arise. One
of them was, whether Samuel Howarth, having suffered and
directed his brother to pay the interest did not prove the
payment of interest by his authority sufficient to prevent the
application of the statute of limitations. But if that were not
sufficient, he should say that the payment by one of two joint
contractors, although after a bankruptcy, was a payment by
both, and that kept up the liability of Samuel.
Samuel Smith, brother of the plaintiff, proved the lending
of the money, and the payment of the interest, as described
by the learned counsel. •
Mr. John Alcock Dixon, the plaintiff's solicitor, proved
that he had applied to Samuel Howarth for the payment of
the promissory note, and that he gave the reply stated above.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. ALEXANDER then addressed the jury, and said this
was an attempt to fasten ulion the defendant, Samuel
Howarth, the payment of this note, for which interest had
been regularly paid by John Howarth, except in 1831, and
subsequently, except in 1838, when he became bankrupt
again. The only payment of interest by Samuel Howarth
was when his brother was unable to pay. 'He would take his
lordship's opinion upon the point—that any payment of in-
terest by a party who had ceased to be liable was not admis-
sible against the co-maker of a promissory note ; therefore
anything done by John since 1832 was no act' that could
. compromise Samuel.
John Howarth, the bankrupt, was called, and he proved
:his two bankruptcies, and the certificates were produced.
Mr. ALEXANDER, in support •of his point, referred the
learned judge to three cases—Martin v. Bridges, 3d. Car-
rington and Payne; 83 ; Grave ' v. 'Edmondson, 4 Payne,
622; and to Slater v. Lawson, 1 Barnewell and Adolphus,
396. He also referred to'Craven and Anderson, 6th Moore
and Payne.

Mr. TOMLINSON contended on the authority of a number
of cases that the parochial statements of Samuel ought not
to be presented to the•jury.
Mr. CRESSWELL replied, and contended that all the cases
cited applied to a totally different state of things, and did
not refer to the circumstances of the present case. He sub-
mitted that the payments by John Howarth were made as
the agent of Samuel.
The Learned JUDGE briefly summed up. - If the jury
were satisfied that the interest was paid by the authority of.
Samuel, they would rind for the plaintiff; but if not, for the
defendant.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for £lOO, with
interest for 3 years, £l5 ; total, Xll5.

SMITH V. HAWORTH AND ANOTHER

This was an action between the same parties to recover
£lOO under another promissory note. The circumstarices
were exactly similar to those in the last action, and a verdict
was returned for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with
£l7 for interest.