The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-02-07 00:00:00

medicine and surgery, and he stated that he did so con-
duct himself to the best of his knowledge and ability, and
that the said damage did not accrue to the plaintiff by
reason of the gross negligence or gross ignorance of the
defendant. Mr. Aspinajl said the • simple question would
be, whether that amounted to a denial of any maternal
allegation in the declaration. It was admitted in the plea
that the defendant undertook the duties for hire or reward.
Mr. BRETT, at some length, supported the plea. He
contended that it set up a different undertaking from that
in the declaration, and, if so, it amounted to a traverse of
the promise. The defendant, at the time of undertaking
the cure, limited his liability, representing that he was not
a medical man, but that such skill as he had he would use.
Mr. Brett contended, first, that the defendant was in the
position of a gratuitous baillee ; secondly, that assuming
he undertook it for hire or reward, he limited the general
liability which would follow from the position of a party
acting for hire or reward,—so that the plea, in one way or
another, amounted to a traverse of the promise on which
the declaration was founded. Then he contended that the
duty arising from the facts stated in the declaration was
only a duty to avoid gross negligence or gross ignorance.
Mr. ASPINALL, in reply, maintained that it did not
matter at whose request the employment originated, sup-
posing that it became an undertaking for hire or reward.
It was his duty to act with due care, and he had not done so.
The ASSESSOR said his ®pinion was very strong against
the plea, but he would take time to consider it. He thought
he might mention now, as it was a special jury case, that
Wednesday would be a good day for hearing it.—The trial,
which excites considerable interest, was then fixed for
Wednesday morning.

COMPENSITItN FOR PERSONAL iIarRtES.—SMITH
V. MOONEY r.lcD WIFE.—Mr. Hornby for the plaintiff,
and Mr. H. Tindal Atkinson for the defendant. This was
an action to recover damages for an assault upon tile
plaintiff, whereby he had suffered considerable bodily
harm, his leg haying been fractured and his hip joint
dislocated.

Mr. HORNBY stated the case. The plaintiff, William
Smith, is a man 74 years of age, and has .been in the ser-
'vice go Messrs. Horuby and 00. 60 years of ;his life. On
the sth of November last, he was walking along the para-
pet of Price-street, near the Custom-house, with three
empty bottles slung from his shoulders, two behind and
cone before. When he -got half way down the parapet
he observed three women, of whom the defendant was
one, standing talking -and stopping lip -ale road. When
he got up to them, he addressed theirs,.' ladies, please, by
your leave." Mrs. Moeney made no 'move to get out of
the way, but said, ."-go -round." One,of the other women
made way, when the 'plaintiff, Smith, tried to get through
the gap. On this, Mooney seized htdd of him, gave hint a
tremendous shove, and sent him into the street. -. He fell,
and his thigh•WitS fractured, and his hip bone dislocated.
A policeman ,ears up, and the man, who seemed lult
aware at first -of the injury 'he had sustained, thought
more of his bathes,. one of which was broken. He appliedie the
policeman tonlike her pay,and-she did, at last, givehimld.
The man' was then taken home, and attended by can
Thomas, the lorillAcnown bout-setter. He was teamed
to bed for .flve weeks. His wages were 18s. per weel.
The defeitte was, that the plaintiff, pushing. -against
Mrs. Mooney, ' who had a lame arm at the time, in* sling,
she hadvently shoved him off, and that it was'owing to
his being intosicated'at the time that he fell.
ThezjUry returned a *verdict for the plaintiff, damages £5.
• - -

itT-0112fEeS Btan.—Cnoss v. Davirs,-The plain-
tiff-inlhis case' is an attorney in this town ; the defendant
ptiblican and car proprietor, and the action Was brought
to-recover a bill of --a 3s. 4d., for drawing sn agreement
lied other professienal services. Mr. Sim-ctn.-appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Davies personally teefended the
action, and said that the plaintiff was a'visitor at his
Louse, in Great Harmer-street ; that he hae-cat and drunk
Prof the best in the house, and he had thou ht that he was
,scting for him net professionally, but .as.- a friend. The
4ary returned, a 'verdict for the plaintifr-for £1 16s. Bd.
Tire learned Asrvssou observed, that 'weal of time had
nert lost in tbevase. There was a Cottety Court in this
town, to which-such cases should be se-qt., and the legis-
lature was'evideutly of that opinion by-depriving all par-
ties of costs, cases of contract under £5. Parties by
coming therein trivial cases got no,ansts ; whereas, if
they went tollie County Court, they would get costs.
But instead .61kthat, they brought gehtlemen of the jury
from their bairn' esses, where their time would be much
better employed.
FAMILY Et FFERBNCES.—COCK,9II6C.T 27. COCKSHOOT.
—Mr. Bolton for the plaintiff; and Mr. Aspinall for the
defendant The plaintiff, Mrs. Cock shoot, is a widow..
Her hasbaral died last August. He was a member in
three different burial societies. On the day subsequent to
his death; the, 9th of August, <according to the case for
the plaititiff;) she went to drawthe• different sums to which
he war entitled, which amounted' fin -into £22. The de-
fendant,. who was her step-daughter, accompanied her,
and 'received the money. The plaintiff, at that period,
waslin great trouble, having just Alert her husband, and
gave the-money to her step-daughter for the purpose-of
paying the expenses of the burial 'of the deceased. The
defendant, :who was daughter oaf ,the deceased by a former
marriageoceme to reside with the plaintiff immecliately
after:thefather's death, at a shop which he had kept in
Riehmond-Tow. The plaintig. as =widow, had not taken
out letters ^cf administration, and iEzere was no will left.
The daughter made some elaim‘to "the property, and not
only interfered with the goods in:the shop (the deceased
was a watchmaker, who worked:at home, and the shop
was keptiVcr the sale of herbs)Piaut had also sold the
goodwill-Oft-Ole business. There-war a set-off pleaded that
the money ihad been applied to Tra*ing off the debts of the
deceased; hut it was contended for the plaintiff that the
money war:the absolute property4Alhe plaintiff; to which
she had become entitled as his widow. For the defence,
Miss Cockeheat, the defendant, was:tailed. She said that
she had gene with the plaintiff to id..-aw the money; 'that
she (plaintiff) had got drunk, an&that she had handed
her the mousy to pay the funeral expenses and alldebts.
She had donesa, amongst the delattibing one of £7 odd; due
by her fatale/I'lA a loan soeiety..—The plaintiff, in answer
to a question from Mr. Aspinali,...in cross-examination,
whether she ‘was not often very tipsy about the time.of
her husband's-death, said she was:sometimes, as she was
SO much excited ;:the defendent boldher that she had mur-
dered her father. It appeared that nine days after her
husband's dealli, she had left, or been compelled to leave
the house, and was now living in.4a cellar.—The jury,
after an ahsence.of about au hour from court, returned ca
verdict for the latintiff of £l4 Os. Bd.

SURGEONS IC EMIGRANT STLIPS.--HULLY v. Sis,l,
,S.ND ANOTHER.-Mr. Aston for the7plaintiff, add Mr.
Millward for the defendants.—The plaintiff in this ease,
Hully, is a •iphysician, surgeon,.and apothecary, at
:Manchester ; and the defendants, Messrs. Saul and Mar-
tindale, emigratioL. agents, in this town. The case for.
the plaintiff was as follows :—On the sth of June he
Agreed with the defendants to go as -surgeon in the ship
laViltvent to Quebec. He agreed to tuke,.charge of the
,steerage and second-lass cabin paesengers, on the voyage,
.and to assist the captain in writing out. Er pasiengers' list
and distributing passengers' stores, if refttired ; and the
;defendants engaged *bat they would give `.}aim £25 and
alpee passage, paying £lO here, and thehalance on the
vessel's arrival out in cNebee. It was also-stipulated in
theosgreement that the vessel should sail ton . or about
the -.:2/7th of July. At the time he mule the agree-
ment, !he left with the defendants his diploma, and
other , eerOcates of qualification. The plaintiff came
over here,;but the ship did not sail till three weeks after
the•tinr,appointed. Ife.fien demanded someWng for
the, delay to.which he had hem subjected, and that having
been refused, another sairgetn went out in the ship. The
plaintiff retained the £lO, and the defendants kept his
diploma, .54.c.—The defence was that the vessel liSa.
unavoidably 'detained the tinwstated, owing to the swant
of passengers, and that when7.--;.'t was ready the plaintiff
had refused to-perform his contract, although the ,de-
fendants,were,Wftling to take hiia.—Mr. Saul, one of lthe
deferulants,.ealled,,said that the tliploma and other doeu-
ments had heenjeft as security tfr, the vessel had sailed,
on the £lO advarteett. It was unusual to get Quebec 'ves-
sels ready as soon as New York sh&ns, owing to the want
of passengers, and.they were usually,detained from ten to
fourteen days..---=Mr.:Shaw,.and Mr. Charles Hill, passen-
ger brokers., both statol that they thought fourteen days
a moderate time of,detention for a 'Quebec vessel.—The
learned Asse4sor thenearefully summed.np, and the jury
returned a general verdict for the defendants, Mr. Mill-
ward offering, on behalf .of the defendants, to give up the
diploma and other V:Peron re-payment iv the plaintiff
of 210.

ACTION ON A BILL CIF ECC.CIIANGE AND XICOMISSORY

NOTE.—This was an undefitided action, in- which Sir
George Stephen appeared for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs
were the Accidental Insurance Co., and the Wiefendant
}fr. Wm. Tomlinson. The .action was brought upon a
1411 of exchange for £1.5 is. 6d., 'which the defend:hut had
endorsed to the plaintiffs ; and also noon a promissory note
for £2l 3s. 6d., which the defendani had signed. Mr.
Rymer, solicitor, spoke to the handwriting of the defetud-
ant .; and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, or
the joist amount with interest. The court then adjourn
um:W.4w o'clock this morning,