The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-08-25 00:00:00

HARDY V. STOWS

This was an undefended action to recover £32 16s. 6d.
The plaintiff is a wine and spirit merchant, in Manchester,
and the defendant is a publican. The action was brought to
recover the balance of an account. A verdict was returned
for the amount claimed.

JORDAN AND ANOTHER V. MORTON

This was Zo—a—n—untielended action to recn;;l.i6o 11 s. sd.
A verdict was returned for the amount claimed. The
Plaintiffs are colour and varnish manufacturers, in Liverpool,
and the defendant resides in Manchester.

LAIRD V. PIN AND OTHERS.
In this case Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Cowling appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Wightman and Mr. Crompton for the
defendants.
Mr. COWLING opened the pleadings. The plaintiff was
Laird, and the defendants were Joseph Robinson
Ito and John Aspinall. Th- declaration stated that the
defendants agreed to purchase from the plaintiff a certain
Plot of land, and to pay the purchase money for it ; that the
Plaintiff allowed the defendants to enter upon the land, and
they accepted possession of it; and that the plaintiff was
featly to give a good and, sufficient title, and would have
..lidered a draft of the conveyance, but that the defendants
ii,h;tcharged him, and had not paid the purchase money. To
thatthe defendants pleaded that they had never promised,
iai
the plaintiff was not ready and willing to make good his
title, that he did not offer to execute and make good a con-
,ieY.allee, that they did not discharge the plaintiff from ten-
-41.'4 a draft of the conveyance, that the. plaintiff did not
°W
them to take possession, and that they had made no
1.?%411 ise• Upon these issue was joined.
CRESSWELL said this was an action brought on behalf
131.. Mr. William Laird, or on behalf of his credirs, fo he
oot been able to meet all his engagements, a togainstr the
endataa, Joseph Robinson Pim and John Aspinall, to
netver the price of a certain plot of land which they and
dit ers contracted to buy of him in April 436. The defen-
io Itt Pim and Aspinall, with others known and unknown,
4,fite Year 1836, contriving, and no doubt intending, to be-
teot the public more than themselves—but to a certain ex-
eoto to benefit themselves also—got up a grand joint-stock
PriePany to protect the public against paying extortionate
ohte.a for timber—to assist builders and dealers in timber to
so, 111 it at a reasonable price—and, he presumed, to produce
the,"'a small return to themselves for their labour. This was
rea-dPe9aPectus they put forth. (The learned counsel then
chesttehis document. It was headed, " Liverpool and Man-
capitaie Timber and Saw Mills Joint Stock Company ; '
aino 4U0,000 ; solicitor, H. B. Walker, Esq. ; and
A. 8
ultg the directors were the names of the two defendants.)
psiconitnittee was appointed, consisting, he believed, of
could bin and Mr. Aspinall, to consider the best spot that
estak,. o selected upon the Cheshire side of the water for the
landTa!onent of a timber-yard. They selected a piece of
Pool,ll°llging to the plaintiff upon the margin of Wallasey
and the plaintiff sent them in an offer to sell it to them.

(The learned counsel then read the offer.- It was dated 6th
April, 1836, and offered to sell the company-the' and in
question at 7s. 6d. per square yard.) This land, he (Mr.
Cresswell) believed, formerly consisted of a portion of the
large estate belonging to Mr. Price, in the conveyances of
which clauses were introduced, preventing the parties from
making bricks or introducing steam-engines ; but Mr.
Laird's land was not subject to such restrictions. The an-
swer to this came from 'H. D: Walker, solicitor to the com-
pany, and he, on behalf of the company, accepted the offer.
Subsequent communications took place, from which it ap-
peared that the company were willing to buy a much larger
plot in addition to that which was the subject of the present
action, consisting of 16;000 square yards, but the negocia-
tions were absolute, and no contract was founded upon them.
This contract having been entered into, an abstract of the
title Was sent for the inspection of the purchasers. In the
mean time they commenced the operation of making bricks
upon it, and in the course of the, year they made 500,000
bricks upon it, thus clearly taking possession of it by the
parties with whom they contracted to make the bricks in
question. On the sth of August the plaintiff's attorney
thought it was time the purchase should be completed, and
he addressed a letter to Mr. Walker, the defendant's attor-
ney, to that effect. At that time Messrs. Rowlinson,
Howard, and Wyche, a respectable firm, acted as attornies
for the plaintiff. No answer was sent to that letter. On the
16th of August another letter was sent, and on the 18th an
answer was sent to this effect :—" We have no money for
any thing at present." He did not dispute the veracity of
the gentleman who wrote that letter, but it added, " 1 will
lay your note before the directors at their next meeting, and
then I will see you personally." Here was no repudiation of
the contract, no complaint about the title, but simply a
pithy sentence—and one that undoubtedly interposed a diffi-
cnity in the way of parties fulfilling their contracts—namely,
"We have no money :" so the matter rested. In the begin-
ning of the next year, 1837, Mr. Laird having met with other
persons who were in the same position as the company—he
did not speak of Mr. Pim and Mr. Aspinall, for he believed
they had money enough—became embarrassed in his affairs.
The transaction had to be taken up by trustees, and they put
it into the hands of Mr. Watson, who' now acted as the at-
torney for the plaintiff. Mr. Watson then inclosed an ab-
stract of the title which they previously had. (The learned
counsel read the letter.) There was some personal commu-
nication between the parties which he' would not detail, be-
cause he could not prove it except through the medium of
Mr. Watson. On the 6th October another letter was written
offering, that if the abstract of the title was not satisfactory
it should be amended. On the 20th of October following the
abstract was returned in a letter, which stated that the com-
pany declined to take a conveyance of the land, so they put
an end to the contract. The defendants now pleaded a
variety of pleas—all of which the learned counsel noticed,
and contended that they would all be refuted by the evidence
he had to produce.
Mr. H. B. Walker was then called. He said he was so-
licitor to the company named: He proved the prospectus of
the company, the defendants to be directors, and the cor-
respondence which had been read by Mr. Cresswell. In
cross-examination he stated, that without the water commu-
nication marked:on the plan the land would have been of no
value to the company. 'Samuel Stansfield was one of the
directors.

Mr. Clarke Ramplin, architect and surveyor, proved that
he had made a plan of the laud, and delivered it to the com-
pany.
Mr. John Walker, builder, proved that he had made on
the land in question 484,000 bricks for the company. He
was engaged by Mr. Stansfield.
Mr. Watson was then called, and he proved several docu-
ments. In cross-examination he said that part of the bricks
had been sold, and the money deposited in a bank, in the
name of himself and Mr. Mallaby, to await the issue of the
trial. The amount was about £4OO. This was the plain-
tiff's case.
Mr. WIGHTMA then submitted to the Court that his
learned friends had not made out any contract, as alleged in
the declaration. The learned counsel compared the evidence
with the declaration in support of the objection.
The JUDGE said he would reserve the point, and give leave
to move for a nonsuit, in case the court above should be of
his opinion, that the evidence did not sustain the contract.
Mr. WiGnTBIAN then objected, that it had not been made
out that the plaintiff was ready and willing to give a good
title. It had been merely shown that he had sent in an ab-
stract.

The JUDGE said that resolved itself into the same question.
Mr. WIGHTMAN said he was now assuming that the plain-
tiff had made out a contract—and now be contended he had
made out a good and sufficient title.

The JUDGE overruled the objection. It would be a ques-
tion for the jury whether the circumstances under which the
abstract was received and returned chewed the title.

Mr. WIGHTMAN.-Will your lordship give me leave to
move on that. point ?
The JUDGE replied in the affirmative.
Mr. CRESSiVELL applied for his lordship to amend the
declaration with regard to the interest to be paid, and he as-
sented.

The JUDGE then left the case to the jury, to say what in-
jury the plaintiff had sustained, the interest of money, and for
the use.and occupation of the land.

The jury returned a verdict for £6BO, for the interest upon
the purchase money, £7O for the clay, and, if not entitled to
interest, £4O for four years' use anti occupation of the land;
both partieS being at liberty to move to increase or reduce
the damages.