The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1849-08-21 00:00:00

POOL STANDARD.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-TUESDAY.

A SURGEON'S BILL.—WAINWRIGHT V. DYSON AND
ANOTHER.—The plaintiff is a surgeon at Chorlton upon
Medlock, and claimed from the defendants, as executors
of Mr. James Woodworth, the sum of £4lB 65., being the
amount of his bill for medical advice to that gentleman
and his wife, who lived apart. £2BO had been paid into
court. Mr. W. and his wife for several years were greatly
afflicted with various complaints, and the bill extended
over a period of two years, the plaintiff sometimes calling
on the male patient, who lived at Didsbury, four or five
times a day. The bill consisted of 54 closely written
pages. There were 1,260 mixtures, and 1,170 attendances.
The judge suggested a reference, but this was declined.and
an articled pupil of the plaintiff was called, but in half-an-
hour he had only got through three weeks' work out of
the 104, when his Lordship said it would be unjust to the
other suitors to continue the case then, and it was agreed
that it should stand over until the end of the assizes. Mr.
Knowles said a learned friend near him had calculated
that the case would occupy just nine days and a half.
(Loud laughter.) And that was only allowing three hours
for :speeches.—Our readers will probably be interested
with the following analysis of the plaintiff's bill: There
are charged 788 ordinary visits in the day time, 209 eve-
ning and night visits, 95 visits at Didsbury, 24 at Bowdon.
132 pills, 11 draughts, 1,290 mixtures, 70 lotions and
blisters, three injections, six prescriptions, two cuppings,
eight consultations, and one bleeding.
GOODS SUPPLIED TO A WIFE.—BRIERLEY V. BELFIELD.
—The plaintiff in this case, Robert Brierley, is a publican
at Rochdale, and the defendant, at the commencement of
the action, a small farmer, residing at Sandiford, near that
town. The action was brought to recover the value of
some furniture and money supplied to the defendant's
wife, in 1846, during the time she was separated from her
husband.—After witnesses bad been called for the plain-
tiff and defendant, his Lordship said that the plaintiff
could not recover any money paid on account or lent to
the wife ; and with reference to the furniture, he told the
jury that the question for them to decide was, whether the
wife was obliged to leave the house and protection of her
husband, either because he would not suffer her to remain
at home any longer, or because she had reasonable and
well grounded cause for thinking that she should endure
personal violence or ill-usage if she remained there longer ;
for if she left the house of her husband under these cir-
cumstances, she would have a right to pledge his credit
for the supply of the necessaries of life.—The jury re-
turned a verdict for the defendant.
WALMSLEY V. BRIERLEY.—The plaintiff is a large
manufacturer, at Failsworth, near Manchester, and had
brought the action to clear his character from certain as-
persions published by the defendant, and reflecting on the
moral character of the plaintiff.—Mr. Pollock, for the
defendant, apologised for the libel, and the case was
stopped.—Three other cases, arising out of the same
transaction, were in the list, and it was agreed that the
records should be withdrawn.
ACTION AGAINST AN INSURANCE COMPANY.—HULL
V. HE STAR INSURANCE COMPANY.—The plaintiff in
this case, Mr. Richard Hull, is a commission agent, at
Manchester; the defendants, a company called " The
Star Insurance Company," carrying on business in Lon-
don ; and the action was brought to recover £284 165.,
upon a policy of insurance, dated October, 1848. The
plaintiff, Mr. Hull, it appeared had a mortgage of £BOO
ipon a " hardwaste mill," used in manufacturing cop-
buttons, at Godshaw Fold. Having this large interest in
the mill, he wished to have it insured, and for that pur-
pose applied to Mr. Bird, or Birge, the Manchester agent
for the Star Insurance Company for the purpose, and the
agent went through and examined the mill. There were
six or seven implements called "devils," or " breakers,"
at work in his presence. On the 14th September, 1846, a
policy was granted, on consideration of a payment of 20s.
on account, insuring the mill for £5OO. In February,
1848, Mr. Hull, the plaintiff, himself bought the mill.
The old policy having lapsed, Mr. Hull, on the 29th Sep-
tember last, insured the mill for £5OO. Mr. Bird after-
wards came to him, and setting forth the superior cheap-
ness of the Star Insurance Company, and the great value
of the mill, induced him to insure in that office for £3OO.
The policy was delivered, and on the 13th February last,
a fire took place, and the mill was burned to the ground.
The West of England Company had paid, but the Star
Company refused. The pleas for the defence were, that
the policy had been delivered under a fraudulent covenant,
that the mill had been misdescribed, and that the value of
the goods destroyed in the fire had been incorrectly stated
in the inventory.—Mr. Attorney-General Knowles called
special attention to the fact that the mill in question had
been described in the policy not as a " waste," but as a
" cotton" mill, and in corroboration referred to a provi-
sion that "no bought flyings or strippings, nor any other
waste than that produced by the owner of the said mill.
should be spun therin." There was less liability to fire in
a cotton than in a waste mill, and the premiums of in-
surance were consequently lighter.