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

BARDSLEY V. ALCOCK

The plaintiff in this case is a dealer in malt at Manchester,
and the defendant deals in gigs and post-horses at Stockport.
In 1837 a person named Mills commenced business at Hea-
ton Norris, near Stockport, as a coach-maker; but not hav-
ing money enough to carry on his business, he applied to the
plaintiff to assist hint, and an arrangement was entered into

between them, that tile plaintiff should carry on business at
Heaton Norris, Mills acting as his foreman at 30s. a-week.
The action was brought to recover the sum of £23 13s. for
work done by the plaintiff, at his coach-making establish-
ment, for the defendant. For the defence it was contended,
that the bill of the defendant was owing to Mills, who was
since dead. Evidence was brought to show the transfer of
the tenancv occupied as a coach-making establishment by
the plaintiff, under the superintendence of Mills, from Mills
to the plaintiff; and the jury found a verdict for the plain-
tiff, damages £23 13s.
BAMFORD V. SHUTTLEIVORTH AND OTHERS.

Mr. Alexander and Mr. Watson appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Cresswell for the defendants.
The declaration was on an assumpsit for money had and
received by the defendants. The action was brought by the
plaintiff, a gentleman residing in Rochdale, for the recovery
of a sum of £l6, which he had paid as a deposit on some
property of which he was an intended purchaser, but for
which the title was never made good. On the sth of July,
1837, the defendants, who are attorneys at Rochdale, put up
some property to auction in different lots, and among other
persons Mr. Bamford purchased a lot No. 3; consisting of
two cottages. For this he was to give £160; and respecting
this property the plaintiff signed the conditions of sale,
Messrs. Shuttleworth acting as agents for Mr. Saville Stott,
the vendor. The conditions of purchase having been signed,
a deposit of £l6 became due, being £lO per cent. on the
purchase money, and also £-1 auction duty. In the course
of two or three days, the auction money was paid, and also
the £l6 per centage. Soon after, a difficulty was raised as
to obtaining the title, and the conveyance was never com-
pleted. Not being able to get a title to the property, the
plaintiff, through his attorney, demanded either that a title
should be found, or that his deposit of 1.36 should be refunded;
this was refused by the defendants, on the ground that they
were merely agents in the transaction, and had appropriated
the deposit according to the orders of their principal. Ac-
cordingly proceedings were commenced against the defen-
dants, for the recovery of the £l6. Notice of action was also
sent to the auctioneer, but he had paid back the £4 he had
received. On behalf of the defendants a legal objection was
raised, that they not being stake-holders, but agents for the
vendor, the action could not be sustained against them, but
ought to have been against the principal. His LORDSHIP
overruled the objection, and recommended the jury to find
for the plaintiff. Verdict accordingly—damages £l6.

DOE DEM EARNSHAW V. THORNLEY.

Mr. Wighttnan and Mr. Watson appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Alexander for the defendant-

'Phis was an action of ejectment. The plaintiff is in hum-
circumstances, and is a machine maker at Keighley, and
claimed possession of an estate, as heir-at-law, now in the
possession of the defendant, and sought by the present action
to recover it. The premises in dispute are situated at Pil-
kington, in Yorkshire. The question to try was whether the
children of David Earnshaw, the grandfather of the plaintiff,
were dead or not. Old David Earnshaw, it was stated by
the plaintiff, had two children, who lived at Stansfield, in
Yorkshire. Becoming reduced in circumstances be was
obliged to put out his children to trade, he having first re-
moved to Keighley. The eldest son was put to learn the
trade of a cobler, but disliked it so much that he ran away
into Lancashire, and became a coachman at a place called
Plate Hall, and finally removed to Ratcliffe Bridge, where
he remained to the end of his life. He was the father of Mr.
James Earnshaw who was enabled to acquire the property at
present in dispute. It was contended that the plaintiff was
the eldest son of Edward Earnshaw, the eldest son of old
Earnshaw, and the heir-at-law of the property. The parish
register of Heptonstall, in Yorkshire, was produced, and
several old people were examined, to endeavour to prove that
the plaintiff was lineally descended from old Earnshaw, of
Keighlev, and formerly of Stansfield.
Mr. CNESSWELL addressed the jury for, the defence. He
contended that the evidence did not go at all to show that
any relationship had ever existed. It would be preposperous
if the rights of property- were to be invaded on such slight
grounds.

- Witnesses were called, who proved that they had been
in habits of intimacy with Mr. Earnshaw, of Ratcliffe-bridge,
and that they bad frequently heard him say that a person
named Barrow was his heir, and the only relative he had in
the world.

The learned JUDGE having commented at sotne'length on
he evidence, the jury retired at seven o'clock. They re-
turned in about twenty minutes, and delivered a verdict for
the defendant.

WEDNESDAY.
CHAPPEL V. •EARLAM.

Dr. Brown and Mr. Wightman appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Brandt for the defendant.
This was an action' brought by the defendant, Samuel
Chappel, a husbandman at Stockport, against Henry Ear-
law, the deputy constable of Heaton-Norris, near Stockport,
to recover damages for an assault and false imprisonment
committed upon his wife. It appeared that on the 21st of
July 1837, the hay-stacks of Mr. Thorneley, farmer of Hea-
ton-Norris, and the chief constable, were set on fire, and the
wife of the plaintiff was taken into custody on suspicion, and
confined in prison for one day, but was afterwards discharg-
ed, and no further charge made against her. The shoes of
the plaintiff's wife and daughter were also forcibly seized and
carried away, and his house searched and ransacked by the
defendant, acting as constable; and for this alleged outrage
the action was brought. Witnesses were called to prove the
facts. For the defence, it appeared that Chappel, the plain-
tiff, formerly, at the time of the fire, kept a beer-house, and
was fined twice by the magistrates on the information of Ear-
lam and Thorneley, in the execution of their duly, for keeping
his house open at improper hours. Chappel had been fined
the second time on the 20th of July, and refused to pay the
fine, and was in consequence sent to the New Bailey at
Stockport. That same night, Thorneley's stack was set on
fire. Near his stack-yard was a brick-field; and several small,
or apparently women's feet marks, were found near the brick
kiln, from wh►ch tire had evidently been taken to the stack.
The stack was found set on fire in different places with small

coal and chips. Suspicion alighted upon the Chappels, and
Earlam, by Thorneley's orders, went to search the Chappels'
house, and took Mrs. Chappel into custody. On examining
the shoes of the females, the shoes of the daughter were found
to have clay adhering to them the same as was found in the
brick field, and also small coal. The daughter was after-
wards tried at the Assizes for setting tire to the stack, but
was acquitted on some ground of doubt. His Lordship, in
summing up, said, if the jury found that there was sufficient
ground of suspicion for the constable to act as he had done,
they would find for the defendant • if, however, they found
that the defendant had been actuated by malice, they would
find for the plaintiff, and give such damages as the case might
require.
The jury just turned round in the box, and found a verdict
for the defendant.

SMITH V. TWEEDALE AND ANOTHER

This was an action brought to.recover damages for a tres-
pass. The plaintiff and the defendants were both tenants
under the same landlord. The plaintiff occupied a small
farm in the township of Sproatley, in the parish of Rochdale.
The defendants, without any communication with the plain-
tiff, having had some previous arrangement with the plain-
tiff's landlord, commenced digging on the plaintiff's farm,
and built a house there.—The jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff in the two first issues, and for the defendant on the
third, being in effect a verdict for the defendant. t

HOLFORD V. BLUNDELL.
The plaintiff in this case is a house-agent at Manchester,
and sued the High Sheriff nominally, as trustee of a man
named Bardswell. Bardswell was a publican at Manchester,
and kept a public-house in Bengal-street, and got into diffi-
culties. Messrs. Bond and Proctor were creditors of his,

and issued out a fieri facial against Lis ;roods, which
would have swallowed up. the whole of them. In order
to prevent that happening, Bardswell assigned over
his property for the benefit of his creditors, and exe•
cuted the assignment a few hours before the sheriff's offi-
cer came to seize the goods, and an of under the assign-
ment was in possession when the sheriff's offider came. The

sheriff's officer fancying the indenture of assignment not
good, executed the warrant of fieri facial, and sold Bards-
well's goods for £3O. For the defence it was contended that
the conveyance was not a real and bona fide transaction, but
a made-up affair to cheat the principal creditors.—The jury
found a verdict for the defendant.