The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-13 00:00:00

CROWN COURI
V. XEV

I4ALSAL

This action was brought to recover damages for breach
of contract, the defendant having, as alleged, broken an
agreement to which he was aiparty in an indenture of ap.

prenticeship.
Mr. Martin and Mr. .I:nines appeared for the plaintiff;
and Mr. Alexander and Mr. Murphy for the defendant.
It appeared that in the year 1835, Miss Halsall, daughter
cf Mrs. Halsall, of Ahcar, was bound apprentice to Mr.
Kevan to learn the business of a pawnbroker. She was tc
receive a certain salary per year, with board and lodging.
On the 9th Nov. 1b39, Miss Halsall accompanied Mis 6.
Kevan to the theatre. On their return home, Mr. Kevar,
was standing at the door : he ordered Miss Kevan to bed.
and told -Miss Halsall to quit his house. She did so, am.
went to the house of Mrs. Campbell, a neighbour; she wen.
back to Mr. Kevan's next morning, and was preparing t(
take her boxes away, when Miss Kevan induced her to sigi
a memorandum to the effect that the indentures were can,
celled. The case was subsequently brought before Mr
Rushton, who having in vain endeavoured to induce MI
Bevan to fulfil the conditions of the indenture, dismissed i
with. a suggestion that a remedy might be found by a
action at 1.
.IW.

After a portion of the evidence had been heard, and a
little wrangling had taken place amongst the counsel, it
was agreed that a verdict should be taken for the plaintiff,
with .40, damageq, the indentures to be cancelled and no
further proceedings' to arise.

COOK V. BKOWNRIGO.

tiff. David Cook a ship chandler of this town, was the plail
The action was brought to recover from Mr. Henry
r
ownrigg the sum of £l9. ss. 4d.
Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Mur
phy for the defendant.
The plaintiff's claim was clearly proved.
of the trial which occupied but a short time,
Mr. CROMPTON called Mr. Smith, the defendant's a
•

In the course

torney.
Mr Smith said he had not been subpcened, and he wool
not stand up.
Mr. CROMPTON appealed to his lordship, and asserte
his right to call whom he pleased without any subpmm
The conduct of the attorney in refusing to answer was tno:
extraordinary. He (Mr. Crompton) had a right to ca

any person in court.
Mr. MURPHY thought Mr. Smith might refuse to be
sworn if he chose. if the plaintiff had required his evidence,
he ought of course to have subp(eued him. It was not for
his learned friend now to call upon him to prove his case.
Mr. CROMPTON.—I apprehend his lordship will not sanc-
tion such a proceeding. Mr. Smith may refuse to answer,
but I shall call on his lordship to notice the contempt of
court.
Mr. MURPHY said Mr. Smith Was not surely to be called
upon in that sudden manner without any previous notice.
Mr. CROMPTON.—I shall call Mr. Smith, and if he do not
answer, I apprehend my lord will commit him, and that wil
be a lesson for attorneys in future.
Justice MAULE.—Mr. Smith must be sworn certainly
to be called upon suddenly in the course of a trial.
Nothing is more common than for the attorneys in cause
Mr. Smith.—lf your lordship think I ought to answer,
have no objection ; I shall have great pleasure in giving
evidence.
—lt is a circumstance which is continuall:

-.-Justice MAULS
occurring.
Mr. Smith was sworn accordingly
the plaintiff, damages £l9 ss. 4d.
DAVIDSON V. COLL.
The plaintiff in this case is the public officer of the Con
mercial Bank of England ; the defendant is Mr. Willia
Cole, an architect, residing at Birkenhead. The action w
brought for the recovery of a sum of £550, the amount
two y bills of exchange, drawn and accepte b Mr. Dobl
of the firm of Golborn and Dobbs, and indorsed by the defe
dant.
Mr. Crompton conducted the case for the plaintiff, an
i
Mr. Alexander and Mr. Henderson appeared in behalf o
the defendant.
The bills were produced, and notice of their being disho-
noured was proved to have been served by the bank upon the
defendant.
The defence got up was, that one of the bills which was
for the sum of £450, was only an accommodation bill, of
which 'notice was given to the bank, who in discounting it
only gave: £5O in cash to the defendants, reserving the rest
for two other bills which were becoming due. The arrange-
ment, it was averred, had been made between the bank and
Mr. Dobbs, without the knowledge of the defendants. The
banking company had proved the bills under the bankruptcy
of Mr. Dobbs, which took place some time afterwards ; and
it appeared that they had received two shillings and sixpence
in the pound as a dividend thereon. The action was brought
to recover the balance. 'With regard to one bill for £lOO no
objection was urged.
The jury
_returned a verdict for the plaintiff; damages
lle. Sid. the amount claimed after the deduction of
the dividend

The jury found for

WHARTON V. 'WRIGHT.
This was an undefended action for the recovery of £7O,
the amount of two bills of exchange, accepted by the defend-
ant. Verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.
THE QUEEN tl.. THE INHABITANTS OF WEST DERBY.
This was an indictment against the inhabitants of the town-
ship of West Derby, inthe parish of Walton-on-the-Hill,
to compel them to repair apad in Edge-hill, called Lord-
street, running between avertree road and Sraithdown-

lane.
Mr. Starkie and Mr. James appeared in support of the
indictment, and Mr. Crompton for the defendants.
The objection urged on behalf of the defendants was that
it was no road at present, repairable by anybody.
In the course of the trial, Mr. CROMPTON said they had
no objection whatever to adopt the road, and keep it in re-
pair for the future, providing it were first paved and made a
good road. The jury found the defendants not guilty.
The above decision was given on the ground that the place
in question, both in
.his lordship's opinion and •that of the
jury, was not a highway.
A long discussion ensued on an application from Mr.
STAnKrE, for his lordship to throw the costs of the indict-
ment on the defendants, under section 95, sth and 6th Wil-
liam IV., cap. 60.
Mr. CROMPTON said it was something new for the winning
party to be made to pay the costs of his adversary.
Mr. STAR= contended that the statute had a peculiarity
in this respect, as where the indictment was directed by the
• justices. the expenses of trying the question were to fall upon
the public. •
His LORDSHIP having examined the various provisions of
the statute, had doubts on the subject, as the case had been
first brought at quarter sessions ; and it was at length agreed
that he (the learned judge) should suspend his decision on
the point till a future day.