The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-04-14 00:00:00

OXTON 71. SHARP.-BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE, &C,

This action was brought for the recovery of damages for a
breach of promise of marriage, and also of various sums of
money lent by the plaintiff to the defendant. It appeared,
by the statement of
Mr. JOHN HENDERSON, counsel for Mrs. Orton, that she
had some property left to her by her deceased husband, and
that her father left bee-.proprietrix of the Steam-packet
Tavern, near the northern docks, iu this town. The defendant
had known her many yeaM 'and it had been arranged more
than once that they should be married. The:defendant, who
was a musicalinstrument maker, in this town, had induced.
her to dispose of her house, telling her that he did not wish
to.continne in•the public 'line after they were married, but
that they would take a shop in Church-street and pursue his
business. He obtained possession of her money, which she
had placed in MesSrs. Leyland and Bullin's.bank, and placed
it in Hope's bank, in his own name. In the month of Octo-
ber, 1836, -the defendant married another person, and the
plaintiff had subsequently borrowed a sum of money which
she had lent to hini. She was now reduced to poverty, and
sued as a pauper.
Margaret Birchall, formerly a servant with Mrs. Orton
when she was at the Steam-packet Tavern, was called. She
proved some circumstances tending to corroborate a portion
of the above statement. Before her examination was con-
cluded, the defendant agreed to a proposal that a verdict
should be taken for the plaintiff, damages £3OO.
13AXENDALV,,V., SHAW.
The plaintiff in this case was Mr. Richard Baxendale,
coach-builder, of this town ; the defendant, Isabella Shaw,
keeper of • the Edge-hill Coffee-house. The action was
brought for a balance on a promissory note, and for goods
sold and, delivered. The defendant pleaded, that the note
was obtained by fraud ; that it was an accommodation note ;
and that the only balance due was £6 13s 6d, which had been
paid into court.
Mr. MARTIN, counsel for the plaintiff, in a very humour-
ous address, which was, withal, in some parts, rather indeli-
cate, stated, that, some time since, a person, named LeWin,
arrived from-London,: who was possessed of personal attrac-
tions which Miss Shaw was unable to resist, and, accordingly,
she married him. At this time, she 'and Lewin had a car
built by the plaintiff, for which the bill of exchange in ques-
tion for :CBB is 10d was paid. Subsequently, a wife, whom
Lewin had married prieviously, came from London, and car-
ried him off.• • After this, the defendant called her creditors
together, and 'arranged to pay them all, if time were given to
.her. On the bill of exchange she paid, at the rate of £5 per
Ofir bu.re other work 41V c".sh-e had
_another
done, on account oc - ' '
money was'paid, leaving f, balance due wi'inese transaetiolis'
of £73 13s 6d.
' Witnesses having been called to prove the work done and
the delivery of the goods, •
Ir. • Cttomyros, who appeared for the defendant, admitted
(bet he had no defence.
:‘ verdict was accordingly given for the plaintiff, damages
;C9,-, 15s -14 less £6 13s 6d paid into court.
• WILLIAMS V. BERRY.
This was an undefended action, brought by Mr. Williams,
coal-dealer. of this town, to recover :C6l 2s 6d from Thomas
Berry, builder, for coals and slack sold and delivered. The
sale and delivery were proved, and the jury found for the
plaintiff for the amount claimed.
IVHITEHAME V. FLOCKTON.

Mr. COWLING, who appeared for the plaintiff in this case,
stated, that the action was brought in respect of certain calls
on some shares in the Great North of England Railway,
which the defendant, Mr. Flockton,.on purchasing the shares,
had undertaken to pay. The defendant pleaded that he never
made the contract alleged, and that the contract was illegal,
inasmuch as the company itself was illegal, not having been
incorporated by act of parliament at the time of the sale.
From the learned gentleman's statement of the case, it ap-
peared that Mr. Whithame thought favourably of the under-
taking above mentioned when first it was proposed, and that
he paid a deposit of £2 per share on twenty shares of £lOO
each, before the act, which had been applied for, had been
passed. As the shares rose rapidly in value, he determined
on disposing of them, and, in pursuance of this design, he
sent the scrip to a Mr. Dashfield, in London, who sold them
to:Mr. Clockton, the defendant, the latter giving a written
undertaking to pay all the calls. The act was subsequently
passed, and since then the defendant had sold the shares ;
but in regard to the other ten he had refused to fulfil the
• terms of his contract. There had been eight or nine calls ;
but for some time the company did not press the plaintiff for
payment, and he had forborne to press the defendant. At
length the company became urgent for Mr. Whithame to pay
the calls, and he had called upon the defendant to pay them,
as he had undertaken, which he refused to do. The first
plea of the defendant, that he had never made any such con-
tract, would be met by the evidence of Mr. Dashfield, that
he had done so, and it was, in point of fact, admitted in the
second plea, which was that the contract was illegal. The
pretence that the company did not act as a corporation till
the act was made, was idle, as the company was formed for
the purpose of obtaining the act.
Mr. Lake Dashfield was called. He swore, that he re-
ceived the scrip of the shares in question in March, 1836,
and sold it, on the same day he received it, to Mr. Flockton,
for £6 per share, receiving for himself 2s. fid. per share
commission, which made the whole amount put into his
hands £122 10s. He stated to Mr. Flockton, that they
were sold for a friend in Liverpool, and Mr. Flockton gave
him a receipt and a written undertaking to pay all future
calls. The receipt, &c., were given on the head of a sheet
of writing paper, on purpose that he might send it to Liver-
pool. The defendant also gave him a receipt for his own
private satisfaction. The undertaking was put in and proved
by the witness.
Mr. Dashfield was cross-examined, at very great length,
by Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLY, who, with Mr. Noggins, ap-
peared for the defence. The object of the cross-examination
was to show, that the witness had purchased the shares for
£BO from Mr. Whitehame, and sold them again to Mr.
Flockton as from himself. The witness stated, that he had
made copies of the letters which had passed between him
and Whitchame on the subject, and that the transaction ap-
peared on his books. He had had a running account with
Mr. Flockton, and owed him money at the time, and though
he admitted that the price of the shares was settled in ac-
count, he denied that the shares were turned over as his own
for the purpose of paying part of what he owed Flockton.
His books, he said, were in London, and he could give a
more minute account of the circumstances upon which he
was pressed, if he could refer to them. He afterwards ad-
nutted, that he had given his books up to the clerk of the
Insolvent Debtors' Court, on the occasion of his taking the
benefit of the Insolvent Act. He paid Mr. Whitehame also
in account.
Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLY suddenly produced the books,
which hdd been brought from London by the clerk of the
Insolvent Court.
The witness examined the books, but could not find any
entry beyond February, 1836. He then said be had other
books in London. Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLY: Did you not
swear, when the list of nine hooks was delivered in at the
Insolvent Court, that you had given in a full list I" Witness:
" I don't know: I swore what was required." Mr. Sergeant
ATCHERLY said, his books had been examined, and there
was not a trace of the naiue of Whitehame throughout, nor
was there any copy of the letter to him spoken of by the wit-
ness. The witness was examined on his banking check-
book, touching shares which, it was recorded on one of the
counterparts, had been purchased from Mr. Whitehame for
;E:80, and touching certain remittances to that amount, also
recorded in counterparts, bearing dates 18th March and Ist
and 4th April, to have been sent to a Mr. Ruddle, a relation
to Mr. Whitehame. The witness varied very much in his
explanations of this and other circumstances. He, however,
admitted, that he had only remitted £B3 to Mr. Whitehame,
though lie had received £l2O for the shares from Mr. Flock-
ton. He said, as he had made a bargain for the sale of the
scrip to another person who had wished to be rid of the pur-
chase, though the shares were rising in value at the time,
and, as he had paid this person £2O for not taking the shares,
he thought himself justified in putting the remaining £2O
into his pocket. The name of White Caine did not appear in
the undertaking given by Mr. Flockton.
It was proved, by the clerk to the company, that the shares
still stood in the name of Mr. Whitehame, and that calls to
the amount of £43 per share had been paid up.
Mr. COWLING stood upon the undertaking, and produced
accounts tending to show, that, however Dashfield might
have acted in the transaction, he had conducted it as a sale
of shares belonging to Mr. Whitehame, and had received a
commission of £2los. from Flockton for the sale.
Mr. Serjeant ATCHERLY left it to the jury to say whether
they could believe the witness upon whose testimony the
allegations of the plaintiff were established and the proof of
the documents rested.
The jury retired, and, after an absence of two hours, they
returned and delivered a verdict for the plaintiff—damages,
£430.

Leave was given to move for a new trial or a nonsuit.
LAWRENCE V. HOPKINSON.
Thomas Lawrence, a coach and omnibus proprietor, in
this neighbourhood, was the plaintiff,: and George Hopkin-
son, a coacbmaker, the defendant.

Mr. WIGHTM AN stated that the plaintiff claimed a balance
of £74, on a long series of accounts which commenced in
1837. As the accounts were very intricate, lie would pro-
pose a reference. This was at once acceded to, and a verdict
was taken for the plaintiff, subject to a reference.

SHAW V. SCARISBRICK ESQ.

This action was brought, nominally, against the late High-
sheriff of the county, Charles Scarisbrick, Esq., but the real
defendant was Joshua Oglethorpe, one of the sheriff's offi-
cers. The record set forth, that a writ had been made out
against William Hamilton, and that the defendant, having
been furnished with the execution, had failed to arrest him ;
that he had given the writ to others; who were not officers.
&c. The defendant had entered various pleas, amongst
which, the first was, that no debt was owing by Hamilton.
The account charged to be owing by Hamilton was £6O.
Mr. Oglethorpe was called and ordered to produce the war-
rant. He said he had not got it. When asked wheie it was,
Mr. Wightman,. his counsel, directed him not to answer,
unless on oath. The question was repeated and the witness
was mute. Mr. Serjeant Atcherly directed that the subpoena
of the witness should he read. The subpoena was read. It
commanded Joshua Oglethorpe to produce the warrant ; and
again ha replied that-he had not got it. He was asked where
it was, but not one word did he answer. His lordship inti-
mated that the witness was not bound to answer till he was
sworn. Mr. Serjeant ATcummv . Then I will submit to be
nonsuited, and will settle with Mr. Oglethorpe another day.

SERVICE AND ANOTHER r. HART.

Mr. WIGHTMAN, who, with Mr. Henderson, appeared for
the plaintiffs, Mr. Thomas Service, and his brother, who
are painters, stated, his clients claimed £49 from Mr, Lewis
Joseph Hart, who amongst other pleas, pleaded a tender.
As the proof of this issue rested with the defendant,
Mr. CROMPTON, his counsel, stated the case. He said

the claim arose out of the employment of plaintiff to do some
work on the premises of the defendant, who was a shop-
keeper, in the Crescent, in this town. When the work was
finished, there was some dispute, as was frequently the case
with contracts, about the money due to the plaintiff, the
latter claiming £49, and the defendant not being willing to
pay more than £45. As the plaintiff had declared his in-
tention of going to law, Mr. Hart, at first, determined to re-
sist the demand, as he was of opinion that the work of the
plaintiff had done his premises more injury than good; but,
at length, he was persuaded, rather than go to law, to pay the
amount claimed. It had been offered and refused, and he
would call Mr. Harding to prove the tender of £49.
Mr. John Harding, who said that he was a book-keeper in
this town, stated, that he made a tender of the money to Mr.
Thomas Service on the 25th of October last. The reply was,
that the business was in the hands of an attorney, and he had
nothing farther to do with it. He (witness) said, Mr. Hart
did not wish to have anything to do. with an attorney, and he
offered Mr. Service £49 (is. 9d.- - •

Mr. WIGHTMAN cross-examined the witness minutely,
touching the circumstances that had occurred, and the words
that he made use of in making the tender. It came out,
that the witness was clerk to Mr. Yates, attorney, and that
he had been sent to make the tender by Mr. Yates. After
the witness had answered every question put by Mr. Wight-
man, and pointed out Mr. Thomas Service, the learned
counsel told him to look steadily in the face of Mr. Service,
and tell him, on his oath, if there were one word of truth in-
all that he had sworn to. In the midst of the loud laughter
that followed this question, Mr. Service exclaimed, that
there was not a word of truth in all that the witness had
and that he had never seen him or received any•tender.
Mr. \VIGHTMAN said. he was unable to contradict the
witness, except upon the testimony of Mr. Service, whom
he could not call.
A verdict was taken for the defendant.
It was intimated to his lordship, that there were no more
causes for him to try. Hereupon he bowed a farewell to the
jury, and left the court, which broke up at four o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-SATURDAY.

ALLEGED ASSAULT AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT.-THOMAS

• V. QUICK AND ANOTHER.
In this action Mr. John Thomas, a tidewaiter, was the
plaintiff ; the defendants were Thomas Quick and Thomas
Browne, police-officers; and the action was brought by the
plaintiff to recover compensation in damages from the defen-
dants for arr alleged assault and false imprisonment. The
defendants pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Alexander and Mr. Murphy were the.counsel for the
plaintiff; there appeared on behalf of the defendants Mr.
Cresswell,.Mr. Sergeant Starkie, and Mr. Crompton.
The jury, after a few minutes eonsultationr found a verdict
for t he defendant.

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
FENESSY V.

This action was brought by Miss Catherine Fenessy to re-
cover from the defendant, Mr.. George Sharp, a pawnbroker
carrying on business in Liverpool, compensation in damages
for a breach of promise of marriage. . .
Mr. Alexander and Mr. Murphy for the plaintiff; Mr.
Cresswell for the defence.

Mr. ALEXANDER having opened his case, called
Mr. Richard Fenessy, who said, I am a joiner and cabinet
maker in this town. The defendant is a pawnbroker. He
was a widower seine time since— He had married a sister of
my wife. He had no surviving children by her. In the month
of May, 1837, my sister, the plaintiff; came over from Ireland
to Liverpool, and resided with me. The following day was
Sunday, and on the evening of that day Mr. Sharp came to
my house, and I introduced Miss Fenessy to him. From
that time up to last May Mr.:Sharp came to my house every
night in.the week, except Saturday night. We were on very
intimate terms, and when we were not at his house he was at
our.. Some time after I was induced to suppose that an
affection had !sprung up between the.. plaintiff and defendant.
In January, last year, I had a conversation with him re-
specting my sister. Ha was in our house, but he called me
out, and said, " Mr. Fenessy, I know what our MiS. Fe-
nessy's humours are. It's all about me and Miss renessy."
I said, " I know it" Ile then gave me his hand, and said,
"Tell Miss .Fenessy, that, whatever Mrs. Fenessy does, or
says, above all timings for Miss Fenessy not to take uny no-
tice other, for, in a short time, I will 'marry her ; but do not
let Mrs. Fenessy know anything about it." On the follow-
ing Sunday, Sharp invited me to dine with him at his house.
My wife was then taking care of his house during the day
.time, in consequence of his having lost his housekeeper. I
and Sharp:went out to take a walk in the evening. In the
course of conversation, we turned to the subject of his mar-
riage, and Sharp distinctly told me, that the reason he did
not marry was, that, if he did, the Misses .Watts.would stop
his business. The Misses Watts,wssf. ••'
sem-m,eu ins time:-and with whom f-m. after-
wards formed a partnership. He said, he thought, that
after the summer, his plate stock would cover what he owed
the Misses Watts, and that by the next January he would
marry Miss Fenessy.- 1 then told him that I would insure
my. life-for his for £lOOO, and he said that insurance would
not shorten life. My object was that it should be for Mr.
Sharp's benefit. He ' spoke. often to me about the marriage,
and always as of a fixed and settled thing. I had afterwards
some conversation with him respecting the substance of some
rumours. In the early part of- September Mr. Sharp was in
Whitechapel, in company with .a person named Smith. I
told him (Sharp) that I was looking for him, arid asked him
if he had said my sister Catherine was pushing herself upon
him. He said that he had not said so, nor had he ever any
reason •to say so. I then said that Mrs. Fenessy had told
me that that was the reason of his having promised-my sister
marriage. He went back with me to my house; to show that
he had said no such thins.; and I said to Mrs. FeneSsy,
" There is Sharp, to explain the words he is said to have
made use of in • respect to my sister, Catherine Fenessy."
They went into the house, and Airs. Fenessy:-said
" You did say so." Ile said, " I did not." - She said, "You
did ; and you also said that you had taken a second thought,
or consideration, I forget which." And he said, " I did_aay
so ; that she was a Catholic and I a Protestant ; and that it
would be for life, and we- might not live happily together;
perhaps." He then said that he was determined to marry,
but not in the same family as before, let the consequence be
what it would.

Cross-examined.—Mrs. Fenessy was very kind to the de-
fendant on every occasion when she had an opportunity. She
went every Saturday night to his house, and stood behind
his shop fin- him. Her objection to the marriage, I suppose,
was on account that she had reared his first wife from a child
until she was married to him. My sister; the plaintiff, is 32
or 33 years of age. I could not swear that she is any more,
nor could I swear that she is not 34, seeing that 1 have not
got the register.

Re-examined.—l believe Sharp's stock, from his own ac-
count of it, to be worth fully £lOOO. He showed me his
books, that he was making something more than £lOOO
a-year by his business. Ile has repeatedly told me that, but
not since. May or June.
By Mr. CRESSWELL.---I know there is a large
.mortgage
on his stock, somewhere about £3OOO.
Mrs. Frances Fenessy.—Mr. Sharp's first wife was a sis-
ter of mine. • He told her, on her deathbed, that he would
never marry any one again. [The witness then corroborated
the principal part of her husband's evidence.] Mr. Sharp
will be 36 on his next birthday. The plaintiff is about 32 ;
she is not old.

Mr. CRESSWELL—When do ladies, in your opinion, be-
gin to grow old? Ido rot know, sir.
Mr. CRESSWELL.-1 beg your pardon for putting such a
question-to you. [The witness was an elderly woman.]
By Mr. CRESSWELL.—I was never in any humours about
the intended marriage. I thought Mr. Sharp had a right to
please himself. He candidly acknowledged to me, when I
asked him, that he had promised the plaintiff marriage. He
said, " I promised her marriage; she shoved herself on me."
—(Laughter.)
afr. William Smith, flour-dealer, was examined, and tes-
tified to the correctness of the first witness's evidence with
respect to conversation which had taken place in his presence.
Mr. Jas. Martindale, the clerk of Christ's Church, proved,
that the defendant was, on the 25th of December last, mar-
ried at that church, to Miss Healing.
Mr. CREsswErJ, addressed the jury in mitigation of da-
mages.

Verdict for the plaintiff. Damages, £4O.
ASSAULT.-SHAND V. SHARP.
This was an action to recover damages for an assault, al,
leged to have been committed by the defendant, Mr. Win.
Sharp, an innkeeper, in Liverpool, on .Mr. Shand, also at
innkeeper, in Liverpool. The defendant pleaded guilty.
Mr. Alexander and Mr. Addison for the plaintiff; andiMr.
Cresswell for the defendant.

Mr. ALEXANDER, in his opening statement, said, that the
parties were connected, they having married sisters, on which
the learned Judge endeavoured, but ineffectually, to have the
dispute arranged out of court.
It appeared, from the evidence, that, on the evening of the
13th of April last, the plaintiff went home in a state of in-
toxication, when his wife, seeing the state he was in, pre-
vailed on him to go immediately to bed. The bed-room of
the plaintiff was on the same floor as the kitchen, and he had
got to the door of the room when the defendant, who had
been in the house nearly an hour before, said, on hearing that
Mr. Shand had come in, that he must have a glass of ale with
him before he (plaintiff) went to bed. The plaintiff accord-
ingly returned into the kitchen, each of the parties had a
glass of ale, and then Mrs. Shand got him to bed • and, lest
he should be induced to get up again, locked up his clothes.
Not a long time had transpired, when noises were heard in
the kitchen, proceeding from the bed-room. Mrs. Shand
went up, and, on her calling out for assistance, a Captain
M'Culloch hastened to the room. The defendant and the
plaintiff were in the room. The former having hold of the
latter. The bed-clothes had been torn from the bed. The
plaintiff was standing in the middle of. the bed-room, in his
shirt, which was torn, and he was bleeding from the mouth
and nose : his chest was sore, as if it had been severely
beaten, one of his ribs was broken, and the left thigh was
hurt. The defendant was torn away from the plaintiff and
induced to leave the room. Mr. Shand, in consequence of
the injuries he had received, was confined to his bed for ten
days, and the surgeon attended him for three weeks longer.
There was no evidence to show why Mr. Sharp had entered
the bed-room ; and the only evidence as to the cause of the
assault was an admission stated to have been made by the
defendant to one of the witnesses. Mr. Sharp was stated to
have said, that the dispute arose respecting the quality and
quantity of the ale respectively sold by them.
• Mr. CRESSWELL contended, that several of the circum-
stances .elicited in the course of the evidence showed, that
the assault had been rather a fight between two drunken
men, and was of such a nature as to call for very trifling
damages.
The jury found for the plaintiff—damages, 420.
With this cause the business of the Assizes terminated.
That was at a quarter pait six o'clock.

WIGAN.—We have great pleasure in announcing, that the
extreme distress which so long and so extensively prevailed
amongst the labouring classes in this borough, has at length,
in a great measure, passed away. Most of the hands are at
work, and the prospects of the poor begin to look a little
cheering. The relieving committee have this week had very
few new applications.—Wigan Gazette.