The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-04-03 00:00:00

plaintiffs in this case, but he appeared only to have thought I
of paying Messrs. Fletcher and Moss, and he was to pay
them £2O a month. Of course he did not do this long; he
failed, and then this warrant of attorney was put in force.
The warrant of attorney was put in force on the 13th July,
last year, a seizure was made on the 15th, and his effects .
were sold. The other creditors of Boddington hearing of his
bankruptcy, which took place on the .120, in order that
Messrs. Fletcher and Moss might not get the lion's share of
the effects determined to take out a fiat to obtain that equal
distribution of the bankrupt's effects contemplated by the.
bankrupt laws. A fiat was taken out, and assignees had
been duly appointed: He lAieVed that, so far as the facts
of the case were concerned, there would be little difference
between the plaintiffs and defendant, but he believedthat
the substantial point would be with reference to a late act of
Parliament affecting the case. This act was the 2d and 3d
Vict. c. 29. Previous to the passing of this act, there i ould
not be a doubt but 'the plaintiff would be in a condition to
recover; and the question was,-: whether the act would apply
to this case. The act of bankruptcy was committed on the
15th July, the fiat was taken out on the 18th, and. the act
passed on the 19th: -the question would be,therefore, whe-
ther the act had a retrospective action. •
Mr. ALEXANDER, for the defendant, intimated that he
should dispute the fact that Boddington had ever committed
an act of bankruptcy, and witnesses having been called, the
case was submitted to the jury, who found for the plaintiff
on this plea. On the other point, which was a question of
law, a verdict was also given for the plaintiff's, under the
direction of his Lordship, subject to future decision on the
point, which was reserved. .

BROWN V. PRICE AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought to recover £2O, the amount of
a promissory note given by the defendants, who were mem-
bers of a society termed the Independent Order of Recha-
bites. The action was undefended, and the jury found a
verdict for the plaintiff of £lB ss. ; the remainder having
been admitted to have been received.

WATERHOUSE V. TOLLER.

This was an action for the recovery of £3B from the de-
fendant, for the loss alleged to have been sustained on a
quantity of tea sold by the plaintiff to him, and afterwards
returned upon his hands.
Mr. CRESSWELL (with whom was Mr. COWLING), in
opening the case, said the plaintiff in this case was a respec-
table tea-merchant in Liverpool, and the defendant, Mr.
Toiler, was a tea-broker, also living in Liverpool. The
action was (as stated by Mr. ,Cowling in opening the plead-
ings) for the recovery of money lost upon teas sold to the
defendant, and which had been afterwards returned upon the
plaintiff's hands. The amount sought to be recovered was
the sum lost upon the resale of the teas, in consequence of
an alteration in the market. At fit'st it was anticipated that
the loss upon the resale of the tea would be considerable,
but it turned out, after an investigation of the whole of the
matter, that the loss was but small, and Mr. Waterhouse
would have let the matter sleep, but it sometimes happened
that defendants did not know when they were well off, and
the moment a plaintiff seemed disposed to act leniently, they
said, " Oh, no; you wish to withdraw because tou see that
it is a bad case ;" and accordingly the plaintiff was forced
into court, as in the present case. The tea which formed
the subject of this action was brought from China by the
ship Juliet, and was afterwards sent over to. Ireland in a
vessel called the Amity, where it was purchased and sent
back in two steamships called the Liffey and Britannia. On
the Bth June, 1838, the tea was sold to the defendant, and
on the 9th news arrived from London that an immense sale
of teas had taken place there, and this caused a fall in the
prices of the article, whereupon the defendant, probably fear-
ing that he would be a loser by his bargain, returned the teas,
aileging that they were
.not of the quality ordered. Subse- •
quently, however, the defendant went to look again at the
teas, and after having a number of the chests opened, said he
was quite satisfied with them, would not have the remainder
opened, and requested to have the invoice back. After this
he again sent the goods back, but the plaintiff said this was
rather ton bad, and refused to let him rescind the order. He
refused to have the teas however, and the result was that
there had been a loss upon them, upon resale, of £3B. What
sort of defence would be set up remained to be seen. It ap-
peared that his first plea-was there had never been a bargain ;
secondly, that there had been no delivery ; thirdly, that the
sale was by sample, and that the quality of the teas was in-
ferior to the sample; fourthly, that the tea was to have been
tea out of the Liffey and Britannia ; and lastly, that the con-
tract was obtained by fraud. After commenting on these
pleas, the learned counsel proceeded to call witnesses to prove
-the case, and put in the contract note, which was for 52
chests of Congou teas to be paid for on the Bth Sept. 1838.
Mr. WIGIITMAN (with whom was Mr. Charles Crompton)
raised two objections to the contract. The first was that the
contract was not good, because the vendor's name was not
upon it ; and.the second was, that it was not signed by the
defendant or his agent, the party whose name was signed
(Cooke) not having been shown to be the agent of the de-
fendant.
His LORDSHIP said the first point was one now under dis-
cussion in the Courts of Westminster, and he should reserve
his opinion upon it till their decision was known. On the
second point he observed, that in his opinion the agency was
sufficiently made out.

Mr. WIGHTMAN then addressed the jury, contending that
a sample having. been produced to defendant of the teas, it
must be considered to have been a contract of sale by sample,
and he called witnesses to show that the bulk of the teas was
not equal to the sample, and. that the contract was obtained
by fraudulent misrepresentations. The other pleas were not
gone .upon..

Mr. CRLSSWELL replied, quoting. authorities to show that
'no account of samples being mentioned in the contract, it
was not a conteact•bysample, and consequently that the evi-
dence for the defendant was of no value. •

••' His Loßnsnir summed up, and the jury almost immedi-
atelpfcitindlorthe plaintiff. Damages £3B.

LEATHOM AND ANOTHER V. HOPKINSON.

The plaintiffs in this action were the, assignees of a bank-
rupt, riamed'Beckett, who was formerly a partner in business
with Mr. Leathom, as an ironfounder; in Liverpool, and the
action was brought to recover the sum of £26 from the de-
fendant, Mr. Hopkinson, a coachbuilder, for work done by
the bankrupt previous to his bankruptcy.
Mr. ALEXANDER and Mr. VENABLES were for the plain-
tiffs, and Mr. 'CaesSWELL appeared for the defendant.
The work for which the sum claimed was charged` consisted'
of a large, plate, weighing upwards of 30. cwt.,- and of peculiar
formation, placed up in the yard of the defendant,. for the
purpose of being used in coach wheeli. The work was Com-
pleted in March, 1839. At the time it was put. up in defen-
dant's yard the plate had a crack in it, .which
„afterwards ex-
tended, ,and the plaintiffs Sent workm'eu.for theorpose of
tivtting, the parts together... The plateWas:kept,in work till.
SepteMber, making no complaint of it ; but then they, sent
word that the crack had extended across the plate, aiid Work-
men .I,:vure, sent
,to pt.1•,,4.,:ki.,(1011,11PQA it. ~Wheiuthe:workinen
got there, objectionser . e ode to its beingoilonc,all4,W
.w7:-,
time was .work-men' 'Weiit'd' fife tinie-
apnointed; hat were.,again:sent back, and thexlefenclunt now,
paid into court ten guineas,„ and said that this,surnwas a suf-
ficient diseliiirie' of the debt; The counsel for the plaintiffs
called a great number of witnesses, to -prove that, .until a
subsequent quarrel between the plaintiffs and defendant, no
fault ivaS found with the plate, but that, •On'the contrary, it
was received in a very. satisfactory way ;:that the crack was
the necessary consequence of a contraction of the metal, aris-
ing from the peculiar construction of the plate, and that the
cracks across tbeldate, when properlrrepaired with wrought
iron, were not detrimental to it, but, in fact, rendered it
stronger, and better fitted fir the purpose than before. One
of .the witnesses called by the plaintiffs had been subpoenaed
by the defendant, and was a workman who was employed by
the defendant, and has used the plate in question. This wit-
ness, however, though he proved the use of the plate, contra-
dicted the former evidence, as to the plate being as useful as
it would have been if not cracked, and said for several pur-
poses it could not be used. A good deal of amusement was
caused by this witness, on being called, demanding, in a loud
tone, that his expenses should be paid. His Lordship held
that the .witness was justified -in the deinand, when Mr: Alex-
ander at once observed, that there would not be the slightest
objection to it. " Then tip !" exclaimed the witness, holding
forth his hands towards the learned counsel with character-
istic gesticulation. The court was convulsed with laughter.
The witness, of course, got his expenses (245.) without de-
lay, and his warmth gradually subsiding, he proceeded to give
his evidence with tolerable coolness.
Mr. CRESSWELL addressed the jury for the defence, con-
tending that the plaintiffs, by their own witnesses, had not
shown, that the plate was ever fit for use, and said that he
should be able to show that the defendant made an objection
to it from the first, but that he was persuaded to keep it on
a warranty from the makers that the crack in it would not
extend, that the crack did extend, and that, then, it was sent
back. The plate in fact had been repudiated from the first,
but that the plaintiffs having put up the plate in defendant's
yard, the latter could not get it removed. He should call
witnesses to prove that the only value of the plate was its
value as old iron, and its value as old iron had already been
paid into court.—Witnesses were then called.
Mr. ALEXANDER replied, and Mr. Justice ERSKINE hav-
ing gone over the evidence,
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs.—Damages
£l5 14s. 41.

CROWN COURT.-THURSDAY.
STABBING AND WOUNDING.

John Smith, aged 42, stood indicted on a charge of having,
at Heaton Norris, maliciously stabbed and wounded one
William Derbyshire, with intent to murder him.
Mr. BRANDT stated the case for the prosecution.
William Derbyshire said he was a stonemason. On Satur-
day, the 28th of September, he went to a beer-house, in
Heaton Norris, where the prisoner and his wife were. Wit-
ness asked prisoner's wife to drink, and prisoner was vexed
at this. Witness said something, hut did not remember
what. He was put out, and while in the passage prisoner
struck him twice. He was much hurt, but made his way
home. When getting into bed he found that he was wounded
in the side. The blood was flowing from him. He was
drunk at the time, so that he could not remember what was
said by himself or the prisoner.
Abel Stansfield, keeper of the beer.house, said the prose-
cutor asked the prisoner's wife to drink with him, which she
did. The prisoner then asked her (his wife) to drink with
him, and she refused, saying, she would drink with no such
a black looking fellow. The prosecutor then said to pri-
soner, " You see she will drink with me, and nut with you ;
and she'll go with. me. I can go with her when I like." Some
other words passed, and witness turned the prosecutor out.
He returned, and a scuffle took place, in which the wife
again showed her preference to the prosecutor. Witness's
wife soon afterwards came in —and said, " Smith, yon've
stabbed Derbyshire." There 'had been a good deal of talk
about Smith's wife and Derbyshire.
Another witness saw Smith strike Derbyshire twice. Wit-
ness saw a knife in prisoners's hand, and endeavoured to
take it from him. Prisoner said he'd stab either his wife or
Derbyshire—whichever came up first. He said the law would
justify him in it.
Mary Stansfield, wife of the beerhouse-keeper, was sent
for to Derbyshire, and brought word back of his being stab-
bed. Prisoner said, "if he had not done it, he would
do it."
Richard Greenfield saw Derbyshire when he came home,
and he was wounded. His worsted belt was pierced through.
Brammil, a constable, apprehended .the prisoner, and
found upon him a knife, now produced. Witness had never
heard anything against the prisoner.
Mr. Rayner, surgeon, attended the prosecutor. He found
a wound about the centre of the 6th rib. There was another
small wound on the hip. Such a knife would make the
wound. The knife had struck the rib. Had it gone between
the ribs, the wound, if given with force, would have been
dangerous. As it was it was not dangerous, but the patient
behaved ill ; he drank hard, and ran away on the Tuesday.
The prisoner said in his behalf, that he always lived in
peace with his fellow man, and in the fear of God. But if
a worm were trodden upon it would turn. He was malici-
ously treated, and in his excitement attacked the prosecutor.
His wife was every thing to him in this world, and now
his peace of mind was destroyed for ever on this side of the
grave, and he felt regardless of what might be his destiny.
His lordship said the case was a most painful one. An
improper intimacy had undoubtedly taken place between the
prosecutor and the prisoner's wife, and language had been
used calculated to provoke a man to an act of violence. No
provocation, however, could justify the use of a deadly wea-
pon. His lordship explained the law with regard to cases of
adultery, where the party injured killed the adulterer. If a
man canoe in by accident, and found his wife in criminal
intercourse with another man, and he, in the moment of
aggravation, killed the adulterer, the law reduced the offence
to manslaughter. But if a man previously know that an
improper intimacy existed between his wife and another
limn, and he prepared himself with a deadly instrument, and
knowing they were together, went and killed the man, the
act constituted murder. The jury would have to decide with
what intent the prisoner stabbed the prosecutor.
The Jury, after a short consultation, found the prisoner