The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-08-31 00:00:00

RIOTS AT ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE

John Stockton, 23, and John Heath, 36, pleaded guilty to
a charge of riot at Ashton-under-Lyne, and were severally
bound in their own recognizances to appear for judgment
when called on, and to keep the peace with good behaviour
in the meantime.

The criminal I;usiness of the assize here (two o'clock) ter-
minated, and almost immediately after his lordship left the
court, first thanking the jurors for the punctuality of their
attendance, which, he said, had been greater than he bad
ever before witnessed on any circuit.

NISI PRIUS COURT—FRIDAY.
THE APOTHECARIES' COMPANY V. GREENOUGH. (S. 3.)
This was an action brought by the master warden and go-
vernor of the Apothecaries' Company in London, against
the defendant, Henry John Greenough, of St. Helen's, to
recover certain penalties to which he had become liable, in
consequence of having practised as an apothecary, he not
being duly qualified. _

111-essrs: Cresswell, Adolphus, and Robinson appeared for
the plaintiffs. The case was undefended.
_ .

Mr. CRESSWELL observed tbat the action was brought by
the Apothecaries' Company to recover the penalties incurred
by the defendant in consequence of his having attended on a
person named John Gerrard, and others, and for having ad-
ministered medicines to them since the year 1815, he not
having been a practitioner at the period of the passing of the
act, giving certain powers to the company. The Apotheca-
caries' Company had deemed it right to commence the pre-
sent action in pursuance of a very important duty with which
they were intrusted, in order to protect the public against
persons not being authorised from practising as apotheca-
ries. He (Mi. C.) should prove that the defendant had re-
ettlarly practised as an apothecary in St. Helen's for some
time ; that he set up a shop there in his sister's name, for
the purpose of evading the act, but had himself attended
people in the neighbourhood, and had administered medicine
to them. The learned gentleman, after quoting the clauses of
the act referring to druggists, said the case had been tried
before, and the learned judge had decided that the case came
within the exemption in the act, and therefore a verdict was
obtained for the defendant. The matter, however, had been
argued before a superior court, and the learned judge's deci-
sion had been reversed, the defendant's case not coming with-
in the meaning of the exemption—chemists and druggists be-
ing confined simply to preparing and dispensing medicine,
and not to administering it, such preparing and dispensing
being understood to mean the preparing and dispensing of
medicines from prescriptions previously given. The learned
gentleman said he should not go for more than one penalty,
as that would satisfy the justice of the case.
Evidence was then called to prove that the defendant had
attended a person named John Gerrard, of Peesley Cross,
near St. Helen's, in the beginning of 1839, for about a fort-
night, almost daily up to his death ; that he had bled him,
and administered medicines to him. The defendant said the
disease with which Gerrard was afflicted was intermittant
fever. It was also proved by Joseph Marsh that the defen-
dant had attended his wife whilst ill of inflammatory fever,
and administered medicine to her. The defendant had told
Marsh that he had upwards of three hundred patients.
The learned JUDGE then summed up the case, and the jury
found a verdict for the plaintiffs—damages £2U.

QUESTIONABLE PARTNERSHIP.-MARTINE AU V. COLE AND

ANOTHER. (a. .7.)
This was an action brought to recover the value of a num..
her of railway shares.
Messrs. Cresswell and Crompton were counsel for the
plaintiff, and Messrs. Knowles, Wilson, and Noggins ap-
peared for the defendants.
Mr. CRESSWELL, in stating the case, said this was an
action to recover the sum of £BOO from the defendants.
money had and received for the use of the plaintiff. He ob-
served that every fact which was necessary to make out the
case, would be proved in a manner which could admit of no
dispute, and then the jury would be called upon by law to
give their verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed. In
the year 1836, a person named Boult began to act as a share-
broker in Liverpool, an occupation which had been taken up
by a great number of persons in that town, and also in Man-
chester, very much, he believed, to their own loss. In that
year Mr. Boult was introduced to Messrs. Cole and Mullens,
of London, by a Mr. Hutton, and began to do business with
them, the parties agreeing to divide the commission equally
between them. He (Mr. Cresswell) should show, that when
parties agreed to act in that way, that it is was precisely the
same as persons dividing the profits of their trade, and that
in those transactions they were partners. The learned
gentleman then read se% eral decisions on the question, and
contended that the transactions in question clearly establish-
ed a partnership between the firm and the defendant. In
August, 1836, Boult joined a person named Addison, in Li-
verpool. This fact was made known to Cole and Mullens,
and they made no objection to the arrangement. Matters
went on until the present year, and large transactions took
place between them wholly immaterial to the present issue.
In the beginning of the present year the plaintiff, Mr. John
Martineau, had in his possession eleven whole shares and
eleven half shares in the North Midland Railway, which be
was desirous of turning into money, and with that view he
employed Messrs. Boult and Addison to dispose of them.
Ten of the shares had been sold by the present defendants
to Colonel Gurwood, of Chelsea, who paid them between
£7OO and £BOO, and the other share was sold by them
to a Mr. Spencer, who also paid for it ; and for the recover/
of this money the action was brought. The plaintiff had
apylied to Boult and Addison over and over again for
the money, but without success. They hid now 7become
bankrupt, and therefore he was compelled to resort to
the present action to recover the money from the defend-
ants. A letter was then put in, dated the 26th of April,

1.936, from Mr. E. S. Boult to the defendants, in which the
former stated that he had been introduced to the house by
Air. Hudson, of London, and proposing to do business with
theta on the understanding that they should have half the
commission. The letter also contained an assurance that he
(Boult) did not intend to do business on his own account,
but merely as agent, and that, in all instances, he would give
the defendants the names of his principals if they wished it.
An answer to that letter, from the defendants, was next read,
and approving of the proposal, stating that they had much
confidence in Mr. Hudson; that there was no necessity for
Beading the names of the principals, unless in those cases
Where stamps were required. Another letter was next read
from Mr. Boult to the defendants, relative to some business
transactions, announcing that he had entered into an arrange-
Merit with Mr. Thomas Addison to become his partner, and
that the firm would, for the future, be carried on under the
title of Boult and Addison. To this an answer was returned
I°Y the defendant, who stated that they had seen Mr. Hudson
.n the subject of the partnership, and he seemed pleased with
the arrangement. Other letters were also produced and read,
which had passed between the parties, and showed dealing in
shares to a considerable amount.
Mr. John Smith, who had been clerk with Messrs. Boult
and Addison, was then called, and he proved the dealings of
the
parties, and that sometimes half commission had been
charged, and sometimes the whole, but in the latter instance
the half had been taken off afterwards.
In cross-examination the witness stated that it was the
general custom between broker and broker, in all their tran-
sactions, to allow each other half the commission, even when
.no agreement to that effect was entered into. He added that
latterly, up to the time of their failure, Boult and Addison
had been in the habit of doing business extensively on their
own account.
Proof of the sale of eleven North Midland Railway shares
(tire shares in question) by the defendants, and the receipt of
the money by them, was then adduced, and also the execution
°f the transfer of the shares by Mr. Martineau, the plaintiff.
Mr. KNOWLES then submitted that the plaintiff had failed
to make out his case. The present was an action for'money
had and received, and there was no proof whatever that the
defendants had received any money for the use of the plaintiff.
There were no instructions from Mr. Martineau to the de-
fendants to sell the shares, and any notice from Mr. Marti.
neau to Messrs. Boult and Addison could not bind the
defendants.
The learned JUDGE said it had been conceded by the counsel
for the plaintiff, that if the transactions between the'parties
did not establish a partnership there was no case, but they
contended that it did, and if so, their notice to Boult and
Addison was notice to the defendants.
Smith was then called, and he proved that Mr. Martineau
had notice of the sale of the shares in question, on the 18th of
May, that Boult and Addison did not fail until the 21st of
June following, and that during the time the plaintiff had re-
ceived from Boult and Addison three several sums of £lO5,
.Cl2O, and £2O. In answer to questions by Mr. Cresswell,
the witness stated that Boult and Addison sold other shares
for the plaintiff in Leeds, and had received for, those £37,1,
but this sum was received two days after the first payment
had been made.
Mr. KNOWLES addressed the jury for the defendants. He
said the proposition of his learned friend was ,o startling,
that if transactions like that were to make persons partners,
every broker in the kingdom was in a perilous position, and
he could never be certain whether he was solvent or not ; for
there was no knowing for what debts he might be liable. He
should lay before them the whole of the transactions which
had taken place between the parties, and he should show them
that his clients, in resisting that unfounded claim, were act-
ing fairly and honestly, and had no other desire than that of
dealing as honest men with honest men. His learned friend
had read a letter from Mr. Boult, in which the latter stated
that he did not intend to carry on business on his own ac-
count, but merely as an agent. However, he had deviated
from that prudent course, and had begun to do business on
his Own account. In that letter it was stated that they were
to divide the commission on all orders which one gave to the
other. Now he (Mr. Knowles) apprehended that the mean-
ing of that was this, that all business Boult and Addison did
for the defendants they would only charge one-half commis-
sion, and that all business the latter did for the former a si-
milar charge only was to be made. He contended that the
plaintiff had no remedy at all avainst the defendants ; that he
Made Boult and Addison his bankers on the occasion, and
that after he had neglected to obtain the money from them,
he could not turn round and claim it from the defendants.
A diticussion then arose as to the propriety of turning the
facts into a special case, and at length it was agreed that a
verdict should be entered for the plaintiff for £Bl7 195.,
subject to a special case for the consideration of the court,
the facts being taken as they appear on his lordship's notes,
and it being agreed that should there be any question on
Which the jury ought to have given an opinion—such ques-
tion being also left for the consideration of the court.

KAY V. BROOKS-TROVER.
In this case Messrs. Cresswell and Watson were counsel
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cross for the defendant. The
action was brought to recover a deed of some property be-
longing to the plaintiff, situate in the neighbourhood of
Bury. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff, there being
no reference to the action, for £6OO, to be reduced to 40s. if
the deed be given up within a month.
LANE, ASSIGNEE, V. DAVIES AND PARKES.
This was an action of trover, the question arising out of
the bankruptcy of Richard Riley, and an alleged fraudulent
removal of effects. It occupied the court for the remainder
of the evening, but the details possess no interest in this
locality.