The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-08-21 00:00:00

BLAKELEY V. HULTON AND SON

In this case, one Betty Swipe, keeps a smallware shop at
Cinder Hill, Manchester, who, having got into difficulties,
made an assignment on the 16th of March last, of all her
goods and chattles to the plaintiff, one of her creditors, for
the general benefit of her creditors. Blakeley put a man in
possession. The same day, a person named Lord, who had
been sueiug Betty Snape in the county court, obtained a
writ against her, and Holton the defendant, the attorney of
Lord, took possession of her property by virtue of the writ,
and sold the goods at Bolton market place, and the money
was handed over, (about £2O) by Hulton to his client. The
action was brought against fiulton, his client, and the
bailiff, for the recover 3, of the proceeds of the goods. The
jury retired, and after an absence of about an hour, they
found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, £25.

HITEHEAD V. BERTS.
The parties in this case reside atRO Saddleworth. The plain-
tiff is a plasterer, and the defendant is the owner of a house
there. T he defendant occupied his house for some time, and
then let it to a person of the name of Lee, and before Lee
got into the house, the plaintiff and his men were employed
in making alterations ; and Lee shortly afterwards, when,
the plaintiff's men had been at work six weeks, died in-
solvent, and the question to try was, whether the landlord,
the defendant, employed the men, or Lee, and which there-
fore was responsible for the amount of the plaintiff's bill.
For the defence, it was urged that Lee, the tenant, em-
ploycd the men, and the landlord had nothing to do with it.
On behalf of the plaintiff, it was contended that Lee was

the incoming tenant, and that the improvements made were
from the probabilities of the case, ki well as from the fact in
favour of the landlord having empf6yed the defendant, and,
at any rate, the improvements had been effected in the de-
fendant's premises by the plaintiff.
The jury found a verdict for the defendants.
The Court adjourned at five o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—YESTERDAY.
(Before Mr. JUSTICE WILLIAMS, and a Special Jury.)
MILLER AND ANOTHER V. REMINGTGN AND ANOTHER.
Mr. Wightinan, Mr. Ellis, and Mr- Crompton, appeared
for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Watson for the
defendants.
The plaintiffs in this case were John Miller, Edwin Brook
Lyon, and David Thomas, assignees of the estate and effects
of Messrs. Coupland and Duncan, lately carrying on business
in Liverpool, and Duncan John Stewart, of Liverpool. The
defendants were James Gathorne Remington, and Matthew
Thedosius Donis de Vitre, carrying un business with several
other gentlemen at Bombay, as merchants, under the firm of
Remington and Co.
It appeared that on the 17th of January, 1836, before
Messrs. Coupland and Duncan became bankrupts, they con-
jointly with Messrs. Duncan Stewart and Co., and Messrs.
Stewart, Bold and Co., consigned to the defendants at Bom-
bay a quantity of calico and other merchandise to be sold on
their behalf, with orders that the money to arise from the sale
thereof should be applied to the purchase of cotton, if the de-
fendants should be able to put on board ordinary cotton at
100 rupees per candy; freight £5., exchange 25.: Good at
170 rupees per candy, with the same freight and exchange;
other qualities in proportion, preference to be given to cotton
of good quality. Afterwards, before Coupland and Duncan
became bankrupts, on the 23rd of March, 1836, orders were
sent out by the plaintiffs to the defendants, wishing them to
invest the proceeds of the consignment in ordinary cotton at
110 rupees per candy, on board, and good cotton at 180 rupees
per candy on board, taking the exchange at 25., and freight
at £5., and desired that the defendants should invest them
£5,000 at the above last mentioned prices. The action was
brought on the ground that the defendants had not fol-
lowed these directions, but had bought cotton at a much
higher price than they ought to have paid for it; and that the
cotton was not of the description which was ordered. The
defendants pleaded that they did not wrongfully apply the
proceeds of the merchandise entrusted to them; and that
they had bought the cotton which was ordered. It was stated
by the plaintiffs—but, upon this point the learned Judge re-
served a question for the Court above —that Mr. Duncan
Stewart, in partnership with Messrs. Coupland and Duncan,
sent out in the ships T,,veed and May, in the early part ot
18.36, consigned to Remington and Co., of Bombay, with
instructions to invest the proceeds of the cargo iu cotton, as
above detailed. The defendants purchased and sent to the
plaintiffs three lots of cotton, to the amount of 211 bales,
179 bales; and 241 bales, which were shipped to England as
"good" cotton, ranging in price between 171 and 174 rupees
per candy of 78-llbs, and therefore within the limits prescribed
to them. On its arrival at Liverpool, however, instead of its
being what is technically called "good" cotton, it was what
is called "very middling." In the Liverpool market, in
February, 1837, "good" Surat cotton was worth 61 per lb.;
but the cotton in question, which was only " very middling"
Surat cotton, only sold for 41 per lb. It was contended by
the plaintiffs that the defendants were required to purchase
"good" cotton, meaning thereby, best fine cotton. But upon
this point a difference of opinion between the par ties existed;
the defendants insisting that they had purchased and shipped
"good" cotton, according to the classification known in the
Bombay market, and that by that only were they bound to
abide. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, contending that
according to the classification known in Liverpool the cotton
was only "middling" to middling fair; therefore it was con-
tended, that the cotton itself being but "middling," orat best
"fair," and fetching hut a middling price, too much had
been paid for it; and also that it was not of the description
according to the Liverpool markets of cotton ordered. The
amount of damage sought was the difference between the
selling price of the cotton in question and the price of "good"
cotton in Liverpool, in March, 1837; or between 44cl and
61d per lb, on the whole quantity. For the plaintiffs several
cotton-brokers of Liverpool were called: namely, Mr. Com-
ber, cotton-broker, in the employment of Messrs. Littledale
and Co.; Mr Miles Barton, cotton-broker, of Liverpool;
Mr. Lubin Browne, Mr. James Leigh, and Mr. Duncan
M'Vicker; whose evidence generally went to show that the
cotton in question was barely "fair" cotton, and that it was
worth from Id to lid per lb less than "good" cotton; and
that the Liverpool terms for cotton were "ordinary," "mid-
dling," "fair," "good fair," "good," and "fine."
For the defence it was contended that the acceptation of
the term " good," the term used in giving the directions for
the pnrchasP of the cotton, ought to he interpreted according
to its meaning in Bombay, and that the cotton in question
was such as came under the denomination " good" in Bom-
bay and in London. And that it would be preposterous to
suppose that a house in Bombay, in the directions given to
them for the purchase of cotton, were to be guided not by the
terms in use in their own market but by the terms adopted
by the different towns in England, from whence their orders
came. If this were the case, a London house, and a Liver-
pool house, and a Bristol house, and an Edinburgh house,
each ordering "good" cotton to be consigned to them, and
each having the same cotton sent to them from Bombay by
the Bombay agents, would be in different positions, the con-
tract of the one being fulfilled and that of the other not, and
that consequently no foreign agent could ever act with safety.
For the defence a long evidence was read, taken in the su-
preme court, Bombay, under a writ of mandamus, showing
that the cotton was "good," " really good" cotton. Several
London cotton merchants and brokers were also examined,
namely, Mr. Samuel Carrol, colonial broker, Mr. Robert
Brodie Forman, and others, who deposed that the terms of
cotton used in London were " ordinary," " middling,"
" good," " fine," " and " very fine," and that the price of
" good" cotton in London, in March, 1837, was 41d, per lb.
His Lottostirp, in summing up, said it was for the jury to
determine whether the cotton iu question came under the
denomination of " good" in Bombay, in which case they
were to find for the defendants, if otherwise for the plaintiffs.
The jury expressed a wish to retire, and to have a sample
of the cotton handed to them; and after an absence of half an
hour, returned with a verdict for the plaintiff upon the fits
issue, with damages £1,335.

'WALKER V. SUTTON AND OTHERS.
Mr. Alexander and Mr. Wightman appeared for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Cresswell for the defence.
The plaintiff in this case is a piano-forte maker, residing
at Manchester, and the defendants ate carriers between
Manchester and Newcastle-under-Lytle. The action was
brought to recover the sum of £l5 in damages done to a piano-
forte entrusted to the defendant to convey from Manchester
to Newcastle-under-Lyrae. It appeared that the defendant
had conveyed the piano as far as Stoke, near Newcastle-un-
der-Line, where he had a warehouse, and had there unload-
ed it, and left it in the rain for some time; the consequence
of which was, that, as a witness described it, it was rendered
`'not playable at all," " quite green inside," and the wood-
work glued together had come to pieces. The piano-forte
had afterwards to be repaired, and when repaired sold only
for £35, though it was before worth £SU.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £lO.
HILTON v. RICHARDSON AND ANOTHER.
Mr Brandt and Mr. Tomlinson appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Ellis for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this ease resides at Manchester, and the
defendants. Messrs. Richardson and Thompson, are share-
brokers in Liverpool.
It appeared that early in the year the plaintiff, Mr. Ri-
chardson, applied to Mr. Cardwell, share broker, of Manches-
ter, to ask him it he could Lind a customer for him fur thirty
shares in the Manchester and Leeds Railroad. Mr. Card-
well succeeded in doing so, and found the present plaintiff,
who agreed to purchase thirty shares, at 1:,5. ss. premium, and
£l5 paid through the agency of Mr. Cardwell. Twenty of
these shares were delivered according to the contract, the re-
maining 10 the defendants agreed to deliver, saving they had
not sold 30 shares, but only 20. The amount of price and
premium of the JO shares was tendered to the defendants on
the Ist of March by the plaintiff's attorney, Mr.'Cunliff, and
refused, and the shares at that time had risen to a premiuth of
£l9. The amount of damage sought was the difference be-
tween the premium when the plaintiff bought the shares, and
when he demanded the 10 shares. Several share brokers were
examined as to the rate of premium, which ranged from
£6. 9s. 6d. to £l9. in Manchester, and was now fallen again
to £l3.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £5O.
The court adjourned at six o'clock.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

Adelphi Hotel, Liverpool, Aug. 17th, 1837.
SlR,—Will you have the goodness to give the following an
insertion in your journal, and oblige, respectfully, &c ,
CELESTE.