The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-03-29 00:00:00

._T -

Young lady in October, 1850. She had not before that
'asked him to introduce tier to some of his family. She
wrote to his father, and expressed fears thst he w in
danger ; she was fearful that he would commit
The defendant was annoyed !hat she wrote to his friends.
His sister did not accuse th, m of hoaxing her about her
brother. Miss Delemer was not ill in consequence of
what occurred. She obtained a written promise from the
defendant ; and when she had got it she did not say to her
husband, " Now it is all right, send him away." She
did not, at the time she obtained the promise, tell him
that her niece was likely to die, and that the promise was
necessary to save her life. Her niece was in good health
at the time. Her husband's income is £2. 103. a-week.
Previous to 1851 her husband received £l2O a-year from
houses, after interest and mortgage money was paid. Her
husband received it; she never received any portion of it.
Delemer occupied a sitting-room besides the bed-
-1°,01n• He occupied part of the sitting-room with Gautier.
She put her niece's name over the grocer's shop, because
her husband had another business of his own, as clerk of
the works, and was at that time superintending the
building of a bakehouse.
Mrs. Marie Jeannette, wife of the Rev. R. Dunning,
curate of Haydock, said she visited Mrs. Ostler in Nov.
1843, and saw there the defendant, Mr. Delemer, who was
fjecriently in the company of Miss Richardson. She heard
Mr. Delemer almost every day say something about mar-
rying Miss Richardson. He invited her to visit them ; she
was to go with them to Paris. He said it would not he
convenient for him to be married until lie received the
money for the patent from Messrs. Bird. The defendant
appeared to be very much attached to Miss Richardson.
Mr. Gautier said he was present when the defendant
Was married to Miss Mather in November last. He had
been paving his addresses to Miss Mather a very short
time. Delemer was indebted to him now £3OO or £4OO.
He could not say whether he was able to pay him.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS then addressed the jury for the
defence. If it was meant for a single moment to be said
that his client had seduced the young woman, the law gave
a remedy. This was not an action for seduction, but an
action for breach of promise of marriage. It was, in
Point of fact, an action for breach of contract, and the
jury had to say, as men of business, what damage, what
loss, this young woman had sustained in consequence of
the breach of contract. He should not be a bit surprised
if, at the next assizes, they found his learned friend very
eloquent in an action of seduction against the same man.
He asked them not to be led astray by the representations
which had been made of the wounds which this young
lady had received in her heart. These things were all
very pretty to be talked about ; they very easily excited
youngladies in novels; but broken hearts were notcommon
things, and generally speaking, at the age of 21 nature
was so buoyant, the world presented so many objects of
attraction, there was so much to divert, to please, and to
rnakeone forget, that without indulging in any spirit of pro-
phecy he would undertake that this young lady would
show no symptoms of a broken heart that day twelve
months. He left the case in the hands of the jury, feeling
that they would do justice between the parties.
His lordship summed up, and remarked that whatever
-the notions of those who came to this country from
•abroad might be, they mpst either conform to the law
when here, or take the consequences.
The jury, after retiring for a short time, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff, damages £lOO. The damages
were laid at £l,OOO.

THURSDAY. MARCH 24.
DAeRv. v. Dawson.—ln this action Susan Dacre was
the plaintiff, and James Edward Dawson the defendant.
'The declaration was on a claim for money lent and money
had
and received. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff,
damages £5O, subject to a reference.
nAwsos v. DACRE AND ANOTHER.—This was across-
'action arising out of transactions involved in the preceding
r°re- A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, by consent,
£BB 14s. 101., subject to a reference.
JONES AND ANOTHER V. HARRAP. The plaintiffs
are bricklayers It Chorlton.upon-Medlock, Manchester,
and the defendant is a builder and contractor residing
~e• The declaration was for debt, for work, and
4our, and materials. A verdict was taken for the plain-
,for £6O, subject to a reference.
Holt BIGLAND AND OTHERS. The declaration
state d •
- that the defendants, as the brokers of the plaintiff,
tonrepresented to him that they had purchased for him 25
• 8 of palm Oil, to arrive by a certain vessel, at a certain
'lloe, whereas the defendants had not purchased the palm
!I" on the terms aforesaid, but upon different terms. The
142intiff was nonsuited, leave being given to move in the
court above.
JouLE V. JOULE.—The plaintiff is an extensive ale and
orter brewer at Salford. The defendant is now out of
01-Liness. The action was brought to recover two princi-
fal sums of £l,OOO and £2,000 with interest for a long
ae2l,t, of years, and also money lent on a promissory note,
"u expenses incurred. The jury gave a verdict for the
Plaintiff for £1,560, upon the first two counts in the de-
claration, and for the defendant upon the other counts.

ANTHONY AND ANOTHER V. BRADFORD —A verdict
Was taken in this case for the plaintiffs, by consent, for
6(), subj,,ct to terms.
The court rose shortly after six o'clock, till Saturday
Morning.
SATURDAY, MARCH 26.
coTTrtim. AND OTHERS V. LATHAM.

The plaintiffs are bleachers at Great Lever, and the
defendant a boiler-maker, at Bolton. The plaintiffs con-
tracted with the defendant to construct a boiler for them,
which be warranted to work at a pressure of GOibs. to the
square inch. Whilst the boiler was being worked at a
pressure of from 501bs. to 52:b5., it exploded, and blew
up the entire of plaintiffs' premises. The plaintiffs
sought to recover £3,176, the value of the building and
property destroyed. Mr. Knowles, Q.C., and Mr. Sow-
ler appeared for the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Serjeant Wilkins,
Mr. Cowling, and Mr. Cross for the defendant. For the
Plaintiff it was shown that the explosion took place on
the 18th of September. The pressure at which the boiler
usually worked was from 301bs. to 401bs. to the square
inch, and at that pressure an escape of steam from the
rivet holes was observed by Mr. Cottrill's engineer, who
directed attention to it. On the day of the explosion the
boiler was being worked up to a pressure of 531b5.. at
which point steam blew off from the safety valve, which
would reduce the pressure to 501bs. or 521b5., and whilst
wrking at this pressure the explosion took place, the
water and other guages indicating that everything was in
proper order to secure the safe working of the boiler, and
the entire concern destroyed.—His lordship left three
questions to the jury :-Ist, Was the boiler properly
lmade 2d, Was it fit to bear a pressure of 601bs. to the
(lure inch ; 3d, Was it, in point of fact, working at
;rye than 601bs. at the time of the explosion.—The jury
eoured, and after an absence of about an hour came into
„„11,'t• Their finding was, that the boiler was not pro-
tilnY made ; that it was not fit to bear a pressure of 601bs. ;
auu that they had no evidence to show it was working at
opfiZstistiusr.e of above 601bs. to the square inch at the time
.explosion.—His lordship : That is a verdict for the
The question of damages was referred.

COLLIER V. JAMIESON.
Ajilis was an action brought by a machine agent, at
-Inahester, for £42, against a machine-manufacturer, at
`flatitott. ;
under-Lyne. The plaintiff procured for the de-
iel7 arit an order from a millowner, named Haigh, for
cy carding engines, at £l6 each, and claimed commis-
k°n at the rate of 2/ per cent., the amount which he
9 (I._g ht to recover. The defendant denied the agency.
4,.elict for the plaintiff.
he court adjourned to Monday.

THE NEW COURTS.
ju,Puting the proceedings, on Saturday, the judge, the
t and the counsel frequently declared it impossible
no hear the witnesses • or that the business of the assizes
ae„tild be conducted satisfactorily under the present
b*,';',Retnents of the court. Whilst witnesses were
"1g examined in the very inconvenient and out
intended as a witness-box, they were in-
t„,s2ble to judge and jury ; and when, with a view to
the this defect, the witnesses were made to stand on
bar oPPosite side of the court, they were inaudible to the
His lordship expressed his disapprobation of the
aod'gements of the court; and the Attorney-General,
that other leading counsel, expressed their astonishment
, netwithstanding the r.ipeated representations which
497 been made upon this subject, at two or three previous
of ',ea. the present absurd and inconvenient arrangements
a tne court should be allowed to continue. The same tiefect exists in the Crown Court ; and, at the present
fasaizes, all the witnesses examined have been p
Re be-
..
.., en the bench and the jury-box, standing upon one of
le seats intended for attorneys. Another defect in the
arrangements of the court is the want of accommodation
for the press, which appears to have been quite overlooked,
00 definite place being set apart for the reporters. At
Present they are " tolerated,' when they can find room,
at the end of the attorneys' table; but there they are
subjected to all kinds of annoyance from witnesses,
solicitors, and court-loungers, who are constantly passing,
rendering it almost impossible to discharge their some-
what, at times, difficult duties. The attention of the St.
George's-hall Committee should be immediately directed
to the removal of these inconveniences.
-4.

MONDAY, MARCH 28.

(Before Mr. BARON MARTIN.)
auk.,
" AND KENNEDY V. FISHER AND SON.—ACTION
AGAINST AUCTIONEERS. 7111i9 was an action brought against the defendants (who
are extensive auctioneers at Manchester), by Messrs.
make sod ken
eoi...s
of Kennedy, formerly the well-known machine
urt
this town. The defendants had paid £l9O into
thjr• Knowles, Q.C., and Mr. Holland, appeared for
Paintiffs
for the defend ; at.
nd Mr H. Hill, Q.C., and Mr. Monk,
H an
• OLLAND having opened the pleadings,
Q.C., stated the plaintiffs' case. The
'`l"ite were gentlemen who, until recently, carried on an extensive business in Liverpool as iron founders, and they
wo
light this action against the defendants to recover a
11 rtairl sum of money which the defendants had received,
which belonged to them (the plaintiffs). The two
iieleDdants were auctioneers, and he (Mr. Knowles) be-
hlg,!ulv(l were in a very large way of business ; and from the
1,,,,Y respectable manner in which they were spoken of,
gll was much surprised that the defendants should have
the Plaintiffs arranged to go out of business ; and at this
t
the defendauts were employed to sell their stock,
th ab 1.4 was a very large one. It was known that the sum
would be received for the stock would be
,ntisiderable; and instead of giving the defendants
a," Per eentage on the proceeds, as was frequently
°r, when the stock was not very large, they
eed with the defendants to accept a certain sum instead
theenalalission, amounting to £3OO, and in addition to this
Dej were to be paid certain other expenses, but no ex-
Atli efend Oses out of pocket. The necessary steps were taken by
ants. and in August of 1851 the sales took place
ware t is, the main sale, for a small sale took place after-
-18 proceeds amounting to some .£17,000 or
and ')0. Most of the purchasers resided in Liverpool,
Inouei Was agreed that the plaintiffs should collect the
iihnY• Certain of the purchasers, however, resided in
Fliester, and it was arranged that the defendants
to`4l;d receive the money from those parties, and it was
ne:°tain the payment of that money that the plaintiffs
. cane before the court. After it was known that the
tof
etpdants had had sufficient time to get the money paid
der 'era, the plaintiffs asked for an account, when the
adaptsii.!fl said they had received the money, but they
The claim on the plaintiffs for a considerable amount.
"e Plaintiffs on that replied, " Well, then, give us