The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-11-09 00:00:00

LONDON LAW COURTS.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH—MoNoar.
CONNELI. V. SAWYER AN, OTHERS.
This case was tried at the last Liverpool assizes before Mr.
Justice Williams, and was brought by the plaintiff, one of
the registered officers of the Northern Central Bank, to re-
cover on certain promissory notes made by a person named
Smith, and indorsed by the directors of the Birmingham
Drapery Company, in which the defendants had been share•
holders. The claim was resisted on the grounds that the
members of the company had not authorised the directors to
make the indorsements, and that they could not be consider-
ed in the light of ordinary partners, and that, even if a
partnership had existed, the notes were made after it had
been dissolved, and therefore it could not be considered a
partnership.proceeding, but only as the individual act of the
directors themselves.

A verdict. was found for the plaintiff, subject to the above
objections, and Sir W. Follett to-day moved for a rule nisi
to set aside the verdict and have a new trial granted.
The Court granted the rule.
Mr. Alexander obtained a similar rule in a case against a
different defendant, but arising out of the same circum-
stances

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—WEDNESDAY.
(Sittings in Banco.)
Mill V. CARROLL.
Mr. Cassswsti. said that this action was bronght to try
the right of
.ferry on the Cheshire side of the Mersey, be-
tween Liverpool and Birkenhead. The action was tried
before Mr. Justice Vaughan, at the late Chester assizes, when
a verdict of nominal damages was found for the plaintiff.
The learned counsel now moved for a rule to show cause why
this verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial granted
on the groUnd of misdirection of'the learned judge, and also
of being against evidence. The plaintiff claimed tinder a
charter, or licence, granted to the prior and convent of Birken-
head, and claimed that the ferry extended to the whole of
the lands then in possession of the priory, which included
the whole 4 the now flourishing town of Birkenhead. Twenty
years ago it consisted of only the ferry house and three cot-
tages fur the ferrymen. low it hada population of some
thousands 'many of the merchants of Liverpool preferring
to live on ibe Chester side of the river in order to avoid the
smoke of the town. The licence was recited in and con-
firmed by a charter from Edward 111. It remained in pos-
session of the priory till the time -of Henry VIII., when it
was conveyed to a family named Worsley, under whom the
present plaintiff claimed. Many years ago another ferry
was set up, called the Woodside Ferry, and the defendant
having purchased a portion of the soil. of the same landlord
tinder whom the plaintiff claimed, about half-way between
the 01,1 ferry and that of Woodside; he also set up a quay
and built a ferry, for which the present action was brought.
At the trial the defendant proved by living testimony that
for a period of 71 years the Liverpool boats had plied for
hire on the ferry—that the original ferry had a small run into
the water which belonged to toe ferrymen—that he prevented
the Liverpool boats landing on it which were not ferried by
himself, but did not prevent theni landing on the shore. He
afterwards charged a penny for landing at the wharf, but the
farmers of Cheshire refused to pay this demand, and an
action was brought to try this right, when the presentdefend-
ant was nonsnited. The learned counsel contended that the
crown had given nothing hut a permissive power to the prior,
as was proved by the charter speaking of the existence of a
ferry before that time. Also that the crown had no power
to grant so extensive a privilege on a mile of coast ; and,
further, that the corporation had thrown the ferry open to
any one who did not land at or interfere with the original
landing-place.
Rule to show cause granted.
CROWN v. GODDARD.

Mr. COWLING moved for a rule to show cause why there
should not be a new trial ►n this case, or for a reduction of
damages. The action Was tried before Mr.'Baron Alderson
at York, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff of damages
to the amount of £316 14s. 7d. 'rhe action was for breach
of covenant on a deed of separation. The parties were pro-
prietors of the Hull Packet, of which newspaper a gentleman
named Quin was editor. Mr. Quin had a salary of £3OO,
and at the end of the first year he was to be admitted a part-
ner or to receive £5OO. As he was not admitted a partner,
he brought the action and recovered both the sums named
of £3OO and £5OO. The proprietors separated in the year
following, and the defendant having refused to pay h►s por-
tion in the action brought by Mr. Quin, the plaintiff pro-
ceeded against him and obtained a verdict as stated. The
defendant paid £l5O into court as his share of the £3OO, and
pleaded that he had been willinL' to admit Mr. Quin as part-
ner, but the plaintiff refused. The principal question was
whether the defendant should be held to_ be liable for a part
of the £5OO, and, if so, as he allowed judgment logo by de-
fault, whether he ought to pay any of the costs? If not, the
damages would he reduced to £sBo.—Rule nisi granted.

HOItSFALI. V. PIM AND OTHERS.
Mr. ALEXANDER moved for a rule to set aside the verdict
in this case, and to bare a now trial. The plaintiff, it ap-
peared, bad been applied to by the Cork Steam racket Com-
pany,•tn September, 18.1 G, to make two marine engines for a
vessel thee in process of building at the ship yard of Messrs,
Russell, at Liverpool. After some time the Curk Steam
racket Company wrote to inform the plaintiff that they had
sold the engines to the St. George Steam Packet Company,
and that they were to be supplied to them accordingly. The
plaintiff, in answer, said that he had nu objection to do so,
but be would look to the Cork Company for the payment, as
be bad received the order from them. When the engines
were tried in the vessel, it was found that they failed in per-
forming the proper work, and it then appeared that Messrs.
Russell bad furnished the plaintiff with the wrong draft of the
vessel. In answer to the application of the defendants to
have Hall's principle introduced into the engines, the plain-
tiff said that be could not do so, as it was contrary to the
contract with the Cork Company. The defendants, there-
fore, had to make that improvement at an expense of £2OOO.
and it also cost them £750. to mule the height of the engine
—an expense caused by the mistake in the draft furnished
by the ship-builders. fhe defendants paid three instalments,
but on the fourth instalment being called for, they refused
payment on, the ground of the extra expense they had been
put to to make the engines perform the necessary work, and
especially as they had nothing to do with the error in the
draft furnished by the ship-builders. The learned counsel
submitted, that as the plaintiff had himself stated that he
would look to the Cork Company for payment—and as the
defendants had no claim on the ship-builders for the error in
the draft, not having made the contract with them, they were
justified in refusing the oavment, as the Cork Company alone
bad a remedy against the
Rnle to show cause granted.
BARNSLEY V. NeCLELL.AND.

Mr.ALixsivriaa said this case was also tried at the last
Liverpool assizes, when a verdict was given fo7 the plaintiff
to the amount of £1493 damages. The learned counsel said
his application was for a rule to show cause why the verdict
should not be set aside and a new trial granted, or that the
damages should be reduced. It appeared that on the 4th of
February the defendant wrote to the plaintiff at Savannah,
ordering a certain quantity of cotton, but, in consequence of
the. unfavourable state of the market, the defendant again
wrote on the 7th of Feb. (three days after the first letter,)
countermanding the order. The plaintiff, in answer, said
that the countermand came too late, and that the cotton had
been
_purchased ; and he drew, accordingly, on the defendant
for £l5lO. When the cotton arrived in this country it was
arranged that the cotton should be sold by the defendant, and
it produced £961. At the trial evidence was put in by the
plaintiff to prove that the first letter was marked as having
arrived at New York on the 17th March, and the second one
on the 22d, but the learned counsel submitted that distinct
evidence ought to have been given as to the dates of the ar-
rival of the letters at Savannah. On the other point, as to
the reduction of the dainages, it was admitted by the witnesses
for the plaintiff that six of the bales were purchased to make
up the amount of the draft for £l5OO after the arrival of the
second letter.

The COURT thought that the jury had "good, presumptive
evidence of the second letter being too late; but as to the re-
duction of damages, they were of opinion that the verdict
should be reduced to the extent of the value of the six bales.
Rule granted accordingly.

CtNNINALISM EXTRAORDINARY.—AtaIate election a bill,
of which the following is a copy, was delivered 11 a landlord
to the agent of one of the candidates:—ltem. "'lo eating six
freemen up stairs; to eating eight freemen down stairs; to
eating a parson and his two friends after supper."
A M rcit Pun JoNATHIN.—A gentleman near Wirk'-
worth bad a mind for a sparrow pudding, so be rubbed the
hedge over with birdlime, thinking in the morning to have
plenty of game ; bur to his astonishment, when daylight
dawned, and he looked out, the hedge was• gone! for the
sparrows bad alighted on :t in such quantities, that fearing to
be boiled or baked, when thPv f,iind it held 'them fast, as a
Last resource, they leg a., av Altb