The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-04-05 00:00:00

this action under the will ; but the defence was that the
mother of the plaintiff, tho late Ann B inks, danghter of
the testator, was never married, and the plaintiff was there-
fore illegitimate. The defendant's wife, as heiress at
law, was in consequence entitled to the property, and a
deed was executed by her before her death, which barred
the plaintiff's right to the property.
A. number of aged witnesses were called, who stated that
they never heard that the plaintiff's mother was married,
and believed that the plaintiff was her illegitimate
daughter.
His LORDSHIP explained the law of the case to the
Jury, and said that in the first instance they must say
Whether they considered the plaintiff was illegitimate
Or not.
The jury found that the plaintiff was illegitimate; and,
under the direction of his lordship, a verdict was then
given for the plaintiff, subject to a special case.
BANES v. HALSALL.—The facts of this case were pre-
cisely the same as in the previous case, with regard to
another portion of the testator's property, and a similar
verdict was returned.
DICK V. ROBERTSON.—ACTION FOR.PERSONAL INJURY.
"-Mr. Tindal Atkinson and Mr. Millward were for the
'Plaintiff. The action was undefended.
-131 September, 1851, the plaintiff was a seaman on
hard the brig Capitol, which sailed from Troon to Bey
rout. Whilst the vessel was at Beyrout taking in cargo,
the defendant, who was the captain of the Cspitol, came
into the hold where the plaintiff was at work, and began
to use abusive language to plaintiff and another person
named Hutton. He then struck plaintiff with an iron
shovel, and afterwards struck him again in several places
with an iron bar and a belaying-pin. On the plaintiff
resisting, defendant said he would knock his b—y head
Off, and again struck him in the arm, which fractured it.
`Plaintiff desired to go ashore at Beyrout to get it dressed,
but defendant would not allow him to leave the ship, and
threatened him that if he did not go on with his work he
would strike him again. In April the plaintiff arrived in
Liverpool, being at the time unable to use his arm. He
Was 'under medical treatment in Liverpool from that time
to the following August.
Witnesses having been called in support of the plaintiff's
case, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages
£6o.—[This case closed the common juries, and the
speclal jury cases were proceeded with.]
PAULING AND ANOTHER V. THE LONDON AND NORTH
WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.—Mr. Hill, Q.C., and
Mr. Cowling for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins
and Mr. Millward for the defendants. Mr. Hill said
that, although the nominal plaintiffs in the present action
were Messrs. Pauling and Sharp, who formerly carried on
business as contractors, yet the real plaintiffs were Messrs.
Houghton and Smith. timber-merchants, of Liverpool,
and the action was brought to recover the sum of £937105.
for a quantity of sleepers sold to the defendants. Sometime
ago Messrs. Houghton and Co. sold a very large quantity
of sleepers to Messrs. Paulin; and Sharp, a large portion of
which remained in the hands of Messrs. Houghton and
Smith. Now, Messrs. Houghton and Smith had not been
Paid for the sleepers delivered, and therefore they had a
lien on the sleepers which still remained in their hands.
The learned counsel then read a correspondence which
took place between the 'plaintiffs and the defendants,
about the month of February, 1852, which was to the
effect that the defendants agreed to purchase 6,000 heck -
raatacksleepers, at three shillings and three half- penceeach,
and on receipt of Messrs. Pauling and Sharo's order itolessrs. Houghton and Smith to deliver them, the de-
fendants would commence shipping them. Messrs.
/Piling, upon this, forwarded an order upon Messrs.
ti Houghton and Smith to deliver the goods, it being dis-
dnctlY expressed as a part of the bargain that the defen-
dants were to pay Messrs. Houghton and Smith for the
lepers on delivery. Messrs. Houghton and Smith were
advised of this, and that art agreement had been
made that they were to be paid in cash for the
pods, on their delivery. They therefore supposed that
be
eu_,London and North Western Company would act in a
I,4siness-like manner in the matter, and the sleepers were
tt once delivered to them, without payment being pressed
il
HomediatelY on delivery. Ultimately, when Messrs.
krtytton and Smith made an application for payment to
that Booth, the company's manager at Liverpool, he stated
11,8,r".°Y,...had a claim upon Messrs. Pauling and Sharp, and
obtain'i,tioughton and Smith not having been able to
Air "a° amount, the present action had been brought.
Div
eh Smith examined :—I am a timber merchant in
Sm ;
and a partner in the firm of Houghton and
thee We are the real defendants in this action. Some
and ,!go we sold the defendants, on account of Panting
was ..°tlarP, a quantity of heckmatack sleepers. There
"r_ great proportion which remained on our premises.
,":•torehruary, last year, we delivered to the London and
-04rtia-western Company, 6000 heckmatack sleepers, in
accordance with an order we received from Messrs. Paul-
-m.g and Sharp. It was understood that the London and
delivery. The Co. were to pay us in cash for the goods on
The Wapping station of the London and North-
western station is not far from our yard. The goods were
aelivered there. In May, 1852, after receiving a letter in
reference to the account, I called upon Mr. Booth, the
manager of the company at Liverpool, for payment of the
account, and he declined to pay it. stating that the com-
Paoy had a claim upon the plaintiffs with regard to the
`Clifton branch.
Some other evidence having been offered, and the cor-
respondence put in,
Mr. Sergeant WlLiciars, for the defendants. denied
that they ever entered into any contract by which they
Were bound to pay the amount to Messrs. Hough-
ton and Smith. If there ever was a contract at all,
it Was with Messrs. Pauline and Sharp, and not with
the gentlemen who were really, but not nominally, the
the defendants in this action. The learned counsel then
referred to the correspondence, which he said clearly
proved that throughout this transaction Messrs. Houghton
and Smith were acting as the agents of Messrs. Pauling
and Sharp, and the goods received by the defendants from
Houghton and Smith were on account of Pauling and Co.
The transaction being between Panting and Co. and the
defendants, the present claim wag rooi.ted On tho ground
that the defendants had a set-off for more than the sum
claimed.

After the examination of witnesses for the defence, and
a legal argument on the two counts alleged in the declara-
tion,

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs on the
first count, for the full amount claimed, with liberty to
the defendants to move to enter a verdict for the de-
fendants. If the plaintiffs failed in maintaining the first
count, then a verdict for the plaintiffs on the second
count for £706 38.

SEDUCTION CASE.—RARWOOD V. MILLER.
This was an action brought against the defendant for
the seduction of a girl named Elizabeth Wright, formerly
a domestic servant in the employ of the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Addison were for the
Plaintiff, and Mr. Knowles; Q.C• f and Mr. Aspland for
the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins said that the plaintiff in this
~aen, Mr. Harwood, was a respectable tradesman, car-
Lag on business in the town of Bolton, and was himself
the father of a large family, and he had brought this
action from no other desire on earth than to perform
timbere considered a public duty. The defendant was a
merchant, and was, externally, a very rigid and
ascetic member of a religious congregation in the town of
~anchester. To what purpose he turned his religion, he
tNrgeant Wilkins) did not then stop to inquire, but
was
assuredly if what he was about to lay before the jury
7as correct, this gentleman must have some very severe
tjtlizZles between the spirit and the flesh, and he believed
t flesh would be found to triumph. (A laugh.) Some
lambago this good shepherd fixed his eye on a young
saLlab at Southrt. She was at Southport along with
f°l2le of the plaintiff's children, taking care of them, and,
11,,a1
talcen what he would lay before them they would see what
place between this young girl and the defendant.
Whilst at Southport, they had repeated interviews with
."111 other, and at length a correspondence between the
Parties was organized, the defendant inducing the girl to
pte to him as her uncle. These facts became known to
~e Plaintiff, the master of this girl, and as soon as he
totters
what was going forward, he read the different
which passed, and found that the girl was writing
v, her " dear uncle," and that the " dear uncle" was in
ge habit of coming to visit her in the absence of the
Having ascertained all this, the plaintiff wrote
to the defendant to the following effect :
whole history of your proceedings with Elizabeth
Zright, from the commencement up to the present time, are
-„YW unravelled, and a more cold-blooded attempt to ruin the
ctrl and destroy the peace of mind of her family has never been
'qempted. I now beg to inform you that your conduct will be
made known to your wife."
The learned Sergeant continued. And this man was
married ! Yes, he was married. But what was the
nature of his conversation with this girl ? When taxed
With being married, he replies, " Yes, it is so, I am mar-
ried, but the truth is that my wife is a very drunken
Woman, and when she dies, I will marry yon."

4. Oh, what pleasures will abolinil,
When my wife is under-ground." (Laughter.)
His (Sergeant Wilkins's) client had told the defendant
that he would be exposed, but the good shepherd—this
lowly man of piety—returns blessing for railing. He
commences his letter to the plaintiff, in reply, as follows:

"Dear Sir,—Your letter of yesterday I received
a. and fe
themeuch grieved after reading its contents
Wgl'd to roceedings with the name mentioned, in
kiatil-blooded attempt to ruin, I may say that mode _
tslle Y4-as the result of my introduction, and as any expo
eeryaY rain my character, I trust you will not take any
'Ps' P S I hope Master George and the young family
are well
The learned. counsel next read a long and severe letter
foe
st Paintiff, in answer to the above. The letter
itateu, amongst other things, that the postcript was the
it°3t ihiPudent part of the defendant's communication.
upbraided him with the impropriety of his conduct to-
vOrds the servant, and repeated the plaintiff's determina-
tion to expose the entire matter. The next letter the
defendant wrote on the subject, finding that proceedings
going on, was to the girl's father, and the oil dentdefen-
commences his letter in the following characy teristic
Lerres:
xr!Kind Friend,—Yesterday, I received another letter from
t7i. Harwood. I am sorry that you should be put to any
,fPlthle for anythinc, done by me, but I hope nothing further
'Till take place. If Mr. Harwood will look over it this time, I
I)\.l;oinise to be more careful for the future."
a(:)vv since this letter was written he (the learned counsel)
elieved that this man bad been tampering with the gir
N her ee parents. One thing was, at all events, quite
'ear, that thev had been prevailed upon by him to take
l,osition, which was by no means creditable to them.
,„aving a regard, however, to the welfare of his own
gadfly, it was compulsory on the plaintiff to dismiss the
" Whether this justified him in bringing this action
or having been deprived :of her services, he (the learne d
counsel) left it to his lordship to determine.
Knowles denied that there was any truth in the
dent that the girl had been debauched by the defen-
p,lL She might have married Henry VIII. for any im-
ua_tion that rested upon her character.
ra,:lvir. Sergeant WILKINS.—I have no doubt if she could
re7ttrY Henry the Eighth, she would marry just suc la
(LTI al?gli a 3
ter). had been endeavouring to tamper with her.
Rts
tahin, LORDSHIP ruled that the action could not be sus-
hel,2 _c‘, ; and, under the circumstances, it ought not to
been brought into court.
KNOWLES.—I am compelled to say that this is a
defendant
cruel action. This girl is a pure virgin as far as the
heis concerned. The plaintiff dismissed her, not
on aril conduct relating to the defendant, but because
he aril
occasion she gave an answer to a question which
LicThe impertinent.
ao plaintiff was non•suited.
131,7AT0N AND OTHERS."•-Ur. Sergeant

this morn-
With
I of