The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-04-04 00:00:00

NISI PRIUS COURT.-SATURDAY

MATHER v. ALLEN.—In this action the plaintiff sought
to recover damages from the defendant, for criminal conver-
sation with the plaintiff's wife, at Cheetham-hill, Manches-
ter, about midsummer last. Mr. Dundas, with two other
learned
and Mr. gWatson for the entlemen, appedefendant.ared for the plaintiff; Mr. Wortley
A jury having been sworn,

Mr. DQNDAS said, in this case it had been agreed that a
verdict should be entered, by consent, for the plaintiff,
the sum of £250.
A verdict was then formally returned for the plaintiff for
£250 ; costs, 40s.
TEMPLETON V. HAYWARD.—This was an action brought
to recover the sum of £l9O, money had and received by the
defendant for the use of the plaintiff. The defendant put in
two pleas, on both of which issue was joined, first, that he
was not indebted, and second, that the money had been paid
before the action was brought.
The case for the plaintiff, as it appeared in evidence, was
as follows :—The plaintiff is Peter Buchanan Templeton, a
shorthand-writer, in which capacity, it was stated, he had

acquired a small property. He determined to change his
profession, and, an opportunity presenting itself, advan-
tageous, as he thought, of entering upon the occupation of a
brewery, he considered it would he a business of a somewhat
more permanent character than that which he had heretofore
followed. The defendant was a publican and brewer, occu-
pying the Moulders' Arms, in Major-street, Manchester.
A negociation took place, in Manchester, between the de-
fendant and a Mr. Ashworth, whereby it was agreed that
Ashworth should take the defendant's brewery and public-
house. Ashworth was a friend of the plaintiff's, and it was
understood between them, that if the bargain between Ash-
worth and the defendant was completed, the plaintiff should
become the brewer upon the premises at the public-house,
at a regular salary, and, in the meantime, he was to attend
at the place for two or three months in order to initiate him-

self in. the business. On the of June following the
plaintiff was to enter the public-house under Ashworth.
Sub•equentiy, however, some disputes took place between
the plaintiff and Ashworth, which terminated the arrange-
ment between them. The deposit of money by the plaintiff
with the deleldant took place on the 18th of May, one of
the Manchester race-days, and it was stated that he had, on
several previous occasions, made similar deposits. On the
day tirst named, the plaintiff had in his possession the sum
of £2OO ; he was then about to go to the races, but, not
wishing to take such a large amount with him, he said he
would leave £l9O of it with the defendant, because, if the
bargain went on between Ashworth and the defendant, he
(Templeton) should have to pay at least that sum, by and by.
The defendant said, " Do you want any acknowledgment for
it ? " The plaintiff replied, " No, but you may give me an
I 0 U." The defendant retired into another room to write
the I 0 U, but he immediately returned, saying, he could
not find the pen and ink, but, he added, " You have Cun-
life present as a witness, and be will be as good as an I 0 U."
The plaintiff acquiesced in this arrangement. and, under these
circumstances, the money was deposited with the defendant.
In consequence of some misunderstanding, the bargain which
had been completed between Ashworth and the defendant
went off: the plaintiff, therefore, who had nothing to do with
Ashworth, finding that the bargain was not completed, said
he was not going to enter upon the public-house under any
one but Ashworth, and demanded his money back from the
defendant. The defendant, however, refused to give it up.
Witnesses having been called to prove the above facts,
Mr. WORTLEY addressed the jury for the defence, and
called several witnesses.

The jury said they would not trouble Mr. Baines to reply,
or his lordship to sum up : they had made up their minds
that the defendant had received the money, and that he had
no right to keep it.
The JUDGE expressed his agreement with the jury, and a
verdict was returned for the plaintiff for £l9O, the amount
detained.
LORD AND ANOTHER V. MALINSON.—This was an action
to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract on the
part of defendant, whereby he engaged to form a partnership
with the plaintiffs.
The declaration stated that the plaintiffs are John Lord
and Michael Coghlan, and the defendant John Malinson ;
and that, previously to the contract afterwards specified, the
plaintiffs carried on business as wholesale dealers, in Man-
chester, from which they derived large profits ; and that the
defendant was well skilled in the woollen trade, and in the
habit of attending the Huddersfield market, and represented
to the plointiffs, if they would sell their stock at Manchester
and join him in partnership at Huddersfield, they would to-
gether make large profits. It was then averred that the
defendant promised to become their partner, and use all his
skill and knowledge for their joint benefit; that the plaintiffs
gave up their business, sold off their stock at Manchester,
and removed to Huddersfield, but that the defendant did not
become their partner, nor use his skill and knowledge for
their common benefit. For this the plaintiffs claimed £2OOO
as compensation for special damage, £2OOO for loss on the
sale of the stock, £lOOO for loss in consequence of the stock
being sold at an improper time, and £lOOO for loss of profits :
total, £6OOO. The defendant pleaded that he he had made
no such contract, and that, if he had, it had been obtained
from him by fraud and covin. _ . .

Mr. BAINES contended that if the jury were of opinion
that any damages should be awarded at all, they should be
merely nominal, as the contract, if any existed, could have
been put an end to in rive minutes after it was made. This
was an attempt to extort money from the father of a rash
young man, who had quitted his parent in a moment of anger,
and entered into a foolish arrangement. _ _

The JUDGE summed up, and the jury retired. After an
nhsence of more than two hours, they returned into court.
when the the foreman(Mr. Joseph Arm strong,of Manchester.)
in reply to the usual question, whether they were agreed upon
their verdict, said he had been directed by the jury to re-
commend that a juror should be withdrawn, if the court had
the power to do so.
Mr. MARTIN (Mr. Baines having retired) said, if the jury
wished it, he had no objection whatever.
Mr. ARCHBOLD (Mr. Wortley having, like Mr. Baines,
retired.)—We cannot consent.

The :JUDGE.—WeII, gentlemen of the jury, I have no
power to disharge you; you must retire again to consider
your verdict.

The FOREMAN.—We have made up our minds, my lord;
we find for the defendant.

The JUDGE.—Very good. Let the verdict be entered
" WANTED," A JURY.

The foregoing jury retired to consider their verdict at
twenty-five minutes past three o'clock, when the Judge di-
rected another jury to be sworn, to proceed with the case of
Houldsu,vrth v. Kearsley. _

Much delay occurred, only three jurymen appearing, not-
withstanding repeated calls in every avenue of the court.
Mr. Forrest stated that Baron Parke had discharged one list
of jurymen in the other court. His Lordship called for the
summoning officers, Taskar and Sellars, but they could not
be found, and were, in consequence, fined £5 each. After
much calling and considerable loss of time, ten jurymen were
at length got together in the box, and, as there appeared no
prospect of making up the full number, Mr. Brandt and Mr.
Knowles, the counsel in the case, agreed to try it with ten
jurymen only !