The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-09-03 00:00:00

BRETH•RRTON V. COLQUHOUN.

In this case the plaintiff was Joseph Bretherton, and
the defendant James Colquhoun. The declaration was
for work and labour done, money lent, and on an account
stated. The defendant pleaded that he was uever in-
debted, and a set-off.

Mr. Knowles and Mr. Hoggins appeared for the plain-
tiff. and Mr. Crompton for the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff is a veterinary surgeon in
Liverpool, and keeps a very extensive repository for the
sale of horses on commission ; and the defendant is an
Irish horse.dealer, who was in the habit of coming to
Liverpool and placing his horses with the plaintiff for
sate. The mode of doing business at the establishment
appeared to be this : the person bringing a number Gf
horses, left them with the plaintiff for sale when conve-
nience might arise, and the plaintiff paid the party money
on account of the lot ; and when the horses were sold,
the money lent and the expense of the stabling were de-
ducted from the receipts, and the balance settled. In
October, 1843, the defendant was in Liverpool ; the
books were then produced, every item was gone over, and
it turned cut that there was a sum of £5O then owing by
the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff paid him
that balance, and advanced him a further sum ; since
then a few transactions had taken place between them,
and at present there was a sum of £l3O due.
A verdict was returned for the plaintiff, by consent,
subject to a reference.

HOWARD V. WARRING.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Thomas
Howard, against the def-ndant, Edward Wareing. The
declaration was for money had and received. The de-
fendant paid £2O into court, denied his liability beyond
that amount, and pleaded that he was a stake-holder in
a race.

Mr. MAIITIN, (with whom was Mr. Atherton,) stated
that the plaintiff arid defendant were formerly friends,
and that the action was brought to recover the amount of
certain bets made on a race. The real object of defend-
ing the action was to establish that the race had been
unfairly won, but the defendant having now been satisfied
on this point, the jury would not be troubled with an in-
vestigation of the facts.
Mr. KNnWLES, for the defendant, said his learned
friend had truly stated that the plaintiff and his client
were formerly friends, and that in the running of the race
his client was tbe loser of a bet to the plaintiff. From
certain circumstances which occurred at the time the
defendant thought that unfairness had been practised, and
imputed that unfairness to the plaintiff. He was now,
however, convinced that if there was any unfairness the
plaintiff had nothing whatever to do with it.

The JUDGE : One has heard of such imputations hay-
ing, isk ......
A juror having been withdrawn, the case was not gone
into, much to the disappointment of many persons who
had purposely assembled to hear a detailed account of
the "tricks of the turf."

SAME V. SIXSMITH.

This was an action precisely similar to the last, and it
was settled in the same manner.
DOE DEM. WRIGHT V. CUMMING AND ANOTHER.

This was an action of ejectment brought by George
Wright to recover from William Cumming and Henry
Robinson possession of the Beehive Tavern, in Fazaker-
ley-street. The defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Atherton and Mr. Monk appeared for the plaintiff;
and Mr. Watson and Mr. Crompton for the defendants.
It appeared that the plaintiff was Mr. George Wright,
Formerly Councillor for St. Paul's Ward, and a brewer in
Union-street. A gentleman of the name of Carver let
the Beehive to Robinson, and, by his permission, Cum-
ming, the other defendant, came into possession of the
premises. Carver made a will, and devised the property
to three or four gentlemen, all of whom renounced it,
with the exception of a Mr. Whitley, who sold it to Mr.
Wright.
A verdict was returned for the plaintiff.