The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-10-24 00:00:00

pis cony

trill of civi

id mon- than t

aceout►ted for in a ;great degree from its being the first day
of the borough quarter sessions in the adjoining court
room.

Several undefended causes of no general importance
were first disposed of, after which the parties interested
in those to be defended were called ; but for some time
neither plaintiffs, defendants, nor witnesses answered to
their names, and the crier of the court having thrice made
" proclamatio❑ " that unless they came forward they
would forfeit their subpoenas, the :tssessor complained of
the irregularity in the business of the court and said he
should strike the causes out of the list. Whether this
was eventually abided by we know not, inasmuch as Mr.
Venables afterwards stated, in the course of a case in
which he was engaged, that the time of opening the court
on this occasion was one hour earlier than usuual, the
accustomed hour being ten o'clock. He also added that
some of the subpoenas which he had seen were for the
latter hour, having been filled up from copies issued under
the old regime. The assessor stated that that was the
fault of the attorneys, who had due notice of the hour of
opening—adding that he had frequently found the same
delay when the court opened at ten, and intimated his
intention of not further permitting such excuses.

MILLER V. MITCHELL,
Was the first defended case tried.
Mr. Venables said, he was for the defendant in that
case, but h ,r 1 not yet got his brief. He was proceeding
to address the court at some little length, to the effect that
his witnesses were not yet ready, when the Assessor stated,
that if he had not his brief he could not proceed at all.
The brief was. however, soon afterwards handed to him
by the defendant, and Mr. James proceeded to address
the jury for the plaintiff, Joseph Wier. He said, the
action was brought to recover a stun of £l3. 3s. for ser-
vices rendered. The plaintiff was a house broker, and
the defendant had recently kept the Bull Hotel, near the
Railway Station. The Corporation, in the progress of
the improvements they were making in that quarter, re-
quired the house. that it might he pulled down; but, as
usual with them in such cases, the tenant was allowed to
remove his license, which he did to the bons-. of a Mr.
Jones, in Dublin-street. The defendant, however, after-
wards changed his mind, and thinking the Legs of Man,
corner of Lime-street and London-road, would suit him
better, he entered into negociations to procure it, employ-
ing the plaintiff to make out an inventory, &c., for which
his charge was £3. 3s. While these were pending (it was
further alleged by the learned counsel) the defendant
authorised the plaintiff to let for him the house in Dub-
lin-street, which he did let to a person named Llewellyn
for £3OO, and it was upon this letting that the plaintiff
claimed the £lO commission, being in the usual practice
of the trade, £5 for the first £lOO, and £2 10s. for each
subsequent £lOO. Llewellyn had paid his client £lO
as his share.

Witnesses were called to prole the allegations made.
and amongst them two house brokers, who stated that
the per centage stated was the practice of the trade,
when one let a house and the other took it, both employ-
ing the same broker.
Mr. Venables cross-examined some of the witnesses,
and then stated that as the brief had just been put into his
hands, and he bound he had not time to make himself fully
acquainted with the merits of the case, and had been,
moreover, spoken to by the defendant, who wished to take
it into his own hands, he would relinquish it to him if the
court were agreeable.
This was acceded to by the Assessor and Mr. Mitchell
cross-examined the remaining witnesses with a view to
show that he had been grossly imposed upon with regard
to the charge of the £lO. lie afterwards addressed the
jury at some length and with considerable ability, stating
that while the negotiations were going on for the Legs of
Man he had merely mentioned to the plaintiff that the
other house was to be let, and that he might as well make
something out of it if he could; but not employing him
on his own account as he had given up the house and had
no interest whatever in it, even if it was not let for twenty
years. He also stated that the agreement for the Legs of
Man had been surreptitiously altered by the plaintiff
during his temporary absence, and that he was induced to
sign it, thinking it was the same. The assessor remarked
that it had been altered, and in a different handwriting.
Mr. MITCHELL called Mr. James Crellin, flour dealer,
for the purpose of proving that alterations had been made
in the agreement. The jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff—damages three guineas.

RE-ENTERING OF CAUSES

Mr. JAMES asked the permission of the Assessor to re-
enter the first cause in the list, the record of which the
plaintiff had been compelled to withdraw on account of
the absence of his witnesses. After some little conver-
sation, the learned Assessor agreed, on the understanding
that the other side would consent. At the same time, he
said he wished it to be distinctly understood that after
that court he never would re-enter a cause after it had
been struck out. If the parties were not ready, thej
must take the consequence.

GOODS SOLD AND•DELIVERED

ELLISON v. WKEAND.—The plaintiff in this case was
a timber merchant, and the defendant a Joiner and builder.
The action, which was undefended, was to recover the
the sum of £25 25., for timber sold and delivered. Ver-
dict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.

ILLISUAL IILSTRAIZAT

MIDDLEHURST v. EVANS AND OTHERS.—Edward
Middlehurst was the plaintiff.; John Evans, Edward
Barrow, and Henry Green, the defendants, and the action
was brought to recover damages for a trespass made upon
the premises of the plaintiff by the defendants. Green
allowed judgment to go by default. The-other defendants
pleaded, first, not guilty, and secondly, denied that the
premises were the premises of the plaintiff.
Mr. JAMES stated the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff
was a wine merchant in this town, and carried on business
in Brooks's-alley. In June last he took the premises in
question from Mr. Banning, and occupied them without
any trouble till the month of August last. On the 15th
of that month, between nine and ten o'clock in the
morning, when the clerk opened Mr. Middlehurst's
premises, a bailiff, with two or three followers, entered
the premises, produced an authority to distrain, and
said they had come to distrain for rent owing to
one of the defendants—Mr.. Evans. It was then
stated there was no rent owing to Mr. Evans ; that
the premises were not held under him, and if they
touched anything they would do it at their peril. Not-
withstanding the repeated warning the parties persisted,
and took away 70 casks of soda, bieaking some of the
windows in lowering it down, and injuring the jigger rope.
Mr. James proceeded to remark that the distress was
made out against Messrs. Grundy, Wright, and Crossley,
and that the reason why the distress was made was in
consequence of Mr. Evans having the soda on the pre-
mises, and refusing to pay the rent for it to Mr. Middle-
hurtle. He hoped in this way to get possession of his
goods without paying the lien upon rent for them. It ap-
peared from the plaintiff's evidence that part of the soda
was seized by Mr. Ogle in the street, under a writ offifa,
and another part of it sold for the rent, the demand for
which had been satisfied; the action was, therefore, for
the trespass.

Mr. bENm AN, for the defendants, after the minor parts
of the case had been disposed• of, called witnesses to prove
that the rooms of the warehouse in which the soda was
stored were occupied by Mr. Evans as tenant, and that
there was no access to those rooms but through the
plaintiff's office.
The jury, after hearing the learned assessor's summing
up, found for the plaintiff—damages, 20s.

CHAP-GE FOR COMMISSION

HASKAYN E V. Foan.—ln this case Mr. James Has-
kayne was plaintiff, and Mr. Ford the defendant. The
declaration was for work and labour done and EA- com-
mission. The defendant pleaded never indebted. It ap-
peared that the plaintiff was a ship-broker in an humble
way, and the plaintiff was a master mariner, at present
being mate of the Jane Stanley, and the claim which. the
plaintiff sought to recover was the sum of £lO for com-
mission in assisting to purchase one-fourth of tho Jane
Stanley, and for procuring the command of that vessel
for the defendant. The usual per tentage on such tran-
sactions was 1 per cent. The share cost £440, and the
remainder of the charge was for procuring the com-
mand of the vessel. For the defendant it was allowed
that the plaintiff was entitled to 1 per cent on the mo-
ney actually paid, (which was only £300,) but the charge
for procuring the situation of captain was entirely repu-
diated. The jury found for the plaintiff—damages, £lO,

DAWBURN AND DAVIES V. CRITCHLEY.—In—this case
Seacombe Dawburn and Joseph Davies, tailors and
drapers, sought to recover £8 from John Critchley, for
a suit of clothes.—Verdict for the plaintiff in the sum
claimed.

BREACH OF AGREEMINT

FRANCIS v. DAVIES.—In this case Charles Francis was
the plaintiff, and Thomas Davies the defendant. The
declaration was in assumpsit and set forth an agreement
was made between the plaintiff and defendant, whereby
the plaintiff undertook to serve the defendant for a period
of two years and five months, at a salary of £lO4 a-year,
payable by weekly wages, the hours of servitude to be be-
tween the hours of nine o'clock in the morning and half-
past seven in the evening, illness excepted. The plain-
tiff averred that he entered into the defendant's employ-
ment, and served up to July, 1843, according to the terms
of the agreement, and was willing to continue up to the
end of the term, but the plaintiff illegally, and without
reason, discharged him. The defendant pleaded that the
plaintiff did not serve according to the terms of agreement,
that he neglected his work, worked for other persons in
his employer's time, used defendant's materials for such
work, and fraudently sold the defendant's materials. Mr.
James appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Arnold for the
defendant. The plaintiff was a watch jeweller, and the
defendant carried on business in Bold-street, under the
firm of Litherland, Davies, and Co. In the beginning of
the year 1840, the plaintiff was engaged by the defendant
for a period of six years, at a salary of 40s. per week for
the first two years, and 50s. per week for the remainder.
In 1342 some misunderstanding arose between the parties
and another agreement was entered into in November.
By this the plaintiff was to continue in the service of the
plaintiff for the remainder of the term for 406. it week,
but in July last the plaintiff was discharged, and the ac-
tion was brought to recover compensation for being so
dismissed. On the part of the defendant, witnesses were
called to prove that the plaintiff was very irregular in his at-
tendance at the shop, and also to prove that he sold jewels to
the watch finishers, when they broke them, at a cheaper
rate than they would have been furnished by Mr. Davies,
and the inference which the learned counsel wished to
draw from the evidence was that the plaintiff in his em-
ployers time put in :the jewels for the finisher, charged
them a certain sum for it and pocketed this sum, although
he had taken a jewel belonging to his employer. The
course the finishers should have adopted was to take the
watch down to Mr. Davies, and get a ticket to plaintiff,
who was to place in the jewels, and the coat was, to be de,