The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-03-29 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY,

BREACH OF CONTRACT.—STORKS V. WARING.—This was an action
to recover the sum of £5B, the amount of a bill accepted and paid by
the plaintiff; for which be received no consideration, and a further
sum in damages, as a compensation for loss sustained by him through
the non-fulfilment, by the defendant, of a contract entered into be-
tween them.
Mr. RoscoE, in the absence of Mr. Pollock, stated the plaintiff's
case to the jury, and from his opening, which was borne out by the
evidence, it appeared that the plaintiff, William Storke, who is a but-
ton-mould manufacturer, residing at Leftwich, in Cheshire, in March
1823, bargained with the defendant, Mr. John Waring, hide merchant
and dealer in bones, carrying on business in Argyle-street, Liverpool,
for 20 tons of bones, suitable for his business, at £5 10s. per ton, for
which he was to pay one half in cash and the remainder in a bill at
two mouths. Half the quantity of bones agreed for was forwarded to
the plaintiff immediately, but the defendant refused to deliver the
other half until the bill, which was for £5B, became due and was paid.
He then sent a quantity of bones as the other portion of the lot, but
the plaintiff refused to receive them, alleging that they were not such
as he had contracted for, and that they were wholly unserviceable for
the purposes of his trade and only tit for manure. The difference
which thus arose between them remained hitherto unsettled, and this
action was brought, in consequence, to recover the amount of the bill
in question and a compensation for the loss sustained by the plaintiff
thiough the nonperformance of the contract.
Mr. WIGHTMAN addres.sed the Jury. in defence, contending that
there had been no breach of contract, inasmuch as the second portion
of bones delivered was part of the lot selected for purchase by the
plaintiff himself. This point he had endeavour to established, but
ineffectually, in the cross-examination of the plaintiffis witnesses, but
offered no evidence himself.
The Jury, after a short consultation, found for the plaintiff—dama-
ges £2o, besides the amount of the bill:
TRUBSHAW v. PRITCIIARD AND ANOTHER.—This was an action of
assumed:, brought to recover a balance of £5B 153. Ild., alieed to be
due to the plaintiff, for work and labour done by him for the defend-
ants.
The plaintiff is a civil engineer, and the defendants, Messrs. Prit-
chard and Hough, were the contractors for laying down the Wigan
Branch Railway. Thelolaintiff was employed to superintend the
works, from the 14th of February, 1831, to the lOth July, 1832, a Pe-
riod of 17 months, at the end of which he was discharged. During the'
term of his engagement, he had upwards of fifty men constantly em-
ployed under him, and, in the discharge of his duty, he was frequently
on the road from three or four o'clock in the morning. No specific
rate of salary for his services had been agreed upon, and he preferred
a claim for payment at the rate of £2 10 per week. lle had received
altogether £133 125., and the defendant had paid £3 .6s. into court,
which, being at the rate of £2 2s. per week, they contended was an
adequate remuneration for his labours, inasmuch as another person,
the nephew of one of the defendants, who was also employed as a
superintendent was paid at that rate, and the plaintiff himself, be-
fore he knew what he was to have, had expressed a hope that the de-
fendants would not give him less than that.
Several witnesses were examined on both sides, and about the mid-
dle of the trial, his lordship having thrown out a suggestion that, as
the only question at issue was the value of the plaintiff's services, the'
time of the public might be saved and justice between the parties at-
tained by settling it out of court, the plaintiff's counsel immediately
consented to a reference. To this mode of arrangement, however,
the counsel for the defendants declined to accede. The cause, there-
fore, proceeded.
. When his lordship had summed up, the jury inquired whether they
could give £5 more than the plaintiff sought to recover, and on being
answered in the negative, they immediatelyreturned a verdict for the
plaintiff, for the amount of his claim.
LIBEL.—THE KING T. DEW HURST.—This was an indictment
preferred by the Overseers and Vestry of the township of Mel-
lor, against the defendant, for an article published by him in the
Blackburn Gazette, which was charged as a libel of and concern-
ing Mr. John Brindle, Governor of the Workhouse at Mellor.
Previous to the case being gone into, objections were made,
on the part of the prosecution, to several of the jurymen in suc-
cession, who were, in consequence, desired to quit the box. The
number of instances in which this took place, and the circum-