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

DAVIES V. DIMMER AND °TITERS,

This was— an action brought by .the plaintiff, Mary
Davies. against the defendants, John Rimmer, Peter
Radcliffe, and Henry Seddon. The declaration con-
tained three counts for breaking and entering her premi-
ses, putting her out of possession, converting her goods.
and assaulting and beating her. The defendants pleaded
eight counts,—first, that they were not guilty, and secondly
that the house was not the plaintiff's premises, &c.
Mr. Baines and Mr. Atherton.appeared for the plain=
tiff, and Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cardwell for the defend-
ants.

Mr. BAINES stated the case. He said the plaintiff was
the widow of a man named William Davies, who lived at
Lytham, in this county ; and the action was brought to
recover compensation in damages for several trespasses,
committed under circumstances calculated to excite very
strong feelings. Her husband and family had resided for
nearly a century on part of Lord Skelmersdale's estate.
The husband died there at the close of last year, and the
plaintiff continued to reside on the premises from that
time until the month of May last, when the first trespass
took place. The defendants, 'acting upon some claim
which it would be necessary for them to establish if they
could, went to the house on the first of May, and con.
ducted themselves-in a manner which would be described
by the witnesses. They were heard to use such violent
and threatening language, as they approached, that the
plaintiff ordered the door to be fastened : and their con-
duct towards the poor widow, with a daughter, a son 13
years of age, and a grandchild about 4, was as follows :
—The defendant, Rimmer, got a spade, and swore he
would break open the door, and, accordingly, the door
was actually broken open, and a forcible entry effected.
As he was entering, his expression was, " d—n her,
when I get in, I'll knock her brains out." When he'
entered, he ordered the plaintiff to go out. She refused
to comply with the request. He was then in the act of
striking at.her, but his blow did not take effect, and then
struck the daughter of the plaintiff in such a manner as
to swell her face immediately. In short, he conducted
himself in the most violent manner, and used outrageous
language. The plaintiff was in the greatest possible state
of agitation ; she was suffering from illness at the time:
she became exceedingly unwell during their stay; they
turned out herself, her daughter, her Son, and her grand-
child ; took out all the things in the house, and left her
on the road in this melancholy condition. Rimmer saying
that she might have the goods, if she had any place to
put them in. But she had no place,—no house to go to ;
it was only through the charity of a neighbour, that she
was provided with accommodation for five nights in a
barn ; and upon the Gth of May her things were taken
from her, by the orders of Rimmer, and sold. He (Mr.
Baines) believed- that his learned friend on the other side
would set up some will. which, it would be said, was
madei by the husband of the plaintiff, and which entitled
Rimmer to
baye t
thein t
evidence,
ebarutbeiftowreould
be the
R shown
death of the plaintiff's husband,a, had had a paralytic
stroke—that he had two othersin hethee course of the same
year—that he was speechless for a month before his
death, and that he was, therefore, not in a fit state to
make a will.

Witnesses were then examined to prove the case, and,
after it had bee❑ partly heard, a verdict was returned
for the plaintiff, with £5 damages, as against Rimmer,
and for the two other defendants on all the counts.

DOE DEM. STOREY a. SUMMERS.
This was an action of ejectment brought by Joseph
Storey to recover possession of a piece of land at Edge-
hill. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff.
Tile court adjourned at half-past six o'clock.
NISI PRIUS COURT.—WEDNESDAY.

NON-PAYMENT OF ELECTIONEERING EXPENSES.
DUCKWORTII V. JOHNSON.—In this case Wm. Duck-
worth was the plaintiff and George Johnson the defend-
ant. The action was fnr goods sold and materials and
attendance, and on an account stated. The amount
sought was £5O. The defendant admitted his liability to
the extent of £6.

The plaintid'Scase was conducted by Mr. Wortley, as-
sisted by Mr. Cardwell ; Messrs. Baines and Segar were
for the defendant.

Mr. WORTLEY stated that the plaintiff was a publican,
carrying on business at Blackburn, and the defendant a
respectable tradesman, also belonging to that place. In
the year 1841, during the occurrence of the general
election, considerable excitement prevailed, and the town
of Blackburn was no exception, the struggle there being
carried on with great spirit on both side's. Mr. Turner,
the former member, having expressed a wish not to come
forward again, the parties in the field were Mr. Fieiden
and a gentleman named Hornby. Subsequently, however,
in consequence of the urgent solicitations of some of his
friends and supporters, Mr. Turner was induced to come
forward as a candidate, on the understanding that he was
not to be subjected to any expense, whatever might be
the result of the contest. The election began, and, as was
often the case, purity of election was the cry on both sides,
and there was to be no corruption. The contest, how-
ever, grew hot and close, which the result evidently
showed, as Mr. Turner only lost by one vote ; it became
evident, therefore, that ordinary canvassing was inefficient,
and means were resorted to on both sides far influencing
the electors, and houses of entertainment opened in vari-
ous parts of the town. Among these was the house of
the plaintiff, where arrangements were made for the recep-
tion of a considerable company, and on the 23d of June,
the first day of the election, Johnson was there, in com-
pany with a number of other persons in the interest of
Mr. Turner. The defendant appeared to be the leading
person, and gave orders that an entertainment should be
sent up stairs, consisting of brandy and water, &c., and
also accompanied them to the room. lie also gave di-
rections for the accommodation of a lower class of persons
in the kitchen,—not with the same exalted fare as the
party up stairs were enjoying, but with rum and ale.
There was considerable excitement, as is usual on such
occasions, which was continued for an hour or two during
the evening. Johnson gave orders for a person to be
placed on the stairs, so as not to allow the lower class of
individuals, who were regaling themselves in the kitchen,
to obtain admission to the room occupied by the'aristo-
cracy above, and at the close of the jollification gave di-
rections for stopping the tap, which was accordingly done,
and not a drop was given as soon as the shadow of John-
son ceased to darken the door of the plaintiff Duckworth ;
a friend of the plaintiff had undertaken to score up the
evening's accounts, which amounted to about £3O, on
one of the doors of the house. On the day of nomination
drink had also been supplied to a small amoun , by direc-
tion of the defendant. It appeared that shortly after this
things c ,me to such a pass that every voter was of the ut-
most confidence, and a system called bottling took place.
A person named Halliwell, who had been pestered by both
parties, was, by the direction of the defendant taken to
the plaintiff's house, and amply provided for, the defend-
ant observing that he (Elalliwell) must sleep there and
some one with him, and be taken care of until he was
wanted. The next morning he was taken away by John-
son to the head quarters of the party, and after having
been supplied with breakfast went and recorded his vote
for Mr. Turner. The amount sought originated in the
manner he had stated, and comprised in the whole a sum
of about 450.

Several witnesses were then called for the plaintiff's
case, to prove that Johnson was at this house on the even-
ing in question, and gave the directions alluded to by the
learned counsel; one of them stated in cross-examination,
that the proportion of brandy supplied to the party up
stairs was 450 glasses, averaging 15 glasses for each per-
son, which was disposed of in about two hours, and that,the guests in the kitchen bad a large quantity of ale, each
gallon of which was seasoned with a pint of rum, The
house was very full, some of those present being obliged
to occupy the yard, and there was much excitement and
confusion.

Mr. BArNES addressed the jury for the defendant. He
observed that a more unfounded claim had never been
brought into a court of justice. The defendant never de-
nied his liability with respect to Halliwell, for which he
had made a tender of £6, which was all he had a right to
pay. He would undertake to show that his client was
not responsible for all those expenses brought against him.
There was another fact, too, which told against the plain-
tiff, namely, that though three years had elapsed no ap-
plication had been made to the defendant, but that re-
peated demands had been made on the family of 111 r.
Turner, who was the party liable, if there was any liability
at all.

Witnesses were called who stated they did not see the
defendant at Duckworth's house on the evening in ques-
tion; that they were there, and some drink was ordered
by Mr. Wm. Turner. One of them, Mr. Thomas Tur-
ner, the nephew of the candidate, said he had orders to
open several houses, and had paid several of the accounts,
having received motley from his_ uncle for that purpose,
but had not paid Duckworth and some others. John
Brown, who was at the house of the plaintiff on the night
before the election, heard him say, when the score
amounted to £lO, that all had then come in that was
ordered. Witness was a waiter on the occasion, and the
full value of the drink brought in during the evening,
which, he believed, was ordered by Mr. Turner, would
amount to £lO. He did not see the defendant there, but
would not swear that be might not be present. -
Mr. WortmEy replied. He said there was nothing in-
consistent in what had been stated with the evidence of
the plaintiff; for, if that were admitted, it amounts to a
chtrge of direct perjury on all those witnesses. It was
quite clear that that the occasion of which the defendant's
witnesses had been speaking was different to that referred
to by the plaintiff, and, consequently, did not invalidate
his claim.

The learned JUDGE, in summing up the case, said it
was melancholy to see such a trumrery cause occupying
so much of the time of the Court. The jury found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff for £36 14s. Bd.

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A LEASE.
HEWITT V. LOCKETT.—The plaintiff. Mr. John Hewitt,
was trustee to a lady of the name of Birley, and the de-
fendant, a gentleman belonging to the town. The action
was for an alleged violation of a lease existing between
the parties. The defendant had five pleas on the record,
which were to the effect, that he had made no promise—
did not under-let, as alleged, and had not allowed the
house to be occupied.

Mr. Martin and Mr. Cowling were for the plaintiff
Mr. Watson for the defendant, assisted by Mr. Cromp-
ton.

Mr. MARTIN stated the case. It appeared the plaintiff
acted as trustee, under a marriage settlement, for Mrs.
Birley, with respect to a house situate in Hope7street,
Liverpool, which house had been leased to the defendant,
in 1834, and be resided there at that time. The terms of
the lease were; that the house should not be occupied
otherwise than as a dwelling-house, and not as a lodging-
house, school, 84c. At the expiration of the lease, in
1841, which was for seven years, it was from circum-
stances that took place. supposed to be renewed by the
defendant on the same terms, he being, considered the
tenant, so far as paying the rent. The defendant had.
subsequently left the house, and in September of last
year it was ascertained to have been let as a lodging-
house, to' a person not such as was contemplated un-
der the terms of the agreement, by which the value
of the house had become deteriorated. Some corres-
pondence took place with the defendant on the sub-
ject, but he refused to come to any arrangement in
consequence of which the proceedings in question had
been instituted.

-Witnesses were called to prove that a house occupied
by lodgers would neither let nor sell for so much, in con-
sequence of such occupation.
Mr. WATSON was about to address the jury, when an
agreement was come to, and a verdict taken for the plain-
tiff by consent, damages one shilling. His Lordship re-'
fused to certify for the costs.