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

REPLEVIN.

Ltwis v. MORLEY AND OTHERS. -Mr. Watson appeared
for the plaintiff, Mr. Knowles for the defendants. The
plaintiff rented a farm at Little Lever, near Bolton, from the
defendants, who were obliged to distrait) for the rent. The
plaintiff replevined and questioned the letting by the de-
fendants; who, by the form of the action, had the right of
commencing. After an uninteresting trial of about an hour
and a half, the jury found a verdict for the defendants, and
that the plaintiff was indebted to them for rent £67. 10s.
BADDELEY V. FOWLER.—An undefended action brought
by an attorney at Stockport, against his client, a druggist in
that town, to recover £67 17s. 2d. for work and labour
done.—Verdict for the amount claimed.
ATHERTON V. DALTON AND ANOTHER.--An action un-
defended, to recover the amount of a bill of exchange.—
Verdict for the plaintiff £2B 6s. 7d.
CLOSE V. GERMAN.—An action in ejectment. The de-
fendant did not appear, and consequently a verdict was en-
tered for the plaintiff.
FROSTE V. HoßsoN.--Undefended. Verdict for the plain-
tiff 4:50 17s. 100.

NORTH AND SOUTH WALES BANK

BROWN, PUBLIC OFFICEB, v. Conarr.lll,lr. Knowles
and Mr. Drinkwater appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Watson
for the defendant. The declaration stated that the action
was brought for money had and received, for money lent by
the co-partnership, and for interest upon the same. Seve-
ral aleas were entered by the defendant, on which issue was
joined.

Mr. KisrowLxs said he had the honour to appear on the
part of Mr. James Brown, the public registered officer of
the North and South Wales Bank ; which, although of that
name, was in point of fact, carried on in Liverpool. The
defendant, Mr. Thomas A. Corlett, had been the managing
officer of the bank, which was entirely under his controul
during the time he was manager. The object of the action
was to recover from him the sum of £2,400 which had been
lent to him by the bank, and in which he stood indebted to
the bank upon a banking account. Mr. Corlett, he should
state, was not only manager of the bank, but he had also an
account with it in the same way as any other customer; he
drew checks the same as any other customer ; and it would
appear that at the termination of the account he stood in-
debted to the bank in the sum named, £2,400. He (the
learned counsel) should have no difficulty whatever in proving
this, because he would produce the defendant's own cheques,
and they would satisfactorily show that the defendant owed
the bank the sum stated. It would not be necessary for him
to address to the jury one word more, were it not that his
learned friend, Mr. Watson, held a brief for the defendant,
and therefore he was obliged to treat this as a case in which
some defence or other was to be tried. He (Mr. Knowles)
was, in consequence, induced to turn to the pleas upon
the record ; and be there found, among other things,
that the defendant pleaded a set-off, that was, he said that the
bank was indebted to him a larger sum than he was to the
bank. The defendant would attempt to make out this plea
in this way—he would attempt to shew credit had not been
given to him for all the moneys which he had paid into the
bank. How that could be shewn he (Mr. Knowles) knew
not; but he did know that Mr. Corlett, as manager, had had
the books in his power—that he had opportunities of directing
money to be paid as he pleased ; and it might, possibly, turn
out that sums of money had been directed to pass through
Mr. Corlett's account which had no business there, and which
belonged either to the bank or to some of its customers. He
(Mr. Knowles) only made this observation in anticipation
of what his learned friend might be instructed what to say ;
if nothing of the kind was said there was an end of it ; but if
Mr. Corlett did attempt to make out a set-off, by that mode
of defence, he (Mr. Knowles) should have some disclosures
to make respecting Mr. Corlett, which Mr. Corlett would
not be very glad to hear. He should say no more now ; but
proceed to prove that Mr. Corlett was indebted to the bank
in the sum he had•named, by producing the cheques drawn
by him, now in the hands of the bank ; and when he had done
so he should see whether his learned friend met the case in
the manner which he (Mr. Knowles) had been instructed to
anticipate. The learned gentleman then called
Samuel Tomkinson, who said that previous to May, 1841,
he was cashier to the North and South Wales Bank ; and he
produced 336 cheques signed by the defendant, amounting
to £3,900 18s. ld. They were all paid by knowviitn there have
witness.
Cross-examined by Mr. WATsoN.—I
been above £lO,OOO paid into the bank to the account of the
defendant during that period. The pass-book produced is

Verdict for the plaintiff—£2,oo3 14s. sd.
Mr. KNOWLES applied for speedy execution.
The JUDGE.—You shall have it in the ordinary way.
BILL OF EXCHANGE.
-

....
LANE AND ANOTHER V. ASHTON.—An undefended action
on a bill of exchange.—Verdict for the plaintiff, £3B Is. 6d.

TRESPASS

1 FARRINGTON V. KAY AND OTHERS.—This was an action
(brought by the plaintiff, who lives at Turton, in the neigh-
bourhood of Bolton, to recover compensation in damages for
a trespass committed by the defendants by entering his pre-
mises, and executing a distress upon the goods therein.
Mr. Whigham conducted the plaintiff's case; Mr. Segar
and Mr. Martin appeared for the defendants.
The plaintiff occupied a house as tenant to the defendant
Kay ; and in the month of September, last year, when no
rent was due, the defendants forcibly entered upon the pre-
mises, which were then locked up, and took away goods to
the value of £l5. The defence was that rent was due, but
it was not made out.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £l5 ;
but the JUDGE granted leave to move to the defendant, on a
technical objection to the proceedings.
BREACH OF CONTRACT.

DAVIDSON v. CARR AND OTIIERS.—This was an action
to recover compensation for a breach of agreement. The
declaration averred that the plaintiff agreed to hire himself
to the defendants as traveller and salesman for a period of
three years from the 2d January, 1841, unless the agreement
should be put an end to by a notice in writing before the 2d
of April following; and the plaintiff continued in their service
till the Bth of July, last year, without any such notice having
been given, when the defendants discharged him. The de-
fendants put in several pleas, the most important of which
was that the plaintiff had violated his duties by falsely repre-
renting to them that be had received certain orders, in con-
sequence of which goods were sent to the parties, who there-
upon returned the goods to the defendants, and, in conse-
quence, they suffered great detriment and loss.
Mr. KNOWLES, Mr. WORTLEY, and Mr. COWLING, ap-
peared for the plaintiff: Mr. BAINES and Mr. WATSON for
the defendants.

On the part of the plaintiff, Mr. Job Davidson, it was
proved that the defendants, Thomas Carr, sen., Henry Carr,
and Thomas Carr, jun., carry on business under the name
of Thomas Carr and Sons, as silk manufacturers and mer-
chants, at Leek, in Staffordshire, and also at Manchester,
where they have a warehouse, with which the plaintiff was
principally connected. They employ a number of travellers,
who solicit orders and transmit them to their principals in
Manchester. Before the plaintiff entered the defendants'
service he was a traveller for Mr. Smith, a merchant in
Manchester, and when he went to the defendants he took
with him the best of characters. An agreement was made
between them on the 2d Jan., 1841, for an engagement for 3
years, at a graduated salary—the first year at £lOO, the second
£llO, and the third £l2O. This agreement chime into operation
immediately, and the plaintiff was assigned to take the" West-
ern journey" and the " Welsh journey ;" and he was inces-
santly occupied in thus serving the firm for a year and a half.
The early part of the agreement was exceedingly lucrative
to the defendants ; the plaintiff opening many new houses,
with whom business was not done before, to the extent it was
stated of 105. The early part of 1842, like the period before,
passed over without dissatisfaction ; but trade, in all
branches, had considerably declined, and consequently the
plaintiff's journeys became not equally profitable with those
in the former part of his engagement. Complaints then be-
gan to be made to the plaintiff upon the results of his jour-
neys, on the ground that they were not so profitable as they
ought to be. On the 14th of April, when the plaintiff was at
Bangor. he received a letter from the defendants expressing
their displeasure at the fruit of his exertions, seeing the re-
turns
were diminished, and that an early separation was re-
commended as they were daily more grieved at the result,
and remaining would be only against his! character. The
plaintiff returned to Manchester, and it was alleged that
some inferior office was then offered to him by the defen-
dants but be refused to accept it, and demanded the fulfil-
ment of the agreement. On the 22d June, being then on a
journey, he received a letter from the defendants, which
might be considered as terminating the engagement. it was
to this effect—" In course of post state to us when you pro-
pose being in Manchester, and be prepared with a statement
of your accounts as advised, being so dissatisfied with the
employment of your time that we shall discontinue your ser-
vices.—Thomas Carr and Sons." Ili hen the plaintiff returned
he found the defendants resolved to act upon the dismissal
in the above letter, but he continued, for a considerable
time, to present himself daily at the warehouse, ready to ac-
cept any employment within the scope of his engagement.
Some objection was raised to the reception of the agree-
ment in evidence, on the ground that the attesting witness to
it, Christopher Hebden, was not present to prove the execu-
tion of it. It was proved that he sailed for New York in
the packet-ship Sheffield, in May last, and a letter having
been received from him shortly before Christmas, it was
contended that he might be in this country at the present
moment.

The JUDGE overruled the objection, but gave leave to
move.

The case for the defendants, as stated by counsel, and
proved by several witnesses, was,that their house is upwards of
90 years standing, and of the first respectability.. They had
paid the plaintiff up to the Bth of July, the period when he
was discharged. For some time they had no reason whatever
to complain of his conduct, and they had spoken of his exer-
tions as they deserved. After that time, however, a marked
change took place in him ; the returns from the other " cir-
cuits" had increased, whilst those ..from the plaintiff's bad
fallen off; and it was then discovered that a state of things
had sprung up which they could not submit to. Under these
circumstances the plaintiff set out, in May, 1842, upon his
last journey; and his dismissal took place in consequence of
what took place on that journey. In order to obviate his
small returns, the plaintiff had recourse to stratagem of an
ingenious kind, likely to prove destructive to the charac-
ter of his employers if they allowed it, and one which they
were bound to punish the moment it was ascertained. He
had made fraudulent returns of the amount of the orders he
had taken, thereby inducing the defendants to send to their
customers in some instances, double the quantity of goods
which had been actually ordered. Mr. E. Smallwood, a
draper in Birmingham, Messrs. Langridge and Sons, drapers
of Bristol, and Mr. Gardner, of Hereford and Bristol, proved
cases of this kind ; and it was contended that any one of them
was a sufficient justification for the dismissal.
Mr. KNOWLES, in his reply for the plaintiff, contended
that the- circumstances shewed that what had been called
falsification of orders, were at the most only two in number,
and they were obvious mistakes ; that no harm had resulted
from them ; that the plaintiff had no interest whatever in
misrepresenting the orders he received ; and, at all events,
sufficient had not been shewn to justify a house which had
received so much benefit from the plaintiff's services dis-
missing him in so summary a manner. The real motive,
however, for discharging the plaintiff was, that trade had
fallen off, and because the defendants could obtain, and had
obtained, another traveller at a less salary than that paid to
the plaintiff.

The JUDGE, in summing up, told the jury that if they
were of opinion the plaintiff had knowingly made false re-
turns of the orders he had received, that would be a justifiable
cause for dismissal; but if they were not, they must find
for the plaintiff.
The jury, after ten minutes' consideration, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages, £l5O. This, with the
£6O 9s. 4d., half-year's salary, paid when the discharge took
place, makes £2lO 9s. 7d.
The court adjourned at seven o'clock.

TILE CAUSE LIST.
The following was the state of the cause list at the rising
of the court last night :

FIRST LIST.-SALFORD HUNDRED.
Plaintiff.-Nos. 1,2, 3,4, 5,6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17,
18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 30, 31, 39, 40, 42, 47.
Defendant.-Nos. 8, 12, 16, 26, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 51.
Referred.-Nos. 28, 29, 43, 50.
Withdrawn.-Nos. 19, 32, 41.
Struck Out.-Nos. 45, 46, 48.

SECOND LIST.-WEST DERBY HUNDRED.
Plaintiff.—Nos. 1,3, 4,7, 8, 20, 34, 55, 64, 65, 68.
Withdrawn.—Nos. 2,6, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24, 32, 56, 61,
62, 74, 75, 86.

MURDER OF A WIFE.—An inquest was held recently at
Colchester, on view of the body of a female who had been
most cruelly used by her husband. It appeared by the evi-
dence that he had knocked her about the head with his fists,
kicking her in the most cruel manner. The jury returned a
verdict of wilful murder against him.
THEFT FROM A POST-OFFICE.--On Wednesday, at the
Bury St. Edmund's Assizes, Charlotte Blunden, a domestic
in the employ of the postmistress of Lavenham, in the county
of Norfolk, was indicted for stealing from out of a post
letter a £5 bank note, the property of the Postmaster-
General. She was found guilty, and was again indicted for
obtaining the sum of £2 under false pretences, and was de-
clared guilty of this also. She was sentenced to ten years'
transportation.

TRIAL OF COOPEER, THE CHARTIST.—The case for the

prosecution against Cooper, the chartist, at Stafford, termi-
nated on Saturday week ; and the defence was then com-
menced. At the rising of the court, Mr. Justice Erskine
stated that he should sit until that trial was finished, what-
ever time it might occupy, but that he should not take
O'Neil's or any other case : he made that declaration with a
view to prevent the unnecessary attendance of special jurors
and witnesses. The trial " dragged its slow length along"
from Monday till Thursday, Cooper having occupied three
days in examining witnesses. Sergeant Talfourd replied at
the conclusion of the examination. On Thursday. morning,
Judge Erskine commenced summing up : it occupied eleven
hours, and did not conclude till eight o'clock. The jury re-
tired for about ten minutes, and then returned, and delivered
a verdict of guilty against all the three defendant, but recom-
mending Cappur to mercy. Cooper expressed himself much
indebted to the kindness and patience of the judge, which he
had so abundantly manifested during the trial, and begged to
know how or when they were to receive sentence. Cappur
expressed his gratitude to the jury and thejudge. Richards
was absent at the delivery of the verdict. His lordship in-
formed the defendants that they would receive notice on their
recognizances to appear and receive judgment in the Court of
Queen's Bench.

in the writing of Mr. Fisher, who was A clerk in the bank
in 1841. It was Fisher's duty to make out the pass-book.
Re-examined.----The £lO,OOO was paid into the bank, not
entirely on Mr. Corlett's own account, but on account of
the bank and other parties. That £lO,OOO was money re-
ceived by Mr. Corlett in his capacity as manager of the
bunk ; he caused those moneys to be placed to the credit of
his account ; and he drew them out for the uses for which
they were intended. By the bank books, witness could dis-
tinguish on what accounts those moneys were paid in ; and,
by his knowledge of the transactions, could distinguish be-
tween the money paid out on his own account and other
moneys. Mr. Corlett was in the habit of giving witness
verbal instructions about his account; and he gave witness
instructions in relation to all the sums which were not paid
in on his own account. Recollected on the 24th January,
1837, £9OO being paid in by Mr. Corlett, under the name of
Harrison and Co. The directors were in the habit of hold-
ing half-yearly meetings, to balance the accounts. In Janu-
ary, 1842, one of those meetings took place. The defendant
was present; his account was looked through by the direc-
tors, and the balance stated to amount to £2,003 Is. 9d. It
was read from the bank ledger, by the chairman, Mr. Chris.
Bentham. The defendant got up, and stated be was sorry
the balance appeared so high against him ; but, be was happy
to tell the directors, he had been in London, where he had
seen his friends, and made arrangements to pay off the
amount shortly, or to put it on a more satisfactory footing
by giving security. The balance was struck up to the 31st
December previous, in the ledger. Since then the account
had been altered by a few small payments in of about £3O,
against £27 10s. drawn out. Witness had since ascertained
that the £2,003 was not a correct balance; for he had disco-
vered that on the 3d February, 1841, the sum of £353 18s.
had been erroneously placed to his credit. This was made
up by interest up to the 31st January, 1841, transferred from
W. A. Smith's account; that was to say, Mr. Smith was
charged that sum in interest and commissions, which had
been paid in and carried to the credit of Mr. Corlett's ac-
count, instead of being carried to the credit of the bank's
profit and loss account. Mr. Corlett had left the bank when
witness discovered the mistake.
Mr. WATSON contended that the evidence for this amount
of £353 was insufficient.
Mr. KNOWLES admitted be could not establish the item
any further,_and he would abandon it.

By Mr. '
WATSON.-Mr. Corlett's private account was
opened in 1836, and continued down to the time he left.
He had bought shares for himself, not on account of the
bank, but with the bank's money.

Mr. WATSON said he could not contend against the proof
which had been given for the sum of £2,003 14s. sd.
The JUDGE then told the jury the plaintiff had made out
the claim of the bank to that amount, and they must find
accordingly.