The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-08-22 00:00:00

CASE OF JOHN ANDERSON.

True hills were found against Anderson for being in
posSession of notes stolen in London from• Mr. Black-
more, and also at the Preston Guild.

NISI PRIUS COUItT.-MONDAY.

Mr. Justice CRESSWRLL took his seat at nine o'clock,
shortly after which

A Juryman said, he wished to apply to his lordship to
alloy. the names of the parties interested in each case to
be called over before the jury were sworn, because in a
case which was tried on Saturday, he understood that it
was intended to apply for a new trial in consequence of
his (the juryman►) being one of the shareholders in the
Bank of Manchester which was interested in the case. He
begged ►o say the attorney for the defendant knew that
he was a shareholder ; and he only made- these rema► ks
in order to set himself right will; the court. He (the
juryman) would have oljected after he had been sworn
bad it not been for a decision of his lordship in a case
previously, that after the jury had been sworn they must
decide the case.

Mr. Justice CRESSWELL said, it was quite richt ; if a
solicitor meant to object to any of the jury he must look
out beforehand.

The Jurytnan said, he would on no account have, re-
mained on the jury it he had been aware.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL.-1 have no doubt, for I do
not know any place where juries are more scrupulous
than in this county, and I have had a great deal of ex-
perience in it. You shall hear the names of the panics
when the case is called on ; but it is frequently impossible
to know who are the parties interested.

RIGHT TO A WATER POND.-SCHOLES V. CHADWICK.

In this case Thomas Scholes was the plaintiff, and
James Chadwick the defendant. The declaration stated
that the plaintiff was possessed of a certain close of land,
and the def-ndant of another close adjoining to that of the
plaintiff; that there was a pond in the close of the de-
fendant, and that the plaintiff had it right to water his
cattle in that pond; that the defendant made a drain and
drew off the water, so that the descent of the water was
dangerous and difficult, and a mane of tLe plaintiffs was
drowned in consequence. The defendant pleaded not
guilty, and denied all the allegations.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Pickering appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Murphy for the defendant.
Mr. M ART'S said the plaintiff was a farmer residing at
Chatterton, near Oldham, and the detendant was a ramie'
adj. ' ' g. and the action was brought for the put pose of
determining first, the right of the plaintiff to use the
pond a hick wds on the land of the defendant, for the.
purpose of watering his cattle, and secondly. whether the
plaintiff was entitled to recover from the defendant the
value of a mare, which in consequence of the alterations
made in the pond was destroyed by falling into it in at-
tempting to drink.
The case had proceeded about an hour. when
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL asked if these neighbours
could not make some arrangement about the use of the
pond.
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY said his client would be willing
to do any thing of that kind.
After some conversation, it was agreed that the matter
should be referred to a Mr. Reyne, a farmer.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL.—And what is to become of
the present cause?
Mn. Sergeant MURPHY.—Enter a verdict for the de-
fendant.

Mr. MARTIN objected.
M r. 3 us' ice CREsswELL.—Withdraw a juror.
Mr. MARTIN assented.

Mr. Sergeant MURPHY objected; but preferred to leave
it to a gentleman of the bar to say for whom the verdict
should he entered.

To this Mr. MARTIN objected, and said the case must
be proceeded with.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL said he hoped the gentlemen
had considered cell the course they were adopting; tat
they were not doing it hastily ; because the interests of the
parties were concerned in it.
Several other witnesses were then called, and after a
discussion on the legal points in the case,
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY addressed the jury.. He con-
tended there was no proof of an easement, by user, to
water on the defendant's land; but that the plaintiff had
made out that the pond was as much, though not to the
same extent, in the laud of the plaintiff as in the land of
the defendant.

Mr. Justice CVESSWELL, in summing up, regretted
that the parties had agreed to conclude—not to conclude.
but rather to carry on their litigation before him and the
jury. However, they could hot help that ; they must de-
cide the case, and leave them to fight it out elsewhere, at
great expense and inconvenience, when it could have been
much better settled if they had adopted another courbe.
The jury returned a vtrdict for the defendant.

DISPUTED A-UT:DI/Pi T.

PLANT AND ANornEtt, ASSIGNEES V. JONES.—The
declaration in this case was for goods sold and delivered,
and ti defendant pleaded a payment and set-off.
t' r. srtin and Mr. Lawrie were for the plaintiff; Mr.
Whighan r the defendant.
Mr. 141ARTIN stated the case. The:plaintiffs were Jas.
Plant and Charles Hill, assignees of the estate of Samuel,
James, and JOhn Chadwick., lather and • and the de-
fendant was John Rives. The bankrupts formerly car-
ried on businesseenear Bury, as cotton spinners and wea-
vers. under the'firm of "Chadwick and Sons," and the
defendant carried on business as a commission agent, at
Mauchesier ; Ire also bought goods to a great extent on
his own accootti, and for a great !umbel of years had done
business with the bankrupts, and for some time back his
business with them was exclusively confined to bu)in4
goods from them. The Chadwicks were very illiterate
men; they were originally workmen, Lot commenced
business on their own account, and ultimately became
bankrupts. Their books were kept in a very disorderly
manner, and when they came to beexamined, it was found
that .the defendant was stated to be indebted to them to
the amount of £193. This Mr. Jones denied, and the
commissioners instituted an examination before an ac-
countant. From this it appeared, after deducting certain
sums af which Mr. Jones had no vouchers, that he was
still indebted. on his own showing, to the bankrupts in
the-sum of £57 35., for which sum, at least, he (Mr.
Martin) contended he was entitl, d to recover.
Mr. WHIGHAM, for the defendant, contended that
there had been a mistake made in the accounts of £37 4s.
93., in-consequence of a similarity of names, and that, in-
stead of the defendant owing the estate of the bankrupt
anything. there was a balance owing to him of £24 3s. 3d.
In substantiation of his case he called a witness, named
Allwood, who had been in the employ of the defendant.
Mr. MARTIN, in reply, contended that the whole case
of the defendant had been got up to deceive the jury;
that it was a clumsy and stupid attempt at fraud ;
that the documents produced were not honest documents ;
and that the books submitted as evidence had been altered
for the pnrposes of the case.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL, in referring to the cash-book
of the defendant, found that the sums mentioned in the
memoranda were all entered in their prover dates. The
only question, therefore, was whether £57 3s. was still
owing to the estate.
The Jury immediately found for the plaintiff. Damages
£57 3s.

RIGHTS OF THE LORD OF THE MANOR.
MOSLEY V. DARDSLEY.

This was an undefended action. The plaintiff was Sir
Oswald Mosley, Bart., Lord of the Manor of Manchester,
and the defendant was James Bardslev. The action arose
in consequence of the defendf nt selling butcher's meat
otherwise than in the markets provided by the Lord of the
Manor, on 'market days. The Jury found for the plain-
tiff. Damages, 40s.

HEAP AND ANOTHER, EXECUTORS, V. LIVINGSTON AND