The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-04-07 00:00:00

DOVER AND ANOTHER V. FENTON (clerk.)

This was an undefended action on a prOmissory note.
Verdict for the plaintiffs. Damages, £215 ss.

UN-WIN V. lIORNER AND BELL.

This was an action brought by Henry Unwin, iron and
steel merchant at Sheffield, against Messrs Horner and
BEM, shipping agents, of Liverpool, to recover the value of
In dozens of scythes. The scythes were sent from Shef-
field to Liverpool, for the purpose of being forwarded by
defendants to Messrs. Maguire and Welsh, of Dublin.
On the receipt of the invoice at Dublin, Messrs. Maguire
and Welsh wrote to the plaintiff to say that they were on
the eve of bankruptcy, and requesting him to stop the
goods at Liverpool. Mr. Unwin accordingly came to Li-
verpool, and applied to the defendants for the goods, but
they refused to surrender them, on the ground that Ma-
guire and Welsh were their debtors, and they fancied they
had a right to keep the scythes in satisfaction for the debt,
believing that they were the property of Maguire and
Welsh, and not the property of the plaintiff. The action
was to try the right of stopping the goods in trunsilit. A
verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the full amount,
with liberty to move for a verdict for the defendant, if the
court above should be of opinion that upon the Nets a
verdict ought to be given for defendant.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-WEDNESDAY.
HALM V. DALTON. _ _

This was an action for the recovery of the sum of £925,
the loss occasioned by the refusal of the defendant to ac-
cept certain shares in the Leeds and Thirsk Railway.
On the 6th September last the defendant, who is a ca-
lico merchant in Manchester, gave instructions to Mr.
Robinson, sharebroker, of that town, to purchase for him
fifty shares in the Leeds and Thirsk Railway. That gen-
tleman, accordingly, made inquiry, and succeeded in pur-
chasing from the plaintiff thirty at £23 10s., and twenty
at £2.1. The scrip was afterwards called by the company
for the purpose of registration. On the 10th November
word was sent to the defendant that the scrip had been
registered, and were ready for him. He then expressed
his intention of paying for them. Up to the 19th Novem-
ber he continued to acknowledge the debt, but after that,
on application being made for payment, he refused, on the
ground that they should have been delivered to him in the
month of September. The shares were afterwards sold,
and the present action was brought to recover the loss
which had been incurred by that sale, the shares having,
meanwhile, depreciated in value.
Mr. KNOWLES contended that the transfer could not
be considered legal, as, on the 20th November, Mr. Ro-
binson had presented it without having the name of the
proprietor or purchaser on, and that the consideration had
been written upon that transfer after the purchase had
been effected. He cited two cases in which the Court bad
decided the point, that without the transfer being com-
pletely filled up at the time of exchange it could not be
considered legal.
His LORDSHIP considered the objection raised by Mr.
Knowles to be good, and recommended a verdict for the
defendant, subject to Mr. Baines having power to move
for a new trial.