The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-04-11 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

was at the instance of the Board of Works that the erec-
of the fort at the north extremity of the town bad been
sus, ended. At such times as the present the commerce
of the town ought not to be left in a defenceless condition,
The fort was now wanted, not merely as a defence to the
port, but as a barrack for troops. Mr. Molyneux said the
matter was entirely in the hands of the government. The
Proceedings were confirmed.

It was agreed that the practical superintendence of the
work at the George's Hall be confided to the corporation
architect as surveyor, and that he be authorised to consult
with some eminent architect, on such points as may
require consideration.

ADDRESS TO THE QUEEN.
The mayor next rose and said : Gentlemen, I am sure
you will excuse a little irregularity upon my part, when
you are made acquainted with the circumstances which
have induced me to address you—it is to submit to you,
for your approval and signatures, an address to our gra-
cious and beloved Queen, expressive of the undeviating
loyalty of the inhabitants of Liverpool.—(Hear.) It has
Oeen usual, upon occasions like the present. that the
mayor's signature should alone suffice for any document
emanating from this council ; but I am anxious, on the
present occasion, that every individual of this council
should have the opportunity of affixing his signature to
it, affording him, as it will, the opportunity of repudiat-
ing, not only on his own behalf, but on behalf of his
constituents, any participation in the late discreditable
proceedings by parties in this town—parties who are
nearly altogether strangers in the town.—(Hear, hear.)
The mayor then read the address, which was followed
by loud cheers and clapping of hands. It was, of course,
unanimously adopted, and signed by every member
present.
Mr.—LACE brought under the notice of the Council the
report of the Water Committee, the purport of which we
gave last week.

Some discussion arose respecting a report made by Mr.
M`Donald as to the quantity of water furnished by the
Harrington Water Works, which differed from Mr.
llawkesley's statement.
Mr. JOSIAS BOOKER contended that there was an
abundant supply of water to be obtained from the ex-
isting Water Works. He moved as an amendment that
the consideration of the report be postponed for a month.
A vote was taken, and there appeared—For the amend-
ment, 8 ; for Mr. Lace's proposition, 27. Mr. Lace's
motion was accordingly declared carried, and the effect
is, that the Water Works are now entirely under the
cdntroul of the Corporation, and that the recommenda-
tipns of the Water Committee, with the exception of that
relative to proceeding at once with the Rivington Pike
scheme, are all adopted.

SOUTH LANCASHIRE SPRING ASSIZES.

CROWN COURT.-TUESDAY

William Ratcliffe, corresponding secretary of the Man-
chester Unity of Odd Fellows, was indicted for that he
had obtained £5O in August, 1847, under pretence that
there was a sum of £lOOO then in the bank to the credit
of a fund for the relief of the Irish and Scotch poor,
there being at the time no such fund in existence, and
that of that £5O he had only remitted £25 for the relief
of the poor. Mr. Baines said, that in the course of last
year in consequence of the distressed state of Ireland and
Scotland, subscriptions were raised by the Odd Fellows
to the amount of £lOOO, which were handed over to the
prisoner for the purpose of being paid by him into Hey-
wood's Bank at Manchester. He had never paid the
money. In August last he obtained cheques to the
amount of £650 to be remitted to different towns in Ire-
land and Scotland for the relief of the distressed poor of
these countries, and of that sum he kept back £425. It
was not until the Ist of January of the present year that
the circumstance was disco+ ered, and he was then indicted
for the £25 withheld from the relief of the poor of Bel-
fast. At the close of the examination of the first witness,
the Judge intimated that it was not a case of obt'iining
money under false pretences. Mr. Sergeant Wilkins said
the money was all right ; that it would be paid over in
due time ; that the prisoner was only acting under the
order of others in keeping it back ; and that the Odd
Fellows reposed great confidence in his client. Mr.
Baines then withdrew the indictment, and the prisoner
was discharged.

Elizabeth P►ing was found guilty of the concealment
of her illegitimate child, and sentenced to one months
imprisonment with solitary confinement.
James Greenhall, Thomas Hamer, and William Cal-
derbank, were charged with having, at Little Bolton, on
the 12th of March last, assaulted James Bromily, putting
him in bodily fear, and danger of his life, and stealing
from his person three half-crowns, five shillings, and a
tobacco box. The learned judge in summing up stated
that there was no evidence against the prisoners Hamers
and Greenhall, and directed the jury to acquit them. The
jury found Calderbank guilty, and he was sentenced to
12 months' imprisonment and hard labour.
This finished the criminal list.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-

-TUESDAY,

SYERS v. JONAS AND OTHERS.-The hearing of this
case was resumed this morning, and occupied tie court
until nearly two o'clock. Mr. Watson addressed the jury
for the defendants, and examined a number of witnesses.
The jury retired, and, after a brief absence from court,
returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £222—costs 40s.
M'ANDREW AND OTHERS V. Mun.GATßoyn.—This was
an action brought by Wm. Peter M'Andrew and others
against Squire Murgatroyd. The declaration was in tro-
ver for the value of some currants and other fruit. The
defendant pleaded not guilty ; that the plaintiffs were not
lawfully possessed of the property ; and that the defen-
dant bad committed the trespass by leave and license.—
It appeared that the plaintiffs were fruit-merchants in
Liverpool, and that the defendant was a carrier by water,
conducting business for a company called " The Mer-
chants' Company" ; and this action was brought to reco-
ver a butt of currants which the defendant converted to
his own use. In the May of last year, the plaintiffs sent
a traveller to Ashton to obtain orders; and having visited
a Mr. Symes, a grocer, in that town, he obtained an order
from him for one butt of currants and some nuts. The
traveller made a mistake in the matter, and reported to
his employers that two butts had been ordered. Accord-
ingly two butts were sent to Ashton by the defendant,
and when they got there Mr. Symes refused to take the
second butt. The defendant thereupon took possession
of it, and put it into his warehouse; and though repeated
promises had been made that it would be surrendered,
defendant had held possession of it to the present hour.—
A verdict was returned for the plaintiffs for £4O.

CROWN COURT.—WEDNESDAY.
PEACOCK v. HATTON.—The plaintiff, Andrew Peacock,
is a corn merchant, carrying on business in this town, and
the defendant, Mrs. Jane Hatton, a flour dealer, residing
in Wigan, and the present action was brought to recover
the sum of £340 7s. lid., money owing by the defendant
to plaintiff for goods had and delivered. On the Bth of
June last, a son of the defendant's, who manages the busi-
ness for her, called at the stall (in the Corn Exchange) of
Mr. Mooney, the plaintiff's broker, and bargained for 70
barrels of flour, partially sour, for which he agreed to
pay 425. 6d. per barrel. the price of sweet flour being at
that time about 455. While the bargain was going on, a
flour dealer, named Nash, having purchased some before,
wished to make another purchase, but the broker gave
the preference to Mr. Hatton, as he was there first. The
goods were sent by the Union Canal to Wigan. When
it arrived, Hatton wrote to say part of the flour sent was
not equal to sample. The plaintiff and his broker went
over to Wigan and examined the flour, and found it quite
equal to sample. Several witnesses were called on the
part of the plaintiff, who stated that the flour was quite
equal to the sample. Mr. COWLING, for the defence,
said that the contract being for goods above the value of
£lO, the plaintiff must prove the accepting of the con-
tract entered into by the defendant. This was a sale by
sample, and in a sale by sample words expressive of that
fact ought to be in the contract. That the contract was
made between the plaintiff and defendant as principals,
and, consequently, the broker's note would be no evi-
dence in such a case, as in the case of Pitt v. Peckett, in
the Coure of Exchequer. That there was no proof as to
when this note, urporting to be a broker's note was made
out. A broker's note, to be binding at r.ll, must be
signed by the broker himself, and not, as in this case, by
his clerk. His LORDSHIP overruled the last objection,
and said that he would reserve, for further consideration,
the other points until he consulted with his brother
(Rolfe) upon them. Mr. Hatton, on being examined,
stated that, on the Gth of June last, he called on plaintiff,
who said he had a remnant of flour, which he wisned to
dispose of, and that he showed him a sample of very good
flour, which he agreed to buy at 425. 6d. A witness was
called to prove that 425. 6d. was about the average price
of flour on the Bth of June. Mr. JAMES replied, con-
tending that the flour had been sold as sour, and that the
price of flour having considerably deteriorated before the
flour arrived, the defendant wished to run off his bargain.
His LORDSHIP summed up, when the jury returned a
verdict that the flour was sold by a partially sound sam-
ple. The plaintiff was then non-suited on the points of law.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-WEDNESDAY

CLARKE AND ANOTHER V. BROWN AND ANOTHER.—
The plaintiffs are shipowners in Liverpool, and the defen-
dants, Messrs. Brown, Hunter, and Co., are brokers, or
rather factors, as they made advances upon goods, and the
action was brought to recover the sum of £328 for the
freight of 1200 bags of rice which were brought in one of
the defendants' ships from Calcutta to Liverpool. After
the 'case had gone on for some time it was stopped on
some points of law, and a verdict taken for the plaintiffs,
with liberty for the defendants to move for a nonsuit, or
tender a bill of exceptions.
WEBBER AND OTHERS V. COLTON AND ANOTHER.—
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, who are
wine merchants in London, against the defendants, who
are wine merchants in Liverpool, to recover the value of
a quantity of wine which the defendants, as agents for the
plaintiffs, had neglected to cause to be transferred to
them as security for a debt due to the plaintiffs by
Messrs. Buckmaster and Co., of this town. It appeared
from the evidence that the defendants agreed with Buck-
master that he should transfer a quantity of wine then in
one of Mr. Harbord's bonded warehouses in South John-
street, to them as security for his debt to the plaintiffs.
The defendants, however, did not give notice of the
transfer to Mr. Harbord, the warehouse-keeper, and in
the course of a short time Buckmaster transferred the
wines in question to a person named Bickham. Upon
this fact corning to the knowledge of the plaintiffs they
brought this action. It was contended that the defen-
dants had, out of kindness to the plaintiffs, gratuitously
complied with their wish to get a settlement, and got a
written transfer and sent it to the plaintiffs. The jury
seemed to take this view of the caae, and returned a ver-
dict for the defendants.

KERR ANT) OTHERS V. PICRERING.—The plaintiffs in
this action are the gentlemen forming the firm of Messrs.
Pitcairn, Symes, and Co., who have various establish-
ments in the East, and the defendant, Captain John Pick-
ering, of the ship Java, was the nominal defendant in the
action, the real defendants being the trustees of the estate
of Messrs. T. and W. H. Murray, of Liverpool, and the
answer to the action was in non anumpsit. Early in 1847
Messrs. Murray sent an order to the plaintiffs, at Batavia,
to load the ships Bangalore and Java. This was done,
and bills against the cargoes were drawn upon Messrs. T.,
W., and 11. Murray, of Liverpool. Upon the bills being
presentad to those gentlemen, they were not in a condition
to, nor did they. accept them, And the bills were accepted,
super a protest, by Messrs. Murray, Symes, and Co., for
honour of the drawers, and ultimately the bill of lading
was assigned to Messrs. Scholfield, one of the partners in
the house of Murray, Symes, and Co., who, of course, ex-
pected to receive the cargoes of the vessels to cover the
amount for which his house had rendered themselves lia-
ble on the bills. Some time after the defendants con-
sulted Mr. Deane, of this town, their solicitor, who
thought that they ought to be paid the freights, inasmuch
as the cargoes had been brought in their own ships. On
the arrival of the Java at Bristol, Captain Pickering refused
to deliver the cargo to Mr. Scholfield until he had heard
from Liverpool, and upon the receipt of an answer from
them, he positively refused to deliver the cargoe.
Mr. KNOWLES suggested that as there was little dispute
about the facts, this and another action arising out of the
same transaction, might be made into a special case. The
only question to dispute was whether Pickering and Co.
were not the agents merely of Thomas, William, and
Henry Murray, which he contended they were.
Verdict, by consent, for the plaintiffs for £20,000, the
the court to say what the damages ought to be in case
they think the plaintiffs entitled to a verdict.

CROWN COURT.-THURSDAY

Britsn V. STURK.—The plaintiff is a sailmaker, and
the defendant was alleged to be part owner of a vessel
called the Frederica, and the action brought was to re-
cover a sum of money for sails supplied to the ship. On
the part of the defendant it was attempted to be shown
that he was only a mortgagee. The jury returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff. Damages, £lO9 13s. 9d.
FORSTER V. WIGNALL AND OTHERS.—Mr. Attorney-
General Knowles stated the case. In 1847 the Messrs.
Rigby, railway contractors, entered into a contract with
the defendant for the supply of railway sleepers. The
Messrs. Rigby having become bankrupts, the defendant
took possession of the sleepers, hence arose the present
action. The jury found for the plaintiff. Damages,
£414.

BIRD V. EGLINTON.—The plaintiff is one of the official
assignees of Messrs. Carter and Byrne, lately carryinn• on
business in this town as ship-brokers, the defendants
merchants in London. The action was brought to reco-
ver £144 7s. 6d., commission on freight. The jury re-
turned a verdict for the defendant.

BIRD AND OTHERS v. LODGE.—Th 6 plaintiffs in this
case were the assignees of a person named Hume, a rope-
maker, and the defendant is a lawyer, and owner of a rope-
walk and other property in Lodge-lane, which he let to
Hulme in 1846, at a yearly rental of £2lO. In August,
1847, Hume became a bankrupt, when the defendant put
in a distraint, and sold his goods. The matter resolved
itself into a point of law, as to whether the landlord could
distrain for lent until it was due, and, in this case, it ap-
peared it was not. According to the statute of William
and Mary a verdict double the amount of goods seized
must be given. The goods seized were proved to be worth
£7O, and a verdict for £l4O was returned, subject to a re-
duction.

JONES AND OTHERS V. JONES.-Mr. Attorney-Ge-
neral Knowles stated the case. The plaintiffs are the
official assignees of Owen Roberts : the defendant is Grif-
fith Jones, and the action was brought to recover the sum
of £l6B, alleged to have been fraudulently received. The
jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

NISI PR lUS COURT—TiIuRsDAT

BARTON, IRLA 3i, AtrD—oo7B AFFAIRS.—ALLEGED
FRAUDULENT PREFERENCE. VAN CASTEELE AND
ANOTHER V. BOOKER AND OTHERS.—Mr. Watson, Mr.
Henderson, and Mr. Atherton appeared for the plaintiffs ;
and Mr. Martin, Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Webster, for
the defendants.—Mr. WATSON stated the case. The
plaintiffs were commission merchants in Rotterdam. and
the action was brought to recover £ll,OOO for coffee sent
to this port by the ship Vigilant. The defendants were
the assignees of Barton, Irlam, and Co., who had become
bankrupts. A gentleman named Lyon, of this town, who
was also a partner in the house of Lyon and Schwinde, at
Rio de Janeiro, last autumn told a Mr. Rabus that he
would have some cargoes of coffee arriving, for which he
wanted a market and consignees. In a short time Mr.
Rabus wrote to the plaintiffs to know if they were willing
to take a cargo of coffee, and upon their replying in the
affirmative, Mr. Lyon wrote to them, forwarding the bill
of lading, upon which they advanced £5504 I6s. Bd. The
bill of lading stated that the cargo was deliverable to order
or assigns, and freight free on board the Vigilant. The
vessel arrived in the Mersey on the 3d Decemt er, and on
the next morning the defendants took possession of the
vessel and her cargo, and the plaintiffs were consequently
obliged to bring this action. He explained the law rela-
tive to bills of lading.—After some evidence had been
heard, his LORDSHIP said that the only question at issue
was, to whom did the cargoes belong, whether to one
creditor or to the general body.—lt was agreed that the
opinion of the Court should he taken as to the amount
which the plaintiffs were entitled, viz., the value of the
amount of coffee on the 28th of November, or whether
they were entitled to more than the amount of advances.—
Mr. MARTIN then addressed the jury for the defendants,
observing that the real question for the consideration of
the jury was, whether the transactions between Mr. Jona-
than Higginson and Mr. Lyon did not constitute that
which the law viewed as a voluntary and fraudulent pre-
ference, and which could not stand against an act of
bankruptcy. The fact was, that the day after the docu-
ment which had been adverted to was delivered, Mr.
Higginson having had 21 days' notice, had committed an
act of bankruptcy, at the time owing a million of money,
and not one scrap of merchandise of any description to go
to his creditors. This was, indeed, a startling fact. The
learned counsel next stated that Mr. Higginson was in-
debted to the Royal Bank of Liverpool to the extent of
£463,000, and it was not till after repeated applications
had been made to him for a liquidation of the debt, and the
service of the notice in question, that he had transferred
the bills of lading in question, and this was done for the
purpose of favouring Mr. Lyon to the prejudice of the
other creditors.—A number of witnesses were examined
as to the facts stated in behalf of the defendants.--Mr.
WATSON replied, stating that if the verdict were not for
the plaintiff, it would be one of the greatest discourage-
ments that could be inflicted upon commerce, for, in fu-
ture, no one would make advances upon bills of lading.—
His LORDSHIP having summed up, the jury retired at
half-past five, and after an hour's deliberation returned a
verdict for the defendants.

[By this decision, it appears a bill of lading is no
security to a third party, if improperly obtained by a
second party ; whereas by the Factors' Act, a third party
was supposed to be held secure in any case, as with a bill
of exchange.]
GROTE V. THE CHESTER AND HOLYHEAD RAILWAY
COMPANY.—This was an action brought by the plaintiff,
Mr. Grote, corn merchant, Liverpool, to recover damages
for injuries he had sustained, on the 24th of May last, in
the accident caused by the giving way of the Dee bridge,
by which so many persons were unhappily killed. Da-
mages were laid at £2OOO. Several witnesses were called
to prove the extent and nature of the accident, the par-
ticulars
r.h
7 ef whichnry
w Robertson,ill bei n
civilthe
girecollectionneerw
ao
sf our
called,readers.
and
--Mdeposed that the span of this bridge was the longest in
England, and in his opinion the girders were not of suffi-
cient strength for the weight of the trains which had to
pass over it.—Captain Simmons, the engineer who was
sent down by government to report on the cause of the
accident, said he was of opinion that tension rods do not
add any strength to girder bridges. It ;s generally con-
sidered that cast-iron girders ought not to be subjected to
the passing over of trains to more than one-third the
breaking weight. My own opinion, however, is that they
should not be subjected to more than one-fourth. When
I went to examine the bridge I caused a train to pass
ever the line of rails which was standing. I stood upon
one of the girders to examine their action whilst the train
was passing, and such was the vibration that I could not
see the other end of the girder.—Mr. James Kennedy,
engineer, gave similar evidence, after which many wit-
nesses were called to prove the extent of the injury the
plaintiff had sustained in consequence of the accident. It
was proved that Mr. Grote had been injured in the thigh,
and that he had been a month under medical treatment
and eight days away from business, during which time
many commissions had been lost by the firm of which the
plaintiff was the senior partner. The jury found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff—damages £250. [The company
before trial had offered the plaintiff £3OO, which was
refused.]

NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY
Upon Mr. Baron Rolfe taking his seat upon the bench,
verdicts were taken by consent on the remaining special
jury cases.
MERCER V. FonsTEß.—This was a trumpery action for
the recovery of £99 155., but after hearing the evidence
the jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
HOLDEN V. CAMPBELL.—This was an action upon a
disputed account, in which a verdict was taken for the
plaintiff, damages £l5O.
ALLEGED EXCESSIVE DISTRESS.—ELLISON V. FAZA-
KERLEY.—Mr. Crompton opened the pleadings, and Mr.
Martin stated the case to the jury.—This was an action
brought by the plaintiff, who had*been the occupier of a
farm at Fazackerley, against the defendant, a gentleman
residing at Gillibrand Hall, near Chorley, to recover da-
mages for an excessive distress for rent, which had been
made on the premises of the plaintiff on the 2d of October
last ; and also a further distress on the Bth of the same
month. It would appear that the farm had been let to
the plaintiff at a rent of £3OO per year, and the defendant
claimed to have the privilege of claiming forehand rent ;
but the plaintiff denied that he had agreed to such terms ;
and from the entries in the book it would appear that the
rent due on the 2d of October was £127. On that
day, however, a sheriff's officer, named Day, from Liver-
pool, with two followers, entered the premises, and the
seizure was made for £352 19s. 7d., plaintiff alleging that
all the rent then due was £127. Ihe bailiffs remained in
possession till the Bth of the same month, when they made
a fresh demand of £175 for a further half-year's rent,
making altogether a demand of £5OB 16s. 3d. The plain-
tiff and one of his daughters went to Mr. Fazackerley, at
his residence, Gillibrand Hall, near Chorley. and asked
him to withdraw his execution, and offering to pay £5O
per week for three weeks, and the balance of rent really
due, at Christmas. The defendant replied that he should
deserve to be put into a lunatic asylum.—After evidence
had been heard, his Lordship said that the questions for
consideration were-Ist, was the distress for more than
the rent due ? 2nd, was there more goods sold than ne-
cessary ? 3rd, was the sale conducted negligently ? 4th,
was the £lO paid into court, properly paid to the plaintiff ?
With regard to the first question, he thought the evidence
was in favour of the defendant, and the principal matters
for the jury to decide were the question of the expenses of
the sale. The jury retired, and, after an absence of about
half an hour, they returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages, £l4 10s., on the ground that the expenses of
the distraint were heavy. A juror remarked "we are all
of us very sorry, my lord, that we could not give the far-
mer more." Baron Rolfe: lam glad to hear you say that,
because it shows that you give a verdict according to the
law of the case, and not according to your feelings.

TRESPASS—HUNTER V. BIRCH. AND OTHERS:—This
was an action for trespass, but the evidence did not bear
out the allegations in the declaration, and the plaintiff
was nonsuited. The Court then broke up, and two cases
only remained for trial.