The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-08-20 00:00:00

GREEK LOAN.

Mr. HERMES wished to know whether the noble lord had any
objection to lay before the house an account of the measures
which had been taken to raise the loan for the service of Greece,
and of our amount of liability in case of the failure of the Greek
government to pay it, and of the steps taken to secure the ap-
plication of the revenues of Greece to the payment of that debt
supposing that it we paid. It was only right that this ac,
count should be furnish before the house separated.
Lord PALMERSTON sai that there was no objection to furnish
the house with the information which the right hon. gentleman
required, but he must have some time to prepare the papers
containing it.
The house then resolved itself into a committee of supply, and
voted the remaining estimates. _

After which the house resumed.—Report to-morrow.
The Forgery of Stamps Bill then went through committee,
and the.report was ordered to be taken into consideration on
Monday next.

Mr. 13. THOMSON moved the third reading of the. Factories'
Regulation Bill.
On the motion of Mr. G. Wood, a clause was added by way
of rider to the bill, securing as holydays to the children em-
ployed in factories Christmas-day and Good Friday, as well as
ei"ht other half-holydajis during each year.
The bill was then, after some verbal amendments, read a
third time and passed. s'
The Metropolitan Police Bill went through committee, and
the report was ordered to be received on Monday.
On the motion of Mr. F. Baring, the Buckingham Palace
Furniture Bill was read a second time.

On the motion of Lord Morpeth, it was resolved, that during
the remainder of the session orders of the day should take pre-
cedence of notice of motion.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
house adjourned at a quarter past three o'clock.

LANCASTER ASSIZES.

CROWN COURT, SATURDAY, AUGUST 17,

This morning the Lord Chief Justice 'having finished trying
prisoners assisted in the disposal of two or three causes, the only
important of which are reported below.

LIABILITY OF HUSBANDS.

AR. NSON v. SMITH.—Ihis was an action brought by the
plaintiff, who is a surgeon-dentist residing at Manchester,
against the defendant, a publican at Stockport, to recover the
sum of £9 10s.' the value of several artificial teeth supplied to
the wife of the latter.

Mr. WIGHTMAN, who conducted the plaintiff's case, stated,
that in the month of May last the wife of the defendant having
lost most of her teeth, complained of the defect to a Mr. Sleddon,
a surgeon, who recommended her to apply to the plaintiff, as he
was a very scientific man and capable of supplying a defect
which we all sympathise with. Accordingly Mr. Pasco Aran-
son, the plaintiff, was applied to, and he took the model of
Mrs. Smith's mouth, and made the teeth, but when he had done
so the defendant refused to have the teeth or pay for them, and
they were, consequently, left on the plaintiff's hands.
The CHIEF JUSTICE.—Cannot he sell them to any body else?
Mr. WIGHTMAN.—No, my lord, they are made to measure,
and it is very difficult to find one lady's mouth exactly the same
size as another's.—(Laughter.)
Mr. John Brogden Sleddon, a surgeon, who resides in Stock-
port, said, that in the month of May the wife of the defendant
complained to him of the defective state of her teeth, and he re-
commended the plaintiff to her. She desired witness to bring
him along with him to her house, and he did so on the 18th of
May, when, after examining the mouth of Mrs. Smith, it was
agreed that he should call on the Monday following to take the
model of her gums, and scale her husband's teeth. On the Mon-
day following witness met Mr. Aranson coming from the house
with a fresh model in his hand. He took it to Manchester and
made eight teeth for her from it. On the 23d of May the
daughter of the defendant was sent to witness to desire him to
inform the plaintiff that she would not have the teeth ; hut they
were made, and were the same as now produced.
This was the plaintiff's
Mr. WILLIAMS (the Attorney-General,) submitted that there
was no case to go to the jury, for there was no proof of the
defendant ever having known or given his consent to the order.
The learned CHIEF JUSTICE, after hearing Mr. Wightman,
decided that there was a case for the jury.
Th 3 ATTORNEY GENERAL then addressed the jury for the de-
fendant in a most humorous speech. He hoped they would
not allow his client to be saddled with paying for a set of teeth,
with gold at the top and ivory at the bottom—ornaments for
which the wife of a publican, unless she was desirous of becom-
ing a sinner, had no more occasion than had a bull to dance a
minuet in a china stop. (Laughter.) If the defendant had
said, " My wife chews'very badly; I don't mind giving ten or
twenty pounds for a decent set of grinders for her, for ho
conceived there would have been some pretext for the demand."
(Laughter.) But it appears that the dentist called on Saturday,
and we hear nothing of what passed on Monday, except that he
took an impression of the upper part of the lady's jaw, and he
had no doubt but if the plaintiff were to place it in the British
Museum, or to exhibit it on the jaw of Mrs. Smith, he might
make his fortune. (Laughter.) If the plaintiff's wife could not
chew beef they might keep it a day or two longer, and if she
were then unable to masticate it, why:then let her live on hastie
pudding (a laugh), for it was quite unnecessary for her to
have them, for if she chewed badly she would eat the less, and
therefore it would be a saving to the defendant, and if she eat
her meat slowly it would digest better, and she would last
longer. On every ground therefore, it was to the interest of
the defendant that she should be without them. If she had a
fine set of teeth, she might have all the people who came to the
house examining her mouth, and although they would not tell
her age, yet it might be extremely unpleasant for the customers
to be always opening and examining her mouth. It was there-
fore unlikely that the defendant would consent for her to have
the teeth, which might bcytery well for the wife of a duke, eat
were totally unfit for the man, unfit for the woman, unfit for
every body, except the plaintiff, in order to fix his client with a
demand which he hoped the jury would not allow.
The learned JUDGE in summing up observed, that if the de-
fendant was aware of the order being given he was liable for the
debt, and the jury found for the plaintiff.—Damages £9 10s.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL.-1 hen I hope you will let us have
the teeth. _ _ .

The teeth were therefore handed over to the Attorney-Ge-
neral, who handed them over to his client.
CIVIL SIDE, FRIDAY, AUG. 16.
Before Mr. Baron BOLLAND.

BAMFORD v. HYPE —This was an action to recover damages
for an assault at Middleton. Mr. Serjeant JONES and Mr.
ALEXANDER appeared for the plaintiff Mr. Pot.Locx for the
defendant. The plaintiff, Mr. Samuel Bamford, who was one
of the persons prosecuted along with Mr. Hunt atthe time ofthe
Manchester massacre, was a local reporter for the Manchester
Guardian, and also one of the three constables for the township
of Middleton; the defendant, a surgeon, residing at the same
place. It appeared that on Good Friday last the defendant spent
the afternoon at a public-house kept by Mrs. Chadwick, in Mid-
dleton. In the course of the evening Mr. Bamford came into
the room where defendant was sitting, when the latter accosted
him in a jeering manner, saying, " Well, black Samuel, are you
come ?" Some words ensued between the parties, which ended
in defendant taking plaintiff by the collar and telling him that
he might consider that as a challenge. Mr. Bamford replied
that be was a peace-maker, not a peace-breaker, and that if the
defendant committed any assault he would certainly take him
into custody. Mrs. Bamford, wife of the plaintiff, came in some
time afterwards, and he left the room with her, bidding the
company generally good night, and wishing Hyde in particular,
more sense and better manners. Hyde also took his departure,
but the parties encountered each other again upon the road, and
were found quarrelling near Bamford's house, and assistance
having come up at the call of the plaintiff, the defendant, who
had hold of Mr. Bamford, said that he had a charge against
him. They then all went together to the constable's house, a
distance of a mile and a half, and on their arrival there, Hyde
charged the plaintiff with putting his hand into his (Hyde's)
pocket. The plaintiff appeared at the New Bailey, Manchester,
next day to answer the charge, which appeared to be wholly
without foundation, and the magistrates dismissed the case.
Mr. FoLtoca addressed the jury for the defendant, but called
no witttesses.

Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £5, costs 40s.
SATURDAY, ALGL ST 17.
HORSE WARRANTY.

BYWATER L. RICHARDSOIV.—This was an action to recover
damages for the loss sustained in consequence of a breach of the
warranty given with a horse sold by the defendant, Mr. John
Richardson, of Liverpool, to the plaintiff, Mr. Thomas Bywater,
a horse-dealer residing at Manchester.
Mr. PoLLocx, with whom was Mr. J. T. Hopr, appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. A LEX ANbER conducted the defence. The
following are the facts of the case, as detailed in evidence, and
elicited by the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses,
none being called for the defence. On the 17th of April last,
Mr. Richardson, the defendant, sent a brown horse, the animal
in question, to Mr. Lucas's repository in Liverpool, and with it
a letter aduressed to Mr. Lu :as, requesting that it might be
sold for £5O, and warranting it as sound and steady in harness.
Mr. Bywater called at the repository, saw the horse, and was
told that it was warranted, and that its price was £5O. Being
subsequently introduced to the defendant, plaintiff purchased
the horse from himself in person, for 1:40, but allowed it to re-
main at the repository till the 28th of April, when he resold it
to a gentleman named Yeoman, for £55. On the 13th of June
Mr. Yeoman sent the animal back to the repository as unsound,
and commented an action against Mr. Bywater for the recovery
of the purchase-money. prom the testimony of Mr. Joseph
Bretherton, veterinary surgeon, it appeared that that
of
saw the horse shortly after it had been purchased of Mr. By-
water, and then thought it unsound, but did not examine it
particularly; on the 2d of June, however, he did so examine it,

and found that it was lame of both fore-feet, and that the lame-
ness was occasioned by the navicular disease, a swelling of the
cartilages of th.s leg, which ultimately produces ulceration or
ossification, and is rarely if ever cured. It also appeared that
a horse might have this disease without its becoming apparent
for weeks, or even months, and that the horse in question had
this disease at the time it was sold to Mr. Bywater. This was
apparent from the previous history of the horse, as well as from
the testimony of Mr. Bretherton. In November, 1831, the ani-
mal was purchased by Mr. Cook, a horse-dealer at Preston, for
£45. A few weeks afterwards Cook sold him to Mr. Fazakerly,
of Gillibrand-hall, who, in ten days, sent him back as unsound,
being both a roarer, and lame in his fore-feet. Cook then put
him into a farrier's hands, who blistered his feet, had wet clay
put into his stall to cool them, and tied up his head so that he
was obliged to stand in the clay. After being thus doctored,
Cook sold him to Mr. Richardson, without a warranty for £37,
and Mr. Richardson subsequently sold him to the plaintiff. Mr.
Bywater settled the action brought against him by Mr. Yeoman
by paying £45 into the hands of that gentleman's attorney;—
the horse, after due notice to the parties, was sold by public
auction at Mr. Lucas's repository for £l7, and the present ac-
tion was brought to recover £23, the difference between that
sum and the £4O paid by Mr. Bywater to Mr. Richardson on
the faith of the warranty. The unsoundness of the animal was
not denied on the part of the defendant, but it was alleged, that
according to the regulations at the place of sale, which are
printed on a board stuck up at the entrance of the repository,
and one of which specifies that a warranty of soundness given at
the repository would remain in force till twelve o'clock at noon,
the day after the sale, when the warranty would be complete,
and the responsibility of the seller terminate, unless, in the
meantime, a notice to the contrary was received from the pur-
chaser, signed by a veterinary surgeon, and specifying the pre-
cise nature and quality of the alleged unsoundness. Alr.
Alexander contended that this notice was sufficiently conspicu-
ous to render it one of the conditions of sale, and that, as the
plaintiff had not complied with it, he was in no condition to
recover on the warranty.
Mr. BARON BOLLAND, in summing up the evidence, said that
if the auctioneer announced at the time of sale a horse was to
be taken with all faults, or returned within a specified time, or
inserted it in the printed conditions of sale, that would be suffi-
cient; but it did not seem to him that the mere putting up of a
printed board at the entrance of the repository was sufficient,
particularly as the horse was not sold by auction, but by private
contract.

The jury, after a short consultation, found for the plaintiff,
damages £23.
On the application of Mr. ALEXANDER, leave was given to
enter a nonsuit, if it should appear that the notice was sufficient,
on the understanding that if the verdict were confirmed, it
should be increased by the amount of costs and damages.

EJECTMENT.

DOE DEM. JOHNSON ty.\\ooD.l2'lhis was an action of eject-
ment against the defendant, who occupied a farm at Farnworth,
as tenant of the lessor of the plaintiff, but received a notice to
quit in June, 1832, which he refused to comply with,. and still
holds possession. The question turned on the validity of the
notice to quit, which it appeared was filled up by the plaintiff's
attorney, he being in a great hurry at the time, as he sat upon
horseback, with a black-lead pencil, and afterwards served on
the defendant's wife. The writing in pencil was afterwards ob-
literated either by accident or design, and it was contended that
the document was not a legal and proper instrument. Mr.
Winder, the attorney, deposed to the filling up and serving of
the notice; and Mr. BARON BOLLAND, on examining it, said
that there were appearances of pressure on the back of the
paper and the marks of letters; it seemed that the blanks had
been filled up in the manner described by the witness, and
remarked that though the attorney had acted in a very negligent
and careless manner, it was nut sufficient to invalidate the
notice. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.