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

NISI PRIUS.—TH uRsn,A7..

The attention of the ;;Crt was occupied the whole day
in a special jury case—Toulmin and others v. liedley, for
an alleged breach of contract. The case was tried during
the last assizes, before Mr. Justice Cresswell, when a ver-
dict for the plaintiffs was taken, with power for the defen-
dai,t to move for another trial. The plaintiffs are mer-
chants in London, and the defendant is a barrister-at-
law, member of this circuit, and residing in Durham. It
was set up that the defendant had entered into an agree-
ment with plaintiffs for procuring a cargo of guano; a
vessel was accordingly sent out, and on returning, by de-
fendant's orders, proceeded to Glasgow: and there com-
menced discharging. One of the conditions of the con-
tract was, that upcn a certain quantity of the article being
landed, the defendant was to pay £750 on accouNt. He
had not done so, and had altogether failed to comply with
the arrangements, his defence being that the guano was
not of an average quality.—The case was adjourned at
half-past six.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-PRIDAY.
TOULMIN AND OTHERS V. HEDLEY.

The case was resumed this morning. The case having
been gone into, the Judge summed up. The jury retired
at half-past one o'clock, and after an absence of six hours,
came into court, stating that they found it impossible to
agree upon their verdict! His lordship said they must
try a little longer. At ►he termination of the court, his
lordship sent for the jury, and as they still expressed their
inability to come to a decision, discharged them. A ju-
ror asked if they were entitled to their remuneration ? (a
laugh). His lordship—Certainly not.

TRANSACTION IN RAILWAY SHARES.
STEAD AND ANOTHER V. TAYLOR.—This case was also
.tried before a special jury. Mr. Martin, on behalf of the
plaintiff, stated the facts of the case. Messrs. Stead and
Marscen were cotton spinners at Huddersfield, and the
defendant, Joseph H. Taylor, was formerly a druggist in
the same place, but in the course of last year he had
acted as a sbarebroker ; and the action was brought to re-
cover X 155 for 20 shares in the Liverpool, Ormskirk, and
Preston railway, which his clients said the defendant was
responsible for as purchaser. Mr. Baines, on the part of
the defendant, entered at length into the circumstances of
the case, and contended that the defendant was not re-
sponsible.
The evidence having been gone through, Mr. Martin,
in reply, contended that the defendant was, in a double
sense, a broker, and liable for the amount.
The learned Judge.—You say, I suppose, that it be-
comes a sale to the defendant the moment he sells to an-
other person ?
Mr. Martin.—l do.
His Lordship, after a short consideration, then di-
rected the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, leav-
ing to the plaintiffs power of trial in a higher court.
RISDALE AND ANOTHER V. ACKROI D.—ln this case a
verdict was taken, by consent, for the plaintiff. Dama-
ges, £1606 ss.
HUTCHINSON V. THE EAST LANCASHIRE RAILWAY
COMPANY.—( Before a special jury.)—The plaintiffin this
case was Mr. W. H. Hutchinson, an owner of some land
and property in Bury ; and the defendants the East Lan-
cashire Railway Company ; and the action was brought
to recover the penalties which, it was contended, the de-
fendants had forfeited, under the terms of their act of
parliament, by having taken possession, without due no-
tice or authority, of the land of the plaintiff. The penal-
ties sued for were £25 a day for 265 days, during which
the land had been held in possession.
Mr. Knowles, for the plaintiff, stated the facts of the
case ; and the evidence having been gone through,
Mr. Baines, on the part of the company, replied at
considerable length, urging strongly that even if the strict
legal forms had not been complied with, thete had yet
been every intention to fulfil them. He then called se-
veral witnesses.

- .
At his Lordship's direction, the jury found a verdict for
the defendants.

NISI PIZIUS COURT.-SATURDAY.

INDICTMENT FOR A NUISANCE AT THE DINGLE.—THE QUEEN
V, BURY, CURTIS, AND KENNEDY.
This indictment (which was trie I before a special jury) charged
the defendants, the well known extensive founders, and locomotive
engine builders, &c. with having set up an iron ship building yard
near the Dingle, whereby an incessant noise and great smoke were
caused, rendering the houses in the neighbourhood extremely un-
comfortable. The defendants pleaded not guilty. Mr. Knowles,
Mr. Martin, and Mr. Crompton appeared in support of the indict-
ment, and Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Atherton for the defence. Mr.
Knowles state I the case :—the defendants in carrying on their busi-
Less of iron ship builders, annoyed some of the first merchants,
whose dwelling.houses were in the Immediate neighbourhood, near
the banks of the river. The place was the Dingle, the nature].
beauties of which had been improved by art. The noise of 700
men constantly employed in hammering iron was a great annoy-
ance, and the smoke from the works scarcely less so. The comfort
of the parties in the neighbourhood was consequently destroyed.
He should perhaps be told that iron ship building was necessary at
this port, but it insist be remembered that what was DO nuisance at
Wapping would be a great nuisance in Grosvenor-square; and what
was no nuisence on the North-shore in this town, would be a great
one in Toxteth-park.
Mr Joseph Brooks Yates was first celled, and stated that he lived
at the Ding e, about a quarter of a mile from the works his bro-
ther and his sister were owners of villa houses in the neighbourhood
and the grounds were beautifully ornamented. A number of
respectable merchants occupied the houses. 13c fore the ship building
yard was begun all was quietness, but since its establishment the
noise of the hammers was such as if all the demons in the infernal re-
gions had been !et loose. In cross-examioation the witness sail that
if he had anticipated that docks would have been erected so near to
the Dingle, he would nor have chosen a site there for his house.
The Ileculaneum Potteries were about half-a-mile from bis house.
and had been sold to the Birkenhead Dock Company. The Mersey
forge was also within half a mile, and there many huge hammers
were kept going. Ms house and grounds Were worth £16,000 or
£17,000, the land contiguous having been sold for £5OO the statute
acre, but if the present nuisance were to continue, he should be glad
to sell at a reduced price. Mr. Fresh, inspector of nuisances, was
next called, and the Judge said •he wished he would go to the
Judge's lodgings and cure the smoky chimneys there. (Laughter.)
Witness slated that the corporation had declined to interfere in the
present ease, although the smoke and noise were very great. Mr.
John Campbell, of South Hill road, Mr. “eorge William Boyd, Mr.
It. Vaughan Yates, and eight c Cher gentlemen were examined, and
spoke generally of the nuisance, when the evidence in support of the
indictment closed.—Mr. Sergeant Wilkins then addressed the jury
at great length, and with such eloquence and humour that we regret
we cannot find room for the whole, and to abstract would mutilate.
His argument was, the trade and business of this great town was
taking gigantic strides in every direction, that iron ship-building
was especially requisite to its prosperity, and that it was ridicule us
to suppose that works which must be deemed national and of benefit
to thous ends should not be allowed to extend, merely because a few
gentlemen, who had seated themselves too near to the only spot
where docks or yards could be further extended, felt a slight annoy-
ance from a noise which they might have anticipated would one day
approach them. The learned Judge summed up, and the jury, after
an absence from mutt of a quarter of au hour, returned a verdict of
not guilty.
NEILSON AND ANOTHER ?I. RANKIN.
This was an action brought by Daniel and John It. Neilson,
sharebrokers, of Liverpool, against the defendant, Daniel liankin,
sharebroker, of London, for the recovery of the value of 100 shares
in the York and Carlisle railway. The defendant pleaded that he
did not promise. The jury was special. it appeared that, on the
15th September last, the defendant wrote a letter to the plaintiffs,
authorizing them to purchase the 100 shares in the line in question,
at a sum not exceeding £5 10s. each. On the following day they
executed the order by buying 50 shares from Mr. Thomas Rad ord
at £5 55., and 50 more at £5 7s. 0.1. They advised the purchase
the same evening. On the following day the defendant acknowledged
the receipt of the advice; but having ever since felled to. Supple the
money, the plaintiffs were obliged to pay Mr. Radford., and now to
bring their action.
After the plaintiffs case had closed, a verdict rfAS returned for
them for £531 ss.