The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1845-09-02 00:00:00

BRIDGE

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

SOUTH LANCASHIRE ASSIZES.

CROWN COURT.-TUESDAY

Thos. Roberts, 36, (could read and write imperfectly,)
was charged with having stabbed Margaret Nugent, at
Liverpool, with intent ti do her some grievous bodily
harm. It appeared that on the 25th of July last, prose-
cutrix was going down St. James's-street, when she saw
the prisoner, with some other men, abusing an idiot boy.
She remonstrated with them on the impropriety of their
conduct, w hen the prisoner rushed upon her with a knife,
and inflicted a severe wound on her face. The prisoner
was found guilty of an assault, and sentenced to six
months' imprisonment, with hard labour.
James Wheelan, 20, (could read and write imperfectly,)
and Thos. 211* Gowan, were found guilty of burglariously
entering the house of Thomas Walling, in Naylor-street,
Liverpool, and stealing two gallons of porter. Wheelan,
who had been previously convicted, was sentenced to ten
years' transportation; the other prisoner to twelve months'
imprisonment.

John Thorley Ball, Richard Cantrell, and John Hol-
born, three well-dressed men, were found guilty of con-
spiring, with others, to obtain by false pretences divers
goods from her Majesty's subjects ; they were also found
guilty of obtaining, by similar false pretences, 270 lb.
weight of leather from Mr. Clarkson, leather-dealer, of
Duke-street, Liverpool.—His LORDSHIP, in passing
sentence, said the case had been made out upon the
clearest testimony, and it was perfectly clear that the
prisoners were three gross swindlers who had been living
by imposing upon the industrious part of the community,
getting their goods from them never intending to pay for
them, never having the means of paying for them, and
decamping from one place to another just when their
fraud began to be discovered. He very much regretted
that this was not a case in which he had the opportunity
of sending them out of the country. He then sentenced
Ball and Holborn to two years' imprisonment in the House
of Correction, and Cantrell to one year's imprisonment
in the same prison, observing that he made the distinc-
tion because he thought Cantrell had in some measure
been drawn into the scheme by the others.

This case closed the business in the Crown Court

NISI PRIUS COURT.-TUESDAY.
MARROW AND OTHERS V. CHAPMAN, P.O

This was a special jury cause, in which Messrs. Mar-
row and Co., corn-factors, of Liverpool, were the plain-
tiffs, and the registered public officer of the Newcastle,
Shields, and Sunderland Union Bank was the defendant;
and the action was brought for the recovery of a sum of
£7OO.

Mr. Martin and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plain-
tiffs, and Mr. Knowles and Mr. Robinson for the defen-
dant.

Mr. MARTIN stated the case. He said that in the
autumn of 1843 several gentlemen engaged in the corn
trade made an application through a Mr. Scarth to the
plaintiffs to sell corn for them in Liverpool, and advance
money thereon. The plaintiffs agreed, on receiving con-
signments of corn, to make proper advances ; and accord-
ingly Mr. Rayne, of the firm of Rayne and Co., entered
into business with the plaintiffs in this way. In Novem-
ber 1843, application was made by Mr. Rayne for an
advance of £700; and the plaintiffs having agreed to
make ihe advance, they proceeded to pay in the money
on their own account, for the put pose of its being paid
over to Mr. Rayne. The mode of paying in was a com-
mon one. The Bank of England had a branch at Liver-
pool; they had another at Newcastle; the plaintiffs paid
the money into the branch here, the branch at Newcastle
was duly advised of the payment, and there it was paid
into the Union Bank. The transaction was an ordinary
one: it was precisely the same as if the Messrs. Marrow
had gone to the Union Bank at Newcastle, and paid in
the money there. The letter of advice, authorising the
money to be paid to Mr. Rayne, was sent by the plaintiffs
to the Union Bank on the 16th of November; arld no-
thing more was heard about it until the plaintiffs sent in
their account for the half-year to Mr. Rayne. On that
account being sent in, Mr. Rayne wrote back to say, that
they were debited with a sum of £7OO, which they had
neither ordered nor received. The plaintiffs immediately
wrote to the Union Bank, acquainting the manager with
the substance of Mr. Rayne's letter, authorising the re-
payment of the money into the Branch Bank of England.
On the following day a letter was received from the bank
to the effect that the money had been paid, and placed to
the account of Mr. Jas. Scarth, by whom it was claimed
—that Mr. Rayne had no account with the bank, and
that the bank had never received any letter of advice
from the plaintiffs, to hold money at Mr. Rayne's dispo-
sal. The plaintiffs then wrote to say that they had trans-
mitted an advice note, directing the payment to be made
to Mr. Rayne, and that if the money was paid to Scarth,
the bank must be considered as still holding the £7OO for
account of the plaintiffs. The bank again denied the re-
ceipt of the letter of advice, and said that Scarth had re-
ceived payments on former occasions. This was true
enough. He received two payments on advice notes, but
instead of getting an advice note from him in the present
case, the bank paid him the £7OO on his verbal statement.
The law on the subject was perfectly clear. The money
was the plaintiffs', and the bank could only discharge
themselves from their liability, by showing that it was
either paid back to the plaintiffs, or paid upon an order
from the plaintiffs ; and Scarth having had no right to
receive the money, the bank must be responsible for the
amount.

At the close of the plaintiffs' case,
Mr. KNOWLES admitted that there was no difference
about the facts. Mr. Scarth had, however, gone to the
Union Bank, and told them to get the £7OO for his account
from the Branch Bank of England.
His LORDSFIir was clearly of opinion that the plaintiffs
were entitled to recover. He thought the bank must be
held responsible if they received money from A B, and
paid that money away either to an unauthorised person
or upon a forged order.
A verdict was immediately returned for the plaintiffs
for the full ameunt, with liberty to the defendant to move
in the ordinary way.

DOE DEM. HUTCHINSON V. MANCHESTER, BURY,.
AND ROSSENDALE RAILWAY COMPANY.

Thir was an action of ejectment brought by Mr. Wm.
Heap Hutchinson, the lessor of the plaintiff, to recover a
certain portion of land, situated in the parish of Bury, in
this county, and which, it was alleged, the plaintiff and
his ancestors had enjoyed for years on lease under the
Earl of Derby. The property was situated in the centre
of the town of Bury, and the defendants took possession
of it, and justified the proceeding under the 153 d clause
of their act of parliament.
A verdict was returned for the plaintiff.
HOLDEN V. LIVERPOOL NEW GAS AND COKE COMPANY.

In this case, which was tried before a special jury,
Mr. John Holden was the plaintiff, and the Liverpool
New Gas and Coke Company were the defendants. The
declaration stated that, the plaintiff was possessed of a
house in Liverpool, and that the defendants were posses-
sed of Gas works, and divers large quantities of inflam-
mable gas, and that they took so little care of the gas,
that by their negligence the gas entered the plaintiff's
house and inflamed, thereby injuring the plaintiff's pro-
perty. The defendants pleaded the general issue, and
that they were not possessed of the gas. The plaintiff,
Mr. Holden, was a solicitor at Liverpool, and the house
in question was situated in Salisbury-street, in that town.
For two years prior to the 25th of March, 1814, the
house was occupied by a gentleman named Wetbnall, but
at that date he gave up occupation, and went to live in
Everton Crescent. The servants of the New Gas Com-
pany were employed by him for the purpose of removing
the gas fittings from the house in Salisbury-street to the
ono in Everton Crescent, and the former house remained
locked up until between seven and eight o'clock on the
night of the Bth of April following, when a tremendous
explosio❑ of gas occurred, and the windows were forced
out, the house shaken, the front steps and area railings
thrown down, and the other damage done. The County
fire-office paid £240 to the plaintiff for the damage done,
and they sought their indemnity in the present action.
The action could only be brought in the name of Mr.
Holden ; but so far as related to the £2.10 it was an ac-
tion brought by the fire insurance company for their in-
clemhity. The grounds on which the defendants were
charged with liability was that the explosion bad been
caused through the negligence of their servants, in not
taking care that the cocks were properly turned off after
the tenant left the house. After witnesses had been ex-
amined on the part of the plaintiff, his Lordship ex-
pressed an opinion that the action could not be main-
tained, inasmuch as he thought there had been negli-
gence on the part of the occupier of the house, or on the
part of the plaintiff, and he had always understood it to
be a principal ingredient in sustaining an action for negli-
gence that there should be no negligence on the part of
the person complaining.—The plaintiff was then non-
suited.

NEWTON V. GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY

This was an action for the infringement of a patent.
The plaintiff was Edward Newton, Patent-agent, of Lon-
don, the defendants were the Grand Junction Railway
Company. The patent was for certain improvements in
the construction of boxes for axles or axle-trees of en-
gines, for the bearing of machinery, and for oiling and
lubricating the same. The invention was that of a fo-
reigner, Mr. Isaac Babbett, an engineer from Boston.
The patent was sold on the 15th of May, 1843, and the
specification of it was enrolled in six months after that
time. Mr. Babbett became aware that by a lining of tin
or rude metal, and by placing on that an alloy of metal,
of which block tin was the basis, a desirable effect would
be produced, namely, heating and abrasion would be
avoided, greater security would be attained, much less
wear and tear of the machinery would be occasioned, and
a great saving of oil would be effected. When Mr. Bab-
bett came over to Liverpool with his invention in 1843, he
gave the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company
liberty to use it in two of their engines. The establish-
ment of the Liverpool and Manchester Company was
close to that of the Grand Junction. In this way the
foreman of the latter company had an opportunity of see-
ing the invention, and very soon it was discovered that
the defendants were reaping all the benefits derived from
so excellent an improvement. The defendant denied the
novelty and utility of the invention.
Mr. Baines, Mr. Adolphus, and Mr. Robinson ap-
peared for the plaintiff; and the Hon. Mr. Wortley, Mr.
Cowling, and Mr. Crompton for the defendants.
At the close of the plaintiff's case the court adjourned.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-WEDNESDAY

NEWTON V. GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY.

This case was resumed this morning, when Mr. WORT-
LEY addressed the jury for the defence, and called a num-
ber of persons to show that at Nantwich, Bury, and other
places, where the brasses used in cotton mills had become
worn, or did not fit, it was very usual to run in a quantity
of an alloy of tin. One of the witnesses said this was
done by means of a mould inside, in which the alloy was
run in a state of fusion. Another witness, Joseph Clarke,
stated, that he had long before the existence of this pa-
tent purchased a lathe, the bearings of which were a good
deal worn, and he filled them up by melting an alloy into
them so as to make them fit.

Mr. Hodge was called as a witness,. and stated, that
many years before the existence of this patent, in 1829, he
had made a lathe, being then resident in Cornwall, the
bearings of which were provided with a fillet and lined
with an alloy, run in precisely in the manner described in
the patent, the object being that which the patent pro-
posed—the diminution of friction. There were then
many bearings of the same kind in use in Cornwall.
This lathe he afterwards took to London, and sold it
there. He had not heard of it since, and did not know
that this improvement was then generally known. He
afterwards made an experiment with a view to improved
bearings for the axles of a saw-mill. The improvement
was the making of three longitudinal grooves along the
surface of the brass bearing, and 'filling them up with a
alloy. Nothing further, however, was done in the matter.
The witness afterwards went to America, from which
country he had but_latyly returned.

Mr. BAINES replied, commenting strongly on the con-
duct of the company through their officers, who, he con-
tended, had sought to evade the plaintiff's patent, and to
get the benefit of his discovery without paying him that
reasonable remuneration to which he was entitled.

His LORDSHIP summed up. He said the question for
the jury would be whether the defendants had violated
the plaintiff's patent by using the whole or any part of his
invention. If a patent is granted for a new combination
of things known before, that does not prevent any other
party from using that which was old. There was no evi-
dence that the defendants had used the whole of the
plaintiff's invention in the steps with the fillets as de-
scribed in the patent; but it seemed established that their
servants took old and new brasses, and after tinning them
in the usual way, had, white the brasses were hot, with a
stick of tin, laid on as much as they could to the extent of
from the 16th to the Bth of an inch. Many of these
brasses were new, and it was not, therefore, the mere
patching of old ones. Was that substantially an adoption
of any part of the patent—had they, by thus laying on the
tin, smoothing it in some cases with a soldering-iron, as
described, obtained some portion of the benefit of the in-
vention ; and was that part new.
The jury, after being out a considerable time, returned
a verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages, £l,OOO.

CLAIM FOR SEAMEN'S WAGES.

AINSWORTH V. TYRER AND OTHERS.—In this case
James Ainsworth was the plaintiff, and James Tyrer
John Worrall, and Samuel Stott, the defendants. The
plaintiff was a sailor, and the defendants were shipowners,
and owners of the barque Phillips. In November, 1843,
the plaintiff shipped as a common seaman on board this
vessel, and earned wages to the amount of about £22,
and the action was brought to recover a balance of about
£l2. The defendants pleaded an act of neglect on the
part of the plaintiff during the voyage. The vessel in
question was at Valparaiso, and whilst putting the cargo
on shore, the plaintiff used clamps to a box of plated
goods instead of slinging it, and the box was lost. A
verdict was entered for the defendants.