The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-03-31 00:00:00

ALCOCK V. HATTON

Another undefended action for a balmee on a bill of
exchange. Verdict for the plaintiff. Damages £2O Gs. 4d.
and 40s. costs.

FIJOU AND OTHERS V. MOORE

This was an action brought by Pijou and Wilks the
celebrated gunpowder manufacturers, for damages against
a person named Moore, a gunpowder dealer in Brook-
street,
Manchester. who had injured the plaintiffs by sell-
an inferior article, as that of Messrs. Non and Wilks.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Huggins appeared for the plain-
tiffs, the defendant did not appear.
It appeared that in January, 1845, the defendant
ordered a certain quantity of powder, and was supplied
with labels and cords. In November, Mr. John Hard-
castle, the traveller of Messrs. Pijou and Vl ilks, called at
Moore's for payment: while he was detained at the door
he looked in at the window and observed a large number
of packages in the window, with the genuine window card
banging over them, and on the top one or two genuine
packages : the rest were all spurious. Witness found a
little at the door and after a little consideration, he went
in, and being quite unknown to the defendant, be asked if
they sold Pijou and Wilks's sporting gunpowder, and
Moore said " yes." Witness asked for treble C the best
that was manufactured. Moore gave him some, told him
he might rely on the quality, and asked Is. 41d, a pound.
Witness said how is that at Mr. Conway's, a large dealer,
it is 2s. Gd. per pound. Moore said that be did an im-
mense business and frequently sold 4 or 500 lbs. per week
for Messrs. Pijou, and they allowed him an extra discount.
Mr. Baron, a respectable dealer in Manchester, after a
communication with 11 ardcastle, went to the shop and
bought 2 pounds of treble C at Is. 3d. per pound. Witness
had dealt with Pijou and Wilks for 6 years; and latterly,
the sale had very much fallen off. His shop is in the neigh-

hourhood of Moore's. Other witnesses gave similar testi-
mony. Itwas proved by the foreman of the works of Messrs.
Pigon & Wilks, that on trying the composition strength of
the genuine powder, and that purchased of Moore, with
an instrument called an evoquette, at the manufactory at
Dartmouth, the difft-rence in the strength was 11 to 44.—
Verdict for plaintiff £lO damages.

CLEGG AND ANOTHF.R V

BROWN

In this case, a verdict fur £l5O was given to the plain-
tiff by consent.

CALDECUT V. PULFORD

This was an undefended action for £25 on a Bill of
Exchange, and 10s interest. Verdict for the amount

I sought

WHARTON V. WRIGHT

Another undefended action on a Bill of Exchange,
Verdict for the amount sought, with interest, £3O 63 6a.

ASPINALL V

PENNY

An action on a Bill of Exch :nge, —by consent,—for
£lBl2. Verdict for the plaintiff.

STANIFORTH V. ORANGE.
Mr. CROMPTON said that this was an action for assault
and false imprisonment, and stated that the plaintiff, a
journeyman boot maker, while engaged in a jumping
match on the river side at Birkenhead, was suddenly
in-
terrupted by the defendant, a master boot maker, who
came up with a constable and bad him handcuffed and
taken to bridewell. The next day when the plaintiff was
brought up before Mr. Harden, the magistrate, defend-
ant had no other charge to make except this:—The plain-
tiff had passed by his door with his hands in his pockets
an,i laughed at him ; but it was not proved that the plain-
tiff was the party who had committed this flagrant offence.
The action was therefore biouglit to recover damages fur
this insult and false imprisonment; and the defendant
pleaded in defence that he had not caused plaintiff to be
taken into custody.

Witntsses were called to prove these facts, and Mr.
James, who appeared for the defendant, addressed the
jury in mitigation of the amount of damages ; on the
ground that the defendant had been repeatedly assaulted

and insulted by the unionist bootmakers, whom be bad
refused to employ. Verdict for the plaintiff, costs 40s,
damages 40s.

CASE OF SEDUCTION

SPOFFoRTH V. TARBUCK

Mr. JAMES said, -this 'was an action brought by the
plaintiff for the seduction of his daughtei. The defendant
does not defend thy• action, but merely pleads he is not
guilty. The plaintiff way a man in humble circumstances.

rilway contract. The deft.' dant pleaded that he did not pro- but respectable in his station of life. The defenwtedorZtunit;;vathp;;;
raise; he also pleaded a variety of other pleas. a young man, now about 22 years of age, and carrying
Mr BONEs stated the case, The plaintiff was a sharebroker,
on business at Kirkdale as an ironmonger.
pear that in January in last year the daughter in the town of Manchester, and the defendant was a coach builder,
in the town of Sheffield, and a person who had entered largely into
railway speculations. Several cases of this description had been plaintiff, in her business as a dressmaker, was employed
tried at the present assizes, but in the present one there had not by the sister-in-law of the defendant, and the defendant
visited at the house, where he met with _ plaintiff's only been a distinct repudiation of a contract, which, on every

principle of law and justice, the defendant was bound to perform,
but there were circumstances attending his conduct of an ex-
tremely discreditable character. It would appear that on the 28th
of September, last year, the defendant applied to Mr. Wales, a
sharebroker, in Sheffield, to purchase for him fifty shares in the
railway called tho Huddersfield and Sheffield. which shares were
then very high in the market. In consequence of this direction,
M r. Wales wrote to the plaintiff and commissioned him to purchase
fifty Huddersfield and Sheffield shares; and, on the same day,
the plaintiff went into the trinket and effected the purchase from
three brokers. From Mr. Graves he bought twenty shares; from
Mr. Hahn, twenty; and from M'Lean and Co. ten; so that in
this way he made the fifty, and be purchased them at the market
price of the day. The total cost of those shares amounted to a
large sum. The plaintiff came under liabilities for-the shares so
purcha.sed to,the amount of £2106. tie purchased them in his
own name, according to the rule in the Manchester market, and on
that same night, the 29th of September, he wrote to Mr. Wales, in.
forniing him that the shares had been bought. On the following
day there was a letter from Mr. Wales to the plaintiff expressing
satisfaction at the purchase: and Mr- Wales entered those shares
in his book to the account of the defendant. On the same day the
defendant called on Wales, and told him to give authority to the
plaintiff to sell the Huddersfield and Sheffield shares for as much
above i N as possible. Mr. Wales accordingly wrote to that effect.
and 'time over to liverpool and Manchester. Whilst in Liverpool
he received two letters from the defendant, urging the immediate
sale of the shares; but, high as the price of those shares was-on
the 28th of September, and ritting as they were in the market,
yet so little were they thought of on the 2nd of October, that
they were absolutely unsaleable in Manchester. • Prom that
time forward the defendant used every attempt to shuffle out
of the transaction by saying, amongst other things, that the
shares bad been purchased, not for him, but for somebody
else. The 31st of October, the settling day at Manchester, having
passed„ and the account not having been paid, Mr. Graves placed

daughter. Shortly after he began to pay his addresses to
her ; and he told her that when he was of age, which
would be on the 2nd or 3rd of July, he would marry her.
There was no question but that the young woman fully
believed in the honour of his intentions; and from time-
to time he made her such presents as frequently pass
between parties so situated; gold trinkets, a gold watch,
and among other things be gave her a plain gold ring.
His circumstances being so much better than hers, he
presented her with various articles of clothing, and pur-
chased and sent to her several pieces of household furni-
ture. At that time he had been infoimed by her of the
situation he had brought her into; and he continued his
visits afterwards, indeed until the Bth of July. He then
said his circumstances were somewhat difficult, and lie
wanted to raise money, and requested her to return the
trinkets and the gold watch to him to raise money
upon, which sbe did; but his after-conduct would
reveal to the jury his real motives. On the Bth
of July he told this unfortunate girl to prepare for the
marriage, and the wedding dresses were ordered. On
the 18th of July they heard that he had married some-
body else ; and immediately afterwards this man had the
face to send a cart to the plaintiff's house for the purpose
of taking back all the furniture he had sent there. Con-
suquent upon the intimacy of the defendant with plain-
tiff's daughter was the birth of a child, which took place
early in the present year. The plaintiffcomplained of the
severe injury which, under these circumstances, had been
inflicted upon his feelings, for in estimating the damages

the te:retTity shares purchased by the plitintiif from him in al
hands of the cha rman of the committee of the Stock Exchang
for the purpose of being sold out against the party, and tilos

they must. not only take into consideration—the mere loss
of his daughter's services, for which the action was tech-

nically brought

They must consider the f eelings of a

. Mr. Hahn also resold the twenty
2, by whict. there was a further loss

beguiled

lose daughter hat
putation, and consider all the circumstances of the case
to arrive at a proper amount of damages. Defendant had
rot come into court to resist the action, and he must there-
fore be satisfied that their verdict would be against him.
He trusted when they had heard the witness they would
think it a case deserving• of exempl!•ry damages, The
young lady was very young, only just 19, at the present
time, and had been foully seduced under the semblance of
honourable addresses, while the manner in which the
young man had obtained possession of the object cf his
desires, showed but too clearly what that object had been
from first to last. He concluded by calling—
Sarah Spofforth, an interesting-looking girl, who said
she was the daughter of the plain,iff, Wm. Spofforth,

and M.l.ean and Co. re-sold their ten at RIO, by which
left was an additional loss of .e 321. The plaintiff was called upon
nixes, Mr. Hahn, and Messr*. M'Leau to make good
those differences; and to him those claims were most ruit.ous. He
was obli ed to suspend payment. He cal ed his creditors together,

by Mr (

and they having agreed to ateept a composition of three sliilings
in the pound, he had paid Mr. Graves, Mr. Hahn. and Messrs.
M`Lean £4ll Ils., and for the recovery of that sum the present
action was brought. On the Bth of October the defendant had at-
tempted to get out of the transaction by going to Mr, Wales. of
Sheffielkand telling him a story about a-Mr. Owen, for whom he
said, the shares were meant; and he requested Mr. Wales to alter
his books, to get new ones instead of the old, and to change the
entry from • Johnston" to "Owen through J, hnston." Mr. Wales
had the weakness to yield to the request: but the new and old
books would. be produce t; the alteration of the entry would be
proved; and, at all events, if any error had been committed, the
fault lay not with the plaintiff, but with the defendant's own agent,
Mr, Wales.

.
who resides near-Liverpool, at Windsor View, and wit-
ness lived with him and assisted in the household affairs.
Witness had been brought up when a girl with the daugh-

The first witness called on the part of the plaintiff* was Mr.
Wales. He was a long time under examination. His evidence
detailed the whole of the leading incidei.ts in the transaction as
they had been stated by the learned coml. el
John Birley, clerk to Mr. Wales, identified a letter which he had
written to the plaintiff, at the dictation of the defendant, telling him

ters of Mr. Pringle, a -merchant, of Liverpool, and that
gentleman had paid the expenses of her being taught
dress-making. In January, last year, witness went to

work at

. .
Wm. Tarbueles, the sister-i
rocirlpc in ~,nithantrn_tarto • I

-law of tk

soon paid her very great at

od visited her at her father's house

Mr. MARTIN submitted to have the verdict go

gh Wales-, Wand thatthe impreS
that, when ne ordered them tt

sion on the defendant's mind w
be purchased, he gave the order in Owen's nam
A verdict was returned fur the plaiLtiff for £465 Ils

tween eight and nine in the morning, and returned
about the same hour at night ; she worked there,
off and on, for more than three months before
she ever knew the defendant. He bought her a dress,
ring, a work box, a wedding rin2, and a guard. He
talked from time to time of their being married when
he was of age, on the 30th of July. The child witness
bad was born on the 9th of January last. She commu-
nicated her situation to defendant, and he still talked of
their approaching marriage; after that he purchased some
furniture and sent it to her—such as two small tables, a
set of tea trays, a looking glass, a tea caddy, and various
other little articles. He also purchased her sonic drf sses
and other articles of clothing. Witness then described
the manner in which she had been wheedled out of the
jewellery and watch he had given her, which fully bore out
the statement of the counsel.

NISI PRIUS-YESTERDAY

The learned Judge in taking his seat at ten o'clock,
apologised for having kept the Court waiting from nine
o'clock ; the mistake was on the part of the Under Sheriff,
who had fancied the Jury was summoned for ten o'clock.

By the JUDGE.—He effected his purpose in the begin-
ing of April, the child was still living, and lived with
witness at the defendant's. Witness was 19 years of age
on the 21st of January last.

Elizabeth Spofforth, a younger sister of the last witness,
corroborated much of this evidence.

John Lyon spoke to having seen defendant as a suitor
at plaintiff's house ; and to the defendant having a well
furnished ironmonger's shop in Scotland-road.
Mr. Kenneth Pringle. merchant, of Liverpool, said
that plaintiff had been his coachman for many years,
and that he was a very respectable man. The girl was
brought up by his daughters; and her conduct had ever
been above reproach.
His LORDSHIP, in summing up, said that the jury must
not take into account the injury done to the daughter;
they must only consider the damage and injury sustained
by the father. The girl had her remedy in an action for
breach of promise.
The Jury, after a few moments' consideration, gave a
verdict for the plaintiff. Damages, £lOO and costs.