The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1851-08-26 00:00:00

V. TAILOR,

Mr. Watson, Q.C.. and Mr. Edward James, were
counsel for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Hill, Q.C., and Mr.
Manesty, were counsel for the defendant, Mr. John
Taylor, of Moreton-hall, Whalley. This was a very
long and tedious case, the details of which are of an
uninteresting character. The action was to recover from
the defendant a model which had been made of the
defendant's mansion and park in the year 1845, to be used
before the committees of the House of Commons in
opposing the projected lines of other companies; and the
question was one of simple ownership. The plaintiffs
untended that an order had been given to a Mr. Flintoff
to make the model by the promoters of the company's
bill, and that, although it was made apparently for the
defendant, and his name used by the employer of Mr.
Flintoff, yet that it was in fact made for the plaintiffs, for
the purpose of opposing the lines of other companies
which had been projected, and who desired to pass their
lines through the defendant's grounds; that they were
liable to pay for a preparation of the model, and that Mr.
Taylor was merely an agent for them. The defendant's
case was, that the model bad been made at the request of
hi; solicitor, and that, although there was an under.
standing between him and the promoters of the bill to
indemnify him for all expenses, yet that he was liable to
pay for the model, having given the order. Evidence in
support of these points was gone into ; after which, the
learned judge summed up, and thz jury returned a yerdict
for the plaintiffs.

CLOWES AND OTHERS V. HOLDERNESS AND ANOTHER

Mr. Atherton, Q.C., and Mr. Cowling alpea;eifo;ae
plaintiffs; and the Attorney-General and Mr. Crompton
conducted the defence.

Mr. ATHERTON stated the case. The plaintiffs were
Messrs. George Rennie and John Clowes, merchants,
the former at Bombay, and the latter in Liverpool.
The defendant, Mr. T. Hunter Holderness, also
carried on business in this town, trading under
the title of Chilton and Holderness, and the action was
brought to recover the price of 205 bales of cotton, which
had arrived froin India in November last. In September
in the last year, the plaintiff, Mr. Clowes, was advised
that two cargoes of Surat cotton were consigned to him
for sale by the growers at Bombay. In due time, 217
bales arrived by the Marion and 50 bales by the Fairfield.
Before their arrival, the plaintiffs applied to Messrs. Lit-
tledale, the brokers, to effect a sale; and a sale was ac-
cordingly made by them to the defendants. Mr. Rennie,
(Mr. Clowes's partner,) who conducted the business of
the firm in Bombay, never gave any guarantee as to the
quality of the cotton, and it was expressly stated that it
was unmarked. After the contract for sale had been
made the Marion arrived, and the defendant thought pro-
per to decline to take the 205 bales which she had brought.
With regard to 12 bales, the ether part of her cargo, they
were materially damaged, and there was a stipulation in
the contract relieving the defendant from liability to take
them. The Fairfield arrived in December, with the re-
maining bales, to which no objection was offered on the
part of the defendants, and they were taken by them. An
agreement had since been made for the sale of the 205
bales of cotton ex Marion, and they were accordingly sold
without prejudice to the plaintiffs ; and the loss occasioned
to them by such sale amounted to £490, which sum it
was now sought to re,over.

Mr. Harold Littledale was called and proved the signa-
tures of his firm to the bought and sold notes, but referred
to his manager, Mr. Greaves, who had charge of the nego-
ciations for further evidence.

Mr. Joseph Greaves was then called, and stated that he
conducted the negociations with the defendants for the
sale of the cotton. This evidence tended to support the
defendants' side of the case more than that of the plain-
tiffs'. At the time he was dealing with the defendants he
was under the impression that the cotton was merchant's
cotton and not native cotton, and he was not aware that
it was of the inferior quality which it proved to be. It
was not Surat, but the lowest description of cotton, and
known as " Compter," and instead of having a fine staple
as stated in the contract, it had in fact no staple at all.
He could not recollect any exact words used by Mr.
Clowes when conversing with him on the subject, which
led him to believe that the cotton was of a superfine kind.
Had he known the quality he should have declined to sell
it. The plaintiffs conducted all their sales through Messrs.
Littledale's house.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the jury for the
defence. He viewed the case as one of considerable im-
portance in regard to honesty and fair dealing. Parties
were bound to afford every information as far as possible
to a purchaser, in'order to guide his judgment to a nroper
price. He asked whether Mr. Clowes had acted with
entire frankness, or whether or not he had been guilty of
suppression, for be was aware that bad he divulged the
facts the price of the cotton would have been materially
altered. The defendants thought they were buying mer-
chants' cotton, and the brokers thought they were selling
that description. Both the brokers and the defendants
had been imposed upon. The plaintiffs knew the course
of business pursued by Messrs. Littledale, as they con-
ducted all their sales through that firm, and they knew
that if they told them the quality of the cotton, they
would have declined to have anything to do with it.
His clients had wished the cotton to be sold immediately
upon its arrival, but this had been refused, and which, if
done, would have brought down the loss to £l5O. The
cotton was described in the contract as having a fine
staple, but it had been proved that it had no staple at all,
and that fact alone would justify his clients refusing to
take it. The learned gentleman concluded an able ad-
dress by calling on the jury to support honesty and fair
play, as the basis of commercial dealings.
The Learned JUDGE summed up strongly in favour of
the plaintiffs. The jury must not impute fraud without
powerful evidence of it, and in his opinion no fraud had
been attached to Mr. Rennie.

The jury retired about twenty minutes to five o'clock,
and were locked up. They did not return into court till
twenty minutes to ten, having been absent five hours.
The verdict of the jury was for the plaintiff, damages £75,
costs 40s. One of the jury wished to make a remark, but,
as the judge was absent, he was not allowed to do so.

WILLIAMS AND PARK V. CARSTEN AND ANOTHER

Mr. Crompton and another learned gentleman appeared
for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Watson, Q. C., for the defend-
ants. The plaintiffs are iron merchants in Liverpool, and
the defendants are merchants in London, and the action
was brought to recover damages for breach of two con-
tracts for the sale by the plaintiffs to the defendants of
300 tons of iron. While the plaintiffs' case was being
opened an arrangement was agreed upon, by which a ver-
dict for the plaintiffs for £lOO was taken by consent.

BELL AND MARSHALL V. CARMICHAEL, BREMNER, AND

JOHNSTON

The Attorney-General and Mr. Cowling were for the
plaintiffs, Mr. Sergeant Wilkins appeared for Mr. Car-
michael, and Mr. James for Mr. Bremner and Mr.
Johnston.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of
£B2 19s. for goods sold and delivered. In the year 1846
the plaintiffs, who reside at Shields, supplied a quantity of
timber and other materials for a vessel named the Doriss,
of which the defendants are joint own, rs, and which, it
was alleged by the plaintiffs, were supplied with their en-
tire concurrence. The Doriss had been built at Cork,
and in the year 1846 the three defendants were registered
as joint owners. She was sent to London to have engines
put in, as it was intended to turn her into a screw steamer.
She also required masts and other equipments, and the
defendants applied to the plaintiffs to supply them, which
they did to the value of the amount sought to be reco-
vered. The plaintiffs had brought their action originally
against the defendant Bremner alone, who had pleaded
that he had contracted the debt as joint owner with the
two other defendants; the plaintiffs had therefore brought
their present action against all the owners. After evidence
had been gone into,
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS submitted that there was no
case against his client, as there was no evidence to show
his liability. He contended that it had not been shown
that his client had clothed Mr. Bremmer with the neces-
sary authority to employ the plaintiffs to convert the vessel
into a ,crew-steamer ship.
The learned JUINia thought there was a Prise to EO to
the jury.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINs then addressed the jury on
behalf of his client, contending that there was nothing in
the evidence or correspondence which had been put in to
render his client liable, ani that the alterations and
repairs had been done without his superintendence or
consent. He also commented upon the length of time
which had elapsed before the present action had been
brought. _ _ _ _

The learned JUDGE having summed up, the jury
immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff against all
the defendants ; damages, £69 17s. sd.

STOCK V. BARKER.
This was an unopposed action, in which a verdict was
taken for the plaintiff, by consent, for £5,000.

THE LATE SEIZURE OF A MERCHANT SHIP BY MI-
LITARY PASSENGERS.-A relative of Captain Vesey has
addressed a letter to the editor of the Hampshire Tele-
graph, in which he states that the captain of the barque
Levenside was constantly drunk, used the most disgusting
language in the presence of the passengers, among whom
was a lady, and after having twice presented a pistol at
Captain Vesey, was at last in the act of firing it off within
three inches of his heart when he was disarmed and hand-
cuffed. Captain Vesey's life was only saved by his fortu-
nately being able to seize the pistol, with his thumb placed
under the hammer, by which it was much cut as it fell.
The next day, as Captain Campbell continued, when sober,
to be as violent as before, he was kept in confinement, his
boxes and papers sealed up, and Captains Vesey and Niele,
with the assistance of the crew, carried the ship in perfect
safety to St. Helena, when they delivered Captain Camp-
bell to the magistrates, who did not hesitate a moment in
keeping him in prison to take his trial. The Duke of
Wellington, tile Marquis of Anglesey, and Lord Fitzroy
Somerset, on reading Captain Vesey's statement, and the
report of the St. Helena magistrate, and questioning an
officer just returned from St. Helena on :the subject, de-
clared that they considered Captain Vesey as not only
blameless, hut as h;-ving acted with the greatest coolness,
courage, and determination.