The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-08-20 00:00:00

SHELDRICH AND DAWSON V. BARBER

Verdict for the plaintiffs, fustian manufacturers, Manchester, for
£2B 2s. II d., for goods sold to defendant. Undefended.

SANDFORD V. JACKSON: A MAIDEN LADY AND HER PARROT

In this case, which ran considerably into detail, Mr. Atherton
appeared for the plaintiff, Sarah Sandford, and Mr. Brandt for the
defendant, Thomas Jackson.
Mr. ATHERTON, in stating the case, said this was an action of
trover brought by the plaintiff to recover the value of a parrot and
cage—(a laugh)—which the defendant had converted to his own use.
Be (the learned counsel) saw it was impossible to mention the na-
ture of the goods and chattels without exciting a smile ; but, per-
haps, when he informed the jury that his client was a maiden lady,
not in the first flush of youth, and not in the best of circumstances,
they would not be so much inclined to wonder at the value and im-
portance she attached to her bird. She resided at Swinton, near
Eccles, and the defendant was the landlord of a publiclouse, called
" the British fleet," at Oldfield-road, Salford. The facts of the case
were briefly these, that, in the month of March, 1842, a Quaker,
named Joseph Scholefield Shaw, who was the brother-in-law of the
plaintiff, had a parrot and cage, of which he was anxious to get rid,
and, ultimately, the plaintiff agreed to purchase them for the sum of
£d 10s. These were the simple circumstances under whim the
parrot originally became the property of the plaintiff. The future
adventures of Poll and her cage were next detailed. In the month
of September, 1842, Miss Eliza Sandford, the sister of the plaintiff,
was in bad health, and the parrot being a lively bird, she was na-
turally anxious to get rid of what was once a pleasurable source of
amusement, but was now considered a nuisance ; and the conse-
quence was, that the parrot and cage were removed back again, for
safe keeping, to Mr. Shaw, and were detained by him down to
February, 1843. At that time, Shaw, not being in good circum-
stances, was apprehensive of an execution at the suit of some credi-
tor, and he, wishing to avoid any question that might arise witloisie-e,i-
gard to the ownership of the bird, had the parrot and cage
removed
the
from his house, and, ultimately, both fell into the
defendant, Mr. Jackson, who had ever
h property, and,
them, and pleaded, first, that he had not converted the
plaintiff. Mr.
secondly, that the property did not belong
but contended
trumpery action,
Atherton admitted that it was a he bringing down of the
since refusedtl)e steossisUrrender
that his client had had nothing to do with the
fends
was solely to
had been originally commenced
blame in this respect ; for the.aucti.otn
was removed by the defendant,
in the county court, from wine
record to the present assizes, and that the defendant
a lady who was suffering a bereavement,
in law. He represented
s unable to inform the jury of the pro-
but, at the same time, he wat.
who now brought it on at laverpOol, ",byproviso," as it was termed
.ivaiicltiiiesxisted between a maiden lady
been 0,, instead of a par-
rot, position to impart the necessary
rot case, he should have been in
ocins(eaiao trupraer or
of
tt.h e
(a,:tiaacolgn4n
ment there being little to excite the attention of
information on this knotty point ; for, in the dearth of public busi-
ness of greater moment,
the House of Commons, a committee had recently sat and made a
report. That committee was appropriately called "the Dog Com-
mittee,"—(laughter,)—their object beineaughter,)—their ,'to asc • generally about
mittee.ertam
lap-dog,nished.
Betty's In
commis-
erate pet poodles and digs of the metropolis,—(great laughter,)—and to
nd
see that those who abstracted the pets, and thereby lacerated the feel-
tiongasscoefrttahejoir,oviiviantebrseo,
amm-ereeodfuLlyar
n had be subjected by the
favouriteard tate o which .Hiss s
all those sage inquiries had been
leorsasteofthheerh
duly recorded in the Parliamentary blue book,
down to posterity as an undeniable proof ofand would be handed
age in which we live. (howl laughter.) Artr.
Atherton
spirit of the
concluded
a very humourous speech by saying, that, if another
to the present should be brought down this time tweelrvaec
months,tlon similar
he
might be in a better position to tell the jury something of the sort
of attachment which existed between the owners of parrots and their
birds, but that as yet Parliament, in its wisdom, had not given the
public any light on a subject of such thrilling interest to the world
at large.
Mr. J. S. Shaw, a Quaker, was the first witness. He stated, that
he resided at Birmingham at present, and that, in the year 1836,
during the time be lived at Ashton-under-Lyne, he purchased a par-
rot front a Mrs. Hatfield, of that town. The parrot was very poorly
when it was purchased; and the arrangement was, that he was to
give 30s. for it if it lived, and, if it died, nothing. Subsequently, it
rallied in health and spi • rits, the 30s. was accordingly paid, and,
after he had had it for six years, he sold it to the plaintiff. During
the six years it re,ived instruction, and was consequently worth
more in 18-12 than in 1836, and was worth at the later period £5 10s.
Mr..ISRANDT, in addressing the jury for the defence, contended,
that it was a trumpery action, and confessed that he was not sur-
prised to find his learned friend (Mr. Atherton) endeavouring to
enliven it by a little merriment. Without, however, imitating his
friend's example, and beginning with Robinson Crusoe and his par-
rot, he should conic at once to the facts ; and the simple facts were,
that it was a mere juggle on the part of the Quaker to send the par-
rot over to his sister-in-law, in order that she might keep the bird
for him until he got out of his difficulties with his creditors.
Witnesses were then called to prove that the bird was sent to the
n plai tifl's for the purpose of protecting it from AB. Shf am
credi-
tors, and that it had never ceased to be the property of that ge n
-
tleman. that his learned
Mr. ATHERTON, the course of his reply, said,
friend (Mr- Brandt), finding himself in a parrot
ed otse
cttal by chatter.
se seemed to
think, by his loquaciousness, that it was all to
b
Eventually, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff for £5 10s.,
and the amiable lady will enjoy the sweet companionship of her
parrot once again.
DANKERLEY V. JENKINSON.
Verdict for the plaintiff £5OO, subject to reference.
MAHON V. DUNKERLEY.
In this case plaintiff claimed salary for five mouths, at the rate of
£lOO a year, in reply to which £lO was paid into court. Verdict
was given for defendant.
LONIAS AND ANOTHER V. ASIIW-ORTH.
The plaintiffs are worsted-spinners, residing at Manchester, and
stated,
the occupiers of a mill, near Accrington. The decl
donara
fip
that they had a right of water to flow, for the purpose oi turnoterg
the mill, and alleged that the defendant had obstructed tew .
The whole question resolved itself into one of law.
After a brief discussion of the law verdict was returned points, a
for the plaintiffs for 405., subject to a special case.
HOWARD v. SHORE AND OTHERS.
In this case, Daniel Howard was the plaintiff, and John Shore
and Co. were the defendants. The declaration was in debt for a
sum of £B3, for goods sold and delivered, to which the defendants
pleaded that they were never indebted.
Mr. Baines and Mr. Cobbett appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Watson for the defendants.

plaintiff 1,;.a; nonsuited.
GEE V. HALLIWELT. AND CX.
Verdict for the plaintiff for £l3 3s. 6d.
SHAW V. JACKSON AND OTHERS.
The declaration was on a bond for £l5O. A verdict was returned
for the plaintiff.

After the above case, some delay took place, several counsel not
being ready to go on, from the circumstance of their witnesses, &c.,
having left the court. Ultimately, au unimportant case was got
over, and the court adjourned at half-past four o'clock.
Our report of yesterday's Assizes will be founl in another
column.

The foundation stone of the memorial to be erected on
Pensher Hill, in honour of the late Earl of Durham, is to
be laid on Wednesday the 28th inst., with great Masonic
pomp and ceremony, by the Earl of Zetland as Grand
Master of England.