The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-04-04 00:00:00

LORD AND ANOTHER v. MALINSON.—This was an action
to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract on the
part of defendant, whereby he engaged to form a partnership
with the plaintiffs.
The declaration stated that the plaintiffs are John Lord
and Michael Coghlan, and the defendant John Malinsou ;
and that, previously to the contract afterwards specified, the
plaintiffs carried on business as wholesale dealers, in Man-
chester, from which they derived large profits; and that the
defendant was well skilled in the woollen trade, and in the
habit of attending the Huddersfield market, and represented
to the plaintiffs, if they would sell their stock at Manchester
and join him in partnership at Huddersfield, they would to-
gether make large profits. It was then averred that the
defendant promised to become their partner, and use all his
skill and knowledge for their joint benefit; that the plaintiffs
gave up their business, sold off their stock at Manchester,
and removed to Huddersfield, but that the defendant did not
become their partner, nor use his skill and knowledge for
their common benefit. For this the plaintiffs claimed £2OOO
as compensation for special damage, £2OOO for loss on the
sale of the stock, £lOOO for loss in consequence of the stock
being sold at an improper time, and £lOOO for loss of profits :
total, £6OOO. The defendant pleaded that he he had made
no such contract, and that, if he had, it had been obtained
from him by fraud and covin.

Mr. BAINES contended that if the jury were of opinion
that any damages should be' awarded at all, they should be
merely nominal, as the contract, if any existed, could have
been put an end to in five minutes after it was made. This
. .

was an attempt to extort money from the father of a rash
young man, who had quitted his parent in a moment of anger,
and entered into a foolish arrangement.
The JUDGE summed up, and the jury retired. After an
absence of more than two hours, they returned into court,
whenthe the foreman(Mr. Joseph Arms trong,of Manchester.)
in reply to the usual question, whether they were agreed upon
their verdict, said he had been directed by the jury to re-
commend that a juror should be withdrawn, if the court had
the power to do so.

Mr. MARTIN (Mr. Baines having retired) said, if the jury
wished it, he had no objection whatever.
Mr. ARCHBOLD (Mr. Wortley having, like Mr. Baines,
retired.)—We cannot consent.

The JUDGE.—Well, gentlemen of the jury, I have no
power to disharge you; you must retire again to consider
your verdict.

The FOREMAN.—We have made up our minds, my lord;
we find for the defendant.

The JUDGE.—Very good. Let the verdict be, entered.
" WANTED," A JURY.
The foregoing jury retired to consider their verdict at
twenty-five minutes past three o'clock, when the Judge di-
rected another jury to be sworn, to proceed with the case of
Houldstvrorth v. Kearsley.
Much delay occurred, only three jurymen appearing, not-
withstanding repeated calls in every avenue of the court.
Mr. Forrest stated that Baron Parke had discharged pne list
of jurymen in the other court. His Lordship called for the
summoning officers, Taskar and Sellars, but they could not
be found, and were, in consequence, fined £5 each. After
much calling and considerable loss of time, ten jurymen were
at length got together in the box, and, as there appeared no
prospect of making up the full number, Mr. Brandt and Mr.
Knowles, the counsel in the case, agreed to try it with ten
jurymen only!

WORK AND LABOUR

HOULDSWORTH V: WEARSLEY.—Mr:Brandt for the plain-
tiff, Mr. Knowles and Mr. Atherton for the defendant. The
action was brought to recover £6O for work and labour done
by the plaintiff for the defendant, in Manchester, in mason's
work, in the erection of some houses in Chorlton-road and
Moss-side, Manchester. The defendant said that, except as
to £33, which had been paid into court, he was not indebted.
The question was merely as to the prices at which the work
was done, consequently the case had no interest in it, except
to the parties concerned. After the trial had proceeded for
some time, the cause was referred.

SHERBURNE to QuAuivii.-jihere were two special jury
cases thus entered in the second list, both of which were
made remanels at the last assizes. Just before the rising of
the court,-

Mr. DUNDAS said, there were two cases on his Lordship's
list on which a verdict would be taken by consent for the
plaintiff.

The JUDGE.--:-Which cases are those ?
Mr. BAINES.—Nos. 64 snd 65,
my lord.
versus Quartile.

Sherburne

The JUDGE.—Very well.
Mr. BAINES again rose, and s*id it had been agreed by his
learned friend and himself, he (Mr. Baines) representing the
defendant, that there should in these cases be a verdict en-
tered for the plaintiff, for a nominal sum; the defendant
withdrawing the plea of justification which he had put upon
the record. Mr. Quartne, his client, was a gentleman who
'conducted a newspaper at Lancaster, and he had always been
anxious to conduct it honourably, and in a manner without
injustice to any one. The articles of which the plaintiff com-
plained were published originally without Mr. Quarme's
knowledge; he knew nothing of them whatever, and, there-
fore, he had instructed him (Mr. Baines) to consent to this
verdict, and to withdraw the justification.
Mr. DUNDAS, upon the part of the plaintiff, his client, of
course, after the justification upon the record had been with-
drawn, could not but accede to this arrangement. His ob-
ject was only to stop libels upon his character ; and the
justification having been withdrawn, he was content.
A verdict in both cases for one shilling damages and one
shilling costs in each, was taken by consent.
The court then adjourned at half-past five o'clock.

CROWN COURT.--MONDAY. April 3.

CALLING OF JURORS.

- -- ----
Mr. Baron PARKE entered the— Court, as usual, at nine
o'clock, and immediately afterwards ordered the Clerk of
Arraigns to call over the list of jurors, in order to ascertain
if there were any absentees. The jurors. in the Civil Court
having been called into the Crown Court, the list was read
over. The following gentlemen did not answer, and were
each fined £5 :—Thomas Barnes, of Farnworth ; Richard
Cummings, of Litherland ; Charles Galt, of Hulme ; William
Reynolds, of Warrington ; George Robinson, of Everton ;
Robert Syke, of Hardwick ; Michael Trueman, of Cheetham ;
Israel Taylor, of Wigan ; and Ellis Yates, of Liverpool. It
was mentioned that by the imposition of this fine the absent
jurors were not released from attendance : they are subject
to further fines during the Assizes, if they did not attend.

William Chadwick, 27, late of the parish of Ashton-under
Lyne, labourer, was indicted for having, on the 4th of Octo.
bar, criminally assaulted Catherine Hurst. Mr. WHIGHAM
was for the prosecution. Mr. WILKINS defended the pri.
soner.

Mr. Wntomut, in opening the case, said ha believed that
Catherine Hurst had been subject to fits, and that her intel-
lect was not of the brightest order.
Catherine Hurst was!called. She was a tall, rather deli-
cate-looking girl. and stated that she was 16 years of age
on the 3d of November last. She lived with her parents
atMonday, the 24th October, she went
to purpose of seeing her sister. About
six o clock in the evening she set out on.her return to Duck-
Dopuecoksehnofiwel,d ior O
then
enfield. A young man named Joshua Clarke, who was
courting her sister, accompanied her as far as Hammond's
public-house, where she expected to find a coach. When
she got there, however, the coach had gone, and she set off
towards .Duckenfield, alone, and on foot. She had not got
many paces before two carts came up. They were proceed-
ing in the direction that she wished to go. The prisoner at
the bar had the care of the first cart. There was a man
with the other cart. She asked the prisoner, who was on
the pathway to let her ride. He consented, and she got
into the cart. which was loaded with cotton bags. There
was a tarpauling thrown over the bags ; he lifted it up, and
she sat under it. She rode from Hammond's to the other side
o .the stone bridge leading to Ashton by herself. When
they came to the two roads leading to Ashton, the other
cart went by the old way, and the one in which she was
riding went by the new way. Before arriving at these roads,
the prisoner had got into the cart, but he went out again.
After they had passed the new bridge he got on again: That
was about a quarter of a mile from the two roads. There
were no persons on the road when he got on again. After
having fastened the tarpauling to the side he got into the
cart, and asked her to take her bonnet off, that it might not
be scrumpled. The tarpauling was not over her when he
got into the cart, but he put it over. He then began to take
liberties with her ; sho screamed out " Murder," but there
was no one near to help her. When he had accomplished
his brutal purpose, be got off the cart. He wanted to give
her a shilling and a glass of gin, but she refused it. She then
went on to describe the steps she took in consequence of the
prisoner's brutality. Several other persons corroborated the
prosecutor's evidence as far as they were concerned. She
said in cross-examination that a man of the name of Beau-
mont was driver of the cart.

anof a person of weak
•
His LORDSHIP, summing up, prefaced the evidence with
some general observations, one of which was that in cases
like this it was necessary for the jury to look upon the testi-
hniaodn,yhoef
saidth e , perxo st
ee
rcnu
at rl
li
yx
intellect ; but she had given her evidence in a mater which
manifested little or nothing of
with
of intellect. He
put it to the jury to consider. . especial care, whether,
if her statement were correct, the advances of the prisoner
twhiethapgpreeaart carece o and caution. She
had not been of a sufficiently suspicious character to give
her a clear intimation of his design, and whether she might
not have as easily got off the cart before as she did after the
assault. If Beamont was present when the alleged outrage
took place, lie must have heard_ theb screams, if there were
might
any, and have been called Y the prosecution.
n absence
urn jury retired. After
..of a few minutes, they
retued with a verdict ol guilt:7, but recommended the
prisoner to mercy.
snow The JUDGE said that he mu
.st on What account the
recommendation to mercy had b given. If the prisoner
was guilty, he could not see any ground for the recommenda-
tion. if the jury had any doubt, they must make up their
minds.

The FOREMAN.—We have no doubt of the prisoner's
guilt, my lord. - _

Mi.Wii:XlTNs.—Perhaps your lordship would ask them
what they mean..

acquired a small property. He detennined to diatigO his
profession, and, an opportnnity presenting itaelf, advan-
tageous, as he thought, of entering upon the occupation of a
brewery, he considered it would be a business of a somewhat.
more permanent character than that which he had heretofore
followed. The defendant was a publican and brewer, occu-
pying the Moulders' Arms, in Major-street, Manchester.
A negociation took place, in Manchester, between the de-
fendant and a Mr. Ashworth, whereby it was agreed that
Ashworth should take the defendant's brewery and public-
house. Ashworth was a friend of the plaintiff's, and it was
understood between them, that if the bargain between Ash-
worth and the defendant was completed, the plaintiff should
become the brewer upon the premises at the public-house.
at a regular salary, and, in the meantime, he was to attend
at the place for two or three months in order to initiate him-
self in the business. On the 24th of June following the
plaintiff was to enter the public-house under Ashworth.
Subsequently, however, some disputes took place between ;
the plaintiff and Ashworth, which terminated the arrange-
ment between them. The deposit of money by the plaintiff
with the defendant took place on the 18th of May, one of
the Manchester race-days, and it was stated that he had, on
several previous occasions, made similar deposits. On the
day first named, the plaintiff had in his possession the sum
of £2OO ; he was then about to go to the races, but, not
wishing to take such a large amount with him, he said he
would leave £l9O of it with the defendant, because, if the
bargain went on between Ashworth and the defendant, he
(Templeton) should have to pay at least that sum, by and by.
The defendant said, " Do you want any acknowledgment for
it ? " The plaintiff replied, " No, but you may give me an
I 0 U." The defendant retired into another room to write
the I 0 U, but he immediately returned, saying, he could
not find the pen and ink, but, he added, " You have Con-
liffe present as a witness, and he will be as good as an 1 0 U."
The plaintiff acquiesced in this arrangement. and, under these
circumstances, the money was deposited with the defendant.
In consequence of some misunderstanding, the bargain which
had been completed between Ashworth and the defendant
went off : the plaintiff, therefore, who had nothing to do with
Ashworth, finding that the bargain was not completed, said
he was not going to enter upon the public-house under any
one but Ashworth, and demanded his money back from the
defendant. The defendant, however, refused to give it up.
Witnesses having been called to prove the above facts,
Mr. WORTLEY addressed the jury for the defence, and
called several witnesses.
The jury said they would not trouble Mr. Baines to reply,
or his lordship to sum up : they had made up their minds
that the defendant had received the money, and that he had
no right to tifep it.
The JUDGE expressed his agreement with the jury, and a
verdict was returned for the plaintiff for £l9O, the amount
detained.