The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-04-11 00:00:00

NISI PRIUS COURT.—SATuan.ty

WILKINSON V. ABBINETT.—The plaintiff in the action
was Mr. Thomas Wilkinson, and the defendant Mr.
Henry Abbinett, and the declaration was in debt for the
hire of a flat, on account of materials furnished, and an
account stated, to the whole of which the defendant
pleaded that he was not liable. Mr. BAINES stated the
case, the short particulars of which were, that a flat,
called the Union, belonging to the plaintiff, in conse-
quence of an accident, had sunk in the river Mersey, and
the plaintiff had made several fruitless attempts to raise
the vessel, and ultimately, in consequence of complaints
made to the Corporation, as conservators of the river, they
engaged the celebrated Mr. Abbinett, the defendant, to
raise the vessel, and he, as alleged by the plaintiff, en-
gaged one of his (plaintiff's) flats, and two men for the
purpose, and the present action had been brought to
recover the sum of £2O 145., the amount incurred in
doing so. For the defendant it was contended that the
case had been brought to extort money, and that the
plaintiff, knowing that by the Mersey Conservation Act
he could be compelled either to raise the flat, or pay the
expense of it being raised, he had solicited the defendant
to allow hint to use his flat and men in the discharge of
the work, to lighten the burden which would otherwise
be thrown upon his shoulders, and that Mr. Abbinett had
not charged one farthing to the Corporation on account
of the plaintiff's vessel. Mr. Askew, the harbour-
master, confirmed the statements of Sergeant Wilkins as
to the circumstances under which the plaintiff's flat and
men had been engaged, and stated that, although the
Corporation had the power, by their Act of Parliament,
to enforce parties to pay the expense for raising vessels
which by any act of theirs had been sunk, vet this clause
had never yet been tarried out. Mr. Abbinett, jun., son
of the defendant, tnd a boatbuilder in this town, stated
that, after the fla't was raised, he purchased it for £3l,
and, after it b_ad been repaired, it sold for £230. Mr.

BATHES rep'jed, and contended that unless iio sum
sought to bis claimed by the plaintiff had been included in
I Air. AblZi'Aett'a bill to the Corporation, it WEI 3 difficult to

April 11,1845.

conceive how the amount £llB 18s. for raising the flat
had been incurred. His Lordship having directed the
Jury, they retired from court, and after an absence of
an hour and three-quarters, returned a verdict for the
defendant.

BRADLEY V. GEE AND OTrtERS.-Mr. CROMPTON
opened the pleadings. The plaintiff was Jane Bradley,
and the defendants were Edward Gee, John Stamper, and
Charles Fay, and the declaration stated a trespass 111)91
the house, fixtures, and goods of the plaintiff, in Fair-
clough-lane, London-road. The pleas put in upon
record were, first, that the defendants were not guilty.;
second, that the house was not the house of the plaintiff,
neither were the goods, chattels, or furniture; third, that
one Staniford was seized in fee, and by indenture, dated
23d December, 1843, had demised the premises for sixty-
three years to Bradley, and that Bradley assigned tho
premises to Atkin and Gee.

The case occupied a considerable time, and at the close
the jury found that the defendants had right of possession'
The verdict does not therefore incur damages.
This case closed the business at the Assizes.