The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-09-05 00:00:00

EJECTMENT.-DOE DEM. HUGHES V. DRADSHAW.

Mr. COWLING said this was an action of ejectment
brought by Ellen Hughes, a lady of considerable property
in Sutton and elsewhere, against Thos. Bradshaw, tenant
of one of her farms, called the Willow Tree Farm. There
was no doubt that the farm belonged to the plaintiff;
there was no doubt also that the defendant was her tenant,
and that he had been so for two years ; and the only ques-
tion, he apprehended, would be, whether or not a proper
notice to quit had been given. There was no doubt that
notice was given on the Ist day of August, but it unfor-
tunately happened that it was drawn up, not by a profes-
sional man, but by the coachman of Mrs. Hughes, who,
no doubt, flattered himself that he was as clever in draw-
ing out legal notices as he was on the coach-box. The
usual time of giving up possession of the land was on the
2d of February, and the house was given up on the Ist of
May. In this form, he believed, the notice had been given.
Howard, the plaintiff's coachman, was called, and
proved the delivery of the notice to quit to the defendant's
wife.

Mr. RAMSFIAY, for the defendant, said Mrs. Hughes
was in the habit of giving notice to all her tenants every
year much as a matter of course, although she did not
avail herself of such notice. She gave notice in the usual
way to his client, and he, thinking it was the usual affair,
took no notice of it, but it appeared she had intended to
turn him out. However, he (the learned counsel) should
be able to prove that the plaintiff had, on the Ist August,
distressed upon the goods of the defendant for rent due
up to that date. It was a rule of law, that if a party who
had given another notice to quit afterwards treated him
as a tenant, he could not recover.

Meredith, the officer, who levied the distress, was then
called, and said the levy was made for rent due up to the
2d February.

Mr. Justice CRESSWELL.—IS that your case?
Mr. RA MSHAY.—Yes.
Mr. Justice CRESSW ELL .—Gentlemen of the jury, you
must find a verdict for the plaintiff.

DISPUTED AGENCY.-RAMSAY V. KELSO AND ANOTHER

In this case the declaration was in assumpsit for goods
sold and delivered. The defendants pleaded non assam-
psit.

Mr. Wortley and Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff;
Mr. Martin and Mr. Cowling for the defendants.
In this case, Robert Ramsay, blockmaker, of this town,
sought is recover the sum of £149 from the defendants
Joseph Kelso and Robert Lyons, of Londonderry, for,
blocks alleged to have been supplied to them. For the
plaintiff it was set up that the defendants were the owners
of a large vessel, called the Great Northern, which was
built by them in Londonderry, and that the blocks were
ordered for them by Capt. Coffin, as their agent. The
defendants' case was, that Captain Coffin, a- shipbuilder,
contracted to build the vessel for £16,300, and that the
blocks were ordered by him on his own account.—Verdict
for the plaintiff ; da nages, £149 19s sd.

CLAIM BY ASSIGNEES.
MILLER AND OTHERS V. FISHER AND OTHERS.
This was an issue out of the Court of Chancery, and
Mr. Martin and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiffs.
John Miller and others. Mr. Watson and Mr. Cowling
appeared as counsel for the defendants, James Fisher and
others.

The plaintiff's were assignees of Messrs. Copeland and
Duncan, who carried on business in this town as com-
mission agents in the year 1836, and the defendants were
assignees of the firm of Baisley and Handsbrough, lately
carrying on business at Manchester, and the action was
brought to decide whether the assignees of Copeland& Dun-
can wereentitled to receive the proceeds of certain goods sent
out to India in the year 1836, to pay advances made by
them to Baisley and Handsbrough. It appeared that
Copeland and Duncan received, in their course of busi-
ness, goods from merchants in Manchester, transmitted
these goods to the house in India, and then two-thirds of
the invoice price was advanced upon the goods, and a
further sum was advanced by Copeland and Duncan,
making the total sum advanced 85 per cent. The course
of business was this, when Bailey and Handsbrough had
goods to send to Calcutta, they communicated with Craw-
ford and Duncan, who again communicated with the firm
of Crawford, Colvin, and Co., the correspondents of the
Indian house. As soon as the shipping note of the goods
was read by Crawford, Colvin, and Co., they remitted
two-thirds of the invoice price on behalf of the India-
house, and they also received the remittances from the
India-house when it was sent to this country, kept
their advances, and sent down the remainder to Copeland
and Duncan, who took their advances, and then remitted
the balance to the house in Manchester.

The evidence in this case consisted -Of letters, showing
the course of business, and after these had been read,
Mr. WATSON said he considered it more as a question
for his Lordship than the jury, and he would take his
opinion upon it, either as a matter of fact, or a matter
of law.

Mr. Justice CRESSWELL said he had not the least
doubt that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, which
was entered accordingly.

EJECTMENT.-DOE DEMO HARDMAN, V. GORE

In this case the plaintiff sought to recover possession
of a farm-house and farm in Allerton, in the parish of
Childwall, but after the case had been stated by Mr.
Martin, his Lordship said there was no ground for the
action—with respect to one term it had long since expired,
and another term had not arrived. He could not, how_
ever, hold out any hope to the party, as a hundred things
might have happened to prevent his claim from being a
correct one, and he, therefore, advised him not to waste
any more money. The plaintiff was non-suited, and the
court rose at twenty-five minutes to six o'clock.

CROWN COURT^—FRIDAY.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN took his seat at nine o'clock

THE MANCHESTER lIRICKMAKERS' RIOTS.
Peter Burgess, Charles Lee, George Walker, Joseph
Harrison, William Roberts, Thomas Hough, Nicholas
Rigby, Michael Baguley, and Matthew Kehoe, were in-
dicted for riot and assault at the brickfield of Mr. Pauling,
at Salford. Kehoe pleaded guilty, and all the others not
guilty. The evidence adduced was similar to that brought
forward against them at the trial on Wednesday.
The Learned JUDGE, in charging the jury, said that
two persons spoke directly to Hari ison, but both of them,
on the next night, said they did not know him. After-
words, however, they said that they did ; but the impres-
sion of Beswick, the constable, was that they did not.
Two other witnesses heard a voice which they believed
was his. Five witnesses also gave him a character, which
should have weight with the jury if they entertained any
doubt. Only one person spoke to Roberts ; a witness
also gave him a good character. The case against Bur-
gess and Lee rested entirely on the correspondence of the
boots, his having been found with Kehoe, who had a
gun shot wound, and having a blue mark on his breast
which one of the witnesses believed he had inflicted.
Walker was found to have some gun-shot wounds, and
was spoken to by Frost and Connell. They also spoke
to Hough, but Connell had previously identified his bro-
ther, who had been apprehended. The only witness who
recognised Rigby was Connell, but this was some time
after the occurrence. If the jury entertained any doubts
as to the identity of the prisoners, they would give them
the benefit of such doubts, but especially those who had
received a good character.

The jury retired, and were absent about twenty minutes,
when they returned a verdict of guilty against all the pri-
soners.

Kehoe was also placed at the bar, and his Lordship
addressed the prisoners, stating that they had been found
guilty, after a most careful consideration of their case, of
riot and assault, and there were circumstances which
gave to the charge an importance far beyond that attend-
ing many others that could be brought into a court of
justice. He should inflict, therefore, the highest punish-
ment legally appropriated to the offence, and sentenced
each of the prisoners to twelve months' imprisonment.