The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-03-31 00:00:00

ALLEGED ILLEGAL SEIZURE

PARRY V. THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK AND OTHERS.
—ln this case, Messrs. Martin and Atherton were for the
plaintiffs, and Mr. Knowles, Mr. Adolphus, and Mr. Ro-
binson, tor the defendants.
Mr. Martin stated the case. The plaintiff was Mr.
John l'arry, a gentleman residing in the neighboui hood
of Liverpool, and the defendants were the Archbishop of
York, the Earl of Devon, and John Loch, Esq., M.P.,
the trustees of the late Duke of Bridgewater. The ac-
tion was brought to recover the value of four canal la,ats,
called the Wizard, the Witch, the Gem, and the Atnere,
which had been seized and sold by the agent of the
trustees, Mr. Marsden, at Manchester. Mr. Parry, the
plaintiff, had a son, who, at the later end of 1813, en-
tered into a carrying concern at Manchester, which had
been carried on under the firm of Deakin and Co. Soon
after John Parry, jun., got into the concern, he found
that the state of its affairs was not so prosperous as he
was led to suppose, and in consequence an application was
made to the plaintiff to advance money by way of mort-
gage on two of the boats belonginc, to the new firm which
was then carried on under the title of Parry, Deakin, and
Co. The plaintiff, after consulting his authority, Mr.
Tyrer, declined doing so. It was then arranged that the
plaintiff should purchase two of the boats for £3OO, and
that the firm should pay a certain sum weekly for the use
of these boats. This was done, and accordingly the
money was paid by Mr. John Parry for the Wizard and
Witch. Subsequently Mr. Parry purchased the Gem
from Messrs. Anderton and Gartskill, of Runcorn, for
£235, and the Amere, from Mr. John Deakin, of
Bootle, for £194. The latter boats were also used by
Parry, Deakin, and Co., on the same terms as the others.
The business then went on until the 15th of August,
1815, when the agent to the defendants seized the heats
for tonnage, haulage, and canal dues, there being then
about £l,lOO due, and sold them for £6OO. Two of the
boats were seized as they were passing through a lock on
the canal, and the other at the canal basin at Manchester.
The evidence of Mr. John Parry, jun., Mr. J. Ken-
worthy Deakin, Mr. John Anderton, and Mr. John
Deakin proved the facts as stated by Mr. Martin.
Mr. Knowles cross-examined the witnesses, with a view
of sheaving that the carrying firm had exercised the owner-
ship over the boats.
His LORDSHIP, however, intimated that the defence
could not be maintained. Here was now proof that two
of the boats had been purchased from parties not at all
connected with the son of the plaintiff. He supposed
Mr. Knowles was about to call witnesses to alter all
those facts.
Mr. KNovetEs said the trustees had been entirely de-
ceived about the matter. Up to that mom• nt they had no
knowledge whatever of the facts which hail been proved
by those very respectable witnesses who had been called,
and, of course, as he coutd not contradict that testimony,
he felt, acting on the part of the highly respectable defen-
dants, that he ought not to resist a verdict. He must,
however, sly that the agents of the defendants, seeing the
name of "John Parry" on the boats, and knowing nothing
of any other John Parry, they believed the boats belonged
to the carrying concern.

Mr. MARTIN said the plaintiff had over and over again
off-red to furnish the whole particulars about the matter.
Under the direction of his Lordship, the jury found for
the pi .intiff, damages £7OO.

Mr. George Thompson, of Manchester, was attorney
for the plaintiff in this important action.

NISI PRIUS COURT,

-SATURDAY

The further hearing of the case of Scho!field r. Rhodes wa
proceeded with. Mr. Se?jeant Wilkins addressed the jury for I
the defendant, rod called some witnesses to show that the
plaintiff's clam was unfounded; but the jury pronounced a
verdict for the plaintiff for the fir] amount aid interest.
v. Gany.—The plaintiff, a surveyor of Manchester,
brought this action for w,rk done in attending in parliament
to oppose a bill for making a railway Ircin Liverpoo to Wigan.
Bolton. and Bury. The plaintiff had made out the reaps and
Walls requisite to be put before p ,iliament in November last,
at great tr üble and expense, for which he chimed, in all. e 194,
including expenses. The defendants had paid the plaintiff .il9,
and had also paid into court in Febru,,ry, when the action was
nrought. a sum of but the balance, e -4, was yet due. The
defence was that, although the plaintiff had undoubtedly been
employed, his charges were most exorbitant. His Lordship

was of opinion that the plaintiff outht to be paid according to
some well known rule. Witnesses were called to prove what
would be a fair sum, and the jury gave a v,rdiet for the defen-
dant.

Another case brought by the same plaintiT acainst Colonel
Coape, slho had paid 50 into court, was similarly disposed of,

- . -
REFILTI/lATION Op A RAILWAY CONTRACT: TOOTAL
STuNl.—This was an action brouzlit by the plaintiff, Frederick
Tootal, against the defendant, Henry Johnston, for the reco-
very of claniages sustained by the defendant failing to fulfil a