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

merchant of Liverpool, who had imported the cotton ; at
who, standing in the market in Li✓erl

position as the grower
been deceived by the

is in the same
ny 11.4 d
euuld

If Messrs. Huth and
American cotton plant.

bring an action against him ; and thus e
compensated, and justice would be done
sel then quoted the case of Polhill v. r
laid down that even where there was no moral fraud on
the part of the defendant, yet he was liable to compensate in
such a case. He should show distinctly that the sample was
good Orleans cotton, that there was no opportunity of
examining the bales, that there was no warranty given, and
therefore the plaintiff had no remedy except by bringing this
action.. He understood one part of the defence would be,
that there was a custom in Liverpool to this effect : that let
a man make a representation, however false, respecting the
quality of cotton, if the hales were not unpacked, and the
truth discovered within 12 months, the remedy was gone. If
such a custom were in existence, it must be proved. He be-
lieved there was no such custom, and he should submit to his
lordship that such a custom would be invalid and unreason-
able. He could understand a custom such as this, to give a
warranty which should last only for twelve months, and that,
within twelve months, a purchaser might return the cotton.
Such a custom might be reasonable i❑ law. Even if it were
proved that a custom existed, that, after twelve months, the
right of action was gone, he should submit to his lordship
that it was a custom which was unreasonable in the eye of
the law. He had endeavoured to explain to the jury the
right of action in this case. He believed it to be a more im-
portant question than the £136 which arose in this case ; and
all that he could say was, that, unless they could succeed in
this action, it was quite clear there must be a fundamental
change in the mode of transacting business on the Liverpool
Exchange; and it would be necessary to- clog the business
with written contracts and written warranties, which never
yet existed, for the purpose of rendering merchants liable to
make good the losses which might hereafter be dis-
covered.

1 party could be
rhe learned coun-
Waller, in which it was

Evidence having been given in support of the facts of the
case, _ . .

Mr. DUNDAS, on the part of the defendants, submitted
that there was no case proved. There was no proof at all of
the knowledge of the defendants that the bales were not the
same as the samples ; and he submitted to his lordship that
his friend's law was wrong
The JUDGf

—There is no proof of knowledge. I am afraid
it is a necessary ingredient in this case, and I see no evidence
at all of it.

Mr. WORTLEY submitted, that it was their duty to have
known, and that they ought to have known. Here were
merchants at Liverpool importing cotton falsely packed, and
then, when they came to sell that cotton in the market here,
they gave no opportunity for examining the bales, and what
he submitted to the court was this, that they were bound to
know, and, if they put it in that way, they should show that
they did not know.
The JUDGE.—I should tell the jury, that you must make

out on your part, that the defendants knew that there was a
fraud committed, or otherwise they are not liable.
Mr. WORTLEY.—Perhaps you will give me leave to move
to enter a verdict.

Mr. DUNDAS.—You were to make out a case against
those gentlemen of fraud. You have made out no case.
The JUDGE.—You must either submit to be non-suited,
or I must tell the jury that your case is not made out.
Mr. WORTLEY.—Your lordship will not give me leave
to move to enter a verdict, and I shall tender a bill of excep-
tions.

The JUDGE.—NO ; because it is not made out.
The jury, under the direction of his lordship, then returned
a verdict for the defendants.

CROWN COURT,

SATURDAY

MANSLAUGHTEF

Thomas Bathels, aged 40, was charged with having, at
West Houghton, killed a boy, named William Woodward.
On the 2nd of January last the prisoner had charze of a cart,
in which he, the deceased, and a boy were riding. The horse
ran off at a gallop, the cart was upset on the top of the three,
and the deceased was killed on the spot. There was no dis-
tinct evidence of carelessness on the part of the prisoner, and
the jury, without requiring the evidence to be summed up,
found a verdict of acquittal.

STABBING

Richard Smith, aged 45, was charged with feloniously
cutting and stabbing Richard Hendley, at Bradshawgate,
near Bedford, in this county. The jury acquitted the pri-
soner.

ASSAULT

Henry Winratn, aged 24, was indicted for having, at Orms-
kirk, in September last, maliciously cut an,: wounded Henry
Worthington, the younger, with intent to do him grievous
bodily harm ; also with having cut and wounded Henry Wor-
thington, the elder. It appeared, that some words had taken
place between the prosecutor and the prisoner's wife, and,
afterwards, with the prisoner himself, who fetched a small
poker and struck the parties named on the head. The judge,
on seeing the weapon, said this could be nothing more than
an assault, at the most; and, as the prisoner had already suf-
fered six months' imprisonment. the jury might find

verdict
Larged.

of acquittal, which they did, and the prisoner was disci'

CARELESS DRIVIN

A decent-looking and remarkably stout man, named Sham,
and a boy, named Joner, were charged with having, at Man-
chester, killed and slain a little boy, eight years old, by
running over him with a spring cart. It appeared that the
child had been attempting to reach an omnibus which was

going in the opposite direction, and that he was run over by
mere accident. His Lordship stopped the case, after hearing
some of the evidence, and directed an acquittal. His Lord-
ship remarked, that coroners ought to be more cautious
in taking evidence in such cases, as it was grievous that par-
ties should suffer imprisonment on a charge so untenable.