The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-09-03 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT.

-„.....-..
PITTS V. BECKETT AND ANOTHER:—The plaintiff is a
wool merchant in this town, and the defendants carry on
business as wool staplers, at Manchester. The action was
brought to recover the sum of £149, being the value of
certain wool sold to the defendants.

Mr. Knowles, assisted by Mr. Crompton, were for the
plaintiff; and Messrs. Martin and Atherton for the de-
fendants.

The case was stated by Mr. Knowles. In the month
of March, of the present year, the plaintiffs had a quan-
tity of skin wool, which they employed Messrs. Hughes
and. Ronald, brokers, of this town, to sell for them, to
whose office a sample was sent, the bulk of the wool re-
maining with the plaintiff. Shortly after this the plaintiff
met one of the defendants in the street, and spoke to him
on the subject of the wool, and he (defendant) went with
him to the brokers' office, and after examining it, bought
it at a certain price, the sale notes being made out in the
usual way. The wool was received by the defendant on
the 9th of April, but in a day or two after this he sent a
letter to the plaintiff, stating that part of the wool was not
in good condition, and had shrunk in dressing. When
the wool was bought by the defendants, they ought to have
been prepared for such a result, as wool of that kind not
unfrequently shrunk a great deal; only three sheets were
complained of, for which the plaintiffs offered to make a
deduction of 28lbs. ; but this the defendants refused, alle-
ging that the wool was not such as had been stipulated
for, and the bargain ought, consequently, to be rescinded.
To this the plaintiffs could not accede, as the parties had
an opportunity of inspecting it in the bulk, and it was in
good condition when sold : the sale was not made by sam-
ple. and nothing Of that kind was stated in the contract.
Witnesses were then called, who deposed to the sale be-
ing made, and that the wool was in good condition when
sold.

Mr. MAnTiN, on the part of the defendants, said the
only qUestion was whether or not the wool Was in good
condition, according to the terms of the contract. He
should be able to'sli-icv that it was riot in good condition,
and was also* 'deficient in Weight, and consequently the
defenchnts'had'a 'right to reject it.
He nth—Oiled Samuel Spence, a person in the employ
of the'defendants when the wool arrived at their premises.
He stated that on examination it. was found to he out of
condition, and not dry, and, he conceived, in a state unfit
for sale ; the4eight. iVhSalligiLileficient; It was ultimately
sent back

Other witnesse's were called, s ho corroborated the pre-
vious statement, but admitted on cross-examination that

the wool was not inspected until it had been subjected ,
for a period of about twelve hours, to the operation of .a
drying stove.
Mr. Robinson, wool-broker, examined the wool, and
considered it to be in bad condition.

Mr. KNOWLES replied. There were two points which
he would submit to the jury : the first was, whether there
had been an acceptance of the wool by the defendants'
agent.

—The JUDGE.--I shall say there has not.
Mr. KNOWLES.—Then the only question would be as
to the evidence affecting the state of the wool, and from
the statements of the parties called for the plaintiff, he
thought it must be evident, that whe❑ the wool was sold
and delivered to the defendants' agent, it was in good con-
dition.

The jury rettrned a verdict for the defendants. The
plaintiff was granted liberty to move.

ALLEGED IMPROPER RETURN OF THE SHERIFF.
HOWARTH V. GARNETT.
The plaintiff in this case was George Howarth, and the
defendant the late sheriff of the county, Wm. Garnett,
Esq. The action arose out of the issuing forth and direc
tion to the defendant of a writ.
Mr. Atherton conducted the case for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Knowles appeared for the defendant.
The case was stated by Mr. ATHERTON. He believed
it was the first of the kind on record again-t the sheriff.
In July, 1843, the plaintiff was a shopkeeper, carrying on
business in Preston, and had dealings with a person
named Walker, who brought an action against him in the
Court of Common Pleas, for the recovery of a small debt,
and obtained a verdict, the costs amounting to about £l5,
for which a writ of fieri faczas was issued to take his
goods. A warrant was then obtained. The plaintiff sub-
sequently came to Liverpool, and shortly afterwards
found another writ directed against him, at the suit of
Walker, which was followed up by a writ against his per-
son. These cirumstances led to an inquiry, the plaintiff
being anxious to know how it was the two proceedings—
one against his goods, and the other ag.ainst his person—
had arisen, and upon inquiry it was ascertained that the
sheriff had returned to the first writ that the defendant in
that action bad no goods within his bailidom, which was
alleged to be a false return.

Mr. KNOWLES addressed the jury for the defendant,
observing that the case was one of the shabbiest ever
brought into court. He contended that no greater amount
had been distrained on in the first instance than what was
legally due.
The Foreman of the Jury.--We don't believe the evi-
dence for the Plaintiff.
A verdict was accordingly returned for the defendant.
The JUDGE.—It is a very abominable and disgraceful
action.

FIELD V. SWIFT.
A verdict was taken in this case by consent, subject to
a reference.
The Court rose at twenty minutes past six.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-TITURSDAY.
BOUSLEY V. BATTERSBY.

This was an action for goods sold and delivered, and on
an account stated. The plaintiff was a tradesman carry-
ing on business as a de,,ler in building materials, and the
defendant a person not in any business, but having to do
with speculating in land and houses. In September, last
year, a person named Alexander Battersby applied to the
plaintiff for a supply of bricks, which were furnished on
the understanding that the defendant, who knew Alex.
Battersby, would become responsible. Bricks to the
amount of £127 had been supplied in the first instance,
£4O of which had been paid ; but the defendant denied
his liability as to the remainder, leaving £B7 Is. unpaid,
which was the amount sought to be recovered. There
was a second order, amounting to £174 155., but that
had been liquidated.
After some discussion on the part of the learned coun-
sel, a verdict was taken by consent for the plaintiff for
£5O.

DE WOLF AND ANOTHER V. BEVAN AND ANOTHER.

The plaintiffs in this case were the assignees of persons
carrying on business in this town under the firm of
Nl'Leod, Wood, and Co., who had become bankrupts,
and the defendants wine and spirit merchants of this town.
The object of the plaintiffs was to recover the sum of £BO,
being the value of some brandies which they alleged were
the property of the bankrupts at the time of tneir bank-
ruptcy, and consequently became the property of the as-
signees. The case (which had been tried at the last as-
sizes) occupied the Court for a considerable time, and
was not of any public interest. The facts were exceed-
ingly short. It appeared that, in 1842, five puncheons
of brandy were purchased by M`Leod, Wood, and Co.,
from Messrs. Falk Brothers, who were said to be in fact
the real defendants in the action. Subsequently, how-
ever, M`Leod, Wood, and Co. got into difficulties, and
Falk Brothers stopped the brandy in transitu, in conse-
quence of the non-payment of a bill which had been ac-
cepted by the bankrupts. An application was then made
by the plaintiffs to Messrs. Bevan and Co., in whose
vaults the brandy was lying, requesting them to give up
possession of the goods, they (the plaintiffs) alleging that
as the assignees of the bankrupts they were entitled to
them. The defendants persisted in their refusal, on the
ground that the brandy had been retained by Falk Bro-
thers, as a lien on the bill above named, and was conse-
quently their property. The question was whether or not
the defendants were justified in the course they had
adopted.
A document, entitled a 1 tter of license, formed a very
prominent feature in the case, as it contained the signa-
tures of various creditors of Messrs. M'Leod, Wood, and
Co. amongst which was the firm of Falk Brothers, said
to have been written by Mr. Robert Falk in the presence
of the bankrupts. Mr. Falk, however, denied the genu-
ineness of the signatut e, and said it was merely a clumsy
imitation.
The jury found a verdict for the defendants.

CHARGE OF NEGLIGENCE AGAINST A PILOT.
GAWNE AND ANOTHER V. LEWIS.
The plaintiffs in this case were Messrs. Edward Gawne
and Co., owners of the Queen of the Isle steamer, and
the defendant a licensed pilot of this port. The action
was for damage dine to that vessel by the negligent ma-
nagement of a ship under the command of the defendant.
The damages were laid at £39 12s. 6d.
Messrs. Martin and Cardwell were for the plaintiff;
and Mr. Sergeant Murphy and Mr. Aspinall for the de-
fendant.
Mr. MAnTlN.stated the case. On the 25th of August
last year, the Queen of the Isle steamer was lying at an-
chor in her usual position, opposite the baths at George's
Pier, taking in coals. It was about nine in the evening,
and rather dark ; a light was, however, placed in the
usual way at the mast-head. The defendant Lewis, who
had charge of a vessel called the George Canning, was
coming up the river with the view of getting into one of
the upper docks, and there was at the time.very little
wind; the tide was also running rapidly, being about two
hours before flood. The man on the look-our, on board
the steamer, saw the vessel coming up, and, fearing a
collision, hailed her, but no answer was returned, and the
result was that she came in contact with the steamer,
side on, carrying away her figure-head and bowsprit, and
doing other damage. He (the learned counsel) consi-
dered the injury was occasioned by the negligence of the
defendant, as he was in a part of the river not usually
resorted to by vessels of that size, there being, at the
dine, abundance of room, if he hr.d chosen to avail him-
self of it.

Mr. Sergeant Mus.Priv addressed the jury for the de-
fendant. He contended that a proper look-out had not
been kept by the,parties on board the steamer; and with
respect to the defendant's vessel being out of her course,
he should be able to show that such was not the case; he
(the defendant) had intended to anchor for the night near
where the collision took place, so as to take advantage of
the morning's tide; and enter the King's Dock. . The
plaintiffs had been contributary to th-t damage, and con-
sequently could not recover. The learned gentleman
concluded by calling witnesses.
James ltowbottom, a boatman, who boarded the George
Canning 'n the river, stated, that the crew were on deck,
and the steamer was hailed. He did not observe any
light, and it was not perceptible whether she was a
steamer or anything else. The pilot let go the anchor
when about half a cable's length from the Queen, but the
anchor dragged, and they called out immediately for them
to port the helm, which not being attended to by the par-
ties on board the steamer, was the cause of the collision.

Several other witnesses were called who gave similar
testimony ; and Mr. Cook, inspector of pilots, deposed
that the place where the George Canning was about to
cast anchor, would be considered a proper position under
the circumstances.

Mr. MARTIN replied, to the effect that the evidence
produced for the defendant had utterly failed. It had
been proved beyond a doubt that his clients had been
injured• by the defendant's negligence, and were vonne-
quently entitled to a verdict for damages.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages,
X 39 12s. 6d.

The Court adjourned shortly after seven o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-FRIDAY.
WHARTON V. WRIGHT.

" This was an action brouzlit by the plaintiff, - Joseph
Wharton, against the defendant, Joseph Wright, to re-
cover the amount of six bills of exchange, four of which
were endorsed by the defendant, and for which it was
alleged he was liable. The defendant denied his liability.

Mr. James and Mr. Atherton appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Martin for the defendant.

It appeared from the statement of counsel, and the evi-
dence of the various witnesses, that the defendant, at the
time of the transactions, when the bills were given, occu-
pied the Brunswick Hotel, in this town, but had since
gone to reside in Northamptonshire. His brother, Wrn.
Wright, occupied the Brunswick previously, and in 1338
an arrangement was made between them whereby the
defendant became the occupier. The plaintiff, a gentle-
man now out of business, was intimately acquainted with
them, and for the yurpose of assisting the defendant to
carry on business, procured credit for him, and became
entrantee for the supply of liquors to the house. Some of
the bills bad arisen out of those transactions, and the only
defence consisted of a denial of the handwriting.
The jury found a yerdict for plaintiff for £26 18s.
FERIMAN V. BARNES.

This was an actioninougl;t bytheplaintiff, James Fe-
rigan, against the defendant, Robert Barnes, for the reco-
very of the amount of a bill of exchange for £5O. The
defendant pleaded that he had not accepted, that it was
endorsed after it became due, and he denied the first and
second endorsements.
Mr. Sergeant Murphy and Mr. Crompton appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. James for the defendant.
A verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the full
amount.
TYRER AND ANOTHER V. ELLISON.
This was an undefended action, brought by Messrs.
Tyrer and Lever, carriers on the Leeds and Liverpool
Canal, and bran-dealers, to recover a sum of £ll3 for
bran sold and delivered by them to the defendant, Mr.
Ellison, a miller and dour-dealer, near Blackburn.
A verdict was returned for. the plaintiff for the full
amount.