The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-04-18 00:00:00

CONSPIRACY,

William Hardy was charged with a conspiracy at Roch-
dale, in order to prefer a charge of larceny against a person
named Hopwood, since deceased. The case, however, broke
dow❑ on the first witness being called, and a verdict of not
guilty was recorded.

This closed the criminal business of the Assizes, and the
court rose at a quarter to eight o'clock.

NISI PRIUS C OURT-SATURDAY

DEMURRER : ANDREWS V. OWENS.—This was an action
on promises, to the pleas in which, on the part of the de-
fendant, the plaintiff demurred. The demurrer was argued
this morning, by Mr. Crompton and Mr. Ramshay, who ap-
peared for the respective parties. It was entirely of a techni-
cal character; and, in the end, the learned Judge took time
to consider his decision.

BUS/NESS OF THE ASSIZE.—The JUDGE asked the gen-
tlemen of the bar who were present what cases could go over
to Mr. Baron Parke, in the other court, who would be able to
try them in the course of the day. lie mentioned this so
early in order that some arrangement might be made.
Mr. KNowLss said he was afraid that no satisfactory ar-
rangement could be made with respect to the cases remaining
to be tried.
The JUDGE replied that he must then make arrangement.
The fact was that term had begun, and here they were sitting
on the first day in Liverpool. It was true that the opening
of term had been postponed ; but, at the same time, the
paper must be got through as soon as possible. A line
would be drawn upon the cause list, all the cases below which
would be tried before Mr. Baron Parke.
Thr subject then dropped, without any definite arrange-
ment being either suggested or made.

REPLEVIN : WIGAN v. BoNn.--The declaration in this
case was in replevin, in which the plaintiff, William Wigan,
complained of the defendant, John Bond, for having wrong-
fully taken certain goods and materials from premises in his
occupation. The case for the plaintiff was conducted by Mr.
James and Mr. Drinkwater ; Mr. Watson and Mr. Cardwell
appeared for the defendant.

Owing to the form of the action, the defendant had the right
ofcommencing, and it appeared, that the plaintiff is a beerseller,
at Wigan, and the defendant a tinplate-worker, in the same
place. The defendant caused a distraint to be made upon
plaintiff's effects for a year and half's rent, amounting to £2l.
The plaintiff denied that he was the defendant's tenant in
the manner and form set forth, and a long and uninteresting
trial of that question followed.
The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

CROSS ACTIONS ON DISPUTED CLAIMS.
KERR v. LAFFER.—The plaintiff in this case is Alexander
Kerr, and the defendant Henry Latter. The declaration was
for wages for work and labour done, for commission money,
and on an account stated. The defendant pleaded that he
was never liable to certain payments, and a set off for money
alleged to be due to him rrorn the plaintiff. Mr. Baines,
with whom was Mr. Cowling, appeared for the plaintiff;
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton for the defendant. The
plaintiff, it appeared, went out to the coast of Africa in a
vessel belonging to the defendant, called the Mary, on board
of which he acted as captain and supercargo, to bring back
palm oil. He was to receive £5 per month, and £4 per cent.
commission on the returns of palm oil which he brought
home ; and the action was brought to recover the balance of
the account. After the case had been partly opened by Mr.
Baines,
Mr. KNOWLES, on the part of the defendant, proposed
that this and the following case of Laffer v. Kerr should be
referred.

After some private discussion, it waa agreed that all the
matters in difference should be referred.

ASSAULT.
FROSTE v. CIIALONER.—This was an action to recover
damages for an assault. The parties belong to Liverpool,
and are well known on 'Change. Mr. Wortley appeared for
the plaintiff; and Mr. Knowles for the defendant.
After some consultation between the parties,
Mr. WORTLEY said he had the honour to appear on behalf
of Mr. Froste, the plaintiff, who had brought this action
against the defendant for an assault committed upon him by
the defendant, an indignity to which Mr. Froste could not
submit. His first impulse was to take the course which was
very ordinary, but, perhaps, blameable, in the class of society
to which he belonged. He was, however, persuaded by his
friends to abandon that course, and appeal to the laws of the
country. He had brought this action merely for the purpose
of vindicating his own character; and he (Mr. Wortley) now
understood, from an intimation that he had received, that
his learned friend, Mr. Knowles, was willing, on the part of
the defendant, to offer an apology for the indignity offered to
Mr. Froste. If that apology on the part of his learned friend
was satisfactory to him, the learned Judge and the Jury
would he spared the trouble of proceeding with the case.
Mr. KNOWLES said be had the honour to appear for the
defendant, Mr. Chaloner, who, like the plaintiff, was a highly
respectable gentleman in this town, and who was now ready
to do all which a gentleman ought to do who had oflered an
insult to another. Mr. Chaloner, therefore, authorised him
(Mr. Knowles) to apologise to Mr. Froste for the blow he
had struck under circumstances of provocation. lie (Mr. K.)
though it right on behalf of Mr. Chaloner to say this, that
to the feelings that
the very moment after he had given way
doneof co course he es
and,
da
tnhoeroebfjo'erce:
led to the assault, he sent a friend to the plaintiff to make
the most unqualified apology. Having then done what the
gentlemanno w
which
he prompted,ha
tfeioenlintogs doof thata
he had authorised him (Mr. Knowles) to l apo ogise to Mr.
Froste for the injury which he had done to his feel Mr. Wortmey said, that under these
could only add that the plaintiff, after the circumstances,
he
suffered, considered a private apology insumcienindignity he had
After the
public apology offered by his learned friend, hos4v willing to consent to a verdict for the plaintiff for
er, he was
A verdict was then entered for the plaintiff. Damages 40s.
BIRD AND OTHERS, ASSIGNEES, V. BASS AND ETHERS.
David plaintiffs are the assignees of the estate and effects David Robertson, of this town, and they brought the •of
against the defendants to recover the sum of £lBO,
the action
ceeds of certain property belonging to the bankrupt which
they seized in execution on the 26th January last.

ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT.
ATKINSON AND OTHERS V. BLAKE AND OTHERS.—It
was alleged in the declaration of this case, that the defend-
ants had contracted with the plaintiffs to furnish them, at a
certain price, with 12,000 boxes of soap of a quality which
should be fit for the Jamaica market; but they had, instead
of sending soap of that quality, sent an inferior article,
whereby the plaintiffs had been damaged.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cowling represented the plaintiffs ;
Mr. Baines and Mr. Drinkwater the defendants.
The plaintiffs were merchants in the island of Jamaica, and
and in May, 1840, they made the contract refer' ed to, through
their agents in Liverpool, Messrs. Baring Brothers. The
defendants are soap manufacturers in this town. The evi-
dence, which was particularly uninteresting, related to the
quality of the soap shipped, from which it appeared that a
large portion of the boxes forwarded were unfit for the market.
The damage sustained by this part of the shipment was stated
to be between £3OO and £4OO. The plaintiffs had cancelled
the other part of the contract.

For the defendant a number of persons were called, who
stated, generally, that they were the parties who had made
the soap, and that the samples produced, which were said to
have been brought from Jamaica, were not the same which
had been sent out. The soap sent was fit for the Jamaica
market.

Mr. KNOWLES, in his reply, made some strong comments
on the effort to prove fraud against the plaintiffs, who, he re-
peated, were highly respectable men.
The trial lasted several hours, and it terminated by the
jury returning a verdict for the plaintiffs. Damages £l-100,
costs Os.
The Court rose at ten o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT—MoNDAY.

COLLISION

DAwnEn V. SHAND.—The plaintiff in this case is Mr.
James Dawber and the defendant Mr. Wm. Shand. The
declaration stated that the plaintiff was possessed of a gig,
and the defendant of a coach or carriage; and that the de-
fendant's servant had driven the carriage so negligently that
the plaintiff's gig was thereby injured. The defendant merely
pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Martin conducted the plaintiff's
case; Mr. Baines appeared for the defendant.
Mr. KNOWLES, i❑ stating the case to the jury, said the
plaintiff was a veterinary surgeon, residing in Liverpool, and
the defendant was a merchant in this town, of great respect-
ability, whose private residence was at Allerton. The action
arose out of a collision, on the 27th of June last, between a
gig which the plaintiff was driving, and Mr. Shand's carriage,
which was proceeding in a contrary direction. The plaintiff
was on his way from Liverpool to Allerton, on professional
business, and on the road there was a sharp turn which re-
quired care in passing. The person who was driving was
proceeding at an ordinary pace, a trot, and just before he ar-
rived at the corner he was met by the defendant's carriage,
which was going towards Liverpool. At that moment the
plaintiff was driving on the left hand side, and almost close to
the parapet; the carriage was being driven at a brisk rate,
and, instead of being on the other side of the road, as it
ought, it was very near the right. The two vehicles, conse-
quently, were very nearly opposite to each other. The de-
fendant's coachman, seeing the approaching danger, endea-
voured, as much as possible, to avoid a collision, and he par-
tially succeeded, but the hind wheel of the carriage caught
the gig, which was thereby upset, the shaft broken, and the
plaintiff's servant thrown out. Two ladies were in the de-
fendant's carriage, who apologised to the plaintiff for the ac-
cident, hoped he was not hurt, and drove on. As soon as
the plaintiff found out to whom the carriage belonged, he
wrote the following letter to him :

" June 29.
" presume you heard of the serious damage done
to my gig and harness; through the negligence of your coach-
man ; and I should feel obliged by your coming to my sta-
bles in Basnett-street to see the same, when I am sure you
will at once give directions to have them repaired."
To this letter the defendant sent the following reply :
" SIR,—I have received your note of the 29th instant, and
am glad to find you consider yourself responsible for the da-
mage done to my carriage by the frross negligence of the
person whom you have entrusted. You' may see the damage
by calling at my stables, and you may give the necessary di-
rections to have them repaired as soon as you please."
(Great laughter.) He (Mr. Knowles) did not know whether
Mr. Shand was generally in a facetious humour, but he hoped
he would pay for the damage, which, by the negligence of
his servant, the plaintiff had sustained ; and then he might
enjoy his jokes as long as he pleased. The sum claimed for
the damage to the gig was £5 19s. 6d.
Witnesses, who observed the accident from a field adjoin-
ing. the road, were then called, and their evidence supported
the statement of the learned counsel. One of them stated,
that the mare in the plaintiff's
gig was as quiet as a lamb,
and might have been held by a thread.
Mr. BAINES then addressed the jury for the defendant,
and said he should prove that the mare in the plaintiff's gig
was wholly unfit to be driven, she never having been broken
and her mouth being unformed ; that shortly before the ac-
cident he was driving in a furious and careless manner, with
a loose rein, and that at the time the vehicles met, the plain-
tiff, perhaps unwittingly, pulled the wrong rein, and thereby
the accident took place. He contended that it had been
clearly proved, by the plaintiff's own witnesses, that the
horses had passed each other, without coming into contact,
and that it was the vehicles which had struck each other ;
whereas if the carriage had been on the wrong side, the
horses must have first been in collision.
Witnesses were then called ; at the end of which the jury
said they would not trouble Mr. Knowles to reply, as they
were prepared to give their verdict for the plaintiff. A ver-
dict was then returned for the plaintiff,
damages £5 19s 6d.

ANSDELL v. IeCORMICK.
The plaintiff is an attorney in Liverpool, and the action,
which was undefended, was brought to recover £39 14s Ild,
the amount of a bill of costs. Verdict for the plaintiff for the
amount claimed.

ACTION AGAINST A TRUSTEE.
OGDEN AND OTHER ASSIGNEES V. STONE.—This was an
action brought by Wm. H. Ogden, and Henry Wood, assig-
nees of William Robinson, an insolvent, against George
Stone. The declaration stated that the defendant was in-
debted to the plaintiffs for money lent, and upon an account
stated. The defendant pleaded that he was not liable.
4 Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cowling were counsel for the plain-
tiffs ; Mr. Baines and Mr. Martin for the defendant.
Mr. KNOWLES said the defendant was an attorney in this
town, and he had to allege against him that he had received
a sum of upwards of £BOO, which under the circumstances he
was not entitled to keep. The action was brought by the
assignees of the estate of Robinson ; and the sum in question
was the whole property of the man, so that if Mr. Stone was
entitled to retain it, there would not be a farthing left for the
general body of creditors. The question for the jury would be
whether the mode in which the £BOO in dispute had been
paid to the defendant was not a fraudulent preference. Mr.
Robinson was a shipwright, in Norfolk-street, near the
Queen's Dock, and, apparently, he did a good business, for
he employed, sometimes as many as twenty men and boys.
Between March, 1841, when he commenced business, and
the time when he ceased, about the end of the year, he got
into debt to the amount of £llOO, an amount quite independ-
ent of the debt, or the pretended debt, which it was said he
owed to Mr. Stone. In November he took the benefit of
the Insolvent Act ; and it was about then discovered that,
on the 25th of October. he had paid a sum of £872 to Mr.
Stone. It was said that Mr. Stone had lent him this money,
which was settled upon his wife, and he (Robinson) had paid
this money back to him ; now he (Mr. Knowles) should be
able to establish that this payment was voluntarily paid by
Robinson, and under circumstances which rendered it in-
valid according to the provisions of the Insolvent Act ; in
otherwords, that it was a fraudulent preference. The learned
counsel then detailed the circumstances which appear in evi-
dence ; and called the following witnesses :
William Eden was the first called. He said lam an an-
chor-smith, and was formerly in the employ of Robinson,
whose works were near the docks. He commenced business
in March, 1841. He had a smithy there. I was his manager
and bookkeeper. I know the defendant Mr. Stone : lie is a
solicitor. In September, 1841, Mr. Furness's clerk called
two or three times to demand payment of a bill of from £lOO
to £l2O. There were many creditors, Mr. Gregson, Messrs.
Ashton and Naylor, and others who called often, some of
them two or three times a day. They continued calling till
the latter end of October. After the Bth of October Robin-
son wholly absented himself from the place, and I had to
meet him at different public-houses. About that time I
went many times to Mr. Stone's office, where I saw Robin-
son and Mr. Stone's brother. There were messages left
there for me where to meet Robinson. I remember a
Dutch vessel wanting a chain-cable. I went to Mr.
Wood's for it, and Mr. Wood objected to send it until
they 'sad seen Robinson, as the midsummer account was
not settled. I went to Robinson about the promised
payment on the 9th October; this was on the 7th. Robin-
son wished me to ask the captain for the money the day
after, but I did not like to ask him for the money so soon,
and I raised the money myself. The captain paid me the
money the week following. On the evening of the Bth I went
to the Earl Grey, public-house, to meet Robinson, to take
the money, along with other monies, to him. I had £3O or
£4O. The Earl Grey is nearly two miles from the works.
Mr. Robinson seemed much pleased with What I had brought
him, and he told me he wanted to realize a sum of money as
quickly as possible to pay Mr. Stone, who was one of the
trustees under a deed of settlement for £BOO, which he had
made to his wife; he said the creditors had began to be so
infernally bothersome that he should not come much more
near the place, for one of them, Mr. Keeler, had waited at
his house the night before till eleven o clock to see him, and
he would take care not to be so caught again. This was all that
men having nothing to do ; he said,
passed on this occasion. Previous, to this, about the latter
end of September, I asked Robinson to allow the blockma-
stockn, don',t want any ; I will give
kers to make a little stock for sale, as the foreman had cool-
14tia of. October, when he sent for
at an eating-house in Cable-street.
y,p,01 aNuil
oai e
;dr
reason
never
nmr
for
rionfdt
that
altihtetehbey a .
into a public-house adjoining, kept
d bye. ' The next meeting I
me
ed
twnitdhinheimwwitahs on the
he said to me there, " I want to have a
little serious conversation with
byAfter one A dinneridre wwse, andwent
_
you ; I wish you to be secret. '
I told him if it was of consequence I would rather not hear
it. lie considered a few moments, and. then said, " You may
as well hear it now, as you must ultraaately hear it: I have
given a bill for £lOO to Messrs. Mather and Co. which will
fall due in a few days, but I do not intend to take it up, for
it will be as much as I can do to realize the amount wanted
for Stone." I then asked him what he intended to do ? I
told him there was a large amount owing by Messrs. Grote
to accept bills for that amount, and they are now In mY
and liatchett, and Hemingway ; he said, " I have got them

mtkir,,Mottlei sod IV, WAteati iqeohrld for Oa 04406
"d Me, C1'i)01114)14 toi• tilt; doioNtalitz,
On the part of the plaintiff's it appeared, that Mr. Lobart..
son had been for some in Insolvent circumstances, and, it
being expected that' an execution would issue against his
effects at the suit; of the defendants, it was considered pru-
dent by the plaintiffs and other creditors that a fiat in bank-
ruptcy should be issued. Mr. Watson, attorney, was in-
structed to take this step. On Saturday, the 21st January,
he proceeded to London for this purpose, and, on the fol-
lowing Monday, the 23d, the fiat was struck. The act of
bankruptcy was a notice by Robertson, under the act of last
session, dated on the 21st. On the evening of the 23d Mr.
Watson wrote from London to the solicitors of the defend-
ants, Messrs. Stockley and Thompson, giving them notice
that the fiat had been issued, and requiring them not to pro-
ceed with the execution and levy on the effects in the defend-
ant's house, No. 3, Northumberland-terrace, Everton.
Messrs. Stockley and Thompson have a box in the Postoffice,
into which the letter was put at the usual period after the
arrival of the London mail. It was fetched from thence, by
whom did not appear, and taken to their office, iu Castle-
street, and it was contended that this was sufficient notice
of the existence of the fiat. In the meantime, time having
been previously granted to Mr. Robertson, the execution pro-
ceeded. In support of this part of the case it was shown that
Dry, the officer, and an assistant went to the house for the
purpose of making the seizure. The assistant remained on
the premises, and the servant girl who admitted him said that
this took place at twenty minutes past ten. On the morning
in question it was shown that Mr. Stockley arrived at the
office before his partner ; that he lived at Rock Ferry, which
he left by the boat leaving there at half-paSt nine ; and the
plaintiffs insisted that the boat wouid arrive at George's Pier
at a quarter before ten, and that he would arrive at the office
and read the letter before ten o'clock, in time to prevent the
execution proceeding. It would take twenty-three minutes
to walk from their office to No. 3, Northumberland-terrace.
Evidence was produced to this effect.
Mr. WORTLEY then replied, contending, from the facts
adduced by the plaintiffs themselves, that it was clear the ex-
ecution was in the house for some period before it was possi-
ble that Mr. Stockley could have read the letter.
The jury, after an hour's consideration, returned a verdict
for the defendants.