The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-09-01 00:00:00

CHARGE OF PERJURY

On the application of Mr. Sowler, the case of Knowles
and Barlow, against whom there was an indictment for
perjury at Bolton, was postponed to the next Assizes, and
the recognizances enlarged.
This was the close of the Crown Court business.
NISI PRIUS COURT.—THURSDAY.
THE SPECIAL JURY CASES.

ORMEROD AND OTHERS V. THOMPSON AND OTHERS.
Abraham, William, and Peter Ormerod were the plain-
tiffs; William and Richard Thompson, and William Sut-
cliffe were the defendants. The plaintiffs were extensive
cotton manufacturers at Todmorden, on the borders of
Yorkshire, and the defendants were corn-millers in the
same neighbourhood. The action was brought for the
purpose of obtaining damages from the defendants for an
alleged injury to a water-course, the effect of which was
to throw the plaintiffs' wheel into back water. The plain-
tiffs occupied a mill called " Buckley's Mill," and the
defendants occupied " Stansfield's Mill," both situated
on the Calder river, or as it is sometimes called, Todmor-
den water. The mill of the defendants is higher up the
river than that of the plaintiffs. The injuries complained
of were, the raising of a weir, the improper cutting off of
a waste water-weir, and the putting down of flood-stones,
all of which acts prevented the water from running away
from the tail goit attached to plaintiffs' mill. After the
examination of the first witness, it was agreed to refer the

CHEMICAL NUISANCE.—JACKSON V. BLAIR.
The plaintiff was James Jackson. and the defendant
Harrison Blair. The action was brought to recover da-
mages for an alleged injury done to the property of the
plaintiff by an alkali works cart ied on by the t'efendant,
at Kearsley, near Bolton. The property in question was
inherited by the plaintiff from his grandfather. It con-
sisted of a house, outbuildings, and forty acres of land.
The case set up for the pl,intiff was, that before the erec.
tion of defendant's works, the house in question was sur-
rounded with an orchard, a plantation, and tLe fields with
quick set hedges. That the vapour which escaped from
the works shrivelled up the hedges, prevented the grass
and vegetable substances from growing, and destroyed the
water of a well which supplied the property for domestic
purposes. That not a fish was now to be found in the
water, although it formerly abounded with them ; and not
a fly or insect of any sort was to be seen on its banks.
That the property had, in fact, been converted f. orn a very
pleasant country residence into a perfect desert. The
defence was that injury to the property bad been produced
many years since, and that there were other works in the
neighbourhood that were equally deleterious with those of
the defendant. The jury after a few minutes' considera-
tion found for the plaintiff. Damages, £lO.

BREACH OF CONTRACT,

SMITH V. FISHER AND ANOTHER,

In this ctte Henry Smith was plaintiff, and Henry
Fisher and Nicholas Fearon defendants. The plaintiff is
in the office of Messrs. Rawdon Brothers, and also trades
on his own account as a merchant in this town. The ac-
tion was brought to recover a sum of money, the differ-
ence between the sale and re-sale of 64 tons of guano,
sold b) plaintiff to defendant in the month of March, of
this year. The defendants were dealers in guano, and
bought from Mr. W. W. Smith, the brother of plaintiff
and his broker, the guano in question. The contract, as
entered in the broker's book was as follows :—" Liver-
pool, 10th March, 1846. Sold Fisher and Fearon, about
50 tons of guano, at £6 per ton, payment fourteen days;
2i off; warehouse to be cleared in two months." The
guano had not been weighed, but the defendant, it was al-
leged, agreed to take the lot, which, it was supposed,
would not much exceed 50 tons. The defendants having
failed to take the guano, it was re-sold by auction, and
the action was brought for the loss on the re-sale. The
jury found for the plaintiffs. Damages, £l6l.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-FRIDAY.
ALLEGED TRESPASS BY A RAILWAY COMPANY

JOHN GREY AND WILLIAM GREY V. THE LIVERPOOL

AND BURY RAILWAY COMPANY

This action was brought by an order of the Lord Chan-
cellor, for the purpose of procuring facts upon which to
found a case for the opinion of the Court of Common
Pleas, upon the question in dispute between the parties.
It appeared that in 1844, a plan was originated for the
formation of a line of railway from Liverpool to Bury,
and in the parliamentary plan and books of reference, the
line marked out proposed to pass directly across the pre-
mises and certain of the buildings and cottages adjacent
to the mills of the plaintiffs. Messrs. Gray opposed the
proposed line before the committee of the House of
Commons, and a clause was eventually inserted in the
company's act, the construction and meaning of which
formed the only point in dispute between the parties.
By th s, the 92,i clause, the company were restricted from
passing, in their line of railway, nearer "to the mills,
lands, and buildings of which the plaintiffs are the owners
and Occupiers, than the south-east end of Lever Bridge,
as delineated upon the plans." They had, however, it
was alleged, infringed upon this clause, by cutting their
line through a part of the lands of the plaintiffs without
their consent, and upon this point issue was joined. The
defendants, by their counsel. Mr. Martin, urged that the
restriction created by the 92d clause of the company's act
eiri not apply to the field in question, which had been
marked out in the parliamentary plan and nooks of refer.
ence, and was within the limits of deviation directed by
the 15th section of the general consolidation act. They
also contended that the p'aintiffs7were not the "owners
and occupiers," but merely the " lessees and occupiers,"
or the land in dispute, and consequently, that the clause
ref:-tired to was not intended to apply to this property.
The whole of the facts having been agreed upon, a verdict
was entered for the plaintiffs, by consent, subject to a
case.

DISPUTED BREACH OF COVENANT

WATER WORKS COMPANY V. JOHN WILLIAMS,

Mr. Knowles, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Crompton were
counsel for the Waintiffs, the proprietors of the Liverpool
rind Harrington Water Works; and Mr. Watson, Mr.
Atherton, and Mr. Unthank, conducted the case for the
defendant. a banker at Liverpool, and representative of
the llawarden Iron Company. This was an action to re-
cover damages for an alleged breach of covenant in the
construction of an iron cistern. It appeared that in the
course of the year 1845. the defendant contracted to fur-
nishto
a cistern to the plaintiffs, capable of containing two
hundred thousand gallons of wilier. with proper stays,
}iosprke mightars li,so(o,:r,a
&c. and to uphold anct maintain it in good order for twelve
mouths after its erection. He also covenanted to be an-
swerable tot any
g,pirllpeoorspcss,:piieeocirtrotcyrdi
s:at,demour
or
gi.
ntehgv iawcwti
iattilliseeautelir%eit:im'll:ffbn'A;r(e))Yutlr,io2init'3o should be pai It d
for the tank, and the
plaintiff, bound themselves to provide a firrn and subatan.
felindatinn of stone and brick pillar, nine feet above
tie level of the yard, on which the cistern was to be
placed. The plates for the tank were made at the foundry
Flintsbire, and sent to Liverpool to be hut together,
the defendant or his agents furnishing their own workmen
;o complete is erection, under the superintendence of a
men named Wain, who was also in their employ. 0,,
the
pr
apirici•tsieffn,ttatt rf
hat the
eWain as stated
cistern
, m..s r
ebay the
d ytor witnesseseceive the
'whaeter end vvrs completed, and it was agreed that it should
at once be filled, and Christmas-day in the last year was
appour r • t d for that purpose. At ten o'clock on the morn-
• 'ng of that de,y, the work was commenced, and at one
o'clock, when the workmen left the place for refreshment,
the tank was s'ated to be about two-thirds full; at
this time the pressure of the water on the cistern at
the top was. about thirty•one-and-a-quarter pounds for