The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-04-09 00:00:00

April 9, 1844,

LIVERPOOL SPRING ASSIZES.

CROWN COURT.—TuEsn AY.

(Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN.)
L.,•an Bramhill was acquitted on a charge of having
'oiled and slain Mary Branihill, at Liverpool.
P4iliP And
a Spaniard, was found guilty of the
ip,analaughter of Andrew Davis, at Liverpool, and sen-
tollitroabnesrpt
Lenefll to 12 months' imprisonment.
t William Taylor, found guilty of forgery, was sentenced
osrtiamtiposnonfor 15 years.
pleaded guilty to a charge of misde-
%rout* in falsifying a marriage register.
:arter: ernaa°rrmiaPv,T°ll' with
whom was Mr. Monteith, for the
Pron °n. stated that, in consequence of the many im-
stitu es, marriages which had been productive of
al,.‘loral and social evils. this prosecution had been
*nd by the Rector of Bury, with the concurrence
the support of the Bishop of Chester. It appeared that
orisoner, who lived in Bury, went to Rochdale parish
nrch with his wile, and falsely represented that they
ag
ol;e rec parish of Rochdale, and ta they were both
lull age, whereas they lived in Burhy,t and were under
.There was another indictment against Simpson and his
wife for a felony. Upon this indictment, Mr. MONTEITH
stated to the jury that, on the part of the prosecution, he
7.°314d offer no evidence, and that, under the direction of
41Jordship, they would return a verdict of not guilty.
The prisoner was ordered to pay a fine of 205., and the
uri!__ having been paid, he was discharged.
a'
mp The criminal
Lousiness having here terminated, his lord-
procded

CIVIL CAUSES.
TWINAME AND OTHERS V. SMART AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought by Messrs. Twiname, Max-
well, and others, corn-merchants, of Liverpool, against
Messrs. Smart and Co for the recovery of losses sus-
Md by an alleged breach
of contract.
plaintiff spanW and Mr. Drinkwater appeared for the
fendants. Mr. Martin. and Mr. Cowling for the de-
It appeared that the defendants agreed to send a cargo
of good Burletta wheat, of a specified weight, to Liver-
pool, and that, when it arrived, it was deficient in weight
and inferior in quality, ad not wrth within ss. to 6s.
per quarter of the wheat in question. The defendants
paid into court £159 for the inferiority, and £6l for the
deficiency in weight. The cargo was disposed of ; and
the action was brought for the recovery of a sum of about
1,600, which was the difference between the price ob-
tained and the price at which the cargo was purchase d
naMely, 50s.
...2P per
qua
rer
M. MARTIN contended, for the defence,
the
e,thaptliffe
aasnutiffi-
'.ent sum had been paid into court, and he
.
he enuld
mighret have entered into not cover for the loss
withsustnthede
parties t 0
00wnthroam
`u ct
tn Ye
Wheat had been sold.
ofi a. 3d.
T4heujurireturned a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum

DOBSON V. HOWSLEY.
JoThiS Was an undefended action, brought by the plaintiff,
fohn Dobson, against the defendant, George Howsley,
,ahe recovery of a covenant on a mortgage deed for
fT• A. verdictintere was returned for the plaintiff for the
11'4 amount with st.

ISIAINWARING v. FOSTER AND ANOTHER.
...This
Alexandert..;
was an action brought by the plaintiff, Richard
'Talowaring. against the defendants, John Foster and
Gregor, for the recovery of compensation
14nrAries suffered while in their service.
and libundas and Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff,
actionaPPeared
It r. Watson and Mr. Littledale for the defendants.
that the plaintiff
:cowas brought for the recovery of compensation for
nVound fracture of the leg, which be received by the
boseglent manner in which the defendants conducted their
ine igss The defendants carried business in Bruns-
on
'wick-street, Liverool, as merchants and brokers, in a
eoensiderable way of business, and, in the spring of last
1 r,
d they engaged the plaintiff as a porter, at the rate of
bad 6. a
a uay. Upon the 31st of March, the defendants
~, occasion to remove a quantity of cotton from their
wltl!ar, in Great Howard-street, when four of the bales,
phil.ell had been negligently piled, fell down and broke the
laittiff.'s leg ; and, in consequence of this injury, be was
Up in the Infirmary for four months after.
A Verdict was returned for the plaintiff, damages £35.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—TUESDAY.
The
the cour was occupied the greater part of the day with
cold gcial jury case, Fletcher and another v. Manning
,—a question as to whether a seizure of some
r.PertToerf
Mr. J. B. P. Chapp& of Manchester, under
that pro of attorney by the defendants, and the sale of
and Y after an act of bankruptcy by Mr. Charlie,
after .
zUre and °bee to the sheriff not to sell, was a legal sei-
sale. We have not space to insert the report of
cl7.cas at length. The jury found for the plaintiffs, Mr.
aPPe'B assignees, damages £963.

wo d poken by the
SLANDER.-YATES V. cuFFrrAsYs.
, This was an action for slander, in
defendant of the plaintiff; but the defendant having found
there were no grounds for what he bad stated, was willing
to pay the plaintiff £5O, as indemnifying him for all ex-
penses, at the same time stating, by his counsel, that he
believed the plaintiff to be a re!zpectable man, was fully
convinced there was no truth in what he had sta`ed, and
regretted the injury the plaintiff had suffered in conse-
quence of the words complained of. The plaintiff's coun-
sel expressed his satisfaction with the defendant's apology,
!lid a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, by consent, sub-
l'ttt to the terms stated.
0114 the next case (before a special jury), Aitkin and
_e r
th. v. Slater an others, t question
ch was as to whe-
as'tro
ua.mortgage was d executedunder su circumstances
bant.Decome invalid, by being a fraudulent transfer by a
actio'llPt. to the injury of his creditors. When the court
rued at seven o'clock, this case was not concluded.

lislrLortevii°,,WN COURT.—WEDNESDAY.
tendance
wil:_OocßLEY.—The plaintiff not being in at-
'tl called, a nonsuit was taken.
8L0c,,„
an actj -‘," V. ISHERWOOD.—In this case, which was
the 1 air a debt of £32. 10s., a verdict was which
en for
P alu' SUbject to a reference.
Aik, alPuttoKETts' CLAIM FOR COmmlssloNß.s.
The
plaintiff's AND OTHERS V. FAITH AND OTHERS.—The
Chantsl" in this case, Messrs. James Aikin and Son, mer-_
1.51 and shipbrokers, sought to recover the sum of
parry
• 15s. from the defendants, who belonged to a com-
o called the British Shipping Company, for commis-f
whie',_ au account of effecting a charter for a vessel o
it n the defendants were the owners.
Tao.appeared that in August, 1840, a ship, called the
part, belonging to the defendants, was lying at this
Ml.'" a't a charter effected thereon by plaintiffs
atteaugh Messrs• Chapman, was
Willis, and Co., who acted as
t Ins to the co 'm
aaipiym- the ship was to go on a voyage
.).so Calcutta,-uogg th') a fr.eight belonging to Mr. Gardner
the d ' ° Whom the vessel was shortly afterwards soldtbhy,
tisuaiefendat. The commission on the charter, at
and
althour'lte" X 8 per cent., amounted to £156. 155.,
the ei,r ..a Plaintiffs had made frequent applicationito
baiy; ;ePpdants and
timerotbes they had never been ab e
dew " 'Rim that to' the present. The defendants
_ , led their liability, alleging, tha , as the vessel had been
491 d to Me tee to gars. Boggs, Taylor and Co., they were the par-
sio„ Whom the plaintiffs should look for their commis-
effe-c't and that an agreement had been entered into. to that
froto , bY which they (the defendants) were discharger.
bse:uunenatli responsibility. An offer had, however., berntutbe
Ital., nt Y made, by the defendant, of £7B, leaving half h
of commission, the other half, as stated by them,
Were due to Messrs. Chapman, Willis, and Co., who
Valnt,,i`r,e rititled to it, according to custom, for assisting the
Jntediffs in effecting the charter, but which they had con-
to forego. This was refused by the plaintiffs, who
e_n_.terlded that they were entitled to the whole sum, in the
8t Chapman nstance, a
o. nd they could then settle with Messrs.
and C
The jury found for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed.
DISPUTFD CLAIM.
iVEntcrt. V. PRELIER.—The plaintiff was Mr. G. G.
Weber, and the defendants Messrs. Preller and Prom. -
xnell, both parties extensively engaged in the salt trade, in
Prom-
this tovrn. The action vvas brought to decide whether the
defendants should
tons of salt which hiTt, 68. or 7s. 6d. per ton for 1,
It appeared that aa„-neen sop li d to them.
trttet had ebeen entered into be-
tween the plaintiff and defendants, that the former should
Supply to the latter, at various
1842, to December,
white salt, at the
five,' 1,500 tons of 18tlle3,
market price, but never to exceed
ran
e9es •
bestat fr threeocpmoemriino l
to from
te n December,days' no
~. have the benefit when theprice , that sum, and
d o,
bnetihew defendants to
', otherwise the plaintiffs to sustain the loss. Durinz the
*hole of the ear and until about the 16th of December,
4.33.° Orders Weregiven by the defendants ; hut about hat
Vile. they gave an order for 1,500 tons to be delivered
d.
Pe following week, which had the effect of causing a su e
de rise in the market, and the plaintiff, with considerable
lalattlitY, succeeded in completing the order, though he
4 to Pay 7s. 6d. himselt for every ton supplied. Such
eo4loPly, in so short a space of time, was, it was contended,
relltr:rY to the meaning of the contract. The d'fendant
teaudseti to give
more than 6s. per ton, which, he cson-
of 423 74,,,1 the market price, and had tendered the um
Which ' '4le Pla:ntiff however, sought to recover £550 ss.
was at th •
as the aver e rate of 7s. 6d. per ton, that being alleged
Th. jutage Price at that period.
,t 96 l'i )" found a verdict for the plaintiff
tender's. Bd-, which, in addition to the sum he had
shint„ ed. amounted to £520 25., being at the rate of seven
ulgs per ton nett for ti.e salt supplied.
The 11!tEACH OF TRUST: PRESCOT V. BALL.
Drps Plaintiffs were the Guardians of the P,or of the
my Cf°ot Union, and the defendant Ball had become secu-
4,"erseert. tienrY Longden, who was. appointed ssibti-iiitt
'one, it-I.)f the district of Woolton in 1840. Since tri
aPplyinr",and been discovered that Lonaden had be -n mis-
tqueatlcue money passing throuvh his hands, and, con-
the surety had become liabh su of
albouut:4 elsimed, and a verdict wasle. giTvene form that

.
•erdiet AMGER V. TIMMON.
WWI taken in this case by consent for £3O.

NISI Pli lUS COURT.—WEDNESDAY.
Ato, (Bgfore Mr Baron Rolfe,)
A 'n Pn AT AunuLENT CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY.
14 'll a ..1" OTHERS V SLATER AND OTHERS. i 11,
Ilesda etion (tried before a ,pecial jury, partly heard nad
,IttiY), to recover possession of certain title deeds all
i,p,t, a• which the plaintiffs as the a=signees of a bank •
it'-dmort,an'ed William Hnld,worth, Atkin, Alexandter lle,,re.
•NpE, ',nd Charles Turner • and the rhoend
trtide". Williat SI ' 'I h . Wi'lian"' tin
pe sthen in fl. , -ter and om s
re 4rieNit '. i. L'vertmol. and a gf-ntlennin of the trfrre.tn
t44-ati.,' 4. -nemtor. of the ....MP pbre. The two first de-
batiCkerp trustees under the ►rarti:t<Se s t lemt-tit of
ruPt's wife, arid the question turned upon the