The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-04-04 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

" Dog and Partridge" public-house, and a surgeon was
sent for, who found several contusions on his head. Every
measure was adopted that medical skill could devise, but
in vain; for the poor old man died next morning. When
he was •first discovered, a cart-prop (a fixture of a cart)
was found lying near, with marks upon it, which led to
the conclusion that it had been forcibly wrenched from its
place. At the instant before he heard Kay come up, he
heard a gate slam ; but when he arrived at the place, no
one but the old man was near. An examination of the
ground was entered upon, and several footmarks were dis-
covered. In these footmarks a number of peculiar inden-
tions were seen. These exactly corresponded with those
on the prisoner's boots. The number of nails were the
same, and also an indention in the heel (a sod had been
cut out at the time, and was produced in court.) From
this, and several other concomitant circumstances, such as
threats which he had been heard to utter against Duck-
worth, before the unhappy occurrence, the prisoner at the
bar had been committed by the coroner's jury. John
Leitch, a surveyor of the roads in the neighbourhood of
Heywood, had heard the prisoner, a short time before the
catastrophe, complain that Duckworth had meddled a
great deal too much in his (Tetlow's) affairs, and at the
same time he threatened he would lay in wait for him
some dark night, and knock his brains out with a stick."
A number of witnesses were called in support of these al-
legations. Mr. Beswick. a cart-owner, deposed that he
left his cart outside the " Dog and Partridge on the
evening in question, and having occasion on the 2oth to
use it, he found it minus a prop (the same as the one
found).

After the examination of several witnesses, the prisoner
was found guilty of manslaughter, and sentenced to 15
years' transportation.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-FRIDAY.
HOLT AND ANOTHER V. FLINTOFF AND OTHERS

Mr. Knowles, with Messrs. Crompton and Tomlinson,
appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Martin, Mr. Cowling
and Mr. Hugh Hill for the defendants.
Mr. KNOWLES stated the case to the jury. This was
an action brought for the purpose of recovering the value
of a quantity of machinery and goods which were seized
by the defendants in the month of November or Decem-
ber last, they assuming to act as the assignees of a bank-
rupt named Kershaw. The plaintiffs are wool-staplers at
Rochdale, trading under the firm of William Holt and
Son, and they had trading transactions with a Mr. Ker-
shaw, at Featherstone, near Littleborough, in this county,
who became indebted to the plaintiffs in a_considerable
amount. On the 6th of July last year the plaintiffs reco-
vered a judgment against Kershaw sufficient to cover the
amount of their debt. The amount not being paid on the
4th of November, they obtained an execution against the
goods of Mr. Kershaw, and on the 6th of November a
mandate and warrant to levy £lBO9 and certain costs were
issued and given to a sheriff's officer, who proceeded to
the mill of Kershaw, and seized the machinery and furni-
ture under the execution. He did not seize all the pro-
perty in the mill, his seizure being limited to such quan-
tity as he thought would cover the amount named in the
warrant and immediately after the seizure a valuation
was made of the amount at which the property was va-
lued. In this country it was of very little use to make a
seizure under an execution, unless some steps were taken
to realize the property ; and, in nineteen cases out of
twenty, it was usual for an execution creditor to obtain an
assignment of the goods from the sheriff, and when that
was done the goods could not be overreached by a fiat in
bankruptcy. In this case, immediately after the seizure
and valuation, an assignment from the sheriff to the plain-
tiffs was prepared and executed, and sealed by Mr. Scarr,
a clerk to the sheriff; and a formal delivery of the furni-
ture and part of the machinery was made to the plaintiffs.
Immediately afterwards written notices were posted upon
the premises announcing that the goods and machinery
were the property of Messrs. Holt. One portion was re-
moved, and on the 9th of the same month a mob of 200
people surrounded the premises; dug a trench so as to
prevent the machinery being removed ; and on the 12th of
November the defendants seized the same under a fiat in
bankruptcy. There was no dispute about the facts, but one
point raised by the defendant's counsel was, whether the
affixing of the sheriff's seal to the assignment at the mill
was a proper fixing of the seal by the sheriff, and another
was whether it was possible properly to appraise such a
quantity of property in a couple of hours.
Mr. MARTIN, however, denied that the mob of people
who surrounded the premises had been employed by the
defendant. The fact was that they were the workpeople
of Kershaw, who were annoyed at being thrown out of
employment. He then suggested a reference, and that an
indictment which had to be tried in the other court. A
long conference took place upon the matter, and after the
main facts had been proved,
His LORDSHIP gave it as his opinion that Scarr had the
power to affix the sheriff's assignment to the plaintiffs.
The jury then returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for the
full amount claimed, Mr. Martin having leave to move to
enter a nonsuit.

MooXE V. MAXWELL AND OTHERS.—Mr. Martin and
Mr. Atherton were for the plaintiff ; Mr. Watson and
Mr. Crompton were for the defendants. The plaintiff,
Mr. James F. Moore, was originally a surgeon, and as
such went several voyages to the coast of Africa. Ele be-
came a supercargo, and was so employed by Messrs. Max-
well and Co., African merchants, of Liverpool, and he
claimed five per cent with respect to the loading of the
Windermere.—The case having been partly proceeded
with a juror was withdrawn.
LUNDIE v. GEE.—Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cowling were
for the plaintiff; Mr. Martin and Mr. Atherton were for
4?feudant. The nlpintiff. Mr. Thomaa_Lundie, is a
mercnatu 111 LUC 11 est inahl ta“...v; y
in Liverpool; and the defendant, Mr. Edward Gee is a
partner in the firm of Athin and ac., a ac a y iug uu business
in the same town. The action was brought to recover
£228 6s. 3d., being the value of certain tierces of coffee
sold by the plaintiff to the defendant on the 28th of Sep.
last, through the broker. The point in dispute was
whether the employment of a broker conferred on him
authority to receive payment.—Mr. Knowles contended
that it did not.—Mr. Morton, for the defendant, said, he
believed it was a customary thing for brokers to receive
payment for goods sold through them to Stacey.—After
the case had gone on for some time, the plaintiff submit-
ted to a nonsuit.

THE CUSTOM OF THE CORN TRADE

SANDARS AND ANOTHER V. JAMESON.--The plaintiffs
were Messrs. Sandars and Claxton, corn merchants in Li-
verpool ; the defendant was Mr. Robert Jameson, who is
also a:corn merchantin the same town. Mr. Martin and Mr.
Cowling appeared for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Baines and Mr.
Segar appeared for the defendant. The action was to re-
cover the sum of £346 lls. 2d., being a balance due on
300 quarters of Indian white corn sold by the plaintiffs to
the defendant, on the 4th of May last, at 525. per 480 lbs.
Speculation was then rife in the corn trade, and the de-
fendant promptly sold the corn to a Drogheda house at
60s. ; but they repented of their bargain when prices be-
gan to fall, and refused to take the corn, alleging that it
was neither sweet nor sound. The plaintiff contended
that the purchaser should have objected, in accordance
with the custom of the trade at Liverpool, on the day of
purchase, and that he could not do so afterwards. Evi-
dence to this effect was produced ; and at the close of the
plaintiffs' case the court rose.

CROWN COURT.-SATURDAY

The court was occupied nearly the whole day with the
trial of Daniel O'Brien and Michael Connelly, two re-
spectably-dressed young men, for the highway robbery of
the Rev. Mr. German, head master of the grammar-
school, Manchester, on the 15th of January. We pub-
lished the particulars of the case at the time. The
prosecutor was walking with his lady and daughter in
Great Heaton, near the seat of the Earl of Wilton, when
he was attacked by the two prisoners, who presented pis-
tols, and robbed Mr. German and assaulted the two ladies,
violently threatening to shoot them. Miss German, on a
demand being made for her watch, said she had not one,
but offered to give up her fur tippet, but this was refused.
The prisoners were found guilty. Sentence deferred.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-SATURDAY
SANDARS AND OTHERS V. JAMESON

The court proceeded with this case, which had been
adjourned the day before. It was proved, on behalf of
the plaintiffs, that the custom in the corn trade was to
inspect the bulk of corn (to see that it was the same as
sample) on the same day that the purchase was made,
and unless the inspection was made on that day, the power
of rejection was not held valid. Mr. BAINES commenced
by addressing the jury on behalf of the defendant. He
called Mr. Clarke, formerly a partner with Mr. Cherry,
and two or three other witnesses, with a view to prove
that the corn sent to Drogheda was very much inferior to
the sample produced when sold. Mr. MARTIN, in his
reply, called attention to the fact that no sample what-
ever was mentioned in that which could chiefly bind the
written agreement come to on the occasion ; and com-
mented strongly on the fact that no complaint whatever
had been made of the quality of the corn till it reached
Drogheda. The learned JUDGE, in summing up, held
that of necessity the sale must have been made by sam-
ple. If it were not, however, it did not matter in this
case, as the contract made must have meant that the corn
should be of merchantable value, whereas, according to
one of the witnesses, that which reached Drogheda was
scarcely fit for hogs. He thought that, independent of
custom, when the question came to be between a party
who had sold a commodity like corn, about the quality of
which there must necessarily be such a variety of opinions,
and a buyer, the jury must listen with caution and suspi-
cion to the party who made no objection at the time, but
made the objection a month afterwards, when it was most
diffieult to test it. The jury brought in a verdict for the
plaintiffs, damages £346 Ils. 2d. They found that the
corn was according to the sample ; and also that there was
such a custom as that alleged.

CATO AND OTHERS V. JEVONS AND OTHERS.
The plaintiffs in this case were Messrs. Cato, the ship-
builders, of this town, and the defendants Messrs. Jevons
and several other gentlemen, are the owners of the screw-
steamer Antelope. Their managing co-owners in 1847
were Messrs. M'Tear and Hadfield. The vessel was built
in January, 1846, for the purpose of trading to Rio Ja-
neiro. In 1847 some defect was found in its construction,
some repairs were required, and the proprietors of the
boat wished the mast to be shifted, as it was considered
too far aft to admit of quick sailing. Accordingly, in
June, 1847, the vessel was put into the hands of Messrs.
Cato, for the purpose of having the necessary alterations
and repairs made. These were effected by the end of
July, at a cost of £721 10s. ld. upon the ship. It appears
that the usual practice amongst shipbuilders in these cases
is. to keep two accounts, first of wages, then of materials.
supplied ; and during the progress of the repairs the
owners of a vessel are applied to, to furnish money for the
payment of wages. At the end of the first week Mr.
Casson, collector for Messrs. Cato, applied to M'Tear and
Hadfield for payment in the ordinary way, but the answer
was-that they-had-no money.----Two or three applications
were subsequently' made, hut with the same result.
The work was finished in July. On the 13th of Au,
gust Mr. Casson went to M'Tear au& Hadfield,. and
took a letter addressed to them br Mews.. Cato, it

ran as follows :—Sir,—Would you oblige me with £2OO
in cash this week, for wages, as I don't know what to
do for money ; I can't get any in ; and, as you are aware,
a great portion of my account is for cash advanced in
wages. I trust you will not disappoint me." Next day,
on the 14th, a bill was given upon the materials which had
been furnished for the repairs of the vessel. On the 18th
of August the plaintiffs again wrote, asking for £lOO. No
money could be had, but on the 31st of August they got
another bill as security for the payment of the rest of the
account. In November of the same year M`Tear and
Hadfield became bankrupt, and the bills were worthless.
On the part of the plaintiffs the learned counsel contended
that, for work and labour done, the plaintiffs were entitled
to cash payments, unless they chose bills in preference to
ready money, and commented on the absurdity of the sup-
position that such an election should ever be made. Mr.
Casson was the only witness called, and he spoke to the
material facts which we have narrated. For the defen-
dants it was contended that there was no proof whatever
that the work was done at their request. The defendants
were not in partnership, but they had shares in the vessel.
M`Tear and Hadfield were empowered, as agents, to have
the repairs done ; they had, doubtless, the money paid
down for the purpose, and had no right to pledge the
credit of the defendants, who did not know till the 16th of
December that the account had not been settled. The de-
fendants had not made the contract, and there was no
proof that, at the time it was made, Messrs. Cato looked
upon any other than M`Tear and Hadfield as responsible
for it. As a proof that the matter rested entirely in the
hands of the house of M`Tear and Hadfield, it was men-
tioned that the bills given bore the name of Mr. Thomp-
son also, another partner in the firm of M`Tear and Had-
field, although he, unlike the other two, had no share
whatever in the vessel.—The learned Judge, in summing
up, observed that the main point was, whether M`Tear
and Co. ordered the repairs on their own account or on
behalf of the defendants. He held that when the agent
for a ship ordered repairs. the reasonable presumption was
that he did so on behalf of the owners. The party took a
bill only as an acknowledgment ; it was clear that the re-
ceiving of a bill from a debtor did not discharge the debt
if the bill were not met when it became due. He con-
fessed that he saw nothing to prevent the plaintiffs from
recovering the amount which they claimed. Verdict for
the plaintiffs for £6OO.