The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-08-20 00:00:00

SHELDRICH AND DAWSON V. BARBER,

Verdict for the plaintiffs, fustian manufacturers, Manchester, for
£2B 2s. Ild., for goods sold to defendant. Undefended.

SANDFORD V. .TADICSON: A MAIDEN LADY AND HER PARROT.

In this case, which ran considerably into detail, Mr. Atherton
appeared for the plaintiff, Sarah Sandford, and Mr. Brandt for the
defendant, Thomas Jackson.
Mr. ATHERTON, in stating the case, said this was an action of
trover brought by the plaintiff to recover the value of a parrot and
cage—la laugh)—which the defeudant had converted to his own use.
He (the learned counsel) saw it was impossible to mention the na-
ture of the goods and chattels without exciting a smile ; but, per-
haps, when he informed the jury that his client was a maiden lady,
not in the first flush of youth, and not in the best of circumstances,
they would not be so much inclined to wonder at the value and im-
portance she attached to her bird. She resided at Swinton, near
Eccles, and the defendant was the landlord of a public.house, called
" the British fleet," at Oldfield-road, Salford. The facts of the case
were briefly these, that, in the month of March, 1842, a Quaker,
named Joseph Scholefield Shaw, who was the brother-in-law of the
plaintiff, had a parrot and cage, of which he was anxious to get rid,
and, ultimately, the plaintiff agreed to purchase them for the sum of
£0 10s. These were the simple circumstances under whims the
parrot originally became the property of the plaintiff: The future
adventures of Poll and her cage were next detailed. In the month
of September, 1842, Miss Eliza Sandford, the sister of the plaintiff,
was in bad health, and the parrot being a lively bird, she was na-
turally an xious to get rid of what was once a pleasurable source of
amusement, but was now considered a nuisance ; and the conse-
quence was, that the parrot and cage were removed back again, for
safe keepin, to Mr. Shaw, and were detained by him down to
February, 1843. At that time, Shaw, not being in good circum-
stances, was apprehensive of an execution at the suit of some credi-
tor, and lie, wishing to avoid any question that might arise with re-
gard to the ownership of the bird, had the parrot and cage removed
from his house, and, ultimately, both fell into the possession of the
defendant, Mr. Jackson, who had ever since refused to surren
nde,
them, and pleaded, first, that he had not converted the pis•opetity, amtir.
secondly, that the property did not belong to the p
Atherton admitted that it was a trumpery action,ine
defendant was solely to
that his client had had nothing to do with the bringing fowls
record to the present assizes, and thatdtbheeen
iginally commenced
blame in this respect ; for the action ha
removed
by
the defendant,
in the county court, from which it was but contended
°visa
~
as
itd,o,Ralslteerfastielde
ein•hloawno, WHbreoruegphrtesiet
tt
he was unable to inform the jury of the pre-
but, at the same time, :VbasY Psurfferin'g a bereavement,
and her parrot. (A laugh.)
dataLliadeyrplovloilo,
rot, case, he should have been
pre-
cise nature of the attachment
nha
ac
thph
ol.essxibit sieoteennd
tao betweenartat
ehmaeda i
tteces sp:atadrry;
information on this kness of greater momen ,
had recently sat and made a
ntottthyeprembneti,.•
gfolrit,tilen ttloi e
excite
t hthe
f publicattention
u se
f
the House of Commons, a committeei
committeel,te
r eros
object
appropriatelybein .o ascertaincall d ` t e
generallyD o g
about Corn -
nie report.
" Thatll u
pet poodles and dcgs of the metropolis,—(great laughter,)—and to
see that those who abstracted the pets, and thereby lacerated the feel-
ings of their owners, were duly punished. In other words they hail
to ascertain what becamepsalan.:
Parliamentary
:Lennaaitiadiai,yii;
ly:Blbpielrt
tutohy,oo'
proof of
those
ofaskptah.
gdaeconghidi,el,,ariv
heroic
crli
cseit o commis-
erate the hard fate to which Miss Brownhad been subjecist,beilid
dlen
do:swls
duly recorded
°lei eaprro,sifavourite
es
n
he
age in which see live. (Loud laughter.) Mr. Atherton
a very humourous speech by saying, that,. concluded
if another
to the present should be brought down this time twelveactifen, slims illater
iaitlid`aoyifbl
hauled
might be in a better position to tell the jury something of tthe sort
of attachment which existed between the owners of parrots and their
birds, but that as yet Parliament,initswis
wisdom, had n
public any light on a subject ofinterest otte giventhethe
world
such thrilling
at large.
Mr. J. S. Shaw, a Quaker, was the first witness. He stated, that
he resided at Birmingham at present, and that, in the year 1836,
during the time he lived at Ashton-under-Lyne, he purchased a par-
rot from a Mrs. Hatfield, of that town. The parrot was very poorly
when it was purchased; and the arrangement was, that he was to
give 30s. for it if it lived, and, if it died, nothing. Subsequently, it
rallied in health and spirits, the 30s. was accordingly paid, and,
after lie had had it for six years, he sold it to the plaintiff. During
the six years it received instruction, and was consequently worth
more in 1842 than in 1836, and was worth at the tato' period £.5 10s.
Mr. BRANDT, in addressing the jury for the defence, contended,
that it was a trumpery action, and confessed that he was not sur-
prised to find his learned friend (Mr. Atherton) endeavouring to
enliven it by a little merriment. Without, however, imitating his
friend's example, and beginning with Robinson Crusoe and his par-
rot, he should come at once to the facts ; and the simple facts were,
that it was a mere juggle on the part of the Quaker to send the par-
rot over to his sister-in-law, in order that she might keep the bird
for
eont
with
hhe hbiisr,eir‘e;al creditors.
Witnesses
sent
\h'ittmn esusnetstle,h•eeregthotto the
plaintiff's for the purpose of protecting it from Mr. Shae'socuveltithesawt
:11 ehdis tod tiff') r
credi-
tors, and that it had never ceased to be the property of that gen-
tleman.
'd tt
Mr. ATHERTCN, in the course of his reply, Sal t
,
cashae,his seemlearned ed to
friend (Mr- Brandt), finding himself in a p
think, by his loquaciousness, that it was all toatbre
plaintiff for £0 105.,•
parrot once again.
osettled by chatter.
Eventually, a verdict was returned for the
and the amiable lady will enjoy the sweet companionship of her
DANKERLEY V. JENKINSON.
Verdict for the plaintiff £5OO, subject to reference.
enoN V. DUNKERLEY.
In this case plaintiff claimed salary for five months, at the rate of
£lOO a year, in reply to which £lO was paid into court. Verdict
was given for defendant.
COMAS AND ANOTIIER V. ASHWORTH.
The plaintiffs are worsted-spinners,
residing at Manchester, and
ed,
the occupiers of a mill, near Accrington. The
declaration st
urpose of turn at
ing
that they had a right of water to flow, for the p
the mill, and alleged that the defendant had obstructed the water.
The whole question resolved itself into one of law.
After a brief discussion of the law points, a verdict was returned
for the plaintiffs for 405., subject to a special case.
HOWARD V. SHORE AND OTHERS.
In this case, Daniel Howard was the plaintiff, and John Shore
and Co. were the defendants. The declaration was in debt for a
sum of £B3, for goods sold and delivered, to which the defendants
pleaded that they were never indebted.
Mr. Baines and Mr. Cobbett appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Watson for the defendants.
plaintiff was nonsuited.
GEE C. ITALLIWELT. AND UX.
Verdict for the plaintiff for £l3 3s. 6d.
SHAW V. JACKSON AND OTHERS.

The declaration was on a bond for £lOO. A verdict was returned
for the plaintiff.
After the above case, some delay took place, several counsel not
being ready to go on, from the circumstance of their witnesses, &c.,
having left the court. Ultimately, an unimportant case was got
over, and the court adjourned at half-past four o'clock.
Our report of yesterday's Assizes will be found in another
column.

The foundation stone of the memorial to be erected on
Pensher Hill, in honour of the late Earl of Durham, is to
be laid on Wednesday the 28th inst., with great Masonic
pomp and ceremony, by the Earl of Zetland as Grand
Master of England.