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

IMPUTED NEGLIGENCE IN THE SALE. OF SHARES

BENJAMIN RANKIN V. DANIEL NEILSON AND JOHN
BLACKBURN NEILSON.

The plaintiff is a shatebroker residing in London, and
the defendants are engaged in the same trade at Liverpool.
The action was 'orou. ht to recover compensation in da-
mages for loss sustained by the plaintiff, in consequence,
as it was averred, of the defendants not having used due
diligence to disposing of a qu,ntity of shares which he bad
ordered them to sell at whatever price the market might
be. It appeared that in the month of October, 1815, the
plaintiff purchased through the defendants, for a third
party, 100 York and Carlisle railway shares, and that he
subsequently gave directions for their re-s de, at the same
time requesting tc, be advised of the result by return of
post. The defendants alleged that they had used every
exertion to get rid of the shares, but were unable to meet
with a purchaser; and it was fur,her stated by their clerk,
that it was their usual course of business to reply to all
letters received, but from the pressure of business at that
period copies of all were not entered in the books of the
firm. In this instance no copy had been preserved, but
the clerk of the defendants expressed his belief that it had
been duly replied to. It was given in evidence that at
this time similar shares were sold at £5 per share. The
plaintiff brought his action to recoser compensation, in
consequence of not having been informed in reasonable
time that the defendants had not sold the shares, by which
he had sustained great pecuniary loss.—Verdict for the
defendants.
The court adjourned at seven o'clock.

IN THE CROWN-COURT.
(Before 211 r. JuqicP Wi.oktman.)
THE GUANO CASE.-HENRY TOULMIN AND CALVERT

TOULMIN V. 11-I'IMAS HEDLEY

This action had been twice before tried at these assizes,
and it now came on, for the third time, before a special
jury. It was brought to recover a sum of £3,086, with
interest, the value of a cargo of 411 tons of guano, de i-
vered under a warranty by the plaintiffs, merchants and
shipowners, of London, to the defendant, a retired barris-
ter, resiline at Durham. Th. pleadings having been
opened by Mr. Rubinson, the ca,e was partially stated to
the jury by Mr. Watson. After a short consultation, it
was agreed to refer this long litigated cause to arbitrati-
on, the arbitrator to have all the usual powers, and to
settle all matters in difference between the parties.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT.-WILLIAM FLLISON, JUN

V. ALEXANDER MILLER

The plaintiff, at the instance of the liefendant. was taken
into custody for stealing coals from a brick-field in 'fox-
teth Park, Liverpool. and, of er being locked up all night,
was discharged by order of the magistrate on the follow-
ing morning. The defendant called witnesses to prove
that the plaintiff tad taken the coals, and that he was jus-
tified in arresting. Verdict for the plaintiff; damages,
£5.

ILLEGALITY OF A MORTGAGE STAMP -RUMBERTSON

AND ANOTHER V. EDWARD JONES

The plaintiff; are tne executrix and executor of the late
Mr. Humherston, solicitor, of Chester, and the action
was brought to recover a sum of £2.723, with interest,
upon a mortgage deed. The defendant pleaded that the
instrument was invalid, as it had been drawn upon a £7
stamp, wheres it ought only t have been a£s stamp.—
rdict for the plaintiffs, with liberty to move for a non-
suit.

Tnis court wss closed at half-past five o'clock

SATU It DAY

The special jury causes " Burkinshaw v. Ridsdall and
another," and `• Bell, P. S., v. Lord INestre," were
withdrawn.

PATERSON V. NEILSON AND OTHERS

This was a special jury cause, in which Henry Paterson
was the plaintiff, and Dania Neilson and twenty others
were the defendants. It was an action of libel, to which the
deft-ndants pleaded not guilty, on which issue was joined.
Mr. Hoagies having opened the pleadings, Mr. KNOWLES
said,—May it please your lordship, gentlemen of the jury,
I am exceedingly happy to inform you that your time will
not be occupied in this case. It was a ca,e of some im-
portance to the plaintiff, whom I represent. He is a
gentleman of great respectability. the manager of a bank
in Aberdeen, and he complains in this declaration of a
libel which has been published by the defendants. The
defendants, I b-lieve, individually are highly respectable
men. They are the committee of the Stock Exchange
in this town, and, acting under some misrepresentation,
it appears they effixed the name of the pla;ntiff to the
Stock Exchange board, the meaning of that being to con-
vey to the world that the plaintiff had made default in
some of his transactions. The plaintiff could not sit still
under such an imputation. He held his office so long,
and only so long, as he was deemed to be an honourable,
straightforward, and upright man. He has, therefore.
brought this action, and he is here to-day to support it if
necessary. But lam glad to say that will not he neces-
sary. The defendants, through my learned friend, Mr.
Sergeant Wilkins. are willing to withdraw all imputation
upon the plaintiff's character, and, that being done, the
plaintiff, who has not come here to seek damages, but to
establish a complete and perfect refutation of the charge
made against him, to set himself tight with the public—
that being his only object, lie does not press for damages
against the defendants, and will, therefore, take your
verdict, on the strength of that apology, for 40s. only,
with costs as between atterney and client.
Mr. Wir.KlNs.—Gentlemen, my friend Mr. Knowles
has done but justice to the defendants when he has repre-
sented them to you as honourable men. Knowing them,
or the greater portion of them, my friend Dlr. Crompton
and myself have taken upon ourselves, in tht•ir absence
here to-day, to do that which my learned friend has stated
we are about to do. Gentlemen, all men are Fable to

error, more especially when they act precipitately ; and
that has been the case in the present ins'ance. bout

the sanction of a great many persons whose names appear
in this action, this gentleman's name was written on the
Stock Exchange board. We did not mean in the slightest

others who have commenced actions upon the same score,
I ought to say we did not mean to impute to any of these
gentlemen dishonest or dishonourable conduct. It did

appear to some of the members of the Stock Exchange
that these gentlemen lied been strict indeed as to their
legal rights ; but they merely thought that, after having
tatted the pie they had bought, they wished to return it.
They never meant fear one single moment to attribute to
these gentlemen dishonest or di,honourable conduct. and,
beyond all question, they certainly rever meant to in-
sinuate that they were defaulters

Under these circum-
stances, I take upon myself, having the sanction of the
experience of my friend Mr. Crompton, to say, that the
defendants never intended to convey auy inhinuition so
tar as regards the plaintiff, or the other gentlemen, which
should iii ihe slightest degree interfere with their reputa-
tion as gentlemen sod men of honour. Every man who
has acted under an erroneous inpression must regret that
he has been lea into such an error ; and, on the part of
fur the plaintlffs, by consent, subject to a i the defendants. I express their sincere regret in this case.

Mr. KNOWLES.—The names are to be immediately re
moved from the board ?

DISPUTED BREACH OF COVENANT

Mr. WILKINS.—O yes.
The verdict was then t Hken for 40s.
JFNKINSON AND ANOTHER V. HEY WOOD AND ANOTHER

This was another special jury cause, in which Thomas
Jenkir,son and John Eilwird Wright were the plaintiffs,
and John Haywr 0.1 and William Macdonnell the defen-
dants. The action wa, brought for a breach of contract
in the delivery of ten cases of oil of peppermint, to which
the defendants pleaded that they did not promise.
Mr. 131NEs sated the case. The plaintiff, in this case
were drysalters, in a very large and respectable way of bu-
siness,in this town, and the defendants were merchants
in this town; and the action was brought to recover for a
breach of contract in the sale of an
extensive article
called
dealersoii io nt
peppermint. The plaintiffs, being
the aiticle, not only in this country
.but in. Illi,llrd,

wanted to purchase a quantity of it, and, on the 15th of
September last year, through the agency of a Mr. Greaves,
they purchased ten cases of oil of peppermint from the
defendants. The contract was in writing. It was made
between Greaves and a person of the name of Jackson,
who acted as agent for the defendants ; and the oil of pep-
permint was sold at the rate of 6s. per lb. The defen-
dants sent in an invoice on the same date for the ten
casks; the quantity altogether was more than a ton. Oil
of peppermint, the learned counsel went on to say, was a
very essential article; it was welt known, and it possessed
properties quite peculiar to itself and valuable to che-
mists. When Greaves made the purchase he was shown
Pblis' which Jackson said contained oil of
to phials, applied the
twelve
p per small
common test of spiritok oftwo of
wine tothe them. and found that
there was not any greasy matter mixed with the oil. The
next day Greaves went to Holland to effect. the sale of the
article, and, on his return home, about the middle of Oc-
tober, he discovered, in an accidental manner, that this
?op anythipt but oil of peppermint. Wpieh be bad: bought.

One of the workmen belonging to the establishment of the
plaintiffs complained of having been suddenly seized with
a bowel complaint, and he asked for a drop of the oil.
The request was no stoner granted than he seized one cif

- - .
the phials and gulped a quantity of it down. Greaves ex-
pected to see the man fall dead after having taken a dose
of such strong stuff; hut, to his surprise, he found that
the man was untouched, and then he began to suspect
that he had not purchased oil of peppermint. Chemical
tests were accordingly applied, and very soon it was found
that it contained less than ten per cent. of essential oil
of peppermint, and m-ore than ninety per cent. of spirits
of wine; so that, in point of fact. it was an article known
by the name of essence of peppermint, a totally different

fend.‘nts, who took no notice of it at that time; but, at
the beginning of November, having already received, be-
fore the discovery of the essence, a payment of £l2O on
account, they applied for the balance, and then some cor-
respondence took place between the parties, which re-
sulted in the bringing of the action.
After the examination of witnesses for the plaintiffs,
Mr. Martin addressed the jury for the defendants. He
submitted that this was as unfounded a claim as ever was
set up in a court of justice. It never was pretended, he
said, that the article sold in the present instance was a
sirnildr article to that which was bought and sold by
druggists; but it was contended that it was the article
which for several years bad been bought and sold in
Liverpool, and was known by the name of oil of pepper-
mint. And this was the only question for the jury to
decide. They had simply to rag, whether it was-the article
which in Liverpool was known as oil- of peppermint, and
which for years had been bought and sold as such in that
town. He remarked upon the circumstance of Greaves
having applied the test to the phials at the time of the
purchase, and to his having been satisfied with the result.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff
:damages £l2O.

HUDSON V. WARD

This special jury cause was refrrred. It was an action
by a cooper against a captain for alleged assault and
imprisonment on the coast of Africa, and when tried
before occupied the court a couple of days.

HINDSON V. BOLD

This cause also ays referred.
SANDERS AND ANOTHER V. WILSON
Verdict for plaintiffs, subject to a teference.
ORD V. LAYCOCK.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, George Ord,
against the defendant, William Laycock, to recover da-
mages for a breach of contract. The plaintiff, it appeared.
was the interim factor and trustee under the sequestered
estate of a gentleman of the name of Robinson. and he
sued in that character to recover damages for the breach of
contract into which Robinson entered with the defendant
before his bankruptcy. Robinson was a merchant and
dealer in iron. He employed a person of the name of
Senior, in Liverpool, as his broker; and on the 15th of
January, Senior sold to the defendant 300 tons of Scotch
pig-iron, 82 6i. pi-r ton, nett cash. Robinson became a
benkrupt on the 10th of March, and, on the 21th of that
month, the plaintiff was appointed the interim factor and
trustee, and thus, in Scotland, he was invested with rights
similar to those possessed by an assignee in England.
The price of the iron having declined at the end of April,
the contract was repudiated ; and now the action was
brought for the recovery of lfi•. per ton, the amount be-
tween thy 12s. 6d. and the price to which iron had de-
clined at that time.

A verdict was returned for the plaintiff.
MELSON V. THOMPSON.

This was an action brought by Henry H. Melson, a
wine-dealer in Liverpool, against Henry Thompson, who
was engaged in the sarrn, business, to recover the vain.: of
certain wines which, it was alletted, were illegally detained
by the defendant. The plaintiff was nonsuited.