The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-08-29 00:00:00

Jennings, he (the prisoner) had taken the advantage of
the charge of felony which might have been proved against
him to serve his ow❑ wicked purposes. The sentence of
the Court was, that he be transported for fourteen years.
Tt►e Court rose at half-past eight.

NISI PRIUS COURT.

Mr. Justice CRESSWELL took his seat at nine o'clock.

SISIETHHURST V. TAYLOR AND ANOTHER.
This was an action, before a special jury, fur goods sold
and delivered on an account stated. The defendant
pleaded not liable.
_ _

Mr. Martin and Mr. Sear appeared for the plaintiff.
Mr. Knowles, Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Atherton for the
defendants.

Mr. MARTIN stated the case. The plaintiff, Richard,
Smethhurst, is a manufacturer, carrying on business at
Chorley, about twenty miles from Manchester. The de-
fendants, John Taylor and William Potter, are in a large
way of business, in Liverpool, who send a large quantity
of goods to India and China, and this action was brought
to recover a sum of £2400, alleged to be due by them to
the plaintiff, arising out of a sale of goods in March, 1841.
The parties who immediately bought these goods were
persons carrying:on business in Manchester, under the
the firm of Saml. Knight and Co. They had been carry-
ing on business for some time as commission agents, arid
from the year 1838 till 1841 they had bought goods for the
defendants to the extent of £lOO,OOO. They were uni-
versally known as being the agents of Taylor, Potter and
Co. As to themselves, one of them, at least, had been a
bankrupt, and they were a firm who never could and never
expected to receive credit for themselves. They never, to
any extent, sold goods on their own account. In March,
1841, the plaintiff had in hands a very large quantity of
skirtings, an article very largely exported from this country
to China arid the East Indies. He employed a person
named Pilkington to sell goods for him, and, accordingly,
in March, lie called upon Messrs Knight and asked them
if they were purchasing goods for Messrs. Taylor, Potter
and Co. ; he told then, at the same time that if they were
disposed to buy the plaintiff would take a bill for 3 or 6
months. The ordinary way of business was to pay cash
in 1841, or a bill fora month. Messrs. Knight said they
were not at present in the market for Messrs. Taylor,
Potter, and Co., but when they were they would let them
know. Accordingly, on the 27th Mach, Mr. James
Knight came to Mr. Pilkington, told him Taylor, Potter
and Co. were in the market, and requested that samples
should be sent to them. He (Mr. K.) said he was about
to go to Liverpool, and he would take the samples with him.
Five pieces of each description of article were sent to Mr.
Knight as samples, and when Mr. Pilkington called on him
next day he stated th t he had taken the samples to Li-
verpool, shown them to defendants, who were willing to
give 12s. a piece for one kind, and 12s. 6d. for another.
After some time the plaintiff was induced to take the
prices offered, but in order to ascertain properly that he
was dealing with the defendants be sent down his nephew,
who, with Mr. Pilkington, waited upon Mr. Knight. Mr.
Pilkington said, " Y.,u are buying these goods for Taylor,
Potter, and Co." " Yes," was the reply, " and more
than that, we are buying them to go to China in a ship
called the John Bibby, and you look at Myers's Gazelle,
you will see that the vessel is going to sail in a few days."
They then went to the news-room, and finding the vessel
was entered as stated, the nephew returned home, told
what he had ascertained, and the plaintiff determined to
conclude the bargain. He wrote to the effect on the 50th
March to Mr. Pilkington. Accordingly, the goods were
sent to Lees and Jenkinson, the packers ; they were af-
terwards sent down to Liverpool, shipped in the John
Bibby, and went to China. This being the state of the
case, he (the learned counsel) understood the defence
to the action would be that when young Smethurst went
to Mr. Knight's office, after he had learned that the goods
were for Messrs. Taylor, Potter and Co., he said to Mr.
Knight, " To whom are we to make out the invoice ?
Are we to make it out to Taylor, Potter and Co. ?" Mr.
Knight said, " No, when goods are sold per six months
bill, the hills are not made out to them but to us."
Accordingly, the invoice was made out to Mr. Knight.
Mr. Martin continued by saying that he would prove,
from letters found in the possession of Messrs. Knight,
who had since become bankrupt, that he had autho-
rity to buy for the defendants. He then read a letter
signed W. P. Livingston, which, he said, was written by
authority of the defendants • and added, that when the
defendants were applied to they said that Messrs. Knight
had had a general authority to buy for them up to January,
but not since. It would appear, that in this instance the
invoice was made out to Knight and Co., but he submitted
that the goods were sold to the authorised agent of Taylor,
Potter, and Co., who had full authority to buy them.
After reading letters written by W. P. Livingston and
other persons on behalf of the firm, relating to the pur-
chase of goods, the learned counsel contended that these
obviously related to the 6,000 pieces of shirting purchased
from the plaintiff, and nothing else. He would prove to
the jury that every parcel of these goods went to China
by the John Bibby, which sailed some days later than was
originally intended. There was a person named Nixon,
at Manchester, who sold goods for other persons, the
same as Mr. Pilkington, and he asked Messrs. Knight
who their principals were. They replied that Messrs.
Taylor, Potter, and Co. were. He sold them goods to
the amount of £20,000, and some of the invoices were
made out to Taylor, Potter, and Co., some to Knight and
Co., but the goods were all sent down, without destination,
to Taylor, Potter, and Co. The mode in which Taylor,
Potter, and Co. did business at first was for cash, but
about the end of the year 1838 they commenced signing
bills to get motley to discount and pay for the goods ; and
the mode in which Knight and Co. carried the money to
pay for the goods was by bills signed by Taylor, Potter,
and Co. These were discounted by the bank of Daintr„
Ryle, and Co., at Manchester, and in no case did Taylor.
Potter, and Co. interfere. The delivery of the goods was
enmoleted on the 2d f Auril. and by the terms of the
purchase agreed upon the money was to be paid in tour-
teen days, and it became due on the 16th. On that day
application was made by Mr. Pilkington to Mr. James
Knight, who said, " 1 am sorry to disappoint you, but 1
have not done my discount in Liverpool as I expected,
therefore I have sent off the bills to London to he dis-
counted." At the latter end of April Mr. Pilkington
obtained £1,500 in bills on account of the shirting, and so
things continued until the beginning of May, wh.n the
concern of Knight and Co. closed. After that, Messrs.
Taylor, Potter, and Co. were applied to for payment for
the goods, and the statement made by Mr. Taylor was,
that they had not given authority to Knight and Co. to
purchase goods for them since the January preceding.
He (the learned counsel) undertook to satisfy the. jury
that the goods were sold to Taylor, Potter, and Co. through
Messrs. Knight. 2,000 of the pieces came to the house
of Taylor, Potter, and Co. ; but there was a firm, Living-
ston, Gilliott, and Co., who carried on business under the
same roof with defendants, and the remainder of the goods
were shipped on board the John Bibby, with the name of
Livingston. Gidiott, and Co. on them, but how that name
got there he could not tell, as, in looking over the bank-
rupt's book, it was not found that there were any dealings
between the parties.
Mr. MARTIN then_ called a number of witnesses to
prove the sale of ,the goods, the general course of busi-
ness, and the agency of Messrs. Knight. The total cost
of the goods was stated to be 1.3.975. of which £1,500 had
been paid, leaving a balance of £2,475, for which sum the
action was brought.
Mr. KNOWLES, for the defendants, said, there were two
questions for the jury—whether Messrs. Knight and Co.
had authority to bind the defendants in the matter, and
supposing that they had, had credit been given to them or
to Messrs. Taylor, Potter, and Co.? He said there was
no proposition of law more distinct than this, that if a
party sells goods to an agent, knowing that he is dealing
for a principal, and the principal's name be known to him,
and the seller gives credit to the agent, the principal can
never be made liable, whatever becomes of the agent.
The learned counsel then contended, at some length, that
the invoice was the only proof of the party debi:e.l, and
concluded by expressing an opinion that his learned friend
(Mr. Martin) had failed to make out the two propositions
which would entitle him to a verdict.

Mr. Justice CRESSWELL said, there were two questions
for the jury to decide—the first was, whether the goods
were sold on the credit of Knight and Co., or on the credit
of Taylor, Potter and Co. and if they (the jury) should be
of opinion that Smethurst knew that they were for Tavlor,
Potter, and Co., and he consented to give Knight and
Co. credit, he could not after that claim against Taylor,
Potter, and Co. But if they were of opinion that the
credit was not given to Knight ar.d Co., but to Taylor,
Potter, and Co., then would come another question—
whether Knight and Co. had authority to pledge Taylor,
Potter, and Co.'s credit. If the jury were of opinion in
the affirmative that they were sold to Taylor, Potter, and
Co., and Knight and Co. had authority to pledge their
credit, then they (the jury) must find the verd ct f it
the plaintiff, and if otherwise, their verdict would be for
the defendants. If for the plaintiff, it would be for £2475.
The jury, after half an hour's deliberation, found for
the defendants.
BIRCH V. WOOD AND ANOTHER.
This was an action to recover damages for the infringe-
ment of a patent. The plaintiff (for whom Mr. Martin,
Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Webster appeared as counsel)
was Thomas Birch. The defendants (for whom Mr.
Knowles and Mr. Townsend appeared) were Charles and
Richard Wood.

Mr. MARTIN stated the case. The plaintiff was a man
now in very great poverty, and endeavoured to get a live-
lihood by acting as an assistant to an engineer in Salford.
He was a very ingenious man. and in the early part of his
life devoted a good deal of his time to the impnivement of
machines, rather than to pecuniary matters. He was
formerly in partnership with two gentlemen of the name
of Shorrocks, manufacturers of carding and spinning ma-
chines, and whilst in partnership with them he made the
invention in question, a patent was granted in 1837, and it
was for an infringement of the rtent that the present ac-
tion was brought. In 1830 the partnership between the
plaintiff and the Messrs. Shorrocks was dissolved. Plain-
tiff sold his interest in the concern for £425, to he paid in
promissory notes, and went to Ireland, where some
tempting offer was held out to him. He remained in Ire-
land till he lost all his money, came over to Manchester
about seven months since, and bad remained there ever
since. The patent was for an addition to the old machine
for carding, whereby the seeds, and nots, and dirt which
comes in the cotton from abroad was got out much more
effectually, in less time, and did a great deal more work.
When the plaintiff came back from Ireland he found that
his patent was in very general use in the manufacturing
districts. He applied to many persons, all of whom
agreed to give him something for the use of the patent,
with the exception of the defendants, who used it to about
sixty machines.
Mr. KNOWLES, for the defendants, said that at
octhes
time the partnership was formed the Messrs. Shorrocks
avke
were monied men, and it was of great imporat:enaca,
and it
a mechanical genius in manufacturing concerns,
o "svnas taken into
frequently happened that sutieui:dr.
partnership, on the understanding
to the benefit of the par n.
gPethat the result of
t ehrt!
inventive genius was to go
ship. This, he alleged, was the case in the present in-