The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-04-07 00:00:00

POSNETT AND ANOTHER V. SERVICE AND ANOTHER.

This was an action to recover the amount of .e 23 Is., balance
of an account due for work done aryl goods de►ivered.t The
defendants pleaded that they were not indebted, and, secondly,
that the amount claimed was excessive. The plaintiffs, Messrs.
James Posnett and Joseph Thomas, are stonemasons, at Tran-
mere, and the defendants, Messrs. Thomas and David Service,
are builders, at Birkenhead, and the action had been brought to
recover the amount stated as a balance of an account due for
building materials furnished by the plaintiffs to the defendants.
The cause of action had been upon a print* occasion brought
into court, when it was submitted to arbitration ; but, in con e.
quence cf some technical maters, the award made by that arbi-
tration could not be enforced. The jury gave the plaintiffs the
amount claimed.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—TUESDAY.
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
LONGUOTTOM V. JONES.

In this case the plaintiff, who is a druggist in this town,
sought to recover compensation from the defendant, who
is a publican and omnibus owner, for injury done to his
horse and vehicle, in consequence of the negligence of one
of the defendant's servants. It was stated, that, on the
Ist of January last, plaintiff went to Formby, on a shoot-
ing excursion, in a phaeton, accompanied by Mr. Samuel
Mills, publican of Eldon-place, and Mr. Wade, painter
and plumber. In the course of the day they were joined
by Mr. Gregson, an auctioneer, and father-in-law of the
plaintiff. When coming out of Crosby, on their return,
an omnibus belonging to defendant approached them on
the wrong side of the road. It was about half-past eleven
o'clock, and the night was not particularly dark. The
plaintiff and his party stopped the phaeton and called out
to the driver, but he heeded them not, and ran right into
their vehicle, lacerating the horse very much, and dragging
the phaeton twenty or thirty yards. The driver of the
omnibus was afterwards found on the box helplessly drunk.
This statement was denied by the witnesses for the de-
fendant, who alleged that the plaintiff and his witnesses
were in a state of intoxication, and that the phaeton ran
into the omnibus and broke the pole. The witnesses con-
tradicted each other in almost every particular. The jury
interrupted his Lordship as he was summing up, and said
they were agreed there should be a verdict for the plain-
tiff. The damages were estimated at £9, and the verdict
was entered for that sum.
Dover:. AND ANOTHER V. FENTON (clerk.)

This was an undefended action on a urornissciry note
Verdict for the plaintiffs. Damages, X 215 ss.

UNwiN v. HORNER AND BELL.
This was an action brought by Henry Unwin, iron and
steel merchant at Sheffield, against Messrs. Horner and
Bell, shipping agents, of Liverpool, to recover the value of
17i dozens of scythes. The scythes were sent from Shef-
field to Liverpool, for the purpose of being forwarded by
defendants to Messrs. Maguire and Welsh, of Dublin.
On the receipt of the invoice at Dublin, Messrs. Maguire
and Welsh wrote to the plaintiff to'say that they were on
the eve of bankruptcy, and requesting him to stop the
goods at Liverpool. Mr. Unwin accordingly came to Li-
verpool, and applied to the defendants for the goods, but
they refused to surrender them, on the ground that Ma-
guire and Welsh were their debtors, and they fancied they
had a right to keep the scythes in satisfaction for the debt,
believing that they were the property of Maguire and
Welsh, and not the property of the plaintiff. The action
was to try the right of stopping the goods in trunsilu. A
verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the full amount,
with liberty to move fora verdict for the defendant, if the
court above should be of opinion that upon the facts a
verdict ought to be given for defendant.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-WEDNESDAY.
HALM V. DALTON.

This was an action for the recovery of the sum of £925,
the loss occasioned by the refusal of the defendant to ac-
cept certain shares in the Leeds and Thirsklway.
On the 6th September last the defendant, who is a ca-
lico merchant in Manchester, gave instructions to Mr.
Robinson, sharebroker, of that town, to purchase for him
fifty shares in the Leeds
and Think Railway. That gen-
tleman, accordingly, made inquiry, and succeeded in pur-
chasing from the plaintiff thirty at £23 10s., and twenty
at £24. The scrip was afterwards called by the company
for the purpose of registration. On the 10th November
word was sent to the defendant that the scrip had been
registered, and were ready for him. He then expressed
his intention of paying for them. Up to the 19th Novem-
ber be continued to acknowledge the debt, but after that,
on application being made for payment, he refused, on the
ground that they should have been delivered to him in the
month of September. The shares were afterwards sold,
and the present action was brought to recover the loss
which had been incurred by that sale, the shares having,
meanwhile, depreciated in value.
Mr. KNOWLES contended that the transfer could not
be considered legal, as, on the 20th November, Mr. Ro-
binson had presented it without having the name of the
proprietor or purchaser on, and that the consideration had
been written upon that transfer after the purchase had
been effected. He cited two cases in whioh the Court had
decided the point, that without the transfer being com-
pletely filled up at the time of exchange it could not be
considered legal.
His LORDSHIP considered the objection raised by Mr.
Knowles to be good, and recommended a verdict for the
defendant, subject to Mr. Baines having power to move
for a new trial.

GALLOWAY V. WANDINGTON.

This was a case similar to the previous one.

The plaintiff was a sharebroker, and the defendant a
commission agent in Manchester. The action was brought
to recover the sum of £406 and intereEt, the loss sus-
tained by plaintiff on the resale of certain railway shares.
On the 30th September, the plaintiff sold to Messrs. Hope
and Roston, the defendant's brokers, twenty-five shares
in the Huddersfield and Manchester Railway- At the
time of the sale the defendant's brokers did not discover
the name of the principal for whom they acted, bargains
being made in the names of the brokers. The scrip had
been called in at that time, an Act of Parliament having
passed, in obedience to which they were about to issue
sealed certificates. As the scrip was in the hands of the
company. it was uncertain when a re-issue would take
place. When, however, the scrip bad been registered,
the defendant's brokers refused to take the shares up ;
they were afterwards sold for £5 17s. 6d, per share, the
price when sold to the defendant being nearly £3O, and
the present action was for the recovery of that loss upon
those sales.

Mr. KNOWLES, for the defendant, contended that as
between the 30th of October and 7th of November was
the first time the transfer was taken to be tendered, the
transfer must then be void. It was usual in such actions
for the broker to be brought forward, in order to prove
what authority they had for acting on behalf of the party
whom they represented. In this case nothing of the kind
had been done. Hope and Roston bad no authority for
purchasing on behalf of the defendant, and it was not un-
til the evening of the day on which the purchases had
been made, that the defendant bad spoken about the
shares in question at all. The learned counsel argued at
considerable length on the point; called Hope anJ Ros-
ton, the sharebrokers, who proved that the shares had
been purchased by themselves on their own account, and
Mr. Waddington had not spoken to them respecting
shares previously. Mr. Roston stated that he had told
Mr. Galloway and his attorney the real facts of the case
previous to the action being brought.
Mr. BAINES replied on behalf of the plaintiff, and the
jury found for the defendant.