The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-08-25 00:00:00

ISLANDER.-WOOD V. TAYLOR.

This was an action to recover compensation in damages for
certain slanderous words spoken of the plaintiff, by the defend-
ant, and calculated to injure him in his character and business.
Mr. AsExaN CFR, with whom was Mr. WIGHTMANt stated the
case to the jury.—The plaintiff, Mr. Edward Wood, in the
Month of November, 1832, entered into partnership with agen-
t/amen named Warren, for the purpose of carrying on business
as brewers, at the Richmond Brewery, in this town. The
brewery had been previously occupied by a gentleman named
Anderton, deceased, from whose executors they purchased the
goodwill, lease, fixtures, &e. for £l5OO. The capital embarked
in the undertaking was £2OOO. They .carried on a profitable
business for some time, but in October last Mr. Warren, being
anxious to retire, the defendant, Mr. James Taylor, a
_person of
considerable property, applied to the plaintiff to take Warren's
share in the concern. Accordingly, on the lit of October last)
. an arrangerneut was made, by which a transfer of the share of
Warren was made to the plaintiff, who entered into an arrange-
silent with the defendant. The share of Warren was estimated
at £3100; that was transferred to the defendant, and the brewery
was carrie on undeor
increase the new hetrnershicapitalp.
to S£3ooo.hortly afterw
Theaderds
it was determined t-
fendant agreed to advance two-thirds of the sum necessary for
that purpose, taking, of course, a corresponding share in the
property. Soon afterwards, however, the defendant appeared
to be anxious to get rid of the plaintiff altogether; and, finding
the Richmond Brewery likely to be an extremely lucrative con-
cern, to put a relative of his own in his place. With a view-to
that purpose, he commenced a series of calumnies against the
plaintiff, calculated to induce his creditors to press far payment.,
in a manner which, considering the credit of the concern, they
Would never otherwise have thought of doing. He told various
parties that the plaintiff was drawing hundreds out of the banks
which did not belong to him ; that he was in the habit of gam-•
toting at the Hotel, and losing .C6O or £BO a night ;:
that he was perpetually calling °little customers, and not ac-
counting for one farthing of what he got ; in short, that he was
making up a purse, as it is termed, for the purpose of setting off
to America. The result was, that the plaintiff's creditors came
upon him, and he was made a bank sup:. The brewery was
then advertised for sale. It was described as being, and no "
doubt it was, a flourishing concern; but when the time of sale
came the defendant attended, wita his attorney, and gave notice
that, if the brewery were sold, he should contest the right of the
purchaser. The consequence was, an immediate cessation of
all bidding, and the del'enant bought the brewery for £25 more
than the price originally paid by the plaintiff and his partner,,
Warren for the-transfer of the lease to them. The defeudant .
then called 'in his relation, began to carry on the brewery afresh,
and was now making an ample.fortune ou that very spot where
the plaintiff might now, but for his interference, have beensloingS
the same things should call before them theparsons.befere
whim the slanderous words had been uttered, and the jury, as
men of business, 'would he enabled to judge what effect they
were likely to produce on the character and prospects. of a
tradesman—Whether the creditors 'of the plaintiff, having such
slanders driven into them by the defendant, were not likely to'
do that which they would never Otherwise have thought of doing.
The only question was the amount of damages the plaintiff had
sustained; and he was sure they then would do 'him justice.
The learned, gentleman then called the following witnesses :
Wm. Nicholls, examined by Mr. Win tirmaN.—Was 'a pub-
lican, in Toxteth-park. Knew the plaintiff anddefendant. In
November last had a conversation with the defendant about the
Plaintiff. Defendant had said that Wood had acted in a d—d
roguish manner • that he had nverdrawn his banker's account
from £7OO to LA ;, and that not one farthing of that sum be-
longed to bim.
Thomas Phillips, examined by Mr. AT.F.XANDER.—Keit a
public-house in Whitechapel. Knew Mr. Wood and Mr. Tay-
lor. They were in partnership together, at the Richmond
Brewery. Had dealt with them, and was In the habit of keep-
ing a cheque-book, in which he entered the commodities he, got
from them, and also the money be paid. On the llth of Octo-
ber last, saw the plaintiff, Mr. Wood and paid him £2O for
ale. Saw him again on the Bth of NoVeinber, and'paid him £4O.
There was a discount of£l allowed on the first payment, and
£2 on the second. Those payments were entered in his book
in the usual course. Saw the defendant, Taylor, afterwards,
and had some conversation with him respecting his dealings
with•the brewery. Taylor told him not to pay any money to the
plaintiff, as, if he did, lie might have to pay it over again. Tay-
lor told him that there was going to be a 'meeting of .plaintiff's
creditors, and advised him to'httead it. Taylor did not tell him
why he would have to pay the Money over again. He said that
plaintiff had not paid over the money received from him (wit
ness,) nor given any account of it whano, er.
Cross-examined by Mr. CUES s 'ELL.--Attended the a: (TEN:.
It was a meeting of Mr. Wood's creditors.
John Booth, examinedby Mr. WIG iirtaka.--=Ketitthe Grapes
public-house, in Toxieth;park. Had had 'dealings with the
plainfiff and defendant. In November last defendant called
upon him, and asked to look tit his book. He 'told him not to
pay any more money tollr. Wood; that they were going to
'dissolve partnership; and that Mr. Wood had overdrawn to'
the amount of £7OO or £BOO, and could give no account of it. ,
Hannah Bonnet, examined by Mr. AssxsNnsit.—Was wife
'to Mr. Bennett, who kept the Shades, in 'rarleton-street. Her
huOttand had dealings with the Richmond Brewery. At the
close of Noveniber laSt, defendant called at their house, and
told herthat She was not to pay any more money to Mr. 'Wood,
for he was a rogue. On ode' occasion he had palled forth apa
per and said it was allat of VAlikruptcy against Mr. Wood.
Tlaanas'Bennet,'huSband of the last Witness, stated, that Mr. '
Taylor had shnv.ai him a paper, and 'said thli it was a fiat of"
bankruptcy against Mr. Wood. ' He (witness) wanted to know
why they (plaintiff and defendant) could not agree, as they had

This was an action by Mr. Robinson, a ship provision dealer
in this place, against the defendant, to recover the sum of £10f)
10s., due for provisions furnished to the ship Edinburgh, bound
at the time to New South Wales. On the 7th July, prior to
her sailing, Mr. Robinson was waited upon by the agent for the
defendant, Mr. Kingcade, by Mr. Ewin, and by the master of
the ship. Twelve tierces of beef and twenty barrels of pork
were selected, amounting to the sum in dispute, and the terms
were that they should be paid for immediately, with fuur months
discount. On the same day the goods were delivered, and an
invoice was sent in to Mr.-Ewin, for the agents of Smith. In
the course of two or three days, there being no mention of pay-
ment, Robinson sent to Edwin, and his answer was, that Mr.
Smith bad not returned to Liverpool, but that as soon as he
arrived the account should be paid. A week or ten days further
elapsed, when Robinson went to Mr. Smith's, and had some
conversation with him. Mr. Smith at once admitted the pur-
chase; but said he thought it very hard that he should pay, he
having had some former transactions with Ewin, who owed him
money. He thought he ought to set off the amount of the pro-
visions against the sum Ewin owed him. Mr. Robinson was
not disposed to accede to any such arrangement; but no settle-
ment had yet been come to, the defendant persisting in his pro-
position. A clerk of Mr. Robinson having stated the nature of
Mr. Smith's reply to the demand for payment, Mr. Ewin was
put into the box, and deposed to having gone with the captain
of the Edinburgh, (whom he introduced as such to Mr. Robin-
son,) and Mr. Kincade, to purchase the provisions.
By the Junoe.—Did you interfere in the purchase ?
Witness.—l was present.
By the JUDGE.—CIMet you come to the point at once, sir?
Did you buy them on your credit or that of Mr. Smith?
Witness.—l can't tell, my lord.
Examination continued—Mr. Smith had placed a qeantity
of wine in my hands out at the proceeds of which these provi-
sions were to be paid for. This was in May. The wine was
unsold when the provisions were purchased. The wines were
sold to me, payment to be taken in the articles in which I dealt.
(The agreement was put in and read. It provided that the
amount of the wines should be paid for "in ship's-chandlery
and other things.")
B.y the JUDGE..—Were the provisions to be furnished in part?
Witness.—They were.
By the JUDGE.—Had you any authority to order goods for
the ship on the credit of Mr. Smith ?
Witness.—No, my lord, I had sot.
Mr. CRESSWELL -having addressed the jury for the defence,
Mr. Kingcade and the captain wore called to prove that Ewin
was the principal in the transaction, and that the captain and
Smith's agent merely went in common course to inspect the
provisions, which it was usual for the captain to do, before they
were finally purchased. Mr. Kingcade proved also that a de,
wand had been made upon Mr. Smith for sails furnished in a
similar way thrOugh the medium of Ewin, who became bank-
rupt in August subsequent to this transaction.
The jury found for the defendant.
MOORS V. A NDERTON.

Mr. ALEXANDER, with whom was Mr. COTTINGNAM, stated
that Mr. Moons was a corn merchant, in Sutton, and the de.
fendaut a foreman in his employ. The action was brought to
obtain a balance of accounts fot various transactions from 1833
to the -end of 1834. The sum claimed is £lO9. It being a mat-
ter of lenkthened and intricate account, the court suggested,
and the counsel on both sides concurred in the propriety of te-
tarring it to an arbitrator, subject to whose awarda verdict was
taken for the plaintiff.