The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-09-03 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD

NISI PRIUS COURT.-WEDNESDAY.

NON-PAYMENT OF ELECTIONEERING EXPENSES.
DUCKWORTH V. JOHNSON.—III this case Wm. Duck-
worth was the plaintiff and George Johnson the defend-
ant. The action was for goods sold and materials and
attendance, and on an account stated. The amount
sought was £5O. The defendant admitted his liability to
the extent of £6.
The plaintiff's case was conducted by Mr. Wortley, as-
sisted by Mr. Cardwell; Messrs. Baines and Segar were
for the defendant.
Mr. WORTLEY stated that the plaintiff was a publican,
carrying on business at Blackburn, and the defendant a
respectable tradesman, also belonging to that place. In
the year 1841, during the occurrence of the general
election, considerable excitement prevailed, and the town
of Blackburn was no exception, the struggle there being
carried on with great spirit on both sides. Mr. Turner,
the former member, having expressed a wish not to come
forward again, the parties in the field were Mr. Fie:den
and a gentleman named Hornby. Subsequently, however,
in consequence of the urgent solicitations of some of his
friends and supporters, Mr. Turner was induced to come
forward as a candidate, on the understanding that he was
not to be subjected to any expense, whatever might be
the result of the contest. The election began, and, as was
often the case, purity ,of election was the cry on both sides,
and there was to be no corruption. The contest, how-
ever, grew hot and close, which the result evidently
showed, as Mr. Turner only lost by one vote; it became
evident, therefore, that ordinary canvassing was inefficient,
and means were resorted to on both sides for influencing
the electors, and houses of entertainment opened in vari-
ous parts of the town. Among these was the house- of
the plaintiff, where arrangements were made for the recep-
tion of a considerable company, and on the 23d of June,
the first day of the election, Johnson was there, in com-
pany with a number of other persons in the interest of
Mr. Turner. The defendant appeared to be the leading
person, and gave orders that an entertainment should be
sent up stairs, consisting of brandy and water, &c., and
a then i e
accommodationd the mto tl the room. oao
lowerm.
class
also f gave
personsdi-
arelscotiaocncsofmorp
in the kitchen,—not with the same exalted fare as the

party up stairs were enjoying, but with rum and ale.
There was considerable excitement, as is usual on such
occasions, which was continued for an hour or two during
the evening. Johnson gave orders for a person to be
placed on the stairs, so as not to allow the lower class of
individuals, who were regaling themselves in the kitchen,
to obtain admission to the room occupied by the aristo-
cracy above, and at the close of the jollification gave di-
rections for stopping the tap, which was accordingly done,
and not a drop was given as soon as the shadow of John-
son ceased to darken the door of the plaintiff Duckworth ;
a friend of the plaintiff had undertaken to score up the
evening's accounts, which amounted to about £3O, on
one of the doors of the house. On the day of nomination
drink had also been supplied to a small amoun , by direc-
tion of the defendant. It appeared that shortly after this

things c 'me to such a pass that every voter was. of the ut-
most confidence, and a system called bottling took place.
A person named Halliwell, who had been pestered by both
parties, was, by the direction of the defendant taken to
the plaintiff's house, and amply provided for, the defend-
ant observing that he (Halliwell) must sleep there and
some one with him, and be taken care of until he was
wanted. The next morning he was taken away by John-
son to the head quarters of the party, and after having
been supplied with breakfast went and recorded his vote
for Mr. Turner. The amount sought originated in the
manner he had stated, and comprised in the whole a sum
of about £5O.
Several witnesses were then called for the plaintiff's
case, to prove that Johnson was at this house on the even-
ing in question, and gave the directions alluded to by the
learned counsel; one of them stated in cross-examination,
that the proportion of brandy supplied to the party up
stairs was 450 glasses, averaging 15 glasses for each per-
son, which was disposed of in about two hours, and that
the guests in the kitchen had a large quantity of ale, each
gallon of which was seasoned with a pint of rum, The
house was very full, some of those present being obliged
to occupy the yard, and there was much excitement and
confusion.
Mr. BAINES addressed the jury for the defendant. He
observed that a more unfounded claim had never been
brought into a court of justice. The defendant never de-
nied his liability with respect to Halliwell, for which he
had made a tender of £6, which was all he had a right to
pay. He would undertake to show that his client was
not responsible for all those expenses brought against him.
There was another fact, too, which told against the plain-
tiff, namely, that though three years had elapsed no ap-
plication had been made to the defendant, but that re-
peated demands had been made on the family of Mr.
Turner, whO was the party liable, if there was any liability
at all.

Witnesses were called who stated they did not see the
defendant at Duckworth's house on the evening in ques-
tion; that they were there, and some drink was ordered
by Mr. Wm. Turner. One of them, Mr. Thomas Tur-
ner, the nephew of the candidate, said he had orders to
open several houses, and had paid several of the accounts,
having received money from his uncle for that purpose,
but had not paid Duckworth and some others. John
Brown, who was at the house of the plaintiff on the night
before the election, heard him say, when the score
amounted to £lO, that all had then come in that was
ordered. Witness was a waiter on the occasion, and the
full value of the drink brought in during the evening,
which, he believed, was ordered by Mr. Turner, would
amount to £lO. He did not see the defendant there, but
would not swear that he might not be present.
Mr. WORTLEY replied. He said there was nothing in-
consistent in what had been stated with the evidence of
the plaintiff; for, if that were admitted, it amounts to a
chrrge of direct perjury on all those witnesses. It was
quite clear that that the occasion of which the defendant's
witnesses had been speaking was different to that referred
to by the plaintiff, and, consequently, did not invalidate
his claim.
The learned JUDGE, in summing up the case, said it

was melancholy to see such a trumeri cause occupying
so much of the time of the Court. The jury found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff for £36 I4s. Bd.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A LEASE.
HEWITT V. LOCKETT.—The plaintiff, Mr. John Hewitt,
was trustee to a lady of the name of Birley, and the de-
fendant, a gentleman belonging to the town. The action
was for an alleged violation of a lease existing between
the parties. The defendant had five pleas on the record,
which were to the effect, that he had made no promise—
did not under-let, es alleged, and had not allowed the
house to be occupied.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Cowling were for the plaintiff
Mr. Watson for the defendant, assisted by Mr. Cromp-
ton.

Mr. MARTIN stated the case. It appeared the plaintiff
acted as trustee, under a marriage settlement, for Mrs.
Birley, with respect to a house situate in Hope-street,
Liverpool, which house had been leased to the defendant,
in 1834, and he resided there at that time. The terms of
the lease were, that the house should not be occupied
otherwise than as a dwelling-house, and not as a lodging-
house, school, &c. At the expiration of the lease, in
1841, which was for seven yea's, it was from circum-
stances that took place, supposed to be renewed by the
defendant on the same terms, he being considered the
tenant, so far as paying the rent. The defendant had
subsequently left the house, and in September of last
year it was ascertained to have been let as a lodging-
house, to a person not such as was contemplated un-
der the terms of the agreement, by which the value
of the house bad become deteriorated. Some corres-
pondence took place with the defendant on the sub-
ject, but he refused to come to .any arrangement in
consequence of which the proceedings in question had
been instituted.
Witnesses were called to prove that a house occupied
by lodgers would neither let nor sell for so much, in con-
sequence of such occupation.
Mr. WATsoN was about to address the jury, when an
agreement was come to, and a verdict taken for the plain-
tiff by consent, damages one shilling. His Lordship re.
fused to certify for the costs.
ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT.
PITTS V. BECKETT AND ANOTHER.—The plaintiff is a
wool merchant in this town, and the defendants carry on
business as wool staplers, at Manchester. The action was
brought to recover the sum of £149, being the value of
certain 'wool sold to the defendants.
Mr. Knowles, assisted by Mr. Crompton, were for the
plaintiff; and Messrs. Martin and Atherton for the de-
fendants.
The case was stated by Mr. Knowles. In the month
of March, of the present year, the plaintiffs had a quan-
tity of skin wool, which they employed Messrs. Hughes
and Ronald, brokers, of this town, to sell for them, to
whose office a sample was sent, the bulk of the wool re-
maining with the plaintiff. Shortly after this the plaintiff
met one of the defendants in the street, and spoke to him
on the subject of the wool, and he (defendant) went with
him to the brokers' office, and after examining it, bought
it at a certain price, the sale notes being made out in the
usual way. The wool was received by the defendant on
the 9th of April, but in a day or two after this he sent a
letter to the plaintiff, stating that part of the wool was not
in good condition, and had shrunk in dressing. When
the wool was bought by the defendants, they ought to have
been prepared for such a result, as wool of that kind not
unfrequently shrunk a great deal; only three sheets were
complained of, for which the plaintiffs offered to make a
deduction of 281bs. ; but this the defendants refused, alle-
ging that the wool was not such as had been stipulated
for, and the bargain ought, consequently, to be rescinded.
To this the plaintiffs could not accede, as the parties had
an opportunity of inspecting it in the bulk, and it was in
good condition when sold : the sale was not made by sam-
ple. and nothing of that kind was stated in the contract.
Witnesses were then called, who deposed to the sale be-
ing made, and that the wool was in good condition when
sold.
Mr. MARTIN, on the part of the defendants, said the
only question was whether or not the wool was in good
condition, according to the terms of the contract. He
should be able to show that it was not in gocd condition,
and was also deficient in weight, and consequently the
defendants had a right to reject it.
He then called Samuel Spence, a person in the employ
of the defendants when the wool arrived at their premises.
He stated that on examination it was found to be out of
condition, and not dry, and, he conceived, in a state unfit
for sale • the weight was also deficient. It was ultimately
sent back to the plaintiff.
Other witnesses were called, who corroborated the pre-
vious statement, but admitted on cross-examination that

the wool was not inspected until it had been subjected,
for a period of about twelve hours, to the operation of a
drying stove.
Mr. Robinson, wool-broker, examined the wool, and
considered it to be in bad condition.
Mr. KNOWLES replied. There were two points which
he would submit to the jury : the first was, whether there
had been an acceptance of the wool by the defendants'
agent.
The JUDGE.—I shall say there has not.
Mr. KNOWLES.—Then the only question would be as
to the evidence affecting the state of the wool, and from
-the statements of the parties called for the plaintiff, he
thought it must be evident, that when the wool was sold
and delivered to the defendants' agent, it was in good con-
dition.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendants. The
plaintiff was granted liberty to move.

ALLEGED IMPROPER RETURN OF THE SHERIFF.
HOWARTH V. GARNETT.
The plaintiff in this case was George Howarth, and the
defendant the late sheriff of the county, WTm. Garnett,
Esq. The action arose out of the issuing forth and direc-
tion to the defendant of a writ.
Mr. Atherton conducted the case for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Knowles appeared for the defendant.
The case was stated by Mr. ATHERTON. He believed
it was the first of the kind on record against the sheriff.

In July, 1843, the plaintiff was a shopkeeper, carrying on
business in Preston, and had dealings with a person
named Walker, who brought an action against him in the
Court of Common Pleas, for the recovery of a small debt,
and obtained a verdict, the costs amounting to about £l5,
for which a writ of fieri factas was issued to take his
goods. A warrant was then obtained. The plaintiff sub-
sequently came to Liverpool, and shortly afterwards
found another writ directed against him, at the suit of
Walker, which was followed up by a writ against his per-
son. These cirumstances led to an inquiry. the plaintiff
being anxious to know how it was the two proceedings—
one against his goods, and the other against his person—
had arisen, and upon inquiry it was ascertained that the
sheriff hail returned to the first writ that the defendant in
that action had no goods within his bailidom, which was
alleged to be a false return.

Mr. KNOWLES addressed the jury for the defendant,
observing that the case was one of the shabbiest ever
brought into court. He contended that no greater amount
had been distrained on in the first instance than what was
legally due.
The Foreman of the Jury.—We don't believe the evi-
dence for the plaintiff.
A verdict was accordingly returned for the defendant.
The JUDGE.—It is a very abominable and disgraceful
action.

FIELD V. SWIFT.
A Verdict was taken in this case by consent, subject to
a reference.
The Court rose at twenty minutes past six.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—THURSDAY.
HOUSLEY V. BATTERSBY.
This was an action for goods sold and delivered, and on
an account stated. The plaintiff was a tradesman carry-
ing on business as a dealer in building materials, and the
defendant a person not in any business, but having to do
with speculating in land and houses. In September, last
year, a person named Alexander Battersby applied to the
plaintiff for a supply of bricks, which were furnished on
the understanding that the defendant, who knew Alex.
Battersby, would become responsible. Bricks to the
amount of £127 had been supplied in the first instance,
£4O of which had been paid ; but the defendant denied
his liability as to the remainder, leaving £B7 ls. unpaid,
which was the amount sought to be recovered. There
was a second order, amounting to £174 155., but that
had been liquidated.
After some discussion on the part of the learned coun-
sel, a verdict was taken by consent for the plaintiff for
£5O.
DE WOLF AND ANOTHER V. BEVAN AND ANOTHER.
The plaintiffs in this case were the assignees of persons
carrying on business in this town under the firm of
M'Leod, Wood, and Co. who had become bankrupts,
and the defendants wine and spirit merchants of this town.
The object of the plaintiffs was to recover the sum of £BO,
being the value of some brandies which they alleged were
the property of the bankrupts at the time of their bank-
ruptcy, and consequently became the property of the as-
signees. The case (which had been tried at the last as-
sizes) occupied the Court for a considerable time, and
was not of any public interest. The facts were exceed-
ingly short. It appeared that, in 1842, five puncheons
of brandy were purchased by M`Leod, Wood, and Co.,
from Messrs. Falk Brothers, who were said to be in fact
the, real defendants in the action. Subsequently, how-
ever, M'Leod, Wood, and Co. got into difficulties, and
Falk Brothers stopped the brandy in transitu, in conse-
quence of the non-payment of a bill which had been ac-
cepted by the bankrupts. An application was then made
by the plaintiffs to Messrs. Bevan and Co., in whose
vaults the brandy was lying, requesting them to give up
possession of the goods, they (the plaintiffs) alleging that
as the assignees of the bankrupts they were entitled to
them. The defendants persisted in their refusal, on the
ground that the brandy had been retained by Falk Bro-
thers, as a lien on the bill above named, and was Co
quently their property. The question was whether WNW
the defendants were justified in the course they had
adopted.
A document, entitled a letter of license, formed a very
prominent feature in the case, as it contained the signa-
tures of various creditors of Messrs. M'Leod, Wood, and
(Jo., amongst which was the firm of Falk Brothers, said
to have been written by Mr. Robert Falk in the presence
of the bankrupts. Mr. Falk, however, denied the genu-
ineness of the signature, and said it was merely a clumsy
imitation.
The jury found a verdict for the defendants.
CHARGE OF NEGLIGENCE AGAINST A PILOT.
GAWNE AND ANOTHER V. LEWIS.
The plaintiffs in this case were Messrs. Edward Gawne
and to., owners of the Queen of the Isle steamer, and
the defendant a licensed pilot of this port. The action
was for damage done to that vessel by the negligent ma-
nagement of a ship under the command of the defendant.
The damages were laid at £39 12s. Gd.
Messrs. Martin and Cardwell were for the plaintiff;
and Mr. Sergeant Murphy and Mr. Aspinall for the de-
fendant.
Mr. MARTIN stated the case. On the 25th of August
last year, the Queen of the Isle steamer was lying at an-
chor in her usual position, opposite the baths at George's
Pier, taking in coals. It was about nine in the evening,
and rather dark ; a light was, however, placed in the
usa ud ael
hwa ar
gy
ea
at
ft hae mv
eassste-lh ecadal
i.e d The defethendant
aLnenwi
ai whwhaos
coming up the river with the view of getting into one of
the upper docks, and there was at the time very little
wind; the tide was also running rapidly, being about two
hours before flood. The man on the look-out, on board
the steamer, saw the vessel coming up, and, fearing a
collision, hailed her, but no answer was returned, and the
result was that she came in contact with the steamer,
side on, carrying away her figure-head and bowsprit, and
doing other damage. He (the learned counsel) consi-
dered the injury was occasioned by the negligence of the
defendant, as he was in a part of the river not usually
resorted to by vessels of that size, there being, at the
time, abundance of room, if he had chosen to avail him-
self of it.
Mr. Sergeant Munruv addressed the jury for the de-
fendant. He contended that a proper look-out had not
been kept by the patties on board the steamer; and with
respect to the defendant's vessel being out of her course,
he should be able to show that such was not the case ; he
(the defendant) had intended to anchor for the night near
where the collision took place, so as to take advantage of
the morning's tide, and enter the King's Dock. The
plaintiffs had been contributary to the damage, and con-
sequently could not recover. The learned gentleman
concluded by calling witnesses.
James Rowbottom, a boatman, who boarded the George
Canning in the liver, stated, that the crew were on deck,
and the steamer was hailed. He did not observe any
light, and it was not perceptible whether she was a
steamer or anything else. The pilot let go the anchor
when about half a cable's length from the Queen, but the
anchor dragged, and they called out immediately for them
to port the helm, which not being attended to by the par-
ties on board the steamer, was the cluse of the collision.
Several other witnesses were called who gave similar
testimony ; and Mr. Cook, inspector of pilots, deposed
that the place where the George Canning was about to
cast anchor, would be considered a proper position under
the circumstances.
Mr. MARTIN replied, to the effect that the evidence
produced for the defendant had utterly failed. It had
been proved beyond a doubt that his clients had been
injured by the defendant's negligence, and were conse-
quently entitled to a verdict for damages.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages,
£39 12s. Gd.
The Court adjourned shortly after seven o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY.
WHARTON V. WRIGHT.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Joseph
Wharton, against the defendant, Joseph Wright, to re-
cover the amount of six bills of exchange, four of which
were endorsed by the defendant, and for which it was
alleged he was liable. The defendant denied his liability.
Mr. James and Mr. Atherton appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Martin for the defendant.
It appeared from the statement of counsel, and the evi-
dence of the various witnesses, that the defendant, at the
time of the transactions, when the bills were given, occu-
pied the Brunswick Hotel, in this town, but had since
gone to reside in Northamptonshire. His brother, Wm.
Wright, occupied the Brunswick previously, and in 1838
an arrangement was made between them whereby the
defendant became the occupier. The plaintiff, a gentle-
man now out of business, was intimately acquainted with
them, and for the purpose of assisting the defendant to
carry on business, procured credit for him, and became
guarantee for the supply of liquors to the house. Some of
the bills had arisen out of those transactions, and the only
defence consisted of a denial of the handwriting.
The jury found a verdict for plaintiff for £26 18s.
FERIIAN V. BARNES.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, James Fe-
rigan, against the defendant, Robert Barnes, for the reco-
very of the amount of a bill of exchange for £5O. The
defendant pleaded that he had not accepted; that it was
endorsed after it became due, and he denied the first and
second endorsements.
Mr. Sergeant Murphy and Mr. Crompton appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. James for the defendant.
amAouvnet.rdict was returned for the plaintiff for the full

TYRER AND ANOTHER V. ELLISON.
This was an undefended action, brought by Messrs.
Tyrer and Lever, carriers on the Leeds and Liverpool
Canal, and bran-dealers, to recover a sum of £ll3 for
bran sold and delivered by them to the defendant, Mr.
Ellison, a miller and flour-dealer, near Blackburn.
full
A verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the
amount.