The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-03-31 00:00:00

ILLEGAL SEIZURE.

BARKER V. NUTTALL and OTIIERS.—The plaintiff in this
case was John Barker, and the defendants, James Nuttall,
Henry Ramsbottom, and Abraham Stansfried ; and the ac-
tion was brought to recover compensation in damages for an
alleged illegal distraint upon the property of the plaintiff.
Mr. Wortley and Mr. Hugh Hill conducted the case for,
the plaintiff; Mr. Dundas and Mr. Watson appeared for the
defendants.

Mr. Him, opened the case. The plaintiff complained that
the defendants had broken and entered into a certain dwel-
ling house, taken away certain goods and chattels therefrom ;
and also into a certain workshop, when they forcibly expelled
the plaintiff's workmen, and had broke down and detached
certain patterns and machinery, and converted the same to
their own use. The defendants pleaded first, that with re-
spect to the workshop, except to the extent of £l5, they
were not liable ; and secondly, with respect to the dwelling-
house, the plaintiff was not possessed of the goods and chat-
tels therein. Upon these pleas issue was joined.
Mr. WORTLEY said the plaintiff sought compensation at
the hands of the jury for very bad and inconsiderate conduct
upon the part of the defendants; he trusted it might prove
to be nothing else. The action was brought by Mr. John
Barker, an engineer and millwright, at Todmorden, on the
borders of Lancashire and Yorkshire, against James Nuttall,
a tradesman, residing in the srme place, and two other per-
sons, Henry Rarnsbottorn, and Abraham Stansfried, a bai-
liff, and bailiffs' follower, for entering upon the plaintiff's
premises without legal rights, seizing all his goods, furniture,
and stock in trade, turning out the plaintiff and his work-
men, and afterwards selling the goods under circumstances
which led to their going off much under their value. The
plaintiff was but a young man ; he had only lately set up
business, and had a fair stock ; he had taken a new work-
shop with every convenience, and had several persons in his
employment. He had dealt with Mr. Nuttall, the defendant,
who was an iron and brass fonnder, and from time to time
he had paid him large sums of money. At the time that
this occurred he owed Nuttall some little money, but there
was no suggestion whatever ,that Nuttall was likely to lose
this debt so as to explain or justify the proceedings which he
afterwards took. On Monday the 19th of December, the
defendant, with the bailiff and his followers, went upon the
premises of the plaintiff, wholly unexpected, and without any
previous notice, he said, " I want my money." It appeared
that there was a debt due to Nuttall by the plaintiff's father,
which, whether the present plaintiff was originally liable for
or not, he (Mr. Wortley) did not know ; but he had subse-
quently made himself liable for £2O. It was then for that
debt, he believed, that the defendant went in and seized the
plaintiff's goods. Nuttall, when they were ,in, gave orders
to the bailiffs to take an inventory of all the property ; the
plaintiff told him he had no right to do so, but, nevertheless,
they did take an inventory of every thing, after which Nut-
tall left the other two to keep possession of the house. Be-
sides this they actually turned the plaintiff's workmen out of
the shop altogether. It would be proved that the plaintiff
had, at this time, orders in hand, the execution of which
would have occupied him eight or nine months to come.
Wheter they had gone in with the intention of selling, he
(Mr. Wortley) did not know; but it would be proved that
on the night of the very day.they entered bills were issued
announcing the sale : the sale took place on the following
Friday, but the bailiffs, even after that remained on the pre-
mises, and kept possession of them till Wednesday in the
following week. It would further be shewn, that at the sale
some patterns, which were extremely valuable to the plain-
tiff, had been bought by the defendant Nuttall himself at
ruinously small prices. With respect to the damage which
this proceeding on the part of the defendants had done to the
plaintiff—his business had been actually broken up, he had
never been able to get over it; and in point of fact it had
been the utter ruin of the young man. The defendants, to
some extent admitted they had done wrong, inasmuch, as
paltrygreat aurain a
ry coulduhi
which
he anyth e
they had paid £l5 into court, but it was absurd to suppose,
tuindcalegritikhee cairccuonmispteatr:scaet,iatnit%r hthtate
plaintiff had sustained.

Hiram Barker, and Thomas Platt, two workmen, proved
the entry of the bailiffs, the stoppage of the works, the sale
of the goods, and that the orders which had previously been
in course of execution, were, in consequence of the seizure,
necessarily withdrawn. There had been transactions between
the parties, the defendant supplying the plaintiff with cast-
ings.: _ _

Mr. Eastwood, the plaintiff's attorney, proved that he had
asked the defendant Nuttall, and the auctioneer, under what
authority they were selling. A bill of sale was produced by
Nuttall to the extent of £2O; and he (witness) protested
against the legality of it, and threatened that actions would
bed e commence
nse d against them if they sold for more than £2O,
a the expes.
This was the plaintiff's case.

Mr. DUNDAS then opened the ease for the defendants, ob-
serving that a more uncandid statement than that made by
his learned friend who appeared for the plaintifrhe had never
heard. lie could only suppose that his learned friend had
not been fully informed upon the matter, because the fact
was, he had altogether kept hack a bill of sale which was the
title of the defendant Mr. Nuttall for entering and selling.
Then how had the action been brought? Was not Mr. Nut-
tall a responsible man ? Was he not a substantial man ?
Why, then, had the other persons been put upon the record
as defendants, seeing that Mr. Nuttall was the substantial
defiidant., and aide to pay any costs which this action might

entail ? They had been made defendants in order to stint

their mouths, a practise which he (Mr. Dundas) should
always protest against. It appeared that in May, 18-12, the
old man, father of the plaintiff, died ; his widow was the ad-
ininistratrix of his effects ; and she sold the goods and tools
to the plaintiff. Ile, in May, was indebted to Mr. Nuttall
in the sum of ; and on the 14th of that month and May
the plaintiff and defendant made an agreement by which the
plaintiff gave the defendant a bill of sale to secure that £2O
upon the goods, household effects, and working implements
mentioned in the schedule annexed thereto. The learned
counsel then read the bill of sale, which was in the usual
form of such documents. Under this authority the plaintiff
was entitled, one minute after its execution, to go in and sell
all the articles mentioned in the schedule. Mr. Eastwood,
in his evidence, stated he had told Mr. Nuttall and the auc-
tioneer that if they sold for more than £2O and the expenses
it would be at their peril ; but Mr. Eastwood could not have

read the document, otherwise he would have found that it
was an authority to sell i he whole to discharge the expenses,
and then the £2O, and the rest he, Mr. Nuttall, was to hold
for the.party.entitled to it, namely, the plaintiff himself. The
jury had heard that there had been transactions 'between the
parties ; that was so, and on a settlement it was proved that
£57 were due to the defendant Mr. Nuttall; and he (Mr.
Nuttall) promised that if a portion was paid to him a day or
two afterwards, he would not put the bill of sale in force. At
last, upon the 19th of December, when he was not paid the
money, Mr. Nuttall entered, and sold, as lie had a perfect
right to do, and he, at the request of the plaintiff himself, put
off the sale from the 22d to the 23d. They (the jury) would
hear from the learned judge that the defendant could not
enter the house ; and it was for that entering that the £l5
had been paid into court, which was a sufficient compensa-
tion for it. At no time had the plaintiff urged the slightest
objeCtion to the bill of sale ; and he (Mr. Dundas) understood
that the amount realized at the sale was really and truly £3O,
so that there would be only £2 or £3 due to the plaintiff
after the expenses had been paid. The only question then
for the consideration of the jury was whether they would give
the plaintiff more than the £l5 paid into court, which he
(the learned counsel) contended was ample and sufficient.
The bill of sale was put in and read, and a number of wit-
nesses were examined in support of the case on the part of
the defendants. The sale produced £46 Is. 2d. The plain-
tiff himself was at the sale, but he did not interfere to stop it.
Mr. WORTLEY, in reply to the defendants case, contended
that the defendant was entitled to more than the £l5 paid
into court, for entering the house, to the value of more goods
which had been placed in the establishment after the date of
the bill of sale, and to the damages for the ruin of his busi-
fleas.

-The jury retired to consider their.•verdict, and after being
absent for an hour, they returned with a verdict for the plain-
tiff upon all the issues, damages :ea.

ASSAULT AND BATTERY

PATCHETT V. ASHTON.—The declaration in this case
charged the defendant with having committed an assault and
battery upon the plaintiff. The defendant merely pleaded
the general issue. Mr. Atherton appeared for the plaintiff;
Mr. Brandt for the defendant.
Mr. ATHERTON said the plaintiff was a young gentleman,
21 years of age, and son of Mr. George Patchett, a very re-
spectable gentleman, who had carried on the business of a
distiller in Manchester, but who was now retired from busi-
ness, and was living upon his property at Chat Moss. The
defendant was also a person in a respectable station in Man-
chester, being a collector of taxes. Prior to this assault the
plaintiff's father had occupied, on lease, some premises as
tenant to defendant. The lease expired on the 29th Septem-
ber. During the occupation of this house by Mr. George
Patchett, that gentleman had erected a water-closet upon the
premises, and at the end of the lease some discussion took
place between the parties as to whether any allowance should
be made for this erection or not. The plaintiff and a witness,
who would be called, waited, on the 29th of September, upon
the defendant, to make an offer of ;b;.l but before they had
time even to make the offer, the assault was committed.
Mr. Thomas Sugden, a party who. went with the witness,
described the assault.

Mr. BnANDT, for the defendant, contended that the whole
affair was of the most trumpery description, and that the ac-
tion was brought for the sake of costs.
The judge summed up thus—Gentlemen, you have heard
the case, you will consider what damages you should give.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages one
farthing.
SHERBURNE V. QUARME.—There arc two cases in the
second list under this name, which it may be recollected were
made remanets by Mr. Baron Manic at the last assizes. In
the cause of to-day, Mr. DUNDAS, o❑ the part of the plain-
tiff, applied to the Judge to fix a day for the trials, on the
ground that there were numerous witnesses to come from a
distance in them, and on their being remanets.
Mr. BAINES said, he appeared on the other side, he had
not yet received his instructions, therefore be was not in

a situation to say anything on the application.
The Jun thought that Saturday week would he a con-
venient day ; and if that would suit all parties he would
appoint it.

- Mr. BAINES again stated that he had not received his in-
structions; and ultimately the conversation dropped without
any day being specifically appointed for the trial.
TAYLOR V. ASHTON AND OTHERS.—This is a special jury
case in which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages from the
defendants, who were directors of the Commercial Bank of
Manchester, for an alleged libel. The attorney for the plain-
T is Mr. John Lowe, of_ Harrington-street, in this town,

.d Messrs. Atkinson and Sanders, and Mt;ssrs. Slater and
leelis's are for the defendants. Sir Wm. Follett, the Soli.
Ator-General has been specially retained by the defendants,
with a fee of 300 guineas. In the course of to-day,
Mr. KNOWLES, who with Messrs. Crompton and Martin
will conduct the case for the plaintiff, requested the learned
Judge to appoint a day for the trial.
Mr. WORTLEY said he appeared with Sir Wm. Follett for
the defendants, and he was not at liberty to take any part in
the appointment of the day until he had communicated with
his leader.

Eventually the trial was fixed to commence on Monday
week, the 10th April, in case that day should prove conve-
nient to Sir W. Follett, with whom Mr. Wortley undertook
to communicate on the subject; after which,. the subject will

be again mentioned. At aSubs.equent period of the day the
trial was fixed to commence on Tlauroday, the 13th.
The court adjourned at half-past six o'clock.

CROWN COURT.—TnuasnAY.
111 r. Baron PitnicE entered the court a few minutes after
nine o'clock.

MINT CASES.
James Mullany, 22, was indicted for uttering counterfeit
shillings, at Warrington, in January last. Guilty. Six
months' imprisonment.
John Kearns, 45, was charged with uttering five pieces of
counterfeit coin, at Warrington, in January last. Guilty,
but recommended to mercy. Six weeks' imprisonment.
Sarah Wilson stood charged with uttering counterfeit coin
at Liverpool, on the 21st of the present month. Acquitted.
Mary Howley was charged with uttering counterfeit coin
at Liverpool, ou the 27th of the present month. Acquitted.
Messrs. Armstrong and Pollock conducted the cases
against the prisoners for coining, and Mr. Powell was in
attendance on behalf of the Mint.

HIGHWAY ROBBEItY.
David Dickenson, 24, Andrew Thorpe, 23, and Robert
Booth, 17, were indicted fir robbing Samuel Orrell at Bol-
ton. O❑ the 10th of October last the prosecutor, in com-
pany with his wife, was on his way to Turton (where he re-
sides) to little Bolton, having with him two £5 and one £lO
Bank of England notes. On arriving at Little Bolton they
called at the Dog and Partridge, and staid there till about
nine o'clock in the evening, when they set out to return to
Turton. While staying at the Dog and Patridge, they ob-
served several men sitting in the house drinking, who, it ap-
peared, immediately followed them after they had left the
house. The prosecutor had not proceeded far on the road
when he was attacked by some men, and knocked down, and
on recovering himself. two persons were beating him violently,
one of whom was the prisoner Dickenson, and who, together
with other man, then ran away, The prosecutor, on search.
ing his pockets, found that his money had been taken, and
immediately proceeded to Bolton, and from the description
he gave the prisoner Dickenson was apprehended. When

taken he had some marks of blood on his person, but he ac.
counted for it by saying that his nose had been bleeding
though he admitted being at the Dog and Partridge in corn.
pany with Booth on the night the robbery was committed
Booth and Thorpe were also apprehended, the same evening
and there were marks of blood on Booth's hands. The pri.
sours were undefended. The jury retired to consider their
verdict, and after being absent about ten minutes, found al
the prisoners guilty. Sentence deferred.