The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-04-09 00:00:00

DE WOOLF AND OTHERS V. BEVAN AND ANOTHER.

The plaintiffs in this case, which was an action of tro-
ver, were the assignees of Messrs. M`Leod, Wood; and
Co., and the defendants, Messrs. Bevan and Smith,
warehouse-agents, of Liverpool. The action was to re-
cover the value of some brandies, sold by Fanck Brothers
to the bankrupts. The amount sought was £77.
The jury retired before five o'clock, and at seven they
had not delivered their verdict.
The court rose shortly before six o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—THURSDAY.
WRIT OF RIGHT.-RISIITON V. NESBIT.
In this case four knights of the shire—Sir Thomas
Brancker, Sir Joshua Watmsley, Sir Thomas Potter, and
Sir George Drinkwater—were summoned to apear, ac-
cording to ancient custom, " girt with sword," to try,
along with twelve other recognitors, whether Anthony
Nesbit, the tenant, or Charles Rishton, the demandant,
had a right to certain property which formerly constituted
part of Chorlton Hall Estates, in Chorlton-upon-Med-
lock, n-ar Manchester.
Mr. Starkie, Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Tomlinson con-
ducted the case on behalf of the tenant; Mr. Dundas and
Mr. Archbold were counsel for the demandant.

An attempt was made on the pea of the demandant to
postpone the trial, on the ground of the absence of a ma-
terial witness, but on his Lordship intimating that if a
postponement took place the demandant would have to
pay the costs, Mr. Dundas said he would rather proceed.
Some conversation then took place as to which side should
proceed first: and his lordship ruled that the tenant should.
Mr. STARKIE then stated the case. He said the de-
mandant claimed, as the heir-at-law of a lady named Bar-
bara Aytown, who was possessed of the estates early in
the last century. The learned gentleman then proceeded.
on behalf of the tenant, to show how the estate had been
handed down until it reached the present owners, and,
besides that, denied that the demandant was heir-at-law.
To prove the right of tenant, a vast number of title and
mortgage deeds were read ; and to prove the pedigree,
many copies of registers of births, marriages, and deaths,
were also read, and several witnesses examined. As soon
as the case for the tenant had closed,
Mr. DUNDAS said, on the part of the demandant, he
had performed his duty by watching the case; but finding
it was not in their power to bring forward evidence to
rebut that already adduced, they must submit to a verdict.
His LORDSHIP then intimated to the jury that there
was nothing left for them to do. The parties were satis-
fied, and of course they (the jury) were released.
This case lasted from nine o'clock in the morning till
about half-past four in the afternoon.
RODGERS AND ANOTHER V. MAW.
This was an action to recover £l7OO on a bond. The
defendant pleaded a set off of £lBOO. Mr. Knowles and
Mr. Cowling appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. Martin and
Mr. Crompton for the defendant. The plaintiffs were
Henry Rodgers and William Marshall, and the defendant
iron
founders Edwin Maw, and formerly they were partners as
founders and engineers in this town. In January, 184.0,
the partnership was dissolved, Mr. Maw agreeing to give
up all interest in the concern, and his partners releasing
him from all the debts and liabilities of the firm. The de-
fendant further agreed to give the plaintiffs a bond for
£2OOO, payable by yearly instalments of £5OO. The de-
fendant fulfilled the terms of the bond, until he was com-
pelled by Messrs. Spooner, Attwood and Co., of London,
to pay the amount of an acceptance for £l7OO, which had
been drawn by one of the plaintiffs and accepted by the
other in the name of the firm.
It came out in the course of the cause that the real
plaintiff was the Royal Bank of Liverpool, and ultimately
the question resolved itself into a point of law. His
Lordship, therefore, directed a verdict to be entered for
the plaintiffs for the amount claimed, with liberty to re-
duce the verdict to such sum as the'Court might direct.

AVERY AND OTHERS V. BROWN AND OTHERS.
This was an action to recover damages. for an alleged
breach of contract, and after the case had been heard, it
was agreed between the parties that a verdict of £5O
should be taken on behalf of the plaintiffs.
The Court adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.