The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-08-20 00:00:00

SIIELDRICII AND DAWSON V. BARBER

Verdict for the plaintiffs, fustian manufacturers, Manchester, for
£2B 2s. Ild., for goods sold to defendant. Undefended.

SANDFORD V. JACKSON: A MAIDEN LADY AND HER PARROT.

In this case, which ran considerably into detail, Mr. Atherton
appeared for the plaintiff, Sarah Sandford, and Mr. Brandt for the
defendant, Thomas Jackson.
Mr. ATHERTON, in stating the case, said this was an action of
trover brought by the plsintitr to recover use value of a parrot and
cage—(a laugh)—which the defendant had converted to his own use.
He (the learned counsel) saw it was impossible to mention the na-
ture of the goods and chattels without exciting a smile ; but, per-
haps, when he informed the jury that his client was a maiden lady,
not in the first flush of youth, and not in the best of circumstances,
they would not be so much inclined to wonder at the value and im-
portance she attached to her bird. She resided at Swinton, near
_Eccles, and the defendant was the landlord of a public.house, called
" the British fleet," at Oldfield-road, Salford. The facts of the case
were briefly these, that, in the month of March, 1842, a Quaker,
named .Joseph Scholefield Shaw, who was the brother-in-law of the
plaintiff, had a parrot and cage, of which he was anxious to get rid,
and, ultimately, the plaintiff agreed to purchase them for the sum of
£slos. These were the simple circumstances under which the
parrot originally became the property of the plaintiff: The future
adventures of Poll and her cage were next detailed. In the month
of September, 1842, Miss Eliza Sandford, the sister of the plaintiff,
was in bad health, and the parrot being a lively bird, she was na-
turally an xious to get rid of what was once a pleasurable source of
amusement, but was now considered a nuisance ; and the conse-
quence was, that the parrot and cage were removed back again, for
safe keeping, to Mr. Shaw, and were detained by him down to
February, 1843. At that time, Shaw, not being in good circum-
stances, was apprehensive of an execution at the suit of some credi-
tor, and he, wishing to avoid any question that might arise with re-
gard to the ownership of the bird, had the parrot and cage removed
from his house, and, ultimately, both fell into the possession of the
defendant, Mr. Jackson, who had ever since refused to surrender
them, and pleaded, first, that he had not converted the property, and,
mr.
secondly, that the property did not belong to the
riingwas solely to
tAhtahteir,tiosnolaiednmtihttne‘,ll
htlaidattliotthvcicaigs
toa dtoru‘smitihieriii-oabctiotlng, contendedo of
rh
record to the .present assizes, and that the
odefendantrigi
originally commenced
blame in this respect ; for the action had bree
who now brought it on at Liverpool,
u, j
suffering
a bereavement,
in the county court, from which it wasb
in law. He represented a lady ho
w ble to inform the jury of the pro-
lpa
adry,
but, at the same time, he was pmreonovviseod,,,baystihte,,daesfetne Termed
and her parrot. (A lattg—.,position to impart the necessary
should have been in a po
rot, case, he
point • for, in the dearth of public busi-
nesscise nature of the attaclimhe,nt
information on this knotty poi
Hadwuhni ht
h existedze abedto7, einn sat emadai col ef
al
of greater moment, a
committee had recently sat and made a
the House of Commons,
there being little to excite the attention of
report.
—their object beingto ascertain generally about
thittee."—(laughter,)
That committee was appropriately called "the Dog Corn-
., those who abstracted the pets, and thereby lacerated the feel-
pet poodles and (legs of the metropolis,—(great laughter,)—and to
7ies—oafteiiowmers, were drily punished. In other words they had
itogascertain what became of Lady Betty's lap-dog, and to commis-
erate the hard fate to which Miss Brown had been subjected by the
loss of her favourite spaniel, and all those sage inquiries had been
duly recorded in the Parliamentary blue book, and would be handed
down to posterity as an undeniable proof of the heroic spirit of the
nthtahti,sitfimane goeelrvaectmioonntshims,illaier
age in which we live. (Loud laughter.) Mr. Atherton concluded
3 yu
gs ty saying,
ta.vtehrey
presenthumou rsohuosulsr
beeelbl
might be in a better position to tell the • jury something of the sort
of attachment which existed between the owners of parrots and their
birds, but that as yet Parliament, in its wisdom, bad not given the
public any light on a subject of such thrilling interest to the world
at large.
Mr. J. S. Shaw, a Quaker, was the first witness. He stated, that
he resided at Birmingham at present, and that, in the year 1836,
during the time he lived at A shton-under-Lyne,he purchased a par-
rot from a Mrs. Hatfield, of that town. The parrot was very poorly
when it was purchased; and the arrangement was, that he was to
give 30s. for it if it lived, and, if it died, nothing. Subsequently, it
rallied in health and spirits, the 30s. was accordingly paid, and,
after he had had it for six years, he sold it to the plaintiff. During
the six years it received instruction, and was consequently worth
more in 1842 than in 1836, and was worth at the later period £5 10s.
Mr. BnANDT, in addressing the jury for the defence, contended,
that it was a trumpery action, and confessed that he was not sur-
prised to find his learned friend (Mr. Atherton) endeavouring to
enliven it by a little merriment. Without, however, imitating his
friend's example, and beginning with Robinson Crusoe and his par-
rot, he should come at once to the facts ; and the simple facts were,
that it was a mere juggle on the part of the Quaker to send the par-
rot over to his sister-in-law, in order that she might keep the bird
for him until he got out of his difficulties with his creditors.
Witnesses were then called to prove that the bird was sent to the
in pla tiff s for the purpose of protecting it from Mr. Shaw's c di-
tors, and that it had never ceased to be the property of that gen-
tl
eman.
,said , that his learned
Mr ATTIE RToN, in the course of his
friend (Mr- Brandt), finding himself in al
tp o parrot
settled by chatter. rot case, seemed to
think, by his loquaciousness, that it was all
for £5 lOs.,
Eventually, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff
and the amiable lady will enjoy the sweet companionship of her
parrot once again.
DANKEItI.EY V. JENKINSON.
Verdict for the plaintiff £5OO, subject to reference.
NATION V. DUNKENLEY.
In this case plaintiff claimed salary for
five months, at the rate of
£lOO a year, in reply to which £lO was paid into curt. Verdict
was given for defendant.
LOMAS AND AN 'OTHER V. ASIIWON.III.
The plaintiffs are worsted-spinners, residing at Manzbester, and
declaration stated,
the occupiers of a mill, near Accrington. The
that they had a right of water to flow, for the purpose of turning
the mill, and alleged that the defendant had obstructed the water.
The whole question resolved itself into one of law.
was returned
After a brief discussion of the law points, averdict
for the plaintiffs for 405., subject to a special case.
now Ann V. SHORE AND OTHERS.
In this case, Daniel Howard was the plaintiff, and John Shore
and Co. were the defendants. The declaration was in debt for a
sum of £B3, for goods sold and delivered, to which the defendants
pleaded that they were never indebted.
Mr. Baines and Mr. Cobbett appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Watson for the defendants.

laintiff was nonsuited.
GEE V. HALLIWELT, AND UX.
Verdict for the plaintiff for £l3 3s. 6d.
SHAW V. JACKSON AND oniEtts.
The declaration was on a bond for ,dl5O. A verdict was returned
for the plaintiff.
After the above case, some delay took place, several counsel not
being ready to go on, from the circumstance of their witnesses, &G.,
having left the court. Ultimately, an unimportant case was got
over, and the court adjourned at half-past four o'clock.
Our report of yesterday's Assizes will he found in another
column.

The foundation stone of the memorial to be erected on
Pensher Hill, in honour of the late Earl of Durham, is to
he laid on 'Wednesday the 28th inst., with great Masonic
pomp and ceremony, by the Earl of Zetland as Grand
Master of England.