The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-04-07 00:00:00

NISI PIIIUS CO U la.-YESTERDAY.

His Lordship took his scat on the bench at a few minutes
after nine o'clock.

LEATHWOOD V THOMPSON.

This was an action arising out of a dispute as to the terms on
which a public-house was taken.
Mr. 'Watson and Mr. Burke for the plaintiff—Mr. Martin and
Mr. James for the defendant.

Mr. WATSON stated the case. He said the p'aintiff, Samuel
Leathwood was a publican residing in Liverpool, and he sought
to recover .t lag or .t 158 as the case might be made out. De-
fendant was a wine-merchant carrying on business in this town,
and it would appear that a young man named Brook, who had
formerly been a clerk in the Grand Junction Railway, had,
in the year 1842, set up in business as a publican, and opened a
house in Great Charlotte-street, which he called "Master Hum-
phrey's Clock." Mr. Brook's friends Were well off, his father
being a clergyman in Cheshire, and had he been steady hemight
have' done well, but unfortunately be was not so. In the year
1843, he bcctme involved in difficulties. A compromise was
proposed to his creditors of ten or twelve shillings in the
pound ; and on that occasion the present plaintiff and defendant
came to the assistance of Brook ; and it was arranged that the
plaintiff should carry on the business under the firm of Brook
and Leathwood, and for the purpose of securing a debt to the
Nantwich Bank, he accepted a bill in the name of Brook _and
Lei.tbwood, and defendant was to borrow on a bill of exchange,
500, for the p -ri.ore of securing the composition to the credi-
tor s of Moak, and for his security lie was to lmve a bill of as-
ti;nment on the house, goodwill, stock, &c. raintawas pit
in possession and continued to carry on the business until the
miJdle cf last year. The arrangement between the parties was
that with whatever the business, goodwill, &c. should sell for,
the propos.dbi 1 by Mr. Thompson was to be paid, and any ad-
'tar ces he might make of liquors and wines to the house, and
wh .tevtr t'ien was above, that was to be the property of Leath-
wood. In the coarse of 1E45 Thompson gave up the house, and
a Mr. Whitley agr to give .t 1100 for the goodwill, &c., but he
oftarwards ran oil the bargain and forfeited a deposit of :t 20 ;
the house was subsequently, sold for t 550, and the whole
Lir:1111ot against the h ruse being £412, the plaintiff brought the
i.c.ion to recover the difference' .under the bargain, of .tl3B, or,
if the .t 20 depcsit was reckoned, of .t 158.
Mes rs. Yatts rid Mil ga'd, ac( orn'ants, Lord-street, were
called to prove certain atLounts between the parties, ccrrobo-
iative cf the statement of the learned counsel.
Mr. Ma rt in, for the defence, contended that his learned friend
had not stated the whole facts of the case. When Brook and
Leathwnod were in difficulties, Mr. 'I hompson, wine-merchant,
one of the creditors, was waited upon to see if the house could
not he kept open, and he entered into the arrangements des-
c i .cd by the plaintiff's counsel, with no further interest than
to secure payments to tie bank, and the composition to his
c. editors, aid a sale for his wines and liquors. Things went
cn tat'r this arrangcmer t until Pee. 1844, when Mr. 'I licmpson
found that it was a losing concern, and he communicated to
I. eathwood his determination to be quit of it. At that time there
was £209 Ss. 7d. due to Mr. Thompson on account of the
house, and the bank had not even to tins day received a farthing
of what was due to them. liaintiff was, moreover, a mere
confidential servant, managing tie business, and receiving
out of the moneys £5 per cent. for his salary and the expenses
of his family. He ca'kd
Mr. Eaton, of the Nantwich Bank, who proved that £470
of the moneys advanced in the first instance to Brook, which
was to be paid under the composition, had not yet been paid.
Mr. John Caton Thompson, attorney, produced the original
lease under which young Brook held. Witness was waited on
by Mr. Thompson, the defendant, to know if the terms of that
lease would make it a good security. It was considered bad,
and application was made to the !essor, who Agreed to take a
surrender of the old one, and make a new lease to Mr. Thomp-
son. It was. dated 7th April. On this arrangement being
made, Mr. Thompson was to carry on the business and supply
the stock. Mr. Leathwood was to manage the house, and pay
the gross proceeds to Mr. Thompson, and they were to be ap-
plied, in the first place, in the payment of Mr. Thompson, for
his outlay, and afterwards. the Nantwich Bank t'47o, due to
them. Leathwood was to have a weekly allowance, but witness
did not know what it was. Witness had heard Leathwcod ex-
press his gratitude to Mr. Thompson for enabling him to carry
on the business, and thus relieve himself of the responsibility
to the Nantwich Bank. Remembered four bills, each fortl2s,
drawn at different dates, berg executed at witness's off ce, 'on
the 3d April, and Mr. Eaton cashed them, and a memorar.dum
was made. A fiat of bankruptcy was issued against young
Brock, on the 18th April. Between those two dates, the furni-
ture was valued at t 432, and that :urn was paid over. Mr.
Leathwood w-as examined before tie commissioner, in the
Court of Bankruptcy, at Brook's hearing, and witness put in
his examination, which stated :—" I am now in possession of
Humphrey's Clock. lam tenant to Mr. Thompson, at a rental
of .t.-2 2s. per week, I paid no good-will. I was not to become
a partner of Mr. Thompson. 'There I:ad been a former arrange-
ment of that sort, which was rot carried out."

Cross-examined by Mr. WATsoN..LVitneie is no relative to
defendant.

A clerk of the cleferdant, proved the receipt and payment of
the sum to Mr. Thompson and the allowances forsalary paid,to
A,ways understood that when everything was paid
plEttntifr was to have the

Mr. WAtson replied and his lordship briefly summed up:
after which the jury fourd aSe rdict f the defendant.
- - - -- • - '

ALCOCK V.

FVFTFR AND I 0.1 ER V. A LeDelf.

These were cross attic,- s Ly con rot, a verdictAl as taken
for the plaintiff for clamages mentioned iii the declaration,

subject to a reference. Mr. Martin for Alcock" and Mr.
Knowles for Foster.