The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-08-20 00:00:00

TRESPASS.

FAIRBURNE V. TAYLOR AND OTHERS.—This was an action
to recover damages for a trespass committed by the defendant,
Taylor, a publican of Oldham, and others, on the premises of
the plaintiff, Mr. Fairburne, who, at the time the trespass was
committed, occupied a public-house in the same town. The
plaintiff entered upon the house, the Turf Tavern, in Roy ton-
street, Oldham, in April, 1832, Taylor, one of the defendants,
being landlord. A lease of the house was granted, and an agree-
ment entered into between the parties, in which a clause was
inserted giving uninterrupted possession of the house to the
plaintiff. In violation or this agreement, Taylor directed a
distraint to be made for the recovery of three quarters of a
year's rent, one-quarter of which was only then due; four or
five bailiffs, with police-officers, forcibly entered the house on
the 12th of last, the whole of the stock and furniture,
including a large quantity of ale and spirits, were carted away
the same night, the following day exposed for sale, and disposed
of for only about EU. The house being thus stripped of every
article of furniture, and even the grates removed, the . plaintiff
was rendered incapable of pursuing his business, although the
house was in good credit, the trade was increasing, and there
was every prospect of a valuable business being secured to the
plaintiff. Strong opposition was shown against the defendant,
Taylor, in the course which he had taken, and the plaintiff held
possession of the empty house for three months, compelling the
bailiffs to sleep on the cold floor. The consequence of this
affair was, that the plaintiff was ruined in his circumstances,
being deprived of a house and of the means of supporting his
wife and family.
The defence set up by Taylor was, that he had acted strictly
in conformity with the agreement made between himself and
the plaintiff, who, he alleged, had given him authority to make
the distraint complained of.
The case occupied the court the greater part of the day-, and
after the learned Judge had summed up the case the jury retired,
and after remaining in consultaion about half an hour found a
verdict for the plaintiff, damages £lO. The damages were laid
at £l,OOO.

PURCHASE OP AN AUCTIONEER.
LORD V. BRETHERTON.—The parties in this cause were Mr.
Joseph Lord, a corn-dealer at Manchester, and Mr. Daniel
Bretherton, who is an auctioneer, and keeps a general reposi-
tory for the sale of articles in the same town. In February last
Mr. Lord sent two pairs of four-horse harness to the defend-
ant's repository, with instructions to sell them for £26. A week
or two afterwards plaintiff called to see if they were sold, and
was informed by the defendant they were not, but that he had
found a customer who would give twenty guineas for them.
Plaintiff said that this was not enough, but ultimately he sold
them to the defendant himself for £2O, the latter agreeing to
take the additional pound offered by the alleged customer, as an
allowance for his expenses and commission. The sale being
completed, the plaintiff made repeated applications for payment
of the £2O, the defendant alleging that he himself had not been
paid by the person to whom he had sold the harness, and at
length the plaintiff commenced legalproceedings to compel pay-
ment. The defendant then tendered £l5, and sent in a bill of
£5 for commission and expenses, thus making up the difference.
It appeared from the testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses, that
the defendant had not sold the harness for twenty guineas, but
had exchanged one pair for a horse, and sent the other to his
brother, Mr. Bartholomew Bretherton, of Liverpool. The de-
fendant had paid £l5 into court, and the action was brought to
recover the balance.

Mr. ALEXANDER addressed the jury for the defendant, and
was about to call witnesses to prove the expenses incurred by his
client in advertising the 'harness, putting it up for sale, and also
for warehouse room, when
Mr. Baron BOLLAND remarked that if the plaintiff's wit-
nesses were to be believed, there could be no answer to the
ease, inasmuch as the purchase of the hamess by the defendant
on the terms stipulated put an end to all claims for trouble
and expenses.
Under these circumstances Mr. Alexander declined calling
witnesses, and the jury found for the plaintiff. Damages £5.