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

April 9, 1844

LIVERPOOL SPRING ASSIZES.

CROWN COURT.—TUESDAY.
(Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN.)
14?1.1 Brambill was acquitted on a charge of having
and slain Mary Bramhill, at Liverfounool.
Antonio, a Spaniard, was pd
guilty of the
manslaughter of 'Andrew Davis, at Liverpool, and sen-
tenced to 12 months' imprisonment.
to tH'ihiam Taylor, found guilty of forgery, was sentenced
ransportation for 15 years.
Robert Simpson pleaded guilty to a charge of misde-
meanour in falsifying a marriage register.
1r• CROMPTON, with whom was Mr. Monteith, for the
Prosecution, stated that, in consequence of the many im-
proper marriages, marriages which had been productive of
ettt.th.raoral and social evils, this prosecution had been
ted by the Rector of. Bury, with the concurrence
the nillscrt of the Bishop of Chester. It appeared that
chor;r4B°aer, who lived in Bury, went to Rochdale parish
with his wife, and falsely represented that they
of (win the parish of 'Rochdale, and that they were both
ge. age, whereas they lived in Bury, and were under
wifThere was another indictment against Simpson and his
at e for a felony. Upon this indictment, Mr. MONTEITH
wad to the jury that, on the part of the prosecution, he
ould offer no evidence, and that, under the direction of
his
I°rdabilD, they would' return a verdict of not guilty.
The prisoner was ordered to pay a fine of 205., and the
'art_ having been paid, he was discharged.
ihT iphe cri
proceedeLousinessd

CIVIL CAUSES.
TWINAME AND OTHERS V. SMART AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought by Messrs. Twiname, M.ax-t
*ell. and others, corn-merchants, of Liverpool, against
Messrs. Smart and Co., for the recovery of losses sus-
Mr. by an alleged breach of contract.
Watson and Mr. Drinkwater appeared for the
Paintiffs, and Mr. Martin and Mr. Cowling for the de-
fenants.
It a
pool, and that,
of itoodPernerdiettthaa: the defendants agreed to send a cargo
Iv wenheiatta,rorifveads,pietcwifinesddwefie.nigiehntt,
itno
weight
and inferior •in the
-"tY, and not worth within ss. to 6s.
per quarter of Wheat in question. The defendants
deficient paid into court X 159 for the inferiority, and £6l for the
y in weight. The cargo
was disposed of; and
the action was brought for the recovery of a sum of about
1,60(), which was the difference between the price Wiled ob-
tained the price at which the cargo was purchased-
-114,..ra,e1y, 50s. per quarter.
Mr. MARTIN contended, for the defence, that a suffi;
Cleat SUM had been paid into: court. and that the plaintiffs
could not recover for the loss sustained by any contract
lie)! might have entered into with the parties to whom
'"?Wheat had been sold.
The jor returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum
0 6Y.
3 134 d
s .

DOBSON V. HOWSLEY.
ThiS was an undefended action, brought by the plaintiff,
John Dobson, against the defendant, George Howsley,
he recovery of a covenant on a mortgage deed for
fur. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the
" aziount with interest.

MAINWARING v. FOSTER AND ANOTI!ER.
Alexander 1 This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Richard
fo:arin- .g
Con
against the defendants, JoofhncomForsetnesra andi
.r M`Gregor, for the recovery
Juries suffered while in their service.
Mr. Dund s and Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff,
atlld Mr' *arson and Mr. Littledale for the defendants.
lelt appeared that the plaintiff was a porter, and that the
calpliorndbr"aght for-the recovery of compensation for
negligent fracture of the leg, which he received by the
business,mariner in which the defendants conducted their
co'n s' i d abl eT hwea
wick-street, Live
cyleorfif)enoliluiants carried on business in Bruns-
hants and brokers, in a
'siansesms and, in the spring of last
Year they engaged the plaintiff as a porter, at the rate of
cellar, in
had (1. day. Upon the 31st of March, the defendants
occasion to remove a quantity of cotton from their
Great Howard-street, when four of the bales,
vbviliai.chhad been negligently piled, fell down and broke the
laid leg ; and, in consequence of this injury, he was
_ up in. th nfirmary for four months after. A verdict Was returned for the plaintiff, damages £35.

NISI PRILIS COURT.—TUESDAY.
c
atted
al ). C9l, al 1:1 t was occupied the greater part of the day with
jury case, Fletcher and another v. Manning
pro,_"°"er,—a question as to whether a seizure of some
arrant
of
Mr. J. B. P. Chappe, of Manchester, under
;Ivart of attorney by the defendants, and the sale of
and Pr°PertV after an act of bankruptcy by Mr. Chappe,
Z Ure
after notice to the sheriff not to sell, was a legal Bei-
the
Cha c ;
a-s one. W have not space to insert te Toort of
at length.e The jury found for the plaintiffhs, Mr.
PPes assignees, damages £963.
LANDEn.--YATEs CIIFFLEY.
This was as
tion for slander, in words spoken by the
of t
defendant nhc acplaintiff; but the defendant having found
there were no grounds for what he had stated, was willing
to Pay the plaintiff £5O, as indemnifying him for all ex-
penses, at the same time stating, by his counsel, that he
believed the plaintiff to be a respectable man, was fully
convinced there was no truth in what he had stated, and
regretted the injury the plaintiff had suffered in conse-
quence of the words complained of. The plaintiff's coun-
sel expressed his satisfaction with the defendant's apology,
and a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, by consent, sub-
ject to the terms stated.
In the next case (before a special jury), Aitkin and
Others v. Slater and others, the question was as to whe-
ther a mortgage was executed under such circumstances
rto become invalid, by being a fraudulent transfer by a
411.1_krUpt, to the injury of his creditors. When the court
lunrned at seven o'clock, this case was not concluded.

CROWN COURT.—WEDNESDAY.
teurte,"„t• BUCKLEY.—The plaintiff not being in at-
IIL4 - -'eu called, a nonsuit was taken.
ooktt
'"44, action f 1 t• ISHERWOOD.—In this. case, which was
'4le plaintiff a debt of £32. 10s., a verdict was taken for
A BlThject to a reference.
'iB/I,2,—lllaolcrits' CLAIM FOR COMMISSION.
fill..Mir...o'o 'OTHERS v. FAITH AND OTHERS.—The
r,itht ln this case, Messrs. James Aikin and Son, mer-f
151.81k'lld shipbrokerg sought to recover the sum o
Path, 78* from the defendants, who belonged to a com-
sioti', called the British Shipping Company, for commis-
Whieh°,.4 account of effectinc, a charter for a vessel of
Taft ..`he defendants were the owners.
pcFCPpeared that in Au.ust, 1810, a ship, called the
tiotii, belonging to the'defendants, was lying at this
throughnd a charter- was effected thereon by plaintiffs
agents Messrs. Chapman, Willis, and Co., who acted as
to 6asito the company : the ship was to go on a y
togg, c‘ntto, with a freight belonging to Mr. Gardnervog
the ,' i.`° whom the vessel was shortly afterwards sold by
betthrendants. The commission on the charter, at the
alth- rate of £8 per cent., amounted to £156, 155., antdo
the deg the plaintiffs had made frequent applications
to
obtaie„'!tidants and others they had never been
defendantsab
It f
del:lie-CI tb-r", that time to, the present. The h
sold to jk",reir liability,alleging, ha . as the vessel ad been
!,ies towlloe_ssrs.. Bogg Taylor and Co., they were the pa.r-
lilon ; aoa ,p the plaintiffs should look for thei.r commis-
effect , . that an agreement had been entered Into to that
from ' °Y which they (the defendants) were discharged
se "' all res
quently ade, bi
Ponsib.li An offer had, however, been sub-
;he defendant, of £7B, leaving half the
amount of commisysion, the other half, t.s stated by them,
wernir, du.e to Messrs. Chapman, Willis, and Co., who
plaintiffs e entitled to it, according to custom, for assisting the
ill effecting the charter, hut which they had con-
;°Rented to forego. This was refused by the plaintiffs, who
rltended that they were enti•led to the whole sum, in the
,r,,st instance, and they could then settle with Messrs.
"laPman and Co.
The jury found for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed.

ISPUTED CLAIM.
WEBER V. PRELLER.—The plaintiff WAS Mr. G. G.
Weber and the d, fondants Messrs. Preller and Prom-
melt, ll'oth parties extensively engaged in the salt trade, in
this town. The action was brought to decide whether the
defendants should pay Gs. or is. 6d. per ton for 1,500
tons of salt which had been supplied to them.
into
It appeared that a c tween the plaintiff andotdibe-
tract had been entered
rin
should
supply to the 'latter, at defendants that the forrlte
1812, to December,
,At fro periods,tlre tforotmenlays' December,
no-
tice, 1,500 tons of the bestroemommon white salt, at the
market price, but never to exceed n
s. the defentamntsant,7
when the price ranged below i baLsring
have the benefit
the
if otherwise, the plaintiffs to sustain the 0
Whole of the year, and until about the 16lthsso.f December,
o
ti orders were given by the defendants; hut about that
time, they gave an order for 1,500 tons to be delivered in
the following week, which had the effect of causing a sud-
den rise in the market, and the plaintiff, w;th considerablehe
eacultY, succeeded in completing the order, though
to Pay 7s. 6d. himself for every ton supplied. ....mch
a BIIPPIy in so short a space of time, was, it was contended,
Contrary to the meaning of the contract. The defendant
refused to give more than 6s. per ton, which, he con-
tended, was the market price, and had tendered the sum
con-
of the plalnliff, however, sought to recover £550 ss,
*2.11 was at the rate of is. 6d. per ton, that being alleged
7atitheaverage price at that period.
£96 11s d
Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for
tendered, .7 wlc
h• • dd.ion to the sum he had
thiiii amounted hto £520 2s.t, being at the rate of seven
ngs per ton nett for ti.e salt supplied.
Ti BREACH OF TRUST: PRESCOT V. BALL.
p -ue Plaintiffs were the Guardians of the Poor of the
rite for and the defendant Ball had become sem-
i) - 41enrY Longden, who was appointed assistant
jereseer of the di•trct of Woolton in 1840. Since that
•;1141 , it had been discovered that Longden had been mis-
,„,,POlYing the money passing throfth his hands, and, con-
4::ntlY, the surety had become liable. The sum of
amount as claimed, and a verdict was given for that

yerdl • AMGER V. TIMMON.
et Was taken in this case by consent for £3O.

NISI PR ICS COURT.-WEDNESDAY.

(Bcfore Mr Baron Rolfe,)
ATSyED FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY.
,
48 an '.!l OTHERS V. SLATER AND OTES.—TDIS
Tuesd action (tried before a special jury,. partly heard ond
Atriti2Y), to recover possession of certain title deeds an.
apt which the plaintiffs as the assignees of a banka.
litra`onnarned Holdsworth, Atkin, Alexander
14es. and Charles Turner; and the defendants were
tratte'r• William Slater and Thomas Williams, two
f
l'eacosrri,_e, in Liverpool, and gentleman of the name o
fend elk, a solicitor, of the same place. The two first de-
the raiatsk7,74;,stMwsitfeee: under the marriage settlement of
and the question turned upon the