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

TRANSACTION IN RAILWAY SHARES.

STEAD AND ANOTHER v. TAYLOR.—ThiS case was also
tried h4ore a special jury. Mr. Martin, on behalf of the
plaintiff, stated the facts of the case. Messrs. Stead and
Marsden were cotton spinners at Huddersfield, and the
defendant, Joseph El. Taylor, was formerly a druggist in
the same place, but in the course of last year he had
acted as a sharehroker ; and the action was brought to re-
cover #;155 for 20 shares in the Liverpool, Ormskirk, at d
Preston railway, which his clients said the defendant was
responsible for as purchaser. Mr. Baines. on the part of
the defendant, entered at length into the circumstances of
the case, and contended that the defendant was not re•
sponsible.
The evidence having been gone through, Mr. Martin,
in reply, contended that the defendant was, in a double
sense, a broker, and liable for the amount. •
The learned Judge.—You say, I suppose, that !t be-
comes a sale to the defendant the moment he sells to an-
other pers.on?
I Mr. Martin.—l do.

His Lordship, after a short consideration, then di-
rected the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, leav-
ing to the plaintiffs power of trial in a higher court.
RISDALE AND ANOTHER V. ACRROID.—In this case a
verdict was taken, by consent, for the plaintiff. Dama-
ges, £1606 ss.
HUTCIIINSON V. THE EAST LANCASHIRE RAILWAY
COMPANY.—(Before a special jury.)—The plaintiff in this
case was Mr. W. H. Hutchinson, an owner of some land
and property in Bury; and the defendants the East Lan-
cashire Railway Company; and the action was brought
to recover the penalties which, it was contended, the de-
fendants had forfeited, under the terms of their act of
parliament, by having taken possession, without due no-
tice or authority, of the land of the plaintiff. The penal-
ties sued for were £25 a day for 265 days, during which
the land had been held in possession.
Mr. Knowles, for the plaintiff, stated the facts of the
case ; and the evidence having been gone through,
Mr. Baines, on the part of the company, replied at
considerable length, urging strongly that even if the strict
legal forms had not been complied with, these had yet
been every intent;on to fulfil them. He then called se-
veral witnesses.

At his Lordship's direction, the jury found a verdict for
.he defendants.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-SATURDAY.

INDICTMENT FOR A NUISANCE AT THE. DINGLE.—THE QUEEN
C, BURY, CURTIS, AND KENNEDY.
This indictment (which was trie I before a special jury) charged
the defendants, the well known extensive founders, and locomotive
engine builders, &c. with having set up an iron ship building yard
near the Dingle, whereby an incessant noise and great smoke were
caused, rendering the houses in the neighbourhood extremely un•
comfortable. The defendant, pleaded not guilty. Mr. Knowles,
Mr. Martin, and Mr. Crompton appeared in support of the indict-
ment, and Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Atherton for the defence. Mr.
Knowles state I the case:—thy defendants in carrying on their busi-
ness of iron ship builders, annoyed some of the first merchants,
whose dwelling.houses were in the Immediate neighbourhood, near
the banks of the river. The place was the Dingle, the natur.,l
beauties of which had been improved by art. The noise of 7uo
men constantly employed in hammering iron was a great annoy-
ance, and the smoke from the works scarcely less so. The comfort
of the parties in the neighbourhood was consequently destroyed.
He should perhaps be told that iron ship building was necessary at
this port, but it must be remembered that what was no nuisance at
Wapping would be a great nuisance in Grosvenor-square ; and what
-was no nuis ince on the North-shore in this town, would be a great
one in Toxteth-park.
Mr Joseph Brooks Yates was first c-lled, and stated that he lived
at the Moire, about a quarter of a mile from the works His bro-
ther and his sister were owners of villa houses in the neighbourhood
and the grounds were beautifully ornamented. A number of
respectable merchants occupied the houses. Before the ship building
yard was begun all was quietness, but since its establishment the
noise of the hammers was such as if all the demons in the infernal re-
gions had been let loose. In cross-examination the witness said that
if he had anticipated that dock- would have been erected so near to
the Dingle. he would nor have chosen a site there for his house.
The Ileculaneum Potteries were about half-a-mile from his house
and had been sold to the Birkennead Dock Company. The Mersey
forge was also within half a mile, and there many huge hammers
were kept going. His house and grounds were worth £16,000 or
£17,000, the land contiguous having been sold for £5OO the statute
acre, but if the present nuisance were to continue, he should be glad
to sell at a reduced price. Mr. Fresh, inspector of nuisances, was
next called, and the Judge said he wished he would go to the
Judge's lodgings and cure the smoky chimneys there. (Laughter.)
Witness stated that the corporation had declined to interfere in the
present case, .although the smoke and noise were very great. Mr.
John Campbell, of South Hill road, Mr. Cieorge William Boyd, Mr.
R. Vaughan Yates, and eight i ther gentlemen were examined, and
spoke generally of the nuisance, when the evidence in support of the
indictment closed.—Mr. Sergeant Wilkins then addressed the jury
at great length, and with such eloquence and humour that we regret
we cannot find room for the whole. and to abstract would mutilate.
His argument was, the trade and business of this great town was
taking gigantic strides in every direction, that iron ship-building
was especially requisite to its prosperity, and that it was ridiculous
to suppose that works which must be deemed national and of benefit
to thousands should not be allowed to extend, merely because a few
gentlemen, who had seated themselves too near to the only spot
where docks or yards could be further extended, felt a slight annoy.
ance from a noise which they might have anticipated would one day
approach them. The learned Judge summed up. and the jury, after
an absence from coin t of a quarter of an hour, returned a verdict of
not guilty.