The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-04-07 00:00:00

POACHING AND ASSAULT

Samuel Cowburn, 39. convicted last week of poaching
with others, and violently assaulting a gamekeeper, was
brought up, and after a severe address from his lordship, was
sentenced to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for 18
months.

The court rose at a quarter past six o'clock. There re
mained about 80 cases to be disposed oft in this court.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-WEDNESDAY.

HOYLE V. HOWARD

This was an action to recover damages for injury done to
the plaintiff's property in Cheetham-street, R.ochdale, by a
nuisance from the works of the defendant. Mr. Dundas and
Mr. Cowling appeared for the plaintiff, who is a corn-dealer;
Mr. Knowles, Mr. Wortley, and Mr. Noggins for the de-
fendant. After the case had been opened, and the first
witness, who was the tenant of the plaintiff, bad been ex-
amined, it was agreed between the parties that the defendant
should buy the plaintiff's premises at a valuation to be fixed
by a party to be named by the plaintiff. A nominal verdict
was consequently entered in favour of the plaintiff.

ACTION AGAINST THE SHERIFF.--RICHMOND V. FRANCE

This was an action in trover against the late High Sheriff
of this county. Mr. Rotch and Mr. Hardern appeared for
the plaintiff, Mr. Robert Richmond; and defendant was re-
presented by Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton.
The plaintiff is a spirit dealer in this town, and the assignee
of William Halliday a bankrupt. It appeared that 1841 the
bankrupt took the Commercial Hotel in Dale-street, in this
town, from the previous tenant, whose name was Leicester.
Not having sufficient to purchase the whole stock, the bank-
rupt gave Mr. Leicester a warrant of attorney for the amount
which he was unable to pay. About six months afterwards,
Mr. Leicester put in an execution, under the warrant of
attorney, under which the Sheriff sold the goods to Mr.
Adam Eccles, a tanner, who was, in fact, the real defendant.
Mr. Eccles, willing to be a friend to Mr. Halliday, allowed
him to retain the property in his possession as reputed
owner, taking an assignment, and to carry on the business
as usual. Mr. Halliday continued the business a few months
longer; when Mr. Eccles becoming uneasy about his money
wished Mr. Halliday to give him a warrant of attorney upon
the goods. Mr. Halliday, by the advice of his attorneys,
gave Mr. Eccles a cognovit for £lOO, on Wednesday, the 30th
of March ; but on the following Friday Mr. Halliday found,
instead of being relieved from the pressure of his difficulties,
his goods seized under a warrant from the Sheriff. The
general creditors interfered, and on the 7th of April a fiat in
bankruptcy was issued; on the Sth, the provisional assignee
was appointed, and notices were served upon all parties con-
cerned that Mr. Halliday was a bankrupt. Notwithstanding
all this, the Sheriff sold all the goods ; to recover the value
of which the assignees brought the present action.
For the defendant it was contended that the sale was made
under the assignment to Mr. Eccles, to which a bill of sale
was attached, and not under the warrant of the sheriff. Pos-
session was taken under the assisgnment, betbre the warrant
was issued. The sale realized £412 55.. of which
£256 3s. Ild. was paid to the landlord, Mr. Rigby Wason,
for rent ; and the difference, it was contended, was the pro-
perty of the plaintiff for the general benefit of the creditors
of the bankrupt.
The jury, after retiring, returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages £156 Is. Id. ; costs, 40s.

TROVER

EDWARDS V. BIRD.—An undefended action, in trover, to
recover the value of a quantity of cases containing certain pro-
perty belonging to the plaintiff, which the defendant, it was
alleged, had improperly converted to his own use. Mr.
CROMPTON, for the plaintiff, stated that the plaintiff was a
military gentleman, who, upon retiring from the army, en-
tered into partnership with some parties in carrying on a
coal mine near Wigan. His occupation was to look after the
business in Liverpool, where the defendant was employed in
collecting orders. The partnership in Wigan was dissolved,
and Captain Edwards was about to leave Liverpool for
another part of the country, when the defendant, in whose
possession the boxes in question were left, detained them on
the ground that a sum of money was owing to him for corn-
tnission on his collection of orders. The learned counsel
said if the defendant would give the boxes up he would con-
sent to a verdict with nominal damages. After the examina,
tion of three witnesses, the jury returned a verdict for the
plainfiff, damages, £29.

THOMPSON AND ANOTHER V. CROSSLEY.—The plaintiffs
are wine and spirit merchants in Liverpool, and the action
was brought against the defendant, a surgeon in Manchester,
to recover a balance of £6B for goods supplied and money
lent. The action was undefended, and a verdict was re-
turned for the amount claimed.
BENvolv v. PLUMPTON.—The plaintiff in this case is a
house and laud agent in Liverpool, and the defendant is Mr.
Plumpton, one of the representatives, in the Town Council, of
West Derby ward. The action was brought to recover the
sum of £132 10s., commission on the sale of a quantity of
land by the defendant to a Mr. Gosling, in the year 1839, for
£5,300. The defence rested on the ground that the plaintiff
had not introduced Mr. Gosling to the defendant ; but it
failed ; and the jury returned a verdict fcr the plaintiff for
4:132 10s. i costs 40s.