The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1851-08-26 00:00:00

house of

Moss, and stolen therefrom four pair of boots
',Tation. a verdict of guilty was
ordered to be transported for seven years

g invest

returned, and

prisoner w

NISI PRIUS.—TUESDAY.
BREACH OF CONTRACT-O'BRIEN V. HEAP.
Mr. Francis O'Brien, a corn-dealer of this town, sued

sioned by an alleged breach of contract entered into on
the 9th August last, to take certain premises in Soho
street, as a starch manufactory. The plaintiff being desi-
rous to give up his business, agreed to let the premises to
the defendant at a rent of X7O a-year, the tenancy to com-
mence from the Ist of September last. It was also agreed
that the various trade fixtures should be taken at a price to

iff gave up

Jusiness

note from the defendant, dated Blackburn, scat-
as very sorry he should not be able to take pos-
session of the works, as be had not been getting on so well
among his customers as he had expected. Mr. O'Brien
refused to release him from his engagement, and gave him

ine he v

legal notice to that effect. The premises are still unoc-
cupied. The plaintiff had swrendered them to Mr. God-
frey on six months' notice, commencing on the 12th Au-
gust, and he now claimed the six months' rent from Sep-
tember till April, as well as damages for the loss which he
was alleged to have sustained from the fixtures not having
been taken as agreed on. and compensation for the loss

premises in proper repair. Verdict for the plaintiff, da-
mages, X4l.

ROTHWELL V. WHITEHEAD AND ANOTHER.
This NVR3 an undefended action brought by Mr•. Richard

hisvell,

:er merchant,

a Mr. Lomas, who formerly resided

Netberby, neat.

York, to recover two deposits of £lO5 each, and two sums
f £lO each, paid by the plaintiff, as the allottee of some
;hares in the " North Union, Trent Valley, and Midland

&c., Direct Railway," projected in 1845, but never com-
menced. Verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.

CHRISTIAN AND OTHERS, EXECUTORS, V. SQUIRES

This was an action brought by the executors of a Mrs.
Wilkinson, the widow of a gentleman in the legal pro-
fession, who, during her lifetime, in 1838, entrusted to
the defendant, formerly a medical man in Liverpool, the
sum of £2,100, to invest for her in some good security. A
promissory note was given by the defendant, who conti-
nued to pay the interest for some time, but becoming em-
barrassed, his payments became irregular. The plaintiffs
sued for the recovery of both principal and interest. Ver-
dict for the plaintiff f0r£2,159, damages £5OO. Execution

in six weeks

DISPUTED CLAIM TO INSURANCE

The plaintiffs in this case were Bird and others, official
and creditors' assisrnees of Mr. John Ridgway, who for-
merly carried on business in this town and New Zealand,
and they sought to recover the sum of £l6OO, which they
alleged that the defendants, Messrs. Marshall & Edridge,

insurance-brokers, in London, had received on account of
the estate. The defendants denied their liability, and
pleaded as to the £l6OO mutual credit. In the com-
mencement of 1848 Mr. Ridgway's circumstances were
unfavourable, and in February or March his creditors
were called together. The defendants were creditors to
some amount, having had transactions with Mr. Ridgway
in the insurance of vessels. It was found desirable that

the property belonging to Mr. Ridgway should be assigned
over to certain gentlemen, for the benefit of all the cre-
ditors, and that his affairs should be wound up by these
gentlemen, they employing Mr. Ridgway, under certain
regulations, to conduct the business as he had hitherto
done. Mr. Moon was one of the gentlemen nominated
trustees. At that time there was a vessel, the Nelson,
which had belonged to Mr. Ridgway, and which was then
on a voyage to New Zealand. It was thought desirable
to insure her, and Mr. Moon wrote for that purpose to
the defendants, who effected the insurance. Some diffi-
culty was then experienced in carrying out the deed of
assignment, as some of the creditors refused to come in,
and amongst the dissentients now were the defendants.
Accordingly, upon the 20th of November, a fiat of bank-
ruptcy was issued against Mr. Ridgway ; and Mr. Bird,
the official assignee, and the trade creditors, were two
days afterwards appointed. The Nelson was lost, and
the assignees then wrote to the defendants io take steps
to obtain from Lloyd's the money on the policies on their
behalf. They did receive the money, but retained it till
their claim upon the estate of Mr. Ridgway should be sa-
tisfied ; and alleged that they had effected the insurance
on Mr. Ridgway's account before he became a bankrupt.
In support of the plaintiffs' ease, evidence was adduced,
to show that the defendants' claim had been barred by
the fiat being issued out within six months after the date
of the assignment ; whilst on behalf of the defendants it
was contended, that there had in fact been no proper as-
signment, but merely a memorandum, and that they had,
in the correspondence, only recognized Mr. Moon in the
capacity of a guarantee, and not as a trustee. Mr. Wilde,
for the defendants, contended, that, in law, an insurance
broker has a lien upon policies left in his hand, not only
for the premiums of the particular policy, but also the
general balance of an account. The jury found that the
defendants in the transaction had been acting as agents
for the assignees, and a verdict was therefore returned
for the plaintiffs for £l,4ll,—Mr. Wilde having leave to
move, if the court above should think it a mutual credit.
In the cause CLARE v. DUNcAN and OTHERS a verdict
was taken by consent for the plaintiff, £1,041 debt and
£5O damages, subject to a reference. The next action was
brought by Mr. Hare. a gentleman living at Broom-hall,
in Yorkshire, and Mr. Charles Chadwick, a physician, at
Leeds, against a collector. named Hyde who had not
accounted for rents which he had received on behalf of the
plaintiff. The defendant had previously decamped with
moneys, but was now in York Castle. Verdict for plaintiff,
damages £3037

WEDNESDAY

UNDERMINING A HOUSE.-ROWLINSON V. NICOL

Mr. Richard Rowlinson, a broker of Liverpool, brought
this action against Mr. Joseph Nicol, a builder, also of
this town, to recover for damage caused by the defendant,
undermining the plaintiff's house, whereby it was much
cracked and injured.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Crompton appeared for
the plaintiff; and Mr. Atherton, Q.C., and Mr. Hender-
son for the defendant. _

It appeared that the plaintiff had built himself a house
in Faulkner-square, Liverpool, in 1846, on the building
of which he had expended a sum of £2,200, and had given
£4OO for the land. The house was of a very substantial
character, and was handsomely decorated. The founda-
tion, however, on which it was erected was sandy, and it