The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-09-01 00:00:00

GEL[. V. DOUGLAS

George Gell, rommission.agent at Goole, in Yorkshire,
was the plaintiff, and Joseph Douglas, a farmer near the
enme place, the defendant. On Saturday, October 18,
1845, the defendant entered into a contract with the plain-
tiff to deliver to Lim, in the month of May, 1846,2 0 tubs
of red potatoes, at Ss. per Ur),—a d,.posit of £2O to be
made, and to be taken into account at the settlement.
The deposit was made, the defendant received the money,
but had since refused to fu!fil his part of the contract. al_
thouth repeatedly applied to for the purpose. The de-
fence wag, that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to
receive the potatoes. The jury found for the plaintiff,
damages £75.

CROWN COURT.—WEDNESPAY.
Thomas Whitehead was acquitted of robbery at Man-
chester.

Jo%eph Wild, Squire Livesey.Joseph Smith, and Chas.
Eniwzale were found guilty ot burgl .ry, near Bolton, and
sentenced to ten years' tr-sportation each.
John Carnes was found guilty of burglary at Manches-
ter. Not sentenced.
Cornelius Cain was found guilty of stabbing Patrick
Branan, at Manche,ter, and was sentenced to 14 years'
tran-por ation.

. -
Matthew Weld was acquitted of a burglary at Man-
chester.

Joseph Gardner was found guilty of burglary at Man-
.cbester, and sentenced to 7 years' transportatton.
Robert Hal ding was round guilty of burglary at Man-
chester. Not sentenced.
James Hunt was found guilty of manslaughter, and
4enreoced to 18 months' imprisonment.
James Goslm was acquitted of a robbery at Manchester.

NISI PRIUS COURT.---WEDNESDAY.
VALPEY AND OTHERS V. IIEYCOCK AND ANOTHER.
The plaintiff:, in this case. Richard Valpey, John Por-
ter, and John Gibson, (assignees of Mr. Brown, Bir-
mingham ) commission-agents at Leeds and Manchester,
sought to recover from Gibson, Ord, aid Co., who traded
ender the firm or `•Fleycock and C 0.." th- value ot four
eases of woollen onds, under 1 be following c'rcumstances
—The goods in question had been sent by Gibson, Ord.
sad Co., thedeiendants, to Messrs. Leech, HE Arrison , and
Co., of Liverpool, at the desire of Brovin, the bankrupt,
in order to he shipped by them fort. lison, Cazenove, and
Company, of Vals.araiso. The goods were sent 'from
Manchester on the 26;h of March, and payment was to be
made for them on the 2611 of April. They were put on
board a vessel called the Kestrel. Mr. A!i,on, who was
in this country, saw the goods, objected to Mr. Harrison
that they were not packed in the way desirable for a fo-
reign market, and they were sent back to Gibson, Ord,

and Co., to be placed in eight packages instead of four.
Whilst the goods were being repacked the day of payment
expired. and on O'e 7th of May kr. Brown became a
bankrupt. Tne question was whether Gibson, Ord, and
Co., had a right to keep the goods for the vendor's lien,
or whether the assignees had a right to receive them for
the general benefit of the creditors, Gibson, Ord, and Co.,
coming in along with the other creditors. The facts, as
stated by Mr. Martin for the plaintiff, were undisputed by
Mr. Knowles for the defendant, and, without calling wit-
nesses, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff, subject to
a special case.

BELL V. HARRISON

John Bell, the registered officer of the Newcastle-upon-
Tyne Joint Stock Banking Company, was the plaintiff.
Anthony Harrison, chemical manufacturer, of South
Shields, was the defendant. The action was brought to.
recover the sum of £520 16s. 6d. upon a banking account.
The defendant denied his Lability, except as to £202,
which had been paid into court. The defendant became a
partner in August, 1845, with William Kirk, in a colliery
called the Farnancres Colliery, which had been originally
carried on by Kirk alone. Between August 13 and Octo-
ber 11, (when the defendant gave notice that he would
not be liable,) the colliery had overdrawn the sum of
£520 16s. 6d., and this was the subject of the action. The
facts of the case were involk ed in sundry intricate cash
and bill transactions, and during the investigation the
Judge remarked on what he considered the odd way in
which the books of the bank had been kept. The point of
the case left to the jury turned upon the question, whe-
ther the account in the bank was a general account of
debtor and creditor, or whether certain items were allowed
to go in liquidation of certain other items. The jury con-
sidered the account a general account, and reduced the
verdict to £219 ss. 11d. At the conclusion of the case,
his Lordship said the mode of keeping the accounts re-
flec'ed little credit on the management of the bank, and
they need not be surprised that it was winding up its
affairs.