The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-03-31 00:00:00

JURYMEN FINED

At the conclusion of the coal nine case the jury retired,
and upon another jury being called, only four gentlemen
appeared. His Lordship ordered all the absentees, who
were not serving in the other courts, to be fined £5 each,
and the next case, which was undefended, was tried, by
consent, before a jury of four. The next two cases were
also, by consent, heard before five jurymen otft._

OVEREND AND OTHERS V. CHADWICK AND OTHERS.
—ln this case Mr. Baines and Mr. Hall appeared for the
plaintiffs, Abraham. William, and Peter Overend. Mr.
Martin and Mr. Cowling conducted the case for the de-
fendants, William Chadwick and George Ashworth. The
declaration alleged that the defendants on the 19th of
November last, broke and entered the mill of the plantiffs,
at Fodmorden, and seized and carried away a quantity of
cotton goods. The defendants pleaded not guilty. The
defendants were magistrates of this county, indemnified
by the overseers of Todmorden, and the action was brought
to decide the validity of certain proceedings taken under
distress warrants signed by the defendant, and under
which the goods of the plaintiffs, to the amount of £l2O,
were seized and sold. The warrants were for alleged
arrears of poor rates—one rate being as early as the year
1839. The judge decided that the publication of the rate
was bad, as it had only been published upon one of the
doors at the new church at Todmorden, and his Lordship
said that the old church was still a church. thou2h divine
set vice had not been performed in it since 1832, and it was
now only used for burials, baptisms, and vestry meetings.
Forty-four bundles of calico were seized, but seventeen
were returned, and the jury found for the plaintiff, dama-
ges

NISI PRIUS COURT.-FRIDAY:
LIABILITIES OF SHAREHOLDERS IN JOINT•STOCK BANKS

LUCAS V. BUTCHER

In this case Mr. Martinand-irlliainson appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Watson for the defendant.
Mr. MARTIN stated the facts of the case. Mr. Lucas,
the plaintiff, was a gentleman living in the Isle of Man,
and the defendant, Mrs. Alice Butcher, was living at
Bowness, in Westmorland. The action was brought to
recover £5OO, and interest, from May, 1843. Mrs. But-
cher was sought to be fixed as a partner in the Isle of

Man Bank ; and the manner in which she was sought to
be made liable was this. The bank in question was a
joint-stock bank, in which her husband was a proprietor,
and held fifty shares. He died in 1839, after which time
she received the shares, and drew the dividend upon them
till 1813, when the bank stopped, and his (Mr. Martin's)
claim was, that Mrs. Butcher thereby became a partner
in the bank, and was responsible for its transactions. Mr
Martin then proceeded to dilate upon the law beating
upon the case. The joint-stock bank was formed by a
deed, in which Mrs. Butcher's husband was a partner,
and the court would know that an executor, before com-
ing to a dividend, was bound to give satisfactory evidence
of title; and this lady seemed to have taken the usual
course, by sending the probate of her huamnd's will to
the manager of the bank. It appeared from the docu..
ments that would be produced, that, in 1839, the defend-
ant was required to pay a call ; and on the 28th of Decem-
ber of that year, she again wrote to the manager, request-
ing the dividend to be paid to her. In August of that
year, the dividend became due; and upon the Ist of De-

cember, 1840, the dividend warrant was made out and
sent to her. This was transmitted to her through the
means of Messrs. Wakefield and Crewdson, of Kendal.
Upon the sth -of September, she wrote to know what
price she could get for her fifty shares, supposing she
sold them. On the 9th, Mr. Forbes wrote an answer,
stating he considered the shares at that time would not
fetch more than £6, or £6 2s. each. On the 26th, she
wrote again;. and on the Ist of July of the following
year, another dividend was declared, and sent to her in
the ordinary way. In the January following. she again
wrote, wishing to know if she could sell her shares. From
this correspondence it was perfectly clear that she was a
partner in the bank.
__

Witnes,es were then called to prove these facts

M r. "Vl/4'

ddressedthe

ury for the defend-

ant, contending that Mrs. Butcher could only be c.,n-
sidered as the executrix of another, and not a partner in
the bank.

The learned Judge then summed up, end the jury gay
a verdict (or the plaintiff, damages £559 is. 3d.

MONEY CLUB.-DEBT.-HOOD AND OTHERS