The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-03-31 00:00:00

ILLEGAL SEIZURE

11AltKEIL v. NUTTALL and OTHERS.—The plaintiff in this
case was John Barker, and the defendants, James Nuttall,
Henry Itamsbottom, and Abraham Stansfried ; and the ac-
tion was brought to recover compensation in damages for an
alleged illegal distraint upon the property of the plaintiff.
Mr. Wortley and Mr. Hugh Hill conducted the case for
the plaintiff; Mr. Dundas and Mr. Watson appeared for the
defendants.

Mr. HILL opened the case. The plaintiff complained that
the defendants had broken and entered into a certain dwel-
ling house, taken away certain goods and chattels therefrom ,•
and also into a certain workshop, when they forcibly expelled
the plaintiff's workmen, and had broke down and detached
certain patterns and machinery, and converted the same to
their own use. The defendants pleaded first, that with re-
spect to the workshop, except to the extent of £l5, they
were not liable ; and secondly, with respect to the
house, the plaintiff was not possessed of the goods and chat-
tels therein. Upon these pleas issue was joined.
Mr. WORTLEY said the plaintiff sought compensation at
the hands of the jury for very bad and inconsiderate conduct
upon the part of the defendants; he trusted it might prove
to be nothing else. The action was brought by Mr. John
Barker, an, engineer and millwright, at Todmorden, on the
borders of Lancashire and Yorkshire, against JamesNuttall,
a tradesman, residing in the srme place, and two other per-
sons, Henry Ramsbottotn, and Abraham Stansfried, a bai-
liff, and bailiffs' follower, for entering upon the plaintiff's
premises without legal rights, seizing all his goods, furniture,
and stock in trade, turning out the plaintiff and his work-
men, and afterwards selling the goods under circumstances
which led to their going off much under their value. The
plaintiff was but a young Irian ; he had only lately set up
business, and bad a fair stock ;'he had taken a new work-
shop with every convenience, and had several persons in his
employment. He had dealt with Mr. Nuttall, the defendant,
who was an iron and brass fonnder, and from time to time
he had paid him large sums of money. At the time that
this occurred he owed Nuttall some little Money, but there
was no suggestion whatever that Nuttall was likely to lose
this debt so as to explain or justify the proceedings which he
afterwards took. On Monday the 19th of December, the
defendant, with the bailiff and his followers, went upon the
premises of the plaintiff, wholly unexpected, and without any
previous notice, he said, " I want tny money." It appeared
that there was a debt due to Nuttall by the plaintiff's father,
which, whether the Present plaintiff was originally liable for
or not, he (Mr. Wortley) did not know; but lie had subse-
quently made himself liable for £2O. It was then for that
debt, he believed, that the defendant went in and seized the
plaintiff's goods. Nuttall, when they were in, gave orders
to the bailiffs to take an inventory of all the property ; the
plaintiff told him be had no right to do so, but, nevertheless,
they did take an inventory of every thing, after which Nut-
tall left the other two to keep possession of the house. Be-
sides this they actually turned the plaintiff's workmen out of
the shop altogether. It would be proved that the plaintiff
had, at this time, orders in hand, the execution of which
would have occupied him eight or nine months to come.
Wheter they had gone in with the intention of selling, he
(Mr. Wortley) did not know; but it would be proved that
on the night of the very day they entered bills were issued
announcing the sale: the sale took place on the following
Friday, but the bailiffs, even after that remained on the pre-
mises, and kept possession of them till Wednesday in the
following week. It would further be sliewn, that at the sale
some patterns, which were extremely valuable to the plain-
tiff, had been bought by the defendant Nuttall himself at
ruinouslyptthis
nptriffo e
business his c
thee s. esadpeeetcfuetanldtlo t
actually broken
bltle
rstok
hadtm
elna
duoapFeh wet
o• candlet
ip,aaW'rdt:iot of the
been
'
never been able to get over it ; and in point of fact it had
been the utter ruin of the young man. The defendants, to
some extent admitted they had done wrong, inasmuch, as
they had paid £l5 into court, but it was absurd to suppose,
under the circumstance, that that paltry sum couldrose,
e
thing like a compensation injury which for the great any
plaintiff had sustained. the

Hiram Barker, and Thomas Platt, two workmen, proved
the entry of the bailiffs, the stoppage of the works, the sale
of the goods, and that the orders which had previously been
in course of execution, were, in consequence of the seizure,
necessarily withdrawn. There had been transactions between
the parties, the defendant supplying the plaintiff with cast-
_ ings.

Mr. Eastwood, the plaintiff's attorney, proved that he had
asked the defendant Nuttall, and the auctioneer, under what
authority they were selling. A bill of sale was produced by
Nuttall to the extent of £2O; and he (witness) protested
against the legality of it, and threatened that actions would
be commenced against them if they sold for more than £2O,
and the expenses.
This was the plaintiff's case.

M r. D

s then opened t}

bill of sale which was the
Nuttall for entering and selling.
.en brought? Was not Mr. Nut-

nut Lien fully informed upon t
wt►s, lie had nitogetlier kept list
title of the defendant .1.1

Vi'ltv. thei), 1

case for the defendants, ob-

UT he had never
rolrsal cr;or,ril Boot

ecause the fact

,ntiatit. al

ite to pay any C

always protest against. It appeared
:that in May, 1842, the
old Mail, father of the plaintiff, died ; his widow was the ad-
ministratrix of his effects and she sold the goods and tools
to the plaintiff. lie, in May, WbS indebted to Mr. Nuttall
in the sum of £2O ; and on the 11th of that month and May
the plaintiff and defenthint made an agreement by which the
plaintiff gave the defendant a bill of sale to secure that £2O
upon the goods, household effects, and working implements
mentioned in the schedule annexed thereto. The learned
counsel then read the bill sale,of which
Was in the usual
form of such documents. Under this authority the plaintiff
was entitled, one minute after its execution, to go in and sell
all the articles mentioned in the schedule. Mr. Eastwood,
In his evidence, stated he had told Mr. Nuttall and the auc-
tioneer that if they sold for more than £2O and the expenses
it would be at their peril but Mr. Eastwood could not have
read the document, otherwise he would have found that it
was an authority to sell the whole to discharge the expenses,
and then the £2O, and the rest he, Mr. Nuttall, was to hold
for the party entitled to it, natnely„the plaintiff himself. The
jury had heard that there had been transactions between the
parties; that was so, and on a settlement it Was proved that
£57 were due to the defendant Mr. Nuttall; and he (Mr.
Nuttall) promised that if a portion was paid to him a day 'or
two afterwards, he would not put the bill of sale in force. At
last, upon the 19th of December, when he was not paid the
money, Mr. Nuttall entered, and sold, as he had a perfect
right to do, and he, at the request of the plaintiff himself, put
off the sale from the 22d to the 23d. They (the jury) would
hear from the learned judge that the defendant could not
enter the house ; and it was for that entering that the £l5
had been paid into court, which was a sufficient compensa-
tion for it. At no time had the plaintiff urged the slightest
objection to the bill of sale ; and he (Mr. Dundas) understood
that the amount realized at the sale was really and truly £3O,
so that there would be only £2 or £3 due to the plaintiff
after the expenses had been paid. The only question then
for the consideration of the jury was whether they would give
the plaintiff more than the £l5 paid into court, which he
(the learned counsel) contended was ample and sufficient.
The bill of sale was put in and read, and a number of wit-
nesses were examined in support of the case on the part of
the defendants. The sale produced £46 Is. 2d. The plain-
tiff himself was at the sale, but he did not interfere to stop it.
Mr. Wonmgy, in reply to the defendants case, contended
that the defendant was entitled to more than the £l5 paid
into court, for entering the house, to the value of more goods
which had been placed in the establishment after the date of
the bill of sale, and to the damages for the ruin of his busi-
lICSS. •

The jury retired to consider their verdict, and after being
absent for an hour, they returned with a verdict for the plain-
tiff upon all the issues, damages £5.

SSAULT AND BATTICRY

PATCHETT V. AswroN.—The declaration in this case
charged the defendant with having committed an assault and
battery upon the plaintiff. The defendant merely pleaded
the general issue. Mr. Atherton appeared for the plaintiff;
Mr. Brandt for the defendant.
Mr. ATHERTON said the plaintiff was a young gentleman,
21 years of age, and son of Mr. George Patchett, a very re-
spectable gentleman, who had carried on the business of a
distiller in Manchester, but who was now retired from busi-
ness, and was living upon his property at Chat Moss. The
defendant was also a person in a respectable station in Man-
chester, being a collector of taxes. Prior to this assault the
plaintiff's fattier had occupied, on lease, some premises as
tenant to defendant. The lease expired on the 29th Septem-
ber. During the occupation of this house by Mr. George
Patchett, that gentleman had erected a water-closet upon the
premises, and at the end of the lease some discussion took
place between the pal ties as to whether any allowance should
be made for this ereotion or not. The plaintiff and a witness,
who would be called, waited, on the 29th of September, upon
the defendant, to make an offer of £5 ; but before they had
time even to make the offer, the assault was committed.
Mr. Thomas Sugden, a party who went with the witness,
described the assault.

Mr. BRANDT, for the defendant, coniended that the whole
affair was of the most trumpery description, and that the ac-
tion was brought for the sake of costs.

The judge summed up thus—Gentlemen, you have heard
the case, you will consider what damages you should give.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages one
farthing.

SHERBURNE v. QUARME.—There are two cases in the
second list under this name, which it may be recollected were
made remanets by Mr. Baron Maule at the last assizes. In
the cause of to-day, Mr. DUNDAS, on the part of the plain-
tiff, applied to the Judge to fix a day for the trials, on the
ground that there were numerous witnesses to come from a
distance in them, and on their being remands.
Mr. BAINES said, he appeared on the other side, he had
not yet received his instructions, therefore he was not in
a situation to say anything on the application.
The JUDGE thought that Saturday week would he a con-
venient day ; and if that would suit all parties he would
appoint it.
Mr. BAINES again stated that he had not received his in-
structions; and ultimately the conversation dropped without
any day being specifically appointed for the trial.
TAYLOR v: ASHTON AND OTHERS.—This is a special jury
case in which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages from the
defendants, who were directors of the Commercial Bank of
Manchester, for an alleged libel. The attorney for the plain-
tiff is Mr. John Lowe, of Harrington-street, in this town,
and Messrs. Atkinson and Sanders, and Messrs. Slater and
Heelis's are for the defendants. Sir Wm. Follett, the Soli-
citor-General has been specially retained by the defendants,
with a fee of 300 guineas. In the course of to-day,
Mr. KNOWLES, who with Messrs. Crompton and Martin
will conduct the case for the plaintiff, requested the learned
Judge to appoint a day for the trial.
Mr. WORTLEY said he appeared with Sir Wm. Follett for
the defendants, and he was not at liberty to take any part in
the appointment of the day until he had communicated with
his leader. _ _ _

Eventually the trial was fixed to commence on Monday
week, the 10th April, in case that day should prove conve-
nient to Sir W. Follett, with whom Mr. Wortley undertook
to communicate on the subject; after which, the subject will
be again mentioned. At a subsequent period of the day the
trial was fixed to commence on Thursday, the 13th.
The court adjourned at half-past six o'clock.

CROWN COURT.—TitunspliY.
Mr. Baron PARKE entered the court a few minutes after
nine o'clock.

MINT CASI3S.
James Mullany, 22, was indicted for uttering counterfeit
shillings, at Warrington, in January last. Guilty. Six
months' imprisonment.
John Kearns, 45, was charged with uttering five pieces of
counterfeit coin, at Warrington, in January last. Guilty,
but recommended to mercy. Six weeks imprisonment.
'Sarah Wilson stood charged with uttering.counterfeit coin
at Liverpool, on the 21st of the present month. Acquitted.
Mary Howley was charged with uttering counterfeit coin
at Liverpool, on the 27th of the present month. Acquitted:
Messrs. Armstrong and Pollock conducted the cases
against the prisoners for coining, and Mr. Powell was in
attendance on behalf of the Mint.

HIGHWAY ROBBERY.
•
David Dickenson, 24, Andrew Thorpe, 23, and Robert
Booth, 17, were indicted for robbing Samuel'Orrell at Bol-
ton. On the 10th of October last the prosecutor, in com-
pany-with his wifeovas on his way to Turton (where be re.
sides) to little Bolton, having with him two £5 and one £lO
Bank of England notes. On arriving at Little Bolton they
called at the Dog and Partridge. and staid there till about
nine o'clock in the evening, when they set out to return to
Turton. While staying at the Doc and Patridge, they ob-
served several men sitting in the house drinking, who, it ap.
pearcd, immediately followed them after they had left the
house. The prosecutor had not proceeded far on the road
when he was attacked by some men, and knocked down, and
on recovering himself. two persons were beating him violently,
one of whom was the prisoner Dickenson, and who, together
with other man, then ran away, The prosecutor, on search-
inglis pockets, found that his money had been taken, and
immediately proceeded to Bolton, and from the description
he gave the prisoner Dickenson was apprehended. When
taken he had some marks of blood on his person, but he ac-
counted ifor it by saying that his nose had been bleeding,
though he admitted being at the Dog and Partridge in com-
pany with Booth on the night the robbery was committed.
Booth and Thorpe were also apprehended, the same evening,
and there were marks of blood on Booth's hands. The pri-
soners were undefended. The jury retired to consider their
verdict, and after being absent about ten minutes, found all
the prisoners guilty. Sentence deferred.