The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-10-31 00:00:00

COURT OF PASSAGE

'his court continued its sittings on Tuesday. The fol-
lowing are the only cases of interest since our last :

ACCIDENT AT TH'E DOCK•
PESMINGTON a. SMEATII AM.—The plaintiff in this
case was a person in the employ of Messrs. Bower and
Son, cotton brokers, and the defendant is a cartowner.
On the 17th of April last the defendant's cart was on
the quay at the Victoria Dock, and the plaintiff was en-
gaged in assisting to discharge cotton from the Hibernia.
According to the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses, a
bale of cotton fell down in cnnseotrenre of the neelicence
of the defendant's cartar. by which the plaintiff's leg was
broken. It was contended, however, on the part of the
defendant, that the accident arose out of circumstances
over which the defendant had no controul. The plaintiff
was unable to attend to his duties for about twenty weeks,
part of the time he was attended by a medical man. The
damsees were laid at £l9. The jury, after a few moments'
consultation, found a verdict for the plaintiff for £lO.

ACCTDR,T PROM FURIOUS DRIVING

BOARDMAN V. TYRER.—The...Plaintiff,ltiZard Board-
man, as stated by Mr. JAmEs, was the owner of a mare
which was kept in a field in Great Howard-street, and on
the first day of last Aintree races, in the evening, he sent
his son to fetch her from the field. On bringing her out
of the field, and just as she was coming on the road, a car
belonging to the defendant, and driven by one of his ser-
vants named Henry Si mister, was coming along at a furious
rate, in consequence of which the mare was knocked
down, and her foot becoming entangled in the wheel one
of her legs was broken, and she was so much injured that
it was found necessary to kill her. The driver did not
stop at the time, but continued at a rapid pace for some
distance. He was, however, eventually stopped, when he
used most insulting language to the party who had charge
of the mare; he was also intoxicated. The amount sought
was £lO, being the value of the mare. Mr. PAGET ad -
dressed the jury on the part of the defendant, and called
several witnesses, who gave a complete contradiction to
the case as set forth on behalf of the plaintiff. Mr. JAMES
replied, contending that 'he witnesses for the defence were
unworthy of credit. The jury considered it unnecessary
to have the evidence read over, and immediately found a
verdict for the plaintiff, damages £7.

DISPUTED PARTNERSHIP

HEALEY v. CRISP AND NEALEY.—The plaintiff in
this case was Mrs. Healey. a widow lady, residing near
the Old Swan. and the defendants, Joseph Crisp and Ed-
ward Healey, were parties carrying on business as auc-
tioneers and ecclesiastical and scholastic agents. The
action was brought to recover the sum of £5O. which it
was alleged had been lent by the plaintiff to the defendants.
Mr. JAMES appeared for the plaintiff. and Mr. ARNOLD
for the defendants. The defendant Edward Healey al-
lowed judgment to go bv default.

Tt appeared the defendants entered into partnership in
1842, and in the early part of the present year entered into
an enagagement with the Grand Junction Railway Com-
pany to start a cheap train to London. They were to
deposit a sum of money, and guarantee a certain number
of passengers, the difference between what they paid to
the company and what they charged to the public being
for their own benefit, as a remuneration for their risk.
According to the terms of negotiation, the company re-
quired the sum of £lOO as a depnsit to indemnify them
from any loss before they would incur the liability. The
defendants had not the money at that time, and an appli-
cation was accordingly made. to Mrs. Healey, the mother
of one of the defendants, by letter, dated from Slater-
street, the place of holiness of the defendants. The
application was for £7O hut only £5O was obtained,
which, together with £2O. was paid to the company, who
had consented to take £7‘) as a deposit, instead of £lOO,
as previously required. The trains were accordingly sent,
and about 1200 passengers sent by them, giving a con-
siderable profit to the sneculators A promissory note
was given to Mrs. Healey for the £5O, signed by Edward
Healey, in the name of the firm, and Mr. Crisp himself
had admitted that the money had been lent for the specu-
lation in question. but that he would not pay it until the
accounts connected with the railway affair had been set-
tled, the money being, as 11r. Crisp alleged lent to Mr.
Edward Healey on his own responsibility, to enable him
to pay his prnoortion of the deposit, and that he had no
authority to give the partnership name for that amount.
Witnesses having been called for the plaintiff,
Mr. ARNOLD, on the part of the defendant, denied
there was any trading partnership as regarded the railway
speculation, and that one partner had no right to hind the
other. Tt was a separate and distinct matter from their
agency business.

The jury expressed themselves satisfied, and a verdict
was found for the plaintiff For £5O.

CLAIM FOR DREIT.

FELL v. DAVIES.—The plaintiff is a ttrocer, and the de.
fendant a slater and plasterer ; and the action was for zoo&
cold and delivered (amonntine to £5 13q. 11d.) to the de-
fendant. consistine of different articles of household use.
The defendant pleaded a set-off for work done, as was sup-
posed on account of the plaintiff.—Verdict for the lain-
tiff for the full amount claimed.

INJURY FROM A VICIOUS HORgE

STIELLTDAY a. DEA/CTN.—Tr appeared from the state.
ment of Mr. JAMES that the defendant, John Deakin,
was the owner of a mischievous horse, which was driven
in one of his carts. The plaintiff was a working man ;
and, on the 12th of .Tnly last, while passim, along the
quay, between the Victoria and Waterloo Docks, the
horse, which had been loosed from the cart, attacked him,
and knocked him down. by which he was severely injured
and prevented from following his employment for some
time. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages £lO.