The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-04-11 00:00:00

NISI PRIUS COURT.-TLIESDAY

SYERS V. JONAS AND OTHERS.—The hearing of this
case was resumed this morning, and occupied Cie court
until nearly two o'clock. Mr. Watson addressed the jury
for the defendants, and examined a number of witnesses.
The jury retired, and, after a brief absence from court,
returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £222—costs 40s.

M'ANDREW AND OTHERS V. MURGATROYD.—This was
an action brought by Wm. Peter M'Andrew and others
against Squire Murgatroyd. The declaration was in tro-
ver for the value of some currants and other fruit. The
defendant pleaded not guilty ; that the plaintiffs were not
lawfully possessed of the property ; and that the defen-
dant had committed the trespass by leave and license.—
It appeared that the plaintiffs were fruit-merchants in
Liverpool, and that the defendant was a carrier by water,
conducting business for a company called " The Mer-
chants' Company" ; and this action was brought to reco-
ver a butt of currants which the defendant converted to
his own use. In the May of last year, the plaintiff's sent
a traveller to Ashton to obtain orders ; and having visited
a Mr. Symes, a grocer, in that town, be obtained an order
from him for one butt of currants and some nuts. The
traveller made a mistake in the matter, and reported to
his employers that two butts had been ordered. Accord-
ingly two butts were sent to Ashton by the defendant,
and when they got there Mr. Symes refused to take the
second butt. The defendant thereupon took possession
of it, and put it into his warehouse ; and though repeated
promises had been made that it would be surrendered,
defendant had held possession of it to the present hour.—
A verdict was returned for the plaintiff's for £4O.

CROWN COURT.

-WEDNESDAY

PEACOCK V. IIATTON.—The plaintiff, Andrew Peacock,
is a corn merchant, carrying on business in this town, and
the defendant, Mrs. Jane Hatton, a flour dealer, residing
in Wigan, and the present action was brought to recover
the sum of £340 7s. lid., money owing by the defendant
to plaintiff for goods had and delivered. On the Bth of
June last, a son of the defendant's, who manages the busi-
ness for her, called at the stall (in the Corn Exchange) of
Mr. Mooney, the plaintiff's broker, and bargained for 70
barrels of flour, partially sour, for which he agreed to
pay 425. 6d. per barrel. the price of sweet flour being at
that time about 455. While the bargain was going on, a
flour dealer, named Nash, having purchased some before,
wished to make another purchase, but the broker gave
the preference to Mr. Hatton, as he was there first. The
goods were sent by the Union Canal to Wigan. When
it arrived, Hatton wrote to say part of the flour sent was
not equal to sample. The plaintiff and his broker went
over to Wigan and examined the flour, and found it quite
equal to sample. Several wit Lesses were called on the
part of the plaintiff, who stated that the flour was quite
equal to the sample. Mr. COWLING, for the defence,
said that the contract being for goods above the value of
£lO, the plaintiff must prove the accepting of the con-
tract entered into by the defendant. This was a sale by
sample, and in a sale by sample words expressive of that
fact ought to be in the contract. That the contract was
made between the plaintiff and defendant as principals,
and, consequently, the broker's note would be no evi-
dence in such a case, as in the case of Pitt v. Peckett, in
the Coure of Exchequer. That there was no proof as to
when this note, purporting to be a broker's note was made
out. A broker's note, to be binding at *AI, must be
signed by the broker himself, and not, as in this case, by
his clerk. His LORDSHIP overruled the last objection,

and Said that he would reserve, for further consideration,
the other points until he consulted with his brother
(Rolfe) upon them. Mr. Hatton, on being examined,
stated that, on the Gth of June last, he called on plaintiff,
who said he had a remnant of flour, which he wisned to
dispose of, and that he showed him a sample of very good
flour, which he agreed to buy at 425. 6d. A witness was
called to prove that 425. 6d. was about the average price
of flour on the Bth of June. Mr. JAMES replied, con-
tending that the flour had been sold as sour, and that the
price of flour having considerably deteriorated before the
flour arrived, the defendant wished to run off his bargain.
His LORDSHIP summed up, when the jury returned a
verdict that the flour was sold by a partially sound sam-
ple. The plaintiff was then non-suited on the points of law.

NISI PRIUS COURT

WEDNESDAY

CLARKE AND ANOTHER V. BROWN AND ANOTHER.—
The plaintiffs are shipowners in Liverpool, and the defen-
dants, Messrs. Brown, Hunter, and Co., are brokers, or
rather factors, as they made advances upon goods, and the
action was brought to recover the sum of £328 for the
freight of 1200 hags of rice which were brought in one of

Liverpool

the case had gone on for some time it was stopped on
some points of law, and a verdict taken for the plaintiffs,
with liberty for the defendants to move for a nonsuit, or
tender a bill of exceptions.
WEBBER AND OTHERS v. COLTON AND ANOTHER.—
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, who are
wine merchants in London, against the defendants, who
are wine merchants in Liverpool, to recover the value of
a quantity of wine which the defendants, as agents for the
plaintiffs, had neglected to cause to be transferred to
them as s?curity for a debt due to the plaintiffs by
Messrs. Buckmaster and Co., of this town. It appeared
from the evidence that the defendants agreed with Buck-
master that he should transfer a quantity of wine then in
one of Mr. Harbord's bonded warehouses in South John-
street, to them as security for his debt to the plaintiffs.
The defendants, however, did not give notice of the
transfer to Mr. Harbord, the warehouse-keeper, and in
the course of a short time Buckrnaster transferred the
wines in question to a person named Bickham. Upon
this fact coming to the knowledge of the plaintiffs they
brought this action. It was contended that the defen-
dants had, out of kindness to the plaintiffs, gratuitously
complied with their wish to get a settlement, and got a
written transfer and sent it to the plaintiffs. The jury
seemed to take this view of the caae, and returned a ver-
i diet for the defendants.

KERR AND OTHERS V. PICRERING.—The plaintiffs in
this action are the gentlemen forming the firm of Messrs.
Pitcairn, Symes, and Co., who have various establish-
ments in the East, and the defendant, Captain John Pick-
of the ship Java, was the nominal defendant in the

action, ti
of Messr

Murray, a

verpool, anc

Messrs. Murray sent an order to the plaintiffs, at Batavia,
to load the ships Bangalore and Java. This was done,

W., and H. Murray, of-Liverpool. Upofi the bills being
Kcsentad to those gentlemen, they were not in a condition
to, nor did they, accept them, •Ind the bills were accepted,
super a protest, by Messrs. Murray, Symes, and Co., for
honour of the drawers, and ultimately the bill of lading
was assigned to Messrs. Scholfield, one of the partners in

petted to receive the cargoes of the vessels to cover the
amount for which his house had rendered themselves lia-
ble on the bills. Some time after the defendants con-

_his town, tneir solicitor, Will/
thought that they ought to be paid the freights, inasmuch
as the cargoes had been brought in their own ships. On
the arrival of the Java at Bristol, Captain Pickering refused
to deliver the cargo to Mr. Scholfield until he bad heard
from Liverpool, and upon the receipt of an answer from
them, he positively refused to deliver the cargoe.
Mr. KNOWLES suggested that as there was little dispute
about the facts, this and another action arising out of the
same transaction, might be made into a special case. The
A P; ear ari fr antl

ane, o

were not the agent's merely of Thomas, William, and
Henry Murray,
which he contended they were.
Verdict, by consent, for the plaintiffs for £20,000, the
the court to say what the damages ought to be in case
they think the plaintiffs entitled to a verdict.

CROWN COURT.

,-THURSDAT

BYRNE Y. STURK.—The plaintiff is a sailmaker, and
the defendant was alleged to be part owner of a vessel
called the Frederica, and the action brought was to re-

cover a sum of money for sails supplied to the ship. On
the part of the defendant it was attempted to be shown
that he was only a mortgagee. The jury returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff. Damages, £lO9 13s. 9d.
FORSTER V. WIGNALL AND OTHERS.—Mr. Attorney-
General Knowles stated the case. In 1847 the Messrs.
Rigby, railway contractors, entered into a contract with
the defendant for the supply of railway sleepers. The
Messrs. Rigby having become bankrupts, the defendant
took possession of the sleepers, hence arose the present
action. The jury found for the plaintiff. Damages,
£414.

BIRD V. EGLlNrox.—The plaintiff is one of the official
assignees of Messrs. Carter and Byrne, lately carrying on
business in this town as ship-brokers, the defendants
merehanis in London. The action was brought to reco-
ver £l.l-1 7s. Gd., commission on freight. The jury re-
turned a Verdict for the defendant.

BIRD AND OTHERS V. Laud.—The plaintiffs in this
case were the assignees of a person named Hume, a rope-
maker, and the defendant is a lawyer, and owner of a rope-
walk and other property in Lodge-lane, which he let to
Hulme in 1846, at a yearly rental of £2lO. In August,
1847, Hume became a bankrupt. when the defendant put
in a distraint, and sold his goods-. The matter resolved
itself into a point of law, as to whether the landlord could
distrain for Tent until it was due, and, in this case, it ap-
peared it was not. According to the statute of William
and Mary a verdict double the amount of goods seized
must be given. The goods seized were proved to be worth
£7O, and a verdict for £l4O was returned, subject to a re-
duction.

JONES AND OTHERS V. JONES.-Mr. Attorney-Ge-
neral Knowles stated the case. The plaintiffs are the
official assignees of Owen Roberts : the defendant is Grif-
fith Jones, and the action was brought to recover the sum
of £l6B, alleged to have been fraudulently received. The
jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

.0 -
NISI PR lUS COURT—TnuusnAy.

BARTON, IRLA al, AND CO.'S AFFAIRS.—ALLEGED
FRAUDULENT PREFERENCE. VAN CASTEELE AND
ANOTHER V. BOOKER AND OTHERS.—Mr. Watson, Mr.
Henderson, and Mr. Atherton appeared for the plaintiffs ;
and Mr. Martin, Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Webster, for
the defendants.—Mr. WATSON stated the case. The
plaintiffs were commission merchants in Rotterdam. and
the action was brought to recover £ll,OOO for coffee sent
to this port by the ship Vigilant. The defendants were
the assignees of Barton. Irlam, and Co., who had become
bankrupts. A gentleman named Lyon, of this town, who
was also a partner in the house of Lyon and Schwinde, at
Rio de Janeiro, last autumn told a Mr. Rabus that he
would have some cargoes of coffee arriving, for which he
wanted a market and consignees. In a short time Mr.
Rabus wrote to the plaintiffs to know if they were willing
to take a cargo of coffee, and upon their replying in the
affirmative, Mr. Lyon wrote to them, forwarding the bill
of lading, upon which they advanced £5504 16s. Bd. The
bill of lading stated that the cargo was deliverable to order
or assigns, and freight free on board the Vigilant. The
vessel arrived in the Mersey on the 3d Decemt er, and on
the next morning the defendants took possession of the
vessel and her cargo, and the plaintiffs were consequently
obliged to bring this action. He explained the law rela-
tive to bills of lading.—After some evidence had been
heard, his LORDSHIP said that the only question at issue
was, to whom did the cargoes belong, whether to one
creditor or to the general body.—lt was agreed that the
opinion of the Court should be taken as to the amount
which the plaintiffs were entitles!, viz., the value of the
amount of coffee on the 28th of November, or whether
they were entitled to more than the amount of advances.—
Mr. MARTIN then addressed the jury for the defendants,
observing that the real question for the consideration of
the jury was, whether the transactions between Mr. Jona-
'than Higginson and Mr. Lyon did not constitute that
which the law viewed as a voluntary and fraudulent pre-
ference, and which could not stand against an act of
bankruptcy. The fact was, that tho day after the docu-
ment which had been adverted to was delivered, Mr.
Higginson having had 21 days' notice, had committed an
act of bankruptcy, at the time owing a million of money,
and not one scrap of merchandise of any description to go
to his creditors. This was, indeed, a startling fact. The
learned counsel next stated that Mr. Higginson was in-
debted to the Royal Bank of Liverpool to the extent of
£463,000, and it was not till after repeated applications
bad been made to him for a liquidation of the debt, and the
service of the notice in question, that he had transferred
the bills of lading in question, and this was done for the
purpose of favouring Mr. Lyon to the prejudice of the
other creditors.—A number of witnesses were examined
as to the facts stated in behalf of the defendants.—Mr.
WATSON replied, stating that if the verdict were not for
the plaintiff, it would be one of the greatest discourage-
ments that could be inflicted upon commerce, for, in fu-
ture, no one would make advances upon bills of lading.—
His LORDSHIP having summed up, the jury retired at
half-past five, and after an hour's deliberation returned a
verdict for the defendants. _ _

a[By this decision, it appears a bill of lading is no
security to a third party, if improperly obtained by a
second party ; whereas by the Factors' Act, a third party
was supposed to be held secure in any case, as with a bill
of exchange.]
GROTE V. THE CHESTER AND HOLYHEAD RAILWAY
COMPANY.—This was an action brought by the plaintiff,
Mr. Grote, corn merchant, Liverpool, to recover damages
for injuries he had sustained, on the 24th of May last, in
the accident caused by the giving way of the Dee bridge,
by which so many persons were unhappily killed. Da-
mages were laid at X2OOO. Several witnesses were called
to prove the extent and nature of the accident, the par-
ticulars of which will be in the recollection of our readers.
—Mr. Henry Robertson, civil engineer, was called, and
deposed that the span of this bridge was the longest in
England, and in his opinion the girders were not of suffi-
cient strength for the weight of the trains which had to
pass over it.—Captain Simmons, the engineer who was
sent down by government to report on the cause of the
accident, said be was of opinion that tension rods do not
add any strength to girder bridges. It 'is generally con-
sidered that cast-iron girders ought not to be subjected to
the passing over of trains to more than one-third the
breaking weight. My own opinion, however, is that they
should not be subjected to more than one-fourth. When
I went to examine the bridge I caused a train to pass
ever the line of rails which was standing. I stood upon
one of the girders to examine their action whilst the train
was passing, and such was the vibration that I could not
see the other end of the girder.—Mr. James Kennedy,
d
aapwne
Inlnealaddsgsi sinpenett srheii
plaintiff
plaintiffeawhvrt
whee, t
hrdagaeedsat
daysvisltaeuaahl tsdl
eset iaAadbmwsti
eneriatelre.
oyna,
Grofapirrrnerooi :opt
from
ciNeo.daoenrhenbttnastnuhecdhesc
ieeri
been
n.
eneeeaenxsdfnTsette
business,
rrnedotjmufwuj
roetrul
hidfelni
diecygethhaifnolew accident.nth
nnriaii
jecdenuahytatr
hmytwii
treatment
et-t,
mbeafnoyvi commissions ishsaiodnsoffhaerdedbeetnhelopstlabinyttiffhexfi3romo,ofwwhliicihchwthaes
ver-
dict for the plaintitf—damages £250. [The company
refused.]

NISI PRIUS COURT

-FRIDAY

Upon Mr. Baron Rolfe taking his seat upon the bench,
verdicts were taken by consent on the remaining special

jury cases.
MERCER V. FORSTER.—This was a trumpery action for
the recovery of £99 155., but after hearing the evidence
the jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
HOLDEN V. CAMPBELL.—This was an action upon a
disputed account, in which a verdict was taken for the
plaintiff, damages £l5O.
ALLEGED EXCESSIVE DISTRESS.—ELLISON V. FAZA-
KERLEY.—Mr. Crompton opened the pleadings, and Mr.
Martin stated the case to the jury.—This was an action
brought by the 'plaintiff, who had been the occupier of a