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

ALLEGED ILLEGAL SEIZURE.

PARRY V. THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK AND OTHERS.
—ln this case, Messrs. Martin and Atherton were for the
plaintiffs, and Mr. Knowles, Mr. Adolphus, and Mr. Ro-
binson, tor the defendants.
Mr. Martin stated the case. The plaintiff was Mr.
John Parry, a gentleman residing in the neighbourhood
of Liverpool, and the defendants were the Archbishop of
York, the Earl of Devon, and John Loch, Esq., M.P.,
the trustees of the late Duke of Bridgewater. The ac-
tion was brought to recover the value of four canal boats,
called the Wizard, the Witch, the Gem, and the Amere,
which had been seized and sold by the agent of the
trustee., Mr. Marsden, at Manchester. Mr. Parry, the
plaintiff, had a son, who, at the latter end of 1843, en-
tered into a carrying concern at Manchester, which had
been carried on under the firm of Deakin and Co. Soon
after John Parry, jun., got into the concern, he found
that the state of its affairs was not so prosperous as h€
was led to suppose, and in consequence an application was
made to the plaintiff to advance money by way of mort-
gage on two of the boats belonging to the new firm, which
was then carried on under the title of Parry, Deakin, and
Co. The plaintiff, after consulting his authority, Mr.
Tyrer, declined doing so. It was then arranged that the
plaintiff should purchase two of the boats for £3OO, and
that the firm should pay a certain sum weekly for the use
of these boats. This was done, and accordingly the
money was paid by Mr. John Parry for the Wizard and
Witch. Subsequently Mr. Parry purchased the Gem
from Messrs. Anderton and Gartskill, of Runcorn, for
£235, and the Amere, from Mr. John Deakin, of
Bootle, for £194. The latter boats were also used by
Parry, Deakin, and Co., on the same terms as the others.
The business then went on until the 15th of August,
1845, when the agent to the defendants seized the boats
for tonnage, haulage, and canal dues, there being then
about £l,lOO due, and sold them for £6OO. Two of the
boats were seized as they were passing through a lock on
the canal, and the other at the canal basin at Manchester.
The evidence of Mr. John Parry, jun., Mr. J. Ken-
worthy Deakin, Mr. John Anderton, and Mr. John
Deakin proved the facts as stated by Mr. Martin.
Mr. Knowles cross-examined the witnesses, with a view
of shewing that the carrying firm had exercised the owner-
ship over the boats.

His LORDSIIIP, however, intimated that the defence
could not be maintained. Here was now proof that two
of the boats had been purchased from parties not at all
connected with the son of the plaintiff. He supposed
Mr. Knowles was about to call witnesses to alter all
those facts.
Mr. KNOWLES said the trusteeslhad been entirely de-
ceived about the matter. Up to that mom nt they had no
knowledge whatever of the facts which had been proved
by these very respectable witnesses who had been called,
and, of course, as he could not contradict that testimony,
he felt, acting on the part of the highly respectable defen-
dants, that he ought not to resist a verdict. He must,
however, say that the agents of the defendants, seeing the
name of " John Parry" on the boats, and knowing nothing
of any other John Parry, they believed the boats belonged
to the carrying concern.
Mr. MARTIN said the plaintiff had over and over again
offered to furnish the whole particulars about the matter.
Under the direction of his Lordship, the jury found for
the pl intiff, damages £7OO.
Mr. George Thompson, of Manchester, was attorney
for the plaintiff in this important action.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—SATURDAY
The further hearing of the case of Scholfield v. Rhodes wa
proceeded with. Mr. Seijeant Wilkins addressed the jury foi I
the defendant, and called some witnesses to show that the
plaintiff's claim was unfounded ; but the jury pronounced a
verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount and interest.
LEE V. GRAY.—The plaintiff, a surveyor of Manchester.
brought this action for w, rk done in attending in parliament
to oppose a bill for making a railway from Liverpool to Wigan,
Bolton, and Bury. The plaintiff had made out the maps and
plans requisite to be put before p n liament in November last,
at great tr.,uble and expense, for which he chimed, in all, £l9l,
including expenses. The defendants had paid the plaintiff £4O,
and had also paid into court in February, when the action was
brought, a sum of ten, but the balance.,6 -4, was yet due. The
defence was that, although the plaintiff had undoubtedly been
employed, his charges were most exorbitant. his Lordship
was of opinion that the plaintiff ought to be paid according to
some well known rule. Witnesses were called to prove what
would be a fair sum, and the jury gave a v. rdict for the defen-
dant.

Another case brought by the same plaintiff against Colonel
Coape, who had paid 50 into court, was similarly disposed of,
REPUDIATION OF A RAILWAY CONTRACT TOOTAL v. JOHN-
STON.—This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Frederick
Tootal, against the defendant, Henry Johnston, for the reco-
very of damages sustained by the defendant failing to fulfil a
railway contract. The defendant pleaded that he did not pro-
mise ; he also pleaded a vat lety of other pleas.
Mr /Jams stated the case, The plaintiff was a sharebroker,
in the town of Manchester, and the, defendant was a coach builder,
in the town of Sheffield, and a person who had entered largely into
railway speculations. Several cases of this description had been
tried at the present assizes, but in the present one there had not
only been a distinct repudiation of a contract, which, on every
Principle of law and justice, the defendant was bound to perform,
but there were circumstances attending his conduct of an ex-
tremely discreditable character. It would appear that on the 28th
of September, last year, the defendant applied to Mr. Wales, a
sharebroker, in Sheffield, to purchase for him fifty shares in the
railway called the Huddersfield and Sheffield, which shares were
then very high in the market. In consequence of this direction,
Mr. Wales wrote tothe plaintiff and commissioned him to purchase
fifty Huddersfield and Sheffield shares; and, on the same day,
the plaintiff went into the market and effected the purchase from
three brokers. From Mr. Graves he bought twenty shares; from
Mr. Hahn, twenty; and from M'Lean and Ce. ten ; so that in
this way he made the fifty, and be purchased them at the market
price of the day. The total cost of those shares amounted to a
large sum. The plaintiff came under liabilities for the shares so
purchased to the amount of £2106. He purchased them in his
own name, according to the rule in the Manchester market, and on
that same night, the 29th of September, be wrote to Mr. Wales, in-
forming him that the shares had been bought. On the following
day there was a letter from Mr. Wales to the plaintiff expressing
satisfaction at the purchase; and Mr- Wales entered those shares
in his book to the account of the defendant. On the same day the
defendant called on Wales, and told him to give authority to the
plaintiff to sell the Huddersfield and Sheffield shares for as much
above t5O as possible. Mr. Wales accordingly wrote to that effect,
and -.lame over to Liverpool and Manchester. Whilst in Liverpool
he received two letters from the defendant, urging the immediate
sale of the shares; but, high as the price of those shares was on
the 28th of September, and rising as they were in the market,
yet so little were they thought of on the 2nd of October, that
they were absolutely unsaleable in Manchester. Prom that
time forward the defendant used every attempt to shuffle out
of the transaction by saying, amongst other things, that the
shares bad been purchased, not for him, but for somebody
else. The 31st of October, the settling day at Manchester, having
liaised, and the account not having been paid, Mr. Graves placed
the twenty shares purchased by the plaintiff from him in the
hands of the cha roman of the committee of tha Stock Exchange
for the purpose of being sold out against the party, and those
twenty shares were sold out at £22 each, so that there was a loss
of £355 upon that transaction. Mr. Hahn also resold the twenty
shares bought from him at £22, by which there was a further loss
of £532 ; and M'Lean and Co. re-sold their ten at .€lO, by which
there was an additional loss of X 321. The plaintiff was called upon
by Mr. Graves, Mr. Hahn, and Messrs. M'Lean to make good
those differences ; and to him those claims were most ruinous. He
was obli,ed to suspend payment. He called his creditors together,
and they having agreed to accept a composition of three shillings
in the pound, be had paid Mr. Graves, Mr. Hahn, and Messrs.
M'Lean £4ll I Is., and for the recovery of that sum the present
action was brought. On the Bth of October the defendant had at-
tempted to get out of the transaction by going to Mr. Wales, of
Sheffield, and telling him a story about a Mr. Owen, for whom he
said, the allures were meant; and he requested Mr. Wales to alter
his books, to get new ones instead of the old, and to change the
entry from Johnston" to "Owen through Johnston." Mr. Wales
had the weakness to yield to the request: but the new and old
books would be produce I; the alteration of the entry would be
proved; and, at all events, if any error had been committed, the
fault lay not with the plaintiff, but with the defendant's own agent,
Mr, Wales.
The first witness called on the part of the plaintiff was Mr.
Wales. He was a long time under examination. His evidence
detailed the wholeof the leading incidents in the transaction as
they had been stated by the learned coon el
John Birley, clerk to Mr. Wales, identified a letter which be had
written to the plaintiff, at the dictation of the defendant, telling him
to sell tits fifty shares without delay.
The three brokers from whom the shares were bought were ex-
amined.
_ _ _ . . . • . _

--ifi.iisitTnt submitted to have the verdict go against his client-
At the same time he was instructed to say, that Owen told the
defendant to order the shares through Wales, and that the impres-
sion on the-defendant's mind was, that, when he ordered them to
be purchased, he gave the order in Owen's name.
A verdict was returned for the plaintiff for £465 lie.