The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-04-07 00:00:00

NISI PRIUS COURT.-YESTERDAY.

His Lordship took his seat on the bench at a few minutes
after nine o'clock.

LEATH WOOD V.• THOMPSON,

This was an action arising out of a dispute as to the terms on
which a public-house was taken.
Mr. 'Watson and Mr. Burke for the plaintiff—Mr. Martin and
Mr. James for the defendant.

Mr. WATSON stated the case. He said the plaintiff, Samuel
Leathwood was a publican residing in Liverpool, and he sought
to recover .t'l3B or £l5B as the case might be made out. De-
fendant was a wine-merchant carrying on business in this town,
and it would appear that a young man named Brook, who had
formerly been a clerk in the Grand Junction Railway, had,
in the year 1842, set up in business as a publican, and opened a
house in Great Charlotte-street, which he called " Master Hum-
phrey's Clock." Mr. Brook's friends were well off, his father
being a clergyman in Cheshire, and had he been steady he might
have done well, but unfortunately he was not so. In the year
1843, he became involved in difficulties. A compromise was
proposed to his creditors of ten or twelve shillings in the
pound; and on that occasion the present plaintiff and defendant
came to the assistance of Brook; and it was arranged that the
plaintiff should carry on the business under the firm of Breok
and Leathwood, and for the purpose of securing a debt to the
Nantwich Bank, he accepted a bill in the name of Brook and
Leathwood, and defendant was to borrow on a bill.of exchange,
£5OO, for the plirpose of securing the composition to the credi-
tors of Brook, and for his security he was to lu,ve a bill of as-
signment on the house, goodwill, stock, &c. Plaintiff was put
in possession and continued to carry on the business until the
middle of last year. The arrangement between the parties was
that with whatever the business, goodwill, &c. should sell for,
the proposed bill by Mr. Thompson was to be paid, and any ad-
vances he might make of liquors and wines to the house, and
whatever then was above, that was to be the property of Leath-
wood. In the course of 1845 Thompson gate up the house, and
a Mr. 'Whitley agreed to give .if,oo for the goodwill, &c., but he
afterwards ran off the bargain and forfeited a deposit of 420 ;
the house was subsequently sold for .t 550, and the whole
amount against the house being £412, the plaintiff brought the
action to recover the difference, under the bargain, of £l3B, or,
if the .20 deposit was. reckoned, of .e 153.
Hies. ra. 'Yates and Mil gaud, accoun'ants, Lord-street, were
called to prove certain accounts between the parties, corrobo-
rative of the statement of the learned counsel.

Mr. Martin, for the defence, contended that his learned friend
had not stated the whole facts of the case. When Brook and
Leathwood were in difficulties, Mr. Thompson, wine-merchant,
one of the creditors, was waited upon to see if the house could
not be kept open, and he entered into the arrangements des-
clibed by the plaintiff's counsel, with no further interest than
to secure payments to the hank, and the composition to his
creditors, and a sale for his wines and liquors. Things went
en after this arrangement until Dec. 1844, when Mr. Thompson
found that it was a losing concern, and he communicated to
Leathwood his determination to be quit of it. At that time there
was £209 ss. 7d. due to Mr. Thompson on account of the
house, and the bank had not even to this day received a farthing
of what was due to them. Plaintiff was, moreover, a mere
confidential servant, managing the business, and receiving
out of the moneys thS per cent. for his salary and the expenses
, of his family. He called
Mr. Eaton, of the Nantwich Bank, who proved that £470
of the moneys advanced in the first instance to Brook, which
was to be paid under the composition, had not yet been paid. •
Mr. John Caton Thompson, attorney, produced the original
lease under which young Brook held. Witness was waited on
by Mr. Thompson, the defendant, to know if the terms of that
lease would make it a good security. It was considered bad,
and application was made to the lessor, who agreed to take a
surrender of the old one, and make a new lease to Mr. Thomp-
son. It was dated 7th April. On this arrangement being
made, Mr. Thompson was to carry on the business and supply
the stock. Mr. Leathwood was to manage the house, and pay
the gross proceeds to Mr. Thompson, and they were to be ap-
plied, in the first place, in the payment of Mr. Thompson, for
his outlay, and afterwards, the Nantwich Bank 4470, due to
them. Leathwood was to have a weekly allowance, but witness
did not know what it was. Witness had heard Leathwood ex-
press his gratitude to Mr. Thompson for enabling him to carry
on the business, and thus relieve himself of the responsibility
to the Nantwich Bank. Remembered four bills, each for ..t125,
drawn at different dates, being executed at witness's office, on
the 3d April, and Mr. Eaton cashed them, and a memorandum
was made. A fiat of bankruptcy was issued against young
Brook, on the 18th April. Between those two dates, the furni-
ture was valued at 4432, and that sum was paid over. Mr.
Leathwood was examined before the commissioner, in the
Court of Bankruptcy, at Brook's hearing, and witness put in '
his examination, which stated :—" I am now in possession of
Humphrey's Clock. lam tenant to Mr. Thompson, at a rental
of £2 2s. per week, I paid no good-will. I was not to become
a partner of Mr. Thompson. There had been a former arranger
ment of that sort, which was not carried out."
Cross-examined by Mr. WATEON.—VI itness is no relative to
defendant. .

A dellc...of the defendant, proved the receipt and payment of
the sum to Mr. Thompson and the allowances for salary paid to
plaintiff. Always understood that when everything was paid
plaintiff was to have the house.
Mr. Watson replied and his lordthip briefly summed up:
after which the jury found a verdict fir the defendant.

ALCOCK V.

FOSTEP AND FOSTER V. ALCOVIC

These were cross actions aid by consent, a verdict was taken
for the plaintiff for clacnageA mentioned in the declaration,