The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-10-24 00:00:00

COURT OF PASSAGE.

This court, for the trial of civil causes,- within the
borough, opened yesterday morning at nine o'clock, be-
fore Charles Crompton, Esq., the assessor. The atten-
dance was numerous and more than the usual number of
barristers made their appearance,—a circumstance to be
accounted for in a great degree from its being the first day
of the borough quarter sessions in the adjoining court
room.

Several undefended causes of no general importance
were first disposed of, after which the parties interested
in those to be defended were called ; but for some time
neither plaintiffs, defendants, nor witnesses answered to
their names, and the crier of the court having thrice made
" proclamation " that unless they came forward they
would forfeit their subpoenas, the assessor complained of
the irregularity in the business of the court and said he
should strike the causes out of the list. Whether this
was eventually abided by we know not, inasmuch as Mr.
Venables afterwards stated, in the course of a case in
which he was engaged, that the time of opening the court
on this occasion was one hour earlier than usuual, the
accustomed hour being ten o'clock. He also added that
some of the subpoenas which he had seen were for the
latter hour, having been filled up from copies issued under
the old regime. The assessor stated that that was the
fault of the attorneys, who had due notice of the hour of
opening—adding that he had frequently found the same
delay when the court opened at ten, and intimated his
intention of not further permittine such excuses.

MILLER V. MITCHELL,

Was the first defended case tried.

Mr. Venables said, he was for the defendant in that
case, but had not yet got his brief. He was proceeding
to address the court at some little length, to the effect that
his witnesses were not yet ready, when the Assessor stated,
that if he had not his brief he could not proceed at all.
The brief was, however, soon afterwards handed to him
by the defendant, and Mr. James proceeded to address
the jury for the plaintiff, Joseph Miller. He said, the
action was brought to recover a sum of £l3. 3s. for ser-
vices rendered. The plaintiff was a house broker, and
the defendant had recently kept the Bull Hotel, near the
Railway Station. The Corporation, in the progress of
the improvements they were making in that quarter, re-
quired the house, that it might be pulled down; but, as
usual with then in such cases, the tenant was allowed to
remove his license, which he did to the houss of a Mr.
Jones, in Dublin-street. The defendant, however, after-
wards changed his mind, and thinking the Legs of Man,
corner of Lime-street and London-road, would snit him
better, he entered into negotiations to procure it, employ-
ing the plaintiff to make out an inventory,• Sac., for which
his charge was £3.35. While these were pending (it was
further alleged by the learned counsel) the defendant
authorised the plaintiff to let for him the house in Dub-
lin-street, which he did let to a person named Llewellyn
for £3OO, and it was upon this letting that the plaintiff
claimed the £lO commission, being in the usual practice
of the trade, £5 for the first £lOO, and £2los for each
subsequent £lOO. Llewellyn had paid his client £lO
as his share.

Witnesses were called to prove the allegations made.
and amongst them two house brokers, who stated, that
the per centage stated was the practice of the trade,
when one let a house and the other took it, both employ-
ing the same broker.
Mr. Venables cross-examined some of the witnesses,
and then stated that as the brief had just been put into his
hands, and he found he had not time to make himself fully
acquainted with the merits of the case, and had been,
moreover, spoken to by the defendant, who wished to take
it into his own hands, he would relinquish it to him if the
court were agreeable.
This was acceded to by the Assessor and Mr. Mitchell
cross-examined the remaining witnesses with a view to•
show that he had been grossly imposed upon with regard'
to the charge of the £lO. He afterwards addressed the
jury at some length and with considerable ability, stating
that while the negotiations were going on for the Legs of
Man he had merely mentioned to the plaintiff that the
other house was to be let, and that he might as well make
something out of it if he could; but not employing him
on his own account as he had given up the house and bad
no interest whatever in it, even if it was not let for twenty
years. He also stated that the agreement for the Legs of
Man had been surreptitiously altered by the plaintiff
during his temporary absence, and that he was induced to
sign it, thinking it was the same. The assessor remarked
that it had been altered, and in a diffkrent handwriting.
Mr. MITCH-21a called Mr. James Crellin, flour dealer,
for the purpose of proving that alterations had been made
in the agreement. The jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff—damages three guineas.