The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-09-03 00:00:00

DAVIES V. RIMMER AND OTHERS.

This was an action brought by the plain►iff, Mary
Davies. against the defendants, John Rimmer, Peter
Radcliffe, and Henry Seddon. The declaration con-
ained three counts for breaking and entering her premi-
:es, putting her out of possession, converting her goods.
tnd assaulting and beating her. The defendants pleaded
!fight counts,—first, that they were not guilty, and secondly
That the house was not the plaintiff's premises, &c.
Mr. Baines and Mr. Atherton appenred for the plain-
-iff, and Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cardwell for the defend-

Mr. BAINES stated the case. He said the plaintiff was
he widow of a man named William Davies, who lived at
Lytham, in this county ; and the action was brought to
recover compensation in damages for several trespasses,
•ommitted under circumstances calculated to excite very
trcng feelings. Her husband and family had resided for
:early a century on part of Lord Skelmersdale's estate.
The husband died there at the close of last year, and the
,)laintiff continued to reside on the premises from that
ime until the month of May last, when the first trespass
ook place. The defendants, acting upon some claim
stitch it would be necessary for them to establish if they
mulct, went to the house on the first of May, and eon-
lueted themselves in a manner which would be described
)y the witnesses. They were heard to use such violent
Ind threatening language, as they approached, that the
laintiff ordered the door to be fastened : and their con-
luct towards the poor widow, with a daughter, a son 13
fears of age, and a grandchild about 4, was as follows :
—The defendant, Primmer, got a spade, and swore he
would break open the door, and, accordingly, the door
;vas actually broken open, and a forcible entry effected.
.ks he was entering, his expression was, " d—n her,
Alen I get in, I'll knock her brains out." When he
,ntered, he ordered the plaintiff to go our. She refused
-o comply with the reqUest. He was then in the act of
triking at her, but his blow did not take effect, and then
.'ruck the daughter of the plaintiff in such a manner as
o swell her face immediately. In short, he conducted
iimself in the most violent manner, and used outrageous
anguage. The plaintiff was in the greatest possible state
.f agitation; she was suffering from illness at the time:
he became exceedingly unwell during their stay; they
tinted out herself, her daughter, her son, and her grand-
hild ; took out all the things in the house. and left her
ei the road in this melancholy condition, Himmel- saying
:hat she might have the goods, if she had any place to
ut them in. But she had no place,—no house to go to ;
t was only through the charity of a neighbour, that she
vas provided with accommodation for five nights in a
iarn ; and upon the 6th of May her things were taken
'rom her, by the orders of Rinamer, and sold. He (Mr.
3aines) believed that his learned friend on the; other side
could set up some will. which, it would be said, was
nade by the husband Of the plaintiff, and which entitled
Thinner to act in this outrageous manner : but it would
shown by the evidence, that, about a year before the
leath of the plaintiff's husband, be bad had a paralyt7e
Arolce—that he had two others in the course of tile same
-
ear---tha.t. ha was steeebless for a month berore his
lath, and that be W 39, therefole, not in g fit state to
make a will.

Witnesses were then examined to prove the case, and,
after it had been partly heard, a verdict was ,returnen
for the plaintiff, with £5 damages, as against Ricomer.
and for the two other defendants on all the counts.

DOE DEM. STOREY a. SUMMERS.
This was an action of ejectment brought by Joseph,
S'orey to recover possession (1 a piece of land at
.14,Lige-
hill. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff.
The court adjourned at half-past six o'clock.

NISI
PRIUS COURT.WEDNESD&Y.
NON-PAYMENT OF ELECTIONEERING EXPENSES.

DUCKWORTH V. JOHNSON.-111 tidscase Wm.-Duck-
worth was the plaintiff and George JAnson the ..defend-
ant. The action was for goods sold and materials and
attendance, and on an account stated. The amount
sought was £5O. The defendant admitted his.liability to
the extent of £6.
The plaintiff's case was conducted by Mr. Wortley, as-
sisted by Mr. Cardwell ; Messrs. Baines and Segar were
for the defendant.
Mr. WORTLEY stated that the plaintiff was a publican,
carrying on business at Blackburn, and the defendant a
respectabe tradesman, also belonging to that place. In
the year 1841, during the occurrence of the general
election, considerable excitement prevailed, and the town
of Blackburn was no exception; the struggle there being
carried on with great spirit on both sides. Mr. Turner,
the former member, tia6ig expressed a wish not to come
forward again, the parties in the field were Mr Fie,den
and a gentleman named Hornby. Subsequently, howeve!,
in consequence of the urgent solicitations of .some of his
friends and supporters, Mr. Turner was :minced to come
forward as a candidate, on the understanding that he was
not to be subjected to any expense, whatever might be
the result of the contest. The election began, and, as was
often the case, purity of election was the cry on both sides,
and there was to be no corruption. The contest, how-
ever, grew hot and close, which the result evidently
showed, as Mr. Turner only lost by one vote; it became
evident, therefore, that ordinary canvassing was inefficient,
and means were resorted to on both sides far influencing
the electors, and houses of entertainment opened in vari-
ous parts of the town. Among these was the house of
the plaintiff, where arrangements were made for the recep-
tion of a considerable company, and on the 23d of June,
the first day of the election, Johnson was there, in com-.
pany with a number of other persons in the interest of
Mr. Turner. The defendant appeared to be the leading
person, and gave orders that an entertainment should be
sent up stairs, consisting of brandy and water, &e., and
also accompanied them to the room. He also gave di-
rections for the accommodation of a lower class of persons
in the kitche;,,—not with the same exalted fare as the
party up stairs were enjoying, but with rum and ale.
There was considerable excitement, as is usual on such
occasions, which was continued for an hour or two during
the evening. Johnson gave orders for a person to be
placed en the stairs, so as not to allow the lower class of
individuals, who were regaling themselves in the kitchen,
to obtain admission to the room occupied by the aristo-
cracy above, and at the close of the jollification gave di-
rections fur stopping the tap, which was accordingly done,
and not a drop was given as soon as the shadow of John-
son ceased to darken the door of the plaintiff Duckworth ;
a friend of the plaintiff had undertaken to score up the
evening's accounts, which amounted to about £3O, on
one of the doors of the house. On the day of nomination
drink had also been supplied to a small amoun , by direc-
tion of the defendant. It appeared that shortly atter th,s
things came to such a pass that every voter was of the ut-
most confidence, and a system called bottling took place.
A person named Halliweil, who had been pestered by both
parties, was, by the direction of the defendant taken to
the plaintiff's house, and amply provided for, the defend-
ant observing that he (Halliwell) must sleep there and
some one with him, and be taken care of until he was
wanted. The next morning he was taken away by John-
son to the bead quarters of the party, and after having
been supplied with breakfast went and recorded his vote
for Mr. Turner. The amount sought originated in the
manner he had stated, and comprised in the whole a sum
of about £5O.

Several witnesses were then called for the plaintiff's
case, to prove that Johnson was at this house on the even-
ing in question, and gave the directions alluded to by the
learned counse(; one of them stated in cross-examination,
that the proportion of brandy supplied to the party up
stairs was 450 glasses, averaging 15 glasses for each per-
son, which was disposed of in about two hours, and that
the guests in the kitchen had a large quantity of' ale, each
gallon of which was seasoned with a pint of rum. The
house was very full, some of those present being obliged
to occupy the yard, and there was much excitement and
confusion.

Mr. BAINES addressed the jury for the defendant. He
observed that a more unfounded claim had never been
brought into a court of justice. The defendant never de-
nied his liability with respect to Halliwell, for which he
had made a tender of £6, which was all he had a right to
_pay. He would undertake to show that his client was
not responsible for ail those expenses brought against him.
There was another fact, too, which told against the plain-
tiff, namely, that though three years had elapsed no ap-
plication had been made. to the defendant, but that re-
peated demands had been made on the family of Mr.
Turner, who was the party liable, if there was any liability
at all.

Witnesses were called who stated they did not see the
defendant at Duckworth's house on the evening in ques-
tion; that they were there, and some drink was ordered
by Mr. Wm. Turner. One of them, Mr. Thomas Tur-
ner, the nephew of the candidate, said be had orders to
open several houses, and had paid several of the accounts,
having received money from his uncle for that purpose,
but had not paid Duckworth and some others. John
Brown, who was at the house of the plaintiff on the night
before the election. heard him say, when the score
amounted to £lO, that all had the n r•nme„;ri
...a. a waiter on the occasion, and the
full value of the drink brought in during the eveniml,
which, he believed, was ordered by Mr. Turner, would
amount to £lO. He did not see the defendant there, but
would not swear that he might not be present.
Mr. WORTLEY replied. He said there was nothing in-
consistent in what had been stated with the evidence of
the plaintiff; for, if that were admitted, it amounts to a
chrrge of direct perjury on all those witnesses. It was
quite clear that that the occasion of which the defendant's
witnesses had been speaking was different to that referred
to by the plaintiff, and, consequently, did not invalidate
his claim.

The learned JUDGE, in summing up the case, said it
was melancholy to see such a trumuery cause occupying
so much of the time of the Court. The jury found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff for £36 14s. Bd.

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A LEASE.
HEWITT V. LocxErr.—The plaintiff. Mr. John Hewitt,
was trustee to a lady of the name of Birley, and the de-
fendant, a gentleman belonging to the town. The action
was for an alleged violation of a lease existing between
the parties. The defendant had five pleas on the record,
which were to the effect, that he had made no promise—
did not under-let, rs alleged, and had not allowed the
house to be occupied.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Cowling were for the plaintiff
Mr. Watson for the defendant, assisted by Mr. Cromp-
ton.

Mr. MARTIN stated the case. It appeared the plaintiff
acted as trustee, under a marriage settlement, for Mrs.
Birley, with respect to a house situate in Hope-street,
Liverpool, which house had been leased to the defendant,
in 1834, and he resided there at that time. The terms of
the lease were, that the house should not be occupied
otherwise than as a dwelling-house, and not as a lodging-
house, school, &c. At the expiration of the lease, in
1841, which was for seven years, it was from circum-
stances that took place. supposed to be renewed by the
defendant on the same terms, he being considered the
tenant, so far as paying the rent. The defendant had
subsequently left the house, and in September of last
year it was ascertained to have been let as a lodging-
house, to a person not such as was contemplated un-
der the terms of the agreement, by which the value
of the house had become deteriorated. Soma corres-
pondence took place with the defendant on the sub-
ject, but he refused to come to any arrangement in
consequence of which the proceedings in question had
been instituted.

Witnesses were called to prove that a house occupied
by ledgers would neither let nor sell fur so much, in con-
sequence of such occupation.
Mr. WATSON was about to address the jury, when an
agreement was come to, and a verd;ct taken for the plain-
tiff by consent, damages one shilling. His Lordship re-
fused to certify for the costs.