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

NISI PRIUS COURT-THURSDAY

MADAM V. SMITH AND WIFE.—An action to recover
the sum of £lOO, upon an I 0 U which had been borrowed
from the plaintiff by Mrs. Smith before her marriage to the
defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff.
FORMBY AND ANOTHER V. BRADLEY. —An action
brought by the Rev. Mr. Formby and his sister against
John Bradley, of Crosby, to recover the sum of
£lOO 14s. 6d., due under the covenants of a lease. Ver-
dict for the plaintiffs.
LEIGH V. HESKETH.—An action for slander, the defen-
dant having called the plaintiff a " d—d thief," that he
had " robbed his father," and that he was a hangman.
The plaintiff was the son of a respectable farmer at Ley-
land, and was courting the sister of the defendant. Some
time ago the plaintiff was at a public-house, and the de-
fendant went in and commenced abusing him, and used
the language attributed to him. Verdict for the plaintiff,
damages 40s.

WH-EATLEY V. RICHARDSON:AO action to recover
the sum of £5OO, due on a promissory note. Verdict for
the plaintiff, with interest. Immediate execution was
granted.
JACKSON AND ANOTHER V. RIDGWAY.—An action
brought by the plaintiffs. Messrs. Jackson and Sparks,
who are provision merchants of this town, against the de-
fendant, who is the owner of a ship called the Orleans, to
recover £2OO for provisions supplied by the defendant's
order. Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £2lB 4s.
MArtnicrrr v. COTTON.—The plaintiff is a solicitor in
London, and trustee for a lady, who has advanced money
on mortgage of a cotton mill in Queen-street, Salford,
which was burnt down a short time ago, to recover the
sum of £675, the amount necessary to re-build the mill,
which was burnt during the tenancy of the defendant, and
also £l6 for rent due. The question turned npon the
meaning of an agreement for a lease of the premises to
the defendant, and which contained a clause to the effect,
that the defendant should, if required, pay an additional
sum for the insurance of the building against fire. One
point raised by the defendant's counsel was, that there
was no damage to the landlord beyond the loss of his rent,
inasmuch as the tenancy, under the agreement, (at which
time only the plaintiff could re-enter the premises,) .was
not terminated. His lordship having intimated that he
ahcraid rover,. ate poink, tlaa jury raturnad a vartlipi
£l6 for rent due, and one shilling damages, t.
their opinion that the fire was the result of accident

xpressm IT,

HAYDOCK v. TRorrEa..—This was an action brought by
Mr. Haydock, formerly a publican in Liverpool, but now
occupier of the Liver Inn, at Kirkdale, against the defen.
dant, who is a seafaring man, and lodged in the plaintiff's
house during the year 1843-4. He was charged 16s. per
week for his board, and (Mr. Atherton said) inasmuch as
he was fond of something " stronger" than board at 16s.
per week, he was in the habit of borrowing money from
the plaintiff's wife. In 1845 he left the plaintiff's house,
and sailed for Africa. At this time his bill for board and
lodging amounted to about £45, besides which the money
amounted to £3B odd. From that time nothing was heard
of him until last November. An account was sent to him,
and a friend of the plaintiff spoke to him on the subject,
when he made some demur as to the amount, but said he
would pay £55. This offer was, however, declined by the
plaintiff. An action was then commenced, and the defen-
dant paid £45 16s. on account of his board and lodging,
and as to the remainder he pleaded " never indebted."
Witnesses were called, who stated generally that they had
seen the plaintiff lend money to the defendant. Ulti-
mately, a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, damages £2O.

•
HASSALL AND ANOTHER V. COLE.—The plaintiffs in
this case, Messrs. Hassan and Foulkes, formerly carried
on business as wine-merchants at Chester ; and the de-
fendant, Mr. William Cole, is an engineer living at Bir-
kenhead. The action was brought to recover £325 on a
guarantee made by the defendant for a person of the name

of Wilkinson, who kept an inn at Birkenhead, and whom
the plaintiffs supplied with wine. The jury found a ver-
dict for the plaintiffs, damages £325. Leave was given
to the counsel for the defendant to move the court above
to enter a nonsuit, on certain points in dispute.—ln the
case of King v. Cole, a similar verdict was returned.

CROWN COURT.-FRIDAY

James Tetlow was indicted for having, on the 18th De-
cember last, wilfully murdered James Duckworth, at
Castleton, near Rochdale.

Sergeant WILKINS stated the ease, to the effect, that
on the night of the date in question, the deceased (who
was employed at Hairwood-hall, near Heywood,) was
found lying on the high road, close to the park-gate, with
two pools of blood around him, by another man, named
Kay. With the assis;,anue of others lie carried 'auto the