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

TAYLOR V. BODGES.

In this case, James Taylor was the plaintiff, and George
Washington Hodges the defendant. Mr. Baines and
Mr. Hall appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Martin and
Mr. 'noggins for the defendant. The plaintiff was a
blanket manufacturer at Batley, in Yorkshire : the de-
fendant was a commission agent in Manchester ; and the
action was brought against the defendant in order to
obtain from him compensation in damages for a breach of
duty imputed to him in the declaration. The plaintiff
had consigned to the defendant a certain number of
blankets to be sold by commission in America. He gave
instructions that they were not be sold below the invoice
price, but alleged that the plaintiff had sold them at a
great sacrifice. The case opened with several intricate
points, and after some conversation among the counsel
on both sides, it was agreed to rtfer matters in dispute to
a gentleman of the bar.

DAVIES V. rammEn AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mary
Davies, against the defendants, John Rimmer, Peter
Radcliffe, and Henry Seddon. The declaration con-
tained three counts for breaking and entering her premi-
ses, putting her out of possession, converting her goods,
and assaulting and beating her. The defendants pleaded
eight counts,—first, that they were not guilty, and secondly
that the Louse was not the plaintiff's premises, &c.
Mr. Baines and Mr. Atherton appeared for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cardwell for the defend-
ants.
Mr. BAINES stated the eve. He said the plaintiff was
the 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,
committed under circumstances calculated to excite very
strong feelings. Her husband and family had resided for
nearly a century on part of Lord Skelmersdale's estate.
The husband died there at the close of last year, and the
plaintiff continued to reside on the premises from that
time until the month of May last. when the first trespass
took place. The defendants, acting upon some claim
which it would be necessary for them to establish if they
could, went to the house on the first of May, and con-
ducted themselves in a manner which would be described
by the witnesses. They were heard to use such violent
and threatening language, as they approached, that the
plaintiff ordered the door to be fastened : and their con-
duct towards the poor widow, with a dauhter, a son 13
years of age, and a grandchild about 4, was as follows :
—The defendant, Rimmer, got a spade, and swore he
would break open the door, and, accordingly, the door
was actually broken open, and a forcible entry effected.
As he was entering, his expression was, " d—n her,
when I get in, I'll knock her brains out." When he
entered, he ordered the plaintiff to go out. She refused
to comply with the request. Ile was then in the act of
striking at her, but his blow did
trttake effect, and then
struck the daughter of the plaintiff in such a manner as
to swell her face immediately. In short, he conducted
himself in the most violent manner, and used outrageous
language. The plaintiff was in the greatest possible state
of agitation ; she was suffering from illness at the time:
she became exceedingly unwell during their stay; they
turned out herself, her daughter, her son, and her grand-
child ; took out all the things in the ic:ouse, and left her
on the road in this melancholy condition, Rimmer saying
that she might have the goods, if she had any place to
put them in. But she had no place,—no house to go to;
it was only through the charity of a neighbour, that she
was provided with accommodation for five nights in a
barn; and upon the 6th of May her things were taken
from her, by the orders of Rimmer, and sold. He (Mr.
Baines) believed that his learned friend on the other side
would set up some will, which, it would be said, was
made by the husband of the plaintiff, and which entitled
Rimmer to act in this outrageous manner : but it would
be shown by the evidence, that, about a year before the
death of the plaintiff's husband, he had had a paralytic
stroke—that he had two others in the course of the same
year—that he was speechless for a month before his
death, and that be was, therefore, not in a fit state to
make a will.

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

DOE DEM. STOREY a. STTMMERS.
This was an action of ejectment brought by Joseph
Storey to recover possession of a piece of land at Edge-
hill. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff.
The court adjourned at half-past six o'clock.