The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-08-27 00:00:00

NISI PRIUS COURT.-WEDNESDAY.

The undefended causes were called over, but, with one
exception, they had to stand over in consequence of the
absence of the attorneys for the plaintiffs.

PROWSE V. ACKERS.

Verdict for the plaintiff, by consent, damages £37 10s.

LUMLEY V. GOWLAND.

- - Verdict for the plaintiff, Thomas Lumley, damages
£ll2.

O'GRADY V. ROUNTHWAITE.
The plaintiff in this case was Daniel O'Grady, and
the defendant, John Kirby Rounthwaite. It was an ac-
tion of trespass, in which Mr. Sergeant Murphy and Mr.
Crompton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. James for
the defendant. The declaration alleged an assault and
false imprisonment in the Bridewell of Liverpool for two
days. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and several other
pleas. The plaintiff had been in the employ of the Dublin
Steam-packet Company for twelve years, and on the 13th
of January last was second clerk in the ticket office. On
the day in question, he was at the Clarence Dock, when a
Liverpool police-officer demanded a ticket for conveying
him to Dublin, and when the plaintiff produced the ticket,
the policeman arrested and took him to the defendant,
who was the agent of the Steam-packet Company, and
then be was conveyed to Bridewell, where he was detained
until the Monday following. The defence was that the
plaintiff had issued tickets which he ought never to have
issued, and that the company had reason to suppose he
was guilty of a felony. The case was abruptly concluded
by the withdrawal of a juror.

STRETCH V. LEA.

Verdict for the plaintiff, Joseph Stretch, damages £l3O.

GREGORY AND OTHERS V. WILLIAMS.

This was an action for libel, in which the plaintiffs were
Joseph Gregory and others, and the defendant was John
Williams. Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton appeared
for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Watson for the defendant. The
plaintiffs are slate merchants, in North Wales, and the
defendant was a fuller by trade, living in Merionethshire.
The libel was alleged to have been contained in a letter
written by the defendant to Mr. Williams, the owner of
the slate quarry, in which he stated that there were defal-
cations in the accounts of the plaintiffs. The jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiffs, damages £lOO.
DRESSER, PUBLIC OFFICER, V. CLARKS AND OTHERS.

The plaintiff was Henry Dresser, one of the registered
public officers of the Yorkshire District Bank, and the
action was brought to recover a balance due upon a bank-
ing account. Mr. Baines and Mr. Addison were for the
plaintiffs, and Mr. Martin and Mr. Tomlinson for the de-
fendants.

THE ISLE OF MAN JOINT STOCK BANK.-CRELLIN V.

BROOK

In this case Mr. Martin and Mr. Cowling appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Watson and Mr. Robinson for the
defendant.

The declaration was for money lent on a bank account,
and the defendant pleaded in abatement, not denying the
contract, but alleging that he entered into it along with
fifteen others, whose names he gave, and claimed that
they should be entered with him as the parties to be sued
against.
Mr. MARTIN said the plaintiff in this case, Mr. Robert
Quayle Crellin, was a gentleman in the Isle of Man. The
defendant, Mr. William Brook, was a manufacturer, re-
siding in the neighbourhood of Huddersfield, and he was
sued as one of the shareholders in the Isle of Man Joint
Stock Bank—a bank which formerly had been a private
one, but which, in the year 1836, was formed into a joint
stock one. His client had paid in the sum of £l4OO, and
in about a month after the bank stopped. The amount
claimed was £1319 Is. 2d., the plaintiff having taken out
checks amounting to near £loo.—Philip Gelling, cashier
of the Castletown branch of the bank, proved having re-
ceived the £l4OO.—R. W. Fletcher, manager of the bank,
was called to prove that John M`Quillan, Adolphus
M`William, and William Smythe, of Rugby, were all
shareholders in the bank, and within the jurisdiction of
the court.

Mr. WATSON, in cross-examining, read the fifteen
names which were entered on the plea of abatement, and
asked the witness if they were all shareholders. The an-
swer was in the affirmative. Amongst the names was
that of Thomas Calvert, the defendant in the next case.
This closed the plaintiff's case. Mr. Watson contended,
amongst other objections which he took, that no proof
bad been adduced that the defendant had sanctioned the
establishment of the Castletown branch. This objection
was overruled. He then contended, that although he did
not make out his plea of abatement, the plaintiff was only
entitled to is. damages, and was proceeding to argue this
point when his Lordship said,—l do not see the logic of
this ; and upon Mr. Watson contending the point, the
Judge said, you must shape your plea accordingly, and if
not, get a rule to alter it. He then informed Mr. Martin
he need not trouble himself to reply, and ordered the jury
to find a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed,
£1319 is. 2d. His lordship ordered execution in a month.