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

France. It would appear, undoubtedly) that the attack
was made by Mr. William France, and, although Mr.
M'Clure had received most extensive injuries, it was not
pretended that, in the scuffle, the slightest injury had
been inflicted upon Mr. France, yet it was pretended that
Thomas was endeavouring to prevent the violence. Severe
blows were given. Mr. M'Clure was knocked down upon
the pavement. lie was covered with blood ; and a sur-
geon had to be 'called in.—The learned counsel proceeded
to dilate upon the assault upon the plaintiff, which had
been committed in the presence of his wife and niece.
Several witnesses were called, who proved the facts.
Mr. MARTIN, for the defendants, said, Mr. M'Clure
had been dining on the day in question with the party
with whom he voted and acted at the election ; he did not
mean to impute that he was drunk, but after having dined
he was cominc, home through the street, and a little child
of Mr. Wm. France's was also in the street. The child,
by some means, struck against Mr. M'Clure's legs, and
he, having a small stick in his hand, struck the child with
it. He did not mean to impute to Mr. M'Clure that be
hurt the child by the blow, but the child ran crying home,
and told his mother that Mr. M'Clure had struck him.
The mother went into the yard and saw Mr. M'Clure,
and asked him why he had struck her child. He replied
to her, " Go to the devil !" She ran into her house and
told her husband what had taken place, and he came out.
Ile (the learned counsel) did not mean to say it was a
proper thing for one man to strike another in the way the
defendant had struck Mr. M'Clure, but he called upon
the jury to take the whole circumstances into tneir con-
sideration, and say whether the assault was so unprovoked
as bad been represented. He should call witnesses who
would prove distinctly what he bad stated, and also that
Mr. Ivl'Clure gave the first blow. As to Thos. Frances,
there could not be the slightest doubt, from the evidence
he should produce, that he was there only to separate the
parties. Under all the circumstances, he trusted the jury
would see that, if they gave damages at all, the very small-
est would satisfy the justice of the case.
Two male and two female witnesses swore stoutly to
this version of the transaction.
The JUDGE summed up at considerable length, pointing
out the contradictions in the testimony; and the jury,
after considering a few minutes, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff against both defendants. Damages £5O.

DEBT AFTER BANKRUPTCY.
KIRKPATRICK AND ANOTHER V. TATTERSALL.
This was an action to recover £76 13s. 4d., in which
Messrs. Martin and Crompton appeared for the plain-
tiffs ; Mr. Knowles, with which was Mr. Cowling, for the
defendant. On the part of the plaintiffs, it was shown
that the plaintiffs are provision merchants in Liverpool,
and the defendant a corn dealer. In 1840, the plaintiffs
sold to the defendant a cargo of oatmeal, at the invoice
price of .E 321 14s. The defendant paid £lOO on account.
Afterwards, the defendant became a bankrupt, upon
which the usual proceedings were taken. The plaintiffs
never proved their debt, but were anxious to assist the
defendant through his difficulties; the result was, that,
by their exertions with various persons, he obtained his
certificate from his creditors. Some time after that, the
defendant, by a written document, promised to pay the
plaintiffs the balance due by instalments.
Mr. KNOWLES said the question in this case was one
solely for the Court. The certificate was dated on the
20th February, and the promise reviving the debt was
dated on the 17th, and it was clear that the promise could
have no operation, as it was given before the certificate.
He cited the 37th and 121st sections of the Bankruptcy
Act.

Mr. COWLING followed on the same side.
Mr. 'MARTIN contended that as the debt was valid at
the opening of the fiat, it was valid on the 17th February
afterwards ; consequently there was a good cause of
action.
The JUDGE sustained the objections taken by Mr.
Knowles, but gave the other side leave to move.
A nonsuit was then entered, the plaintiffs having leave
to move to enter a verdict for .£75 13s. 4d., if the point of
lax should be adverse to the defendant.