The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-04-02 00:00:00

ISI PRIIJS COURT.-TUESDAY.

His LordshiliNTCLlFF V. GARNETT, ESQ.
P took his seat on the bench this morning
at half-past nine o'clock, when a number of witnesses
were called in behalf of the defendant. They spoke to va-
rious conversations which took place with the plaintiff,
after the day the organ was alleged to be sold, in which
t,p:il it had
theg plaintiff admitted that he had not purchased the or-
bu
that the merely been sent to his house in Man-
chester,ng the time of the o ening. They also proved
tiiite furniture in the house ofP Mrs. Wright, previous
the auction being commenced hy the defendant, Mr.
hee was worth at least £3OO, but within a day or two
different parties belonging
goods were sold c nsiderabl under their real value to
exceptions ; and that for the work done at the house of
to the family, with some trifling
Mrs. Wright, by the plaintiff, he was paid by the day, and
the materials were not found by him.
Mr. BAINES, in reply, said
the only question in the
c?-se Was, whether the organ was really sold to the plairn;
tiff previous to the issue of the execution against
_Wright's goods : for with regard to the conduct otP.tl.thee•
'rights', though the jury might be of opinion that !'
together to defraud the creditors of Mrs.
-..,llad.conspired .
w right,
at considerable length,
that had nothing to do with the question they
Were trying. He then contended,
that the evidence for the defence was not to be relied on,
lue of
1"Id thate orga t th
n verdict for the va-
e plaintiff was entitled to a
The Learned Judge summed up, and the Jury, after a
tainutes' consideration found a verdict for the defendant.
SMITH V. WATEAD.
This was an undefended actionLS brought by the plaintiff.
a wine
from
h'll-hall, £2O odd,
and spirit merchant, in Manchester, to recover
the defendant, who resides at Stan
.1
thequantitytieydaalmuesgoefsass.of spirits. Verdict for plain-
tiff,_.
Execution to issue in one week
YouNGHUSBAND V. DEANE.
theaMOUnt f •b d given to the late High She-
This was also an'undefended action brought to recover
riff of 0 are levin on
the o, P .
This was
Images, is. nty. Verdict for the plaintiff, debt £62, da-
b&ws AND UXOR V. INMAN.
defendant to
a7ntaectiONn to recoverromissory
the sum of £241, the
principal and
the resltaionntiffa. note given by the
P The cause was undefended,
and a verdict was returned for the amount sought.
LAVERY V. HALSTEAD.
This was an undefended action on a bill of exchange ac-
cePted by the defendant for £5O. Verdict for the plain-
tiff.
this ease 1
lain-
In l'zm, HOBSoN AND OTHERS V. NIA.UGHALL..
out the trial ,t ie plainti su mi
al being entered on.
..
' 'ff b •tted to a nonsuit with-

BREACH OF CONTRACT.

This was an RICHARDSON V. CARTWRIGHT.
action brought to recover damages from
41re.fe,ndant for a breach of contract.
alonrpndt appeared for the plaintiff, and Messrs.
The
Plaintiff is
were for the defendant.
arid is a cooper and wharfinger, in Manchester,
it ap defendant resides at Northwich, in Cheshire ; and
P.eared from the evidence adduce on behalf of the
luff, that a person named Wallworth, a joiner, in the
at 40:.1
1(4 of the defendant, entered into a contract on the
October, 1842, to supply 150,000 Scotch fir staves
Per thousand, and 50,000 of a larger size at the
ilsrarne Price, wole to be delid w ten months
4rasta the date.the Part of the stavesvere had beenithin supplied, but
c'alY a small part, and the defendant refused to deliver the
remainder. A witness was called to prove that the price
of such staves as were to be delivered by the contract, at
the end of ten months, was 48s. and 565. per thousand.
lie admitted, however, in cross-examination by Mr.
Baines, that the prices be mentioned were the lowest
prices during the last three years.
Mr. BAINES, in addressing the jury, observed that this
was a question of some importance, both to the defendant
and the public, for if a person was to be bound by the
contract of such an agent as the one in the present
case,
few tradesmen were safe. There ought to be some proof
either of a general or p.rticular authority given to Wall-
worth ; and he contended there was neither, and several
Witnesses were called to prove that the defendant had
stated
~oti in the presence of the plaintiff, that he had not au-
thorised him to enter into any contract, and to contradict
Part the evidence given by Wallworth.
r
tittANDT replied.
1)plaio c',RnsHIP, in summing up, said if the jury were of
laana tuat Wall th was engaged by the defendant to
ge wor
‘a enter ;Lbusiness, they must infer that he had power
contract w"o a contract with the plaintiff, and such
amount of °Pc! be binding on the defendant. As to the
be betw "arnaes, that must be estimated by the differ-
r could ,Cen the contract price, and the price at which
I°n of tLuave phased them at the time of the expira-
The ue contrurcact.
jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages,

MARKET RIGATS AT MANCHESTSA.

MOSLEY, BART, V. PICKUP.
SAME V. BOOTH.

-..... ~. —,,,,---•
SAME V. GREATREX.
bein these Cases
Messrs. Starkie, Wortley, Brandt, and
f "lended an were for the plaintiff. The cases were unde-
iVir.
STARKIE, in stating the first case to the Jury, ob-
served that the
the plaintiff, Sir Oswald Mosley, was lord of
ket manor of Manchester and the proprietor of the mar-
defß •in that town, and the action was brought against the
theen'dant, a butcher in that town, for an infringe.menttheorf
plat
had of the plaintiff, by selling flesh meat in
Ilad ~.91an the public markets. The market in question
couicrijited from a very ancient time ; if necessary, le.
clester B:esirthat it had existed in the time of Edward 1 n the time of Queen Elizabeth it was granted to an an-
Oswald Mosley, in whose family it 121ained ever since. This was not the first time the right
ad been before the courts ; for, about half a century ago,
the /natter was tried in the courts below, and argued in the
=bents above
mil before Lord Mansfield, when the rights of
to the manor and privileges of Man-
chester were fully established. Since that time parties
had frequently infringed on the rights of the plaintiff, and
several actions had been brought against various parties,
including four or five against the defendant Pickup, at
considerable expense, as the defendants had been unable
to Pay the costs.
Proof having been shortly given of the ight of Sir Os-
wald Mosley, and that the defendant had sold butcher's
bleat at his own house, under the direction of the learned
judge,—a verdict was returned for the plaintiff ; damages,
one shilling.
Similar verdicts were also returned in the other two
cases.

This was asMITH AND ANOTHER V. ROGERS.
change. nundefended action on three Bills of Ex-
verdict for air plaintiff; damages, £lB6 lOs 3d.
Verdict by consent rrdil V. SEATON.
GAMBLING TRANsACTaIOrnNar, KTN.SON V. WEBSTER.
This was an action brought by plaintiff, a tobacco-
mist in Manchester, against the defendant, William 'Web-
ster, who, resides in the neighbourhood of Leeds, to se-
cure the sum of £5O, money lent.
Mr Greene was counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Watson
for the defendant.
It appeared that the defendant and several other parties
were playing at billiards in a room in Market-street Man-
chester, during the whole of the afternoon of the 4th July
-last, during which the defendant lost considerately , and, at
the conclusion, be borrowed from the plaintiff £5O, for
Which he first gave a bill of Exchange, and then, in con-
sequence of of its being informal, an I. 0. U The latter
document, however, was not put in, and the whole case
upon the evidence of one person named Jackson,
w"....0 was in the habit of frequenting billiard rooms.
f.,,,1r• WATSON addressed the Jury on behalf of the de-
eTtirt, and contended, in forcible terms, that if there
belnietTclstlthaeDn loan at all it was obtained by fraud.
Lip in summing up, said if the Jury
evidence for the plaintiff they must find a
verdict for the plaintiff.
The Jury found for the defendant.

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.—HARGREAVES AND
Ants
ANOTHER V. WOOD AND ANOTHER.
Ants was an action to recover the sum of £BO 9s. on a
-cond.
Messrs. Wortley and Higgins were for the plaintiffs, and
Messes. Knowles and Cowling for the defendants.
tit Was an action brought by the plaintiffs Hardy Har-
ro7res and William Shore, as Trustees of a Co-operative
jokletY, in Glossop Vale, to recover r£
the defendants,
vin and Charles Wood, the sum of £BO 9s. on a bond
I,i,:„en by one of the defendants under the following eiroutn-
i ""ces• It appeared that in the year, 1840, a society was
Soured in Glossop, called the Glossop Vale Co-operative
tncietY, the object of which, like all similar societies, was
atjll2 Pl the lower classes with groceries and provisions
i
ttiemore than the cost price. The defendant, Charles
became agent to the society at the salary of 21s.
Li; week, but in August, 1842, there was a deficiency in
seaccounts amounting to £ll2, and there having been
?estlaPicion excited six months previous to this time,
a I,‘lritY Was asked for, and the father, John Wood, cave
'''°44:l with his son Charles for the due performance of

his trust in which it was stipulated that he should render
a true account to the trustees of all the moneys and stock
he received. When the deficiency of Xll2 was discovered,
he was remonstrated with, and time was given him to
make up the deficiency on condition of his continuing to
act as agent. However about a month afterwards the
deficiency had increased to £l2B, and Charles -Wood gave
up the agency, saying he could not account for the defici-
ency.
The evidence for the plaintiffs, which occupied a consi-
derable time,and was chiefly dry matters of account showed,
after making some allowances for waste and profit to the
defendant Charles Wood, a defalcation of upwards of £BO.
Mr. KNOWLES took several objections to the form of
declaration, and the evidence by which it was sustained.
At length, at the suggestion of the learned Judge a ver-
dict was entered for the plaintiffs for the amount sought.
with liberty to move to enter a verdict for the defendant
on one point and to reduce the damages to £l6 on ano-
ther.
The Court adjourned :A six o'clock.

CHOWN COURT.—WEDNESDAY.
The Learned Judge took his seat on the bench at a
quarter-past nine.
James Kay, who pleaded guilty to an indictment charg-
ing him with forging a request for the delivery of goods,
with intent to defraud William Lomas, of Great Bolton,
was brought up and sentenced to two years' imprison-
ment.

ROBBERY AND ASSAULT.
Nathaniel Bentley and James Gosling stood charged
with assaulting John Woodcock, at Manchester, and rob-
bing him of some money. The prosecutor, it appeared,
was a huckster, and lived at Tarvin, and on the 23rd of
February last had occasion to go to Manchester on busi-
ness. In the evening he was at the Blue Bell public-
house, where he met the prisoner Gosling, and the latter
took him to sever,' other houses, at one of which they
met the other prisoner, Bentley. Soon after this the
prosecutor was induced to go into the street, when the
prisoners set upon him, and robbed him of four sove-
reigns and a half-sovereign ; he was violently assaulted,
and Gosling had a knife, and said he would cut his throat
if he made any resistance. His fob was then cut off and
the money taken out of it, after which the prisoners made
their escape, but were afterwards apprehended. Several
witnesses were called, who deposed to seeing the prisoners
in company with the prosecutor on the day in question.
Mr Wilkins addressed the jury for Gosling, and called
witnesses as to character. The prisoners were acquitted.
At eleven o'clock the Grand Jury were discharged.