The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-06-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE:

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, MAir 28.

BARROW AND ANOTBER ARNAUD.

The plaintiffs in this Case are merchants in Liverpool,
and the defendant is the collector of the customs in that
port. The plaintiffs had imported a cargo of corn into
Liverpool by the ship David and John, from Spain. The
new corn-law, which received the royal assent on Friday,
the 29th of April preceding, repealed the corn-law of
Geo. IV., and at the same time enacted that the duties to
be levied on corn should be based upon the averages to
be returned on each Thursday. The David and John
arrived in Liverpool during the five days between the 29th
of April and the first Thursday after the passing of the
act, when the plaintiffs contended the ports were open,
and no duties could be levied. The defendant, however,
contended that the corn was liable to duty, refused to
suffer it to be landed, except in bond, where it remained
for two months, and was then released on payment of
duty. The plaintiffs brought this action to recover da-
mages for loss sustained by this detention of the corn by
the collector of• the customs at Liverpool. As there was
no dispute as to the facts of the case, a special verdict
had been taken, subject to the opinion of this court, as
to the construction to be put upon the act of parliament.
The Court, having heard Mr. Erie for the plaintiffs, and
the Solicitoi-General for the defendant, took time to
consider their judgment.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER-THURSDAY.

OLD COMPANY CARTERS.
CAMPBELL V. POWNALL.

This was an action tried at the last assizes for Liver-
pool, before before Mr. Justice Coltman. The plaintiff
is a carter, and the defendant the secretary or manager of
a voluntary society, established in Liverpool, for pur-
poses of mutual indemnity, and known as " The Old
Carters' Company." The verdict was taken for the de-
fendant, apparently under the impression that the plain-
tiff and defendant were partners in the Old Carters'
Company, and that the former could not sustain an action
arising out of the partnership transactions.
After hearing the case argued at great length by Mr.
Watson and Mr. Crompton for the defendant, and with-
out calling on Serjeant Murphy and Mr. Cowling, who
appeared for the plaintiff,
The court granted a rule for a new trial, on the ground
that there was no community of profits between the mem-
bers of the Old Carters' Company, so as to constitute a
trading partnership.

SUMMER ASSIZES' 1844.—The Judges of the different
courts met in the Exchequer-chamber, on Thursday
morning, and chose their respective circuits on the en-
suing Summer Assizes, The followingisthearrangement

Midland—Lord Chief Justice Denman and Mr. Justice
Coltman.

Oxford—Lord Chief Justice Tindal and Mr. Justice
Erskine.

Northern—The Lord Chief Baron Pollock and Mr
Justice Cresswell.

Home—Mr. Baron Parke and Mr. Baron Gurney.
Western—Mr. Justice Patteson and Mr. Justice Wight
man.

Norfolk—Mr. Baron Alderson and Mr. Justice Wil
limns.

North Wales—Mr. Justice Coleridge.
South Wales—Mr. Baron Rolfe.
Mr. Justice Maule remains in town, and will attend to
business at chambers.

A curious legal case (Chapple v. Cooper.) came before
the Court of Exchequer on Saturday. The action was
one brought by an undertaker to recover the amount of
his bill for the funeral exrenses of the husband of the de-
fendant, who pleaded that she was an infant at the time
(under 21,) and therefore not liable on the alleged con-
tract. The plaintiff having replied that the charges in
question were necessaries suitable to the rank and condi-
tion in life of the defendant, it was objected at the trial
that the defendant was entitled to have a nonsuit entered
in her favour on this issue, but the learned judge, Mr.
Baron Gurney, reserved the point. Mr. Barstow moved
to enter a nonsuit, and submitted that the funeral ex-
penses of a husband or any other member of an infant's
family were not matters which came within the exception.
Though there was no express case in point, it was laid
down in the elementary books, that an infant could only
contract for his teaching, clothing, and medicine, which
were necessaries, and then only to an extent commensu-
rate with his situation in life. Mr. Baron Alderson.—
That is to say, for physical and moral necessaries—things
which are necessary for body and soul. How can the
burial of a husband be said to be a necessary either for
the body or the soul of his infant widow ? Rule nisi
granted.