The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-03-31 00:00:00

CROWN COURT -FRIDAY

John Knew was acquitted of h,ving caused the death of John
Lever. The prisoner and deceased were two boys who worked
at the foundry of Messrs. Smith and Willis, at Windsor, and on
the 15th December prisoner was observed to strike Lever, who,
falling, became insensible, and was removed to the hospital,
where he died on, the 7th January. The prisoner was stated to
be a harmless. inoffensive boy, and the blow did not appear to
have been wilful.

Henry Stevens Osborne was a- quitted of the manslaughter of
bis wile, in Dai.sie.street, in this town, on the Igth January.
On that day the prisoner and his wife were found quarrelling in
the house, and the latter complained of her husband kicking
her. All the parties were in liquor, and some of the witnesses
said deceased had not been sober since Christmas Thy. and had
fallen down some stone steps, from which she had received in-
jury. The judge stopped the case, as it could not be proved that
the kick on the leg had caused the death of the deceased.
Mr. BRANDT made an application to the court to have a pri.
sorer, named William Clapham, who was charged with murder,
but had since been sent to the County Lunatic Asylum, brought
up for trial. Mr. J. Por.cocit made a similar application in the
c*se of Isabella Pilkingtou, also charged with murder.

His Loansutr said both cases were under the jurisdiction of
another court, and he could not interfere without applying to
the Horne Office. .

James Hopwood, H. Mellor. and J. Mellor were charged with
the manslaughter of John Jackson, at Chaddertoo, on the 18th
of February. The deceased, it appeared, was cut and stabbed
in an affray, in which some police officers were in disguise, and
the defence was, that the deceased had given great provocation
curing the affray. The jury retired, and the prisoners were
found guilty and sentenced to two months' imprisonment.

Ralph Cowburn was charged with having stolen £1•10 from
the dwelling-house of Thomas Monks. The money was de-
posited in a box under the bed ' • but though the p isoner was
afterwards flush of money which he had net earned. there was
no distinct proof that be bad stolen that in question, and the
jury acquitted him. _ _

.
Charles Murphy was charged with the mar slaughter of Mary
Brace, by running over her with his cart, in December last, in
Upper Parliament-street, in th's town. The case was noticed in
our paper nn the occasion of the inquest. The jury found him
guilty, but recommenced him to mercy. Some circumstances
transpired ;against the prisoner, who had before been repeatedly
in gaol, and he was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment in
the House of Correction.
The court then adjo urned.

[The cases at the Crown Court yesterday will be found on page 81

NISI PRIUS COURT..-TUESDAY
ROSS THE YOUNGER V. MONETT.

In this case, Thomas Ross, jun. was the plaintiff, and
John liignett the defendant.—Mr. Martin stated the case.
The plaintiff was a stock and share broker, at :Manchester,
and the defendant a dealer in canvass there. The action
was brought to recover £147 from the defendant, being
the price of 12 Sheffield. Ashton-under-Lyne, and Man-
chester railway shares, No. 3, and £1 Ds. for commission
upon the shares purchased by the plaintiff for the defen-
dant, on the 3d of October last. The order to purchase
the shares was given by Mr. Hignett on the 3d October.
On that day Mr. Ross's cierk wrote an advice note, in-
forming the defendant that the shares had been purchased
on his account, and the advice note was delivered by an
errand boy to the defendant. The shares had been pur-
chased for the account day on the 15th of October; the
plaintiff made no application for the shares, and nothing
was heard from him until the 16th October. On that
day he went to Messrs. Green and Oldham's, sharebro-
kers, and requested them to sell 30 Sheffield and Man-
chester quarters, No. 3 at as good a price as they could
obtain. 12 of these shares were those which the defen-
dant had employed the plhintiff to purchase for him, and
he wrote to Mr. Ross stating that he had sold 30 shares,
of which the 12 in question were a part, and requesting
Mr. Ross to deliver the 12 shares to Messrs. Green and
Oldham, at £lO 7s. 6d. per share, and to receive the mo-
ney for them. On the 16th the shares had fallen £2 per
share, and Mr. Ross did not deliver the shares, being un-
willing to submit to the loss. The question was whether
those shares were bought by the defendant or not.—Mr.
Thompson, the plaintiff's clerk, was called to prove that

the defendant bad offered to take the shares and pay for
them as be could, and the documents referred to were put
in evidence. Mr. Baines, for the defence, objected that
the advice note sent by the plaintiff to Mr. Hignett, could
not be given in evidence, not being stamped ; but his
lordship overruled the objection. Mr. Baines then con-
tended that there had been no contract proved, inasmuch
as at the time the alleged bargain was made, the 3d Oc-
tober, there were no shares of the kind in the market, nor
within a month afterwards.-11is Lordship remarked that,
on the 10th October, the defendant had treated it as a
purchase.—Mr. Baines asked his lordship to take a note
of the objection, and his lordship did so. There was no
dispute about the facts, and the jury found for the plain-
tiff, damages, £l4B 10s.
MARSDEN V. NEWMARCH AND ANOTHER.
This was a cross action, in which the plaintiff was Mr.
Thomas Marsden, cotton spinner, and the defendants
were Messrs. Newmarch and Withington, ehirebrokers,
of Manchester.—Mr. Martin, on the part of the plaintiffs,
stated the case. lie said, the plaintiff had been the de-

fendant in an action tried the night before, and it was now
sought to recover damages from the defendants for the
non-sale of certain shares which they had thought proper
not to sell, after having been directed by the plaintiff to
dispose of them. The amount of damages was upwards
of £l9O. It appeared that a Mr. Duckworth was a friend
to both parties ; and that on the 2d of September the
plaintiff gave an order to the defendants, through Mr.
Duckworth, to purchase 50 Leeds and Yorks, 30 Leeds
and Thirsks, and 50 Shrewsbury and Herefordshires.
The order was given, and the shares were bought for ac •
count of the plaintiff, whose object was to re-sell in Si ris-
ing market, and thus realise a profit by the transaction.
On the following day, there Was a considerable rise in the
market, and the plaintiff having determined to sell, he au-
thorised Mr. Duckworth to tell the defendants to sell for
him the Leeds and York, and also the Leeds and Thirsk
shares. Mr. Duckworth accordingly saw Mr. Newmarch
that morning, and delivered the order. Mr. Newmarch
then went into the market, and sold the Leeds and York
for account of the plaintiff, and thereby realised a profit
of nearly £6O. The same day, on coming off 'Change, he
saw Mr. Duckworth, and told him that he had sold the
plaintiff's Leedi and Yorks, but that he had mat sold the
Thirsks. believing that they would rise in the market ;
and in short he added that, if they did- not go up, he
would stand the risk. Mr. Newmarch's anticipations
were never realised, for the Thirsks went down. On the
3.1 September they were selling at Liverpool at 221, at
Manchester at 214, and in fact they were sold at Man-
chester that day for £2O 153. He held them until the 13th
of September, and then, of his own accord, he sold them
for £lB. The difference between what they would have
fetched on the 3d, and what they were actually said for on
the 13th, constituted the first part of the plaintiff's claim ;
and that would amount to a sum of about £9O. On the
13th, the defendants wrote to the plaintiff to say that they
had sold the Thirsks that day for £lB, and they adued
that, there being such a loss on the sale, they would not
charge any commission. On the 6th or 7th of October,
the plaintiff authorised them to sell the Shrewsbury and
Herefordshires, but not having sold them at that time,
the plaintiff sustained a further loss of £lOO. Mr. Mar-
tin concluded by contending that if a man held the pro-
perty of another, and did not sell that property when di-
rected to do so by that other, and loss ensued, the person
disobeying the direction must be answerable for the loss.
Mr. Duckworth having been examined,
Mr. WATS9N submitted a variety of points, which were
all overruled by the judge. He then addressed the jury
at some length, and stated that a more unjust action had
never been brought. He admitted that an order had
been given to sell the Yorks on the 2d, but he denied that
the order to sell the Thirsks was given until the Bth,
when the market was falling, and buyers could not be
had.

Witnesses having been called for the defendant,
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant as to the
issues on the Leeds and Tbirsks, and for the plaintiff on
the Shrewsbury and Herefordshires, for the difference be-
tween the price of the shares on the 7th October and to-
day, f.lOO, with liberty to the coart to reduce damages by
alteriug dates and referring to share-lists.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-WEDNESDAY

REFUSAL TO PAY CHURCH RATES.-RAMSBOTTOM V

DUCKWORTH AND OTHERS.

Mr. Martin and Mr. Segar appeared for the plaintiff;
and Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cowley for the defendant.

Mr. KNUIVLES stated the facts of the case. The plain-
tiff was a farmer living in the township of Shuttlrworth,
in the parish of Bury, but also living in the chapelry of
Edenfield. One of the defendants was chapel-warden,
and in the exercise of his office it became his c;uty to en-
force a rate, out of which the present proceedings arose.
The chapelry of Edenfield was in the parish of Bury, but
for eccle,iastical purposes it was independent of it. It was
a porochial chapelry, having its own chapel, and therefore
administering the rites of christening and burial, which
his lordship was aware distinguished a parochial chapel
from a chapel of ease. It had always been a custom to
impose a rate for the repair of the chapel, &c. The rate,
however, was generally very low. The defandant Duck-
worth was appointed chapel-warden in March, 1844, and
in September of that year be gave due notice of a meeting
to impose a rate, which meeting took place accordingly.
The plaintiff's proportion of the rate was Is. 7d. This he
refused to pay, alleging as his only reason that he was a
dissenter ;—and his cow had been seized, but afterwards
returned to him, and the question was whether the defen-
dant was at all justified in taking it.
Evidence of the facts having been given,
Mr. Martin then urged a number of legal objections.
The principal one was, that in the information and sum-
mons, the money was stated to ba due to John Atkin and
Lawrence Duckworth, chapel-wardens of the chapelry of
Edenfield, whereas, John Atkin was not at the time one
of the wardens; and in the avowry and order the name of
Duckworth alone appeared.
His Lordship noted the objections to allow of their con-
sideration in another court.
Mr. Martin then proceeded to address the jury on be-
half of the plaintiff. The watute required that. before a
rate could 1),! imposed, certain steps should be taken, and
before it was justifiahle to issue an order, it was necessary
that the party should reluse or neglect to pay the rate ;
and he subsoitted that the refusal should be made to
some person authorised to receive it, which he contended
had not been so in the present case.

The learned Judge then summed up, and stated that
the only question at present to decide was whether there
was reasonable ground to suppose that the order had been
duly served, and that there had been a neglect or refusal
to pay.

The jury immediately returned a verdict for the plain-
tiff, finding the order had bees duly served—damages Is.

ALLEGED BREACH OF AGREEMENT

WILLIAMSON:V. BAXTER.—This was an action to re-
cover compensation for the breach of an agreement,
whereby the defendant, who is a reed manufacturer, in
Manchester, agreed to sell for £3BO a piece of la,scl, with
the, premises. steam-engine, &c., thereon erected, in
Allen-street, Manchester, to the plaintiff, who is a bobbin
turner, in Ancoat's-street. The case of the plaintiff was
that the defendant bad authorised Mr. James Smith,
house and land agent, to sell the premises in question,
and that Mr. Smith, in virtue of this authority, entered
into a written agreement to sell the premises to Mr. Wil-
liamson, who, in consequence of this agreement. paid £lO
deposit; that defendant approved of the sale, but subse-
quently refused to transfer the property to plaintiff, and
sold it to another party. The plaintiff, therefore, sought
to recover the £lO deposit, and some compensation for
the loss of his bargain. The jury found for the defen-
dant.