The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-10-25 00:00:00

ACKAY V. BAKER

This was an action to recover damages for an assault and
battery. The plaintiff is a son of Mr. Mackay, tailor and dra-
per. in Tarleton-street, and the defendant Mr. Baker, a co-
median, late of the Theatre Royal in this town. The facts
of the case were these :—Mr. Basil Baker had sent a waist-
coat to the shop of the plaintiff's father to be altered or re-
paired, and by some means it happened that the waistcoat in
question bad been mislaid. The defendant called to inquire
after his property, and saw the plaintiff, Mackay, jun., who
proposed to replace the waistcoat—a fancy one ; but the de-
fendant not being satisfied with the price at which the sub-
stituted garment was to be charged, an altercation ensued,
and it was attempted to be proved that Mr. Baker struck him
severely in the face.

The brother of the plaintiff, recently appointed a landing-
waiter, was the first witness called to prove the assault, and he
stated that he was not certain whether it occurred in August
or September. It was, however, in one of those months,
betwee❑ the hours of twelve and one in the day. This wit-
ness swore that the defendant took hold of his brother by the
collar with the left hand, and gave him a violent blow in the
face with the other, upon which his brother jumped over the
counter, and ordered Mr. Baker out of the shop.
In cross-examination by Mr. James, it appeared that the
connter was four feet wide.

➢lr. George Hadcock, who was present with defendant on
the occasion, was called for the defence. The evidence of
this witness went to show that the preceding witness, Mackay,
jun., was not present during the altercation and alleged as-
sault ; and that it occurred in the month of August, between
four and five o'clock in the afternoon, and not between twelve
and one; that the defendant struck at the plaintiff, but did
not hit him, and only struck at him on being called a liar.
Mr. D. Ratcliffe deposed that he saw the plaintiff a few
days after the occurrence, and could see no marks of the pun-
ishment alleged to have been inflicted.

The Assessor summed up, and explained the difference be-
tween assault and battery ; and the jury, after a short delibe-
ration, retired. On returning into Court, they gave, for the
plaintiff, damages, one farthing.

PROCTOR V. HAMER.

An action to recover the value of 201 tons of slack coal,
at is. per ton.

Mr. Venables appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. James for
:he defendant.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages
£7 4s.

SCHLESINGER V. FAULKNER.
This was an action brought by Mr. Caspar Schlesinger, a
commission agent, against Mr. E. D. Faulkner, the owner
of considerable land in the neighbourhood of Edge-lane, to
recover the sum of £6 10s., the amount of the commission
on the sale of land value £250.

The principal questio❑ at issue was, whether the plaintiff
was actually the agent of the defendant in the sale. The
plaintiff, it appeared, had introduced Mr. David Ross, who
wished to buy a large parcel of the land, to the defendant ;
this negociation, however, went off, but at a subsequent
period the sale of a small portion was effected for the sum
named.

Mr. T. A. Dale, estate agent, was called on the part of
the plaintiff, and he proved that under the circumstances the
commissio❑ would be due to the agent.
Mr. FORSYTH (who appeared with Mr. Blackburne for the
defendant) contended that the first transaction was altoge-
ther at an end ; and that the second sale, which was of a
different piece of land, and at a different price, was effected
witli9nt the intervention of the plaintiff. The plaintiff,
therefore, had done no work and labour.
The jury immediately returned a verdict for the defendant.