The Liverpool Standard, and General Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-08-29 00:00:00

FRIDAY.

STOPPING A HIGIIW.S.T.—The defence of the above
-action came on this morning, and was continued for a
great part of the day. It was contended that the road
which was the subject of dispute was never a public tho-
roughfare, and evidence in support of this was offered.
The jury returned a verdict for the prosecution, the abdi-
cation of the road being in 1849.

DAMAGES FOR AN AssirLT.—Dowland v. Cleland.—
This was an action to recover damages for an assault. The
indictment charged the defendant with assaulting, beat-
ing, and wounding ; to which he pleaded not guilty, and
that he assaulted the plaintiff in self-defence. It was
stated that William Dowlaiad, the plaintiff, who had been
in the army, was an old man, with a large family. Lat-
terly, he had been employed as an agent at the Liverpool
-Gas-light Company's yard,. in Atholl-street. The defen-
dant, William. Cleland, was a foreman at these works.
Notice to leave was given to the plaintiff, but before the
notice had expired he was summarily dismissed. The
plaintiff went, along with his boy, to the defendant, to
claim wages for the unexpired term. A quarrel ensued,
as the defendant was proceeding home, followed by the
plaintiff, which resulted in the latter being struck vio-
lently over his mouth and over his head, in Eccleston-
street, which so injured him that he had been under

medical treatment, and disabled for some time. It was
elicited that the plaintiff had used very irritating language
to the defendant, and that, in the struggle, he fell under-
most on the road, knocking his head violently. Verdict
for the defendant.

The court then rose about half-past six

SECOND COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Platt.)

His Lordship having disposed of all the criminal busi-
ness on the previous evening took his seat this morning, at
nine o'clock, in the Crown Court, and proceeded to the
disposal of civil causes.

ACTION or OVERPAYMENT.—Brackenridge v. Smith.—
Th is was an action for the recovery of £3l 3s. 10d. The
plaintiff, is one of the firm of Brackenridge and Gould, corn
merchants, of this town, and the defendant is an extensive
corn dealer, at Todinorden, of the firm of R. and E. Smith.
The case originated in an alleged mistake. On Tuesday,
March 28th, Mr. Smith attended the Liverpool corn market,
having two purses in his pockets—one containing notes
to the amount of £l7O, the other containing £2lO in gold.
Owing the plaintiff £202 Bs., the defendant handed him
the purse of gold, saying it contained £l7O, and he would
call after market and settle the remainder. Mr. Bracken-
ridge afterwards said the settlement would do on Thurs-
day. Upon arriving at home, the defendant discovered
his mistake and wrote. The money had been entered in
Mr. Brackenridge's books as £170; hence the dispute and
action.—Verdict for the defendant.
lioRSE CASE.—Anger v. Carlton.—This was an action
to recover £2OO, the price of three horses sold by the
plaintiff, a horse dealer, to Robert Carlton, gentleman,
also of this town. It appeared that, in May last, the de-
fendant went to Lucas's Repository, where the plaintiff,
who dealt extensively in horses, had some for sale. He
arranged to buy a bay horse and a bay mare, value £lso—
latter intended for a lady. A memorandum was made
to that effect by Mr. Lucas, who had the horses put in
loose boxes, and taken particular care of, by the direction
of Mr. Carlton. Afterwards the defendant bought a
third horse for £5O, though he still left them at Mr.
Lucas's livery stable, and ordered saddlery and horse
clothing from Mr. Mercer, and also had one of the horses
broken in. A relative of the defendant's, Mr. Cruikshank,
had, on several occasions, ridden one of the horses out.
The defendant afterwards repudiated the bargains ; hence
this action. The defence set up was, that the defendant,
at the time in question, was not in a fit state to make a
bargain—that he was not sober.—Verdict for the paiutiff.
—His Lordship gave the defendant liberty to move that
there was no evidence to go before a jury to prove an
acceptance.
IMPORTANT TO TUE SIIIPPING INTEREST.—STEELE V.
SCROMBERG.—This was an action brought by the plain-
tiff, Mr. James Steele, shipowner, of this town, against
Captain Schomberg, the government emigration officer, of
this port, to recover compensation in damages for loss
sustained arising out of the circumstances detailed below.
Mr. Steele, the plaintiff, in 1853 became the purchaser
of the ship Miltiades, of 674 tons, while afloat, and on her
passage here from Callao, with guano. On her arrival,
the plaintiff went on board the vessel, and she drew 18
feet 6 inches of water aft, and 18 feet 3 inches forward.
Mr. M`Keverigan, shipbuilder, was engaged to survey the
vessel, and his report was satisfactory. Plaintiff fitted her
up as a passenger ship, and gave notice thereof to defen-
dant. She was also examined when in the graving dock,
and on the 17th October measured off, allowing her 20
cabin and 80 between-deck passengers. The work of
getting the ship ready went on till December ; and on the
7th the plaintiff, being in London, received a telegraphic
message requesting his return. He did so ; and on the
morning of the Bth waited upon Captain Schomberg, who
expressed regret on account of his being obliged to stop
the vessel, in consequence of her being 18 inches too deep.
Plaintiff asked defendant by what rule he had arrived at
that conclusion ? He replied, by no rule, but by a sailor's
eye. Plaintiff replied, that commercial men had good
commercial rules on these matters ; and Capt. Schomberg
then said that, to satisfy Mr. Steele, he would call a
survey of the ship by his own officers, which he did, and
they took the draft of water, and confirmed the defen-
dant's statement. On a subsequent interview with defen-
dant, the plaintiff said he would leave the matter to the
decision of any number of commercial men, and if they,
or any one of them, said the ship was too deep, he would
lighten her. He declined, and a portion of the cargo—not
prohibited articles—was discharged, the attendant ex-
penses upon the whole affair being laid at £1,048 17s. 11d.
It was contended that the sections of the passenger act
gave the defendant no such power as he had thus exel-
cised.—For the defence it was argued that Capt. Schom-
berg was not liable to this action, his office being judicial
and not ministerial. The passenger act empowered him
to exercise his own judgment in regard to passenger ships.
—His Lordship thought that the defendant was entitled
to a verdict, so far as that he was protected by act of par-
liament ; but suggested that one of the jury should decide
what compensation, if any, should be made. This was
agreed to, and Mr. Bernard Hall was named. His Lord-
ship will certify, subject to appeal to the court above.
The court rose shortly after six.