The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-08 00:00:00

ALLEGED FELONY

Giles Bradley and Jehn Smith, late of Winwick, two re-
spectable-looking men, were indicted for stealing a number of
railway chairs, and a quantity of other iron, stone, blocks,
and wood-sleepers, the property of the North Union Railway
Company.
Mr. Brandt and Mr. Cardwell were for the pros
and Mr. Sergeant Murphy and Mr. James for the prisoners
The case was only interesting to the parties concerned.
Smith had been a contractoi to the company, and Bradley
was his servant. The charge arose out of the appropriation
by the former of some chairs and other materials to which
he had no claim, but which the company contended was their
property. The prisoners who had been out on bail, were ac-
quitted, and Bradley was tried on a second indictment.
Mr. MURPHY, who was for the defence, considered it un-
necessary to address the jury, as he thought they must be
convinced from the nature of 'the evidence which had been
produced on the part of the prosecution, that there was no
case against the prisoner.
He was accordingly discharged.
The court rose at half-past six.

.cution ;

NISI PRIUS.—WEDNESDAY
(Before Mr. Baron RoLFE.)
BUCKLEY AND ANOTHER V. LacY
This was an action brought by Thomas Buckley and Tho-
mas Jones against Henry Charles Lacy, for the recovery of
the amount of goods sold and delivered, and for work and
labour done, and an account stated. The defendant pleaded
that be was not indebted beyond the sum of £l6 17s. 6d., and
he also pleaded a set-off.
The Hon. Mr. Wortley and Mr. Cowling appeared for the
plaintiffs. and Mr. Martin for the defendant.
The Hon. Mr. WORTLEY stated the case. He said the
plaintiffs were the trustees of a gentleman, who carried on
the business of an iron-founder, at Eccleston, near St. He-
len's, and the action was brought to recover the value of cer-
tain materials and work done by them for a plate-glass com-
pany, of which the defendant was one of the directors.
Originally the action had been brought to recover the whole
of the amount of various articles furnished, but the dispute
on the present occasion would be confined to one item—
namely, whether a certain roller, which had been made by
the plaintiffs for the company, was made according to order,
delivered and accepted, and whether, if not made according
to order, the parties were liable. t was well known that
until lately the manufacture of plate-glass had been con-
fined to one company in this country—that it was made a se-
cret of—that it was only of late years other companies had
risen up, and, accordingly, that few of those establishments
would be acquainted with the mode in which plate-glass was
manufactured. It appeared that in the year 1840, the present
company were anxious to manufacture a particular kind of
glass, a sort of ribbed glass, which might be seen in the doors
and windows of offices, the effect of which was, that it was
impervious to the sight, although pervious to the light. This
was made in a peculiar way, sometimes by passing a grooved
roller over the glass metal in its heated state. The plaintiffs,
being ironfounders, were unacquainted with the best mode
of manufacturing such a sort of glass, and the mode by which
it was done, but the order was given by the glass company
through a gentleman named West, who bad formerly been
employed in a plate glass establishment, and who was at that
time in the service of the company. Mr. West, without
taking the precaution of sending specific orders in writing,
addressed a verbal message to the plaintiffs, desiring them to
make a fluted roller of certain dimensions ; and he furnished
the messenger with a piece of glass, to represent the plan,
and this was given at the time to the person by whom the
order was received. The plaintiffs were, therefore, left to
make a fluted roller, seven feet in length, without any further
directions;. and they accordingly made a roller, which was
delivered to the parties. Had the company wished to have
it grooved instead of fluted, the natural course for them to
pursue would be to have said so at once ; but, instead of
this, they put it into their machinery, tried it, and finding
that it did not answer their purpose, then it was, and not till
then, that they communicated to the plaintiffs that the roller
was not what they wished it to be.
After the examination of several witnesses on the part of
the plaintiffs,
Mr. MARTIN addressed the jury for the defendant. He
said they had two questions to decide—first, whether the ar-
ticle supplied was an article for which the plaintiffs ought to
be paid at all, and secondly, whether, supposing it was, the
company had ever accepted it. The objection to the roller
was, that the plates were so uneven as to render it utterly
worthless, and that it was found to be of uneven thickness.
He contended that when an order bad been given to a manu-
facturer it was the duty of the latter to supply an article fit
for the purposes for which it was intended, and that, if he did
not so, he had no right to expect payment; and he stated that
such had been the case in the present instance. He con-
cluded by calling witnesses to show that the roller was not
made in such i way as to render it of any service to the com-

pany.
The jury found for the plaintiffs for £47 damages, and 6d
costs

WARD V. NORTH UNION RAILWAY COY.
Verdict, by consent, for the plaintiff, for £lOO damages
and 40s. costs.

DUMBELL V. Pir E•
Verdict for plaintiff, by, consent, for £220.
BAILEY AND OTHERS V. OLDFIELD.
Verdict for plaintiffs, £23. The action was undefended.
WAVELL V. APPLEYARD AND ()Tunas.
Verdict for plaintiff for £5O. This action also was unde-
fended.

BLACKBURN V. TURNER.
This was an action brought by Edwin Blackburn against
Thomas Turner, for the recovery of the amount of goods sold
and delivered. The defendant pleaded that he was never
indebted.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Crompton for the defendant.
Mr. KNOWLES stated the case. The plaintiff was a
wine-merchant, living in London, and the defendant was
an innkeeper •at Woolton, near Liverpool ; and the ac-
tion was brought for the recovery of a sum of £4O for wine
sold to him. The wine, the subject of the action, bad
been originally sold to a Mr. Davies, the brother-in-law of
the defendant. This tookplace in the early part of the
year 1839, the wine consisting of two quarter-casks, one of
port, the of ;berry. Davis kept them for some time,
but not being able to pay. fot them, he made application to
the brother of the plaintiff, and expressed his wish that the
plaintiff should take them back. The brother of the plain-
tiff mentioned the matter to the plaintiff himself, who agreed
to take them, and accordingly they were removed from the
house of Davies to that of the defendant, who had become
in possession of them. The wine was removed in the year
1840, and, in the following April, the plaintiff called on the
defendant, when the latter agreed to the purchase, and when
it was arranged that the price should only amount to £lO.
The defendant, notwithstanding the terms then made,
pleaded now that Davies and not himself was the party
11 liable for the amount.
After the examination of witnesses, a verdict was returned
for the plaintiff for the sum claimed.

CREACti V. FOSTER

Verdict for the plaintiff, by consent, subject to a referenc

RITSON Z. TUNSTALL

Verdict for the plaintiff, by consent, subject to a reference

DAVIS AND OTHERS, ASSIGNEES, V. BAILEY
This action was withdrawn.
BRUNSKILL V. WOODS, ADMINISTRATRIX:

This was an action brought by James Brunskill against
Alice Woods, the widow and adminlstratt ix of Joseph Woods
who was indebted to the plaintiff for work and labour done,
and an account stated. The defendant pleaded that her
husband had never been indebted, and then that she had
fully administered in the goods and chattels left by him.
The Hon. Mr. Wortley and Mr. Crompton appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Baines and Mr. Segar for the defendant.
The Hon. Mr. WORTLEY stated the case. He appeared
for the plaintiff, who was a painter and plumber, living at
St. Helen's, who had brought the action against Alice Woods,
the widow and administratrix of Joseph Woods, for the re-
covery of the amount of an account for !painting, plumbing,
and glaizing done to some tottages which the late Mr. Woods
hus been engaged in building. Mr. moods had been a collier'
and having made some money, entered on the speculation of

,
building seven cottages, and contracted with several trades-
men to exeeute the work. He made a contract with Mr.
Fawber, among others, for the stone masonry and brickwork,
and Mr. Fawber employed a man of the name of Banks to do
the joiner's work ; but the plaintiff had been employed by
Mr. Woods to do the plumbing, painting and glazing. That
work was executed, and the only difficulty that arose in the
case was occaioned by the practice of the trade, work of the
kind having varied at different seasons. The workmen of
Mr. Fawber and Mr. Banks would be calledowho would
prove that they were present when Woods contracted with
the plaintiff, and that they were also present when the plain-
tiff applied for payment of the .aDcount. What the defence
would be, he (the learned counsel was not) aware, hut it had
been suggested to him that the defendant meant to show
that the plaintiff had a right to look to Fawber for payment.
Such an attempt would however, fail, as the contract had
been made, not by Fawber, but by Woods.
Witnesses for the plaintiff having been examined.
Mr. BAINES addressed the jury for the defendant, con-
tending that Woods had agreed with Fawber to erect the
whole of the cottages and to complete them for £450, and
that it was, therefore, against Fawber that the action ought
to have been brought.
After the examination of witnesses, the jury returned a
verdict for the plaintiff for £29 12s. 9d.
LEA V. FAIRCLOUGH.
As the jury were about to retire for the purpose of con-
sidering their verdict in the last case,
Mr. DUNDAS asked if his Lordship would allow a verdict
to be taken by consent in a special jury case.
The CLERK of the COURT was of opinion, that a verdict in
the case could only be returned by the special jury summoned
to try the case.
His LORDSHIP, however, directed the jury to be sworn.
Mr. DuNDAS then said, that in this case, which was an
action for breach of promise of marriage brought by Miss
Lea,of Northwich, against Mr. Fairclough, of this town, an
arrangement had been made, to which he desired and was
authorised to give as much effect as possible. He had a let-
ter under the hand of the defendant, in which he stated une-
quivocally and sincerely, that he had not at any time said
anything to affect the character of Miss Lea. The defend-
anti further stated in his letter that he had been to blame in
his conduct, and he expressed his regret that his youth and
impetuosity should have led him into such an error. This
was so far satisfactory, he (Mr. Dundas) had to express his
hope that the young lady would feel satisfied.
The Hon. Mr. WORTLEY, counsel for the plaintiff, said
her only object in bringing the action was to protect herself
from having any reflections cast upon her, and to show that
she had not been to blame in the matter. She was now
willing to express her regret at all that had passed, the de-
fendant having made the apology which she required. Her
object in bringing the action had not been damages, and she
now retired trom the court, satified at what had taken place,
and willing to take a verdict by consent and damages for 40s.
The court adjourned at half-past six.
CROWN COURT.—"YESTERDAY.
Mr. Justice PARK took his seat on the bench at 9 o'clock,
and the criminal cases having been previously disposed of,
proceeded to the trial of civil causes.

SMITH v. JONES.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, George Smith,
a leather-dealer in this town, to recover the sum of £4 17s 3d,
for leather sold to the plaintiff, Wm. Jones, leather-cutter,
of Carnarvon. It was proved that the 'goods were sent to
Jcnes by the brig Mars, on the 7th February, 1810, and were
delivered to him. The case was undefended, and the jury,