The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-03-29 00:00:00

HARROP AND ANOTHER, ASSIGNEES, V. CARTER

This was an undefended action to recover the sum of £BO
9s. 11d., for goods sold and delivered. The plaintiffs are
the assignees of Messrs. Smith, Edgeley, and Smith, of
Manchester, and the defendant is a draper at Huddersfield.
The order and delivery of the goods having been proved, the
jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed.

MARSDEN V. LOCKETT

The plaintiff, Thomas Marsden, is a machine-maker in
Manchester, and the defendant is an engraver in the same
town. The action, which was undefended, was brought to
recover £37 18s. 1-N., the balance of an account for goods
sold and money lent. Verdict for the plaintiff.

MALLALIEU V. EDMUNDSON.
This was an undefended action brought to recover £25, lent
by the plaintiff to the defendant in October last. The par-
ties are in business in Manchester. Verdict for the plaintiff.

BURDEKIN V. MORRIS.
An Undefended action on a bill of exchange for £24 Os. 6d
Verdict for the plaintiff.

WOOD AND OTHERS V. GLOVER.
Undefended. Verdict for the plaintiffs, damages £2l.
THWAITES AND ANOTHER V. LEECH.
Undefended. Verdict for the plaintiffs, damages £25 16s

FOSTER V. CIiADWICK

An undefended action to recover 1:27 125., for goods sold
and delivered. Verdict for the plaintiff.

EDMUNDSOIs? V. HORSFIELD

Mr. Wortley and Mr. Watson appeared for the plaintiff;
Mr. Martin for the defendant. The plaintiff is a wine and
spirit merchant, in Manchester, and the defendant is the
landlord of the Swan Inn, Market-street, in the same town,
and the action was brought to recover £73, for goods sold
and delivered. The principal question in the case turned
upon the pleas w bich had been put in by the defendant, one
of which was, that payments had been made by him, and
another alleged a set-off. The details were uninteresting.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages£4B 13s.
_l7

CONVERSION

OF A POODLE-DLAIR V. RALDRED

This was an action in trover for the conversion of a dog.
Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wilkins for
the defendant.

Mr. MARTIN stated, that the plaintiff was Mr. Harrison
Blair, an attorney, of Manchester, residing at Cheetwood,
and the defendant was Peter lialdred, a dealer in rags. The
action was brought to recover the value of a dog which be-
longed to 015. plaintiff, and which had come into the posses-
sion of the defendant, he (the learned counsel) knew not how.
In July last, Mr. Blair bought a couple of exceedingly pretty
and small poodles ; one of them died shortly afterwards, and
this circumstance caused the survivor to become a still
greater favourite. It remained safe in the house for three or
four months, but one morning it was missed, and for some
time nothing could be heard of it. The dog was found by
Mrs. Halliwell, the mother of a bo' employed by Mr. Blair.
She had heard a description of the missing animal, and,
being convinced this was it, she secured it till her son came
home in the evening, when he identified it, and it was, con-
sequently, sent home. Haldred, the defendant, applied to
Mrs. Halliwell for the dog : she told him what she had done
with it, and thereupon he went to Mr. Blair's house. There
was nobody in but Mrs. Blair and the servant. He went
into the kitchen, seized the dog, and carried it off, saying,
that if it was Mr. Blair's, he must prove that fact, and he
should have it. The dogs had cost £2 2s. each. It was
quite impossible to suppose that Mr. Blair had brought this
action for the sake of the costs : any one who was unac-
quainted with his character would at once acquit him of that :
indeed, the defendant had nothing to pay with. Mr. Blair
had brought the action, not for any private purpose, but to
show such people as the defendant, that they could not do
these things with impunity, and that property, whatever it
was, must be protected. _

Several witnesses were then called, whose testimony cor-
roborated the statement of the learned counsel.

Mr. WILKINS next addressed the couri,;;;he part of the
defendant, in a speech of considerable pleasantry. In :he
course of his observations he produced the dog, whose ap-
pearance, combined with one or two jocular remarks, pro-
duced much laughter. He should prove this to be the iden-
tical dog which Mr. Blair alleged the defendant had con-
verted, and that the defendant had bought it, long before it
bad got into Mr. Blair's possession, from a breeder, at
Stockport. In short, he should clearly establish the owner-
ship of the animal to be in the defendant.
Witnesses were produced, and their evidence established
the facts as alleged by the defendant.
The jury, after consulting in their box for a quarter of an
hour, and, subsequently, being locked up for an hour, re-
turned a verdict for the defendant. _

EJECTMENT.-DOE DEM 'WRIGLEY V. DRANSFIELD AND

OTHERS.

The declaration alleged, that the plaintiff William Wrig-
ley, had had demised to him certain tenements, from which
the defendants had ejected him. The defendants pleaded
not guilty.
Mr. WOItTLEY, for the plaintiff, said he sought to recover
possession of a cotton-mill and other property, in the pos-
session of the defendants. The plaintiff was the proprietor
of certain coal mines and other property, in the parish of
Oldham, and he was in the habit of supplying the defendants,
Richard, John, and George Dransfield, with coals. In
1836, the defendants became embarrassed, and in want of
money. They applied to the plaintiff for assistance, and he
advanced to them £1,500, taking, by way of security, a
mortgage on the mill (Hopkins Mill), and it was under
that deed of mortgage that he sought to recover possession
of the property. Since that time, the mill had been burnt
down ; the defendants became more embarrassed ; and great
harm was likely to be done to the property, unless, by this
action, it could be protected from injury. The mortgage
deed contained a power to sell the property.
The deed of mortgage was then put in, and the essential
parts of it were read.
Mr. KNOWLES, who appeared for the defendants, said he
felt he had no legal defence to this action ; and he appealed
to his learned friend to give the defendants time to pay this
money. He trusted he should have his lordship's recom-
mendation to that effect.
Mr. Baron ROLFE said he could make no suggestion.
He was there to sift and try the facts of the case, and he
could not interfere. .

Mr. KNOWLES said the interest bad never fallen in arrear ;
and the mill was worth twice as much as the plaintiff claimed.
Mr. Baron ROLFE repeated, that he could not interfere.
Mr. WORTLEY said his client had actually sold the pro-
perty to the parties, and it was to protect their title that the
action was brought. Some arrangement, perhaps, might be
come to out of doors, but he could make none in court.
A verdict was then taken for the plaintiff. Damages and
costs 40s.

STEPHENS V. HADFIELD

This was an action brought by a builder, in Manchester,
to recover from the defendant the sum of £lO2, for work and
labour done in erecting sixteen cottages, ifit the township of
Huhn.

Mr. Knowles and Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff;
and Mr. Dundas and Mr. Cowling for the defendants.
Evidence was produced, on the part of the plaintiff, that
he had erected the buildings at the request of the defendant,
but that there was no written agreement between them, and
also of the value of the labour done.
On the part of the defence, Mr. DUNDAS said he should
show, that, before the houses were completed, Hadfield sold
the land and the erections upon it to a Mr. Ormerod, from
which time he ceased to take any interest in the property,
and that, in the first instance, the plaintiff sent in his bill to
to Mr. Ormerod, who alone was liable.
One witness was heard for the defendant, and, at the con-
clusion of his testimony, the further hearing of the case was
adjourned till Monday morning, at the request of the learned
Judge.
The Court adjourned at half-past five o'clock.

CROWN COURT.—MONDAY.
His lordship took his seat at a few minutes past 9 o'clock

SENTENCE ON JOHN MARSDEN AND EDWARD CROOK.

John Marsden, aged 14, and Edward Crook, aged 15, con-
victed of manslaughter at Bolton on Saturday last, were
placed at the bar. His lordship, having animadverted in se-
vere terms on the practice of up and down fighting, so com-
mon in this county, sentenced Marsden to one month's im-
prisonment and Crook to two months' imprisonment in Lan-
caster Castle.