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

under the direction of his lordship, gave a verdict to the
plaintiff to the full amount stated, with costs.

MAWDSLEY V. JOHNSON

The plaintiff is a plumber, glazier, and at the time also
an ironmonger, in Southport, and sought to recover from the
defendant. a bookseller there, the sum of £7 10s. 6d.,
being the balance of an account originally of £36 10s. 6d.,
for a new shop window, in Southport, certain articles of
hardware,, tin, glazing, painting, &c. &c. Two witnesses,
sons of the plaintiff, spoke to the items in the bill—many of
them amounting to only a few coppers.
Mr. Martin and another appearing for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Oatson for the defendant, who is a bookseller in South-
port. The principal question that arose was the quantity of
glass supplied, and the price, and on this point there were
some discrepancies in the evidence. The defendant had paid
£9 into court. The weight of the lead was also disputed.
After a tedious and uninteresting trial, which occupied the
court about five hours, the jury returned a -verdict for the
plaintiff,—debt £l5 lls. 7d., reduced by the .£9 paid into
court to £6 lls. 7d..—items to the amount of £1 ss. lld
being taken off

BATES V. O'CONNOR

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Joseph
Bates, of the firm of Bates, Son, and Co., merchants, in this
town, to recover from the plaintiff, Mr. J. W. O'Connor. a
wine merchant, residing in Duke-street, the sum of £2O Os. 7d.
It appeared that the defendar.t had, on several occasions
within the last few years, consigned certain quantities of
wine to the plaintiff, to sell in Calcutta and Bombay, and
on which he had, from time to time, received considerable
sums of money in advance. The plaintiff had also consider-
able dealings with Messrs. Parkin and Co., glass and bottle
manufacturers, of St. Helen's, who also did business with
the defendant, to whom they had become indebted by over-
drawing in the sum of £49 15s. 3d. In order to a settle-
ment of this last account, the defendant and Mr. Parkins,
(who did not now carry on the business in which he had
been engaged, he having been proceeded against for a
considerable sum claimed by the excise,) went to the plaintiff's
office, and there Parkin gave an order to the head clerk for
the amount stated, to be placed to the debit of Parkin, and
to the credit of the defendant. At this time the defendant
was indebted to the plaintiff, in the sum of £25 Os. 7d., be-
ing the shipping charges in his last consignment of wines for
a foreign market; and he was subsequently, and repeatedly
asked for this amount, but expressed his astonishment that
he should be required to pay it after having given the order,
which he seemed to consider as an off-set. The clerk, how-
ever, stated at the time that he was uncertain as to how Par-
kin's account would turn out ; and it appeared that Messrs.
Bates had heard some rumours relative to his solvency. He
stated that he would receive the order contingently, and that
if there was a final surplus on Parkin's account, he would
consider it (the order) as good and valid. In the result, how-
ever, Parkin was left considerably in Bates's debt. The de-
fendant had previously tendered, in payment of the shipping
charges which were past due, a bill of exchange for £2O, and
a £5 Bank of England note. Mr. Bates accepted of the
£5 note, but refused the bill, as being worthless. This
payment of £5 reduced Messrs. Bates's -claim to the sum
sought, £2O Os. 7d. A balance afterwards became due to
the defendant of about £BO on his last consignment, when
the account sales was received from India; and the question
arose whether it was customary for Messrs. Bates to settle
up or balance the amount on each separate consignment with
the party consigning goods to their care ; and it was con-
tended for the defendant, that the £49 13s. 3d. (the amount
of the order) should have gone to his credit as regarded the
last consignment, and that the order was so worded. It ap-
peared, however, that the wording of the order referred to
shipments generally—not to any particular or individual
shipment—and that it had been placed to the credit of his
general account, contingently, it was understood, on the pro-
ceeds of Parkin's account. The case lasted for some hours,
but no points of interest, beyond those stated, were elicited.
Mr. WATSON ably supported the case of the plaintiff, and
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY that of the defendant. The JUDGE
eventually brought the case to a close by stating his opinion
that all further defence, after what had been sworn to, was
fruitless on the part of Mr. Murphy, who, of course, gave in,
and the jury, after expressing themselves to be unanimously
of his lordship's opinion, gave a verdict for the plaintiff to
the full amount--damages £2O Os. 7d.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—THURSDAY.
LAWTON V. BRADLEY.
This was an action to recover a certain sum of money, for
goods sold and delivered, money paid, and on an account
stated. The defendant pleaded that he had paid all the money,
with the exception of £I 55., which was paid into court.
Mr. KNOWLES (with whom was Mr. Crompton) stated the
plaintiff's case. He said the plaintiff, Mr. Walker, was an
auctioneer in this town, and the defendant was a publican
living at Waterloo. In the month of October last, an execu-
tion was issued against a person of the name of Rothwell,
and levied by a person of the name of Dry, who employed
the plaintiff to sell the goods. At the sale, defendant bought
goods to the amount of £47s 35., and for this sum the action
was brought.
Mr. DUNDAS (with whom was Mr. Whigham) contended
that at the time of the sale an agreement had been made be-
tween the plaintiff and defendant, the latter of whom was the
landlord of Rothwell's house, that the rent due, £4O, should
be paid out of the proceeds of the sale, landlords, in all cases,
having,a prior claim for any sum not exceeding a year's rent.
All but £4O had been paid to plaintiff.
The jury found for the defendant.
ACTION TO RECOVER DEPOSIT MONEY.

SMITH AND ANOTHER V. BAYLEY.
This was an action to recover the sum of £3B, the deposit
money which ought to have been paid by defendant, in con-
sequence of being the highest bidder at the sale of some
messuages in Warrington.
Mr. Wurtley and Mr. Hoggins were counsel for the plain-
tiffs. Mr. Dundas and Mr. Cowling appeared for the de-
fendant.

The plaintiffs, Joseph Smith and Dutton, were trustees
for the sale of some property which was put up for auction
in the town of Warrington on the 14th April, 1841, and the
defendant, James Bayley, was a solicitor. The plaintiffs
employed Measrs. Nicholson and Son, solicitors, to conduct
the sale. The premises were to be sold for a lease of 999
years, and one of the conditions of sale was, that the highest
bidder should be the purchaser, that a deposit of £lO per
cent. should be paid on the purchase money, and a contract
signed for the completion of the sale by the Ist of July. At
the sale the defendant bid £385, and the lot was knocked
down to him. He signed the contract, but had never paid
the deposit money for which the action was now brought.
Mr. Peter Nicholson, the solicitor for the plaintiffs, was
examined, and spoke to the terms of the contract which de-
fendant signed for the payment of £lO per cent. He under-
went a long examination from Mr. Dundas, who endeavoured
to elicit that the title held by the plaintiffs was not a valid
one. Upon this a legal discussion arose. The plaintiffs'
counsel maintained that, as the defendant only pleaded that
he never entered into the contract, the defendant was not at
liberty to cross-examine for the purpose of proving fraud.
If he had intended to do so, he should have put a plea on
the record. His Lordship, however, permitted the exami-
nation to go on ; and it appeared that Mr. Peter Weedell was
the mortgagee, a Mr. Leftwich the mortgagor, for whom the
present plaintiffs were trustees. Before the sale Mr. Wee-
dell consented to it, but afterwards objected, a now some
difficulty arose in getting the title, but the wi ness said he
had no doubt they would be enabled to compel the mort-
gagee to give up the title. Had the defendant paid the de-
posit money, be believed there would have been no difficulty
in getting the title.
Mr. DUNDAS submitted that the action was ill-brought,
on the ground that there was no promise of payment to the
plaintiffs, and that the action should have been,brought by
Mr. Nicholson.
His LORDSHIP overruled the objection, and a verdict was
immediately entered for the plaintiffs.—Damages £3B.
ACTION AGAINST THE LIVERPOOL SERJEANT-AT-MACE.—