The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-08-05 00:00:00

SEDDON V. KEARSLEY

This was a special jury case, in which Mr. Robert Seddon,
cotton manufacturer, of Manchester, was the plaintiff; and
defendant was Mr. Edward Kearsley, a gentlemsn living at
Hindley. Mr. Knowles and Mr. H. Hill were counsel for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Wortley and Mr. Tomlinson were for the
defendant. The action was brought to recover a sum of
above £3OOO, for goods sold and delivered to the trustees of
Mr. Thomas Kearsley, cotton spinner, who became a bank-
rupt in 1826. The manner in which the defendant became
liable, by his having been appointed a trustee for special pur-
poses, one of which was the payment of a debt due to Mr.
Seddon, was stated at length in the opening speech of Mr.
Knowles. After the learned gentleman had partially opened
his case, Mr. Wortly said that his lordship had doubtless
heard sufficient to see that the case was so complicated that
it would be much better to refer it to some gentleman at the
bar. A conversation took place between the counsel, and
it was finally agreed that the case should be referred, under
certain conditions.

ALLEGED BREACH OF AGREEMENT.-CUSSONS, V. SKINNER

AND OTHERS

This was an action brought by Mr. George Cussons
against Mr. William Skinner, Mr. George Skinner, Mr.
Joseph Miller, Mr. John Wilkinson, Mr. Robert Lamb, M r.
W. Smith, and Mr. J. Jackson, forming a company called
the Texas Cotton Company, for the purpose of recovering
from them a certain sum as arrears of wages, and compensa-
tion for a breach of agreement. Mr. Wortley, Mr. Cowling,
and Mr. Atherton, for the plaintiff; Mr. Knowles, and Mr.
Temple, for the defendants.
Mr. WORTLEY said that the plaintiff was originally a cot-
ton-spinner, in Manchester, and was a gentleman of very
great experience and skill in the whole of the details of that
business. He had been in business on his own account, in
partnership with another gentleman ; but, in common with
many others of high respectability and talent, was unfortu-
nate. Accordingly, the partnership was dissolved ; but,
after a time, Mr. Cussons recovered, and again set up in
Manchester, and that was the position in which he was,
conducting a smaller business than that to which he had
been accustomed, but sufficient for the support of his
family. About this time, which was in 1839, a party of gen-
tlemen at Stockton-on-Tees, in the county of Durham, es-
tablished a joint stock company under the name of Stockton-
on-Tees Joint Stock Cotton Twist Spinning Company, and
under that name they built a mill, set up machinery, and
conducted an establishment. Of course it became necessary
that some one person should be deputed for the management
and for the superintendence, and accordingly it appeared that
the plaintiff, being known to some of the members of the
Co. or partnership, was introduced to them, and eventually en-
gaged by them for the purpose of superintending the building
of the mill, and also the general management of the concern.
It was agreed that he should have a salary of £3OO a year with
£5 per cent. on the net profits thatwere made ; that the enga,ze-
rnent should last for seven years, and that if, at the expira-
tion of that period, they were anxious to discharge him,
they were to give him six months' notice. In order to com-
ply with this agreement, it was necessary for Mr. Cussons
to abandon the business that he was carrying on. He did
so, went over, undertook the management of the business,
and he (the learned counsel) believed that the jury would be
satisfied that a more able person could not have been found.
At length the mill was erected after the most skilful and ap-
proved manner, and the concern commenced. The plaintiff
continued there as manager, but the concern, like many
others, did not prove so profitable as was anticipated,
and whether it was for that reason or some other
would appear in the course of the cause, but he believed
for that reason solely, the Company became anxious,
in the course of events, to dispense with the manager,
to whom the were obliged to give so large a remuneration
as they had undertaken. There was accordingly a change of
conduct towards him ; and, although he was in their employ
from April, 1839, to January, 1841, and about £5OO Was due
to him for his salary, they only paid him £3OO. In conse-
quence of this non-payment of his salary, Mr. Cussons was
led into difficulties, and, having got into Durham gaol, the
Company took advantage of that event to discharge him
from their service, although it had been brought about
by their own conduct. It was for this discharge that
the plaintiff now claimed compensation. He claimed the
arrears of salary .for the actual time of his service,
and also some compensation in damages for the loss of
a situation which he had been led to expect would be
permanent, and which, at all events, he had a right to expect
would last for seven years. The defendants, who were not
regular manufacturers, had put on the record various pleas,
the first of which was, that they did not engage the plaintiff.
That plea would be done away with by the production of the
agreement. The next plea was, that the plaintiff acted so
negligently, carelessly, and improperly, as manager of the
concern, that they were on that account obliged to dismiss
him. He (the learned counsel) should call persons from the
mill to prove, that so far from acting carelessly or negli-
gently, he devoted the whole of his time to the discharge of
his duties—that his management was efficient, and that his
regulations and supervision were exceedingly useful to the
mill. The third plea was, that by his own default the plaintiff
was imprisoned for six weeks in Durham gaol, during which
time they lost his services, and that in consequence thereof
they dismissed him. He (Mr. Wortley) had already stated,
that by the company not paying Mr. Cussons his salary, he
had been unable to pay his creditors. The debt for which
he was imprisoned was not an extensive one, and might have
been paid, or at any rate satisfactorily deterred, if his salary
had been paid. But the jury, after having heard the plea
and what he stated, would be still further astonished when
they beard that Mr. William Skinner, who had been mayor
of Stockton, actually sent a policeman to the sheriff's officer,
to inform him where Mr. Cussons could be found, and that
in consequence he was arrested at ten at night. Stockton was
in the county of Durham, and the writ against the plaintiff was
issued by the sheriff df that county. The mill was on the
other side of the Tees, in Yorkshire; and the plaintiff,
knowing that there was a writ out against him, did not cross
over until late. This became known to Mr. Skinner, and
he put the officer on the scent. The next ground on which
the defendants pleaded, that the plaintiff was not entitled to
recover, was that the engagement was procured by the fraud,
covin, and misrepresentation of the plaintiff. He (the
learned counsel) made bold to say that there was not a sha-
dow or a shred of a pretence for that; and in order to make
the truth of the assertion clear, he should lay before the jury
a correspondence which had taken place. In the next plea,
they charged the plaintiff with having purchased certain
machinery on the part of the company, and with having
represented that he had paid for it a larger price than he did
actually pay. If he had been guilty of such a thing, he
ought of course to have no claim ; but he (Mr. Wortley), on
the part of Mr. Cussons, indignantly charged them to the
proof. He did not hesitate to say that there was not one
word of truth in the charge, and there were those in his
sight who knew that there was not one word of truth in the
allegation. To show the spirit in which these parties acted,
he might mention that originally there stood on the record
a plea that the plaintiff had paid £lOOO contrary to his duty ;
but an application was afterwards made to the Judge to
allow them to strike out that plea, thus confessing that they
had made a charge which they could not support.
The agreement between the parties was put in, and was
about to be read, when Mr. Knowles objected, on the ground
that the attesting witness had not been produced. Mr.
Wortley contended that the words on the document, " signed,
sealed, and delivered, W. Smith, jun." were not an attes-
tation, but'a mere indication of an intention which was never
fulfilled, and that the witness was therefore unnecessary.
His Lordship refused to stop the case on the objection, but
gave Mr. Knowles leave, in the event of the verdict being
against him, to move for a nonsuit or a verdict. The agree-
ment, which was dated April 30, 1839, was then put in and
read.• _ _

A great number of witnesses were also called to prove
that the plaintiff had exhibited much skill in the construc-
tion of the mill; that the machinery erected was generally of
an excellent kind and of good workmanship ; and that he
attended sedulously to his duties, and that after his discharge
he was in great difficulties.
R. R. HENDERSON deposed that he was an officer of the
sheriff of Durham. On the 7th of January, 1841, he received
a warrant to arrest Mr. Cussons. lie arrested him on the
20th of the month, and about eleven o'clock at night. Before
arresting, the superintendent of the Stockton police came to
him and said, that the Mr. William Skinner, who was then
the Mayor of Stockton, wanted to see him, at the police-
office. He went. Mr. Skinner and Mr. Miller were
together. The former asked him whether he had not a war-
rant to arrest Mr. Cussons.
-Ae (witness) replied that he
had; and Mr. Skinner then asked why he (witness) did not
arrest him. His reply was, that Mr. C. kept at the York-
shire side of the water. Mr. Skinner stated that if he went
then to the house of Mr. Cussons, which was on the Dur-
ham side, he would be sure to find him. He (witness) en-
deavoured to excuse himself by stating that there was some
irregularity about the warrant, and that he was in communi-

cation with the person at whose suit the writ had been
issued. Mr. Skinner, thereupon, said something which im-
pressed him with the idea that if he made the caption, he
(Mr. Skinner) would save him harmless; and, fearing that
he might involve the sheriff if he did not execute the warrant,
he went to the house of Mr. Cussons, arrested him, and took
him to gaol on the fcliov.-ing day.

Mr. Watsoii, draper, of Stockton, said that the plaintiff
owed him £2O, for goods furnished to his family, and Mr.
%Nilson, the attorney of the present defendants, w aited on
him, and induced him to oppose Mr. Cussons, in order that
he might be detained. He consented, knowing the object
with which the request was made, and thinking that Mr. C.
had acted improperly.
Mr. KNowLes then opened the case for the defendants,
and in the first place alluded to the exaggerated tone which
had been adopted by his learned friend. Every one must
have imagined, from the way in which the learned counsel
had talked, that Mr. Cnssons bad been induced by an offer
made to him to abandon a highly profitable business, and
that this ought to be taken into consideration in calculating
the damages. The question to he tried, however, must be
taken apart from that consideration. The jury must look
at the relation in which the plaintiff's stood to the defendants,
and to the manner in which he discharged his duty. if he
he had given justifiable cause of discharge, their verdict
would be for the defendant, and he must contend that the
defendent was entitled to that verdict. He should produce
some additional evidence to show that the conduct of the
plaintiff had been such as no man could possibly have
put up with. The learned gentleman read a letter, which,
he said, tended to show that in all probability the negotia-
tion as to the situation of manager did not, as had been
stated, originate with Mr. Miller, but with Mr. Cussons.
He then read other letters horn the plaintiff, the tone and
statements of which, he observed, were of such a nature as,to
impress the directors with the idea that the writer was a man
of considerable importance in Manchester, able to ensure the
success of their undertaking, and not only willi himself to
become a shareholder, but to induce many others to take
shares. The fact, however, was, that he did not take a single
share for himself, for he never was in a position to do so, and
did not procure a single person to subscribe for a single share.
If this did not hear out the plea of fraud and covin, it at least
showed that the plaintiff had greatly exaggerated his capabi-
lities. The learned counsel proceeded next to direct atten-
tion to the two pleas on which, he said, principally rested the
defence. The first stated, that, after the making of the
agreement, the plaintiff conducted himself so negligently and
unskilfully, that the defendants sustained great loss and in-
convenience, and therefore diseharged him. The next plea
stated, that by his own default. the plaintiff was imprisoned
in Durham gaol, and the defendants lost his services. The
evidence which he should offer under these pleas would show
that the plaintiff purchased certain machinery, in confede-
racy with a person of the name of Kershaw, and that he
charged the company considerably more than he paid. Mr.
Knowles stated this part of the case very minutely. In De-
cember, 1839, there was a sale of machinery at Stockport,
and Mr. Cussons attended, together with Mr. Kershaw.
The amount purchased was of the value of £llll 17s. Bd.,
and in one book the amount was so put down, but in the
cash-book the payments to Mr. Kershaw on account of those
purchases were put down at £l2OO. Perhaps that might
admit of some explanation. In March, 1840, there was
another sale of machinery at Gaythorne Mills. Two lots were
purchased by a person named Join Jones, for £2l 10s.
When the sale was completed, Kershaw, who had been in
conversation with Cusson's, went up to Jones, arid offered
him an advance for the purchase : £22 Its 6d was accepted.
At the same sale, eleven doubling frames were purchased by
a Mr. Shepherd for £lO5 12s, Mr. Kershaw, after the sale,
left the side of Mr. Cussons, with whom he had been con
versing, and agreed to give Shepherd £lO for his bargain.
The two purchases therefore would come to £l3B, but Mr.
Cussons charged £335, and, therefore, either an overcharge
of 4:200 was made, or £2OO went into the pocket of Mr.
Kershaw, which might, and ought to have been saved. The
next charge against the plaintiff, was that he had, contrary
to the express commands of one of the directors, given a bill
to Messrs. Shorrock and Gore, of Manchester, who were
supplying machinery to the company. In order to prove
that the plaintiff had been put into Durham gatol on
his own default, and not in consequence of the non-payment
of his salary, Mr. Knowles produced the plaintiff's schedule,
which stated that the amount owing to him by the company
was £7O, and that his debts were £1,400. In the same
schedule, his profits were set down as follows :—for 1835,
£9O; 1836, £100; 1837, £120; 1838, £130; and 1839, £l2O.
That was the profitable business which had been abandoned.
His good debts were set down at £93, and the doubtful ones
at about £7OO. Another circumstance showing that the
plaintiff was committed in his own default was this, that he
was arrested on the night of the 20th, committed on the
21st, and on the same day filed his petition, proving that he
had his schedule ready, and was prepared to take the benefit
of the act.

Jones, Shepherd, and other witnesses were called to prove
these statements, and then

Mr. Wroamuy replied, contending that if his own evi-
dence had proved the case of the plaintiff to be a hard and
cruel one, it had been made still more plain by the case for
the defence. The cases of Jones and Shepherd were capable
of easy explanation. One broker had certain lots knocked
down to him, and another broker purchased from him at
an advance, and then resold at a profit to the plaintiff.
If the transactions had not been honest, why was not
Ke►shaw called, to prove that he sold, not at 2s. 7d.,
but at ls. per spindle, as was alleged ? Kershaw had
evidently been examined by the defendant's attorney; he
was then in court, and would, no doubt, have been called, if
the charge could have been substantiated. It ought also to
be borne in mind, that the charge in the cash-book included
the carriage from Manchester to Stockton-on-Tees. The
same observation applied to the purchase at Stockport,
where £lll4 was the, actual cost of the machinery, and the
remainder to make up £l2OO, consisted of rent-charges,
packing, removal, and carriage. If the books had been ex-
amined, it would have been found that there was in the
ledger an entry for the subsequent charges, the amount being
left blank, no doubt owing to the plaintiff having been, hur-
ried to gaol, before he had time to ascertain them. The Li I
alludsd to had been given to Shorrocks and Gore, after
pressing requests for money, and was duly entered in tl e
ledger. The conduct of the plaintiff could be only re-
prehensible in so far that he went contrary to tt,e
orders of Mr. G. Skinner; but, then, Mr. Skinner was a
junior partner, unacquainted with business, and least
likely to know the proper course which ought to
have been pursued. The fact was, that Mr. Cussons,
by acting on his own responsibility, had protected the
honour and credit of the company. The learned counsel
proceeded to explain a variety of other matters connected
with the case, and he concluded by calling upon the jury to
give the plaintiff such damages as the circumstances seemed
to demand.

The Juncr having summed up, the jury, after a short
consultation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff,—damages
£470, being £l7O for salary, and £3OO damages.

WEST DERBY LIST

The COURT afterwards proceeded to hear undefended
causes in the:Second List, and disposed of Nos. 1,3, 5,9,
12, 22, and 68.

NEW BRIGHTON.

After all, sandy desert as they may call it, we consider
this one of the most delightful and healthy places within a
few miles of Liverpool, and more in accordance with oar
notion of a watering place than any round this coast. Bar-
ren, undoubtedly it is, and few indeed are the spots in the
vicinity of the sea which are not so. The beautiful fertility,
with trees run down to the sea shore, as at that delightful
place Hastings, or that still more fairy spot in the ocean, the
Isle of Wight, is not often to be met with. But if there is
one thing more than another, which strongly recommends
New Brighton to us as a retreat for a few weeks or even a
few days, it is our being able to escape, totally, out of sight
or hearing of the noise, sight, bustle, and turmoil of Liver-
pool; for we cannot partake of that Cockney feeling which
leads the noble citizen of the great metropolis, after getting
as far out of town as a day's holiday will allow them ; to
stretch their necks, and their eyes, unnaturally open to
catch a glimpse of "dear old Sc. Pauls," as they term it.
In our rustications we like retirement, and court not
"The Parade," or "Terrace," with the throng of visitors,
and well paid musicians : all these things are well in their
way, and we admire music ; but on our little summer trips,
we like retirement ; and New Brighton is of all others
around this coast the most delightful place to reek it, that
is, if you admire a sea view. Where can a more bold and ex-
pansive view of the noble ocean be seen ; and where a more
lively and animating river scene than the numerous vessels,
small and large, constantly passing round the rock, up and
down the river. The daily passing of the Irish, Scotch, and
Welsh steamers, alone form enough to amuse, with the thou-
sand reflections to which they give rise. But the place in
itself we also admire; for there are proofs sufficient of what
labour and cultivation will do, even to a hitherto barren spot.
Never have we seen a more beautiful garden tha❑ that under
the cultivation of one of the chief proprietors of New Brigh-
ton. W. Rowson, Esq. The earliest vegetable to be -met
with in the season, may be seen in this gentleman's grounds,
and both the vegetable, fruit, and flower garden ; altnough
close upon the sea, are as productive as any we ever remem-
ber to have seen ; and, all this has been done within three
short years, for within that time this garden was a sand hill.
Mr. Rowson's pinery is, we think, not to be surpassed, we
have seen the pinery at Eaton. but it certainly is not equal
to this. There are now several beautiful mansions built here
by Gillitt, Esq., J. Ewart, Esq., ar►d several others. The
Fort or Rock Battery, and the Light-house, are also objects
which render this place more interesting. The sands of
New Brighton are beautiful. They are far beyond South-
port, Blackpool, or Fleetwood.

The view of Wallasey Church and village, Leasowc Light-
house, with the rich and beautiful Welch mountains as a
back ground, form a really grand and picturesque view, and
well repay the labour of a walk. But still something is
wanting. A church is wanted at New Brighton, and until
there is one, the place is by no means perfect ; and we can-
not see why the place should have been so long without one.
Then a few good shops are wanted, and if the landed pro-
prietors were only to build two or three and let them at low
rents, to encourage the first settlers in that way, the thing
would doubtless be done. We believe that if somewhat of
the same enterprising spirit had been displayed in this place
as at Fleetwood, it would have repaid far better, and by this
time even, have become a much more important place. Now
that a connection is proposed between Seacombe and Wood-
side, by a bridge over Wallasey Pool, New Brighton will
rapidly rise. This is our conviction, and for the sake of the
proprietors we sincerely hope it may be realized, for we like
the place much.

Mr. Beverley, the late manager of the Sunderland, Dur-
ham, and other theatres. died at Scarborough last week. He
was born at Hull in 1772.

SINGULAR the late Derry Assizes, a case of
Fortescue v. the Bishop of Derry was tried. The plaintiff
was executor of "Mr. T. K. Magee. The declaration stated
that on the Ist January, 1836. the defendant, then Bishop of
Killaloe, in consideration of the sum of £2,000 being paid to
him by Thomas Knox Magee, did promise to promote his
son, the Rev. George Adam Magee, to the first vacant bene-
fice in his power; and that the said plaintiff did afterwards
advance to the defendant £l,OOO, parcel of the said sum of
£2,000, and that he was willing to advance the residue, yet
the said defendant, not regarding his promise, had not as
yet promoted the Rev. George A. Magee to a vacant bene-
fice, although divers vacancies had occurred, and he might
have fulfilled his promise. The damages were laid at £3,000.
To this the defendant pleaded the general issue, and the
statute of limitations. After the examination of several
witnesses, Mt. T. B. C. Smith addressed the court for the
defendant. Justice Pennefather charged the jury, who re-
turned a verdict for the defendant.

MELANCHOLY ACCIDENTS.—SEVENTEEN LIVES LOST.
—LEewicx, JULY 11.—The boat Woodlark, of this place,
laden with peats, on her return from the island of Whalsay
to the Island of Skerries, about 40 miles to the northward,
on the evening of the 9th inst., with eight men, two women,
and a fish-curer, upset during a heavy squall, and the whole
were unfortunately drowned. Five out of one family were
lost, three brothers and two sons. The Island of Skerries
is almost depopulated. The following are the names of the
unfortunate sufferers, as far as we have been able to ascer-
tain : —Arthur Sandison, William Anderson, John Ander-
son, Arthur Henderson, David Anderson John James
Williamson, and an aged man of the name of Bain. On the
evening of the 11th instant, a six-oared boat, belonging to
Cunningsburgh, about twelve miles south of this place, while
returning from the ling fishing, was unfortunately lost with
six men, four of whom were brothers. All have left desti-
tute families. The skipper of the boat had his eldest son
along with him. Their names are—John Macpherson, Ro-
bert Macpherson, sen., Laurence Macpherson, J. Mac-
pherson, R. Macpherson, jun., and Laurence Jan3ieson•—•
Caledonian Mercury.