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

NISI PRIUS COUAT.—TBURSDAY.
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 XI 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 DEFOSIT 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. Wortley 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 bad intended to do so, be 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, and now some
difficulty arose in getting the title, but the witness 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, he believed there would hare 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.—