The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-12 00:00:00

By Mr. KNOWLES.—I was told that there was a lien upon
I have heard that Holme was the builder who built the
ruses, and said he was a large creditor for the buildings. I

have a dou

,t whether this Mr. Holme valued the property,
or the other firm of Holmes, architects. We would wil-
lingly part with the property to get the money—we want
nothing more. Mr. Statham is trustee of the terms taken
after our mortgage. •

Kirkpatrick proved the attesting signature to the
deed from Gladstone to Lowe.
Francis Horner.—ls clerk in the office of defendant, and
brother-in-law of Mr. Statham. Was attesting witness to
two deeds, and proved the execution by Lowe and Duncan,
by Lowe conveying the fee to Brooks and Statham (not the
defendant) and by Duncan conveying the term to Statham
(the defendant) as assignee in trust. Witness also proved
the transfer from Brooks and Statham to Hind, with an as-
signment of the terms in trust to attend the freehold to Mr.
Pritt.

By Mr. WORTLEY.—Neither the mortgage nor the draft
of the conveyance to the building society was prepared in
Currie and Statham's office. One guinea was all the fee

they ever got.
Wr. J. C. Duncan was the trustee of the term for Lowe of
all the property. I had not any knoviledge of the mortgage
to the Crown Building Society when I executed the transfr
of the term. The clerk of Messrs. Currie and Statham
brought me the deed to execute. The deeds were prepared
in their office. There is little, I fear, to be got out of Lowe's
estate. I should be glad to get sixpence in the pound. •
By Mr. WORTLEY.-1 refer to the general estate. The
mortgage to the building society was prepared in our office.
I believe that mortgage was in the usual form, in order to
save expense ; that was agreed to, and 'the terms were ex-
plained to adopt the least expensive mode. My impression
is that it was so settled with my, concurrence.
By Mr. KNOWLES.—It was invariably the case that the
party borrowing the money paid the expense. The mort-
gagor had the liberty to employ* his own solicitor, bat-the
mortgage must be perused and approved by the solicitor of
the society.

By the COURT.-15 not that general ? No; it is general
for the mortgagee to prepare the deed, but it is a privilege
given to members.. Mr. Lowe might have employed any
one ; but it was his duty to lay the deed before the solicitor

of the society
Samuel Ro

las valued the property

at Seaforth. The entire value is £7310; that of lot 5 (the
ground mortgaged to the society) is £1350. I valued it with
reference to what, if sold, it ought to fetch. lam not aware
that this kind of property is depressed. At sales in Liver-
pool, by the corporation, things have sold very well indeed.
I knew nothing about the circumstances; but I was directed
to value it. _ _ _

Mr. M. D. Lowndes, of the firm of Lowndes and Robinson;
was called as to the practice of solicitors in Liverpool when
the title is not given up, and said it is usual to have an en-
dorsement of the mortgage on the conveyance from the ori-
ginal grantor. I would endorse in this case a notice on the
conveyanee from Gladstone to Lowe.
By Mr. WORTLEY.—It is not the invariable practice to do

so. It depends on the consent of the party in whose hands
the deed is. If Mr. Gladstone refused to allow it, Lowe's
deed in that case could not be done.

Mr. Ambrose Lace, of the firm of Laces, Myers, and Co.,
is also a solicitor in Liverpool in extensive practice, and en-
tirely agreed with the last witness, as to to the custom and
the propriety of it.
By Mr. WORTLEY.—One guinea is not more than the
ordinary fee for perusing a draft. _ .

Mr. "iVoRTLEir, on be-half of the defendants, said that, in
addressing the jury on the case for their consideration, he
felt greater anxiety than in any case with which he had been
connected. His learned friend bad not said too much when
he remarked that important matters were at stake in this
inquiry, for it was important to all classes of society, and es-
pecially so to those who are obliged to place property in the
hands of others to manage for them. His learned friend had

accused the parties of Nit-ant of skill, which was nothing less
than imputing to them that they had not done their duty ;
but he was prepared to show that they were free from re-
proach ; and he therefore felt anxious, lest by any fault of his,
he should fail to place the case for-the consideration of the
jury in that simple form in which it ought to be placed. The
facts of the case would, however, be brought under review
by his lordship. He contended that the form of the deed
was that in which every deed had been executed for the
benefit of the society. and that they were responsible for it.
The society allowed Mr. Lowe to transact the business, and
he would put it to the jury whether they were not the parties
in this case who ought to bear the loss.

His LORDSHIP Occupied a considerable time in summing
up the evidence, observing that the question before the jury
was, whether the defendants were guilty of culpable negligence
in the discharge of the business connected with the society :
one little oversight had been the cause of the whole embar-
rassment. If they had obtained the execution of the deed by
Duncan, all would have been right. . .

The jUry retired for about half an hour, and returned with
a verdict for the plaintiffs for £1350.

BALMER V. LITTLEDALE AND ANOTHER-RESPONSIBILITY

OF BROKERS

Mr. HENDERSON opened the pleadings.
Mr., KNOWLES addressed the jury for the plaintiff. The
case, though brief, was important, involving a large sum of
money. The action was brought against the defendants,
brokers in Liverpool, for the sum of £2,000, by the plaintiff,
a merchant in Liverpool. The defendants, well known to
the jury, were in the way of confiding their cotton business
to a confidential and highly salaried clerk, named Corner.
The action arose on a contract signed by him. In October,
1838, plaintiff employed defendants to buy 300 bales of Or-
leans cotton. A note was read of the purchase from T. and
H. Littledale and Co., per W. Comer, stating that the pur-
chase was made at 6d. the pound, and they thought it " would
yield a fair profit in a few months." On the tenth day plain-
tiff paid the sum of £2,000 to defendants, by a cheque on a
Liverpool bank, and a note was received, signed " T. and H.
Littledale and Co., per W. Corner," saying that it was put
to their credit. In December an account was rendered, and
a balance struck, the cotton being sold December 27th, at a
profit of a Id. a pound, and, after charges deducted, left a
profit of £383 4s. 4d. This, with the £2,000, was what he
claimed the verdict for. The learned gentleman then pro-
ceeded to argue that Corner was their recognised agent, and
that no other party was known. It might be alleged that the
transaction was wholly fictitious, and that the whole of the'
documents were a juggle of Corner's to cover some roguery
of his own. This, the learned gentleman contended, could
make no difference. If he did not buy, the action would lie
for the difference on the count for not having bought. If he
bought and did not sell, the action would be for the profit
that ought to have been realised.
Mr. Thomas Buddicombe Blackburn proved a number of
purchases for the defendant in the course of the year 1838,
under the direction of Corner.
Cross-examined.--It is well known they have a cashier,
whose duties are quite distinct from those of the cotton-sales-
man, whose duty is not usually to render accounts current,
or to receive or pay cash. Never received or paid any money
with Corner. Have had very extensive transactions with
him. In that house the tea and cotton departments are dis-
tinct.

By Mr. KNOWLES.--It would strike me as a little extra-
ordinary if I paid money to Messrs. Littledale and got Co-
mer's acknowledgment.

Mr. Joseph Robinson, a cotton broker, also spoke to
transactions with Corner.

Mr. James Howell gave evidence to the same effect. It
was not customary for a broker to make his own accounts
out and get the signature of his cotton salesman. The exclu-
sive duty of a salesman, in a large establishment, is merely
to buy and sell. _ _ _

Mni Timothy Bourne, a cotton-broker, had dealt with the
defendants through William Comer. Had generally paid to
the cash-keeper. It was not at all necessary to pay the cot-
ton-salesman.

Mr. John Willis proved the value of Orleans cotton at the
dates in question.
Mr. Thomas Dodd, clerk in the Bank of Liverpool, proved
the payment.
Thos. Sleddale, a clerk with Messrs. Littledale, was called
and asked if Corner was not in the habit of signing documents
relating to the receipt of money. Witness said he had not
authority to do so, beyond acknowledging the receipt of
money by letter. Witness identified the signature of Corner
to two documents produced, and said that Comer accasionally
signed such documents as those with the knowledge of his
employers. It was not the regular course of his duty. Wit-
ness was in the cash office. All the purchases of cotton
passed under his view, and, so far as he was aware, no such
purchase had been made as that of the 300 bales of Orleans
cotton. Never knew Corner give a receipt for the money
with the knowledge of his employers. Witness first said
that none ever signed accounts current but the parties in the
firm, but on being shown an account current he admitted it
was signed by himself. Witness being pressed said, though
he did not recollect the transaction of the 300 bales he would
refer to the book, and was sent back to do so.
John Smith, also a clerk in the defendant's employ. Was
two years in Comer's office. Never recollects writing any
letters which he signed. Have seen a young man named
Goodwin, in the cotton department, do so. Comer was in
the habit of signing the account sales. This is my writing,
signed by Corner in the usual way. Those (referring to the
bills of sale given to Smith) are in Goodwin's writing, signed
by Corner. It was not usual to put receipts for money to
them. Mr. Corner and the plaintff were friends. Corner
acknowledged sometimes receipts of money ; thinks it must
be with the knowledge of his masters.

Goodwin, a clerk with defendants, proved the hand-
writing of the letters signed by Cotner and written by himself.
Corner was sometimes in the way of signing such letters.
Does not remember Mr. Tiltson paying £l2OO that day. I
suppose Corner directed me to write it. Once in three months,
perhaps; I wrote such a letter.

The witness Sleddale being recalled, said he saw the trans-
actions relative to the cotton in the books, but as he could
not, with his memory refreshed, swear that he recollected
them specifically, Mr. Wortley contended that this was no
evidence, without putting the whole books in evidence. Wit-
ness said this was only a copy from the cash book. Does
not recollect receiving £l2OO from Mr. Tiltson. Plaintiff
and Corner was very intimate. He never asked for the
principals. He once called and asked for Corner, and finding
him not at borne, went away.
Mr. KNOWLES inquired of Sleddale, as he had of other of
the clerks, whether he " believed " that the correspondence
between Corner and the plaintiff had been acted on, or re-
cognised by the firm, but the question was objected to by
Mr. Wortley, and overruled by the court.
The Cou RT then ruled that the bills of account sent in by
Comer for his principals were proved to be sent in by him in
the ordinary course of business, and were evidence.

Letters were also put in to show it was customary in the
office for Corner, when he wrote to customers, to acknow-
ledge the receipt of any sums remitted. The letters were ad-
dressed to Mr. Tilston, of Chester, acknowledging two sums
of .£3OO and XllOO.

After a very long argument, the COURT ruled that the
plaintiffs had failed to show that Comer's writing about mo-
ney was done in the ordinary course of business, and that
there was no evidence of his having authority from his em-
ployers to give an acknowledgement for money.
William Cotner was then put into the witness box, and ex-
amined by Mr. KNOWLES.—Was formerly in the employ-
ment of Messrs. Littledale. Was in a confidential situation.
[Letter handed up to him.] Recollects writing that to Mr.
Balmer. I received a verbal order from him to buy cotton,
or tea, or any thing I thought fit, and bought him 300 bales
of Orleans cotton. In cotton sales, the payment falls due in
ten days. On the 6th of November plaintiff paid me a draft
for £2OOO. It was given me in a small office below Messrs.
Littledale's. I received the money.—lt was paid on account
of the cotton ? I paid it for tea.—Yes, you did ; but was it
not paid for the cotton? It was paid for both tea and cotton
a general speculation. I gave him this note for it. 1 gave
the money to Messrs. Littledale's cashier; I think to Mr.
Stanistreet. The account I sent was a true one. I met Mr.
Balmer coming in at the foot of the stairs.
By Mr. WORTLEY.—I had a general permission from him
to speculate whenever I thought I could do so to advantage.
I joined him in the tea'speculations, and paid in the £2OOO to
cur joint account to the tea cashier ; not to the cotton cashier.
It has been accounted for in the general account of Balmer
Ind Corner. I leceived £BB7 from the tea speculation as my
;hare,• and the plaintiff £2062. That uas the result of the
tea speculation on which I had paid the £2OOO. I received