The Liverpool Standard, and General Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-08-22 00:00:00

rgerung
severely.

tTESDAY,

sr 22,
.1.854•

and a verdict for the Pll'

Z damages /
TAYLOR v. (

).—This was a seduction 0-4701
announced that an oral° tstake a verdict by consent for

when called

e s
psici .ti teilfrolf
nOi
ntigiIWAGES
oe
tahs ced kan d Sob:,
ire shipowners at Workington. The ac'4l:;;esP
recover £149, a wages account. On, ~,`,1b05:
48, the plaintiff shipped at this Pori':
vn a s
n. enter, be in to the defendants, forrel
,trs voyage. He accordingly proceeded on ereti
the Sandwich Islands, thence to San Francisco,
obtained his discharge, on the 22nd of May)
verdict was given for the plaintiff for £ll7 11„,%ei,
the balance of his claim, after deducting the Ill"
posited by him with Captain Robinson. plida
ACTION IN TROVER.—Petrie v. Quinn.--La boav
was Mr. James Petrie, a general merchant ; the der tot
Dominie Quinn, a marine store dealer, both of tilastot,
The action was brought to recover the value of 3
,„Ant
of salt sacks, the property of the plaintiff, which t's3,
the possession of the defendant. In 0ct0ber,_...1'031,,,
laintiff supplied Messrs. M'Curtin and Riley w.,"
which were sent to their vessel, the OsPre";gliF,,
_ they required by 2,365 sacks, op;
.e returned to Messrs. M`Curtin and Riley's °L
)7
there they were to remain six months rent
Lordship, in summing up, told the jury that qurdl
no legal title to the sacks ; and a verdict was 00
given for the plaintiff for £Bl, the invoice Ys.P-
,
d
2,365 sacks.—The court rose at six o'clock.

A. SHIP-CARPENTER

v. Bell and others.--T1

carpenter on board a

as more Um

THURSDAY.
SEAMAN'S WAGES. - Hartley v. PonsonbP
was an action brought by the plaintiff, a seaman' 011:1
the defendant, the master of the ship Mobile; ,he
arrival of the vessel at Melbourne, seventeen 01 ‘.
refused to work, and were sent to gaol. The caPtV
a view of inducing the remainder of the crew to 00
ship to Bombay, offered £8 per month additional
hands who remained by the ship: The men whore i,ieb;
preferred having a lump sum, and named £6O, !v„'"fot
captain reduced to £4O, giving each man a bill fey,
amount. On receiving the bills, the crew proeee:4
worked the vessel to Bombay. His bill was refw;oo.°4
ment, and the action was brought to recover tileLfien
The defence was that the captain had been come:
force and duresse to give those bills, for which 13"dA
deration had been received, the plaintiff being re 4,
his original agreement to do all that he had (I°ll'c'e?
allegations for the defence were not proved, and A.e tyg
was returned for the plaintiff, damages f. 4.0,
the verdict set aside.
This was an action for 3 ti C,
_ goods sold and delivered by Pile'
amounting to £4B. Verdict for the P

en to move to hav

STOCK V. ROWELL.-'

exchange, and for

for the full amount.
HOCKING v. PONSONBY.—This case was precise "P
lar to the case of Hartley v. Ponsonby, and a vet'..„
taken by for the plaint for R4O.
PRUDENTIALconsent ASSURANCE ASS iff
OCIATION V. roff;
—ln this cause a verdict was taken by consent for e4'
the penalty of a bond, the damages to be 06
£2,840.

BUSKS V. KAY AND OTIIERS.—This was 03_,

brought to recover the value of aitorseToCtlie
of which the defendants had unlawfully depl3lo
plaintiff. His lordship did not think the action c°
maintained, and the plaintiff was nonsuited.
NON-DELIVERY OF GOODS.— Doran v. Ra" :547,
—This was an action brought by Henry Doran, -004
store dealer, against Richard Rawsthorne, an ereco,°
miller and provision-dealer in Liverpool, i 43
damages for the non-delivery of goods parchasle,
plaintiff; and which had been re-sold by the de ,
Verdict for the plaintiff', damages £25.
tilliej
- LEIGH V. LEES AND ANOTREIL—There was "0
ow,
ance in this case for the plaintiff, and a nonsuit p
JEWELL V. GREENOUGH.—This was an “-
action on a bill of exchange for £155 12s. Verdict
plaintiff
.5 SiriP
TAUNTON AND ANOTHER V. MELLOR.—ThfOri
action brought by the plaintiffs for money Patcl e
eci '
use of the defendant. The action was not defend
dict for the plaintifth.
Div 51
n MATres v. AlBLLon.—This case was precise-
to the former case. The amount sought to be
was £328 2s. 6d. Verdict for the plaintiff.
The court adjourned at a quarter past six o'ev
nine o'clock next morning.

FRIDAY.ndII;
Ti
THE VALUE OE A HORSB.—Shirley v. ---.
The plaintiff, Richard Shirley, a sergeant-nl4,
Lancashire Hussars, a corp; raised in 1848 by Priy
John Gerard, sought to recover from Sir Jos „ ePv3fte
worth, a member of the same corps, the sum titi,";;
balance of the value of a horse which the Puw-•rioV
sold to the defendant in Liverpool, the latter recibe
for a review which was to be held at Southport.
ot ref
of £2 was paid down as a deposit, and the defenwv?
the horse with him to Southport. Here, however'oou,
that the animal was too spirited for him, the liefeso7)4
subsequently brought to Liverpool, where the 000 Alt
through Messrs. Lucas, auctioneers, tried to' btu`
animal, but was unsuccessful, and the plaintAl'„e
the present action for the amount of the vs 4"
horse. Verdict for 1

- -
DISPUTED SHIPBROKER'S COM3fISSIOIC—
•',4
Roosen.—This action was brought by the plaintiffs'to re'„ei
and William Pearce, shipbrokers in LiverP°° Clrit
from the defendant the sum of £287,
as commission for negotiating a transaction betof firL,
defendant and Messrs. Millers and ThompSol3,a,e
pool, respecting the clipper-ship Sovereign of
In the course of last year, the Sovereign of the , r
vessel built in the United States for the A-ustranei
senger trade, and remarkable for her beauty anrvi.:,
arrived in Liverpool. She had been sold, eithe
United States or upon her passage, to Mr. Haase „
the defendant, a Hamburg merchant. Mr. Roose4e 1)
to Liverpool, in order to see the vessel, and to v3pogi
rangements in regard to her voyage, &c.; 064
foreigner, and requiring the aid of a broker, he of Oa
the office of the plaintiffs, and presented a letteer Dee'
duction from the firm of Lindsay and Co-, Ners
rue result of the interview with Messrs. ho',,pl4li
t
Thompson was an arrangement that they shoulc.L., fowl
ship on" for the defendant, securing him £ll,rfebt;
for the voyage, and paying £4,000 down immea`34., beo
they got freight above this, the next £5OO w 36
to them, and the excess beyond £12,000 was to bet
between them, the ship-owner, and the defence'en
arrangement was fairly concluded, and, ere the u
the
left, he said, with his hand on the door, " Now, feri
is concluded, and you are bound." " Yes," was "A(Fd
of Mr. Miller. The defendant then went over t° der,4
Pearce to arrange about their commission, untl2.o.filt,
conversation with Mr. Boyd, their manager, it
that the defendant should not pay the usual 6,rrol';ift
but 21, the amount involved being so very colls'-e 01; it
a larger transaction, indeed, than had ever been 501
before in the case of a single vessel. Defendant
Mr. Boyd, " I will go and tell Mr. Baines (wititj ,g
tbq
appeared, he had been previously negotiating) mki/
cannot have the ship, and will be back with you 5
minutes." Messrs. Baines and Mackay, during th
view, offered the defendant £6O more than the 40 44
agreed upon by him with Messrs. Millers and:Th es
and this induced him to break his bargain with Vlir
Millers and Thompson, and to insist also that 10109
to pay the commission to Messrs. Pearce. The P„ Nl4ll
indignant, immediately sent the defendant a lette';l4
him that they did not understand his conduct,
they should insist upon their commission, and Ivo , 0
'vindicate that claim that the present action weepolie"
Evidence was a(guced. The jury returned a v"
the plaintiff, ttB7 10s. 3f' ti
RIGUT TO CLOSE UP A DlTCH.—Wilitthrea.".,:eter
--
zie and Another. This action was brought to t 152
the right of the plaintiffs to close up a ditch to t"iose;PP,
which the plaintiff's claimed a right and the of
which, by the defendants, (through the building. a 1
forming portion of the premises of the Licensed ter VOI
Association,) was alleged to have diverted the we.oPild
damage of a bowling-green, belonging to the plaint 1
keeper of the Derby Hotel. The whole
and questio,"
upon a point of law, after it had proceeded "'"
time, an arrangement was come to between the
each paying their own costs. elli
LIABILITY FOR GOODS.—Thomas v. Baxter.—„'„pry
was brought to recover £59 16s. 11d. for goods °la thetri
plaintiff, a tailor and draper in this town, v!'„. fel 0
who is master and part owner of the brir,iie,
order. The goods were sto.'„P'sah,,ti
the defendant, being about,„`ireall,-11
`he plaintiff's shop, and 'tile
name of Young, who soswlie','lo,4
el in question, and t° faril,
goods, subsequently
vegan 0 9'
,ndant himself and s,etato•
liability hi

and to others on

the year 1852, wh
California, called at t
to him a person of thi

pal owner of the yes
plaintiff supplied th

oemect the
jui, for the plaintiff. Ire V. freii
VIOLATION OF A CIIA..IITER-PARTY.—JUnC"-rj,ic' r
—The plaintiff, a German merchant, residing in fore °tV
sued the defendant, a ship and insurance brokers fork:
residing in Liverpool, but now living in Lono)d'ast
violation of a charter-party, by which the defetlooperAtor,
tracted to load, within a specified' time, a schl Dr„it,
John, belonging to the plaintiff. The defendo $lPlO6'
tamed some goods for the vessel from various .es
and had put them on board, but so long a tin3e
.ortV
pied that the limit of time allowed in the charted
loading had expired, and a considerable sum linier.
etc
incurred for demurrage, at the rate of £6 Per tile
plaintiff remonstrated with the defendant for t lit
but the latter said he could not avoid it, and tla'et'hittie
he should be glad to be relieved from he
offered £lOO to the plaintiff if the latter wow' TiOtv-
release, and he also proposed that the plaintiff '5 ce tY
his (the defendant's) acceptance for the .dilfere; 0`
.
freight which the vessel might actually „3 '„e "01
charter party (050). Both these offers, hove' cingofoi
fendant rejected, and the goods on board 1,3 two
returned to the various shippers, with the eoe.1;,(1D11900 1
or two lots, the plaintiff re-chartered the vessel, ele
his action to recover £950, the demurrage, sOl tileodpi
expenses incurred by reason of the detention °lid
lot,'
in Loudon ere she was ready to be destot.er ft°,11(:0,
another charter. The defence was that so it! lestpla
delay being attributable to the defendant, tll,
not in a condition to load, through the fault (,),-
tiff. The demurrage was covered by a setPiP 41,
defendant had, amounting to about £7O, will'ed 111'0
rage amounted to only £53. The jury returntrot,
for the plaintiff—damages, for breach of C.
Verdict for the defendant on the plea of set-o,'
The court rose shortly after seven o'clock-
(Continued in our last page.)
wa

found a verd

EAST LANCASHIRE RAILWAY.—At a ul„ 07,
-
East Lancashire Railway proprietors, at 'xi the
nesday, a dividend of 31 per cent, per annura:afteoti6
up capital was agreed to. The meeting Ir` he Pre
adjourned to the 25th of September, when tA
Yc
of an amalgamation with the Lancashire an' c eti°,l
11
Company will be agreed on. taejj
• GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.—The was
of the Great Western Railway shareholdel tiled r
Bristol on Thursday. Though the increaa,e mdividece die
was announced to be highly satisfactory, toe,equealrg
only be 11 per cent. on the half-year, ooc
sum of £BO,OOO having to be paid to one of
burr companies sovuer than wag anticiPalc"