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

On this evidence, the prisoner, at
direction, was acquitted.
The court rose at twenty min

es to eight o'clock

This morning at nine o'clock the char,,
Horner, of the ship Mangerstein, will b
after which the case against Capta?
taken. Captain Breck is charged with shoo
seamen on beard his vessel in the Cann'

against Capt.

n Josepli Ere

g Dock basin

NISI PRIUS COURT.—TUESDAY
[Before Mr. Justice Crowder.]

In LOMAS v. HIGGINs, a disputed joiner's claim, a verdict
was returned for the defendant.

ACTION FOR MisrAss.—ln Worthington v. Wrig

brought by the tenant of a cottage and garden, at Ss;iff:
ton, to recover damages for trespass, a verdict was re-
turned for the plaintiff. Amount, £l5, and 40s. costs.
QUESTION OF CREDlT.—Meadows and another v.

Brown.—The plaintiffs, Messrs. Meadows and Bibby,
dealers in lime, flags, and building materials, in Manches-
ter, broughtthis action against Mr. William Duncan Brown,
a builder, to recover £137, the amount alleged to be due
to them for building materials, lime, &c., supplied for some
buildings erected by the defendant between May and De
cember of last year, in Waterloo-road, Strangeways. A
person named Tebbutt owned the land upon which the
buildings were erected, and the question for the jury was,
whether, admitting Mr. Tebbutt's responsibility in some
measure as to Brown's character and proceedings, the de-
fendant had not incurred the whole responsibility for pay-
ment of the amount due for the goods supplied as abave.
The invoices and receipts which had been made out during
the period over which the transactions between the plain-
tiffs and the defendant extended were produced. Evidence
was adduced, and from this it appeared that double entries
were made by the plaintiffs, and that, though they had
debited Mr. Tebbutt for the purposes of guarantee, they
had debited the defendant directly in all cases with the
goods. Verdict for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed.

VIOLENT EJECTMENT AND ASSAULT.—TayIor v. Myers-
cough and others.—This was an action brought by Mr.
John Taylor, a cotton-spinner, at Tentercroft, near Roch-
dale, against cotton-waste dealer and a number of other
persons, who, on the 21st of April, took possession, by
violence, of certain premises in Rochdale, used previously
by the plaintiff's brother for manufacturing purposes, but
which had been forfeited to the plaintiff by the brothers
failing to pay certain liabilities. The defendants not only
took possession of the premises, but assaulted the plaintiff,
andended the transaction by selling the machinery, &c. in
the rooms. The plaintiff had brought his action for com-
pensation. The defence was, that Myerscough had a prior
claim upon the goods and premises of Edward Taylor,
(plaintiffs brother) by reason of a deed of mortgage, nem-

led in February last ; and by which, in consideration of
various sums lent to,Taylor, the latter conveyed the whole
of his interest in the. two rooms, and the goods and ma-
chinery which they contained. An offer on the part of the
plaintiffs to withdraw a juror was accepted.
LlBEL.—Rogers v. Bedale.—Mr. Atherton, Q.C., and
Mr. Mauesty were for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Sowler for
defendant. The plaintiff, who was stated to be a gentle-
man, and the owner of considerable property in Manches-
ter, sued for damages in consequence of a libel which the
defendant, who described himself as " the celebrated" Dr.
Bedale, had published, to the injury of the plaintiff's
characterin the eyes of his tenants, and the public generally.
The plaintiffs case was that, at the time of the libel com-
plained of, on the 29th of last December, he was the land-
lord of the defendant, who occupied a house under him in
Hanover-street, in Manchester. The holding commenced
from the Midsummer of 1836, and the tenancy was to ex-
pire in June 1853. Mr. Rogers, however, allowed the de-
fendant to remain in the house until June last, giving him
notice to quit at Christmas. The defendant at Christmas
was in arrear with his rent, and when applied to, refused
to pay it. Mr. Rogers then pat in a distress warrant,
which seemed to have irritated the defendant to put up in
his window a placard, bearing the following words "Caution to all lir. Rogers' tenants —Mr. Thomas Rogers,
the owner of this property, has sent his bailiffs to one of
his tenants, because the quarter's rent was not paid with-
in four days after
_it
_was due. It is supposed that his

poverty has compelled him to the above fiendish act, as this
and the adjoining houses were mortgaged for £1,000."
This was, no doubt, calcuiatedGo annoy Mr. Rogers ex-
ceedingly, and through defendant having thought proper
to issue this libel, and au opportunity having been given
to retract it, which he had refused to do, the plaintiff was
compelled to come there and ask for such a moderate
amount of damages as would relieve him of the expenses of
that litigation, which had been caused by the malicious
act of the defendant. After a very short de
jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages one

ation, the

farthing

WEDNESDAY.
ILLEGAL DISTEAINT.—FIetcher v. Hurst,
action on an alleged illegal distraint. _ The

This was

Inly clues

to be decided was the validity of a deed

ssignment