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

NISI PRIUS.-TUESDAY

Mr. Justic MAULS took his seat on .the bencl; at nine
o'clock. Mr. Brandt applied to have No. 27. A
Holyland, which had been struck out the previoPuisnaldia }v,
restored, and his lordship consented, on condition that
it
was an undefended cause. It was then called for, and the
jury immediately returned a verdict of £3B ss. 3d. for the
plaintiff.
FURIOUS DI IVING•—SFIEPHERD V. BRIGGS.
This case was struck out on Wednesday, but restored on
condition of its being undefended. The plaintiff is a mane_
facturer at Manchester, and the defendant is the owner of a
coach running between Blackburn and Bolton. On the sth
of July, 1841, the plaintiff was a passenger by the defendant's
coach, which drove furiously in order to pass another vehi.
cle. The consequence was, that the coach was upset, and
the plaintiff had his leg broken and his ankle dislocated.
He was confined at home for twelve weeks, and was still lamp,
but the surgeon said his lameness would not be permanent
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £4O.

CONVERSION.—HARDY V. BLACKOR.
This was an action in trover, charging the defendant with
the conversion of certain goods and chattels of the plaintiff.
The defendant pleaded not guilty, and also that they were
not the goods and chattles of the plaintiff. The plaintiff,
William Hardy, was formerly a cart-porter in Hall's build-
ings, Manchester; he gave up business in May last ; and
then an assistant of his, named Buxton, removed his goods,
but in the next month sold the cart and other goods, geer-
ing, &e. to the defendant (with another cart), for X. 9 10s• ;
and this action was brought to recover their value, which
was alleged to amount to £22 18s. Some buckets, mash
tubs, &c. were kicked up in a stable, which Buxton broke
open; took them away, and sold them.—Mr. Martin, for the
defendant, contended that this was an attempt on the part
of the plaintiff to get back, by means of his own family (the
witnesses in the cause), the money paid by the defendant to
Buxton ; the plaintiff having previously sold the goods in
question to Buxton, in the same manner as he had sold other
goods to other persons. Buxton, it appeared, had since gone
to America.—The Judge, in summing up the evidence, ob-
served on the device practised by the plaintiff, who apparently
in apprehension that an action pending between Mr, George
Panting (late his employer) and himself, might terminate
against him, !had the name of his son, " William Hardy,
jun." put on his own carts, the intention being (said his
lordship) doubtless to cheat somebody.—The jury, after
some consultation, found for the plaintiff, on the plea of not
guilty, and for the defendant on the second issue, for conver-
sion, being substantially a verdict for the defendant.

The case No. 49, Bamford v. Mather, which had been
struck out on Monday, and restored this morning, was again
called; and as Mr. Ilalsall, the plaintiff's attorney, did not
answer; and as Mr. Wilkins, the plaintiff's counsel, sent
word he was busy in the Crown Court, the case was again
struck out. In No. 51, Joule v. Hardy, no one answered
for the plaintiff ; and, as the defendant's counsel was ready
with his case, the plaintiff was nonsuited.

TRESPASS.-CROSS V. SKELLORN

In this case Mr. Watson appeared for the plaintiff; and
Mr. Dundas, with whom was Mr. Sergeant Murphy, for the
defendant. The declaration was in trespass, and it contained
five counts, which, with the replications, were somewhat
complicated. On the part of the plaintiff it appeared, that
the plaintiff is a schoolmaster, residing in a house belonging
to the defendant, who is an attorney, at a place called Horse-
edge, in Oldham. The rent of the house was £lO a-year,
and the adjoining house also belonged to the defendant. The
defendant wished to have the two houses united, but the
plaintiff was not willing, and the defendant thereupon began
to make a great many alterations against his consent, and it
was to recover compensation for these alleged trespasses that
the present action was brought. On the part of the defendant
it was contended, and evidence to that effect was produced,
that Mr. Skellorn had committed the alleged trespass with
the plaintiff's leave and license ; that the yearly tenancy was
done away with, and a weekly one substituted when the
alterations were made, and that an agreement was made
between the parties that they should be made, but, as soon
as the defendant began with them, the plaintiff turned round,
and would not give up possession till lie had been paid £2O.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £5.

LIABILITY OF EXECUTORS.-ALSOP V. CLEGG AND

OTH ERS

The plaintiff in this case is a grocer in Manchester, and
the defendants are the executors of the late William Clegg,
who carried on an extensive business as a cotton spinner at
Prestwich, a few miles from Manchester. The action was
brought to recover £BO, the balance of account due for gro-
cery goods sold and delivered, between August, 1839, and
March, 1840. The question was whether the defendants, as
executors of the late William Clegg, were liable for this
amount, because William Clegg did not purchase them in
his own name, but in the name of Hannah Saul. About
1000 hands were employed in the mill, and there was a pro-
vision shop adjoining, kept by a man of the name of John
Garside, a brother-in-law of William Clegg. Garside died
in 1836, leaving William Clegg his executor ; and the ques-
tion was, whether at that period William Clegg, seeing the
profits the provision shop would prove to his mill, did not
carry on the provision business, not under his own name,
but under the name of his wife's sister, Hannah Saul, who
acted as his housekeeper. William Clegg died in March,
1840, and at that time there was due to the plaintiff the
amount which he now sought to recover. The plaintiffs, as
Clegg's executors, refused to pay it.
Mr. DUNDAS, who appeared for the plaintiff, said, he
should be able to prove that Hannah Saul took no part what-
ever in the management of the shop, that she neither paid
nor received, but that the late AN illiam Clegg used to give
orders and pay money, and that his sons and nephews had
done the same. He should, moreover. prove that William
Clegg bad appointed servants, and that the present plaintiff
had paid a bill against the shop of £BOO from a Mr. Frost.
Mr. Dundas, having opened the case, proceeded to call
witnesses ; but before the case was finished, the Court ad-
journed.

CROWN COURT.—WEDNESDAY.
The learned Judge entered the court a few minutes after
nine.