The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-02-11 00:00:00

COURT OF PASSAGE

The Court of Passage for the trial of causes within the
borough of Liverpool commenced yesterday, before Charles
Crompton, Esq., Assessor. The cause list was unusually full.
It contained 5 demurrers, 71 issues, 9 writs of trial, and 2
enquiries before the Town-clerk. The following are the most
important cases which were beard yesterday :

ACTION AGAINST AN ATTORNEY

DRAPER V. JONES.—The plaintiff in this case is a poor
widow, named Isabella Draper, and the defendant is John
Griffiths Jones, an attorney, whose office, at the time the
action was commenced, was i❑ Redcross-street. The action
was brought to recover the sum of £2. 12s. 6d., the amount
of monies the defendant had received on behalf of the plain-
tiff whilst acting as her attorney.
Mr. JAMES appeared for the plaintiff; the defendant did
not appear. _ _

Mr. JAmxs, after stating the case, called a witness, who
proved that, by the desire of the plaintiff, he instructed the
defendant to recover for her a debt of £2. 12s. 6d., which he
did. The witness called upon the defendant many times
afterwards, and the last time he admitted having received the
money, and said that if the witness would go to Mrs. Brook's
public-house, in Dale-street, and there wait for him, he
would bring the money. The witness went there as he was
desired, and waited till eight o'clock at night, but the de-
fendant did not come, nor had he since paid the money.
The ASSESSOR left it to the jury whether there was any
doubt in the case.

The jury immediately returned a verdict for £2. 12s. Gd.
The ASSESSOR, in directing the verdict to be recorded,
said, it was most disgraceful for an attorney to receive money
on behalf of a client, and not pay it over.

IMPORTANT TO OWNERS OF LODGINGS.
CHAPLIN v. BERTINCHAMP.—The declaration in this
case stated that the defendant had agreed to take certain
lodgings from the plaintiff as a yearly tenant, and that he had
had them to his use and enjoyment, but that he had left them
contrary to agreement, whereby the plaintiff had suffered
damage to the amount of £8 Bs., which he now sought to
recover. _ _ . _ _

._.....
Mr. lIENDERSON appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
BLACKBU RN E for the defendant.
Mr. HENDERSON, in opening the case, said the plaintiff
was a master mariner, who had a house in Islington, and the
defendant was George John Bertinchamp, a French teacher
in this town. The plaintiff was accustomed to let off a part
of his house in lodgings ; and in July last he left his sister-
in-law in charge of his house whilst he went to Scotland,
with authority to let the lodgings if she could. Among the
many disadvantages which single men had they had one ad-
vantage, which was, that when they offered themselves as
tenants for lodgings they were considered more desirable than
married men. On this occasion Mrs. Mottley, the plaintiff's
sister-in-law, was anxious to secure a single gentleman as a
lodger, but failed, but she secured Mr. Bertinchamp, who
waited upon her, and she agreed to accept him nothwith-
standing his being married. This, however, was not done
without some arrangement. Mr. Bertinchamp had to
make terms upon which he could be admitted ; and the
whole question would be now what the contract was upon
which he entered the premises. As he (Mr. Henderson)
understood the inducement the defendant held out was that
he would become a yearly tenant, and upon that contract the
lodgings were let. He should call Mrs. Mottley before the
jury, and she would prove that the agreement was to take
the lodgings for a year, but that the rent was to be payable
week by week, at the rate of a guinea a week. Before, how-
ever,• the defendant entered upon the lodgings, it seems
there was some mistake about the time ; and his wife sent
a note, which the defendant delivered himself, stating that
they could not come so soon as they intended, and that they
wished to make arrangements to pay from the day that they
entered. He would read the note which had been written
by Mrs. Bertinchamp, and brought by the defendant, to Mrs.
Mottley :
" Mrs. Bertinchamp presents her compliments to Mrs.
Mottley, and regrets to say that in consequence of a mistake
in the date of the notice, the people here insist on Mr. Ber-
tinchamp paying rent until next Monday. Mr. and Mrs.
Bertinchamp hope that in consequence of becoming yearly
lodgers, Mrs. Mottley will not charge them rent for this
week, as they will be with, her next Monday, please God,
without fail. An answer will oblige.
" 47, Stafford-street, Monday Evening."
Soon after this they went to the lodgings, and continued to
occupy them for a considerable time. They then removed,
and, in fact, left the house. Now, this they had no right to
do, for he (the learned counsel) should prove such a contract
as the defendant could not get rid of, and which would entitle
the plaintiff to recover all the rent claimed, unless Mr. Ber-
tinchamp waa able to shew some reasonable arrangement for
giving up the premises in the summary way in which he did.
Mrs. Ellen Mottley was then called. She said she was
sister-in-law to .the plaintiff, Mr. William Chaplin, with
whom she resided, at his house in Islington. In July last,
the plaintiff and his family went into Scotland, leaving wit-
ness in charge of the house, with instructions to let part of
it, and she placed a card in the window, on which was printed
the word " Apartments." The defendant, Bertinchamp,
and his wife repeatedly called to see the apartments, and
in the end? she made an agreement to let the lodgings
to them for one year at the rate of a guinea per week.
The agreement was not in writing. They were to come
on the ith or Bth of August ; but the same day the
defendant came with the note to witness from Mrs. Bertin-
champ, which the learned counsel had read. The defendant
desired witness to send an answer to it, and she was about to
do so when Mrs.•Bertinchattip herself called, and witness told
' her that she had read her note, and that she would not charge
them for the lodgings that week, as they were yearly lodgers.
They came to the lodgings on the 14th of August.
Cross-examined by Mr. BLACKBURN E.—The defendant
and his wife left the lodgings on the 14th of October, and
they had never been since, nor had the lodgings been let.
They had paid the rent weekly up to the 16th Octoher regu-
larly.
The note from the defendant's wife was then put in and
read. This closed the plaintiff's case.
Mr. BLACKBURNE said he would take the opinion of the
court upon one point. On looking over the particulars of the
plaintiff's demand, he found that there was a letting from
the 16th October to the 11th December, 1841 ' • but the ques•
tion was whether, during that Ole, there had been any use
and occupation.
The ASSESSOR said there had been a holding. What en-
joyment there had been he did not know, but there certainly
was a holding.
, . Mr. BLACKBURNE then addressed the jury on behalf of
the defendant. After the opinion of the assessor, the only
question for the jury was, whether the defendant was a yearly
tenant or a tenant from week to week. If he was a tenant
from week, to week, he was certainly liable. , The witness
who had been called had told her story very fairly, and it
was quite idle to pretend to say the jury would not believe
that she was speaking the truth. , The account of the con-
versation which had taken place between them, was much
the same thing as the note from the defendant's wife, and as
the defendant carried that note himself to the witness, it
must clearly be considered as his own note. It was, how-
ever, entirely for the jury to say whether the defendant was
a yearly or a weekly tenant.

The AssEssol, in directing the jury, said he should think
him a very singular minded man who would say, after the
conversation with Mrs. Mottley, and the note from the de-
fendant's wife, that they had not become yearly tenants.
First, there was evidence that such an agreement, for a yearly
tenancy, was made, and then there was the note confirming
it: but if the jury had any doubt that there was such a con-
tract, they would say so.
The jury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
Damages £8 Bs.

ILLEGAL DISTRAINT-HANNAN V. JAMES AND OTHERS

This was an action of trespass, in which the plaintiff
claimed compensation, in damages, for an alleged illegal dis-
traint, made under the circumstances detailed below. The de-
fendants pleaded the general issue as to the first count of the
declaration ; and as to the second, that, at the time the dis-
traint was made, certain rents were in arrear. Mr. James
appeared for the plaintiff. None of the defendants were re-
presented by counsel.
Mr. JAMES said this action was brought by Mr. William
Hannan, of this town, against William Jones, James Bittle,
James Rain, James Cassidy, Edward James, and Jonathan
Ballantyne ; and he thought that, before the case came to a
conclusion, the jury would be of opinion that it was one of
the most vexatious and unjustifiable that had ever come
within their knowledge. The defendants, however, had, to
some extent, atoned for their actions by not coming into
court to defend their conduct. The circumstances were
these :---Some time in the course of last year the plaintiff
took a public-house in the neighbourhood of No 1 Graving
Dock, from Messrs. Sharp, brewers, who had themselves
taken the premises from the defendant James, at the yearly
rent of £l2O. He understood that it was a common prac-
tice for brewers themselves to take public-houses, and sub-let
them to other parties, because by this means they secured
the privilege of supplying the house with their own article.
Such was the case here : Messrs. Sharp themselves were liable
for the rent to the defendant James, and the plaintiff was to pay
rent to Messrs. Sharp. On the 19th November last, three
of the defendants, Jones, Bittle, and Cassidy, went to the
house occupied by the plaintiff, alleging they had been sent
by James, to effect a distraint upon account of certain rents
then due. Mr. Hannan himself was not in the way at the
time, but the bailiffs were prevailed upon not to remove the
goods till be returned. On his return he sent Jones to
Messrs. Sharp, to know the reason why the distress had been
put into the house, inasmuch as no rent was due from him.
Jones returned saying he had not been able to do anything
with Messrs. Sharp. Mr. Hannan then begged that the
bailiffs would not execute the distress till he had seen Messrs.
Sharp himself, and endeavoured to make some arrangement.
Jones and the other bailiffs promised.that nothing should be
done in the mean time ; but no sooner had Mr. Hannan left
for that purpose than a cart came up, brought by The defen-

dant Cassidy ; a crow-bar was procured, and they not only
gutted the house of all the articles of furniture and wearing
apparel, but they took away whatever fixtures there were.
In fact, they left the house a mere shell. During the course
of this proceeding, full information was given to the defen-
dants that they had no right to do so, as the rent had been
paid by Messrs. Sharp, and that if they persisted Messrs.
Sharp would proceed against them to the utmost extremity
of the law. Notwithstanding this they continued to carry
off the furniture. Whilst they were taking the fixtures down
they were warned that they had no right to remove them,
but they persisted till they rendered the place almost value-
less. It was to recover compensation for these wrongs that
the plaintiff had brought the present action. The goods,
after being placed in the cart, were traced to the shop of the
defendant Ballantyne, the keeper of an auction-room in
Tithebarn-street, where they were sold. When he bad proved
these facts, the learned counsel said, he should be entitled to
the verdict of the jury for double the value of the goods
taken under the alleged distress for rent due, the value of
the fixtures taken, as there was a distinct wrong in taking
them, and to compensation for the ti.evass.
Anna Cousins, sister-in-law of the plaintiff, proved the
tenancy of the plaintiff under Messrs. Sharp, and minutely
stated all the circumstances of the distraint as opened by Mr.
James. The plaintiff was obliged to leave the house in con-
sequence of it. Considerable business was done there.
Andrew Cooper, a joiner, and Thomas Blackburn, a brass-
founder, proved the value of the property taken. The house-
hold goods were worth £2O, the fixtures £B, and a beer ma-
chine £lO.

Mr. John Patterson, a commercial traveller, was the nest
witness called. He said, that a week after the distraint he
called upon the defendant James, to ask him why he had sent
the bailiffs into the house. His reply was, that lie had done
so because lie could not get his rent; that he was very sorry
for Hannan, but that he had told Messrs. Sharp, whom he
had often called upon for it, that if the rent was not paid, he
should send for it in another way, and that the plaintiff knew
all about it.

Mr. JAMES then put in a receipt for £3O, signed " Edward
James," which said—" 3d August, 1841, received the sum
of £3O from Messrs. A. and J. Sharp, being one quarter's
rent, due in advance, of the public-house No. 1 Graving Dock,
due 3d November, 1841."
The ASSESSOR remarked that if the rent was due in ad-
vance, there would be another quarter due on the 3d Novem-
ber ; and this distraint was not made till the 19th.
Mr. JAMES put in a previous receipt, in which no mention
was made of " due in advance," and also the original agree-
ment to let and take the house between the defendant James
and Mesrs. Sharp, dated April, 1841. This closed the case.
The ASSESSOR, in summing up, read the agreement to the
jury. He stated that the house was taken on the 3d April at
the yearly rent of £l2O, the first quarter's rent not to be paid
till August. This would seem to contradict the notion that
the rent was due in advance ; and the agreement having been
only made in April, it was not likely that any subsequent
one had been entered into. The simple question for the
determination of the jury was—whether the rent was or was
not payable in advance. There was no case against the de-
fendant Ballantyne.
The Jury, after a few minutes' consideration, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—for the furniture taken, no rent being
due, £4O (being double the value), for the fixtures £lB, and
for the trespass £3O, total damages £BB.