The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-08 00:00:00

under the direction of his lordship', gave g verdici to the
plaintiff to the full amount stated, with costs.

MAWDSLEY V

JOHNSON

The plaintiff is a plumber, glazier, and at the time also
an ironmonger, in Southport, and sought to recover from the
defendant, a bookseller there, the sum of £7 10s. 6d.,
being the balance of an account originally of £36 10s. 6d.,
for a new shop window, in Southport, certain articles of
hardware, tin, glazing, painting, &c. &c. Two witnesses,
sons of the plaintiff, spoke to the items in the bill—many of
them amounting to only a few coppers.
Mr. Martin and another appearing for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Oatson for the defendant, who is a bookseller in South-
port.' The principal question. that arose was the quantity of
glass supplied, and the price, and on this point there were
some discrepancies it the evidence. The defendant had paid
£9 into court. The weight of the lead was also disputed.
After a tedious and uninteresting trial, which occupied the
court about five hours, the jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff,—debt £l5 I Is. 7d., reduced by the £9 paid into
court to £6 Ils. 7d..—items to the amount of £1 ss. 11d.
being taken off.

BATES V. O'CONNOR

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Joseph
Bates, of the firm of Bates, Son, and Co., merchants, in this
town, to recover from the plaintiff, Mr. J. W. O'Connor. a
wine merchant, residing in Duke-street, the sum of £2O Os. 7d.
It appeared that the defendant had, on several occasions
within the last few years, consigned certain quantities of
wine to the plaintiff, to sell in Calcutta and Bombay, and
on which he had, from time to time, received considerable
sums of money in advance. The plaintiff had also consider-
able dealings with Messrs. Parkin and Co., glass and bottle
manufacturers, of St. Helen's, who also did business with
the defendant, to whom they had become indebted by over-
dravting in the sum of £49 15s. 3d. In order to a settle-
ment of this last account, the defendant and Mr. Parkins,
(who did not now carry on the business in which he had
been engaged, he having been proceeded against for a
considerable sum claimed by the excise,) went to the plaintiff's
office, and there Parkin gave an order to the head clerk for
the amount stated, to be placed to the debit of Parkin, and
to the credit of the defendant. At this time the defendant
was indebted to the plaintiff, in the sum of £25 Os. 7d., be-
ing the shipping charges in his last consignment of wines for
a foreign market ; and he was subsequently, and repeatedly
asked for this amount, but expressed his astonishment that
he should be required to pay it after having given the order,
which he seemed to consider as an off-set. The clerk, how-
ever, stated at the time that he was uncertain as to how Par-
kin's account would turn out ; and it appeared that Messrs.
Bates had heard some rumours relative to his solvency. He
stated that he would receive the order contingently, and that
if there was a final surplus on Parkin's account, he would
consider it (the order) as good and valid. In the result, how-
ever, Parkin was left considerably in Bates's debt. The de-
fendant had previously tendered, in payment of the shipping
charges which were past due, a bill of exchange for £2O, and
a £5 Bank of England note. Mr. Bates accepted of the
£5 note, but refused the bill, as being worthless. This
payment of £5 reduced Messrs. Bates's claim to the sum
sought, £2O Os. 7d. A balance afterwards became due to
the defendant of about £BO on his last consignment, when
the account sales was received from India; and the question
arose whether it was customary for Messrs. Bates to settle
up or balance the amount on each separate consignment with
the party consigning goods to their care ; and it was con-
tended for the defendant, that the £49 13s. 3d. (the amount
of the order) should have gone to his credit as regarded the
last consignment, and that the order was so worded. It ap-
peared, however, that the wording of the order referred to
shipments generally—not to any particular or individual
shipment—and that it had been placed to the credit of his
general account, contingently, it was understood, on the pro-
ceeds of Parkin's account. The case lasted for some hours,
but no points of interest, beyond those stated, were elicited.
Mr. WATSON ably supported the case of the plaintiff, and
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY that of the defendant. The JUDGE
eventually brought the case to a close by stating his opinion
that all further defence. after what had been sworn to, was
fruitless on the part of Mr. Murphy, who, of course, gave in,
and the jury, after expressing themselves to be unanimously
of his lordship's opinion, gave a verdict for the plaintiff to
the full amount--damages £2O Os. 7d.