The Press. — 1856-08-16 (London, England)

COCKBURN. A CURIOUS ACTION FOR COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL INJURY Was tried before Mr. Baron Bramwell, at Liverpool, on Tuesday. The case lay between a  SATURDAY,  tailor named Scott and the Corporation of Man cheater, and the details were as follows :—Some alterations being made in the gas-pipes of one of the streets of Manchester in November last, the pipta were taken up and "broken" on the spot in the ordinary way, by chisel and hammer. On the occasion in question, when the defendants' men were thus engaged, the plaintiff was walking down the stret t, and on passing the spot where the workmen w€re breaking the gas-pipes a splinter of iron flew off and struck him in the eye, causing him intense agony, and the result was that he lost one eye and was in much danger of losing the other. He had formerly made 001. or 701. a year as a working tailor, but was now incapacitated from following that occupation. For the plaintiff it was contended that it was the defendants' duty so to have done the work as to prevent the possibility of splinters flying, and that it was customary in such cases to put up a board or canvas as a screen. The defendants pleaded that they acted under the provisions of the Local Improvement Act, and employed persons of competent skill to perform the work, and interfered in no other way. They called witnesses to show that the work had been done in the proper and ordinary manner. Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 4001.  MR. JAMES SADIEIR'S arrest warrant and bill of indictment found against him have just been published, in addition to previous papers. The paper commences with a copy of the information of William Kelly and that of Austin Ferrall. A copy of the bench warrant of the Lords Justices of Assize of the Leicester Circuit follows, authorising and ordering the apprehension of the body of James Sadleir, as accused of conspiracy (with the late John Sadleir, the suicide) to cheat and defraud the English shareholders and depositors of large sums of their money by false pretences. Then comes a copy of the indictment, which contains eight count', and on which a true bill has been found by the grand jury.  AN INTERESTING POINT OF THE COMMERCIAL LAW IN AUSTRALIA has been laid down by a judgment of the Insolvency Court of New South Wales. An application was made to the Chief Commissioner in the insolvent estate of (1. C. Tuting and Co., to allow the sum of 6,175!. 3s. 4d. to be ranked against the said estate as a debt alleged to be due by them to the firm of Copestake, Moore, and Co., of London, for goods sold and delivered. It was contended by the counsel for Messrs. Copestoke, Moors, and Co., that the insolvents by their subsequent conduct and dealings clearly adopted the original contract, and were, therefore, liable for payment of the original debt. The learned commissioner, in an elaborate judgment, reviewed the evidence, and concluded as follows :  Looking at all the circumstances of this case, and seeing that the authorities referred to establish the principle " that in order to convert a separate into a joint debt there must be the deliberate and mutual assent of three parties," and being unable to discover that assent here, I am of opinion that I ought not to allow this claim to be ranked as a debt against the estate of Tuting and Co., and [ therefore reject it accordingly. SIR GEORGE GREY'S reply to a memorial in favour of the late prisoner Murdoch, has been published this week. The Home Secretary declines to interfere, and says— It would be very hazardous to admit that, when personal injury dangerous to life is inflicted, in order to carry out a purpose illegal and dangerous in itself, the absence of an intention to commit murder " as the primary object," is sufficient to exempt the criminal from the penalty of the crime.  THE SHAM SEWER PLATE AUCTIONS, SO common about London, occasionally succeed in catching a "griffin" of the feminine sex. On Monday a handsome, welt dressed lady entered Marlborough-street Police-court, and begged advice from Mr. Bingham. She said that last week she went into a shop in the City where an auction was being held, and, believing the sales to be bona fide, she was induced to make purchases of plated dish covers and other expensive articles to the amount of 601. She paid a deposit of 10/. and left her address where the purchases were to be sent and the balance paid. The next day the articles came, with a bill making the purchases amount to 1001., and this was effected by putting down 101. where the article was knocked down to her for 71., and so on. She was satisfied of the additions that had been made to the prices because she had put down the figures at the time, and her servant was with her, who could also speak to the same fact. She remonstrated against this imposition, and she was told the matter could easily be rectified ; but as she found the mode of proceeding was to be by taking away goods so as to reduce the amount to 601., she refused to have any further dealings with the auction people, and preferred to come to this court to know if there were any means by which she could get back her 10/. deposit. In reply to Mr. I3ingbam the lady admitted she bad only just come from Australia, and had 2,000/. a ye of her own to spend. Mr. Bingham then advised her to consult her solicitor.