The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1855-08-21 00:00:00

YESTERDAY.

Mr. Baron Platt took his seat at ten o'clock.
BlGAMY.—Catherine Goodman being placed at the bar on
a charge of bigamy, was asked by the judge, who prosecuted ?
Prisoner : " I don't know."—The Judge : " Is it your first
husband ?" Prisoner : " I don't know."—lnspector Hall
stated that the first husband called upon him, and proved his
statement. The prisoner had been given into his custody at
Bacup, on a charge of bigamy.—His Lordship : Well, none
of the witnesses being present, I shall consider what is to be
done. The prisoner was then removed.
MANSLAUGHTER IN LIVERPOOL.—John Crosby, aged 40,
a tinman, was charged with the manslaughter of Patrick
M`Daniel on the Bth of June last.—Alice Kenworthy, house-
keeper to Mr. Moss, publican, at the corner of Crosshall-
street and Fontenoy-street, stated that the prisoner was in
her master's house on the Bth of June, and. Ellen M'Donough
abusing him : witness ordered the female out, and the
prisoner accompanied her ; but a short time afterwaads he
came in again with a long weapon in his hand, accompanied
by another man. They went into a snug, and a person
named M`Donough came in shortly afterwards. The woman
who had been put out continued to be very angry, and came
in again, using very provoking language to the prisoner. Her
friends sided with her, and witness ordered them out.--
Ellen M`Donough said, the deceased's name was Patrick
M`Daniel ; he was her brother. The prisoner and
her brother were sitting together on a form ; she never had an
angry word with the prisoner in her life. When she went in,
her brother asked her to give him a glass of rum ; she refused,
saying you are drinking with your enemy. Her reason for
this was, that a short time before this the prisoner beat her
husband so, that he had to be taken to the hospital.—[His
Lordship informed the witness that her bad tongue had evi-
dently been the cause of all this mischief.] They brought in a
soldering iron, and the son of the prisoner struck the deceased
with a hammer. There were several blows struck by the son, but
the witness's brother, her son, and her husband, who were
Irish, never struck a blow. They then turned upon witness
and struck her on the top of the head, which was dressed in
the hospital. The parties after this went away. Her brother,
who had been knocked down by the blow of the iron, was
taken to the hospital. In cross-examination the witness said
I the prisoner's son was a tinker, and witness was a tinker's
wife, living in Preston-street.—His Lordship : Then you were
peaceable altogether.—Witness : Not a word took place.—His
Lordship : Then, if a respectable witness has said that you
were making a disturbance, all she has said is untrue.—Wit-
ness : I told him that I would not give him a glass if my
pocket was full, as he was in the presence of an enemy.—His
Lordship : This is the way that you Irish always go on. You
carry on your private grudges, and, when occasion requires,
you watch your opportunity.—John M`Donough, the husband
of the last witness, remembered going into Moss's, and saw
his brother-in-law, who was talking quite peaceably with the
deceased. He heard his wife refuse to give her brother a glass
upon the ground that he was drinking with his enemy. The
prisoner then went out, and came in with his son, Jim Crosby,
who had a hammer. When they came in, the prisoner John
Crosby struck him on the ear with the iron, which split his
ear. After this, he could not say whether the father or the
I son struck first ; all he saw was his brother-in-law fall dead
1 upon the floor. His wife said nothing, but shouted "murder."
His wife never said a word ; all she said was to her own
brother. His Lordship : Then she was like a lamb as regards
the prisoner.—Witness : She was, my lord ; she never said a
word, but she was put out twice after she saw her brother
lying dead on the floor. The prisoner did not put her out ;
but he gave her a blow, at least he did not, but his son did with
the soldering iron, and then she was taken out.—Denis Car-
roll, police-officer 103, deposed to taking the deceased and the
prisoner out of the house.—Mr. Wall, surgeon of the Northern
Hospital, received the deceased with a wound on the back of
the left side of the skull. The wound was about as large as
you might place your finger in, and about two-thirds of an
inch in depth, such as might be made with a hammer. The
wound was a longitudinal one, and the injury done to the bone
beneath caused the operation of trepanning.—Mr. Wheeler,
for the prisoner, submitted that the whole of the circumstances
of the case had been caused by the conduct of the first witness.
The deceased could not say who had struck first ; but after the
deceased had been taken to the hospital, the surgeon's ..evi-
dence had been taken, and the wound in size, shape, and man-
ner disagreed with the manner in which the blow was said to
have been given with the soldering iron. He ilwit.4.ltho jury
to scrutinize the evidence of the surgeon, for it was upon his
evidence solely that they could come to a -correct decision as
to whether the deceased was struck by the prisoner with the
soldering iron, or by his son with the hammer. The jury,
after some consideration, asked his lordship whether the sur-
geon had not described the wound as a longitudinal wound.
His lordship : Let the surgeon be recalled. Inspector Savage :
He is out of court,—The jury immediately afterwards returned
a verdict of acquittal, and the prisoner was ordered to be dis-
charged.
INCENDIARISH.—James Stephens pleaded guilty to the
charge of incendiarism, on the farm of Mr. Whinnerah, at*
Thornton, near Fleetwood, having set fire to a stack of wheat.
The prisoner afterwards gave the information to the police.
The defence was that the prisoner was in poverty, and that he
had done it for the purpose of being taken into custody. The
prisoner was sentenced to 18 months' hard labour.
ROBBERY AT ST. HELENS.—Mary Holcroft, 23, a charwo-
man in the house of Mr. Thomas Richards, at Sutton, was in-
dicted for stealing £lO 12s. The money was found in the
prisoner's residence, corresponding with the amount which
had been stolen. On the day of the robbery the prisoner went
to the house, and offered to assist the servant, Mary Bate, to
make the beds. She asked the servant to go down stairs for
the clothes brush ; this could not be found, and the servant
was absent about ten minutes. When the servant returned,
the prisoner was in the club-room, and the prisoner said there
was some money in the pockets, and she refused to brush
them. She then left the house. The prisoner was found
guilty, and his lordship considered it was his duty, after the
wicked defence the prisoner had set up, to transport her.
However, he would not allow this to influence him, but he
would sentence her to twelve months' hard labour.
BIGAMY SENTENCES. Catherine Goodman, who was
charged with bigamy, pleaded that she had been mar-
ried to her first husband, and that her husband had
been three years and a half dead ; that he was in the
Crimea; and that she had had one child by him, which
was dead. The knowledge of this was derived from
her neighbours, but it had turned out that he was only
wounded. The prisoner's father was produced, who believed
the husband had been dead when his daughter was married.
His Lordship : the sentence of the court is, that you be sen-
tenced to seven days' imprisonment, and that you be dis-
charged to-day. (The date of the sentence commencing from
the time of the assizes.)—John Mason, who was charged with
the same offence against Mary Flood, in Liverpool, was sen-
tenced to twelve months' hard labour.—John Henry Doran,
smith, Baxter-street, Adlington-street, Liverpool, was in-
dicted for illegally marrying Catherine Sullivan at the Regis-
trars'-office, Islington, in 1841. The registrar's notice was put
in, but his lordship decided that it was no decisive proof.
Bridget Regan, who was present at the registrar's office in
Islington, said, the prisoner was sixteen years of age, but he
had no whiskers, and she could not tell whether he was able
to be married or not : they spent the " honey week " at her
house. Alice Harris, residing with her brother in Comber-
mere-street, said she was married to the prisoner at St.
Michael's Church on the Ist of April, 1853 ; she was not
aware the prisenor was married until three months ago. The
parties lived at Nos. 1 and 12, Combermere-street, Toxteth-
park, and were married at St. Michael's in the Hamlet, in the
parish of Walton. She left him through his ill-treatment.
Mr. Wheeler, for the prisoner, contended that there
was no evidence to prove that the parties were brought to-
gether. The jury found the prisoner guilty. His lordship,
in delivering sentence, observed that the case was a very
aggravated one, and sentenced the prisoner to twelve months'
hard labour.
CHILD-MURDER AT CHORLTON-CUM-HARDY.—Ann Pear-
son, 29, was indicted for having murdered her infant child, at
Mr. Whittle's farm, on the 31st March last. A boy, eleven
years of age, named James Moores, was trundling his hoop,
which went into a ditch, and whilst getting it out, hs found
the body of a child. The boy called the attention of William
Aimes, a police-officer, who took it to the house of Mrs. Bur-
roughs, a mile and a-half from where it was found. He then
went to the prisoner and asked if she had had a child; and the
reply given was that it had died in the Chorlton workhouse.
This the officer declared to be au untruth, as she had left it on the
29th, with her child alive and well. She was then taken to
the Police-station, where she said she had been staying with a
Mrs. Wilde, in Lord-street, Hulme, but no such person could
be found.—Mary Nuttall and Mrs. Cooke, nurses in the Chorl-
ton Workhouse, Mrs. Barrow, Silver-street, Hulme, Mrs.
Pearson, the prisoner's mother, and a man named Pearson,
who buried a child at St. George's Church, Hulme, on the Ist
April, together with Mr. Stephenson, a surgeon residing at
Stretford, and Mr. Golland, of Manchester, were examined for
the prosecution. The jury retired, and, after an absence of
three quarters of an hour, returned a verdict of not guilty.
His lordship intended to have proceeded further (it being
now past nine o'clock,) but the Clerk of the Crown was able
to procure only three jurymen ; a list of about thirty Was called
out, and no answer being given, a fine of. £5 was imposed.
His lordship afterwards relented, and the fine was expunged.
SENTENCE. James Rawsthorrse had pleaded guilty to
two indictments for larceny, at Sutton, after being convicted
of felony. His lordship thought it would be better to tran-
sport the prisoner "at once : it would save a great deal of
trouble. The prisoner had only come out of gaol in April.
He was sentenced to penal servitude for four years.
John Holt pleaded guilty to stealing fowls at Warrington,
after being twice convicted of felony.—The prisoner ; I tell
yo'th' ;truth, my lord, I've got my living by prigging for
the last twenty years.—His Lordship : Then, you would like
to go across, would you ? Yes sir.—His Lordship : Well, I
find ,I am not able to comply with your wishes upon this
indictment, and the court sentences you to four years' penal
servitude.
John Bowen, who pleaded guilty on tbree separate indict-
ments to robbing dwelling-houses in Manchester, Bolton, and
Blackburn, was sentenced to 18 months' hard labour.
The court rose shortly before seven.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—TIIESDAY, AUGUST 14.
(Before Mr. Justice Crowder.)
THOMAS v. WILLIAMS.—In this case, at the suggestion of
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, who appeared for the plaintiff, a ver-
dict was taken by consent for £3OO.
In ARMITAGE v. M.L.u.L.syn, an action bxpught to recover

damages done by the defendant, in making ,a ib-Ceibl'en `Callft;
into certain property near Todmorden, of which th
.1?Teloi
were mortgagees, but to which the defendant thougao.,o
a claim, was decided by a verdict for plaintiffs: dol;
t tioFn.aitorsEtahev.uEsecooLfEas,
caenrtaacitniodnebscrrioupgtiloitntoofr
mules, was referred, a nominal verdict being enteral.
plaintiff.
BREACH OF PROMISE or MARRIAGE.---D°l„rllte
Wl:rim—This was an action brought by. the lin`_,',of
recover _damages for a breach of promise of
_7,4
Mr. Hill, Q.C., with Mr. Sowler, appeared for th
ofd
ecaotvener co,
focrttli
tiff; and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, with Mr. I,„,,encer,
the defendant. The plaintiff in this case is a mitfesir
carries on business at Whitworth, Rochdale. The sides))
is a butcher, in business in the same town, and is coni.oit_
younger than plaintiff—their respectives ages beingo,o
',
and 35 years. Miss Dewsbury, some three Year° tnie,lY.
with Mr. Whipp's father, and, in course of time, she „ettoC
heart of the son, who, to be near the object of bis an ,'estf);
left the parental stall, and opened a new one near kertientt
lishment." His visits became more and more fraq,o
so difficult did he find it to tear himself away
charmer, that he frequently stopped with her all u.V,I
'on
fact which, in course of time, led to the introductl
world of a son and heir to the Dewsbury proper,%lBo:,
event cooled Mr. Whipp's ardour. He ceased his that
diated his proposals of marriage, and insinuated
the victim instead of the seducer. Under these circSoto!:
Miss Dewsbury sought consolation from the law;A tbet
after a patient hearing, valued her sorrows at gw;
bet
diet being qualified by equivocal jokes and sneers a' the
personnel, and modesty, from Sergeant uk.
fendant's leading counsel. ASS W'
SCARISERICK V. YATES.—In this case a ye.— t
by consent for the plaintiff.—Damages £lOO.
IP°
WEDNESDAY.
„rit OPatt°
MANCHESTER AND LONDON LIFE ASSEr.r.....--
br°
ASSOCIATION V. STRICKLAND.—This action iv„
recover 16275 which the defendant was allege,
ceived in excess of his salary of £4OO per annll7v,. 0,4'1
fendant was the London actuary. of the cong3,l-30CoDY
salary was fixed at £4OO per annum. The defen,,„oo:o;
from October, 1852, to June, 1855, 21: years,,,Tior
£1,100; but the defendant paid himself £l,37ace, it a
to a salary of £5OO per annum. For the deflpeporpe
alleged that Mr. Howell, the general manager 00'd laiote
had promised Mr. Strickland a salary of £(0,0111,401)
faith of this promise Mr. Strickland paid him) ft ‘n
of £5OO per annum, with the full knowledge a,hecg,',eM
and the directors; that the accounts containing,v4 A/0
were properly audited, and subsequently sancn,,,,"altagi,
directors, with a full knowledge that Mr. Strieceri
himself at the rate of £5OO per annum. It ,c`'',,,,aa'Ve,
therefore, that the company could not recover„d 044'
defendant.—His lordship held there was no
jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs for the 93,teASe%;
SIMPSON AND ANOTHER V. TETLOW.--In 03P.eral'
was an action on a bill of exchange for £23 Ss., a
taken for the amount claimed. ,e jOl
GREEN' AND OTHERS (EXECUTORS) V.
action was brought by the executors of James Its-cief):
late of Burnley, ironfounder, to recover from the 15 Ili
Norton Fletcher, cotton spinner, a sum of £2,4634
balance in a partnership account, and for goods te
livered. A verdict was taken for plaintiffs for Ott"
WILLIAMSON AND ANOTHER V. NOEL.—This
' _,0.-cer
fended"action on three bills of exchange, to rv"-
Verdict for the, plaintiff for the full amount.
DE ARTERA V. STOLTERFOHT AND OTH33/1-'..:
statement of the case, it appeared the plaintiff vra/: t
residing in Havana, and in the course of the Prljed
was master of the brig Triumfante, which 00,0"
Havana on the 2nd of February, 1855,:mar PA-
'
Liverpool, where she arrived on the 10th ofTifsoyo
the voyage he experienced very bad weather, la; efOtjft!
to cut away thadeck boats and other things. The" v,l
Messrs. Stolterfoht and Co., were merchants resi"-iti9 '
pool, and they were not the real defendants in th
see-cercti,

the Ist day of March, the vessel encountered a 'ore
wind, and many articles belonging to the shilLd, VoI,
overboard. When the plaintiff arrived in Liv,e4.7—beite6
a protest of the loss, and communicated with teJ
owners of the cargo, and amongst others, 31essV:e• org9orsi;
The master of the vessel had a right to retain
that s not only the freight on the cargo, but the g tot j
was paid. The plaintiff had no wish to act in 5 that ,
an arrangement was come to between the partie, dee
• si • cIAPJ
should be stated by the average rates. This detecre.
Mr. L. Bailey made the amount as against tbeoid eiterl4t
£49 lis. 101 An agreement was drawn uP, dervertreta
Messrs. Stolterfoht, but, subsequently, the the e 51,
London refused to pay the general average, '"itfte,r got the
action was brought to recover the amount:, pelu a for
had been heard at great length, his Lords"ll fe° Taics
pleas submitted were not proved, and the ill"
plaintiff—damages £49 11. s. 4d.
WOOD v. SMITH AND ANOTHER.—In thisC3'4
. tv"tel
for the plaintiff was taken by consent.
•
SAME a. SAISE.—A verdict for the plaintiff
in this ease. ep,-
_Act 00

RUSHFORD V. BROWN.—III this case a C'•
1,4
seated to by the plaintiff for £5O. „ 57415.0.
SMITH AND ANOTHER. (EXECUTORS) "; f BettY
action was brought by the executors giou
to recover £l3O on a promissory
the brother-ilr s
defendant, James Smith, who was _qerest regularlirt,
Driver. The defendant had paid thei.ihile death of Mrs.A
1852, when he ceased to pay it. 11,tard of £6OO tO
she bequeathed the interest of oer'.oint lives, =till for
James Smith and his wife fort their 3
the survivor, and then to ti°o
oc •
plaintiffs, for the amount clainled• defended plo'
PYECROFT V. HA.nuis.--This was an un
t fort be
a bill of exchange for £22 14s. 6d. Verdict
for the amount claimed. ogle
33.....avw
go to their children. #
This action was brought to recover possession 01 i-ot
garden at Pemberton, near Wigan. It appearedughte4
year 1853 a similar action of ejectment was hr°aajo
one of the present defendants, Alice Barrow, sed,
went by default; a' writ of 'possession was i551,1,,;,d46,50
was taken out, and possession given to the Mose••
place was left vacant, and the defendants too,' /try
it. A verdict was given for the plaintiffs. „iras°o4 f
Mossor v. Mecxsy.—The plaintiff in this Cia„Padoa!„o4l;
ney and solicitor, practising in Gray's-inn, J'."iug
defendant, Mr. Mackay, was a partner in a wivevolit4
formed on the cost-book principle, and called the (30,111,
Mining Company. In the course of proceeding 54 e 0
incurred by the company. Actions were brour„op,.,Vot
Medd, who was one of the partners. Mr. Alc'd 507'1,
tiff, defended those actions for Mr. Medd, ar',
applied to the Court of Chancery to have toe feegrip.
company wound up. Some of the shareholders,ao4o)
the defendant, thinking it would not be advantal toWI
the affairs of the campany wound up, consentevefi coy
Medd harmless from the actions which had /91
against him, and pay his costs to the plaintiff, ait offrtsd
applying to the Court of Chancery, in the eve_Vitoce,
proceedings being taken to wind up the affairs
an agreement being entered into with Mr. Fulll4l'e
and the purser of the company, to this effect. bot"t It"
with this agreement the proceedings were staYs,''orioc...fofe
not having been paid, the present action was Profts,if
the defendant, to recover a sum of £4O, the 4P" ,
—The court, having partly heard the case, rose
half-past six o'clock. art
THURSDAY. the 6 r 1
t V
MOSSOP tr. MACRAY.—At the sitting of , fee ty
morning, the jury returned a verdict for the ",,e
ABBEY V. MARTIN.—In this case a verdict'
i`
consent, for the plaintiff, damages, £2B. .eti°" ;Pe
SMITH V. Inwrif.—This was an undefended 60 p,
the acceptor of a bill of exchange. A witriessfor
acceptance, and the jury returned a verdi6 if
amount of the principal, and 4s. interest.
,g r, rpotot,e,
ASHWORTH AND ANOTHER, EXECUTO.,-,,0f., .
ANOTHER.—The declaration was upon a pronNhel3cW,
the defendants pleaded that they did not male chceP;
plaintiffs, David Ashworth, land agent and farn,"re id"o jortP,
ham Eaves, near Burnley, and John Parker, core
tors of the late Peter Lord ; the defendants sc-,,,,t1v,
brothers, and the action was brought against tl; tliett tO
£25 and interest upon a promissory note fr° „laiti,43e;a,l
August, 1849. According to the case for tbei red it
money for which the note was given as securify Voe'7.o
Benjamin Lord, who is a labourer and ilenbu ote
I ' Jeto
labourer, signed the note as surety with filn• A f, I
October last, Peter Lord made his will, an /ter 013.,4'
plaintiffs his executors. About three months ogp;osiviiio
on looking through his books and documents, 050, tit6'
found the promissory note in question, pilot' le 'fir Al
journal which the deceased had kept, and oppa_loe
his handwriting. The jury found a verdict f°' fir 0
damages £32 10s. fy 0,0 doi
The case of " Leake v. Young and another tiof OPet
when the court rose. A cuiroje,o'co,
LEASE V. YOUNG AND ANOTHER.—The tlieoel'oeV
action stated that the defendants had depric! theSl)d
his goods ; and the defendants pleaded that oseOroft.oo
not the goods of the plaintiff. John Lea,,,,kc daerViittito
cloth manufacturer, at Holmfirth, near ler 1`,,,40,„ of
defendants were the official assignees 12,,,nbe
which had taken place by Mr. Leak-e. etiarill 'tor
was brought under an order of the 14„e 0„,, act y,
whom the plaintiff had appealed against t;the4clcPlefiray
bankruptcy, in order to determine whetbea' 5t`.5
0131000,.111'
case a good petitioning creditor's debt, pa at aAC yeAI4
bankruptcy. The plaintiff, who was examili,-ger "910
admitted that he had sent 10s. to an astro'etter
.}triviir
tion fee in his difficulties. The followinpearriletteltro
the clerk of the court :
The figure of the heavens at the time of groro nolo/
was at 10 hours 15 a.m., the Ist of Feb. Ater•igoeck, toot(
no doubt you had better emigrate. (Lat/ll 01 to qty, t;of
never do well where you are ; but r,u,„ll,el°l.,atill,e /PAO,
very successful, after a long voyage. I au'"conr
south-east—that is, to Australia. As
mast
a SL'a V2ceit,V
is a different matter entirely, and mast' e re
01
20s. (Loud laughter.) If you wish 3.11 do „y iv
time selected to set off from home, I:1„ 010,1100 lie
a fee of 10s. (Renewed laughter). .1„9„,.-ig tell
ed
nearly when you think of going, and - d• ara
dash and hour. Your well wisher, court aJ°
they
in e °tip
is case was not concluFdiiedmwAhyeri. thekidtsersiovf,iiibtio
.6
ra
LEASE V. YOUNG AND ANOTHER der
the court proceeded to hear the remaindirecteauool3 pev
after a protracted hearing. his lordsintemited ale 0)
return a verdict for the plaintiff, with to
move °
leave was given to the defendants Tbi° 1010'
raised. Ole Itor
SEDUCTION.—BATSMAN. V. WO 01_,,ductiell:..,ket„prAi
action to recover compensation fnrbfeattle4;o3e4i,,,:pt
in this action was the proprietor of
ge which
u upon Ifdilvio
at the Old Swan, near Liverpool.
which fello,e tie 0008
nate; and, amongst other calamitil child- h
twhaast
aocfa thecattle-dealer,
a dreuailne
,a nind
adliasrggr as cwe
aoyf
01.47 ibuye stsb;e apahcellor
thehad
d habitallur adof h frequentingerhy pra mi
stehoefhousealar r .
eakeP..,
()laid :etho se :it, 05,
attentions to her, After the case had gl3O, "ifl
er
length, the defendant agreed to • tif' te4rfi)
0.1 p
which was accepted. The Pia Jef' pe
WILD AND WIFE V. PHYTIII't,2;-;;Iiiell
case sought to recover the sum of £e' cc,/
the deceased husband of Mrs- phythiP, a llieigeol4
in the hands of the defendants Mr. 111,.0
particulars of the case were verY jcsu the
_!,0,101
called the Lord. Elgin, of which,. ,:Zbythal.,l.!, th 7103.0:4,
supercargo, and the defendant, ?lir,. i`fr.res.
,elalD, hfoltt'io
sailed from Liverpool for the coast n,
us to hiS U t° Pe ifj
previo carryDo,
August Mr.-Ward died; and, him to .ote( then
tp,Mr. Pbythian £4O, instructing. e _ woe
sWilemenpaMrtriesP;hYbtuhtiatnheredetfurnencladn':'saie"d mamasi 3

Au

1 Q. it"
raking
a forcible OF)
of which the plaint JO
ndant .thought he
tintiffs : daIDAgeS, Ob.
t to recover cotaraLr
u of patent selfaw'
being entered for tO

• t
lAGB.--DS191$11;
rt by, the plaialc,
promise of osl7,
rpeared for the is
ith Mr. Mond(' ,2
ase is a ra e
def erillioeka
idale. Th
all, and is considell
ages being aj
three year. ago, It
e of time, she stolt,,A,
object of his ag:eso.
v one near her Piroi
nd more fregaeat
imseif away f
w o,,tri
ith er all nigY•' to
introhduction o°l9
sbury proi
pert
t
ceased his vistl,
insinuated that be
ler these eel
nn the law. v„e,Y7
rrows at f.,40; ""
and sneers at tier
cant
Wilk`' to
ase a verdict 05
£lOO.

• 1,6
Assunslics,,a,'4o'
action was vizite
Is alleged to POO:
tr
0 per annum. oa
the coroca9l' '6O?
The defendset,toJ./,
2.1 years, Oicge,
self £1,375, be" it
✓ the defeace;4
Imager 0f,0,e
'y of £6OVt
Paid himself, flos
owledge °/A; 0113'0
mtaining ea tl
ntly sancoP a id Tea,
Nir. Stricr.so,teljot
Dra. It 'sac',
of reCOVer x?
vas no defeileol,,,,
for the ataolal
)w.—ln this cpAteir
r £23 Bs., a
0 v. Fx,sol,Sl'4,i(lll.l
f James Marl",
er from the d 10)e
463 4s.
mof so J'
for goods $()
tiffs for amecn.:o3i.,
EL.—Ths I'l,OP
Lange, to rec°
count.
D °TIMES,- 6c.alaj'lit
)laintiff was °t ets
of the presr:sl
e, which 1,04
1855, on 9 74
)th of Mare
eather, and vlol'O!'r.
hinge. if 4
:hants remoiligtiePloi
'ants in the
untered 3 Selfre9t
D the ehip were be
d in LiverP ,°°,,'e
cated with itoiter,
ofl
iers, Messrs.
''
o retain the ',Foce9
at the ger;cre of, 0
to act ti',3„"at 0;1
the parties
4 This iffe•felavet,lo
id
rainst the,,:ol eieto
'awn up, ovrd,,gest
y, the 07 oie r'e ost
rerage, softly .111';t the
nount. told for
LordshiP coo,
1 the PI td°
ft
-In this A
514 tv Aeo
plaintiff
ct
ase a vel.--"li /0
aA
c 1511.1?
ons)
of
tors Betty
ry
note giveil.
the brother4lle,
oterest regularlV
hie death of Mrs.,r4l!
d of £6OO to he 1311:
int lives, and 11,efoy
hildren., Verdlc'
an undefended R.O
Verdict for the PA,/
Al*Aviv 2.20 it
'session of a .that
:t appeared %tor)
nt was brocriordi
Barrow, frsy
a was issne",:tio.d
to the Plays
!ants took.
55 13;
'in this coo
,'s-inn, Lonu°oo,l
,Ci
er in a miniogl./
t callede De ielio
ceeding
re brougtitan
Mr. gossoP,
and 51'1.0 elsi
shave the oo? of
reholders, teJ
be advantaroer„j.
consented d, efilef
u.
hich bad v;11/0;
plaintiff, alrofegr,4fl
the 01, e
e affairs oftieec,4l,,
Mr. Fullefi,,'t 6'6;1
effect. t'
'ere stayed ; osb'l);to,sool4'
ion was br° t 5 °lll.°.
£4O, the c°4!01411
case, rose -
SP
toy tf
ting of ,tD;astPo-00"
for the dcv-A0
a verdict 11
'defended 9'etlro 0, cP'
A witness I
a verdict
f" /
.est.
v. /fie
:curoas,.
n a preuusz.o_ ,
not make th'of 040
t and farolet, tij'eS
Parker, Iverree If°ol4.A,foi
mda.nts sc,.e.•to terbt
against the tijel
note frotaoialle'o,t
;e for tbe,P,,,
as secallbyty'Ate
and lienft
th v"poPjel;
will, and „Veit 11i5ofte,
months after eio
:..umente, 15iiie :elf
i, pinned I'ee iblipt;
and opPosioe egil
erdict for
fis 14
aotber"
_The (Roll .A‘o'
depriveci,itllo
led that
Leak.° Ttiers64ie'rorc.o4
leas. I-11w.. bn "" to
aes wide resef ;co, il of
ke. o,i4e
:he I,orstillole tor
lust tlifpere.,4o h,
.hetber 001" eleitor
• •na 5 00131 ft.
c(),-,
ry
XaMille'er a ,c,
astroPg ter 914
at
iving jetad 4032
rebfillir letterfilv
ie of lq,,rcra tVico
'eb. ter) trot
(ronloo go go to
you tc. t
advise..l tiatol,,,, fee ti
',motcepartPrtsli9of
be i°ceiftfid
a glso feed
on l
on Must P•la tileSP
Itog tell fpotia,
he court adietirfie
At its sittiqi,tie' ate
o.s°
aainder of :rthe .I°f Po:
in directe opt
, ara r
noroin,'
to alove °1)
• o'°
-SO 10 9,
•
)xt132.,•-• ph ,er
edution. lot a? tto.
Cattle 313 r c anf'9,
lately beesino hi.oat
bleb fe11,,,,0P° tiotofro iP
child. The 001
usiness; jot) 14..
pt by the Piyive 0,7
and bY P 3.1 midecolti'
- d
WOCec'e 'OOO
e £l3O, ffl
illtiff4e4rl,l3
—Tbe P a Jcposio
which %Os 000
33„crgeon.cefe.,ei
V 'ilia
thian, a 6100, tA 01.
Iple. W3Wilai
• JOCICSOI!._.. ,
nlythi3o, the 00009
friC3. ti's lit 01'
to his deavm!, 13 ifict to
to earrY it the Pro,3
amunieste,o on
t was a Pc,'