The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-12-22 00:00:00

pru.st be sairsAerrthat when they entered the Land they
entered with the origipal lising the sticks
andistones they had in theliTiossesSaalsoftnsOe Wea.
pcins;andnot for the purpose of beating faogs; and
locitink the dogs to' do the Ivor]: for which thefif-ezq
irrie'rided, as alleged by thc,:.eotineffor the defence. The
jury retitedoNl 6ii their_ return fdimd the prisoners
guilty of a.cominoicnti.o:l4 and, hy, the diredtion of his
lordship, acquitted the prisonjis Piehlen. and Wareing.
The prisoners were, after a severe reptirriWta frapfhis
lordship, 'sentenced to six mouths' hard labour

14PEO1'iL COURT, YESTERDAY.
, • .
(refer7e S. 'TEMPLE- Esq., Q.C.)
EXTENSIVE ROBBERIES?' El3;1;1, A., OctrfoN MILL AT
ASIITON-11NbER.4.7NE; •
Soseph Wainwright (26), 'Milian( diebffirim (40),
and Isaac Darbyshire (36), were charged with having,
1 at Ashton-under-Lyne, on the 11th December, broken
, into the warehouse of Messrs. Alfred Rayner and Co:,
i and ,stealing therefrom one bale of cotton, the pro-
' perty of the prosecutor.- Mr, Lereeche appeared to
prosecute. Dr.:; W. heeler, qa, defended the pri-
soners liaintirright alid.,p'arb3>shil-e ;: Mr.• Pope was
counsel for Cheethani: Froin'thh, opening stattinent of
the learned counsel, and the eiidence afterWardsadduced,
it would seem that the prisoners, 14bld'aie. residents in
the neighbourhood of Ashton-under-Lyne, fiaVti.f.ofs-eine
time back carried on a systematic course of Phinder
from the prosecutor's mill, situated at a place known
ag Onckhrook, The prisoners had, for several days
previous to' the robbery for which they were now
tailed nigh to answer; &deem:trod, by offers of money,
to lag& ;the" Offeolitot's Watehmati, a man named
Ii; )11cliley".„ to allow their a enter the promises, and
nam away cotton withouf being afraid of him giiing
interfering,
information or
inexorager, init refpied: to aPbeqe tO their' prapOiftT ii`pbt
any conditions. raeldek,.it eipeais,.had been to' Man. i
chester on the 3rd of December, for the purpoSe of Wit--
nessing a .dog-fight, which was to tea place at aptibli&
house kept by a woman named Clarkson: Tre,there
met the prisoner Darbyshire, who informed him that he'
might improve his situation by complying with a request
he had to make to him on behalfof himself and the
other two' prisoners, The watchman enquired by what
means he might iinprotehis situation, to which he replied
that if he would allow hint and the other two prisoners
to Coale upon the premises at night, for the purpose of
stealing the cotton, they would give him S 4 a week.
His inducements, however; did not prove successful, and
they parted:- The fallowing day Buckley met the other
two prisoners in the market-place in Ashton, and th
asked him if he intended to agree tO the proposal Dar-
byshire had made to him the day previous f• and he re-
plied with an emphatic negative. The same. night the
watchman Met the, three prisoners in Stamford-street,
when they renewed their offers, and finding hint to be
still irresistible, increased the alliount they proffered him'
to X 11,4 week ; but he refused to corupft with their request,
whereupon the prisoners said they would conle'early the
next morning, and run the risk of being taken into custody:
They then separated. Buckley was proceeding towards
the Mill when he met Inspector Chadwick, whom he
informed of what had occurred. He also communicated
the circumstance to Mr. Whitehead, the manager, who
arranged with the inspector to place several officers in
the immediate vicinity of the mill early next morning,
in order to secure the prisoners if they came near. The
prisoners did arrive about four o'clock in the morning,
accompanied by a horse and cart. The police watched
them enter the preinites, and afterwards return with a
bale of cotton, which filet IYlaced in the cart, and
were about to depart when the police made
their appearance. At that time Chatham was.
leading the horse, and Wainwright and Darbyshire
were in close proximity to the cart. Cheetham and
Wainwright were secured, but the other prisoner
escaped for several hours. On being charged with the
offence they all said they never would have been there.
had it not been for Buckley. They were taken before
the magistrates, when the witness Buckley was not
examinedi and were committed for trial to the assizes,
when the learned' &Unger for the prosecution deemed it
advisable to have him present, and he was accordingly
sent for. At the conclusion of the evidence Dr.
Wheeler and Mr. Pope severally addressed
.the -jury;
admitting that the prisoners were the persons who Were
at the mill on the morning in question, and who
placed the bale of cotton is the cart, but contended I
that they were the innocent dupes of a wicked man, and
were there in obedience to the direction of the watch-
man, for the purpose' of pursuing their avocations as
carters, and submitted that thealyemiat of the conversation
given by Buckley was totally incorrect, and commented
at considerable length upon his evidence and conduct
The learned judge summed up the evidence, after which 1
the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Sentence was I
defetr

CttiVßT.—TesTmaxT.
(llefnfe Mr. kstia Vi.ktititttng.)
INFRINGEMENT Of IVTENI
PLATT v. HOWARD.—The plaintiff' is aii Chgfueer and
machine manufacturer in Oldham, and the delend'airt is
a manufacturer carrying on business in Accrington.
Tha action was for infringement of patent right.
The case ifgs long; intricate, and of little public interest.
It occupied the whole* .esterday, and will probably
not be- completed until laft to,ciat It appears that
in 1844, Tatham and Cheethani at(s,lYted an improved-
coiling apparatus used in the manufacture 6i tettort, the
improvement being that instead of the former slot) and
incomplete methods, the" sliver"—that is, the cotton in a
state of preparation—was conducted, by means of an
efeiated and angled iron rod, to a pair of smooth
calendering rollers; performing a double motion of
reiolving on their Ofn aces and moving around
the periphery of a plate, and aepdsital circular layers
on a iii ban, moping in an oppbgtd direction, and
pressed cldvin*arde by an iron plate froni ahofe, To
this method, bOiftiei, there were many
.objections,
The calendering rollers were lti &M.& of being clogged
by the untwisted cotton ropes, whiceli *mid break the
wheels ; and the duty of threading, or tying add replac.-
ing,the cotton, was difficult, and dangerous to the Cin-
Pic;Yedr:Witlic,nt stopping the machine, which was a serious
objection. ladee Houghton, a mechanical engineer in
the plaintiff's employ is gatt fir have spent a good deal
of time in 1847 in experimenting oh this.department of
cotton machinery, with a view of removing h imper-
fections ; and after repeated trials he discovered tile by
substituting for the calendering rollers, an inclined
movable tube fed, so to speak, with two delivering rollers
the tcquired result would be attained, the machinery sim-
-01001, and alt the difficulties in the way of the labourers
entirely renio'fed. A model on this principle was accord-
ingly constrtreted and the renu gate complete satisfaction.
However, the prindiple in the abstract Was Latham and
Cheethani's. It was recognised in their spetiAeatiort, and
to some extent; hoWever imperfectly, Milled out in
their coiling machines. The improvements were, hoW-
ever, so important and self-evid'en't; that, on application,
Messrs. Latham and Cheetharti Consented to the ex-
clusive manufacture of the new machine ty Plait Broth era;
and Houghton's patent became immediately popular.
Latham and Cheetham's patent has expired ; that of
Houghton's, who is dead, has yet about 12 months to run.
It was, therefore, in consequence of an infringement of
Houghton's patent that the action was brought. A
great number of witnesses were examined on behalf of
the plaintfe, amongst others, Mr. Benjamin Fothergill,
of Manchester. The calendering rollers were said to
exist in the %arliest calling machines ; by most it was
stated that the inclined tube was a new idea, never
recognised or carried out previously. As are hare
stated, however, such a contrivance Is eipressty
mentioned, but not explained, in Latham and Cheetham's
specification. Mr. Edward James, who appeared
on behalf of the defendants, admitted the similarity of
the patents, the identity of the principle, but denied its
novelty and discovery by Houghton, but practically by
a man named Hardman, who stated that, in 1845, he
was employed at the mills of Messrs. Jackson Brothers
& Co., of Oldham. In 1846, whilst he was engaged as
carder, he experimented upon the coiling machine, mid
in the March of the succeeding year completed the dis-
covery attributed now to Houghton. When finished it
was tried and examined by. the Messrs. Jackson, the
foreman at the Works' by Mr. Platt and his foremen ;
and, with Messrs. Jackson's consent, conveyed to the
works of Mr. Platt, where it remained for five or six
weeks. The witness denied altogether that the inven-
tion was Houghton's, but his ; and remarked, that on
the occasion of a former action, Messrs. Platt had pro-
mised "to set him up," but had never carried that out.
Mr. John Jackson, and a man named Wolfenden, cor-
roborated the former witness's evidence, and
The court was adjourned at twenty minutes to seven
o'clock.

LIVERPOOL POLICE COURT.-YESTERDAY.

(Before Mr. RAFFLES.)

HOW A CORONER'S JUROR ENDED HIS DAY'S WORK.

John Thomas, alias John M'Nulty, the keeper of a
beerhouse in Comm-street, was brought up, charged by
Inspector Smith xith having assaulted him. The in-
spector said : I went yesterday, along with Wilson, to
search the beerhouse kept by the prisoner in Comus-
street, and which is the resort for all sorts of thieves, and
when we went there we saw a number of well-known
thieves, but none that we wanted. When out on the
street, after leaving the house, we met the prisoner, who
asked us what we were doing in his house, and we told
him, when he swore a dreadful oath that he would take
my life, and struck me on the shoulder; and knockel me
off the footpath. He came up to hit me again, when
Wilson caught him. He repeatedly swore he woul,nake
my life, and repeated the threats in the station. Super-
intendent Kehoe said : This fellow is one of the most
notorious villains in England. His house is the restort
for all the thieves of London, Birmingham, Manches-
ter, and other towns in England : we hardly know
what to do with him. Detective-officer Wilson
corroborated the statement of Inspector Smith. The
prisoner, in reply to Mr. Raffles, said : I was serving
on a coroner's jury yesterday—(laughter)—and when
I vent home my wife told me theSe fellows bad
been searching my house. I have only kept the
house three months, and how am I to know who
the parties are that come into my house ? Mr.
Kehoe : You know them well enough. I may tell
your worship that I never knew this fellow to do any-
thing, and no one goes to his house except the very
worst of thieves from all parts of England. 'Wilson
said the prisoner knew all the thieves in the country.
He was not long here, bitt came from Birmingham to
set up a house for the meeting of thieves in Liverpool.
Mr. Raffles : I fine him 40s. for the assault on Inspector
Smith, or two months' imprisonment. Mr. Kehoe :
Would you think it necessary to bind him over to keep
the peace, in consequence of his threats to take the
inspector's life ? Mr. Raffles : I think not at present ;
if he says anything hereafter be can be given into
custody.
THE CHARGE AGAINST MRS. CATTERELL.

Mary Anne Catterell, who was remanded on a charge
of having stolen certain goods froni the outfitting and
baby linen warehouse of Mrs Barris, Berry-street, was
brought up. Mr. Campbell appeared for the prosecu-
tion, and Mr. Cobb for the prisoner. We published
this case in full a few days ago, when it was before the
court, so thakit is not necessary to republish the evidence
now. Mr. Campbell asked Mrs. Harris some questions
about some small things found in the prisorer's lodging,
and the witness identified the articles as her property.
In reply to Mr. Cobb, she denied ever having sent the
prisoner to Mr. Machin, of Commutation-row, to borrow
money, or discount a bill for her. She wrote a letter
once to Mr. Maclin, and got an answer, but she did not
show it to the prisoner or to Miss M'Bride. Sent the
prisoner to Mr. M'Dermott for money. Mr. Raffles
said he did not see what this had to do with the case.
Mr. Cobb said it was a question of credibility, and if
that question of credit got his client discharged, he had
a right to put such questions..: Mr. Raffles said it was
another issue, and he would not put it on the deposi-
tions. The witness, in reply to Mr. Cobb, said she got