The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-12-27 00:00:00

THE WINTER, ASSIZES.

CROWN COURT.—YESTERDAY.
(Before Mr. Justice IDEATING.)
MONEY LENDING IN MANCHESTER.
CHADWICK V. ANDERTON AND HUTTON.-2-111 this case,
the particulars of which appeared in yesterday's Times,
the learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that both
parties to the action consented to an arrangement, by
which a verdict for £7O should be returned for his client.
The learned judge directed the jury to find a verdict
accordingly, which having been done they were dischai ged
by his lordship, who thanked them for their attendance.
This being the only case before the learned judge, the
court rose.

NISI PRIIIS COURT.—YESTERDAY.
(Before Mr. Justice BLACKBURN.)
EXTRAORDINARY CASE.—ALLEGED IMMORALITY BY
A CAPTAIN.
THOMSON V. INMAN —This case, an outline of which
appeared in our yesterday's impression, was resumed at
the sitting of the court yesterday morning. The parties
were represented by the same counsel as on Monday,
when the case began. The first witness called in'ton-
tinuation of the defence was
John Scott, who was captain's boy on board this ship.
He had known Captain Thomson for two years. The'
captain had frequently sent him to bring Mrs. Mackenzie
to his cabin. Witness had seen her there when the door
was locked. He had also seen the curtains inside the
panel drawn. She generally stopped five or ten minutes.
He slid not notice anything wrong with her when she
came out. The captain once gaVe her a vane to repair.
Cross-examined by Mr. James—Had seen her under
the influence of liquor two or three times.
Thomas Goldie was bar-keeper on the ship. He joined
the Glasgow in February last. When they were at
dinner (during the February voyage) the captain sent
for Mrs. Mackenzie. She commenced crying. Mr.
Kenzie said she ought to go, and she fainted. Mr.
Kenzie bathed her face with eau ele Cologne, and she
got better. Sho was a sober woman.
Cross-examined by Mr. James—The first time my
attention was called to this was on last Saturday
morning, when he came into the river. He was asked
whether on that morning he remembered a certain day
on the first voyage when Mrs. Mackenzie fainted. He
had seen Mrs. Mackenzie take ale for her dinner. She
had also taken spirits from the bar, but whether for
herself or the passengers he did not know.
Thomas Kenzie was chief steward on the Glasgow.
He joined the ship the voyage previous to the one in
which Mrs. Mackenzie joined. He was in the habit of
seeing her from the morning to eleven o'clock at night.
He could not say that he had ever seen her drunk. He
had seen her going towards the captain's room, but had
not seen her go in. On one occasion, on either the first
or second voyage, he met her coming as from the captain's
room. She was crying. He also remembered her being
sent for when they were at dinner. When she returned
she began to cry and fainted.
Cross-examined—Witness was still in the service of
Mr. Inman. He was first examined on last Friday
week.. He had seen Mrs. Mackenzie very much excited.
but did not know for what reason. He had seen her so
several times. He would not like to limit the number.
If the stewardess went for linen she weuld have to pass
the captain's cabin. The captain used constantly to see
that the lights were put out.
Sarah Wright knew Mrs. Mackenzie. After her first
voyage, Mrs. Mackenzie made a communication to wit-
ness respecting the captain. Witness gave her her advice.
This was repeated on the second voyage. Witness was
present at an inquiry in November last. Witness told
them that she had asked Mrs. Mackenzie how she liked
her situation at sea ? She replied that she liked her
place well, but she had a great deal to contend with.
Witness asked her what this was, she said she did not
like to tell ; but on being fuhher pressed, Mrs.
Mackenzie said the captain had attempted to take im-
proper liberties with her, and it had made her very
unhappy. Witness asked why she did not report him, to
which she replied that she hoped to be transferred to
another vessel. Witness advised her not to go to the
captain's cabin at all. Mrs. Mackenzie said she must
when he ordered her. Witness also stated at the inquiry
that at the end of the second voyage Mrs. Mackenzie had
again complained of the captain's conduct to her.
Cross-examined—Her husband was on the Glasgow
in August last, when Mrs. Mackenzie was there. She
had this conversation after the first voyage on a Sunday.
They were taking tea together. Witness could not
remember the separate times at which Mrs. Mackenzie
said she bad been insulted; she told of three occasions.
Witness remembered Mrs. Mackenzie being discharged.
After she got her discharge she spoke of Captain Thom-
son. That was before they went to Mr. Inman's office.
Witness's husband was on the Kangaroo. Witness had
not stated these circumstances to anyone else, because
she bad been desired to say nothing.
Re-examined—On the first of the three occasions the
captain sent for her to his room, sent the boy out and gave
her a glass of wine. He then went to her, and tried to
insult her. She said, " Captain Thomson, let me go."
The captain said she must nothave any sham modesty. On
another occasion Mrs. Mackenzie told the witness that
the captain had taken her tb the cabin, and, after closing
the door, tried to throw her down. On the third occa
sion, the captain had gone to Mrs. Mackenzie's room
with a dark lantern, when she felt something touch the
curtains, and cried out ; at the same moment the lantern
was turned full in her face, and she saw who it was.
The captain then pulled the clothes off the bed, and Mrs.
Mackenzie got the pillow and held it across her knees.
She told him to throw her through the porthole rather
than insult her. She said she had tried to do so herself
but had not sufficient courage. He then tried to soothe
her.

Alexander Wright—Was steward on the Kangaroo,
Was on the Glasgow in August. He had seen Mrs.
Mackenzie weeping. He once asked her what was the
matter, and she said, " Oh, don't bother me, Alick ; I
can't tell you."
Mr. Wm. Inman was next called, and examined by
Mr. Overend—Was the managing partner in Liverpool
of the New'York and Philadelphia Steamship Company.
Captain Thomson was in his service. He was engaged
by, the voyage, and his account was made up and balanced
at the end of every voyage. He had no right to have
Mrs. Mackenzie in his cabin, but there was no express
regulation preventing it. The first complaint he heard of
Mrs. Mackenzie was about the beginning of November,
when Captain Thomson reported her drunkenness. She
was dismissed immediately. On the 6th Noveinber Mrs.
Mackenzie complained of Captain Thomson. When
witness told Captain Thomson whal-iiii:-Mackenzie
had said of him, he at first denied .it. altogether.
and he afterwards admitted having once or twice
playfully laid his hands upon Mrs. Mackenzie.
Witness remembered the company dismissing a man
named Musgrove, and afterwards witness told Captain
Thomson that he desired to see justice done, and that
if any course were taken against a poor woman he would.
probably find funds that she might have justice. Mrs.
Mackenzie told witness that the captain had used
abominable language to her.
Captain W. Gellard was the out-door superintendent
of the company. He was present at the inquiry at Mr.
Inman's office. Mrs. Mackenzie then stated substantially
the same as she had in court.
Mr. Alexander was also called and corroborated the
last witness with respect to Mrs. Mackenzie's state-
ment.

Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Wright were examined. The
former said that upon one occasion the captain had com-
plained to him of the drunkenness of Mrs. Mackenzie.
The latter gentleman stated that he had seen Mrs.
Mackenzie in tears on the last two voyages.
This closed the evidence for the defence. The fol-
lowing evidence was called in reply :
Mr. Robert Pollock Hosey was purser on board the
Glasgow during the last four voyages. He had seen
Mrs. Mackenzie in liquor about three times. Witness
remembered speaking once to Captain Thomson about

it.
Mr. Jones had been surgeon on this vessel since
August last. He was three voyages with Captain
Thomson. He had seen Mrs. Mackenzie drunk several
times since be had been on board. On one occasion he
was called out of bed to see a light which one of the
passengers had left burning. On that occasion he saw
Mrs. Mackenzie drunk. He had seen her drunk at
other times as well, but had not taken particular notice.
James Maston was the chief engineer of the Glasgow.
He was engineer when Mrs. Mackenzie was on board.
He bad been with Captain Thomson about two years.
Had seen Mrs. Mackenzie in drink several times.
Mr. James wished to re-examine Mr. Nicholson res-
pecting the notes he bad taken of the examination in
November.
Mr. Nicholson, on)being recalled,- said that at that
examination' Scott, the cabin boy, said Mrs. Mackenzie
had been drunk twice each voyage. Also Mrs. Mac-
kenzie then stated she " thought" the plaintiff put his
hand under her petticoats.
Mr. Overend then addressed the jury for the defence.
He urged in support of the defendant's case, that the
probabilities were in favour of the, truth of Mrs. Mac-
kenzie's story. She was supported by collateral evidence
and by circumstances which it was almost impossible to
have designed. If they disbelieved her story, they must
believe not only that she had been guilty of the grossest
perjury, but also that the witness Scott, the captain's
own cabin-boy, and the other witnesses, who had in a
measure supported her, had also sworn that which was
false. Mrs. Mackenzie had no possible interest to serve
in coming to court. The company had discharged her
from their service, and did not intend to take her back.
Captain Thomson, on the other hand, had every motive
for denying the truth of the allegation. If it was
believed, his character was gone, and he was practically
ruined for life.. It had been asked why these things
had not been revealed before. So long as the plaintiff
was _in the ship he was master, and had the power of
withholding a chtkracter from Mrs. Mackenzie. Besides,
upon her writing him a letter the annoyance ceased, and
latterly there had been no cause for complaint.
Mr. Edwara James, Q.C., then closed the case for the
prosecution, by pigmenting upon the evidence which

had been given_ on the other side. He remarked that
in cases of this sort the bUrden of proof lay with the
defendant. It was not for the plaintiff to prove his
innocence of the charge preferred against huh, but for
the defendant to prove conclusively the truth of the
same.. The learned counsel also alluded to the utter
improbability of the events narrated by Mrs. Mackenzie,
particularly the fact that she did not cry out, or make
any alarm, en any of the occasions referred to; also, the
fact of her not having brought these•charges until after
the captain had complained of her drunken habits.
With respect to the witness Sarah Wright, she was an
intimate friend of Mrs. Mackenzie, and it was probable,
that the former was mistaken as to the time at which
the communications were made to her, as to the conduct
of Capt. Thomson. Mrs. Mackenzie had probably told
her friend the story she now told in court after she had
been dismissed from the company's service. _ .

His lordship having previcusly asked the counsel in
the case whether they could agree as to the amount,
Mr. James, Q C., stated that from the account-book it
was evident that the agreement was a yearly one, and
the sum now claimed was, therefore, a half-year's salary
—X2SO.

His lordship, in addressing the jury, remarked ,that
the question for them was, whether they believed Cap-
tain Thomson or Mrs. Mackenzie was speaking the
truth. He supposed,they did not doubt that Mr. Inman
at the time he dismissed the plaintiff, believed Mrs.
Mackenzie's statement ; and, although that might be a
good moral excuse, it was not a legal one ; and if the
jury were of opinion that in point of fact the plaintiff's
guilt was not established, they must find for the plain-
tiff. If, on the other hand, they believed Mrs. Mac-
kenzie, they would find for the defendant. •
The jury, after a short. consultation, found a verdict
for the plaintif for £250.
This case concluded the business of the present assizes.

LIVERPOOL POLICE COURT.-YESTERDAY.

(Before Mr. BAFFLES.)
A YOUNG OFIIdER.

A respectable looking young man named Philip Mar-
tin, described as ajoiner, in a good position, was charged
by Police-officer 632 with having.assaulted him. The
officer said .he was on duty in the street on Christmas
night, when the prisoner came up and shoved him along,
and whoa he asked why he did so, he struck him. The
prisoner's story was as follows, and was borne out by a
female who said she saw it all. The prisoner slipped
against the officer, when the latter pushed him down on
the steps of his own door, and then he slapped him
twice in the face; he also took out his baton and swore
if he stired he would knock his brains out. He then
went for another officer, when the prisoner went into
his house; but when the officer came back, he (with two
others) broke into the house and took the prisoner into
custody, although the officer was asked several times to
summon hint. Mr. Raffles : I see 'enough. of: this case
to discharge the prisoner. How long are you in the
force ? Since last August. Mr. Raffles: YOu are a
young officer, and I do not think you acted right in
this case by forcing in the house ; you could have sum-
moned him. You had better be cautious in future, but
I think your case should be inquired into. The prisoner
was then discharged.