The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-10-30 00:00:00

BAD SONS.

Michael Smith, 20—TearsOCage, the son of Mrs.
Agnes Smith, brassfounde.r, Gregson-street, was charged
by his mother with having assaulted her. Mr. Bluck
appeared ftr the prosecution, and frnm hi; ot.*Oment,
and the evidence of Mrs. Smith, it appeared that the
prisoner is the eldest son of complaina7it, and that for
stone time past he conducted himself very badly, and
was frequently drunk; and whilst in that state he was
in the habit of ill-using and beating his mother and
sister. On Saturday night he went into his mother's
house in a state of drunkenness and demanded money,
but she refused to give him any • and then he locked
the door and commenced beating his mother and sister,
but at lost assistance came and he was given into
custody. Mr. Black said it was a fearful crime to
beat a parent after this manner; yet his mother did
not wish to press the case, but the prisoner ought to be
bound over to keep the peace towards her. The prisoner
was accordingly bound over to keep the peace.
A respectable looking man, named Henry Martin,
charged Isaac Martin, his son, with, having threatened
his life, and with having assaulted him. On Saturday
night the prisoner went into his father's house in
a state
of intoxication, when he assaulted his father, and threa-
tened to take his life if he did not give him money. The
father was obliged to give him into custody, in order
to protect himself from his violence. The prisoner was
remanded for a week with the view of seeing what was
best to be dune with him.

"A MOBSMAN" PICKED UP.
John King, a rather fashionable-looking
person,
about thirty years of age, was brought up by officer 164
on a charge of having picked the pocket of Mr. Thomas
Elliott, clerk. at Messrs. Bright, Legge, and Co.'s, Bold-
street; and there was.a second charge made against him
by Mr. Smart, brewer, for having picked his pocket in
the Bank of England, on the 9th June last, of a book
and upwards of £3O. Mr. Bluck defended the prisoner.
Prom the evidence of Mr. Elliott it appeared that on
Saturday he was iu the Liverpool Bank lodging money,
and saw the prisoner quite close to him, and in a
moment or so he missed his pocket-book from 1113 back
pocket, and haying felt a hand in it, he turned round
and saw the prisoner walk away. lie followed him, and
the prisoner turned into Back Castle-street, and flung
something from his hand, when witness collared him anal
gave him into custody. In the area, where he saw him
threw something. the officer got Mr. Elliott's pocket-
book and its contents (£3 13s 6d). and some documents,
with a bill of exchange. Mr. Smart proved that on the
9th June last he was in the Bank of England, and saw
the prisoner quite close to him, and in a moment he
missed his book from his back pocket ; it contained over
£3O in money. The prisoner disappeared instantly, but
he gave a description of him, and he now swore posi-
tively to his identity. Mr. Bluck cross-examined the
witnesses, with the view of shaking their evidence as to
the identity of the prisoner ; but they stated that they
were positive as to the man. Detective-officer Carlisle
was examined, and at the conclusion of his evidence Mr.
Raffles sent the prisoner for trial on both charges. (The
prisoner, it was said, is a celebrated "travelling thief.")

A GUARDSMAN. OFF GUARD!
Police-officer Russell (158) brought up Thomas
Moreby, who was dressed in the uniform of the Cold-
stream Guards, on a charge of being drunk and dis-
orderly and for assaulting him ; and Leonard Moreby, a
porter at the railway station. Lime-street, brother of
the " guardsman," was charged with attempting to
rescue the other prisoner. Mr. Cobb appeared for both.
The .officer stated that he was called into a public-house
to put out the guardsman, who was drunk and dis-
orderly there. The prisoner was very violent, and
kicked him in the legs, bit him in the hand, and other-
wise ill-used him. The prisoner behaved so outrageously;
that four officers had to assist in taking him to the
station. The prisoner Leonard endeavoured to rescue
the soldier from the police, and for that he was taken
into custody. Mr. Cobb cross-examined the officer and
other witnesses, and contended that the police were in
fault, and that the railway porter was only trying to
get the soldier to go quietly. Mr. Raffles said that
Russell was an experienced and most prudent officer,
and knew his duty well, so that he would not do any-
thing wrong or incautious. However, he would dis-
charge the porter, but would fine the guardsman £2
for the assault. The fine was paid.
ASSAULTING THE POLICE.
Thomas Cahill, John Walsh, and Margaret Connor
were charged with having violently assaulted Police-
officer Hill (85). There was a fight on Sunday night
in Wright-street, Scotland-road, when Hill went to
quell it. On going forward he was struck with a brick,
which cut through his hat and head, and injured him
severely. He could not tell who struck him, but police-
officers 657 and 506 came up and got the two men
beating the officer. and the woman had his staff and she
was beating him with it also. A conflict of a fierce
description followed, in which the officers were roughly
handled, but at lengih assistance arrived and the three
prisoners were captured. Surgeon Sheppard, of the
Northern Dispensary, stated that he dressed Hill's head,
and found one cut an inch and a half long and down to
the bohe ; there were several contusions on hi% head
also. Mr. Bluck appeared for Walsh and Mr. Parker
for Cahill, and called witnesses to exonerate
weir
clients, but did not succeed ; and the prisoners were
remanded. for a week until the result of the injury on
Hill's head can be ascertained.
CHARGE OF R.BERY ON SHIP BOARD.
A respectable working man, named William Preston,
described as a purser on ship board, in the employment
of Messrs. Chambers and Wilson, was brought up on a
charge of having stolen £l7 from Robert Elliott. Mr.
Campbell appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Bluck
for the prisoner. Mr. Campbell proceeded to open the
case, and said the parties came from Melbourne in the
Red Jacket, which arrived here on Friday. The pri-
soner, it appeared, had gone out as purser in the Young
American, and got his passage home in the Red Jacket,
and, when he came on board, said he had no money.
The parties slept in the same room; and on the 28th of
August the prosecutor missed fifteen soverigns out of
his trunk, but did not know who had taken it. He
watched the place every night until the 2nd of Sep-
tember, and about two o'clock in the morning the pro-
secutor saw the prisoner take a file, and filed the lock of

his-trunk and open it, and next morninglia.missed two
more sovereigns. The captain was told of the affaif
next morning, and the prisoner was removed from the
cabin. When he was taken into custody on shore, a
sum of £lB4 14s. was found on him. These facts were
proved by Mr. Elliott, and Mr, Cooper, a passenger ;
but in reply to Mr. Bluck, they admitted that they did
not see the prisoner take any money. Mr. Mich. con-
tended that his client was quite innocent, and Was a
man of high character, and he defied the prosecutor to
prove the charge. The prisoner was allowed out on his
own recognisance to this day, in order to have Captain
Reed; of the Red Jacket, proeent, to state what he
knew. about the !natter.

COURT 014 VASSAGE.-SATURDAY.
(Before Mr. E. J'Aztre4

. .
A WELSH MISTRESS AND HER WELSH Cdok.—ln
this action, an ,elderly and repectable-looking female,
named Mary Jenci,, a professional cook from the Prin-
cipality, was the plaintiff, and, Mrs. Taylor, , the wife of
a merchant of this town, residing nt Brougharn-terrace,
West Derby-road, also from Wales, was the defendant.
The action was brought to recover compensation for
having been falsely imprisoned on a charge of felony.
Mr. .spina/1 appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Littler
for the defendant: Front the statement of the plaintiff
it appeared that she was a ttiost, abl!zt and experienced
cook, and that she had lived as such fn Most of the
principal families in Wales, including amongst the others
the Dean of Llandaff, and also several families of dis-
tinction in Dublin. However, she was in Liverpool in
the month of July last, and from a recommendation she
received she waited upon Mrs. Taylor, the defendant, and
on " the Orangemen's day," the 12th of July, she was
engaged to go there and superintend the cooking of a
dinner for a party of Mends who were met at the
lidsflitable hoard to celebrate that day. All the duties
haiing beeti disPepeci of (as the plaintiff thotight, to the
satisfaction of all she Was going home, when
Mrs. Taylor expressed a wish that, the Cook should call
upon her on the following day. She did Ab.`, and it was
then agreed that the cook was to take cnatfife Of the
house while Mrs. Taylor went on a visit to Wales. The
cook undertook all those responsibilities, and Mrs.
Taylor left her home, and was absent therefrom about
three weeks. Upon her arrival home, Mrs. Taylor
seemed quite satisfied with what had been done in her
absence, but being fatigued she went to bed, and
remained there for some time. When she did get up
(the plaintiff believed it was on the Tuesday), complaint
Was made that " the carpets had not been laid down."
The COokis ansWer to that was, " that Mr. Taylor had
said that they VVete riot to he put down." After
that some angry words erisiledi. and the cook went
to bed without being allowed a Caddie, and on
the following morning she was sent about hkt:
business but without her wages. After that she called
for her wages but could not get them, and then she
went to Mr. Taylor's offices, in Liverpool, and endea-
voured to get them there, but was insulted by Mr. Taylor
eittd told to go to the house for the money, and he would
pay her, But dndltig that she could not get her wages,
the cook took out a sdninions in the County Court to
recover the same, and on the /4th of September the
case was heard, but owing to seine legal tohneealities
the plaintiff was non-suited. While at the eottrity
Court the cook and her late mistress met, —they
exchanged words before the case came on, both
being much, excited, . but in answer to Mr. Temple,
the cook most positively denied that she had ever

touched Mrs. Taylor's dress, or that she had ever spat
upon her, or that she had ever called her bad names.
Thus the case stood, until one of the Liverpool police
constables was called, but whose number, from the man-
ner in which, by the sanction of the Watch Committee,
the figures Upon the collar of their constables' coats are
blended together, and the whiskers that overhang them,
was not discernable, stated that on the ?'4th of Septem-
ber being on duty, he was called Upon to go to the
County Court by Mrs. Taylor to take person into
custody on a charge of felony. He went to the court,
and the plaintiff was given into custody on a charge of
stealing some bed linen and other articles. Upon that
he took her to the Police Station, Mrs. Taylor going in
a cab ; but when the inspector on duty heard the facts
he declined to take her up and she was discharged.
Mr. Littler for the defence, admitted that his client was
wrong, as there was not the slightest charge against the
plaintiff, but in extenuation of the circumstances, said
that the jury would recollect that both the parties were
Welsh women, and as a national characteristic they
were well known for their "peppery" temperament.
He therefore admitted that Mrs. Taylor was wrong in
giving the cook into custody, and would willingly apolo-
gise for that act, and leave it in the hands of the
assessor to decide the case without going to the jury.
Mr. • Aspinall agreed to the adoption of such 'a course
if the learned assessor would so act. The assessor :
Then I should say that the plaintiff should give the
defendant £5. It was most monstrous because a person's
temper was "peppery," that they should give another
person into custody on a charge of felony, when there
was no ground for such an accusation. As there had
been an apology made, and as there was not the slightest
charge against the plaintiff, and as she had not been
put to any suffering beyond the disgrace of having such
a charge made against her, he thought, but he did not
know whether the jury would agree with him, that £5
would be sufficient. The jury expressed their opinion
that if the case had been left to them the damages
would have been much larger. Mr. Littler, upon that,
expressed his thanks to the assessor, and was glad that
it had been so settled. _ _

A HORSE CASE.—In this action an Irish horse dealer,
named Keegan, was the plaintiff, and a Mr. Woods, a
spirit merchant, of Dale-street, was the defendant. The
action was brought to recover the value of a grey gelding
hunting horse, The action was not defended. The
plaintiff stated that he had two horses for sale, and that
the defendant, afier trying the grey gelding across the
country, purchased it for £3O. That he gave him £lO
on account, and then rode away with the horse. In
answer to the assessor, he said, he had not since seen
the horse, nor had he received the money for it. A
verdict was given for the plaintiff for £29 10s.
BEIVA.RE OF Doos.—ln this case, the plaintiff, a
labourer, named Pilkington, working at the Albert
Docks, was the plaintiff, and two men, named M'Ginn,
carters, were the defendants. The action was brought
to recover compensation for the injuries the plaintiff had
sustained through a bite from the ,defendants'dog. The
plaintiff, stated that as he was going to his work on the
11th of August last, at the Albert, Dock, the defendants'
dog rushed upon him and wounded'his leg, from the
effects of which he was unable to, do any work from that
day to.the 3rd or 4th of September. In consequence of
the plaintiff having failed to prove that the defendants
knew that the dog was a dangerous dog, Und as it had
since been .destroyed, he was nonsuited.
WOMEN'S TONGUES. This was an action brought
by Miss •Frances Parry, a barmaid living with Mr.
M'Coven, a publican at Bootle, to recover compensation
for some slanderous expressions used by the defendant,
Mrs. Smith, a female also in the liquor trade. The
expression alldged to have been used was, " I see you
have got Miss Parry with you; she is a cheat and a
dishonest person." His honour wished to know whether
the learned counsel (Mr. Littler) considered it action-
able. Several cases were cited by the learned gentle-
men engaged in the case, to show that.the expression
used was actionable ; but his honour expressed a desire
to have the witness called to prove the exact words,
when Mrs. M'Coven entered the witness box and
stated : My husband keeps a public-house in Bootle.
The plaintiff, Miss Parry, is in my service. In July or
August twelvemonths since, the defendant, 'Mrs. Smith,
called at my house, and said to me, "I see you have
got Miss Parry with you. I said "yes, do you know
anything about her ?" She replied, I have seen her
walking with gentlemen, and noblemen, who wanted
her for no good." Five or six.weeks ago, the defend-
ant called amain, when I heard a great noise in the
kitchen, and I went to see what was the matter. The
defendant and the plaintiff were talking very loud, and
rather angrily, when the defendant said to me, " The
sooner you get rid of her the better, for she will cheat
you before she has done with you." They used abusive
language on both sides. Mrs. Smith did not tell me
not to tell Miss Parry what she had said of her. His
honour said he did not think that the words were
actionable; and if the plaintiff persisted in going on
with the case, and the jury should find a verdict, lie
should arrest the judgment at once. The question was,
whether it was worth while, in such a trifling suit, to
put the whole machinery of the law in motion, and go to
the House of Lords, which would be the case. Mr.
Littler: All we went is an apology. The counsel for
the defendant denied that the words 'were used, and said
that the word " cheat" was applied to Mrs. M'Coven
for telling the conversation that had taken place to Miss
Parry, whew she had promised not to do so. After
some further conversation, the defendant made the
apology, by saying that she never did, nor never intended
tthoisimepauptleanaanjotnilinagj uimroir)rowpaesr twoithaiderapwlna,inatinffd.
was settled. the oUpon
this explanation a juror was withdrawn, and the ease

A CLAIM roil. CommissioN.—ln this action the
Melsrs. Orr and Samuel, brokers and commission agents,
were the plaintiffs, and Mr. Holland, ship owner, was
the defendant. The claim was for the commission on
the sale of a ship. Some time last year the ship Lady
Sale arrived in. Liverpool, upon which the plaintiffs
waited upon the defendant, the owner, and asked him if
he wanted to have her chartered, and called several
times, when he was informed that it was for sale, upon
which he said, " well, I will try and find a purchaser
for her," and took the ship's inventory. Subsequently
to that lielad a correspondence with a Mr. Dauderdale,
who came to Liverpool and looked at the ship. It was
afterwards put up to auction by Mr. Tonge, but was
bought in at the reserved bid, £2,300. After that, Mr.
Danderdale purchas-d the ship for £2,000, and the
plaintiff put in a claim for the commission on that
amount, alleging that it was through his instru-
mentality that the purchase had been effected. In
answer to that the defendant pleaded that he had never
employed the plaintiff, but had put the sale of the ship
into the hands of Mr. Tonge, to whom he had paid the
commission. His Honour held that the plaintiff had
never been employed, and that it would be a great act
of injustice that the defendant should have to pay a
second party the commission,' when he had ptid Mr.
Tonge. A verdict wRs given for the defendant.
137LEACIT OF AN AGREtMENT—WILLIANTS V. SANKEY.
—This was a claim fur £lB Bs. 7d., the price of some
timber, which it was alleged the defendant had agreed
to purchase. After the Case had been partially heard
his honour Ruled that there was no contract made, nor
yet a delivery, therefore the plaintiff was nonsuited.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT.—This was an action brought
by a female named Murphy, formerly in the service of
the defendant, Mr. Courtney, an outfitter, in Paradise-
street, for compensation for having been given into
fact o
into cus-
tody 1
the plaintiff having been given into custody was proved,
on a charge of stealing a sovereign. •
and the jury gave a verdict in her favour. Damages, 40s.
A BROKEN LEG.:—ThiS Was an action brought to
recover compensation for a broken leg. The plaintiff, a
man of the name of Brennan, a poulterer, living in the
neighbourhood
DecemberheodofSt.
last John's
in the Market,housewoafs
theon defendant,
eenndiagnhtt
of,
Mr. Jonghin, a publican, living in Roc-street, when a
angry words the defendant told
cthonavtedrasyattoaundaraofseterasbooniliot a.race that bad taken place on
hitinehderoNlviiumonoutth,
einpadvoeinzawtehicihd
he was off, but as h
the plaintiff that it wasust
tales
d
v e
rlanl
persons cross-examination
different h e
nthoet
rgloainthtieff dsteafetenddaltitet
wasp
an
hadai admitted
dd
thathis llieoghafrdactlecis;
as to how his leg was broken—one, that he had
money,bee
pa
run over by a shandry. A verdict was given for the
defendant, the assessor observing
that o thexetporatrt of the
affetdihtferwoahm ordering him to be proceeded against forsaad .
most impudent
guiltyf
perjury,atttaiipt to
but although he
raenlfrdiantithni
disposed of were totally devoid of
The other cases
perjury the defendant could do so if he pleased.
public interest.