The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-10-26 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.-YESTERDAY.

(Before Mr. W. A. HULTON.)
JURY CAM—HICKEY v. CAMPI3ELL.—The plaintiff
resides at No. 3, Hurst-street ; the defendant is the
well-known attorney, Mr. John Campbell, of No. 6,
Castle-street. The action was brought to recover the
sum of 130 and costs, under the following circum-
stances: .oti the 9th of August the plaintiff was bound
over for two months for assaulting the police in the
execution of their duty. While detained in custody a
watch was taken from him, and, at his own request,
Passed over to Mr. Campbell for the pufpotte of obtain-
ing necessary bail. From the evidence of the defendant
it would appear that he experienced great diffictiqy itt
getting sureties; but at length a man named Dac
consented to act as bail, on condition that he received
indeninity for the amount. The defendant had re-
ceived directions to take any steps he thought
indispensable in order to secure his indemnity, and accord-
ingly drew up an assignment of his (the plaintiffs)
goods. Another man, named Woodhouse, on simi-
lar terms also became surety. After the plaintiff's
release• from gaol, Mr. Campbell was desired to
return the watch; but he would not do so, without—
first, the written order of the plaintiff; and secondly,
on any terms at all. He was threatened with an action
in the County Court, but he still kept the watch. On
the 27th Sept. a summons was taken out by the plaintiff
for the amount already named ; the bail did not expire,
however, until October.—The plaintiff's wife iris exa-
mined, and she stated that she had given a written order
from her husband to Mr. Duke, for the purpose of
obtaining the watch from the defendant.—Mr. Black-
hurst (who appeared for the defendant) : Did your hus-
band speak to Mr. Campbell ? • No, sir ; I would not
allow my husband to do so.—Mr. Blackhurst : But you
have spoken to him. Yes, sir ; I can speak to him at
any time, but I would much rather speak to a gentle-
man.—Mr. Campbell expressed his willingness to give
the watch up, asserting that he had always been pre-
pared to do so upon the defendant's personal order.
He, however, maintained that his expenses should, by
agreement, have; been paid .from any amount for which
the watch might have sold.—His Honour, in addressing
the jury, drew attention to the, fact that the watch was
given to the defendant for a specific purpose—viz., the
procuration of bail under indemnity ; and directed them
to give a verdict for the plaintiff, with damages of ls. if
it were handed over this day, or £3O and costs in any
other case.
ensamns v. HARRIS.—Mr. M'Coubrey appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Groeott for the defendant. This
was an action to recover damages from the defendant
under the following circumstances :—Germain Charles
is a Frenchman who has carried on business in 5, Port-
land-buildings, Lime-street, as importer of fancy goods.
Harris is employed in the same occupation. In 1857
the plaintiff bought No., 5, Portland-buildings, from
Mr. Teuton. Failure in business compelled bins, at the
latter end of that year, to give up his interest in the
property to ithe defendant, introducing, however, a suc-
cessor in trade in the person of Mr. Clunah, who was no
more fortunate than himself.. At the latter end of 1858,
at the plaintiff's suggestion, the business was made over
to a Mr. Morin, who, however, consented to keep in
safety for the plaintiff a quantity of household furniture,
valued by the latter at £32. Difficulties beset Mr.
Morin in 1859, and at Christmas in that year ihe pre-
mises, including the business, were conveyed to Mr.
Harris, the defendant in this case. Morin sold the stock
by private contract to Harris, who was told by the plain-
tiff, previous to the sale, that a portion of the furniture
in Nos. 2 and 3 floors, as well as the kitchen utensils,
were his property, and he warned hint not to buy them.
Harris is said to have remarked, "Very well, 1 do not
want your furniture." Mr. Teuton was also stated to have
been perfectly aware of the fact. Mr. Teuton, who was
called on behalf of the plaintiff, deposed that the sale of
the premises to Clunah did not realise as much as Mr.
Charles owed him. In consequence of a system of per-
secution Clunah was glad to give up the business in
favour of Mr. Harris. Witness did not remember having
been told that the defendant had any furniture on the
premises ; and remarked that Mr. Harris (who had since
left the country) had complained that Charles had not
left household goods enough to enable him to prepare his
food. Mr. Wm. Midgley, who had transacted Mr.
Morin's business, affirmed that the furniture in the
house was the property of the plaintiff, bought from
Mr. Morin, and paid for, to his knowledge. Mr.
qarris contradicted the whole' of the evidence, explain-
ing, however, that sonic broken cups, paiis, and fixtures,
belonging to the plaintiff, were bought for £2 10s., and
a sausage machine. Mr. Howell, auctioneer, prove
having made a valuation and a sale of the property.
TheM'Co
uhboruesye household
reduced
utensils
ariema i
tsoe d
thf6va2lusa. tio6nd. of Mth%'
auctioneer, merely remarking that he could not _do
otherwise in the face of the evidence. His Honour,
after making a good many remarks on the case, non-
suited the plaintiff.

CULTIVATION OF COTTON IN QUEENSLAND
(AUSTRALIA.)

The Liverpool Chamber of Commerce have received
some interesting information relative to the resources of
Queensland for cotton cultivation. Mr. W. Brooks, in
a paper read on the 3rd July last, before the Queensland
Philosophical Society, stated that the whole of Queens-
land lies within those degrees of latitude where the
cotton plant grows luxuriantly. Wherever cotton has
been tried on the coast of Queensland, the yield has
been plentiful, and the quality excellent. The peren-
nial nature of the plant in this locality would much
lessen the labour of its cultivation. Mr. Brooks esti-
mates that a grower in Queensland could, by selling the
cotton at 10d. per pound, realise £125 per annum from
five acres of land, an amount exceeding., considerably,
the produce from other crops. Mr. Clegg,
.cf
.Man-
chester (a letter from whom Mr. Brookes read), has
offered to pay 2s. per pound for Queensland cotton of
the quality which has been so far produced.

:,VVBitEVO_L POLICE COURT.-YESTERDAY.

(Before Mr. RAFFLES.)
A 11'14 COVE-4 DISCOVERY.

John Hines, a young ageitieman Conveyancer,"` who
looked very like an Egyptian niuteniV ryas charged' for
haying attempted to rob the till of Ali:Frederick Rugh-
tiorth's 1)F—the " Atlantic," in Robert-street North.
The pieSeentot, stated that he was in the snug bistiele
the bar about sigivt o'clock on Wednesday night, along
with a friend. There Was no one in the bar at the time,
and his attention was diawn to a shadow that was
passing to and fro in the bar. Re. went into the bar,
and there saw the prisoner indulging in a somewhat
rather curious freak, to wit, loOking the money
drawer, in which he had his hand, havingalreailq opened
that receptacle for the precious metals. Not relishing
this s6rt of uncalled for freedom, he enquired what
brottght the prisoner there. and what he was doing ?
The prisoner fiery coolly replied, I am drawing a glass of
rum for myself, and I want' to know what right you
haie to interfere with me ? The prosecutor, thinking
he had the best right according to law, as it at present
stands, td be in the har, disputed his claim with the
prisoner, and by the aid of a policeman lodged him in
the station-house. Mri Raffies Was he drunk ? No,
esir,
ehses was
mquite
Rafflessob e r: ,
Ibvuht
aa
tit ewr
atsh aitn he
thfeigned dor unlnyka-
few shillings, as I had emptied it a short time before.
The prisoner said he did not remember what toelt place,
and his worship was about to deal with him, when
trio persons who were in court, recognised him 'as
the fellow who had brought a crucifix into a house
a day or two since. It will be remembered
that a heerhcarse keeper in Rupert-street, named Thomas
Garside; -a'nd his servant, had been remanded on a
charge of heing concerned in the stealing of a crucifix
(as reported in our paper of yesterday), and the two
persons who recogniiged the prisoner were attending as
witnesses in the case when they saw him. Ile was then
ordered down for the present. At d subsequent pert of
the day he was brought up along with Garside and
Anne Almond, his servant, on a charge of being con-
cerned in stealing the crucifix. In addition to the
evidence, published in the Times of yesterday, Mrs.
Guy, broker of Copperas-hill, stated that the wife of
Gatti& Came to her, and wanted her to buy the crucifix,
the female prisoner was with her, but she did not say a
word. The witness sent the article out to inquire the
value of it, and then Mrs, Garside ran away, leaving
the prisoner Almond in the shop. A witness named
Tidd, said he was in Garside's house en Tuesday evening,
and saw the prisoner Hines there, and saw the crucifix
with the teniale prisoner, and Hines took it out of
her hand, saying they were going to sell it. The
witness was called cat of the kitchen to look at the
crucifix; and he saw Mrs. Garside and the female
prisoner go out with it. Detective-officer Cozens was
examined as to the statement made by Garside, which
was the same as already published. Nike-officer Swain
stated that the female prisoner told him the crucifix was
in the house of Garside since last Saturday. The female
was then discharged and put into the witficsq-box, and
said the prisoner Hines brought the crucifix to the
house. Mr. Raffles said Garside had placed himself in
a position of great suspicion. From his conduct, and
the conduct of bis wife, he had little doubt that the
house was a receptacle for stolen property. He did not,
however; think the evidence at present sufficient to
warrant a Conviction, and therefore he would discharge
him ; but he hail better be cautious how he acted in
future. He sent Hines to gaol for three months as a
rogue and vagabond, for being found in Mr. Rushworth's
bar. file is well known to the police.]
(Before Messrs. R. GLADSTONi and HORNAT.)
CHARGE OF ASSAULTING THE POLICE.

Thomas Nowlan, a respectable-looking young man,
was summoned by police-officer Greenwood (128) for
having assaulted him. Mr. Cobb appeared for the
defence. The officer stated that on the night of the
7th, in nose-place, the defendant, with some other
young men, were rather the worse for liquor ; they
were making a noise and insulting several persons, when
the officer wanted them to go away; but as he alleged
they would not, and after an altercation he stated that
the defendant assaulted him. For the defence Mr.
Cobb called several respectable-looking young men, who
swore quite the opposite of that which was sworn to by
the policeman; but the magistrates believed the case
made out by the officer, and fined the defendant £1 and
costs.

CAUTION TO EMIGRANT RUNNERS.
Emmanuel O'Donnell, an emigrant runner, was sum-
moned under the 75th section of the Emigration Act,
for not wearing his badge. Mr. Povey, the out-door
officer of the Emigration Officers, stated that he saw
the defendant escorting emigrants without wearing his
badge, contrary to the act. The defendant did not
appear and the magistrates fined him 10s. and costs.