The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-08-17 00:00:00

MURDER ON THE HIGH SEAS.

Hugh Galbraith was charged with having caused the
death of a sailor on board the British ship Earl of
Derby, on the 9th of July last, on the homeward voyage
from Calabar. The facts of this case were recently pub-
lished in the nines. It was proved that, at the time,
the man WlCay was very ill, and, having sold some
shoes, the prisoner went up to him and gave him a blow
which knocked him off the hold, and he died about half
an hour after. For the defence it was shown that the
deceased was very bad at the time the prisoner struck
the blow, and was nearly dead. The prisoner received
an excellent, character for humanity and kindness, and,
Oe jury having found him guilty, his lordship ordered
him to be imprisoned for seven days. As the imprison-
ment commenced from the first day of the assizes, he
was immediately discharged.
Mary Roach, alias Smith, was charged with stabbing
Sarah Williams in a house in. Peter-street. Both were
4, unfortunates," and in a drunken quarrel in a brothel
the prisoner strnok the prosecutor with a knife. Guilty
of unlawfully wounding. Four months' imprisonment.
The Court then adjourned until this morning,

• NISI PRIUS COURT.—YEsrrEnnAY.
(Before Mr. Baron WILDE.)
HARRISON V. AINLEY.--The hearing of this case
was resumed yesterday morning, at the sitting of the
eourt. The plaintiff was re-examined at some length
by his counsel, Mr. Overend, and he adhered to his
original statement that he had never told any of the
children that the Bible contained lies, and was full of
them. The plaintiff's examination having been corn-
pleted, Mr. Edward James addressed the jury at great
length for the defendant; 4e Q 414 Call witnesses—
pupils of the school—who would positively swear that
the plaintiff had told them repeatedly that the Bible
contained lies. A number of witnesses were called to
support this case, but the only one who spoke to the exact
words of the libel was a girl named Betty Needham, who
stated that the plaintiff had told her more than once the
very words in restion. The other of the defendant's
witnesses did not @ay they bad ever heard tlla plaintitr
nse the word lie in reference tq the Bible; they had
heard him say that the story about Lazarus and the rich
WA was only a parable. They had also heard him say
that the word "hell" very often meant the grave, and
that when it was said that Jonah was in the belly of the
whale, it must be understood that the grave was referred
to. With a view to contradict the evidence of Betty
Needham, Mr. Overend was allowed to call other pupils
who had belonged to the school for many years, and who
il3tl;7e9l.lieibl in positively
than h that the plaintiff had never alluded to
ever, said also that t`h6rtheramdsnooft rbeeyeenreinncsec.borrolhweyhen ,hOtWh;
passages alluded to by the other witnesses were expounded.
Mr. Edward James commented upon this evidence in a
short but impressive address. He alluded to the fact
that not one of the witnesses who had been called to
contradict the evidence offered on behalf of the defendant
were present whenthe passaps in question were read,
which would account, or
'conrse, for 'their not hearing
the comments. He hoped they vieuld remember
that the man who conducted himself in this way was a
and that,
youth,
"Whosoever offends any of
theseteacher
little o f
onesthat believe in me, it were better that a
millstone were cast around his neck, and ho were drowned
in the sea." Mr. Overend, in replying.on behalf of the
plaintiff, complained of the persecution to which his
client had been subjected on account of his religious
principles. Those principles had been entered
into alld it was, no doubt, done
for the purpose of exciting a prejudice against the
plaintiff. The question which they were fo consider
was simply whether it had been shown that the allega-
tion brought by the defendant against the plairitiff in
d
the letter he published in the Todmorden Advertisir
had been proved by the witnesses he had called on this
trial.
been
at great length into
the raised in the course of the
T questionsli le counsel
hadb

case; he produced several versions of the Bible, and
also commentaries on the same by the most learned
Christians of the day, and showed that the plaintiff's
opinions were but in accordance with these, and this was
no reason he contended why an unfounded statement
like that contained in this libel, should be brought
forward. His Lordship in commenting upon the very
volumnious evidence which had been adduceed, told the
jury that many questions had been raised by the defendant's
counsel which bad no earthly connection with the libel they
were to try. It was of no importance, for instance, to know
that in some instances the plaintiff had preferred a dif-
ferent reading of a passage in the Bible to that which
was given in the common authorised edition. Such an
opinion had been held by many eminent men ; and even
supposing the defendeut had an honest opinion that a
certain passage was not genuine, and had stated so to
any person, that would be a very different thing from
the allegation contained in the libel. It was one thing
to take a passage in the Bible and say " I put this or
that construction upon it," and another thing to say " I
believe the Bible contains lies, and is full of them."
The jury retired, and after an absence of upwards of
two hours they returned to court with a verdict for the
plaintiff, with one farthing damages. Mr. Overend
applied for a certificate. His lordship said he would
consider the matter this morning.

MORE LIBELS.—RAILTON I'. RAILTON.—III this case
Mr. Monk, Q.C., appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Cross for the defendant. This was also an action for a
libel which the defendant had written respecting the
plaintiff. It appears that the plaintiff and defendant
are brothers. The plaintiff, Richard, retired from busi-
ness some time ago, and the defendant is now a whole-
sale milliner at Manchester. They were the sons of a
gentleman who died in the year 1829. In the year
1846 some disputes occurred aliout- the division of the
property. The plaintiff has some relations who live in
the neighbourhood of Penrith, and he has been in the
habit of going to spend some time with them in the
autumnal months. In September last year he was
stopping with these persons, when a letter was
delivered by the postman, addressed to Miss Crampton
(one of the ladies). This letter, which was after-
wards shown to the plaintiff, contained a state-
ment to the effect that if the plaintiff should visit
her house they were not to give him anything, or
lend him any money, as he had robbed his poor brother
Joseph (who was then dead) of £l7O. Also that he
was in the habit of going about from farmer to farmer
begging, and that his wife kept a lodging-house in
Manchester; a subscription had been raised (according
to the letter) to buy her a mangle, but the plaintiff was
a fellow of such idle habits that he refused to turn it.
The plaintiff at once recognised the handwriting to be
that of his brother, and accordingly brought him to
court to make him prove the statement. The defen-
dant's counsel acknowledged that the libel was untrue,
and having made an apology for his client's conduct, a
verdict was entered for the plaintiff with damages suffi-
cient to carry costs.

BOWERS V. THRELFALL.—This action was brought to
recover the value of a quantity of waste, which the
defendant had purchased from the plaintiff. It appears
that the waste was 'sold to the defendant on the 6th of
June, and was delivered on the 7th, Bth, and 9th of
that month. Ihe plaintiff having the goods to dispose
of, had taken them from Stockport to Manchester where
they were purchased by the defendant for £203. Before
the case had been heard throughout, a verdict was
entered for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed.

HOLROYD AND ANOTHER V. BOVILL.-Mr. Millward
appeared for the plaintiffs iu this case, and Mr. Mellish
for the defendant. The action was brought to recover
the sum of £5O, which had been paid to the defendant
as agents for the plaintiffs. The Messrs. Holroyd are
stuff manufacturers, at Leeds, and the defendant, Mr.
Bovill, is a clerk and book-keeper to a gentleman of the
name of Taylor, carrying on business near Halifax.
Mr. Taylor was very considerably indebted to the pre-
sent plaintiffs, and they found it necessary to take pos-
session of a mortg,age which they had upon his pro-
perty. Accordingly they entered into possession of the
premises, and paid off debts (including rent, &c.) to the
amount of about £l,OOO. In the mill there was a quan-
tity of machinery which had been let out by Mr. Taylor
to some other manufacturers, and it was arranged that
the defendant should receive the rent and hand it over
to the plaintiffs. The first sum that became due. was
£5O, which was given to the defendant, but which he
did not give up to the plaintiffs. Hence arose the pre-
sent action. It was shown that the defendant was acting
merely as the servant of Mr. Taylor, and that.the agree-
ment between himself and the plaintiffs had not been
completed. The jury therefore found for the defendant.
The court adjourned at half-past five o'clock.

THE DAILY TIMES, FRIDAY, AUGUST 17, 1860.