The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-12-19 00:00:00

RAPE.

John. Cox and. William Cross, both aged 25, were
pladed iii the'dock, oharged, the latter with committing
a; rape Upon the perioa,,of Sarah Ann Davenport; at
Heaton Norris, on the llthof dctober ; and the fernier
with assisting the latter in the.comniission of the crim
of
e.
prOsecutrix,
,who 4 young girl Of, 15 yearssgv, liad come, cconipanied by.? female companion, to
Liverpool With a cheap'_:trip from 6'6:lel:port, where,Ber
parent resides ; and after having been in Liverpool for
a few hours, her associate lost the prosecutrix's ticket,
and she was consequently compelled to walk back, not
having sufficient money to convey her by railway. She
arrived at a public-house near the above village (after
having been through Preston and Manchester, where
she had been misdirected), when she got into a cart
where the prisoners were, to get a ride home ; and they
had proceeded but a short distance when the prisoner
Cox committed, against her will, the crime imputed to
him ; and during the occurrence Cross lay at the bottom
of the cart pretending to be asleep, but on a policeman
making his appearance, he gave Cox the alarm. The
prisoner Cross VfaS discbarged.upon his lordship's advice,
and the other prisoner being found guilty, was sentenced
to seven years' penal servitude.
His lordship stated that he would take the case
against George Woodward PoWell, for forgery, this

NISI PRIUS COURT.—YESTERDAY.
(Before Mr. Justice BLACKBURN.)
His lordship came into court at half-past nine o'clock
this morning.
The case of Eckstein v. Critchley and another, which
had not been concluded yesterday, was proceeded with.
Several witnesses were called, and voluminous evidence
having been gone into, the learned counsel on both
sides replied for their respective clients. His lordship,
in summing up, said that the two questions which the jury
would have to consider, were, whether the plaintiff was
Unjustifiably, dismissed without fair and reasonable cause
or not, and if he Was -Unfairly discharged, what was the
amount of compensation he was entitled to receive at
the hands of the defendants. The jury retired to con-
sider their verdict, and after some time returned into
court, finding £6O compensation for the plaintiff.
In the case of Crossley and others v. Hamer and
others, which was an undefended action, Mr. Pope, who
appeared for the plaintiffs, stated that Richard Crossley,
Isaac Smith, and Richard Stott, who were warp manu-
facturers, at Rochdale, were the plaintiffs, and supplied
the defendants with a quantity of their goods, to the
amount of £65 15s: of which sum £5 was paid on
the l/th of September, in the present year, leaving a
balance of £6O 15s. Bd. still due. A verdict for that
amount was returned for the plaintiffs.

UNAMICABLE NEIGHBOURS.
RILEY AND WIFE v. THORNTON AND WIFE.
—ln this case Mr. Torr, in the absence of pr. Wheeler,
opened the pleadings. It appeared that the action was
brought by Joseph Riley and Jane Riley, his wife,
against Thomas Thornton and Sarah, his wife, to
recover from them damages for certain language which
Sarah Thornton had spoken maliciously of the female
plaintiff. The declaration set forth that the words
made use of were " Thou d--tion thief ; thou art a
thief, and I can prove thee one." The two ladies who
were the parties to the action lived in Holland-street,
Manchester, and had for a length of time known each
other; but some discord having arisen between them
they had not lived on the most amicable terms for the
last nine or ten months. On the 17th July Mrs. Riley
had occasion to hang clothes for the purpose of drying
them on a line in a yard in her street, and quite con-
venient to her house, and while sbe was so engaged the
female defendant came out of her house and remarked
that the prop which she (the plaintiff) was using did
not belong to her, to which Mrs. Riley replied that the
prop was her own property. This gave rise to a good
deal of abuse and impertinence on the part of the
defendant, who took the prop and carried it into her
domicile,'and afterwards came out into the street, and
in the hearing of the plaintiff and all the neighbours
called the plaintiff a liar, a thief, and also made use of
the words which formed the ground work of the present
action, The learned counsel submitted that the fact of
the defendant having made use of the words " that the
plaintiff was a d—tion thief, and that I can prove thee
one," was per se actionable. Jane Riley was called, and
stated that her husband was an engineer, in the employ
of Messrs. Barton and Son, manufacturers, in Manchester.
She lived at 13, Holland-street, and Mrs. Thornton
lived at 14, Holland-street. Thornton was a car-driver,
and earned 12s. a week. (A 1au21.) She then proved
the facts of the case, in confirmation of which several
witnesses, all of the gentle sex, were called. In reply to
Mr. Leresche, whe defended the action, Jane Riley said,
that at the time the magistrates refused to grant her a
summons against the defendant. Mr. Bent, a solicitor
in Manchester, and who appeared for the plaintiff,
stated that he had written to the defendant, requesting
that she would desist from calling Mrs. Riley a thief,
and make a suitable apology, to which Thornton made
no answer. Mr. Leresche, on behalf of the defendant,
said that the action, which was merely an Irish row
over a washing tub, by two vulgar, ignorant washer-
women, could have been easily. adjudicated upon and
settled in Manchester, without bringing it such a distance
as to that court in Liverpool. He hoped that the jury
would not victimise his client, who was a person in
humble station, and return, if they thought the words
were actionable, mere nominal damages. His lord-
ship, in submitting the question for the consideration of
the jury, gave it as his opinion that it would have been
much better if the action had not been brought at all,
which would save the time of the court, that of a large
number of witnesses, and three counsel. He said what
they should have to determine was, whether the words
attributed to the defendant were tantamount to a felony
or not; and of course if that was the case, they were
actionable, and what they had then to decide was the
amount of damages that the plaintiff was entitled to
recover from the defendant. The jury found a verdict
for the plaintiff, awarding damages to the amount of one
farthing, the costs to be borne by each party.
In the cases of Bradford v. Willett, and Willett v.
Bradford, Mr. Pope stated that the parties consented to
a verdict by consent, subject to a reference, they being
cross actions.