The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-01-26 00:00:00

(IfIEPOILE MR, G NIAiWELL.)

PICKING Pocxrrs.—Two females (mother and daughter),
named Mary and' Jessie M‘Giiffy, and a girl named Anne
Johnson, about 16 years of.. age, were charged by Caroline
dreaves, wha keeps a • cigar shop in Haughton-street, with
having picked her pocket of £lO. The prosecutrix, who was
very fashionably attired, said the eldest M‘Guffy entered her
shop on Wednesday night, and asked her to take her daughter
as a lodger. She refused to do so, and then the prisoner Jessie
put her hand into her (the prosecdtrix) pocket and tdok out
her purse, which contained eight sovereigns and two pounds in
silver, with which she ran off. Officer Thompson (detective)
said he went to a house occupied by Jessie in Albion-street,
where he found a large 'quantity of new wearing apparel, and
other things which she had just purchased, as it was supposed,
with the money stolen from the prosecutrix. She wrs com-
mitted for three months. There being no evidence against the
other prisoners, they were discharged.

TiE ROBBERY OF JEWELLERY.--William Johnston, John
Flood, William and James Hadfield, who had been remanded
on a charge' of having stolen and being cancel ned in the exten-
sive robbery of jewelery and money belonging to Mons. Louis
Sancan, were brought up. The details of this case was pub-
lished in our paper on two former days. Mr. Black defended
the prisoners Hadfield. A gentleman from the French
consul's Ace attended to interpret fdr the prosecutor.
in addition to the evidence already given it was
pkoved that' the' - Haiftelds' and andther Person
(not in custody), had brought the trunk, containing the motley
and property, from the depot at the custom house to a public
house in Old' Hall-street, and that they had changed a good
many pieces of the American gold, and purchased clothes.
The prisoners Hadfield were passengers by same ship, the
Driver, as the prosecutor, from New York. Several drapers
and other shopkeepers were examined, and they stated that
the prisoners purchased goods at their respective establish-
ments, and paid in American coin. Inspector Murphy said,
when be arrested Flood at his house in Henry-street, Man-
chester, he found there the trunk, with numerous articles and
several lumps of silver, which the prosecutor identified as his
property. Mr. Washington, of Old Hall-street, identified
Johnston, whose mother offered some of the jewellery to him
for sale. Mr. Washington also proved that he gave informs•
tion which led to the discovery of the property and the arrest
the prisoners. 'the allegation of Johnston was, that he found
George's Pier-head, and,
s pointed out as mixed

pert at low water mark,

'nfirmation of t

The evidence against him hot being considered
suffieient, he was discharged. He made several attempts to
get back the property found on him, but the only effect pro-
duced was some laughter at hie impudence. The other pri-
soners were fully committed for trial.

up ,with it.

THE £52 ROBBERY.—Anne Wrigg was brought up on re-
mand, on a charge of having stolen £52 from Mr. George
Murphy. Two or three witnesses were questioned, but their
evidence did not throw any light on the subject, and the
magistrate, not deeming the evidence sufficient, discharged the
prisoner.

SAD CASE.—In our paper of this day week there appeared
a case under this bead, in reference to a young woman named
Louisa Montague, who was brought up on a charge of stealing
some money and wearing apparel from a female *ho keeps a
disreputable house in Vinch-street. On that occasion the
girl was remanded., When brought up yesterday, she pre-
sented quite a different appearance from what she did on the
former day. She was attired in the first fashion. On being
put to the har, the police officer said there was no one appear.
ing to sustain any charge against her. She was then
discharged. It was stated that some of her friends had arrived
from Dublin, and had settled the affair in dispute; and had
furnished her with the clothes which she now wore, and that
she was to be taken back to that city by her friends, who are
said to be highly respectable.

BEERHOUSE CASES.—John Warburton, St. Andrew..street,
was charged with selling liquors on Sunday, 13th inst, at pro-
hibited hours. Mr. Black was for the defendant, and in reply
to him the officer, Southwell, 705, said he was in plain clothes
at the time. Mr. Block produced a lodger in the house, who
said the parties found in the house were his visitors—dis-
missed: Elizabeth Madden, Chadwick street, was charged
with a similar offence on Sunday morning last, an& with having
five persons in the house. The defence was that the people
were lodgers—dismissed. Bridget Linden, Wolfe-street, fined
L 5 and costs, for doing business at prohibited hours on Sunday.
Elizabeth Mallin, Chadwick-street, charged with Sunday
trading : acquitted. George Whitley, St. Bride-street, Sun-
day trading : fined 40s. and costs.l Ellen ()Dowell, Oriel-
street, for Sunday trading : acquitted. Richard Barterwood,
Gaseoyne-street) for Sunday trading: acquitted. Anne
Houghton Bevington-street, for Sunday trading : acquitted.
Robert Worrell, Edward-street : acquitted.
CHARGE OF STEALING NAlLS.—lnspector Murphy brought
up Joseph and Thomas Ray, and Philip M'Cortnick, on the
following charge. It appeared that about three cwt. of new
composition nails, value £l6, had been stolen from the ship
Magna Charts, in the Sandon graving dock. The prisoner
Thomas Ray, had purchased old nails from the vessel, and
whilst conveying the rubbish from the ship, the prisoners were
charged with mixing up the new nails with the old. The
three prisoners were stopped at six o'clock in the morning,
leaving the dock with the property. Upwards of 220 lbs. weight
of the new nails were picked out of the rubbish, and two boys
were still engaged separating them. The captain of the
ship proved having sold the old nails to Thomas Ray, but he
denied having authorised the prisoners to take new nails. In
reply to Mr. Campbell, who appeared for the defence. the

captain said the ship had been coppered about a year ago, but
the coppering did not last its time. The usual course was to
,nd materials go to Moss and Co., and, at
to adopt that course ; but afterwards, he
resolved to sell the old nails and the sweepings. Some wit-,

et the old nail

nesses were examined, an

be prisoners were remanded to

this day to produce further evidence.
(BEFORE MR. MANSFIELD.)
Mr. William Watson, butcher, of Richmond-row, was
summoned by police-officer 661, for allowing a ferocious
dog (which belongs to him,) to be at large, and also for
refusing to give his name, under the following circum-
stances : —The officer stated that on the night of the 17th
of January, about twelve o'clock, while on duty in Rich-
mond-row, he heard a man crying out as if in distress. He
hastened to the spot, and saw the man standing in the
street and two dogs jumping at him. On coming up, the
dogs ran into the defendant's house, at the door of which
he himself was standing, and the man, whose name, it was
subsequently ascertained, was Richard Williams, was so
much alarmed, that he could not at first give his name.
Whilst the complainant was questioning him, the defen-
dant came up and asked the officer if he was making a
charge against him for his dogs. He was also very offen-
sive in his manner, and, taking the officer by the collar,
demanded his number. The complainant replied, " you
have now got my number—what is your name ? I must
summons you for having ferocious dogs at large in the
street." The defendant answered that he would see him
d—d before he gave his name, but subsequently stated
that it was Watson, and that he lived in the street, but
refused to give his Christian name. The complainant
then, with the assistance of officer 314. took him to the
station, where he gave his name, and was discharged, but
complained that while taking him there, he was obstructed
by Mr. Smith, publican, of Richmond-row. Both
officers made their statements in. a very correct and
clear omanner ; but, on the other hand, the defendant
and his witnesses, among whom was the man Richard Wil-
liams, who stated that he had been alarmed, though not
injured by the dogs, positivelY denied that Mr. Smith
offered any obstruction to them. Mr. Martin appeared
on behalf of the defendants. Mr. Mansfield said that he
felt difficulty in dealing with the case, in consequence of
the great discrepancy in the evidence. It was clear that
the dogs had ran after the man, and that he had been
alarmed; and the officer, only acting as a zealous officer
should do, and naturally conceiving that the man would
not have been so alarmed had not the dogs attacked him,
and that, therefore, they were ferocious, considered it his
duty to endeavour to ascertain to whom they belonged,
and was, on that account, justified in demanding the
defendant's name. It was to be regretted for the sake of
good order in the town, that parties should offer any
obstruction to the police ; but, as from the discrepancy in
the evidence, it was impossible to say that there had been
a serious obstruction, the defendant should be acquitted.
IMPORTANT QUESTION UNDER THE MERCHANT SHIPPING
AND COMMON LAW PROCEDURE ACTS.—STEAD V. HOWARD.
—The plaintiff, who is a seaman, and for whom Mr.
Squarey appeared, summoned the defendant, master
of the British ship Persian, for 61., balance
of wages. Mr. Simon appeared for the defendant. It was
admitted that the wages had been earned, but it was con-
tended that as the money had been attached under an
absolute order of the court of passage, obtained on a
judgment that went by default, the summons could not
lie against the defendant. Mr. Squarey contended, that
as under the 233rd section of the merchant shipping act,
it was specifically enacted, that no wages due or accruing
to a seaman or apprentice should be subject to attach-
ment or arrestment from any cause, the provisions of the
common law procedure act of 1854, which, in general
terms, gave the power of attachment, did not affect the
first mentioned act. Both acts were passed in 1854, the
merchants shipping act being chapter 124, and the common
law procedure act, chapter 125. Mr. Simon, on the
other hand, contended that the provisions of the latter
did apply to the first mentioned act, and that the court of
passage, though it was denied by Mr. Squarey, had the
case for a week.
powerfieldad
joofurned makinghi
st
jhued
gomr deenrt oi
ne
tahtot achme nt. Mr. Mans-

REPRESENTATION OF " NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE.-It is
stated, upon what appears authority, that in consequence of
the continued indisposition of Mr. Blackett, M.P., he will
retire from the representation of Newcastle-upon-Tyne
immediately upon the meeting of Parliament. Mr. George
Ridley, barrister, brother of Sir Matthew White Ridley, of
Blagdon, and son of the late Sir M. W. Ridley, who for
many years represented Newcastle-on-Tyne, will be brought
forward in the liberal interest.
THE EAST INDIA CIVIL SERVICE AND HAILEYBURY.--
At the examination of candidates for admission to Hailey-
bury, which terminated on the 6th instant, set
av
tnehand
rejected. In order to obtain the most promising talent,
individual directors applied at once to our leading public
othertr weschoolssoutWinchester
ooaros
.l
ot youthsnhea.t
onl likely
Rugby
y toss
Harrowse
eddno creditetreudop
inttoeao,bn eyE:
tM
althoughoallpartiesnero hnea,n
no special preparation, and only four days notice. enydsohtemhar Taylors'
dee,