The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-07-26 00:00:00

(BEFORE MR. RATHBONE.)

THE ADVENTtrItES OF SOME EIS. RINGS.—Johtz
Joseph, an itinerant jeweller, charged a man named
Lee,, with stealing some ear rings from him, and Mary
Anne Rimmer and Catherine M'Cumastha, were charged
with receiving the same. The complainant said he went
to 20, Pe'er's lane, on Tuesday night, where the prisoner
Lee was, and he alleged that whilst showing some of his
wares for sale, the ear rings were stolen, and subse-
quently, a pair of the missing articles were found in the
ears of the prisoner, Catherine lll`Cumastha. The
case was a confused one, but as well as could be col-
lected from the evidence, it seemed that whilst Lee was
handling the " wares," some of them disappeared, and
the prisoner, in whose ears they were found, said she
got them from the other female, and the allegation was,
that she got them from Lee. However, it would win,
that it was from a sailor the first girl had them, and
from the confusion that surrounded the affair, and which
was greatly augmented by the attempts made to enlighten
it by a policeman, the three prisoners were disoharged;
as the evidence was not considered sufficient.

STEALING BY A Lonuna.—A nice looking young
woman. (with a child in h,r arms) whose name was
urged by Mary
stolen a quantity
The prisoner

iven as Elizabeth Manning, was ch

)scoe, of Pownell-square, with hay

of wearing

)dged in comphtinant's house, and it

veared that she

took about X`..i worth of property, and: pledged it for
ss. The prisoner was identified as the person who
pledzed the property. The unfortunate prisoner said
and tcok the things, but intended to
She was committed for one month,
for illegally pledging.

release tbein again

STEALING IN AN HOTEL—Maria Davies, a kitchen
maid in the United States Hotel, Waterloo-road, wait
on siispicion of having stolen a variety of
property; belonging to other servants. It appeared that
for some time past, the servants and other persona
missed things, and on the previous evening a policeman
searched the house, and under a safe in the pantry, ha
found a paper parcel which contained some property,
consisting of ribbons and other female ornaments;
together with a gold ring and chain, and other articles;
were found. It was stated that the ring had beeristoleri
from a lady who formerly conducted the hotel i t Yrs:
Corsuch, but 'the lady is now in London. Some of fie►
other servants proved that the things found belonged to
them, and had been stolen ,Nra them, but they could not
tell by whom they were taken. it, Was shown that every
servant in the house had access to the :ilsee, and there
being a doubt about the prisoner's guilt, sue was dis-
charged.

A SHAWL THAT WALKED AWAY. —Margitret Quint
was charged with having stolen a shawl, value £l,Alki
property cf Mrs. M. Davis, the owner of the Welsh
Harp Public house, Highfield_street. The article was
hung on the " snug" door, and in a short time after the
prisoner was arrested in Pownell-square, with the shawl
in her possession. She alleged that she purchased: t
from a boy for a shilling, but thiS story not being
credited, she was sent to jail for a month, for not being
able to properly account for how she got it.

A DODGE AT A BLACKAIAN..-Willi4m Roberts, a biaCti
man, was charged with having Stolen a blanket from ti 4
house of John Wearing, a sailor's boarding establish7L
ment, in Pitt-street. Mr. Block appeared for this
prisoner. The case was somewhat curious, the tollovilne
being the facts, as elicited by Mr. Block from ilfe cony.
plainant and his wife. The prisonerlodged at the hob.lid,
of complainant, and some dispute having arose between
them about an account, and the complainant having
shipped the prisoner in a vessel for New Orleans
obtained a note for £4 10s. The prisoner left complain—
ant's horse, fearing he would be detained as a slave if
he went to New Orleans. The complainant then alleged
that the prisoner stole a blanket from him, but this was
totalty negatived, and the prisoner was discharged.

(BEFORE MR. GL A DSTONE.)

THREATENING TO SHOOT.—A person of respectable
exterior, named Denis Branagan, was brought up by
constable 684, who stated that about eight o'clock the
previous evening, he was called into the house, No. 3.
Carbon-street, when he was told the prisoner had
threatened to shoot a woman named Eliza Devine.
It appeared that the prisoner was drunk, and, in this
state he used the threats alluded to ; and it further
appeared that, during the day, the prisoner said soma
one in Mr. Sabel's office had insulted him, and that-
he got a pistol to protect himself. The policeman got
a pistol in the prisoner's pocket, and this was loaded with
powder and ball, and capped. He also got a quantity of
powder and bails in his pockets. The people in the
house were in a great state of alarm, in consequence of
the threats used by the prisoner. The complainant
did not wish to proceed in the case, and the prisoner
was discharged with a caution. The pistol, &c., were
ordered to be retained.

PUBLICANS' AND BEERROUSE CASES,

Martha Ibbs, publican, of Watkinson street, wail
charged with doing business at illegal hours; iined 21
6d, and 2s 6d costs.

Joseph Binchill, publican, Bevington hill, charged
with a like offence ; fined 5s anl costs.

Thomas Stathers, beerhouse keeper, Wolfe street, Park,
sunday trading; fined 20s and costs.
Da. 11PNEites CLOCK. Ellen Wright, beerhouse
keeper, Tulford street, was charged with doing business
at ten minutes before one on Sunday. The defendant
pleaded that she went by Dr. M'Neile's clock at his
church, which was near, and if that was not right, she
was decidedly wrong,. This novel defence caused much
laughter, but was effectual, as the case was dismissed.
Richard Spruce, beerhouse keeper, Bronte street, was
charged with Sunday trading ; fined 10s and costs.
as charged with doing

Mary Crofton

business at illegal hours
John Bushell, High street, Edge Hill, beerhouse
keeper, was charged with selling ale at illegal hours on
Sunday. The defence was, that the parties who got
the ale were travellers ; fined 2s 6d and 2s 6d costs.

Joseph Corry, of Fairelough lane, beerhouse keeper,
was charged with selling ale at eleven o'clock on
Sunday; dismissed.

Hugh Gwilt, a beerhouse keeper at Mile End, was
charged with selling ale at twelve o'clock on Sunday:
The defence was, that the men found in the house were
lodgers; fined 20s and costs.
Charles Reed, Bond street, beerhouse keeper, wag
summoned for Sunday trading; dismissed.
Thomas W. Denny, beerhouse keeper, Upper Hill
street, was charged for refusing to admit the police on
Sunday. Defence in this case was, that the knocking
was not heard ; dismissed.

William Ilignett, Dingle lane, Kirkdale, was sum-
moned for refusing to admit the police on Sunday; fined
20s and costs.

THE GREAT HOP\VOOD CAUSE.

EQUITY COURTS,-JULY 24

BEFORE THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS

Horwoon v. Horwoon.—The parties to this suit are the
same as in the great will cause which was recently tided it
Liverpool. The bill was filed to obtain a declaration that ai
legacy of £5,000 bequeathed by the will of Mr. Georgo Hope
wood was satisfied by a covenant to pay a sum of £5,000, which
he the testator entered into in executing the marriage settle-
ment of Mr. Frank Hopwood. The Solicitor-General, Mr.
Roupell, and Mr. Karslake, were heard for plaintiff yesterday.
This morning, without calling on the counsel for the defence,
His Honour gave judgment. He said the testator, on the
29th of April, 1829, gave a legacy of £5,000 to his sea
Frank, and by his will he showed a disposition to make his
younger children equal, to give them £5,000 a piece. Then
his daughter, who was one of them, married the Earl of
Sefton, and on that marriage £2,000 was paid, and thereupon
the testator made a codicil in July, 1834, in which he
stated that that was done, and that there only remained
£3,000 to make good the £5,000. Then in the
following year Frank married Lady Eleanor Stanley, and
upon his marriage with that lady Mr. George Hopwood
, to be ap pli ed
entered into a covenant to pay £5 000
according to the trusts of the settlement. Then, ill
February, 1850, he made a codicil, and in April, 1851.
aadvfauLtelidel£ cs°,ololl'teathldis itnonthHa v
e latterre he stated that he had
y, and that was to be in
satisfaction of the former legacy of £5,000. The question
now was whether the legacy of £5,000 to Frank George
Hopwood was adeemed by the covenant to pay £5,000 under
the settlement, and if the matter stood there it would be
impossible to say that the legacy was not adeemed by the
estates
covenant; but in the codicil of Februlry, 1850, subsequent
to the marria,e of his son Frank theerrew was this passagetom;
" Whereas I have by my will devised
trustees therein mentioned, two sums; of £5,000 each for the
benefit of my sons Frank
.George Hopwood and Harvey
Hopwood, I do, hereby direct my trustees to
• £7,000 each,
nlfor o
tinlee
raise by the ways and 'means mentioned in my will,
of which
of sumsmy
son of
shall two furthersluuble held
8 of
£7,000 1,
Harvey Hopwood, as in my will is declared as to the legacy of
£5,000, and the other sum of £7,000, to be applied for the
benefit of my sou Frank George Hopwood, as in my will is
declared as to the legacy of £5,000." The plain meaning of
these words was that the testator intended the legacies to go to
his son Frink in addition to the amount he bad covenanted to
pay. Thbre must be a declaration that the legacy of £5,000
to Mr. Frank George Hopwood was not adeemed by the
id that he was entitled to both the legacies and to
The costs of all parties to bo paid

out of tiro e

Mr. Layard addressed a meeting of his constituents at
Aylesbury, on Thursday. There were not more than sixty
persons present, many of whom. were not electors.