The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-04-19 00:00:00

THE NORTHERN TIMES.-LIVERPOOL, SATURDAY, APRIL 19, 18SO.

RAUDS ON THE LONDON AND
NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY CO.

C°IIIIITTAL OP WILLIAM PARSONAGE,

trosi:lsstierday," the prisoner, William Parsonage, was
Kr' 11P before Mr. Mansfield and Mr. Sands, at the
ceourt, for t finalosecu examination. Mr. Blerntkoinnsfoopr
hrCoir r the
tae prisod fon., priavtion, and &1:r. Brethe
The vr'
emi n Nag considerably crowded during the
letgatin which lasted nearly five hours.
th
portif;ll Of 131enkinsop said he proposed to go into another
e ca to-day, which was a char against
SalterAso,
ner, forse having conspired, with one Richard
to drefraud the company. He called the
e,r.ing witnesses .-
147 a of surge W• Allman said : I am a partner in the
ItreetQf
lots
Or t .Carmichael and Co., of Liver House, Church-
everpool. In April, 1834, I purchased several
Pieces gnosis at the sale of unclaimed goods. Lot 198, 2.
chasedt. cloth for £25 ; lot 249, '2 boxes, £2 2s. I purs
peel and 13aid for these things. I produce two cheque
Prisom„°„e the goods • they are drawn in favour of
.the
station and were paid in his presence at the Wapping
23,1ei, near Parkslane. The total of the purchases was
k,aoel;e7ese• I was present at that sale when goods were
is -tw eunwn to Todd Burns, and Co., of Dublin. Lot
, ,
hoe Bli;:e Pieces of cloth, £24, and the total of Todd
Ilite ague rchases is £36 10s, and I paid for them
ersseh.
blade 'exarnined by Mr. Bretherton : The bills were
pa.aont from. the auction list, and that was all I had..
Thelonlir• Geddes the cheques at the desk at the station.
kisone Y Person at the desk besides Geddes, was the
t'etideer' 'who came came up and gave instructions
eefores'pand then went away ; I can't say that I had paid
„asenage went away.
1/41.1•412e,eee Howell examined : I am in the firm of
elldatt,:ndievdles and co woollen drapers, of Price-street,
the April sales in 1854, and bought two
efts'me 212 is three pieces of cloth, £22. The total
PersoDn,rchase was £39, and I paid the money to the
r-b signed the bill with his initials, J. G.
tee rtounretherton: Is the prisoner the person you paid
kr beY to ? Witness : He is not.
of 'eartnen Gollin examined : I manage the.concer.n.
1864°." reeve' and Co. I attended the sales in April,
11; 111;tinbOught three lots for Moses Levy and Co. ; this
Dikiecese :,',.",and receipt for them. Lot 210 is for two
f
`fo 40h -`meleth, for £23, and I paid the money to one o
it 48114- 'n eur employ, and he brought back a receipt
kr, peel.
eeNeea„,ll;ekor, the chief clerk at the Waterloo station,.
legTlied, and turned tie the catalogue of the sales .
3.14 in s':,l 'we Pieces of cloth J. Carmichael and Ca. £25,
s. Car ""e cash book it is entered, two pieces of cloth,
°•filantiletzightte.i and Co., £l2 10s. Lot 249 is two boxes
la foe eree
er oe clefs, £2 2s, and the cash book for the same.
°• 113,-,:es £1 r's Lot 199 in catalogue is two pieces
obto-'el°(ld; Burns'. and Co., £24, and. the entry in
iutee el' '8 one piece, £l2. Lot 212 in catalogue isu
eu°oli itlee.r,aef cloth to Jeffrey and Co., £22, in the cash
6°, 42e- and
Lot 210 is two pieces of cloth, Levy and
2,°1) ti),:4l°l in cash book it is two pieces, Levy an
-`e £1,913 The total of the sales, the gross proceeds,
prisoner, lOs 9d. There is a long list of deductionsin
"ad the ner's hand entry, to the amount of £1,292 3s 7d,
e;e'tnieutit accounted for is £621 7s 2d. The gross
'llntsir'ePtelJnber, 1854, are £859 Os 4d. The deduc-
t kelt 4621 19s ld. The balance is £237 is 3d.
'll!,0t1 : Are all the figures in the prisoners.
(W,,-"ng ? Witness : Yes they are. The figures in
keriti4;aPer handed witness) are in the prisoner's hand
"k°•llle,The witness (to Mr. Blenkinsop) said, paper
in the hand writing of prisoner, and paper
"tih;s 2 all
tliati:lartly in the prisoner's hand, and partly
0.3 „e William Salter, the cashier, who ran away.
'fieit M the prisoner's hand, and No. 4is also, exceptefie '°f which I have some doubt—it is in red ink.
eget re
'fleas readl the documents in detail. The contents
Isere trete,
to the sales already alluded to. The papers
seterosen Put in as evidence.
ats cpneined by Mr. Bretherton : I know nothing of
411:.110°48 beyond the fact that they are handed to me
hinealter has headed the large book, and the dates are
10ele4andwriting. The deductions are for sundry items,
VI company's charges.
"retherton : How much are the company'sr
OittrLe!? Witness : £26o—that is for carriage and other
lelki;;', The total amount for claims are notmah
the
4.teeeelY• The balance—some portion was taken
s'es Yx• The £621 7s 2d would be paid into the baynk to
"here-ee't of the funds of the company. At No. 198
beetehe(te been written underneath 22 or 23, and I will
1e ;,etsar the figures above are in the prisoner's writing.
Wee
Put en 23rd I won't swear are in his hand-
same g. There are twenty-five lots below 198 on the
e
Derisoe Page, and seven of these are carried out _
ioces's writeee
I take. the rest to be in the writing of
believe
Salter, Ee cashier, who has run away. No. 249,
viriee'eve the figures are in Salter's handwriting—the
Prilionmg is the prisoner's. Lot 199 is not in Salter's, but the
aaed e'B3 handwriting. 212 in the figuring is in Salter's
liape'vse also 210 is the same. The cashier, Richard Salter,
120t11 ie money into the bank. I last saw Salter on the
elolt eereh, the da before Good Friday. I believe_ I
ir,ee Money onythe Saturday after Good Friday, by
e'elieeteles of Mr. Booth, the secretary. I went to Seltetrhs
taereie;" et4pire for him about half-past nine in the
lewel'ele'ers ate might be absent, occasionally, to eleven
`'eleft " hen he did not come at nine I became suspicious.
1114p-bab°llt £1,5G0 the safe, and documents ; there
Iles a•ofeeque for £1,500,1n and £1 s, and vouchers for £lOO.
10,411. erre..
eu the secretary where it would be found. . The
do ,TlPte n w produced are in Geddes's handwriting.
e'geeey-031:4 now of the prisoner having collected any
slee his present a pointment. After the goods arc
feetlo%i,ateB, Claims of ointment
in, and I know there have
"ettrlei' claims made. £1,500 left in the safe, was a
t," credit that could not be cashed on Good Friday.
neseree,,,eter 3Kehoe examined : I found these papers in the
"44 a - (lraWtr at the Park-lane station, on the night he
eroPPreheridee
,Q,(ieeellsfelainined by Mr. Bretherton : I got the keys from,
;Tee: detective), and I knew it was the prisoner
11'0411 ree'sil'new. it was the prisoner's drawer. I had Geddes
ttr nee la Mr. Blenkinso's office for an hour or an
kr, t e•lialf. ,
p
dloY,to hitiretce „ton
After your examination of him, did you
t krre
ernb You are a d d rogue or a fool ?" Witness : I
, iter that I did.
°el% retherton : Will you swear you did not. Witness :
gtlethe ltBeeear that, or anything about it. Cozens said he
(-171,,, which opened the drawers, from the prisoner.
len'e„s its vf-euges was then examined as to the account of the
Vet Ceeareh, 1854, and said : I was in the habit of co
ge iteo, 'noney for the sales at which I was present.
iteto items money
in my handwriting, (He detailed some of
Wasb prisoner had access to this book. The
'eceeB-ftle exanai das to the several books already pro.
ti°4 -atire",sPeke nte b Mr. Fricker ; and he was then
ined hylaMor. Bretherton,f and he said the catalogues
toesbill 411 in the
.__of the possession I. Mr. Salter. I made out the
tie 'Nee y sales, by direction of Salter, and when I collected
I eel to -1- Paid it to Mr. Salter. I have paid cash at the
I.nl s e Prisoner, but I cannot say how much, or when.
01%_ieci°0"feteere h.aving seen t_he large sales book in the pos.
eviartuy Prisoner, but I may have seen it in Salter's
eO5 • treth of the goods sold were
left after unclaimed.
setrace erten And may have been sold by private
clthetee4tptaer.bY Mr. Salter ? Witness : Yes ; Mr. Salter
ot es ec, ties to sell by private contract. I can't say if
%t Tee represents correctly the net proceeds of the
et
figUres at the end show what the goods sold for,
lete4lreell-rittetTl4t of money received for them.
• eke, erton
"e sin ton: you been under examination of
Witness : I have.
titl ' keth ee Your last examination ?
t„ erton And he complimented you with the
last lee Ye stated ? Witness : Yes, he did. I cannot stea.y.
k4e4t hweask? me under examination. I can't 11
Ott (heat' five hours or more.
A 4 of en arose here, in reference to the admission of
The "t 1 th "" bOOks
seh)eet, evidence,sl and after a short discussion
Mansfield admitted it for the present.
414
:4t1i"58 then, irn reply to Mr. Blenkinsop, said he made
I,4l:lol:,n°rabd:2l4 of the goods that were not claimed.
te:iirr,,l.t!eeartiOn arose as to the conspiracy with Salter,
dad tad vVI ton contended that his client could not be
ee" net t,..T the evidence of books kept by Salter alone,
ret", 0 'he Prisoner, who had no access to them.
ele'rn :'e,es was then examined as to unpaid bills as
acnu he stated that Mr. Johnston was returned
Te. J. 4),:ing for goods.
401 trade:yailiohnston was then examined :. I am in the
art of
eeote Purchased goods at the sales in 1854 to the
itee,ll: lieu,iut £350. At the March sale I bought £lBl
tog'l. T Lue accounts were balanced I
.don't owe
b"4O
eddes.
119 thetri. Bretherton : I sent the prisoner £5O to take up _
r_ had given Salter for the goods, and that is all .1.0 )4
t• except about £B.
tioaktie trettilleieeinsop I paid the dishonoured bill.
!loobN a 911 : Did not the cashier give you credit for
tit i Witness : I never got an account, but I have no
I he ocase_credited in the general account of the company
it"id the e• I have had interviews with the cashier since
frres I Parsonages did not ask him if I had got credit four
kMe. gad receipt for it, and that was enoug
r, 1,,
'p',..ierietteinsop said that closed this portion of the case.
Je• tutler r was again called in reference to the case of
esionir ) which has been already published on two former
the ' 'when Mr. Bretherton objected to the production l'te,.settetatode book. kept solely by iklr. Salter, who was not
Matzer , explain his book.
• eoeek. .
e eeel"" 1430 p said at present he would not offer any ivereePnce• but on the evidence now given he would ask
A,tr. to commit the prisoner for trial.
ptiaenezretherton then addressed the court on behalf of the
eotep ) and contended that, notwithstanding the wealthy
the allY, and 11
.priee a the power that had been brought against
utenietuktler there was not a prima facie case made out "till. Reargued that there had been nothing made

out, and asked what was the real charge brought against
the prisoner ?
Mr. Blenkinsop said, in point of law it would at present
be hard to say, but it was either stealing, embezzling, or
defrauding the company.
Mr. Bretherton went on to argue on the credence given
on the three former days, and on the present occasion.
He contended that it was not proved that the prisoner had
ever received a penny, for which he had not properly
accounted. He argued that all the prisoner's books were
found to be correct, and, therefore, the prisoner could not
be called on to answer for entries in Salter's book. He
proceeded at much length to address the court on the nature
of the evidence given in the whole case, and with much
ingenuity urged that the acts of Salter could not be visited
on the prisoner. The address of the learned gentleman
was very argumentative, and lasted for about an hour and
a half, and he concluded by calling on his worship not to
commit the prisoner on such evidence, and at least he begged
he would consider the case until next day.
Mr. Blenkinsop rose to reply, but this was objected to by
Mr. Bretherton, on the ground that he had no right, he
(Mr. Bretherton) not having called any witnesses, nor hav-
ing read any documentary evidence.
Mr. Blenkinsop said he would not, under the circum-
stances, press the court to hear him.
After sonic time, Mr. Mansfield said : This is a very
complicated case, indeed, but there is a prima facie case
made out, and I will send the prisoner for trial.
Mr. Bretherton : Will your worship take bail for the
appearance of the prisoner ?
Mr. Blenkinsop : If he should accept of bail, I trust it
will be of a very substantial description.
Mr. Mansfield said he had no wish to detain the prisoner
in custody longer than was necessary. The object of bail
was to secure the attendance of the person.
• Mr. Bretherton :He has a wife and six children looking
to him for support.
Mr. Mansfield : I will consider it to-morrow.
The witnesses were then hound over to prosecute, and the
prisoner was fully committed for trial.

THE RUMOURED DOWRY FOR THE

PRINCESS ROYAL,

The following letter on this subject has emanated
from the Liverpool Financial Reform Association. It is
addressed, pro forma, to J. C. Ewart,Esq., M.P., and W.
Brown, Esq., M.P., but may be taken as the remon-
strance, generally, of the financial reformers against even
the supposition of such a sum being voted in these
times as a dowry—to any of the royal family.
Financial Reform Association, 6, York-buildings,
Dale-street, Liverpool, April 7, 1856.
My Dear Sir,—On behalf of the council of the Finan-
cial Reform Association I beg leave to call your attention,
and, through you, that of the public generally, to the
common report that her Majesty's ministers intend to
propose to Parliament that an annuity of £70,000 per
annum shall be settled on the Princess Royal on her
marriage with the Prince of Prussia, . .

On the policy of that marriage I offer no opinion.
Perhaps the alliance with the heir to a powerful kingdom
may be an improvement on the system which has hither.
to confined the selection of husbands and wives for the
royal progeny of England to the petty princes and prin-
cesses of Germany, with territories less extensive and
less productive than the estate of many an English
country squire. But the proposed dowry is so prepos-
terotuly extravagant, that the first mention of it conveys
the impression that, in this as in many other instances
common report must be a common deceiver. £70,000
per annum ! It is the interest of a million and a-half of
money ; it is £20,000 more than was thought sufficient
by an unreformed Parliament in the days of King
George 111, when all the expenses of living were much
higher than they are now, for the husband of Princess
Charlotte, the heiress to the throne of England.

Just consider the circumstances under which this job
is said to be in contemplation. We have spent upwards
of a hundred millions on the war now terminated, for the
present ; we have borrowod, or shall have to borrow,
some thirty or fifty millions more; our doubled income-
tax and imposts on commodities wring 'from us nearly
seventy millions annually ; there are the strongest
motives for reducing expenditure to the lowest limits
consistent with the efficiency of the public service ; how,
then, is it possible that our rulers can mediate such a
piece of wasteful extravagance as the alienation of
£70,000 per annum of the public money, for the life of
a princess, who, in the natural course of events, will
become queen of a foreign kingdom ? Why should the
people of England be bound to provide £70,000 a-year
for the future Queen of Prussia ?

Such questions must occur to every one; but the
objections implied in them will have no force whatever,
either with Ministers who propose the arrangement, or
with Parliament which will be called upon to carry it
into effect, unless the country speaks out, through public
meetings and its representatives, and protests energeti-
cally against so needless and improvident a waste of the
public money. As to her Majesty's Ministers, instead of
endeavouring by every practicable means to reduce the
ordinary burdens of the nation, whilst imposing extra-
ordinary ones upon it, they have taken advantage of
the popular excitement produced by the war, to make
large and unnecessary additions in almost every branch
of expenditure, civil as well as military ; and as to the
House of Commons, instead of acting as a check on
Ministers, it has encouraged them in their profusion ;
it has aided and abetted them in their extravagance so
rashly and blindly, that it has incurred rebuke even in
the House of Lords for its reckless disregard of all
economy. _ _ . .

The personal income of the parents of this young lady,
from all sources, cannot fall very much short of £200,000
per annum. Whatever the amount really is, it may be
regarded as their pocket money only, for they are fur-
nished in addition with palaces, parks, and gardens for
residence and recreation, with horses, carriages, and
yachts for locomotion, with most numerous establish-
ments for their service, and with provisions of every kind
for their maintenance, the actual cost of all which goes
far beyond the £385,000, formingthe imaginary boundary
of civil list expenses. Why, then, should they not, like
all other parents, provide dowries for their children ? If
they are not to be subjected to the same rules as ordinary
mortals—if this, also, must be done for them at the
public expense—let it be done with some little regard to
decency and moderation at all events, some little con-
sideration for the struggling taxpayers, from whom the
funds will be extracted, and many of whom are hardly
enough pressed to provide for their own necessities.
John Bull is, proverbially, the most enduring, though
he may likewise be the most grumbling, of all creatures.
But there must be bounds even to his patience and for-
bearance. To ascertain how far these extend, would
seem to be the present object both of ministers and of
Parliament. The experiment is injudicious, and may
be dangerous. Once thoroughly roused, the people
of this country will make short work with all oligarchical
abuses.

If any such proposal as that which forms the subject
of this letter, should really be submitted to Parliament,
it ought to be met with the most strenuous opposition by
every true representative of the people. If it be, never-
theless, adopted, the day of reckoning will come, and
those who sanction it, by speech or vote, will have to
render a strict account to their constituents.—l am, my
dear sir, yours faithfully,

ROBERTSON GLADSTONE, President.
Addressed to Mr. J. C. Ewart, M.P., and Mr: William
Brown, M.P.

COUNTY
COURT.-YESTERDAY

(BEFORE JOSEPH POLLOCK, ESQ., JUDGE.)

VERAS V. BROWN.—This was an action brought by a
foreigner named Andrew Veras, a sailor, belonging to
the barque New York Packet, against James Brown,
captain of that vessel, for £25, the value of a gold watch,
which was stated to have been entrusted by plaintiff to
defendant. Air. Gray appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Goodman, acting for Mr. IL Forshaw, represented
the defendant. The plaintiff's evidence was, that on his
embarking at Liverpool for Savanna, he gave a watch and
some other property to the captain to keep for him The
plaintiff had paid £27 for the watch and chain in Cork
about a year before. After arriving at Savanna, the
steward of the ship deserted the vessel, and the captain
stated to the plaintiff that the steward had carried away
the watch. On arriving at Liverpool, the captain offered
plaintiff £5 to say nothing of the matter ; but plaintiff
declined accepting the money, and accordingly brought
the present action. The defendant contended that he
had taken as much care of the watch as if it had been
his own ; and that, before arriving at Savanna,
he asked the plaintiff to have it back, which plaintiff
would not do. He stated, that when the vessel arrived
at Savanna, the watch was hung up in the stateroom,
along with defendant's own, which had a gold chain
attached, while that belonging to the plaintiff had no
chain. After the steward had deserted, defendant found
that plaintiff's watch had been taken away along with
four shirts belonging to the defendant. Defendant's
watch was not taken. He denied the offer of the £5.
His Honour remarked upon the singularity of a thief
having taken away a watch which had no chain, and
left behind him one which had a chain, and
which it would have been as easy to have taken. Ele
added, that he considered it a case of great hardship as
t omake
regarded
thesoeeffort
onefiec
t a
i n whichn
arrangement. defendant
oughtr he
defendant said, as he had offered back the watch to the
plaintiff, and the latter would not accept it, lie did not
think he was responsible any further. His Honour said,
according to the law of the case, the defendant was bound
to take the same ordinary care of the watch as if it had
been his own, and that he appeared to have done. It
was singular that the steward should have selected the
plaintiff's watch in preference to that of the defendant,
but according to the evidence it appeared he had done
so. It was a very hard case for the plaintiff, but he had
no alternative except to give a verdict for defendant.
The verdict should, however, be without costs.

SACRED HARMONIC SOCIETY,

TO THE EDITOR OF Talc NORTHERN TIMES,

Sir,—ln a letter signed " C. D. Hackett," which appeared
in your columns of to-day, that gentleman informs the public,
generally, that in future he will treat all anonymous com-
munications, respecting the society, with " silent contempt."
Not amiss, that? And he further states, that ho has " the best
of reasons" for knowing that all anonymous letters that have
previously appeared, respecting the Sacred Harmonic Society,
including one signed " Beta," in your paper of to-day, were
written by a Mr. Maclean. Now, I distinctly deny the
assertion. Mr. Hackett must be labouring under a strange
mistake, for I can assure him that " Beta" has not oven the
honour of Mr. Maclean's acquaintance, therefore that gentle-
man could not have had the slightest knowledge of such letters
having been written.
Mr. Hackett also affirms, that " he could readily disprove
the accuracy of my letter." What can he mean by this ?

Does he intend to deny that the note I alluded to in my letter
was written without his knowledge; if so, why not have given
a manly denial to the statement, and requested Beta" to
produce the said note, which be could do, but it would be
hardly necessary ? I wonder whether the gentleman that
confessed, in a letter to your paper a few days back, to being
" done" out of two guineas, was this Mr. Maclean ? I rather
think not.—Yours, &c.,
April 18, 1856. —.—
TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTHERN TIMES.

Sir,—l have no time to-day to reply to Mr. Hackett's
reckless war whoop, but, with your kind permission, shall do so
in your publication of Monday.
Meantime, I characterise the letter as an exaggerated
falsehood, and will place it in that light beyond a doubt.
For the benefit of the public I shall also give a short sketch
of the Sacred Harmonic Society. _

_ .
I did not, as you must know, write " Beta" in yesterday's
paper, nor that signed "Done" in Tuesday's, but both are very
significant.—Yours obediently, A, MACLEAN.
Liverpool, April 18, 1856,