The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-12-31 00:00:00

THE CHARGE AGAINST MR, MOORE

was then gone into. Mr. Dodd said, in opening the
case, that the prisoner was charged with having broken
open a chest of drawers, and with having abstracted
£3OO, some foreign coins, two watches, and a deed for a
£lOO belonging to the complainant. At the time of the
arrest of Maguire, the chest of drawers which belonged
to him, was in the house of the prisoner. There was a
person named M'Caulay, who was indebted (along with
his wife) to Maguire in a sum of £lOO, and they gave
him a deed for the security of payment. Mrs. M'Caulay
was the daughter of a Mrs. Bennett of Manchester. In
1854 that deed was required by Mrs. Bennett, fir some
purpose, and it was found in possession of the prisoner.
Mrs, Bennett applied ':o him for it, but he refused to
give it up, and said he would not part with it under
£7.5. Subsequently Mrs. Bennett did pay him £5O for
the deed, and no doubt the prisoner imagined that he
might break open the box, calculating that Maguire
would never return to England. Mr. Pemberton : This
in not a case for a criminal prosecution, its a mere breach
of trust, and nothing else. Mr. Dodd said the prosecutor
had left £3OO with the prisoner, and that would cover all
costs, so that he could not have any claim on the deed, as
the bill of costs handed by the prisoner to Inspector
Murphy on Saturday night last, did not amount
to £lOO. After some further observations, and
brief discussions between the learned gentlemen
at both sides, the following evidence was given : —Martin
Maguire was then sworn and said : There was £3OO in
the cashbox, all sovereigns; there were some other coins
in it also. The deed was locked up in the cashbox, and
all locked up in the chest of drawers. I did not give the
prisoner written or verbal authority to do anything with
the deed. Ido not know what my defence cost, but by
the account given to Inspector Murphy, by the prisoner,
it cost £9O odd. I did not owe him any money, but he
is indebted to me, for I put him into a public house in
Wood street when he had not a shilling. He would have
over £2OO of mine in money after paying the account of
expenses at my trial. I did not know until I arrived in
England that the deed was made away with, I went to
Mr. Bindle's office to enquire about the deed. I never
authorised him to touch or do anything with the deed.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pemberton : There was a bill in
the cashbox. (In the letter admitted, there was a
passage thus—" In the cashbox you will find a bill,"
&c) Mr. Pemberton : Is not that an implicit authority
to open the box Witness : No, for I knew he had
broken it open before without my authority, and took the
money. Did you authorise him to open the box and use
the money ? No, for I knew he had broken it onen
before—soon after I was arrested. Mr. Pemberton: Did
you consent to his doing so ? Witness : I did not. But
you knew it ? Yes, I knew it. Mrs. Maria Bennett, of
Manchester, said : I came here about a deed in 1854, in
relation to Mrs. M'Caulay, who was my daughter. I
called on Mr. Wheeler and asked him about the deed
(Mr. Pemberton objected). I called on the prisoner to
make a demand for the deed. He made objections to
give me up the deed. He said Martin Maguire
ovi ed him money, and he would not give up the
deed till he was paid. He said I paid this and paid that
for Maguire. (At the same time turning over some
accounts.) I told him that I would apply to Mr. Hindle,
and get a judge's order for him to give it up. Went with
young Mr. Hindle to the prisoner, and he still refused to
give it up. He said he would take £75 for it, but I
offered him £5O, as I was anxious to get it given up. I ulti-
mately paid Mr.Hindle £5O, and he paid the prisoner, and
1 got it delivered up to me. (Maguire was banded the deed,
and identified it as that which was in the box.) The wit-
ness, in reply to Mr. Pemberton, said Mr. Wheeler told me
first that the prisoner had the deed. The deed was
security for £lOO due to Maguire by M`Caalay, who was
the husband of the daughter of Mrs. Bennett, but the
witness said she did not know at the time of the deed
being drawn, of the debt. Mr. Hindle proved that the
prisoner gave up the deed for £5O. In reply to Mr.
Pemberton, the witness said he advised Mrs. Bennett to
pay the £5O in her own wrong, rather than go to law.
Mr. Pemberton then examined the witness in reference
to the law of the case, from which it appeared that Mrs
Bennett was still liable for the £lOO to the crown, and
that the deed could have been recovered by an action
of trover. Inspector Henry Murphy said he
arrested the prisoner, and told him that he was charged
with obtaining money under false pretences, and he said
the money he got for the bond was a set off against
some expended by him for Maguire. Mr. Pemberton
then addressed the bench, and called it a trumpery case.
He contended that Maguire was dead in law. The case
he argued was not one of felony, but a breach of trust,
and, the prisoner must be discharged. His worship held
that the charge was not sustained, that it was a breach
of trust, and therefore he must discharge Moore It
was then arranged to allow Mrs._Moore out on substantial
bail, the prosecutor not objecting.

,

INEFFICIENCY OF IRON SHIPBUILDING.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTHERN TIMES.
Sir,—ln your publication of this day appears a
communication with "E, G." attached. if the
writer of that article be a man, and you will open
your columns to justice and merit, I will take his
measure to an inch, and weight to an ounce, pro-
vided he will come out with the moral courage of
a man, by attaching his name and address to what
he may write,'otherwise his correspondence can be
only treated by me with what it is worth—silent
contempt.-7-Yours, &c., JOHN CLARE, JUN.
Liverpool, Dec. 30, 1.856.

DEPOSIT AND GENERAL Lava ASSURANCE COMPANY.--
This Company, which lately failed with liabilities
amounting to 412,000, is to be wound up, and an official
manager has been appointed for that purpose by the Master
of the Rolls.
THE BALLOT:—.It is probable that, tinder any mode of
conducting parliamentary elections, which could possibly
be contrived, a certain degree of unfairness and corruption
would exist; Some instances of underhand dealing would
inevitably occur. To represent the ballot as an infallible
preventive of all sneaking and dishonest practices in connec-
tion with electoral proceedings, would be at the same time
injurious and unjast. But we maintain that the system of
wholesale bribery, which is so entensively encouraged by
open voting, would be rendered impracticable, if votes were
taken by ballot, and that the difficulties attending electoral
juggling ef any kind whatever would be so greatly multi-
plied, and the chances of detection so greatly increased, as
to make it evident to the performers that " hon.sty is the
best policy," even at a parliamentary election. It is plain
that if we are to have parliaments we niust have elections,
and it at such elections roguery cannot be entirely dismissed,
let us, in the' name of common sense and of religion, adopt
such a method of voting ai will, tend to prevent it, in the
greatest possible degree. A Greenwich paper says : —The
ballot controversy, ,after having, for the last two years
shown repeated signs of life and activity, has at length
burst forth in great force, and what betwaen friends and
foes has been before the public every day for the last two
months. Every journal has recorded its opinion on the
subject. In a cotemporary a great contest is now going on,
and perhaps from watching the arguments of the two rivals
we may learn something fresh about this popular and
important question. Mr. Hartnoll opens the controversy
with great moderation and politeness. Mr. Whitehnrst
(the supporter of the pro.ballot side of the question) very
tersely replies. We must say we think the Ballot Society
has as yet the best of the argument ; and though on both
sides we find great talent and ability, we should say that
Mr. Hartnoll's view is local, and the opinion of Mr.
Whitehurst more adapted to the general public.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

LIVERPOOL.

BEFORE MR. G. HOLT.

Wdsvcrt ROBBERY.—A young man,named John Charles,
was brought up by officer 376, who said. in consequence
of a telegraphic message from a Mr. Kingston, of Glas-
gow, he apprehended the prisoner on a charge of having
absconded with two new silver watches, and on arresting
him he found the two watches in his pocket. The
prisoner was remanded.
ANOTHER WATCH " CASE." —A girl, named Maria
Whitley, was charged with stealing a watch, the property
of John Creany, of Summerseat. The prisoner was al_
lowed to (whilst out of a situation) sleep in complainant's
house, and on the 18th instant she took the watch, and
went to Saint Helens, where she pledged it. The article
was worth She had been previously convicted, and
was now sent for trial.

ROBBERY BY A SERVANT.—Margaret Quinn, was
charged with stealing about £l4 syorth of wearing
apparel, belonging to Mrs. Mary Musket, of 30, Parr
street, with whom she lived as servant, It appeared that
some time ago the prisoner absconded, taking the
property with her, and it seemed that she went to
Ireland ant pledged the articles at Newry, Warrenpoint,
and Dandalk. The tickets were found on the prisoner.
She was remanded, in order to produce the property.
Honsu BR.EAKING.— Two boys, named John M'Carthy
and Henry Owens, were brought up by detective Grisen-
thwaite, on a charge of having> broken into the cellar of
a house in Burlington Street, kept by a Mrs. Forsythe,
and for stealing a quantity of wearing apparel therefrom.
About ten on Saturday night,...the place was broken open
and the property stolen, and in about half an hour after,
the boy M'Carthy sold some of the stolen articles to a
broker for 4s. The prisoners were remanded.
THB WHEAT ROBBERY.—Bernard M'lntyre, James
Murphy, and Vincent Denham, who were remanded on a
charge of stealing thirty sacks of wheat, value £54, the
property of Messrs. Wilenry, were brought up. Mr.
Chilton appeared for Murphy, and Mr. Bluck for the
other two prisoners. The details of this case were
published in yesterday's paper. In addition to evidence
already given, a boy named John Danford, a carter,
stated that the prisoner Murphy engaeed him to cart the
corn, and he went to the dock by Murphy's
directions, no less than six times before he got
the wheat, and at last he got the thirty sacks
of wheat. M'lntyre was at the dock, and told the witness
to load. When he got to Regent street mill 4 the prisoner,
Denham took a saliple of the wheat. Murphy paid the
witness £1 for the carting. In reply to Mr. Block, the
witness said he was in custody, but was libera'ed. Did
Mr. Clough tell you what to say here to-day ? No he did
not. He took down in writing what I said. M'lntyre
was employed by Messrs. Tapscotts, and his duty was to
he at the ship where the corn was taken from.. Were
you tampered with ? No, sir. Mr. Block :It was said
you ran away ; did you ? No, sir. Mr. Bluck : Were
you tampered with by any one except Mr. Clough or Mr.
Carlyle ? (Laughter) Witness : No, sir ? (Renewed
laughter.) Mr. Chilton cross examined the witness on
behalf of Murphy, in order to show that the story told
about his client was not true. Some other witneses
were examined to prove the deficiency, and then the
prisoners were fully committed for trial, his worship
refusing to accept bail for any of them.

BEFORE MR. MANSFIELD.

A RUFFIAN IN A REDCOAT.—James Murphy, a private
of the sth Dragoons, was brought up by police constable
563, charged with breaking a large square of glass in the
house of Mr. P. M'Mahon, publican, of Sand street.
The complainant stated that, In the course of the
previous evening the defendant came to his house and
placed himself on the sofa. Be was very drunk. There
were some other soldiers in the house waiting to go by
the bublin boat, and they,'seeing that he had his coat
the wrong side outwards, requested him to turn it if he
was a soldier, upon which he said he would soon let
them see whether he was a soldier or not, and would
have fought, but they turned him out. He again
returned, and was put out, when the door was shut
against him, and he then smashed a large square of
glass, of the value of about 10s. The soldier said he
had nothing to say in answer to the charge, and Mr.
Mansfield, after animadverting upon his conduct, fined
him 10s, and costs, and in default of payment, he was
committed for one month.

BIRKENHEAD.

BIIFORE J. S. JACKSON AND R. BRYAN% iSQRS.

ROBBING A Trt.L.—Ann Grattan, an old offender, who
was tried at Knutsford, in April last, and sentenced to
four months' imprisonment, was charged with stealing
9s. from the till of John Elliott, a grocer in Albion
street. It appeared from the evidence, that the prisoner
lodged at Elliott's house—that on Sunday morning last
Elliott's wife counted the money in the shop till, which
she left there and locked:it, leaving the key in ; shortly
after which she went up stairs to make her beds.
Directly she had gone up the prisoner was observed by
another lodger to go up stairs from the kitchen, and he
shortly after followed her, and when at the top of the
stairs he could see into the shop, and there he saw the
prisoner at the money till. He shook his head at her,
upon which sbe offered him some tobacco. He refused,
and directly after informed Mrs. Elliott of what he had
seen, and, in order to satisfy herself who was the guilty
party, she marked a quantity of the money remaining in
the till, and left it as before. On the following morning
her husband kept watch, and in a short time the
prisoner came to the till and took out a shilling. lb
said nothing to her, and went and fetched a police
officer, who searched her, and found the shil:ing she had
been seen to take. Prisoner denied having taken the
mousy, Committed fo: trial.
ROBBERY AT LODGINGS.—John Sweeney, a respeetable
looking young man, dressed in the garb of a groom, was
charged with stealing two coats; a shirt, and a pocket
handkeichief, the property of William Griffiths. On
Monday the prisoner met with one of the car drivers, and
having told him that he was about to go to a situa'ion
in Clifton Park, enquired where he could get lodgings,
and was taken to the house of the, prosecutor. Between
9 and 10 o'clock at night the prisoner retired to bed,
and rose next morning about 9 o'clock, Shortly after
leaving the house, Mrs, Griffiths went up stairs to open
the bedroom window where the prisoner had slept. On
entering the room she observed a waistcoat hanging on
the bed rail, and knowing that she had placed it with
other articles in a box in the room, she proceeded to
examine the box, and immediately missed two new
coats. That she then went to the car driver who had
introduced him, and mentioned her loss, upon which he
wentin search of the'prisoner, and found him with the
property in his possession. Prisoner admitted his guilt,
and was fully committed.

-

THE RUSSIAN DUTCH LOAN.—The expense to this

...e.. wee. expense
country, on account of the interest and sinking fund of the
Russian Dutch Loan for the year ended the 31st March last
was £85,557.
The diplomatic and consular agents of Austria have
received orders to accept and forward to Vienna the peti-
tions)of those emigrants who may wish to return to their
native country, but they also have been furnished with a list
of those persons who- will never be permitted to enter the
empire, again.
ANoNtarous BENEFICENCE.—A female, who had been
observed standing a few evenings ago near the Hotel du
Nord, at Bethune, suddenly.thrust a parcel into the herds
of a gentleman who came up, and then ran away. On
opening the parcel, the gentleman, to his surprise, found
twenty bank notes of I,ooof. each, with these lines.—" A
person who wishes to remain unknown, remits to M. Caron,
receiver of the bureau de beinfaisance of Bethune, a sum of
20,000 francs, under the formal and absolute condition that
they shall be employed in the purchase of three per cent
stock for the use of the said establishment." The gentleman
Was not, as the female had evidently supposed, M. Caron,
but M. Gaillemant, his father in law; he, orcourse, imme-
diately handed over the money to M. Caron.
PALMERSTON AT LAST REPUDIATED —lt is evident that,
if foreign affairs are to be our only affairs, we must give up
all thought of self governmeet, together with all right to
complain if things go wrong, unless we are prepared to look
into these matters and judge of them for ourselves. We are
not sorry, then, to see Liens of inquiry and discussion. The
ministerial prints; indeed, are greatly shocked at such im-
pertinent interference on the part of the uninitiated. Lord
Palmervon and Lord Clarendon must know hest. "They
represent public oeinion," and they are "sailing before the
wind." If, however, they are sailing before the wind, the
wind must be very variable, for we have seen shorter turns
in the last few months—nay, in the last few days—than we
ever remember in the manipulation of grave affairs. Cer-
tainly, if sailing before the wind is all that is required of,
our state pilots—without reference to the direction in which
it will take ns, whether into port or on a lee shore—we
cannot be accused of being too exacting in our notions of
statesmanship. If this be the rule—and we confess we see
strong indications of it—it is clearly high time for sober
men to be looking about them. Here we hive 114 en for
three months cheering and hurraing our plucky Prime
Minister, who won't be humbugged, and cie'r, be bullied—
who resisted, and was determined to resit, ,all the intrigues
of Russia to re-establish a Conference, and to re-open
questions long.ago settled, and each and all as clear as dAlei
light. We have half quarrelled with France, we have half
quarrelled with Sardinia, for the sake of opposing and
thwarting the Czar in this matter, and we have got Austria
for a close ally instead but it'sfill right, says the Times—
never fear—we have got the man who will stand no non-
sense.—Saturday Review.