The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-12-26 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

LIVERPOOL

RPORB MR. BENT,

A NEST OF THIEVES.—Two young fellows,(well-known
to the police) named John Finegan and Thomas Connor,
were charged with having stolen a bundle, containing
shirts, sheets, quilts, and a variety of personal linen ;
and Harriet Watkins and Ellen Stretton, were charged
for having received the property, with a guilty knowledge.
The prisoners were in the custody of detectives Laycock
and Smith, both of whom showed their usual tact in
catching the parties. The facts of the case were as
follows :—A Mrs. Ambrose, who resides at Halwood,
Childwall, who keeps an extensive laundry, (her cus-
tomers reside in Liverpool) came into town on Tuesday
evening with her cart, which contained a large quantity
of clothes tied up in bundles, for delivery to the respective
owners. The cart was left standing in Hood street, in
charge of a bay, who, it appeared, for a m oment absented
himself. The male prisoners were on the " prowl," and
at once " dived" into the cart, out of which they took a
bundle of clothes, and a basket containing beef, mutton,
candles, and a variety of " good things," which Mrs.
Ambrose was taking home to comfort her family at
Christmas. A boy, named Peter M'Namara, saw the
" move" and informed the officers, to whom he described
the Prisoners; and the constables knowing them, they
proceeded to the house of the female prisoner, Stretton,
in Spitalfields, where they arrested all the prisoners, and
found the whole of the property, mutton and all. The
prisoners were fully committed for trial.
CURIOUS CHARGE OF FORGERY.—George Alexander,
described as a hoarding house keeper, living in Chartres
street, was brought up by Constable 105, on a charge of
having forged the name of William Kelly, a sailor, to a
note, whereby he had obtained a sum of lOs from Mr.
Martin, of 1, Paisley street, on the 12th of May last. Mr.
Block defended. There was a confused mass of evidence
given 'in the case, and if we set it before our readers it
would make the confusion worse confounded; so in order
not to give them the trouble of unravelling the plot, we
give the narrative of the case as we could best collect it.
It appeared that William Kelly is a sailor, and that he
is in the habit of boarding (when in Liverpool) at a Mr.
Thorns, and that he was also in the habit of leaving his
advance note either with Mr. Thorn, or at whatever office
he shipped, leaving directions for Mr. Thorn to be paid
the amount. These notes are not payable for a certain
time after the ship sails, and Mr. Thorn's custom is to
let the notes lie at the office, until due, and then call and
receive the amount. However, if the boarding master
wanted money before the notes came to maturity, it
seems he could " lift" as it is called, the notes, by allow-
ing certain discount, and so make use of, or pass them on
to other parties as cash, for whatever terms the parties
might agree on. Kelly went to sea in April, and his note
was due on the 12th May ; on that day the prisoner,
Alexander, presented Kelly's note, and also another for
payment at Mr. Martin's office, and got the amount £5.
The second note was right, and there was no controversy
about it ; but the allegation was that the prisoner had
forged Kelly's name, and also that he had procured the
note by some means not explained. Mr. Thorn, on the
12th of May, sent his wife to Mr. Martin's, to receive the
amount of Kelly's note—thinking that the note lay
at the office all the time ; but when she went
there, the prisoner came in with the note,
and alleged that he got it fairly and as
it was signed by Kelly, and payable to b3arer, Mr.
Martin was of course, obliged to pay it, and to refuse
Mrs, Tnorn. Nothing could therefore be done until
Kelly came back, and on his arrival here, proceedings
were at once taken against the prisoner. Kelly now
swore that he did not sign the note, nor did he give it
to, nor authorise the prisoner (about whom he knew
nothing) to lift it. He told Mr. Thorn to get the
amount in the usual way. In support further of the
charge, two clerks, from Mr. Martin's office, proved the
payment to the prisoner. On cross-examination by Mr.
Block, one of the witnesses admitted that the prisoner
called at the office a short time after Kelly sailed, and
took up the note, paying eleven shillings for it, and
that of course the note was paid when presented. Mr.
Bluck : And you charged him the eleven shillings for
it ? Yes, that is the usual rule. Mr Block : Was he
allowed any part of that eleven shillings after ? No.
Mr. Block : Pretty !fair rate of interest, eleven shil.
lings for £2 10s. for a few days! That's the rule, sir.
The other witness admitted that some one did come and
pay eleven shillings for the note, but he could not say it
was the prioner who diu so. Mr. Bluck : Now, sir, is
this not the fact, that any one who called and paid eleven
shillings for the note could have taken it up ? Yes, sir,
that is if authorised to do so. Mr. Bluck :
Will you swear the prisoner was not authorised
to do so ? I will not, sir. Mr. Bluck said
he was at a loss to know what the charge was ? The
line of defence he then took was this. He produced a
witness who stated that about the time Kelly sailed, a
sailor called on his client (the prisoner) and represented
himself as Kelly, saying his note was at Mr. Martin's.
The prisoner advanced him money on the note, and then
went and paid the lls for it, kept it till at maturity and
got paid the amount. This was the case on both sides,
and after some discussion the magistrates ordered the
prisoner to pay back the amount of the note, as they
were of opinion be did not get it rightly. Mr. Block
protested against this, and dwelt on the innocence and
honesty of his client, but the rule was made absolute,
and the money was paid with great reluctance.
THE Losz NOTES AFFAIR—In Monday's paper we gave
a curious history of £45 in notes, which Mr. Sharp, of
the Goree, happened to drop in Lord street. The details
must te quite fresh in the readers recollection, and it
will be remembered that James Mortimer, a watch
movement maker, whose shop is in Basnett street, was
stated to have absconded with £25 of the cash. Detec-
tective officer Sullivan was on the look out for him since,
and on Tuesday evening he sent officer Astic to the
prisoner's lodging in Shaw's brow, where he arrested
him on the charge. The prisoner was brought up on Wed-
nesday, when Mr. Aspinall appeared for him. The officer
said when he took the prisoner into custody he was
drunk, and on telling him the charge was for stealing
some bank notes, the prisoner said, " I have got none of
them, but I know who has." The
~boy Green, and an
apprentice of the prisoner were examined, and gave
similar evidence to that already published. Mr. Aspinall
contended that there was no offence proved against the
prisoner, but the bench remanded him to Monday, when
he will be brought up along with Riley, who stands
remanded to that day.

BEFORE MR. MANSFIELD,

IMPORTANT TO SAILORS. George F. Hall, late a
sailor on board the ship A. E. Soullard, summoned
Captain A. Montgomery, the commander of that vessel,
for a balance of wages. Mr. Campbell was for the com•
plainant, and Mr, Almond for the defence. The case
was not an ordinary one, and the decision will prove of
much importance to sailors, as we believe it is the first
case of the sort, adjudicated on, in reference to the
particular point. To., facts are these : on the 161
September, on the voyage from Callao to Liverpool, a
sailor named Leonard, stabbed the captain very danger-
ously, and the mate. A full report of this case appeared
in our paper a few days ago, both under the head of
Police and Assizes, as Leonard was tried at the latter,
and sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment. When
the captain was stabbed, he called on the crew to put
Leonard in irons, but they refused. He gave them
twenty-four hours to consider, but they still refused.
He was dangerously ill for fourteen days, and only was
able to crawl a few times on deck to take observations
for the ship. At the end of the fourteen days, Leonard
was got into irons, The present question arose in this
way. The captain
ofd
that the prisoner
and some others or the crew, not only used
mutinous language, but that they refused to obey orders,
and totally refused to put Leonard into irons, and it was
alleged that he had thereby forfeited his wages under
the act of Parliament. There were several witnesses
examined pro and con, when Mr. Mansfield asked if
the plaintiff had received any advance, and the captain
said he had paid him two months. Mr. Mansfield
' censured the conduct of the portion of the crew who
refused to assist the captain from the attacks of a
murderous ruffs in, whom the captain would be justified
in blowing his brains out. He mentioned a case in
wleich a captain shot a sailor, and when the captain was
brought before him he discharged him, as the captain
was justified in shorting any ruffian who endangered
life or ship by his conduct. He decided on stopping
from complainant six days' pay for each of the fourteen
days alluded to, and this was virtually a verdict for the
captain, as the deduction would be more than even the
amount sought. Before Mr. Mansfield retired for the
day, he addressed the reporters, and said perhaps the
gentlemen would be good enough to make a memoran.
dum of a few observations. On the previous day a
person named Connor was prosecuted by the Post Office
authorities, and that person stated to the court that he
had employed Mr. Bluck to defend him; that Mr. Bluck
had deserted and left him iu the lurch
at the last moment, and did not appear for
him. This statement appeared in one of the papers,
(The Daily Pest) and Mr. Bluck, it seemed, very naturally,
telt most anxious about it, for if such a charge turned
out to be true, it would seriously affect him. However,
be (Mr. Mansfield) had ascertained the real facts to he as
follows :—Connor retained Mr. Bluck to defend him.
Some days, however, before the case came on for hearing,
a difference arose between them in respect to the fee

which Mr. Bluck was to receive. Mr. Bfuck had drawn

1 up briefs of the case, and it was arranged that the man
I should undertake his own defence, Mr. Bluck handing