The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-10-25 00:00:00

THE NORTHERN TIMES.---LIVERPOOL, SATURDAY.

COURT OF PASSAGE,-YESTERDAY.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE

BEFORE E. JAMES, ESQ., THE ASSESSOR.
JOHNSON v RENNEY.—This was an action brought by the
plaintiff, a sailor, to recover of the defendant, the captain of the
Race Horse, the amount of wages due to him for his services
as steward, performed by him on board that vessel during a
von age from Calcutta, amounting to about £24 ; and also com-
pensation for tire damage he had sustained from the defendant,
in consequence of two assaults committed unon him. Mr.
Brett was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Blair for the defendant.
This case was partially heard on the preceding day, and was
resumed this morning. In this case some difficulty arose as to
whether the defendant had actually entered into a contract with
the plaintiff to perform the duty of steward, and arose as
follows :—While the ship was at Calcutta the plaintiff applied
for the situation, and was sent on hoard and paid his wages ;
but prior to the vessel sailing it was agreed that the plaintiff
should go with the ship as a passenger, but should act as
steward, and should be remunerated for his services in the same
ratio as if he was the bona fide steward. This arose in conse-
quence of their not being entered on the ship's list, without
hav;ri.4 a new one which would have cost 16 rupees. However,
the plaintiff did sail, and did act as steward for somo time
during the voyage, when some dispute arose about the cooking
of a pie, the result of which was (as alleged by the plaintiff)
that the defendant assaulted him and placed him in the
forecastle. The defence was that there was no contract, and
that the plaintiff's insolence was the cause of the assault.
Several witnesses were called on either side, after which each of
the learned gentlemen addressed the jury, and the Assessor
minutely summed up, leaving it for the jury to decide whether
there had been a contract entered into between the parties as
to the wages. If they believed there had, then they wonld
find a verdict for the plaintiff ; and, as to the assault, if !hay
believed that from the insolence of the plaintiff that the
defendant was justified in turning him out of the cabin, they
would find for the defendant, hut if they did not think that he
was jusfied, then they would give a verdict for the plaintiff, with
such damages as they thought would meet the circumstances of
the case. This case did not close until half-past oneo'clock, when
the jury retired to cow ider, and, after an absence of about two
hours, returned into court with a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages £26, for the amount of wages. For the as atilt, r
verdict was returned for the defendant.
THE PHCENIX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY V SAMUEL
WOOD.—This was an action to recover a certain amount of
premiums due on a policy of insurance issued by the above
company to the defendant, who was an agent to the company
at the time. The defendant pleaded that he was not indebted
—that he had a set-off for commission, and that it was by
fraud and misrepresentations that he had been induced to
become the agent and to take out the policy. Emanuel
Daniels, the secretary to the company, proved, that in July,
1855, the defendant applied to the company for a policy of
insurance, which was granted and delivered to him, The
policy was for £l,OOO, and the premium on it, for one year,
was £3l 6s. The policy was dated sth August, and the
premium was payable on that date, As the brief for the
defence had only just been handed to Mr. Aspinall, he had
not had time to prepare himself for the defence, and the Asses-
sor, having commented on the unfairness of such a practice,
said there must be a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount
claimed, £3l Ss. Verdict accordingly.
THE SAME COMPANY V SAMUEL BELL.—This was an
action to recover the sum of £lO, due on ten shares in the
Phwnix Life Insurance Company, applied for by the defendant,
and which were allotted to him. The defendant is a confectioner,
residing at 75, Byrom street. In 1855 he applied to the
company for ten shares, covenanting to pay a deposit of £1 per
share. The necessary legal proofs of the facts having been
eiven, a technical objection was raised on behalf of the defen-
dant, and a verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the amount
claimed.

LIVERPOOL,

BEFORE MR. CROSTAWAITE,

CURIOUS CHARGE OF WATCH STEALING. —lnspector
Horne brought up a powerful-looking fellow, named
Edward Grares, alias Swankey, on the following charge :
—lt appeared that, on the '2lst Jute last, a watch-maker,
named William MOlton, who keeps a shop at New Ferry,
was at Griffitfts's vaults, Lime-street, having a quantity
of watches in his possession. The prisoner joined him,
and, after some drink, the prosecutor became quite stupid,
and the young man in charge of the bar, fearing some-
thing wrong, gave directions to look after the conduct of
the prisoner. After some time, the prisoner gave ten
watches to the barman, saying that was all the prosecutor
hat]. In • the evening the prosecutor called for the
watche!, and said he missed two of the watches, as he
had twelve. Nothing was heard of the prisoner or the
watches until Thursday, when one of the watches (a
lever) was discovered in the following manner
appeared that, on the 21st June, the day the watches
were stolen, one -of then) Was 'Pledged by the prisoner at
Downey's pawnshop, in Warren street. for 30s. On
Thursday, the prisoner called at Mr. Walker's pulfie-
house, Copperas-bill, and asked the barman to buy the
ticket of a watch from him, at the same time producing
the ticket. The young man sent to see if the watch was
as represented, arl, finding it so he purchased the ticket '
for 55., and borrow.ed the money to release the watch.
After getting it, he sent a boy to pledge the watch (in
order to repay the money) at Parley's, London road, ,
where the young man stopped it, and this led to the
arrest of the prisoner, whom, it appeared, was'absent from
June up to the present time. The second watch was not
found, but Horne said no doubt the prisoner had
disposed of it whilst he was away The prisoner said he
was authorised to pledge the wat.:ll by the owner, but
this was denied ; his Worship decided en punishing
the prisoner summarily, and fined him 30s , the amount
of the pledge, anl :I:so for pledging, or, in default of
payment, to imprisoned for one month.
A SCENE. —Two persons, apparently sailors, who were
remanded on a charge of being concerned in a robbery
in Peter—street, were brought forward, when Mr.
Crosthwaite was about addressing them, and had
made an observatiou, when Mr. Goodere rose and
said he appeared for the prisoner!. Mr. Crosthwaite
requested Mr. Goodere to sit down, and not inter.
rapt him at the moment he was speaking. Mr.
Goodere : That is not the way to address an advo-
cate. Mr. Crosthwaite : Sit down, sir ; I am here in
the discharge of a public duty, and ant not to be inter-
fered with in this manner. Mr. Goodere : I also have
a duty to discharge. Mr. Crosthwaite then proceeded
to put some questions to the prisoners touching the
offence with which they were chare.Nl Mr. Goodere,
to the prisoners : Don't answer the questions of the
magistrate ; he has no right to put them, and no judge
of the land dare put them. Is that the way to administer
justice in a town like Liverpool ? If f had not appeared
for the prisoners yesterday you would have committed
them then. The prisoners having taken the advice of
their advocate, delined to answer any further quesions,
upon which Mr. Crosthwaite ordered them to stand down.
They were subsequently discharged, as there was no
evidence against them.

PUBLICANS AND BEIIIIHOUSE CAcEs.—George Hullin,
publican, Pitt-street, was charged with doing business
at illegal hours. Fined ss.—Jonathan Wynne, publican,
Vauxhall Road, was charged with having six men in his
house at illegal hours. In reply to Mr. Bluck, the officer
said the people were being put out when he went to the
house. Case dismissed.—Jonathan Anders, publican,
Beresford-street, was charged with having eighteen men
and five women in his home at illegal hours, and with
having five of the men and one of the women drunk.
Fined ss, and costs.—Alexander beerhouse.
keeper, Mann.street, was charged with doingabusiness at
illegal hours. Fined S'.—Patrick Kegly, beerhouse.
keeper, Maddox-street, was charged with doing business
at illegal hours. Fined £l. and costs.---Nicholas Talbot,
beerhouse-keeper, Chisenhale-street, was charged with a
like offence. Fined ss, and costs —John' Webster,
Burlington street. Dismissed.—Edward Kelly, Saint
Martin street, same charge. Dismissed.—Margaret
Howell, Dryden street, same charge. Fined ss.—John
Spellman, north street, same charge. Fined £5, and
costs.—Lydia Hodson, Clyde street, Park, with a like
offence. Fined 10s, and costs.— Anne Hudson, Rupert
street, with Sunday trading. Fined 10s, and costs.—,
Wrn. \Vilenn, Clive street, Park, vvi•la like offence. Dis-
missed. Elizabeth Malon, Chadwick street, with
Sunday trading, and refusing to admit the police. Fined
20s, and costs.—William Stringer, Kew street, with like
offence, and with having internal communication with
another house. Fined ,ss, and costs.—Catherine Horan,
table beerhonse•keeper4 Skelhorne street, was charged
with having drunken pereons in her house, and with
selling ale on Sulday. Fined ss, and costs.
A THI EYING LODGER.—John Edge, a young man,
having the appearance of a sailor, was brought up by
de-tective officer Eaton. on a charge with having stolen
two silver watches, a silver. chain, two fans, and a variety
of small articles, 6c:cowing to. Mrs. Jones. a publican,
residing- in Canning Ptace. Tee prisoner lodged in
complainant's house for about a month, and during that
time the articles and some money were missed. On the
officer searching the prisoner's box, the chain was found
in it, and also the tickets fur two watches that he had
stolen and pledged. He had also a key, which enabled
him to enter the bar at night, and in this way he
managed to steal the articles and money, He admitted
the facts, and was sent to gaol for three months.

Lew v KENNEDY. —ln this aciian the plaintiff and defendant
were each provision dealers, living in Handley street, and the
former sought to recover damages from the latter, for having
called him a thiet and a robber; and stated that he had been
kicked out of the police force for stealing a gold watch, and
that ho had married his first The slanderous lan-
guage was clearly proved, and the jury returned a verdict for
the plaintiff, damages ss.

CRIM CON. IN HUMBLE LIFE ----AfgeoßmAcx. v WILLIAMS.
The declaration stated that this was an action to recover
compensation of the defendant, for an alleged criminal inter-
coutse with tha plaintiff's wife. The defendant had pleaded
first that it was not his wife, and secondly that he was not
Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr,
Brett was for the defendant. In opening the ease, Mr.
Aspinall said : In this action, the plaintiff is a seaman, resid-
ing, when not at sea, in Liverpool ; and the defendant is a
master clock maker, also residing in Liverpool, and moves in
a very respectable sphere of lite. On the 15th of October,
1855, the plaintiff was married to a young woman named
An❑ Dowde, at St. Ann'a Church, and after that they lived
very comfortably together, until he had occasion to go to sea.
While there, he had provided the necessaries of life for her by
ordering her to receive his advance notes, that she might have
every comfort during his absence. Soon after the plaintiff
left these shores, an intimacy sprang up between the defendant
and this newly married woman ; and soon after she yielded to
Iris wishes, and they were always after that together. The
affair too, was done most deliberately, for he represented
himself as her brother, and visited her in that capacity. fie
had, as he should prove, repeatedly been there all night ; and
there could not be a doubt but that a criminal intercourse had
taken place. On the plantiff's return, he went to live with
his wife as usual, but after a time he heard of what
had taken place, and a separation took place. For his (the
learned counsel',) opinion, he thought that thi, was an un-
defended action, and would really rest upon what damages
they should award, which he thought should, in this ease, he
ample and sufficient. The learned counsel then called the
followingevidence :—Henry Pollock was the first witness called.
fle was clerk at St. Anti's Church, and was present when the
plaintiff married his wife, the subject of this action ; he had seen

the parties together since, and they appeared to live happily
together ; the marriage was celebrated in Oct., 18.55, at the

THE LIME-STREET SUPPER ROOMS

above church. Cross-examined : Ire did not know the parties
before marriage, hut had seen them since together in the street.
Mary Anne Yates, the wife of a porter, knew the plaintiff and

Mr. Walter, the public prosecutor, appeared to prefer a
charge, at the suit of the police, against James Allen, the
keeper of the supper rooms in Lime street, under the 251st
sect. of the 5:11 and 6th Vic., chap. 106, for permitting pros-
titutes to assemble in his supper rooms. The case came before
Mr. Mansfield, at the Police-court, and excited much interest,
the court being very much crowded by " young gentlemen,"
coming under that mystic title of " fist," and young ladies, who
hear their bonnets on the lower portion of their neck. Mr.
Snowball was for the defendant. Mr. Walter stated that, in
consequence of the nuisance caused by these rooms, there was
a memorial presented to the Mayor from the inhabitants of the
district, and his Worship had direated the proseetrion to be
proceeded with. Ho then stated the case, and called Inspectors
O'Brien and Hugh to prove its and, from their evidence, it
appeared that they found • ari many as forty-one prostitutes
there. The chief port Son, bpwever, of the case was elicited by
Mr. Snowball, in his crossercarnination of Inspector O'Brien,
who, in reply to the learned gentleman, said the rooms were
supper rooms, and were used .as such foii one or two years past.
Witness had an information against Mr. Allen within the last
two years ; that was for selling wine without a license. He
did not see the girls whom he saw in the rooms in the
streets. Was there any rioting or disorder in the house?
*hy, when we go in, they generally pause. The women
generally remained Clem up to three or four o'clock in the
morning. Mr. Walter said he would now call another person
to speak to the facts ; that person was not a police officer.
Mr. Snowball : I sdmit the facts. There is no question at
all about the facts. It is about the legality of the proceeding
we are contending. Mr. Walter : Then I call on his
Worship for an adjudication in the care. The inhabitants---•
Mr. Snowball : I wish the inhabitants would mind their own
business, and not pay such attention to the business of Mr. Allen,
Mr. Walter : I call for a decision on the general evidence
in the case. Mr. Snowball : If the women in question are
disorderly out of the house, that is not the fault of Mr.
Allen. nor can he he called on to answer for their conduct.
The 291st section of the act referred distinctly to persons
acting disorderly in a house, and it was not proved that
these women had acted disorderly in the house. He then
proceeded to address the bench .for the defendant, and said
there was ,no question but the women were prostitutes. He
contended that, after attending the theatre, and other places,
they ought to have places of refreshment to resort to,
like any other class. lie said, in London, where the (been
the Bishops, the Commons, Lords, and every body lived,
(laughter) such rooms were permitted ; and if it was law
to let them live in London, surely it was law to let them live
in Liverpool, wretched and unfortunwe creatures as they were.
Here a very wen dressed young man, who seemed to he labour-
ing under the it fluence of too much " beer," jumped up, and,
in a loud and ludicrously solemn tone, cried out " Hear, hear,
hear." This startled every one in court, when Mr. Clough
ordered the man to he put out. The man still continued to
cry " Hear, hear,)! but the " gentle pressure" of four hands,
belonging to two police officers, put him out of " hearing."
Mr. Snowball repudiated the conduct of the man, whoever he
was. He strongly contended that the case must he dismissed,
as it did not come within the meaning of the act. No doubt
the people of the neighbourhood were annoyed by the conduct
of women in the streets, but Mr. Allen had nothing to do with
that, his house being kept in au orderly manner, although it
was resorted to by prostitutes. Mr. Walter : It is for har-
bouring them, Mr. Mansfield said, in deciding the case, it was
very hard to discriminate in such a matter, as the act stood.
l'Sjo doubt it was a great annoyance to that part of the town,
and when women were brought before him for disturbing the
peace and annoying the inhabitants of the locality at night, by
brawls and ill conduct in the streets, he had punished them
severely. He had done all he could to remedy that evil, but
he was of opinion, in the present case, that the information could
not be sustained..-.... There was a like charge preferred by the
police against a foreigner, named Si Bandno, who keeps a
cigar and coffee shop adjoining the supper-rooms, for harbours
some
eixs
tep prostitutesshouldand five men, but it was disposed of asabove—
Mr. Mansfield remarking that it was competant for the Cor-
poration to have these houses indicted for a nuisance, and let
a jury decide the He did think it desirable that
qbueestatikoenn.
on the suggestion which he now
made, and no doubt there would be measures of that sort
resorted to. Mr. anowhall said,
so far as Mr. Allen was
concerned, he was anxious to have order in his house, and he
was willing, for that purpose, to pay a police constable to stand
at his door every night. No doubt if the place could be proved
to be a nuisance, an indictment would lie against it. The
parties who crowded the court tUeu retired,

his wife ; they lodged at her house, and seemed to live happily
together; this was on his return from sea. Cross examined : They

had one room in her house in Temple street, off Dale street,

Cross examined : Had seen the defendant at her howe nearly

every day while plaintiff was away; he usually dined with his
wife; he used to come of an evening, but could not say

whether he had stopped all night with her; she said his name

was Dowde ; they went out together, and said they were going
to the theatre ; he came regularly until the plaint'ff came
home, and she never saw the defendant after; she had a sister

staying with her some of the time. Mrs. Ann Todd, the wife
of a painter, lived in the same house ; she recollects Mrs.
M'Cormack coming to live there ; the defendant used very

frequently to come there, and whenever he did the door
was locked; she knew that the defendant had stopped in

her (M‘Corm' aek's) room two or three nights ; there was only

one bed in the room ; she supposed they were in bed together,

Cross-examined

She lived in tho room above ; she had

heard the door locked ; she knew it was locked by
the click ; the defendant did not stay in the house

all night while the sister was i❑ the room. ',kids
Jones was the servant in the house at the time Mrs.

TRADE REPORT.- FRIDAY.