The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-01-12 00:00:00

fence of his chance of ship, ihe womat

from her in cot

topped

in question, in order to show ncr
procured the prisoner a situation with a lady who kept a
public house: This was correct enough, but it so happened
Ora the husband of the lady had a short time before been
committed for the offence of bigamy, by marrying a second
Wife. flo did so; it is stated, on the ground that his first
wife had already two husbands living, lie was out of the
way, however, and the mother of the illegitimate
child confided all the secrets to the prisoner. The latter
having entered on her employment, was induced by her
friend, who was really an " artful dodger," to bPl'-.
her husband had been killed in the Crime
the best thing she could do was to marry the second

husband, who could su
and all the time the w

tunate pricOnet

port her ii

s earning!

upplies. we

eve that
a, "and that

eiving half of the unft
When the second hnsba

went to ka ti

rt-- tied, and then the deceit-
ful woman wrote to the first husband to come home. She
also stated to the prisoner's mistress that the prisoner knew
all about her affairs, and would have her charged if she
did not charge the prisoner. This so much frightened the
good tidy of the public-house, that she consented to inform
the pollee of the affair. She was present in court, but was
not examined. The above details will, perhaps, •be more
amplified on the trial of the prisoner. who says she will a
tale unfold, that'" will astonish some people in Liverpool !"
STEALING A WATCH.— A sailor named Isaac Whalley,
was charged with having stolen a watch and gold chain
from another sailor named William Rowlands, at a board-
ing-house, No. 12, Denison-street. On Tuesday night the
watch was stolen, and at twelve o'clock on Wednesel--- -
the prisoner was
the watch and

ken into cust(
in in his possessio'n.

night
v, at Warrington, with
lie was coMnlitte-el
for two monhs, the owner of the articles not being able to
remain to prosecute, as he was going to sea this day.
A BOLD ATTEMPT AT A SHOT,----A young fellow named
John Jores, was charged with stealing two pistols from the
shop of Mr. Beatty, Linie-street. The prisoner rushed into
the shop, seized the pistols, and " bolted " with them, but
wag pursued and captured with the property in his posses.
sion. He was sent to gaol for two months.
BEER-ROUSE CASES.—The following cases were disposed
or: —John Aspinall, Shaw Hill-street, for Sunday trading,
fined 2s 6d and costs. Robert Forshaw, Whittle Street,
for doing businss en Christmas day, dismissed. Bridget
Lindon, Wolfe-street, Park, for Sunday trading, fined £2
and costs. Charles Gray, Upper Harrington-street, for
doing business at half-past ten on Sunday last, fined 10s
and costs. John Rose, Pleasant-street, for Sunday trad-
ing, 10s and costs. Margaret Rolands, Horatio-street,
charged with transacting business on Sunday morning
last, fined £1 and costs. Isabella Jackson, Turner-street,
was charged with doing business at two/ye o'clock on Sun-
7ast, dismissed. Sylvina llrack, a table beer-Douse
_eper, St. Martin's-street, was charged with selling beer
at twelve o'cloqk on Sunday last, to two men, dismissed.
Edward Carney, Paul-street, was summoned for doing
business at five minutes to one o'clock on Sunday. Fined 21
and costs. Luke Finnigan, publican, Westmoreland-street,
was charged with selling whiskey. on Sunday last. A
woman was observed leaving the house about noon, with
a bottle of whiskey, and a man was found at the counter
with a glass and some whiskey before him. The case was
adjourned for a week, in order to produce witnesses for ,
the defence. Richard Foster, of 13ridgewate--street, was
summoned for having an internal communication from his
house to adjoining premises, so as to evade the law. The
ease was adjourned.

COUNTY COURT

-YESTERDAY

-0 -
(BEFORE JOSEPH roLLocx, ESQ., JUDGE).
PHILLIPS V. HILLCOTE.—THE CLERICAL DISPUTES OF
ST. MATTHEW'S CHURCH, SCOTLAND•ROAD. In this case,
Mr. George Phillips, stationer, South Castle-street, was
the plaintiff, and the Rev. Dr. Hillcote, incumbent of
St. Matthew's Church, Scotland-road, the defendant.
The action arose out of the unfortunate disputes between
the incumbent and a former curate of this church, which
have so frequently come of late under the notice of the
public. The plaintiff appeared in person, and
Mr. Tindal Atkinson, barrister, appeared for Rev.
Dr. Rillcote, who was also in attendance. The
plaintiff stated, that the action was brought to
recover £l5 for books, maps, Sim., supplied to the schools
of St. Matthew's Church, Scotland road, upon the order
of Rev. Mr. Cooke, lately:a curate °fit that church, in 1854.
Mr. Atkinson here contended, that there was no ground
of action whatever, as there vas nothing to show any
responsibility on the part of Dr. Hillcote. The plaintiff
requested permission to examine Dr. Hillcote himself,
which was granted, and Dr. Hillcote entered the witness
box. Plaintiff: You are quite satisfied that these goods
were supplied to the schools ? Dr. Hillcote : Certainly.
Plaintiff: Do you not hold yourself responsible for any
orders the Rev. Mr. Cooke gave at the time?
Dr Hillcote Certainly not. Plaintiff: Dr. Hillcote
told me that during the time of ,the Rev. Mr.
Cooke's curacy, Mr. Cooke received several amounts of
money which he did not account for, and Dr. Hillcote
thinks that before any debts are paid these amounts
should be accounted for, therefore under these circum-
stances, I should like to have this case adjourned to a
future day, when, by making Mr. Cooke the defendant,
he might be compelled to account for these amounts..
Mr. Atkinson : To making Mr. Cooke the fn
dant, we have no objection at all. His
Honour explained that as he could.
not
show a
distinct authority from the incumbent_ to Mr. Cooke or
himself for the supply of the..go 'ds, the present action
must fail to reach the Rev. Dr. Hillcote.. His Honour
observed that he was informed somp.other actions were
to come before the court between Mr. Cooke and Dr.
Hillcote. He had been given to understand that in one
of the former actions in that court he had expresied an
opinion which might seem to refer to future cases. He
begged to intimate that any opinion he had expressed
referred solely to the circumstances of the case then
before him, to which it was his duty to confine himself.
Dr. Hillcote stated that the Rev. Mr. Cooke held money in
his hands,,for which he gave no account. He understood
the Rev. Mr. Cooke received upwards of £3OO, or nearly
£4OO. of which, up to that hour, he (Dr.Billcote) had been
unable-to receive anything like a regular or consistent
account,. except that the money had been received. The
plaintiff said he had brought the present action partly
out of kindness to Dr. Hillcote, for whom he had a
great respect, and whom he considered had been very
basely used by the Rev. Mr. Cooke, in order that he
might have an opportunity of clearing himself from
the charges of that gentleman.' His Honour, said Dr.
Hillcote character was not in-any way impugned in
the present action, and therefore he could not allow
any reference to be made to what occurred in other
actions. The plaintiff was then non-suited,' with costs
out-of pocket.---His Honour then expressed a . hope
that no action between the Rev. Mr. Cooke and'the Rev.
Dr. Hillcote would agaiu come before that court. He
could not but think that between two brother clergy-
men there must be another and a better tribunal for
settling disputes than an appeal ;Q a Court
of that