The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-03-29 00:00:00

INDECENT ASSACLT.—Thomas Quinn, aged 51, labourer,
was charged with having, on the 13th of February, at
Ashton-under-Lyne, committed an indecent assault upon
Martha Belington, a little girl under twelve years of age,
The details of this case -are wholly unfit for publication.
The prisoner was found guilty. His Lordship sentenced
him to be imprisoned for eighteen months with hard
labour.

FORGERY OF A WlLL.—Terence MiLoughlin, aged 18,
James Monaghan 26, and Edw. Dunn 25, were charged with

having at Manchester, on the 3rd of August, 1855, forged
a will which purported to have been executed by John
Monaghan, and with having uttered the same knowing it
to be forged. James Keefe was charged with being
accessory after the fact. Edward Dunn was further
charged with having, while agent for the Diadem Insurance
Company at Manchester, on the 6th December, illegally
used for his own purpose a bankers' cheque for £l5 4s 9d.
From the evidence for the prosecution it appeared
that John Monaghan, a varnishmaker, lived at
11, Hope-street, Manchester, with his son-in-law,
Francis .Keene, a shoemaker, who was married to
Monaghan's daughter Eliza. In last August John
Monaghan was attacked with dysentery, of which upon the
11th of that month he died. Keene had effected a policy
on Monaghan's life for XlO 10s' with the Wellington Insu-
rance company, and a short time before Monaghan's death he
drew out a will for Monaghan, by the terms of which the

latter left to his daughier, Keene's wife, the policy of
insurance upon. which Keene had paid the premiums.
Monaghan's funeral took place on the 16th of August, and
after the funeral Keene took steps to prove the will, when
he found that in consequence of certain legal formalities
not having been complied with, it was not legal. Keene
thought the document of no further use, and threw it on a
table in his house. It was picked up by James Monaghan,
a on of the deceased John Monaghan. Some days after-
wards the prisoners Dunn and James Monaghan were sitting
at a table in Keene's house, when Keene saw Dunn writing
with a pencil upon a piece of paper, which he believed to
be the will he had drawn up, and Keene heard Dunn say it
was as good a will as if he had paid a lawyer to draw it
up. On the 13th of September, James Monaghan
asked a man named o'.Neill to write out a
document for him which Monaghan dictated to
him, and which purported to be the will of John
Monaghan, by which a policy of insurance for £3OO in the
Diadem Insurance Company, on the life of the deceased John
Monaghan, was left to James Monaghan. The latter asked
O'Neill if he would copy a document for him, and on
O'Neill saying he would, Monaghan read out the document
for him from a paper which he held in his hand. He told
O'Neill it was a copy of his father's will. O'Neill wrote
the name of John Monaghan to it, but left a blank for the
mark, as Monaghan said his father only made a mark.
O'Neill did not write the name of any witnesses to it.
Monaghan requested O'Neill to sign the mark, but O'Neill
refused. A man, named Terence M'Loughliu came in at
the time, and, on being asked by Monaghan, he made the
mark, purporting to be that of John M onaghan. It
subsequently appeared that the deceased Monaghan knew
nothing whatever of the policy which had been effected
upon his life with the Diadem Insurance Company, and that
the will which professed to bequeath the amount of that
policy was a fac-simile of that drawn up by Keene. The
will bequeathing the £3OO was taken by James Monaghan
to Mr. Huntingdon, a surrogate at Manchester.
Mr. Huntingdor. pointed out to him that the
will was not witnessed and properly • drawn up, and
therefore could not be received. Some days afterwards the
prisoner Monaghan came a second time before the surrogate,
accompanied by the prisoner, James Keefe, who swore that
he was one of the attesting witnesses to the will presented
by Monaghan, and that he saw deceased John Monaghan
put his mark to it. It appeared subsequently that the pri-
soner Dunn was the agent in Manchester to the Diadem
Company, and that he and James Monaghan had effected
the insurance on the deceased Monaghan's life, and paid up
the premiums. When the matter was taken up by the
police authorities, there was found in a trunk belonging to
the prisoner, James Monaghan,a paper, which Keefe stated
was the original will he had written out, and on which were
several alterations in Dunn's handwriting, made with a lead
pencil. These were the leading points of the case for the
prosecution, as they appeared from the statement of counsil,
Mr. Overend, and the witnesses. His lordship stated that
there was no case of forgery against Dunn. and only a very
slight case against Keete. Mr. Fearnleyivelio appeared for the
defence, then addressed the jury in behalf of the remaining
prisoners. Mr. Fearnley opened by strongly denouncing
the Diadem Insurance Company, as an association which
no one had ever heard of before that case, which, according
to evidence, was in the habit of collecting its premiums by
two and three pence at a time, and which had evinced a
recklessness in making a criminal charge. He was pro-
ceeding to the same effect, when his Lordship remarked :
"I think it is now quite time to leave the insurance com-
pany, and apply yourself to the case." Mr. Fearnley then
proceeded to point out what he urged to be discrepancies
and improbabilities in the evidence. He contended that it
was perfectly natural for Mr. Loughlin, when asked by the
sun of the deceased, openly in the presence of Keene and
other parties, to copy a mark on' a piece of paper, should
do so, wi.hout believing that it was anything more than
a mere copy of no consequence. He could have had no
motive for doing so. He had no interest in the matter, and
whether the will was maintained or upset he had nothing
to gain. The learned counsel also argued that, on the part
of Monaghan, there could be no motive whatever to a
forgery, and that, as the insurance had been effected, there
was no one could have been defrauded by such a
forgery. His Lordship charged the jury. Ii
his opening remarks he expressed a hope that
this trial might have the effect of teaching people in
general, that a policy of insurance effected by a person who
had no interest in the life of the party insured was utterly
void. The policy effected by the son-in-law for £lO 16s.
Was therefore not worth the paper upon which it was writ.
ten. Ile hoped also that trial would teach people that
issuing a forged document under any circumstances, was an
offence even it there should be no actual intention to defraud
in doing so. The learned counsel who last addressed the
jury, utterly erred in supposing that a man (could utter a
forged document, knowing it to be forged. No man could
utter a bill of exchaege having the name of another person
forged to it, and escape punishment by saying he had no
intention to defraud any one as it was his real and honest
intention to pay the money when it fell due. All persons
should understand that to pass a document signed by a
forged name, was really a crime. If this trial cautioned
persons against dealing with insurance offices at whose
mercy they were, in such a way, and against tampering
with documents, it would have done much good. Had the
prisoner Monaghan gone to any attorney he would have
learned that to take out letters of administration would
have answered all the purposes which he appeared to have
sought to attain. The jury found James Monaghan guilty
of forgery, and the other prisoners not guilty. His Lord-
ship, in sentencing Monaghan, expressed his belief that the
prisoner did not intend to defraud any one of any money to
which he was not entitled, and that his object in commit-
ting the forgery was for the purpose of obtaining a further
prOof to enable him to recover the amount of the policy he
had effected. He had, however, been guilty of a forgery
which should be punished. Justice would be satisfied in
that case by a punishment of six months' imprisonment.
The prisoner Keefe was then put up on a charge of having
taken a false oath. He pleaded guilty, and was ordered to
enter into recognizanees to come up for judgment if called
upon. The other charge against Dunn, mentioned in the
calendar, was not gone into at this period of the day.
SENTE NCEi.—Joseph Andrie, convicted of receiving
'jewellery, knowing it to be stolen, was sentenced to twelve
months' imprisonment with hard labour. John Wilson,.
found guilty of issuing a forged order, a ticket-of-leave man,
was sentenced to eight years' penal servitude. Mary
Anne Doyle, convicted of stabbing, was sentenced
to three months' imprisonment from the expiration of her
present confinement. Christopher Bradley, convicted of
stabbing, was sentenced to be imprisoned for twelve months,
and kept to hard labour. Richard Stafford and John
Sanderson, convicted of robbing, with violence, and pre-
viously convicted of robbing, were sentenced each to six
years penal servitude. George McDowell and Patrick
Irwin, convicted of robbery, were sentenced to four years
penal servitude each.

- TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS.—WiIIiaM Harrison,
publican, aged 51, was charged with having at Bolton, on
the 2nd December, unlawfully persuaded Roger Walsh, a
witness in a prosecution, " the Queen against John Sander-
son and others," not to give evidence in the said prosecu-
tion. The prisoner was the father of John Sanderson,
just sentenced. No evidence was offered in the case, and
the prisoner was discharged.
MALICIOUS DAMAGE.—John Lees, James Hilton, and
Samuel Hall, were charged with having maliciously de-
stroyed some cotton, the property of Mr. Milner, a mill-
owner, at Chadderton, on the 4th of December. The
prisoners pleaded guilty, and, at the request of the prose-
cutor, they were liberated, on entering into recognisances
to come up for judgment if called upon.
BURGLAR-.—Anne Burns, aged 17, Thomas Green, 21,
boilermaker, and William James, 19, carter, were charged
with having entered the establishment of Mr. Nisbett,
publican, Liverpool, on the 27th January, and stolen there.
from 18s, and a quantity
of cigars, tobacco, wearing
apparel, &c. The prisoners were found guilty. A previous
conviction was preferred against Green, who was tried
belo e under a different name.
ASSAULT AND ROBBERY.—Thomas Leigh, 22, Peter.
Leigh, 18, and Michael Maguire, were charged with haring
assaulted James Ogden, at Rochdale, on the night of the
sth January, and stolen from his person 3s 6d. It appeared
that the prosecutor, who is an assistant engineer in a mill
near Rochdale, was drinking with the prisoners on the night
in question in several public houses. He way seen to receive
change for half a sovereign at one public house, and the pri-
soners attacked him as he was going home, and after severely
beating and kicking him desperately, robbed him of 3s. 6d.
The case rested mainly on the evidence of the prosecutor,
who spoke with an overpowering Rochdale dialect, and the

downright energy, and naive unintentional humour, of whose
answers created the utmost amusement in court, even the
learned judge being unable, sometimes, to preserve his gravity.
Several other witnesses were examined on both sides. The
jury found all the prisoners guilty. His Lordship, in sen-
tencing the prisoners, declared that this was one of the
most audacious exhibitions of wanton violence he had ever
heard of. Not content with robbing the man, they had
beaten and kicked him in the most brutal manner. He
did not see with wh face they could ask for mercy, and
he should be unworthy of the seat he occupied if he did
not make an example of them. The sentence of the court
was, that each of the prisoners be condemned to penal
servitude for life. The prisoners received the sentence
with a united shriek of horror. One of them, Lees,
seemed to be seized with a fit, for he fell on the ground
and struggled convulsively, uttering, all the time, loud
cries. It was with some difficulty that the prisoners were
removed, and quiet restored.

THE RECENT ASSAULT AND AETEMPT AT ROBBERY IN
SOUTH CASTLE-STREET —Robert Eyre, aged 19, described
as a clerk, and Henry Eyre, aged 16, shopboy, , were placed
in the dock, charged with having, at Liverpool, on the 24th
January, 1856, feloniously assaulted and wounded one
William Hughes, with intent to kill him. This was the
well-known case of the mid-day attempt at robbery
in Mr. Durandu's bullion office, South Castle-street, in
which the shopman received dangerous wounds. The pri-
soners withdrew their former plea and pleaded guilty. They

were then removed from the dock

CHARGE OF EMBEZZLEMENT.—Edward Dunn, one of the
parties tried in the morning, was put up on the charge men-
tioned before, of having converted to his own use a
banker's cheque for £l5 4s 9d, he being then acting as
agent for the Diadem Insurance Company. The prosecu-
tors did not, however, produce the deed of agreement under
which the prisoner acted with the company, and his Lord-
ship directed an acquittal.

BURGLARY IN ErvEßPoot.—James M'Cann, aged 25,
stonemason; William Evans, 20, labourer; and Peter
Cosgrove, 26, baker, were charged with having at Liverpool,
on the 27th February, 1856, burglariously broken iuto and
entered the house of William Hoult, and stolen therefrom
one coat, one gun, one watch, four bottles of spirits, and
other articles, the property of William Hoult. The jury
acquitted the prisoners.

Robert Wilson was arraigned on a charge of embezzling
various sums of money from Messrs. Brocklebauk, his
employer. The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was then
remanded.
The court rose at half-past six o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-YESTERDAY
(BEFORE MR, dIISTICE WILLES.)

NASWORTIIY V. KlNG.—This was an action to recover
the value of twenty bags of currants sold by the plaintiff
to the defendant. The plaintiff is a wholesale fruit mer-
chant and grocer, carrying on business in Stafford-
shire, and in October last he purchased twenty bags of
currants, not of the highest class. Shortly after the
purchase he offered them, through the agency of Mr.
Taylor, of Manchester, for sale to the defendant. The
latter tooki one bag at 46s the cwt., promising to take the
whole if he found them suitable. The bag so purchased
was sent to the defendant on the 20th October, and
shortly afterwards he agreed to take the whole quantity,
amounting in all to -t'BB 7s. After some time, the defen-
dant alleged that the currants were not equal to the
sample, and refused to take them. This was on the 21st
December, by which time the value of currants had
slightly fallen, and those in question being of the lowest
quality, were nearly unsaleable. They were then sold by
Mr. Taylor for the plaintiff, and the present action was
ob
br ot
au
ignhe td oa ed c
thv
ae
tr
at
th e d f f
which,e r ei
nn ct eh e bfie
rt
swt e en ns t tahnec e rt. ihc
ee y t
hh
ae
dn
been disposed of. The custom of the trade is to return
such goods immediately, if not equal to sample ; and the
defendant contended that he had done so as soon as he
had had the opportunity of discovering that they were
bad. Mr. Monk and Mr. 'Wheeler appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Overend, Q.C., for the defendant. The
jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the full
amount claimed, 474 Bs, with costs.
"DOING COUSIN JONATHAN."—BRENNAN V. HOWARD.—
This was an action to recover compensation for breach
of contract under peculiar circumstances. Mr. Atherton,
Q.C., with Mr. Ovens, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
James, Q.C., with Mr. Blair, for the defendant. Mr.
Atherton stated the case. He said that the plaintiff, Mr.
Henry Brennan, was a silk merchant in Manchester, and
that until recently he had a place of business also at New
York. The defendant was formerly what is called a
berthing clerk in the employment of Messrs. Grimshaw
and Co., shippers and emigration agents, of Liverpool ;
and the action was brought to recover damages against
him for breach of contract into which he entered with
the plaintiff in November, 1853. The conditions of the
contract being, that the defendant undertook and guaran-
teed to deliver at the plaintiff's store in New York
certain packages of silk packed in three dozen hampers,
and that for each hamper so delivered, he would pay him
£7 on receiving information to that effect, from New
York. The contract arose in this wise. In November,
1853, the plaintiff being desirous of sending out certain
silk goods to New York, came to Liverpool from Man-
chester, for the purpose of arranging for their transmis-
sion. He intended to employ Messrs. Grimshaw and Go.,
as his shipping agents, and with that view he went to
their office. He there met a person of the name of Divine,
also in the employment of Messrs. Grimshaw and Co.,
and with him he proceeded in the direction of the docks.
On their way they met the defendant, and on Divine in-
forming him of the nature of the plaintiff's business, he
intimated that from his acquaintance with the mates of
the various vessels sailing from Liverpool to New York,
he could have the goods taken and delivered in New
York at a much lower rate than if sent by the ordinary
way. It was arranged that they should meet that even-
ing to talk over the defendant's proposal, and the result
of their interview was, that the above contract was
entered into. The ordinary freight on the goods would
be but a few shillings, but as defendant undertook to
deliver them in New York free of all charges, duty or
otherwise, the plaintiff would effect a considerable gain
by adopting this mode of transmission. It was in point
of fact, a smuggling transmission—an attempt to evade
the duties payable on such goods to the American Cus-
toms, but of such proceedings towards foreign
states, the Government of England took no notice. In
pursuance of the arrangement with Howard
the plaintiff sent Divine, on the 11th November, silk goods
of the value, first cost, of £lBB Os 6d, packed in a three
dozen hamper, and by him they were delivered to the
defendant, who gave a receipt for them. On. the 23 la of
November he sent a like package of goods to the value of
£127 14s 6d, and on the 17th December a third package
to the value of £152 16s 7d. Of these packages only the
third was delivered in New York, but when received by the
plaintiff's agent there, it had been rifled of half its contents ;
of the other two packages the plaintiff received no tidings,
and he now brought the present action to :recover the loss
he had sustained in those transactions. The plaintiff was
examined, and deposed to the facts set forth in the counsel's
opening statement. On cross-examination by Mr. James,
he stated that he had been engaged in other smuggling
transactions, but that he had not made a shilling by them.
As in horse racing, having lost on one risk, he had been
tempted into others to recoup himself. On re-examination
be stated that he had closed his house in New York, and
that he had had quite enough of sending silk as bottled porter.
(Laughter.) He intended never to burn his fingers so
again. (Laughter.) He was shipping silk for the last six
years, in the regular way, to the amount of £BOO a month.
Devine was also examined, and he con °berated the plain-
tiff's statement. Mr. Atherton then applied to amend the
declaration in material particulars. Mr. James objected.
His Lordship said that this was a case in which the parties
should succeed, if they succeeded at all, according to their
strict rights, and that he would not assist any person to
reap the profits of a transaction, the object of which was to
defraud the American government. His Lordship then
suggested that the plaintiff should withdraw a juror. Mr.
Atherton replied that he would consent to withdraw a
juror, but in giving that consent he did not intend to bind
his client not to fashion his complaint- in a better manner.
Mr. James objected to the withdrawal of a juror on such an
understanding. His Lordship : It is very like a case in the
Chancery Court, where one man filed a bill against another
to obtain an account of their joint robbery. One was
hung, and the other had to go abroad, and both attornies
were struck off the roll. (Laughter.) Mr. James : I think
it would be a proper ending to this case. (Great laughter,
the merriment being much increased at the haste and alarm
with which Mr. Campbell, the attorney instructing the
learned gentleman, remonstrated with him on his recom
mendation of eadh a summary proceeding in this case.) Mr.
James : Oh, of course I did nat mean you. (Laughter.)
His Lordship refused to allow the amendment of the
declaration, and the plaintiff was accordingly nousuited.
This was the last common jury case on the first list.
WATERBURY V. STEEL.—In this cause a verdict was
entered by consent for the plaintiff £220.
FOULKES v. STEPHKNSON.—This was an undefended
action, and was brought to recover the sum of £22 ls. 7d.
for goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff is a farmer in
this county, and the defendant lately kept a public house at
Knotty Ash.—Verdict for the plaintiff, for whom Mr. Cole
appeared. •

CARTER AND OTHERS v. HEPWORTH AND OTHERS.—
This also was an undefended action on a bill of exchange
for £92 133. 3 1. The defendanr. admitted a balance due of
£32 Is. 6d., and a verdict for the plaintiff was accordingly
entered for that amount.
SMALLEY V. THE BLACKBURN RAILWAY COMPANY.—
A verdict was entered by consent for the plaintiff, a sur-
veyor to determine the value of the land in questio❑. The
action was brought to recover the profits of certain land for
wohritchhethpelap:natiiffnsti: had obtained a judgment of ejectment
against the defendants,
ELLIS AND ANOTHER V. DIXON.—This 7708 an action to
for the defendant.andThl‘eir.
recover compensation for breach of contract by the defend-
ant. Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, with Mr. Millward appeared
plaintiffs Wilde, Qa.r Co . ,mweittahl Mb
brokers,
kMe
resl,l uiirsohn,
merchants, and general machinists, and the defendant, until
lately, was the proprietor of Windsor Foundry, near Liver-
pool. In June last he contemplated retiring from business,
and he accordingly advertised his machinery and other
articles on his premises for sale. The plaintiffs proceeded
to the foundry on seeing the advertisement, and agreed to
purchase all the scrap iron on the premises at 60s. per ton.
They also, at his request, valued the machinery, but he sub-
sequently refused to let them have all the iron, which they
alleged they had purchased from him, and hence arose the

BROCKLEBANS v. WILSON.—Just before the court rose,
Mr: Aspinall applied that this case might be tried this
assize, stating that it was the opinion of Mr. Justice Cromp-
ton that it was desirable that it should be so. His lordship
said that that being the opinion of Mr. Justice Crompton,
he would grant the application. The cause was then entered
on the list. We believe that the grand jury have not as yet
returned a bill against Wilson, who is in custody for embez-
zlement.

The special jury cases will be taken upon Tuesday

-
The cause Of PETRIE V. NUTTALL bas been fixed for Wed-
nesday, and POTTER V. THE CORPORATION OF LIVERPOOL for
Thursday. Bith are special jury cases.

POLICE COURT.-YESTERDAY

(BEFORE MR. MANSFIELD.)

A MUSICAL ORASII.—Tom Ito.erts, kn(irvn to the police
as "Tom the Bull," or " the Caperer," and who was said
by the police to have been ablut 250 times in jail for all
sorts of crimes—in fact he has had to answer for every
offence known to the law, except murder an 1 arson,—was
brought up on a charge of having broken a fiddle belonging
to a wandering minstrel, a blind youth, named Patrick
Layering. The statistical history of Tom Roberts, accord-
ing to police returns, was one of romance, and but for the
written evidence would amount to the fabulous. His life

for about forty-five years (he appears about that age) has
been one of the most chequered imaginable, and would
prove an excellent foundation for a novel or a stage hero.
It appears he was born and bred a gentleman, and, as one
of the inspectors said, he had received more beatings from
hard sticks than would have demolished a granite stone !
It appeared that in the day be inhabits the Park,
night he resides in Ben Jonsen-street
mystery to inspectors Kehoe and
M'Clough declares he must bo fed by some -"
Mrs. Harri
or other never-to-be-seen philanthropist. lie formerly
possessed some houses in Cotter-street, but it seems that
this property has passed from him into the hands
of mortgagees long since. The history told by
the officers of the " taperer" was both amusing
and melancholy, and if some one so inclined,
would " write a book," the history of " Tom Roberts
the Bull," would furn.sh ample materials for three volumes
quarto. His last caperaticu" took place on Thursday
evening, in St. James's-place, when he entered the
public house of Mr. Bradley, where the complainant and
his fiddle were at " work." Tom did not like the music,
and the poor blind fellow having laid down the " instru-
ment" on a stool, Tom very deliberately sat down on it,
and, to use the words olf the owner, he made "mash of it !"
Here the remains of what was once a violin, were held up
amid a shout of laughter. Its appearance fully bore the
expressive term of the owner. Tom Roberti was the only
man who did not seem to mind or care about the affair. He
stood like a granite stone, and did not flinch, even when
Mr. Mansfield ordered him to pay a fine of £l, or in default
to be imprisoned for one month. Tom chose the latter
alternative, and was ultimately carried off in the sable van
to durance vile. The police say they will have peace in the
Park for a month in his absence

How he exists

and even

(BEFORE MR. SMITH.)

THE " SWELLB."—Four persons, named Thomas Kerry,
Daniel Hague, Elizabeth Hanly, an 1 Emma Thompson,
who were apparently about twenty years of age, and were
dressed very stylishly, were brought up by detectives
Thompson and Scaife, on a charge of having stolen a purse
from a lady, named Mrs. Mary Scoffield, in .Renshaw-street,
on Thursday. Mr. Bluck appeared for the prisoners. From
the evidence of the officers, it appeared that they saw the
prisoners in Byrom-street, and noticing that their conduct
was more than suspicious, they watched them into Lime-
street, Copperas-hill, and Renshaw-street. The prosecutrix
was standing at a window in the latter street, and the two
male prisoners "telegraphed" the females, who at once
proceeded to `• sound" the lady's pocket ; after " diving" at
the pocket for a time, they drew something from it, the
male prisoners covering the operation. The officers then
seized the whole of the prisoners, and immediately after one
of the females dropped the purse which had b3en taken from
the pocket of Mrs. Scoffield. Mr. Bluck eras-examined the
officers, but their testimony was not altered. Mr. Bluck
requested that the offence should be dealt with under the
summary jurisdiction act; but, in consequence of Inspector
Maybury, of Manchester, coming forward and claiming the
male prisoners on a charge of having passed two base five
pound notes in that city, the prisoners were ordered to be
given up to the inspector. Mr. Bluck then asked for a
summary conviction on the females, and his worship sent
them to prison for three months.

PUBLICANS' AND BEERHOTISE CASES.—The following
publicans' and beerhouse cases were disposed of, in both
courts, before Mr. Mansfield and Mr. Smith : —George
Land, publican, Peter street, was summoned by police
constable Riley, 91. for doing business at illegal hours,
and allowing drunkenness. Fined £2 and costs.—Nicholas
Cornew, publican, Suffolk street, was charged with doing
business at illegal hours, and allowing drunkenness in his
house. Fined lOs and costs.—Henry Moss, publican, Pitt
street, was charged with doing business on Good Friday
morning. Fined 5s and costs.—Mary Smith, hotel keeper,
was charged with doing business on Good Friday morning
Mr. Snowball said the persons found in the house were
lodgers, and he produced one of the persons who proved the
the fact. Dismissed.—Henry Barrigan, beer house
keeper, Windsor, was charged with doing business at
illegal hours. Fined ss. and costs. James
Sayer, publican, Copperas-hill, was charged with
doing business on Good Friday morning. Fined 10s.
and costs, and a like sum on a second information.
—Robert Meldrum, publican, Tames-street, was
charged with a like offence. Dismissed.—Peter
Bradshaw, beerhouse keeper, Duke-street, was fined
2s. 6d. and costs, for doing business at illegal hours.-
-Margaret Thompson, publican, Market Street, was
charged with selling ale on Good Friday
that the person who got the ale was a
dismissed.—John Stockton, beerhouse keeper,
Street, was charged with refusing to
_admit the police

It was shown
traveller. Case
I\lann

Fined 5s and costs.—Robert Worral, beerhouse keeper,
Edward Street, Park, was fined 21 for dhing business at
illegal hours.—Margaret Pinfield, publican, Street,
was charged with ing business on Good Friday mor-
ning. Fined ls, and is costs.—Joseph Pate, publican,
Jordan Street, was charged with selling ale on Good
Friday at half-past twelve o'clock. Dismissed.—John
Houghton, publican, Flint Street, was charged with doing
business on Good Friday. The defendant in this case
complained loudly of the exiduct of the police coming in
disguse to his house, and acting very illegally and inso-
lently. Dismissed.—Robt. Williams, publican, Trafalgar
Street, was charged with doing business on Good Friday
morning.- Fined 2s 6d and costs.—Hugh Devlin, New
Bird-street, was summoned for doing business on Sunday
morning. Fined 2s 6d.—Michael Cooper, beerhouse
keeper, Ashton Street, was summoned for doing business
on Sunday. Dismissed.—Thomas Davis, beerhouse
keeper, Rose Place, was summoned for doing business on
Sunday mid-day. The defence in this case was, that the
affair took place in consequence of a raffle for an ass.
Fined £2.—Mary Jones, beerhouse keeper, Queen Anne
Street, was charged with selling ale on Sunday morning,
and for having a policeman (in uniform) in the house
drinking. The defence was, that the parties found in the
in the house were lodgers. Fined 2s 6d and 2s 6d costs.—
Margaret Rowlands, beerhouse keeper, Horatio Street,
was charged with doing business on Sunday morning.
This house was designated as one of the worst dens
in. Liverpool. Fined £5 and costs.—Jane Kane, beer-
house keeper, Stewart Street, was charged with selling
ale on Sunday morning. Fined 21 and costs.—Bridget
Hodson, of the same street, was charged with a like
offence. Fined 5s and costs.—William Pitt, Burlington
Street, beerhouse keeper, was charged with selling ale on
Sunday morning last. Fined lOs and costs.—John
Williams, Naylor Street, was charged with refusing to
admit the police on Sunday morning. Fined 5s and costs.
—Hugh Logan, table-beer house keeper, was summoned
for selling ale at half. past twelve o'clock on Sunday last.
Fined 5s and costs.

BILLET CASES —Several publicans were summoned for
refusing soldiers billets. The details were void of interest.
Some cases were dismissed, and in other cases fines were
inflicted.

" The Emperor," says the Constitutionnel, "has, for this
year, doubled the salaries of all the persons in his house-
hold."
A letter from Hamburg states, :that English mer-
chants daily arrive in that city with a view of proceeding
to Russia as soon as peace is effected.
GRAND NAVAL REviEw.—Orders have been issued for
every despatch screw gun vessel, as well as the
that
telvt
gun boats, to be ready by the 16th of April; so
may be takenl for granted that on the 16th otthe lith of
the next month, the Queen will review the finest and most
powerful fleet on record. It is believed that her Majesty
will arrive in the morning .at Portsmouth, and return to
town in the evening of the same day.
Friday's Times says : —The last intelligence from Paris
is to the effect that the late diplomatic difficulty is on
the point of being settled. It will be remembered that,
a few days since, an unexpected obstacle threatened to
delay the conclusion of peace. On Saturday last the
plenipotentiaries met with the expectation of concluding
their labours. The Emperor, among others, is reported
to have been certain that all was over, and even to have
given orders for the cannon of the Envalides
to announce the advent of peace at the same time
that the Te Deum was resounding in the churches of
France for the safe delivery of the Empress. The
claim of Prussia to sign the treaty, on equal terms with
the other powers, is said to have been the cause of this
difficulty, and orders will be, or have been already,
despatched to the generals at the seat of war, ordering
them not to re-commence hostilities, even though the
31st of March should arrive without their receiving the
news of peace. Lord Clarendon is reported to have
resisted the Prussian claim with much earnestness, and
to have insisted that this State should only adhere to the
treaty in the same manner as France did to that of 1840
—signed without her participation. Matters now ap-
pear to have been arranged. We anticipate nothing
more serious than a short delay, and trust that though
some days may pass before all is settled, the Plenipoten-
tiaries will soon affix their names to a treaty of peace.