The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-12-24 00:00:00

iNTmnst
TAKING IN ONE OF THE "EIGHTY-SECONI).7.rakO Jr/
Sweene/
y, who is generally believed to be one 4-,512,,t)1".%-o3g
called "the Dale-street duffers," was brought ••0.
by police-officer 56, with obtaining money ute-r-I. f kwa is qr,fr,:r
.eari
pretences,
Michael Vaughan, a soldier belonging to the 82nd, stated
that he arrived from the city of Glasgow, and having to
wait for the packet to Wales, where he was about to visit
his family, he fell in with the defendant, who invited him to
go to a public-house to look at some smuggled tobacco.
When they got there no tobacco was produced, but a China
shawl, valued at £l5, was offered him, but he did not pur-
chase it; but he did purchase a chain, which was represented
as gold, and some jewellery which was not worth a half-
penny.
The defendant denied that he had said the articles were
gold.
The magistrate thought the plaintiff ought to have known
better than to be thus taken in, as he could not get a gold
chain for ss.
Plaintiff : I bought three lots at ss. each lot.
Magistrate : You ought to know better. The case is dis-
missed.
Mr. Clough : Soldier—here, take away your jewellery.
(Laughter.)
The soldier made a quick exit,
ROBBERY BY A PUBLIC OFFICER.—A man named Cornish,
who was placed in the premises lately on fire in Mill-street,
the property of Mr. Evans, was charged by Inspector Tom-
linson with stealing :everal pieces of cloth from the premises
he was watching. The prisoner acknowledged the offence,
and as his employer did not wish to press the charge he was
only committed for two months.
Mary Burke was committed for 14 days
_for sts.l;-,
goose from Mr. James Quin. St t.
uz.LICANS CASES.
,:atherine Browne, keeper of a public-house in Denison-
street, was summoned for a violation of the act on last
Sunday.
Police-officer 165 stated, that at a quarter before eleven
o'clock on last Sunday morning he observed a cab standing
opposite the defendant's door. In a few minutes he saw the
cabman come out of the front door, and a woman come out
of the back door with a jug of ale in her hand. He then
went into the shop and saw four parties there drinking.
Mr. Owen appeared for the defendant. He admitted that,
as the officer stated, four persons were drinking at the coun-
ter, but they were a wedding party, and it would be mon-
strous, indeed, if in the 19th century a wedding party were
not to bo allnwpd a little refreshment. (Laughter.) As to
the woman, who was aliegeo, cu La.o ...Tno nut of the back
door, that must have been a mistake. The woman came
from the adjoining house, where she had been to borrow
some ale for her mistress.
The officer here stated that on the woman seeing him she
threw away the ale.
A man of the name of Sutton was examined, and he bore
out Mr. Owen's statement. He it was who was married on
that morning, and having called at the house to see a friend
who was lodging there, he conceived that he might without
risk treat them.
The defendant was fined £1 4s. 6d. ; but a note was made
by the magistrate that it should not mitigate against her.
Thomas Petrie, keeper of an eating-house in Maguire-
street, was charged by information with harbouring prosti-
tutes at unseasonable hours.
Mr. Owen, who appeared for the defendant, admitted that
the parties whom the officer saw in the house, at the hour
stated in the information, were women of the town, but he
contended that they were as well entitled to the privilege of
obtaining refreshment even at a late hour as any other of
her Majesty's subjects. Their misfortunes having reduced
them to such a state that their only means of subsistence
was the pursuit of an abandoned life ; it would be monstrous
to say that even though they behaved themselves quietly or
orderly, they should be debarred the right of obtaining even
necessary nourishment, or that those who supplied them
with it, 'should be deemed guilty of the offence laid in the
information.
Mr. Mansfield observed that the legislature certainly au-
thorised those houses to be kept open to a late hour in the
night, with the object that those whose avocations prevented
them from obtaining at any other time in the twenty-four
hours necessary refreshments, might then procure them. The
legislature undoubtedly contemplated the cases of travellers
and workmen employed at unseasonable hours, but here the
case was altogether different. And if if such hours were
permitted to afford refreshment to prostitutes or pickpockets
at unseasonable hours of the night, it would be merely fut.
nishing them with assistance to pursue their abandoned
courses—to prowl about the:streets at all hours, and to plun-
der wherever they could. He was always of opinion that
the prostitutes who were about the town at late hours of the
night, were out more for the purpose of plunder than any-
thing else.
The defendant was fined 40s. and costs.
Mary Parry, keeper of a public-house in Grafton-street,
was summoned for a violation of the act. on last Sunday.
This case was adjourned for a week.
BEERSELLERS' CASES.
Jessy Clarke, keeper of a beer-house in Eldon-street, was
fined bs. for Sunday trading.
James. Gregson, keeper of a beer-house in Beckett-street,
was summoned for Sunday trading.
Police-officer 165, stated that he visited the house early
on Sunday morning, and that he found four men in the
kitchen with jugs which recently contained ale before
them.
The defendant's wife, admitted that the four men, who
were lodgers, were in the kitchen, but she positively denied
that they had been supplied with ale.
The defendant was fined 40s.
Peter Delany, keeper of a beer-house in Watkinson-
street, was fined ss. for Sunday trading.
Elisabeth Garrett, keeper of a beer-house in Norfolk-
street, was fined Sc. for Sunday trading.
George Fletcher, keeper of a beer-house in Watkinson-
street, was fined 10s. and costs for Sunday trading. Mr.
Bremner defended.
James Biddy, keeper of a beer-house in Knight-street, was
fined 9s. 6d. for Sunday trading.
Andrew Daly, table-beerseller, Henderson-street, was
fined 1 ls. 6d. for Sunday trading, and for having parties
drunk in the house.
HenryiSpencer, keeper of a beer-house in Frederick-street,
was fined 2s. for Sunday trading.
David Richards, keeper of a beer-house in Ormond-street,
was fined 48. for having some sixty people in his house at half-
past three o'clock on Sunday morning. It appeared that it
was an assembly of dilletanti Welshmen, who had met
for the purpose of deciding on the merits of two rival
harpers.
Owen Mathews, keeper of a beer-house in Prussia-street,
was fined in a like sum for a like offence.

COUNTY COURT. -YESTERDAY.

The court sat at ten o'clock yesterday.
GUEST V. HUDSON.—This was a case which had been
before the court on a former day, and was adjourned for
the production of fuller evidence. The plaintiffs were
Messrs. Guest, brewers ; and the defendant a Liverpool pilot.
The plaintiffs claimed £9 Bs. for ale supplied to a public-
house, in Plum-street, in which it was alleged that the de-
fendant lived, along with a woman who was reported to be
his wife, and who was generally known as Mrs. Hudson.
The point upon which the case rested was whether the de-
fendant by living in the house and allowing the woman to
be known as his wife, had not led parties to give her credit
in such a manner as to render him responsible. Several
witnesses were examined upon the part of the plaintiffs who
stated that they had called and delivered goods at the house, '
and that they had frequently seen the defendant there and
always understood that the woman mbo uvea In tile house
w, the part of the defence it was admitted
that the defendant had lived with the woman for twelve
years and had several children by her, but it was stated that •
he had been for some time separated from her, and that he -
had no connection whatever with the house beyond the fact
that he had given her £5OO for the purpose of taking it and
carrying on business there. He admitted that he had been
at the house occasionally, but denied that he ever lived there,
or had any interest in it.
His HoNoiCsaid that the main question to be considered

was whether the defendant having lived with the woman as
was described, and having led persons to give her credit upon
the supposition that she was his wife, he had countermanded
any authority of that kind when ho coased to live with her.
His Honor did not think there was evidence to that effect,
and therefore held that defendant was liable. Having corn- •
mented strongly upon the general character of the defence,
Tr,mor said that he had not the slighest hesitation in
giving a verdict 'or thu for the amount claimed.
The other cases which came before the court possessed no
public importance.

BIRKENHEAD COUNTY COURT.-YESTERDAY.

(BEFORE JOHN WILLIAM HARDEN, ESQ., JUDGE.)

JURY CASE.—ARCHER v. HOUGHTON.—The plaintiff,
Mr. Thomas Croxton Archer, is an officer of customs at this
port; and the defendant, Mr. Thomas Houghton, is a
farmer, both residing at Town-lane, Higher Tranmere.
The action was brought by the plaintiff nominally to recover
damages for, but in reality, to suppress a nuisance, which
he alleged, was created near his dwelling-house by the
aeftudc..4. Tt Appeared that the defendant, who is also the
contractor for removing night soil from Birkenhead, has
for many years past, kept a large threshing machine, about
midway between his barn and the plaintiff's dwelling, which
is quite adjacent. The machine is worked by five horses,
and the vibration from it causes serious annoyance to the
plaintiff's househould—particularly his lady, who, it
seems, has been suffering from a nervous complaint for
some time back. Minor annoyances were also set forth,
but the above was the substantial nuisance complained of.
On the part of the defendant it was shown that the machine
had been on the premises for many years, and that this was
the first allegation of its being a nuisance ; but as he could
not prove that it had been there for 21 years, he could not
plead a prescriptive right. Several witnesses were examined
on either side, and the hearing of the case occupied the
court for several hours.

Sir George Stephen appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Aspinall for the defendant.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, but merely
for ls. nominal damages, the defendant undertaking to
name the nuisance.