The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-03-27 00:00:00

THE NORTHERN TIMES.----LIVERPOOL, _ FRIDAY.

CAUSE-LIST

FIRST LIST.—SALFORD HUNDRED.
• Plaintiffs' Attorneys.. Plaintiffs. Defendants. Defendants' Attorneys.
1 Er...Summerscales kg Dunkerley:and ors v Lees and ano Redfern
3 CP...Same Bellhouse and ano (sJ) v The Mayor &c of Wchester Austin
4 Ex ..Stead Cazenove and ano assees (: J) v Finnesey Rymer
6 QB...Atkinson and Co Pott and ors assees (,J) v Lawe
9 Q8...F Andrew Irving , ( J) v South Eastern Railway Co
10 Ex ...Sale and Co Beckham ( J ) v Anchor Assurance Co J Hall
11 Ex ...Same Blane (, .1 ) v The Lane & York Rail Co Lewis, D and Co
12 QB...Higson and R Thompson :(: J) v North Eastern Railway Co Newton and R
13 Q8...J H Drarden Charles (t.J) v National Guar Ass Society Sale and Co
14 Q 8... Worthington & E Duncan v Harding and ano North
16 CP... W K Taylor Lawton (Ea) v Whitaker
.. H Forshaw
17 Ex ...Sale and Co Fanshaw (..a) v Peet P 0 Milne and Son

SECOND LIST.—WEST DERBY HUNDRED,
1 QB...Bennett and S Wilkinson (,a) v Teall
2 Ex ...Rowe Waring Junr v Everth
3 Ex Lewis and Co Smith (.a) v Long
4 Ex ...Same Price j(sa) Tr Dillon and ors
5 Ex ...Avison and R Martin (sa) v Frangopulo and ano
6 Ex ...Hodgson Allen v Gibson
7:CP—Barnett and M Stubbs (sa) v Baker
11 CP...Yates Jun French and ors v McHenry
12 Ex.. Wright and H Or merod ; v Turner and ors exors &c
14 CP...Bolton Baker (sa) v Stubbs
15 QB...Lowndes and uo Mavrogordato :., (Si) v Hindson
16 Ex ...Pye and Co Burgoyne v Jackson
18 Ex ...J and H Gregory Stewart (si) v Wright and ano
21 Ex ...Same Same (0) v Smith and ano
22 CPL. W and C EEaton Holme and anr . v Buckley
23 CP...Yates Jun Jones admor &c (sa) v Provincial Insurance Co Elg worth and P
24 QB...Lowndes and Co Ely (sa) v Bell ILirvey and Co
25 CP...Dodge Harrison and anr (sa) v Lee Yatea Jun
26 QB...Kirkbank Shillingford (FJ) v Chester & Holyhead R. Co Swift and Co
27 CPL.Johnson Hignett V B:uadell II Forshaw
28 QB...Lowndes and Co Brennand (sJ) v Ker and ors J 0 Watson]
29 Ex ...Ramp and T Mann v Scott
30 Ex ...Fletcher and H Grainger and ors '.,1 ,(sa) v Kirkpatrick
31 CP...Grimmer Swinnerton (sJ) v Lon & Nor Western R. Co
32 CP...Roscoe , Allan (sJ) v Waiters ~
~,,,
33 QB...Lowndes and Co Tlol,lerness and ano v Bohtlingk \:-.; _
34 F.x ...Fletcher and II , Meek v Foyn .. I.A
~
35 Ex ...11 Forshaw Baines (si) v Royal Ex Assurance Co
36 QB...Shattock . Leather v Busby and ano
37 Ex ...Williams Gurney and Ux v Lloyd
38 Ex ...Godfrey `•:: Jones a , v Hughes . ,
39 Ex ...Neal and M Ford and anr • v Hannay
40 Ex ...Lace and Co Neilson v Andersson -
41 Ex ...Duncan and Co Miller and anr '.• (8.1) v Fletcher and anr
42 CPL.Roby Houghton and ux admix &c v Hignett and anr
43 CPL.Teebay Gill v Sparks and ano
44 Ex ...Conway McKnight v Duckworth and ano
45 Ex ...Same Jones v Same
46 CP...Rawson and Co Bottomley (Si) v Nuttall
47 Ex ...II Forshaw Cotesworth and ors (Si) v Wood and ors
48 CPL.Johnson Parkinson v Jackson '
49 QB...Fenton and Co Radcliffe, Baronet v Whitworth and ano
_:
50 Ex ...Darlington , Harrison v Worthington;
52 CP ...Johnson Hodgson v Hodgman
53 QB...Hassal -: Penny and ano exors . -.: v Pollard and ors
54 QB...Wills and S , Fraser v Jordan
55 QB...Shattock
.: Deane .:' v Littledale and ors
56 CPL.Backhouse Edmondson v Wade
. .
58 CPL.Deane i Preston and ors v Tamplin and ano;
60 QB...Swan Warden - - ' v Stone
, 61 QB...Swift & Co The March. of Londonderry (sa) v The Sunderland Dock Co
I 62 CPL.Backhouse Dean v Wright
63 CPL. Same Dean and ors v Wright
64 Ex ...Haigh and T Brelin (sa) v Eatough
65 Ex ...R Birchall Wright v Bankes
66 CPL.T and R Radcliffe Aspden v Fielding and ano
67 Ex ..North and Co Whitley and ano (ea) v Parr and ano
68 QB ..Lowndes and Co Johnson and ano (si) v Croft Russell '
69 QB...Shattock Tapson v Swift. Blackhurst
70 Ex ...Pemberton Blundell v Gossage J Ansdell
71 CPL.Backhouse T Hartley v Greenwood Hall and CO:
72 CPL.Same W Hartley v Same Same
73 Ex ...Kaye Goddefroy and ors (Si) v Regan J B Lloyd
76 CP ...H Forshaw Whitaker v Lawton ':" '' W K Taylor Q
77 Q3...Lowndes and Co Parry and ano v Trustees Birkenhead Dock Bircham and Co
78 QB—Same Crosby and ors (sa) v Wilcox and ano H Forshaw- -
..
79 QB...Shattock Blanc and ux v Willoughby and anr

I
Mordaunt
Walker and H
Thornley and J

-

Holden and Son
W Heaton

Stone

Atkinsons and uo
Same

Lowndes and Co
Swift and Co
Mewburn and Co
1-I,Forshaw
Lownd€s and Co
Freshfield
Hinde
Ritson
Campbell

J and W Clare

Shattock
Swan
J and H Gregory
Same

Lowndes and Co
H Forshaw
Radcliffe and M
Swan

Littledale and B

Littledale and B
J B Wathen

Turner and Son
T Taylor
Pickep

SPRING ASSIZES.

CROWN COURT.
BEFORE BARON MARTIN.

His Lordship took his seat on the bench yesterday
morning at nine o'clock. The first case put forward was
that of
THE POST OFFICE ROBBERY IN LI VERPOn —The
prisoner William Henry Tindall, aged 23, described as a
clerk in the past office of this town, pleaded not guilty
to an indictment charging him with having,
on the 2nd of Jauuary, stolen a letter, con_
taining one half sovereign, the property of the post_
master general. The prisoner, who is a married man,
had been a letter carrier, and had, for his previous good
conduct, been promoted to the position of a letter sorter.
The case was proved by Mr Hunter, the superintendent
of the letter carriers, and detective officer Cousens, from
whose evidence it appeared that on the evening of the
2nd of January, by the direction of the post master
general, he was at the post office in this town, and placed
himself in such a position that he could see but not be
seen. He was instructed to watch the prisoner. After
the receiving bags had arrived at eight o'clock on that
evening, he saw the prisoner, who was a letter sorter,
select first one, then another, and then a third letter,
which he then placed upon a table, and covered them
over with some bills, and ultimately placed them in his
coat pocket. Cousens then went up to him, and asked
him if he had any letters in his possession that did not
belong to him. The prisoner repied, "I am not aware
that I have." Cousens then took the three letters from
the prisoner's coat pocket, or.e of which was directed to
Mrs Barton, of 9, Prospect place, Stepney, London, and
contained two fourpenny pieces and two threepenny pieces;
the next was addressed to Mrs Bytnie, and contained a
half sovereign ; and ;the third, addressed to G. Latham,
Esq., and also contained lOs and ten postage stamps. The
prisoner, when accused of this robbery, appeared verb'
much confused, and said he had no explanation to give of
the matter. For the defence it was urged, en behalf of
the prisoner, that he had, in the hurry of business, placed
the three letters on one side, for some particular purpose,
and that he had then inadvertently taken them up with
some reports he had to reply to, awl had placed them in
his pocket. His Lordship briefly summed up the case,
when the jury, without the slightest hesitation, returned
a verdict of guilty. In passing sentence upon the prisoner,
his Lordship said he had been convicted on the most
satisfactory evidence that was ever adduced in a court of
justice of a most serious offence, that of stealing a letter.
Unfortunately there were many poor persons in this
country, but they were honest, and were desirous of
sending various small sums to their friends and other
people, and, from their poverty, they were almost com—
pelled to transmit such amounts through the postoffice,
therefore that property was at the mercy of the clerk in
such offices. It there was one offence worse than another,
and deserved the most severe punishment, it was when a
person, in holding a situation such as the prisoner, stole a
letter, because it pressed most particularly hard upon the
the poorer classes of this country. It had always been
the practice of the judges, and very properly, to punish
such offences with a very severe sentence, and he saw no
reason, if even he had the discretion, which he had not, to
depart from that practice, as the ;cases were, when such
persons choose to be dishonest, easily effected, and very
difficult to find out. His Lordship had no doubt but that
the prisoner had carried on this system of robbery for a
very long period, or the detective officer would not have
been employed to watch him. The sentence of the court
was, that he be imprisoned and kept to penal servitude
for six years. The prisoner was then removed, evidently
much affected by the sentence.

CHARGE OF CHILD MURDER —Mary Cave, aged 25,
described as a domestic servant, was then charged on the
coroner's warrant with having, at Southport, wilfully
murdered her female infant child. The prisoner pleaded
not guilty. It appeared that in the month of January
last the prisoner was in the service of Mr. Johnson, a soli-
citor, of Southport. From certain appearances Mrs. John-
son suspected that she was enceinte, and asked her the ques-
tion, but she positively denied such to be the fact ; but,
subsequently, from information given by a little girl who
slept with the prisoner, the room was searched, and in
her box was found the body of a child. His lordship here
observed that there was not the slightest evidence to sub-
stantiate the charge of murder, upon which the prisoner
withdrew her plea of not guilty, and pleaded guilty of
concealing the birth of the child. She was sentenced to
three months imprisonment.
GAROTTE ROBBERY AT OLDHAM.—William Penn ington,
aged 38, a joiner, Fanny Pennington, aged 33, a factory
hand, Samuel Hope, aged 37, a cotton spinner, and Eliza
M'Dade, aged 40, a housekeeper, stood indicted with
having, on the 28th of December last, assaulted and
robbed William Bradshaw, and stolen from his person a
watch and other articles. On the day in question the
prosecutor was knocked down, when the two Penning-
tons, brother and si-ter, were seen with him, the male
prisoner to knock him down, and the female to take
from his pocket the watch. The watch was afterwards
found in their possession. Bis Lordship directed Hope
to be acquitted, as there was no proof of his having
received any cf the pr.perty. The jury retired, and
returned a verdict of guilty against the two Penningtons,
and acquitted M'Dade. Sentence deferred.
HOUSEBREAKING AT LIVERPOOL.—MichaeI M'Donnell,
aged 16, a carpenter, stood charged with having, on the
night of the 10th of January, entered the dwelling house
of Miss Alice Kirkham, and stolen therefrom a quantity
of butter, 10s, and other property. In this case the pre-
mises, which are situated in the locality of Scotland road,
were all left safe on the night in quest ion, but on the fol-
lowing morning it was found that they had been entered
and the property stolen. On that night, a police constable
was on duty near the shop, when he saw two men, one of
whom he stated was the prisoner, near the place. Upon
his being pursued he threw the butter away. He was
positively identified by the policeman, who apprelt:nard
him about a week after the robbery. Guilty. A former
conviction was proved against the prisoner. and it was
also stated that he was the brother of the two M•Donaells

NISI PRIUS COURT.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE CROMPTON.

who were found guilty on the previous day of a similar
offence. In this case, the prisoner was sentenced to six
years' penal servitude.
CHARGE OT N URDER AT MANCHRSTER.—WiIIiam
Collins, aged 57, a weaver, stood charged ;on the
coroner's warrant with having killed and murdered
another weaver, named John White. In this case
it appeared that, on the 31st of January, the
deceased and the prisoner, who were well known to each
other, were at the house of Michael Morris, when an
altercation took place between them about a woman with
whom the prisoner lived. They then came to blows, when
the prisoner went up stairs, but soon after returned, when
he deliberately plunged a knife into the bowels of the
deceased man, who was taken to the Infirmary, and died
from the effects of the injury. Guilty of manslaughter.
Sentence deferred.

of a quantity of oak bark, purchased by the plaintiff from
one Isaac Cooper, of Manchester. Mr. Hill, Q. i 7. , was for
the plaintiff, with Mr. Ovens, and the Attorney General and
Jones appeared for the defence. The case appeared to
be one interesting to the societies for the protection of trade.
In July last the plaintiff was waited upon by Mr. Cooper,
whom he alleged to have never seen before, who
asked him to advance a sum of money upon a '
cargo of oak bark which was being shipped to his
order from a person named Donaldson, residing in
Scotland. Upon the inv Ace of the bark being pro-
duced to the plaintiff, be advanced Cooper £2O on the
hark, and afterwards £2l, to pay for the freight, and Mr.
Buchanan, said to be a commission agent in North
John street, Liverpool, was instructed to call upon the
New Quay Company, pay the frieght, and receive the
cargo. The defendants, as common carriers, forwarded the
goods to Manchester, to the order of Cooper, who subse-
quently gave an order to the plaintiff to receive the goods
in the invoice. The plaintiff did not produce the bill of
lading, and the defendants refused to givehitn the bark, on
the ground that it belonged to Nnalison, of Dnm fries, who
had stopped it in transitu, and, further, that Donaldson
had been induced to part with the goods by fraud on the
part of Cooper and others ; hence the action. From the
statement of Mr. Knowles, for the defence, it appeared •
that the man Cooper, who is now in Lancaster Castle,
having advertised to purchase bark, he was answered by
Donaldson, and the result was that Cooper ordered from
them 21 tons ; hut, as Cooper was a stranger to them,
they requested a reference before the bark was shipped.
Cooper referred them to a Mr. Wrigly of 'Mime, near
Manchester, but wrote to awe lds )n, saying, that
he thought cash was the best reference, and that on
the receipt of the bark, prompt payment would be
made. Cooper had dat-d his letters to Don-
aldson, as from " Knott Mill," Bridgewater street,
Manchester, which led Doea'dson to suppose that he
kept a mill of that name. whereas Knott Mill was a
district of Mancht-ster. Upon this, Donaldson shipped
the bark, but as Cooper was a perfect stranger to him,
he took the precaution to send through a Scotch hank, to
a bank in Manchester, the of lading, and a draft for
£125 12s. urn Cooper, giving orders that on the
payment of the latter the bill of lading could be given up
to him. Enquiries were made for Cooper, but no such
person could be found in Bridgewater street, or
in any part of Knott Mill. Through the post-
man. however, it was ascertained that Cooper
was in the habit of having his letters addressed to him at
some public house in Knott Mill. Under these circumstances
Donaldson requested the New Quay Company neither to
deliver the goods to Cooper nor to Sheridan,
the plaintiff, the alleged purchasers. Several points of 1
law were here mooted, as to the legality of the purchase by
Sheridan, and whether on the production of the invoice
from Mr. Donaldson to Cooper, and the transfer of the
property to Sheridan, the defendants should not have
given up the bark. After an investigation which lasted
upwards of three hours, it was arranged to make a special
case for the Court of Common Pleas, in which the action
was brought upon the points of law recorded, and to take a
verdict for the plaintiff on the facts, the costs to be subject
to the decision of the Court of Common Pleas.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.—SUCKLING V.
BAYLDON.—This Nsas an action, No. 13 in the second list,
which was for a breach of promise of marriage. The parties
consented to withdraw the cause, damages being entered for the
plaintiff to the amount of £350.
A HORSE TRAINER AT FAULT.—MANN V. SCOTT.—This
was an action which was undefended The plaintiff was Mr
Thomas Mann, a gentleman residing in Liverpool, and the
defendant, W. H. Scott, a horse trainer, at Holywel',
Flintshire. In April last, the plaintiff gave the
defendant £lOO, to purchase for him two colts, which
plaintiff had previously seen at Holywell. The defendant
never purchased the colts, but aepropriated the money to his
own use. Defendant had frequently promised to return the
money, but he had omitted to do so. Damages, £lOO.
ACTION AGAINST A DRUGGIST FOR CARELESSLY Dls•
PENsING POISON.—BRAMALL V. LEFS.—This was an action
brought by the plaintiff, the father of a female child, :led 13
years, who met with her death by having taken laudanum,
instead of tincture of rhubarb, the defendant having, as it wee
alleged, negligently dispensed the former, instead of the latter,
by which the child met its death. The action
wes brought under an act of Parliament, passed in
1645, by which it is provided that a parent or ner friend,
in the event of a party losing their life by neg'igence of
another, may sue for lots of services. Mr. H. Hill, Q.C.,
and Mr. Apsland, appeared for the plain!-If, and the
Attorney (leneral and Mr. Raffles fer the d-fence. The
plaintiff was a machinist, in the emphy of Messrs. Lee,
cotton spinners, of Sialeybridge, atsd the defendant, a
chemist and druggist, in the same town. On the 13th of
August last, the deceased was ill with the bowel complaint,
and her mother sent for twopenny worth of the tincture
of rhubarb. The defendant supplied her with a dark fluid
from a bottle, which was administered to the child, with
a little warm water and sugar. Immediately afterwards
the child WES seized with sickness, the stomach pump
and other remedies were resorted to, but death chortle
afterwards ensued. Me. Hill stated that prior to the year
1845, when the act alluded to passed. there was no civil
remedy'in such a case; but now it was enacted that if any
individual is guilty of a wrongful act, by which death
ensues, if that wrongful act is such ; but if the party had
lived, the party injured cculd have sued the parent or
guardian, or a mother after death could bring an action
to recover damages. The law said that compensation was
not to be given for wounded feelings, but as a money com-
pensation for lass of services. The question then arose what
pecuniary loss had toe father sustained by the death of this
daughter. Evidence was then called to prove the purchase
and the administration of rho d,u,4, and the consequent
death of the child. Mr. Knowles then addressed the jury
for the defence, contending that these had been no wilful
neglect on the port of the defendant, but purely accidental,
neither did he see that the parents had suffered any pecuniary
loss by the death of the child, however lamentable the
circumstances were. His Lordship having summed up, the
jury after a short deliberation returned a verdict for the
plaintiff, damages £l5.

HOUSEBREAKING AT LIVERPOOL.—James Morrison,
aged 30, cooper, and James Mullen, aged 24, a labourer,
were indicted for having, on the 13th of December last,
stolen five gallons of rum, some whiskey, and other spirits,
the property of William M'Goveran. On the night in
question, the vaults of the prosecutor, situated in the
vicinity of Great Charlotte street, were locked up
secure; but on the following morning it was found that
they had been entered, and a large quantity of spirits had
been stolen on the ❑ight in question. A police officer on
duty saw the prisoner Morrison with a five gallon bottle
of runt in his possession, and from the information he
received, he went to his workshop, where he found a
quantity of spirits. These, he said, he had received from
the prisoner Mullens, who had formerly been in the
prosecutor's employ and knew the premises well.
Another police constable went to the prosecutor's premises,
where they found the other prisoner concealed in a stable,
with a bottle of whiskey in his possession. These facts were
all proven, and the statements made by the prisoners at
the time they were committed were put in for the purpose
of being read by the clerk of assize, hut, after several
ineffectual attempts to get through those docum nts, he
gave it up in despair, observing that they were wrtten
in such a peculiar style that he could not get through
with them. His Lordship, atcr commenting on the
injustice and inconvenience that might arise from such a
practice, said if it occurred again, he would not allow the
costs. The counsel for the prisoners having addressed the
jury, a verdict of guilty was returned, and the two
prisoners were sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment,
with hard labour.

INDECENT ASSAULT UPON A CHILD.—John Scott, aged
52, a dealer in cotton waste, was charged with having, on
the 2nd of January last, indecently assaulted Jane Shaw,
a little girl under twelve years of age. The offence was
committed in the parish of Royton. The ptisoner was
indicted for the capital offence, but having pleaded guilty
to the above charge, no evidence was offered, and he was
sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
MANSLAUGHTER AT HALLIWELL.—John Rhodes, aged
33, and William Rhodes, aged 20, both stonemasons,
were charged, on the coroner's warrant, with having
caused the death of John Duedale, at Haliwell, Bolton
le Moors. On the 12th of January, the deceased, who
was a farmer, was drinking at the George, and at the
Hen and Chiekens, and in the latter house he was, at
about twelve o'clock at night, in the company of the
prisoners. They left the house about the same time, and
soon after a watcher of a factory heard the cry of murder,
and upon looking out he stated that he saw the prisoner,
John Rhodes, holding the deceased by the throat, while
the prisoner, William, was severely kicking him in the
abdomen. On the following day he pursued his usual
occupation, but on the Tuesday he fell from some hay,
and on the Thursday he was taken ill, and died on the
Friday night. For the prosecution it was alleged that
the deceased died from the effects of the injuries he had
received from the prisoners on the night in ques-
tion. To substantiate that charge, two. medical men
were called, Mr Levy and Mr Corfield, the former of whom
having attended the deceased up to the time of his death,
stated that he had frequently questioned the deceased as to
whether he had received any injury, and he always
said that he had not, but one witness stated that
just prior to death, the deceased told him he was dying,
and that " they had killed him." He was asked who had
killed him; when he replied, that he and the Rhodes'
were going home from Bolton, when be asked one of them
for some money that they owed him, when one of them
got hold of him by the throat, and the other punched
and kicked him, saying, that they would pay him
it, by giving it into his old bones." [The medical
evidence as to the result of the post mottein examination,
and the cause of death, appeared, from the observations of
the counsel, to be exceedingly inconclusive ; and from the
way in which it was given by each of the medical men,
being uttered in a very low voice, and interspersed by the
phraseology of the science, it was totally inaudible and
incomprehensible to the reporters in the place apportioned
for their accommodati.n in THIS court of justice.] It
was also proved that the deceased had on the Friday night,
while in a partial state of intoxication, fallen down a cellar,
at the George Inn, and then complained of having hurt
birnsilf. For the defence, it was argued that the deceased
had died from some other causes than from the injuries
received from the prisoners in the squabble that had been
spoken to by the witness. his lordship summed up, and
left it for the jury to say whether they believed that the
deceased had died from the effects of the injuries he had
received on that night. If they did, there could be no
doubt but that the crime was manslaughter ; but if they
had a doubt, they would give the prisoners the benefit of
that doubt and acquit them. The jury, after
retiring for a short time, returned a verdict of acquittal.
The two prisoners were then discharged.
The court soon after adjourned.

The court sat at the usual hour, nine o'clock.
SHERIDAN D. THE NEW QUAY COMPANY.—This was an
action brought by the plaintiff against the New Quay
company for damages, in consequence of their non delivery

asked him what he heard, and pressed him to take
him to the party who'diad thus calumniated his sister, when
the defendant said be would give up the author's name and
would refer the brother to the party who had told the
matter prejudicial to the lady's character. Tie d Pendant
afterwards said he would not give up the atitlier':; name,
unless he was compelled to do so. St..beeve-it,v, trpplica-
tions were made by the plaintiff's friealF,eue-e.oeno in him
either to fulfil his promise, by marrying; her, er ti give her
compensation far her outraged : teeings, are' the
loss she had sustained. Messrs. Frain:is, and Almond,
the solicitors to the plaintiff, afterwards sent a
letter to the defendant, stating ethat, not only
must compensation be made to the lady for the
breach of promise, but that the defendant must also retract
in writing, the aspersions he had cast upon her character, or
take the consequences. No notice was taken of this letter.
The learned counsel was here about putting in the letter to
be read in court, when Mr. Knowles objected to the reading
of lawyers letters, and the judge concurring in the views of
Mr. Knowles, Mr. James withdrew it. Mr. James then
proceeded to comment severely on the conduct of the
defendant in wantonly endeavouring to asperse the fair fame
of the lady he had agreed solemnly to enter into a matri-
monial alliance with, and concluded by leaving it to the
jury to say what ample damages she was entitled to, for this
breach of 'promise and wicked slander, The jury might
hear many witticisms from his learned friend on the sub-
ject, but they must bear in mind the serious injury the
plaintiff had received. Mr. James Hutchinson
was then called by Mr. James. He said : I
am an architect, and the brother of the plaintiff,
Maria Hutchinson. My father was the super-
visor of excise at Bromboro' when he died. I
knew the defendant, who lived at New Ferry on his own
means. In !March, 1856, I was living in Birkenhead,
and on Sunday evening, the 30th of March, the plaintiff
and the defendant called at my house. I knew he was a
suitor to my sister, and from time to time, until May, I
continually saw them together. On the 1511 of May
plaintiff and defendant came to my house, when the
defendant said to me, " Tom, I have made sure of
your sister Maria." I sail, " Indeed, in which
way ? " The defendant then said to my sister,
Mal ia. " Then I own that I have been pur-
chasing for you." He then produced the wedding
ring, and said, " If she should run in, I shall enter an
action for breach." After tea I went with them to
the Birkeuhead park. A few days after I went with the
defendant to Bebbington, to look at a farm and some land,
the value of which the plaintiff told ma was about £2,000.
The plaintiff asked my opinion of the property, and said
that by the purchase he could realise about £4,000. I then
went with him into Bebbington churchyard to look at his
daughter's grave, and said that when he married my
sister, whichever went first must be buried there. (A
laugh.) At another time he called my sister Mrs. Conroy,
to which she replied, "I am not Mrs. Conroy yet," when
he replied, " no, but you soon will be, or there will be an
action." On the 27th of Jane, my wife asked the defendant
when the wedding was to take place ; he said, " I have
told Maria, and I have no doubt but that she has told
you." My wife said, " well, I hear it is to take place on
the 31st of July." On the 28th of July the defendant came
to my house to take tea, and said that he had been over to
Liverpool, and produced from a carpet bag a waistcoat
piece which he wished to be made up with his own, by the
following Wednesday. He asked me to go to Liverpool
with him the next day, which I did, we called upon Mr.
Stafford, and the defendant signed a paper, and we asked
Mr. Stafford if he would give me the license on the Wed-
nesday evening if I called for it. I then went with him to
his house at New Ferry, and on leaving: the defendant,
said, " give my love to your sister, and tell her.
I shall be sure to be there on Thursday morning
to the wedding." My sister had purchased her
wedding dresses. which were made up on'the Wednesday.
I went to Mr. Stafford and received the licence. The
marriage did not take place on the Thursday morning, as
the defendant did not come, and the marriage has not
taken place. On the 2nd of August I went to the
defendant's house at New Ferry, and I asked him why he
had not married my sister, and I wished for an
explanation of his conduct, when he said, " I love
Maria dearly, but I have heard that of her character,
that if I had been married, I should never have been
happy. I asked him if he would tell me what it was, and he
said the would, and tell me who the par ties were who
had spoken againe:oer. Hesaid he would atfirst,and afterwards
said he would not, as he had changed his mind. I said I would
know let the consequences, be what they might. He said he
knew that he was in my power, and if it was his money that I
wanted, he would give me all lie was worth. The same
afternoon, the 2nd of August, I went to Mrs. Jones's,
at Bromboro', and met the defendant there, when he
made use of the same assert ions he had done before, he
said he would not tell who the persons were who had
spoken against my sister unless he was compelled. Mrs.
Jones is a widow lady, having no daughter of her own,
and my sister has lived with her since my father's death.
Mr. Knowles, for the defence : Bel ,re I cross-examine
you will you allow me to ask whether that is the waistcoat
you have on that has been alluded to. Witness : as is.
(A laugh.) Mr. Knowles : Then you see it has come in.
Cross-examined: My sister officiated as barmaid for Mrs.
Jones. Defendant might have become acquainted with
my sister over a glass of grog. My sister was disengaged
at the time ; she might hove had an engagement with a
Mr. Ellis about 12 months before. It was on the 30th of
March the secret of the attachment was confided to me,
when the defendant said, " I have made sure of your.sister
Maria." She smiled, and said nothing, but was surprised,
as I thought they might have been married then, by the re_
mark. I doe't know whether the defendant had a monomania
ab nit breaches of premise. Defendant was always himself
when he spoke of the marriage. I never saw him the
worse for taking his liquor too strong. The defendant was
laughing when he spoke of the daughter's grave; he said
he had not his first wife buried there, but he hoped to heve
his second there. (A laugh) The defendant seemed
sorry to break off the match, but he would not tell the
reasons why he did so, without bring compelled to do so
Mrs. Hutchinson, wife of the Lts t said, that she
had been in court and h-erd a hat her husband had
stated, and the statement, waef tcts. The plaintiff and
the defendant appeared vary affectionate. The plaintiff
was about thirty years of age. I never saw the defendant
in drink. On the 30th of July, Mr. Conway, the
attorney, called at my house, when all the preparations
were made for the marriage. It was about two
or three o'clock in the afternoon when Mr.
Conway came, and said that the defendant
had changed his mind. The plaintiff lived with me, and
was to be married from my house. The plaintiff said to
Mr. Conway, perhaps she had better see if she could not
compromise with the defendant. (A laugh) I do not
know that the defendant is now on the point of' death.
I have heard from the plaintiff that the defendant was
dangerously ill, but I do not know it of my own
knowledge. By Mr. James : He was perfectly well on
the 31st of July, when the marriage was to take place.
By Mr. Knowles : I have said in reference to this matter
that it was a good thing that the plaintiff had escaped the
marriage. Mrs. Mary Jones called : I live at Bromboro',
and keep the public house alluded to. I have known the
plaintiff, who has been with me fourteen years. Shortly
before the 30th of July the plaintiff left me. I recollect
the defendant being many times at my house, and he used
to take the plaintiff out walking frequently. The plaintiff
was not my barmaid, but stayed with me as a companion.
She occasionally assisted in the bar, and I made her presents
occasionally, as the had no wages. I had known Mr. Conroy
about two years, when he came to have a drop at the bar, at
which time he saw the plaintiff. She could tell when a man
was in a melting mood. She hail had experience by seeing
both Mr. Ellis and the defendant. By Mr. James : There is
no pretension that the (Id :relent made this engagement in
a drunken fit. Mr. J. Ellis, a farmer, living
at Bromboro'. called. lie said ho knew the
plaintiff twenty years. Knew the defendant, and was
at a sale with him at Chester, of some property,
at Bebbington. Defendant purchased property there to
the amount of £1,600. Defendant appears to be well
off, and I consider him a very respectable man. By Mr
Knowles : He may keep ono servant. Whether he
needed to mortgage property, to pay the £1,600, I do
not know. Mr. Mark Lowe : I am a tenant of the
defendant's, and occupy a shop in London road, at £l4O
per year. I do not know whether the adjoining shops
belong to the defendant. By Mr. Knowles : I
do not know whether the property is moegaged.
The Attorney—General, in reply for the defence, said that
he had not one witticism to utter in this case. It was of
too serious a nature for his client, and if there was any
joke in the case he could assure the jury it was no joke
for the poor ropemaker. The defendant was now lying
on a bed of sickness, and it was very probable he might
not rise to hear their verdict. It appeared that it was
the intention to make the ease a matter of money to
the lady, as compensation for what was termed an
attempt to stab her reputation. It was never the intention
of his client to attack the character of the plaintiff. Had
he even published anything against her to the world P No,
what he hal said was to her brother, and it was the fault
of her friends if they published it to the world, which they
were now doing, and no doubt the newspapers in the
country would spread the publication brought on by
themselves. In disposing of this romance, he thought
the jury would see that there was nothing in the case to
call for heavy damages. It was endeavoured to make
a concealment of the facts, but the plaintiff was a
barmaid, although he had nothing to say against the re-
spectability of that class of persons, but it was evidently
concealed by Mrs. Jones and the other witnesses as to the
fact of her being a person employed by her to assist in her
bar, to deceive the jury into the belief ti•at she was a
person in a superior position in life, in order to aggravate
the damages. It had been stated that the defendant was
in an affluent position. Now, the fact was that he wa§ a re-
tired rope maker,living in a small house, with one servant,
at New Ferry, and being, no doubt, lonely, he occasionally

wandered to this sportsman's snug to have a fuddle, when
he seemed to be labouring under a monomania about
breaches of promise of marriage, first speaking to the lad!
about a contemplated breach on her part, and on the same
subject. to her brother.. It. was not surprising that the
defendant, under the influence of a glass, with a handsome
bar maid before him (although they had heard notlting of
her personal appearance) should become a little amorous at
the Sportsman's arms on the occasion of his visits, and gra.
Jones, who was a widow, seemed perfectly aware and under-
stood the matter as to the weaving of love meshes.• She
knew all about the affair of Mr.-Ellis and-the plaintiff. Ms
client seemed to know more about the weaving of roPes;
and he was not quite sure, if the jury did not take A
reasonable and sensible view of the case in awarding
damages, that he would not have batter tied hill"
self up with one of his own ropes. (Laughter.)
He did not consider there was anything particular- in the
observations the defendant bad made to the plaintiff's
brother. -He might have heard something about the
lady's temper, and he candidly had said to him that be
did not think he could be happy if he married her.
The Attorney General concluded by calling urn
the jury to assess small damages, which he felt
confident would satisfy the justice of the nas,e'
Mr. James, in reply, commented upon the ins"
nuations thrown out by the Attorney-General; as to
defendant being under the influence of liquor when
allured into the promise of marriage, when such had
been disproved by the witnesses, and as to the mortgage!
to which he alluded, on the defendant's property, it week!
hayo been very easy to have proved that by witnessess,
such mortgages existed. After a few words from the
judge in summing up the evidence, he left it to the jury
to say what damages the defendant should receive.
It certainly appeared too hard that the contract was broken
off, almost at the altar. The jury, after a few minute:!
deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, Darnag"
£4OO.