Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-08-15 00:00:00

CAUSE LIST

FIRST LIST.—SALFORD H UNDRED•
Plaintiffs' Attorneys. Plaintiffs, Defendants. Dsrendants' Attorneys.
fl QB.. Cun'iffas an 8... .. Be .ver (as) v The Mayor of Manchester .. —Chester and Co
2 QB _Slater and Co .. liampson and ano (su) v Hampson..
11 x.. Sale and CJ••• • • • • Hintoll .• . . •. . (91) v Lon and N. West. Railway Co—Swift and CO
9 gx..same ..Moorhouse_ (su) v Alcock • • .. Sims
10 QB...Same .. • • ..The Queen (sJ) v Spence Cooper and Sons
12 Qll.. tkinsons and Co. ... —Thomas ..v E T Garbutt Ba.it
19 CPL•Gartsi ..R Ines v Halms •• „Standring
20 CP sutton .. •• .. -.Bower a ..v Booth .. •• Barry
21 CPI .11igs.,n and ,uoodiw s ..v Ashworth _rover and Sons
22 x WNI Atherton .. Richardson .. v Kimberi.y .. • • ..Hardman
23 CP la. Blair . • • • .. Moore ani ors v Feuherston salo and Co
24 CPL.:- ame _ —Chandler . ..v Same .. • • ..
75 co.. Kershaw and 8.. .. Massey and ano v •Twigar ani ano
Holden and .. —1 lamer (as) v Knowles and ors .. .. •
27 QB.. WP Ro arts .. Parkinson .. v Neild and ors.. .
CPE.D ne Leach .. ..v wood and an° .. •
29 QR..Li-ett Robinson v Cort
30 QB.. Andrew .. .. Mackay and ors.. ... (e.r) v stephonson . _Halms ani J
31 QB.. Worthington and E Nowell.. _ (as) v The Mayor, &c of Wigan .. Loy ant A
3! QS.. At insons and co ..Temple and ors .. .. • • ..v Ifindie wad ors Cobhett and W
33 CPl...Cooper and Sons .. ..P•nder Wood _
34 F.z...Riehardson and Co .. .. Bold .. • .. ..v Frame !Mon
33 Wl—Atkins° s and Co .. Thomas ..v T Garbutt Wallace
36 Ex... Gould .. .. ..Toppar ...v Bridge and ano Roley and Son

March and B
J Pickop

SECOND LIST.—WEST DERBY HUNDRED.
I Ex... Unwin- •• Cecil assignee .. • • v Taylor .. .. Chambers Sid W j
2 CP.. H Phi las . • .. -Morgan .• • • • • .. .• v Bernard . •
308 Lowndes and CO .. Smith .. .• • . (aa) v Pile - dCo
Young an
4 aB..RvIc iffy .. -Brown and ano (sa, v Leic stet' . -Stone
s Ex._ vo,y •• • • „Peet . ..v Ha lam Henry
CP ~Same .. Bart'ett and ano v Laytlald
7 QB.. Young and. Co . • .. ..rile.. • • v Gep
QB..Binney.. • • • . Yeomans v Gray and ors.. .. • • • •
9 Ea..: Caneka .. •• . ..Caoka and ano . ..v Taylor •.. .. • • • • • • • •
10 Ex-. R Wells .. • • .. ..L Bof Health King upon Hall (Ss) v T unity Hose of Hall.. .. E S Wilson
11 Rowson and Co .. Hoght n . (sa) v B-attis .. •• • • • • • •
12 Ex.. W K Ty- er ..E its ••... • .. ..v Martin .. .• .. Neal and 11
13 CP.. Francis and A Rose v Barlow .. Tarrant
14 QB.. Same Yeoward .. •• .. ...v Sahaffer -Fletcher and H
I 3 C P immer .. • . ..Same ..v Frown Francis and R
16 CPL.J Yates jun.. McManus .. • • ..v Lan. and York. Railway Co ..Higbam an C
17 CP.. Same .. •• .. Ell's.. • . (as) v Barber -Fletcher and. Hi
IS Ex... Stamp and J Barassa rth sad ano (sa) 7 Mason .. • •.• • •
19 Ex... reli and S Holmes .. • . v Kidd and ano . , Evans and Son
20 QB.. Statham and Co .. ..a•-lomon ..v Rawns ey Brierley
31 Q ..Holden and Son .. re d and ors .. (sa. v Oliver .. Lotanae, and Ca
22 Es— Barrow Manley admix ...v St Helena Canal and Rail Co .. Whitley
23 Ex.:. same Hawksey ..v Carter •••
24 Q Holden and Son ... ..Wooliscroft v Wat,on• -Bell and S
25 Ex... T Eas'ham • ...Eastham .. •• • • .. . v nh~lColt.n and B
s 6 Ex... Fletche- and H Taylor (as) v McCainsan Neal and M
17 Ex... Mayhew .. .. Mayhew .. . • .. v C awl ey
28 C?..J P Marruugh -Hargreaves . •• ..v Thomas .. Cheater and Co
99 Ex...Thackerah Fitzpatrick.. v Lan. and York Railway Co . •LeWi3 tal Co
30 Ex B ,rrow ..Simmons .. v Didaenson
31 CP J Yatel inn ..Raven .. ..v Bell Pemberton
32 CP ..Same -Callan .. • • .. ..v Jameson ..Ward
33 QB..R Stevenson ......Ye d .. •• .. (sa) v I.on. and N. West Rail. Co.. ..Swift and Co
34 i• x... nowe .. • • • . Waricr jun.. v Everth boo cock and Co
35 Ex. .Heald. • • .. ..v ^cton .. Leigh
36 CPL.filaalthurst Wright ..v C owes • •
37 QB.. Ca-son and E _Brooks and ors exors tsic Bainbridge ..Grarory and Co
29 QB.. Moss and f,.. .. Samuelson and ors v H ins a, d ors.. .. .. Preston
CP..Goodwin aril A.. .. ••C'oke (24) v Wilson and ano ' owndes an aCo
41 C PL.Fen wick ..Vose admix ... • ..v Lan. and Yul. Railway Co.. ..T Aaal J G uady
48 CP.. J Yates, jun.. .. Wright and ar.o ..v Kirby.. .... Hinds
42 Ex.. R Moore .. ..S.'ott and ano ..v ilernamm _ • • • •
43 QB..Story .. • • .. ..fliadhanes ex x . v Hadaway
44 CP.. Evans and Son Stevens and ano v Clement-son .. _ • •
45 08.. C and H. Frost Wadsv We 11,.. _Wells ant S
46 QB. • Kmslie .. Ryland and ors .. •
(sa) v Jones and ano exors. .
..T Holton
47 Ex... 1-1, tcher and El., Higgin .. • • , . v Robins .. • • ..Chilcott
48 Er... 13, oker.. Hatton and ano ..v Role . ..S a kle on and Co
49 Ex...Co •way.• Nels .• .. (EJ) v Seddon .. .• Haien and Son
50 C Lararner and Son.. .. Waddinatoa admor ..v Lan and York. Hallway Co. •.R and W Ascroft
st . • ••. .. .ame ..v Same.. .. (d.!murrer) Same
32 Ql3 _Litt:et:ale and B Pemberton v Ai kle an 4 ann..
33 CP.. Bog ie .. Buxton . . • • • • . v Venn and ano Fra -cis and A.
54 Ex...T a Smith .. .. • • Collins •• v alorphia Swift and Co
33 CFL.Bankhou e ..Sa-ar and ano .• ..v Brennand and ano Sale and Co
36 CPL•S rine ...........ante .. • • . • .. v Marne • . • • ...(demurrer, Same
57 C L. -,ame Sager v S s ..Sane
58 CP 1..5n owb all .. ..Woodhead 1.. v I d sea }lust W Blacihurnt
59 CPL.Brethe,ton .. .. ..Aosop ..v Yates .. ..Ward
60 QB .. Same. .. . Heathaock jun ..v Moore and .no .•• J B Lloyd
41 Ex... Cobb ..Grant .. . .• ..v D-nharn
62 Q 3.. Littledale and Co Dav es ... .. • . v CM:chimp _Malden and Snn
63 Ex ...B.raer .• „Welsmaa v aylor Higham and C
6 I Ex .. Co iway.. vela .v Brownel and ano _Miler and P
65 Ex ..T S Smith .. Muir: cad v Moore and ann. J B aloyd
66 Ex. .. F, se iian ..v Taylor ..J Clay
67 CPL it ant W A slroft ..B ickbnra and ant ..v ems Sale and Co
68 Ex- . Moss and L.. .. R absrts v Sinks.. _Higham and C

Fnrshaw
, Chambers and WI

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE

SOUTH LANCASHIRE.—LIVERPOOL,. August 14

CROWN COURT.
BEFJRN ME. BtßuN WATSON.
On the sitting of the court this morning, at nine o'clock,
Peter Bennett, convicted of rape, and Thomas Joseph
O'Connor, eonvicted of forgery, were called up for sen
tense. Both are very young men. Bennett was sentenced
to six, and O'Connor to four years' penal servitude.
Rees.—Edward Fellows, 24, lebeurer ; Robert Fitton,
Hi, hawker ; and John M'Mahon, 22, weaver ; were put on
their trial for having, at Manchester, on the 16th May,
/857, feloniously and violently assaulted.El'zs Brushy, and
then and there violently, and. against her will, ravished,
and carnally known her. The proeecutrix has beet
married for nineteen years, but has lived separate from her
husband for some time. On the night in question, she nas
at a beer-house with a friend, in the neighbouthood of
Kingston-street, Manchester They left about twelve
o'clock, and separated a short distance from the house.
The prisoners, who left the house at the same time, fol-
lowed the pro- ecntrie, and wanted her to have sonic drink
with them. On her refusal, MeMah en knocked bee dowr,
and while the other prisoners held her, committed the
offence for which they were now indicted. Mr. Wheeler
appeared for the prose cation, and Mr. D tvison for Fellows
The other prisoners were undefended. The case having been
clearly proved, the jury found M‘M.ahon guilty of the rape,
and the other two prisoners of the crime of aiding and abat-
ing. His Lordship in passing see tence, said thet the prisoners I
evidently belonged to a peg of offenders, whose head- 1
quarters were Manchester. He was resolved to put down
the ging. and they might rely upon it they would receive
neither mercy nor consideration from the court if over they
were`brought before him. He sentenced M•Mahon, who
was once before convicted of felony, to fif,een ye irs' penal
servitude; Falows, who was also once before convicted of
felony. and of several lesser offences, wes sentenced to a
like term of punishment —fifteen years' penal servitude ;
and Fitton to twelve years' penal servitude,
THE MURDER. IN NEW BIRD STREET.— Patriek
30, labourer, was put on his trial, chatged by indictment
and also on the coroner's warreur, with having, at Liver-
pool, on the 4th of April, 1857, feloniously killed and
murdered John Kilduff. Mr. Simon appeared for the
prosecution, and Mr. M.Donnell for the defence. We have
already put lished the facts ,f the case. They are few and
simple. Ihe prisoner and his wife lodged with the
deceased, who lived in 42 court, New Bild street. On
the 4.h of April last the deceased gave them a week's
notice to quit. They, however, commenced to remove
their furnitu-e that day, and, seeing that, the deceased's
wife asked them for the rent, is 10;d. The prisoner
answered her with abuse, and then loft the heu-e He
returned abut eleven o'cLck that night, just as the
deceased and his wife were about to retire to rest, and,
finding the door locked, called on the deceased " to come
out and fight." The deceased's wi!e threw up the window
and cried out for ;he e olive, and when the officer appeared
the prisoner moved away. Shortly afterwards the de -
ceaeed went out into the court, bet he had scarcely appeared
when the p-isoner, with another men and woman, emerged
from one of the neighbouring hou es. The prisoner bore in
his hand a large stick, aid with it he suddenly s' rack the de
ceased on the head. The deceased was faked to the goJund,
and when taken to the hcspi:al in an hour or s afcewards
it was found that he had .sustained a fracture of the skull.
He died in the hospital two days afterwards. When the
deceased was taken to the hospital, the prisoner came in
front of the house, and in a tone of triumph called oar,
" Where is the dead man now ?" Several witnesses were
examined for the prosecution, but their evhience showed
that there was great rioting in the court on the eight in
question, and that the deceased had provoked the prisoner,
who, however, there could be no deubt, struck the blow
which resulted so fatally. '1 he jury acquitted him of the
crime of murder, but found him guilty of manslaughter.
His lordship deferred sentence until this morning.
FMBPZZLEMENT —Beejemin Clegg, 35, pleaded guilty
to embezzling £45 5s 61, and other sums, the monies of
the Corporation of Oldham. The prisoner was in the
employ of the Corporation of Oldham, as elanager of the
gas works, and up to the time of this offence bore a most
excellent character. The co-p .tian now, thrcugh their
counsel, Mr. Wheeler, who appeared for the prosecution,
stated that it was with pain they came forward to prosecute,
and had no objectio i that his Ler hhip should deal with
him as leniently as the interests of ju vice would admit of.
Sentence deterred.
MURDER BY A PAUPER EUNATIc —Nancy Horrocke, a
WOMB& advance' in 3 eats, was indicted for the wilful
murder of Isabella Lrngw Jrk, at B dton, cn the 3rd May,
1857. The p Honer and deceased were inmates of the
Bolton Workhorse, and in a fie of passion the prisonerkilled her. now prove 1, by medical testim any, that
the prisoner wat end is, of unsound mired and that she did
not know the guil
thet or con,eqeencee of her crime). Under the
directien of Cohs, the ju7 fouad a verdict of
"Insanity." The prisoner will be confuted in a lunatic
asylum for the remeirder of her life.
ASSAULT ON A Cot Nry Coxsrenez.--John Martin, 24,
labourer, and Jehn Davies, 26, cooper, were placed at the
bar, charged wi h having at Heap, tear Bury, on the 14th
April last, feloniously assaulted Witham Davie., ,one of
the county cons'abulary, with intent te murder him. Mr.
Wheeler appeared for the prosecution, and the prisoners
were defended by Mr. Scott. "It appeared that on the
night of the 14th of April the pro- elutor was on duty at
Heap. In the discharge of his (ley he visited a common
lodging-house kept by a woman of he name of Greenhouse,
but when he left the house he was induced to return by
hearing a loud kno• king at the back-door. He foetid the
prisoners there - and though the woman of the house
informed them that she heel not room to accommodate
them, they nevertheless insisted on being provided with
beds, and continued to knock. The prosecutor advised

them to walk on to Bury, three miles distant, where they
livei, but they declined, and threatened that if he followed
them they would throw him into the river and drown
him. He again fell in with them in Church-street,
when Davies asked him vials.' he wanted with them at
the back of yonder helve." The prosecutor told them to
make less noise, and to go home. Upon that Davies
struck the prosecutor in the eye, and when the latter, in
return, struck with his stick ; both prisoners fell on him.
They knocked him down and kicked him and finally left
him bleeding and insensible from their violence. The
jury acquhted the pris.thers of the crime of wounding with
intent to murder, bit found them guilty of unlawfully
wounding. Sentence deferred.
ATTEMPT AT ROBBERY, WITII VIOLENCE. James
Johnston, 20, labourer, was placed at the bar, charged
with having, on the Ist May, feloniously assaulted Catherine
Oakes, with intent to rob. Mr. Raffles conducted the
prosecution. The prosecutrix lives in Maguire-street, and
on the day in question the prisoner saw her passing 'o her
house with a sum of money in her hand. In the evening
she was Standing at the door e hen the prisoner suddenly
came up and knocked her down. He then seized her b 1
the throat, and searched her pockets, in the hope, no doubt,
that 119 would find the money there. The husband of the
prosecutrix came up at the moment, and the prisoner was
secured The jury found him guilty of the assault with
intent to rob. Senior ce deferred.
7113 court adjourned at a quarter to six o'clock, to nine
o'clock this morning.

NISI PRIUS COURT.
Yesterday BARON CIIANNELL took his seat in this Court
shlrtly after nine o'clock.
Lacs AND ANOTIIER v. EICEITIOLZ —This was an action
bnught to recover a certain amount, the value of some linen
fens. Mr. Udall and Mr Fearnley were for the plaintiff,,
and Mr. H. Hill, Q C., and Mr Ovens were f r the defend
ant. In this action MesQrs. Lees, Duncan, and Daniels,
_ _

cottcn manufacturers, of Wigan and Manchester, were the
p:aietiffs, and the defendant was Mr. Ad,lphus Eichholz
gent ril commission agent of the same, carrying on business
near the plaintiff's manufactory. Amongst other goods the
plaintiffs dealt in was certain j )10 lots called " fents," wh'ch
we the ends of cotton or linen cloths, and being in length
from oae to three or four yards. These "fonts" are put
together in parcels, and sold as such. In the mouth of April
last, the defendant saw one of the partners in the firm
(Daniels), and said he could take some more of these
" fonts," and on a subsequent meeting some " huts " were
shown him, and he offered 3d. per d ,zen less than the price
quoted. At first this offer was rejected, but ultimately
agreed to, on the condition that there was to be no credit or
any drawback, and that they were to be paid for on the
following Friday, the 17th instant. The goods were in-
voiced and sent in on that day, and nothing more was heard
of the transaction until the day of payment, when the
defendant sent a note to say that he should decline to take
the " louts," on the ground that they were not what they
had been represented, and that they were then lying
lat the defendant's warehouse, at the plaintiffs risk. The
t plaintiffs refused to take the fente, and on the '23:h of the
! same month this action, to recover the amount,_ was COM-

rneeced. Evidence was given as to the sale of the fents
by the plaintiffe to the defendant, and also to hie having
ex ,mined them before he purchased. Mr. Hill, for the
defendant, addressed the court, contending that the
defendant had never made a bowl fide purchase of the
feats, and that as soon as he had exsmined them, he wrote
to say that he would not accept the fente, because they
were " not what had bean re )resented," being much
shorter in length. The defendant was called and carro-
brated the statement of his counsel, and stated that the
plainfeffe had pledged their word that the tents were what
they had represented them to be, and if they were nor,
th,y w.uld let him live them for nothing Several other
witnesses were called to prove that the parcels did not
consist f " fents," but were " patches.' Each of the
respected counsel addressed the court for their clients.
His L r d.hip, in summing up the evidence, stated that
the action was brought to recover the sum of £5B 21,
I being the value of 15t; dozen yards of fent, and the point
which the jury would have to consider was, whether the
defendant had actually made a bona fide purchase of the
fents. prior to their being delivered, and having reviewed
and commented on the evidence adduced on each side,
the jary returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for the fall
amount claimed.
Won. v. Setteu.—This was an acion brought to recover
eompeneadon for an alledged trespass. Mr. Monde, Q C.,
with whom was Mr. Leeming, appeared for the plaintiff,
and Dir. Hill, Q.C., with whom was Mr. Fearnley, appeared
for the defendant. In this action, John Woods, the tenant
of the Kings Head public house, of Barton-upon-Irwell,
eas the plaintiff; and the defendant was Mr. John Gilbert
Smith, the owner of the property. In the year 1850, the
plaintiff became the tenant of the Kmg's Head, having
married the widow of the lets landlord, and paid £47 103.
per annum. rent. Attached to the house was a stable,
capable of holding 13 horses, a quoit ground, a gasometer,
and other necessary out-buildings, all of which tended to
c-intributs towards the value of the house. In the year
1850, the rent was advanced front £47 10s. to £5O, in
consequence of some improvements that were to be made,
alma of which had bean done, but others had not. In
the February of 1856, the defendant, with some other men
entered upon the premise:, and commenced :pulling down
the stable, the piggeries, and other portions, on which he
eracod a smithy, all of which had injured the property,
and as it had been done without the leave or license of the
tenant, he sought compensation for such injuries. After
evidence had been beard on either side, a consultation took
place between the learned gentlemen, the result of which
was, that theme was settled without going to the jury, by
a verdict being taken for the plaintiff. Damages £l5O.
BREACH OF PennISII—WO)D v. GARSIDE.—This WAS an
actioa brought to recover damages for a breach of promise
of marriage, Mr. Monck, Q7C with whom WAS Mr,