Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-04-15 00:00:00

TOXTETH PARK BOARD OF GUARDIANS,

Yesterday, the usual weekly meeting of this board was
held at the Public Offices, Park-road ; Mr. Thomas
Urquhart presided. The other members present were
Messrs. John Wilson, John Moss, Alexander Miller, Wm.
Leyland, Henry Ogden, Joseph Wilson, W. Johnson, W.
Baynes, Henry Leyland, M. A. Johns, Joseph Harrison,
Samuel Siddeley, J. B. Hughes, and A Grindrod.
Mr. Gough's report showed that last week there were in
the West Derby Workhouse, 320 ; this week 356 ; cor-
responding week last year, 420.
Cheques were drawn for the relief of the poor to the
amount of £l2O.
In reply to h. letter from the health committee of Liver -
peol, which we published last week, and which complained
of a child having died in Toxteth Park for want of proper
attendance, Mr. Williams, relieving officer, said a woman
called Thomas, came to him and stated that her husband
was out of work, and he told her to send her husband, but
he did not come, and he could not do anything more in the
matter.
Mr. Harrison moved that the report of Mr. Williams
be reduced to writing, and forwarded to the chairman of
the health committee of Liverpool, which was agreed to.•
The Chairman said, he had handed to him the result of
the election, and they were bound by the poor-law board to
deposit the papers in a safe place. He wished to know if
they had a proper plgce to keep them in ? They were
given into the custody of Mr. Cleaver, clerk to the board:
Mr. Cleaver read a report from the head-constable,
which stated that a woman, named Ann Stuart, residing
at 35, Lower Man-street, was in a state of great danger,
from the want of proper nourishment.
Mr. Heath, relieving officer, said he saw the woman the
previous evening, and gave her temporary relief. She
wanted to go into the hospital, and he gave a medical order,
and requested her to bring a medical certificate to remove
her to the hospital. She could have been removed to the
hospital at the time she first applied to him, if' she bad
wished it.
The Chairman said it was quite evident the officer had
attended to, his duty.
Mr. Cleaver read the report of the building committee,
in which was a vote of thanks to Mr. Moss, the 'chairman
of the committee, for his services during the past year. A
vote of confidence was also recorded to. Mr. Kelshaw, the
architect.
Mr. Urquhart said he had great pleasure in moving the
adoption of the report, and as it contained two resolutions,
one of which was complimentary to Mr. Moss, and there-
fore he had taken the opportunity of moving the adoption
of the report. He thought it was a well merited vote of
thanks, as Mr. Moss had been indefatigable in the discharge
of his duties as chairman of that committee. He had given
great attention to the building, to see that no advantage
was taken, and that the best material was used. Although
he had differed very often from Mr. Moss on many questions,
it was in discharge of his duty as a member of that board.
He hoped Mr. Moss would still continue to hold the situa-
tion for the next year, which he had held as chairman of the
committee, and have the satisfaction of seeing the building
completed. A vote of confidence to the architeet was the
second resolution in the report which he had mentioned,
and he could only say of him as he had said of Mr. Moss,
that it was well merited.
Mr. Miller, in seconding the adoption of the report, said
it gave him great pleasure to testify to the substantial
manner in which the building operations were being carried
out under the supervision of Mr. Moss and Mr. Kelshaw.
He felt satisfied that the ratepayers would give them great
credit for their services.
Mr. Moss said ho felt obliged for the vote of thanks that had
been passed by the committee, and for the manner in which
the guardians had confirmed the proceedings of that com-
mittee. If he had gained their confidence, it was
but in the discharge of a public duty, and if he
should continue in the same office, he would pur-
sue the same course that he had done hitherto.
Mr. Harrison said, now that the business was concluded
which arose from the minutes, it became his pleasing duty
to move a vote of thanks- to their chairman, Mr. Urquhart,
for the kindness which he had displayed on all occasions
since he bad been the chairman of that board.
Mr. Moss said he had much pleasure in having an oppor-
tunity of seconding such tineslution as that proposed by
vllracirit;ihsaornt.
On many
mhaadnybciuestiosnsm?isfh::urttuz towasdiffseurr from

would give him the credit that it was only in the discharge.
of the duties of the situation in which they were
placed. It was sometimes well that these differences should
arise, as by the discussion of the matter in question they
were more likely to arrive at the truth. These differences
he would say were not from any personal feeling, and he
was sure that their chairman and he would be the same
good friends they had always been.
Mr. Miller said, the reciprocity of good feeling which
seemed to beam from every countenance among them, was
a pleasing sight to him. Their chairman was about to be
separated from them, as he had no more interest in the
Park, and had gone to reside to West Dbrby. He felt that
he had discharged his•duties to tho satisfaction of all, and
if he was nominated in West Derby, where he (Mr.
Miller) had some interest, he would give him his support,
for he was sure he would be found to be a valnable mem•
ber of society wherever Providence might place him.
Mr. Ogden moved a vote of thanks to Mr. Horsfall for
his valuable.services during the time he had been chairman
of the board..

Mr. Baynes seconded Mr. Ogden's motion.
The Chairman thanked them for their kindness in thank-
ing him for the discharge of his duties, and made a few
complimentary observations with regard to Mr. Horsfall,
who, he was sure, well merited the thanks of the board.
Thanks was given to Mr. Horsfall.
Mr Moss dissented,• by refering to some personal feeling
between himself and Mr. Horsfall.
This ended the business.

EXTRAORDINARY
CHARGE of EMBEZZLEMENT
AGAINST A PROVISION MERCHANT.

Yesterday, at half-past two, the following strange case
was fixed for hearing before Mr. Preston, at the Police-
court, and as it excited considerable interest, there were a
large number of respectable mercantile persons present. It
was a charge preferred by Mr. Robert Morrison, provision
merchant, against Mr. John Davis, late his partner in trade,
and formerly his clerk and cash-keeper, but now doing
business on his own account as a provision merchant. The
charge was for embezzling £2OO, in July, 1355, before
Mr. Davis had entered into partnership with Mr. Morrison,
but at the time he was his cash and bookkeeper. Mr. John
Yates appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Deighton,
barrister, for the defendant, who came up on summons.
Mr. Yates stated the case at great length, and it appeared
that in JUne, 1855, the defendant was cash and book-
keeper to Mr. Morrison. On the 28th of June
in that year,. he entered a sum of £2OO as being
paid into the Liverpool Bank, and on the 19th
July he had entered a sum of £2OO. as drawn from the bank;
and, in order to take credit far that sum, he put it down as
paid to a Mr. Crory, who was formerly a customer of the
house. It would appear that Mr. Crory had ceased to have
any transactions with the house from the previous March,
so that Mr. Yates called the entries all fictitious. There
were also alterations in the figures • of Mr. Crory's account,
which he also alleged were false, and altered to. suit the
defendant's purpose, as Mr. Crory was indebted over £7l to
the house when his business connection with it ceased.
Mr. Preston asked him how it was that the case was not
brought forward before now, as the . transaction had taken
place so lung since ?
Mr. Yates said, his client had an extensive business, and
he depended every thing on his book-keeper,—so much so,
that after the transaction alluded to, he took him
into partnership with him. That partnership lasted
some ten or eleven months, and then there
was a difference between them, when the partner-
ship was dissolved. After that, Mr. Morrison, in conse-
quence of something he had lately heard, employed an
accountant to examine his books, and the result was the
present proceedings. He first consulted with the police,
but they refused to interfere, and referred him to his
solicitor, and he (Mr. Yates) on looking over the whole case,
found there was no other course than the present to be
adopted.
Mr. Preston : When did the parties enter into partner-
ship ?
Mr. Yates : In September, 1856, and it continued to
September, 1857. He then called the following witnesses :
Mr. Morrison examined : I am a provision merchant in
Liverpool for some time, and the defendant was in my em-
ployment for three years before he became cash keeper, and
for four years before he became my partner, in 1856. We
were partners for 101 or 11 months. Some time ago I em-
ployed an accountant to examine my books.
Mr. Deighton objected to go into this. There was a
partnership between the parties, and his "Worship was not
going to examine into accounts.
Examination renewed : Davis was my cash keeper in
June, 1855. Referred to the entry of 28th June, 1855. The
words " this book" and figures are in the handwriting of
John Davis. It appears by this book that page " 148,"
and " Bank of Liverpool," are in Davis's handwriting.
There appears a payment into the bank on my
account. It was his duty to balance his cash
every night, and he appeared to have on that
night a balance of £226 Os. If the balance
was not paid into the bank, he ought to have £2OO
more. At page 159, under date 19th July, there is paid
into the bank apparently £2OO. On the opposite side is
paid into the bank £2OO. It is in Davis's handwriting.
At page 645, in the ledger, I find there that an item has been
brought from the cash book, which seems to be erased.
Mr. Deighton objected to this.
Examination continued : At the bottom of the page there.
is an alteration in the addition, and the top of the next
,page. Refers to the cash book, page 159, and opposite the
second entry of payment into the bank, there is a memoran-
dum —" Say W. G. Crory," showing the sum was trans-
ferred to Crory. It is placed opposite the sum alleged to
have been taken out of the bank. Refers to the ledger page
121. On the left hand there is an entry of a pay-
ment of two hundred pounds to Mr. Crory. The words
" July 19," and " £200," are in Davis's hand-writing ' •
before that Crory's account current had been rendered and
squared off." The account current rendered to Crory is in
Davis's writing. I have not the original. Mr. Crory sub-
sequently took the benefit of the Insolvent act. Before the
28th June, 1855, my account had been closed with Crory.
He was a debtor of over £7l to me. I know that as a
fact, as I looked at it often. The head book-keeper made
out the accounts current ; the account between me and
Crory was made out by Davis. There was no money due
to Crory at the time. There is an alleged
payment of £2OO to Crory ou the 19th July, The
word "cash" is not in Davis's handwriting. Did not
authorise any sum to be paid to Crory. I find, on the
credit side, £95 odd altered from £45, 7s. The witness was
examined at great length, and said: the £2OO alleged to
have been paid into the bank, on the. 28th June, 1855, was
never accounted for to me in any way. There is no account
of the £2OO paid into the bank, In the latter part of last
year I employed an accountant to. go over my books, in con-
sequence of someting that was communicated to me.
Cross-examined by Mr. Deighton: I had other clerks at
the time. _ _ _ _ _ _

Mr. Preston : How much, is the whole alleged defal-
cation ?
Mr. Yates : That which, the inquiry refers to is simply
the £2OO.
The Witness, to Mr. r, eiglaton : I had other clerks and
a book-keeper. I have compounded with my creditors, but
I have paid a great deal-since. I had a clerk that absconded.
He was my own nephew. I discharg,ed another clerk,
named Tooms, without any special reason ; without_ say
actual fault, as I never saw him drunk. My nephew had
been embezzling, awl: absconded about six months ago.. lie
was my clerk, but not my cash-keeper, before Mr, Davis
was my partner. I will not swear I did not pay money to
the bank, as I often did so. I took Davis into partnership
because I thought him an honest, industrious man, and I
heard that he had got a legacy. I heard, he got
£5,000, but he only brought £570 into the concern.
He said his, legacy might be worth about £5,000. Be
brought the 4570, and I became insolvent while he was
my partner, I suggested that he should &o to. New York.
I was then worth ten thousand pounds. After he went to
New York, he returned at my request, a year and seven
months ago. When he came back I was pressed by my
creditors in good earnest, for two ships had gone ashore,
and I was pressed by the Borow,h Bank, I did not propose
that he should go to New York theroand draw bills on the
Liverpool house. He did not refuse to go, and I never
told him he would repent of it. I never told him I would
injure him. Do you remember receiving £2,000 on the
partnership account and not accounting for it? No, not a penny.
I never received the money at c,ll, as I am not the cash-
keeper. There never was a dispute about such, a sum of
money. There was a dispute about money that he took and
ran away with. This has no reference to the case. Did ho
not dispute with you about £l5O ? The witn
bess e
explained
that the defendant had received £l5O,
which said he
would give to the creditors but he did not do so. When
did you dissolve partnership ? Some time in August, 1857.
I compromised with my creditors about the same time.
It might be a fortnight after that, but T
can't tell. I did not agree to give A
£5OO to leave the concern, but gave him two promissory
notes for 4100 each, and power to collect some debts
in
America, and the £l5O he had before that, and I agreed
he should retain that also. He went after that to Nov
York on his own account. I said he left the ships on shore,
and charged the insurance although they were not insured.
He charged the &oods as insured, but they were not. I did
not insure, thinking they were insured in America by him.
I did not make slanderous accusations to Mr. M'llenry and
Mr. Crow about him,
Mr. M'llonry proposed
an accountant to investi-
gate the accounts—Mr' Battier was proposed.
I had a counter key of the cash akawert to pay if the cash.

. _ .
1 keeper was out. Made it a rule to sfgu a book fot tiny
rash I took out. I received a letter from him dated 18th
Deeember, 1858. [Letter produced.] I did not send an
answer to it, [Letter read.] It complained of the slan-
ders of the witness, and threaterting t) proceed against him,
Wittress in continuation said : The books were always in
my poAsssionranvl were balanced every year. I think there
was anew set of booli,sulade when the partnership commenced.
To Mr. Yates :: I sent to the defendant to come
and explain' his books on the 17th of March. The
Franklin .12:mg and" Andrew Foster ships went down
without insurance being; on them, although the defendant
alleged he Ind insure& them in New Yerk. He said he
had paid several of his cisclitors 20s. in the pound since his
insolvency. Ero reduced hisliabilities from 583,000 down
to £12,000, and only Davis advertised him in the papers,
he would have them all paid, now.
• Mr. Assell, a clerk in the! bank of Liverpool, was exa-
mined to prove taut the £2OO wee not paid into the bank in
June, 1855, but Mi. Deightorr objected, as the-witness
not the cashier. The witness said to Mr. Yates, if tie,money had been pad into the bank, he would, inn the ordi.--
' nary course of business, know it.
Mr. Deighton : If-the cash-keeper at the bank -put it in!
• his pocket and kept; it, would you know it ? Slertainly-
' not. .
Mr. William Glenlyerory was csAntined, and said: I
was formerly a customer- of Mr. Morrison ; neither-he nor
' defendant paid me a sum of on *the- 19th of Ju1p;,1855,
nor any sum of the like pleat that time ;•:• I am an insurance
agent' now; we had no transactions aftevMarch 1855 ;.there-
was about £7l balance•against me; I never paid any
sum of money by Mr:- Davis or M 4-.. Morrison after
that time. He was examined as to the alleged entrice• in
the books by the defendant and said he knew nothing about
, the accounts at all.
__ . _ .

To Mr. Deighton he saiN-Mr.• Merrism:sold .butter fOr
him which he had sent to hiin as the broker He did not
know what the butter fetched;, as he was notwesent at tttie
sale. All his transactions wi:th Morrison wtre not on his
own account. He had taken the benefit of the insolvent
act, and was imprisoned before, and after the hearing, until-
a proper explanation was made) and then lie 'Alf+ let out.

I- Mt:: Yates said that was the case, exc• t.: he might
have brought the tellers frog the bank, if.' necessary, to
(prove that no money was paid' to the bank on, . the 19th
,Tuly, 1855, by the defendant.
Mr. Deighton then submittedtkat there wagona case made
out against Mr. Davis. lie repudiated the ch,...5, and said
there was no evidence to show taat Mr. Davis had ever re-
ceived the money at all; and, suppose that he did receive it,
there was no evidence to show that he had not. paid it into
the-bank. Tie argued that 'other clerks had been in the
employment, and pile of them had absconded forcembezzle-
meat ; and, no doubt, if the money:had been taken, it was
by-that person.
This was the whole of the case, when
Mr. Preston said, the case was n'very poculiarrone, and
taking all its bearings into account, he would not decide it
there ; there appeared to him a priiia frela case made out,
and he would send
_the defendant before. a jury. After
some conversational discussion, his Worship agrees to send
the case to the assizes, and said he would take twe-,sureties
of £250 each, and the defendant iu £5OO for . his appear-
ance to answer the charge.

BIRKENHEAD POLICE COURT.

BEFORE MESSRS. SILA.W, COXON, BETANS, d. S. A c.K_SONT

AND NAYLOIt.

STEALING CANDLES.--A boy, named Samuel Hannah,
was brought up, charged with stealing two boxes of can-
dles, from Price's candle manufactory, at Bromborough; on
Friday last. The boy was employed at the works, and
was suspected of pilfering. A watch .was set upon him,
and he was seen taking the two boxes in question, and con-
cealing them under his slop. The prisoner was brought up
in the Liverpool Blue-coat School. He was• committed to
seven days' imprisonment.

ATTEMPTED ST./ICIDE. --John Draper, a - labourer,. was
brought up on the charge of having-attempted:to commit
suicide, on Sunday afternoon last. The prisoner appeared
to be wanting in intellectual vigour, and•it was shown that
whilst crossing the river in one of the Woodside. steamers—

the boat abiiut two-thirds across,--he- got: up. ;1;7 One
of the seats, and exclaimed, " Here goes,!: 'and 'deliberately
jumped overboard. Capt. White, the master, of the steamer, was
called, and stated that had not the engines been immedi
ately stopped, the prisoner would have. been. smashed to
pieces by the wheels. The prisoner said he had been at
Vauxhall-road, in Liverpool, and had draak: seven pints of
ale, and was returning to Cheshire, and: fell overboard is
consequence of a sudden lurch of the vessel: The, prisoner
was remanded for further enquiry as to, the • state of his
mind.

USING FOUL LANGUAGE.—Mr. Wm...R.yalls, a dealer in.
pianofortes, Hamilton-street, .Birkenhead,.. was, summoned.
by Mr. John Howard, of Cross-street„in_the same business,
for using threatening and foul language. Mx: Brether-
ton appeared for the defendant. The plaintiff said, that, on.
the sth inst., Mr. Ryalls came into his shor,,in Cross-street,
and broke out into a very excited state,. and abused
him of having interfered with him in his trade.
The defendant (Ryalls) drew-his fist, andattempted to strike
him across the counter. Ile told him to strik.e•hiM if he

dare. The defendent then called him several names, such as
a fool and a blackguard, and swore at him.. His conduct
was very violent, and in conseqnence•of: this. ha. sent for a
police-officer. Three or four came, and. aftera great deal
of trouble the defendent was got out,.and when in the street
he was also very abusive. The plaintiff explained, that the
cause of the abuse was in consequence of hai,iag examined
a piano-forte which had been purchased from the defendent,
and given an opinion against it. That, opinion, was an honest
one with reference to the instrument, and had no reference

to the defendent. Two other persons had examined the
instrument, and they also gave the same opinion, which
was that the instrument was a bad one. In, cross-examina-

tion by Mr. Ryalls,the plaintiff statedithat the defendant

came to accuse him of having, given, an unwarrantable
opinion as to a piano-forte that ho' Led sold. lie
admitted having - called the defendant a blackguard,
but had made use of that expression after
having been so called by the defendant.
The defendant admitted , that. he had; said to the-Rlainti
that if he Fot him out he, would thrash him. He insisted;
that the plaintiff-had first called him a. blackguard, and that
he ought to be the plaintiff- in the ease. Mr. Bretherton
proposed to call, three or four , witnesses in support of his
case, but the bench declined to hear-any more evidence, and
ordered the defendant to enter into,his own recognizances to
keep the peace in the sum of £20.. In doing so, the bench.
remarked that, if the plaintifthad defamed his (Mr. R; ills}
character, he had the law open to.hina to seek his remedy.
ILLEGAL QOLLECTION OF VOT,ING.PAPERS - Sainuelßgapie
was summoned under- the 21st and 22nd Vie., of the Local
Government Act of last session,, for collecting voting; lapers
without being duly authorisedby the returning officer. Mr.
Lloyd appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Bretherton for
the defendant:, Mr. Lloyd,said he appeared for Mg. Ellison
Gorst,, who was. the summoning officer appointed
by. the Secretary of State for the calling of a
meeting to take into comid.eration a resolution for the adop-
tion of the local (roveruntent act, for the towns74p of Tran-
.mcre.. He. quoted the act under which the prisoner was
..summoned,, and went on, to say that the dcfer4mt,.without
being duly authorised,. had called upon three afterwards, in. nor four persons
for their voting papers. on Saturday last, an
about three quarters of au hour,. returned the papers. Ile.
hoped the bench would inflict such punishment as would
deter others from con)/tatting the same of4,nce. Mr. Gorst
was called, and -stated that he had beentappointed the re-
turning officer, and. that the defendant was not authorised
to collect the voting papers. In cross-examination by Mr.
Bretherton, the witness said that si persons had been
appointed to collect the voting papers, but admitted that a
number of: ether persons were employed. He could not
their names, lie admitted also that a person
named Cross collected the voting, papers, and he was not.
authorised.. Further, he admitted, that he had a number
of persons in the house assisting him , to give
out these voting papers, and that these persons were
favourable to the adoption of the local act. Catherine
qpuaaprteerrs °n Saturday last,
f an hour aftez-
.e
Lawson, sister to Mr. Lawson, old Chester road, said the
nthadeailtledi joarboay.tv,othtrieneg.
danefenddhea
returned
wards, and stated that some of the other
filled up, and, 'therefore, he 'would l papers were not
day, A servant, girl, named El Frave it until. MON,
i
evidence. Mr. Bretherton urgedza aplws, gave similar
paltry one, arAd that. the defendant i that the case. Was a
elendant as soon as he. knew
that he was doing wrong
There was, 'he ma tended,
took the voting papers back.
papers. rue n-Joining the
a breach of th bench said there was no evidenceto show that
e. act had been committed, and that, it was ta.
paltry case, the YN
CAS Would therefore, dismiss the case.
pp .AN A I
browTht ILIATIoE. —l4obert Williams, a baker, was
mr‘ T„ up.b Mrs. Mary Fell, for the affiliation of a child.
111 " li,
appeared for the. plaintiff, and,Mr. Bretherton for
the defendant. It appeared that the defendant resided_
for s •
1 . soma time during the life of her husband, and afterwards,
111
Rosemount,
Oxton, and kept a baker's and confectioner's
shop. The plaintiglived in the neighbourhood, and had
been in a situation under the plaintiff's brother-in-law, Mr.
Siddeley, and .he used to visit the house., They
been
became
acquainted in the month of February, 18.5,8, and continued.
r
so since, and a child was born on 'the Ist of Fe 1? y
last.
Mary Fell was examined, and said her husband rilraa
She
dead eighteen mouths„ and she had severala children.iniercourse with
stated that the defendant had had criminal
neOsamed Willam her on on several occasions. A wits
n one occasion, ,through
deley, stated that he watched Or
def d t
en an , a ung man
a window under the curtain. T e
1., of a,e, denied theallegation.
of about twenty-five yea
behalfofthe defendant,
and
Other witnesses were called o n
dismissal, the bench remarking on the
the case resulted in a
. .
great corruption end immorality in the case.