Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-08-24 00:00:00

CAUSE LIST

FIRST LIST:—S ALFORD HUNDRED.
Plaintiffs' Attorneys. Plaintiffs. Defendants.
2 QB„Slater and Co Hampson and ano . • • • (sJ) v Hampson..
g Nx..Same .. • • .. If oorhouse.. • • • • (LT) v Alcoa • • • . • • • • • • • • Sims
is Ql6,..Seme ..The Queen • • • • • • (sJ; v Spence .. Cooper and Sons
96 Ea.. Efol ten and flamer • • • • • • • • (s.r) v Knowles and ors .. • .
SO QS F Andrew .. .. Mackay and ors.. ... ter) v Stephenson .. . Halme and J
II QS.. Worthington and E .. Nowell.. .. (s3)_v The Mayor, Sce of Wigan .. • • Lord and A

SECOND LIST.—WEST DERBY HUNDRED.
3 qa..Lowndes and Co ... ..Smith• •(al) v Pile Young and Co
4QB ifie .. -Brown and ano (s.r, v Leicester:.. . ..Stone
s 3z.. t 01,y ..Peet _ ..v Ha lam .. .. Henry
QB..Binney Yeomana v Gray and ors.. .. Chambers and W
pi Fa_ it Wens ..L Bof Health King upon Hull (es) vT. inity House of Hull.. .. E S Wilson
31 Powson and Co .. ..Hoghton . (sr) v Bsattie
13 CP.. GT inamer • • • • .. ..Same v Brown _ •..Francis and It
-14 CPL.J Yates jun.. biaManus v Lan. and York. Railway Co ~1-ligharn anl C
t 7 CP., Same •_Sirs (ss) v Barber .. .. Fletcher and
26Ex... stamp and J Bark warth and ano (as) v Mason .. .
19 Ex.- Fell and S Holmes v Kidd and ano . .. Evans and Son
• QB.. Statham and Co Salomon ..v Raairns'ey Brierley
2111 1x...
Barrow .. Manley admix ...v St alons Canal and Rail Co .. Whitley
BB EX... same Hawksey v Carter ..
24 QB.. Holden and Son ... Woelscroft v Watson .. _Bell and S
16 T Eastham ...Eastham . v WhaPey Coltan and B
0 Ex.-Fletcher and H .. Taylor .. (sr) v McCalman -Neal and M
CP..J P Murryugh Hargrcaves . • • .. ..v Thomas .. Chester and Co
Ex,..Thackerah Fitzpatrick.. v Lan. and York. Railvray Co ..Levis aril Co
31 CP.. J Yates Jun .. Raven .. ..v Bell Pemberton
32 CP..Same -Callan v Jameson .. -Ward
211 QB..R Stevenson • • .. (ss) v Lon. and N. West Rail. Co.. ..Swift and Co
24 F x... Rowe .. .• ..Warirr jun.. v Everth .. Woodcock and CO
24 Ex. .Heald.. (a' Nail v Acton .. Leigh
76 CPL.IIIc, lihurst Wright ..v C owes ..
27 QB..Carson and E Brooks and ors exore q c.. ..v Bainbridge -Gregory and Co
39 QB.. Mom and L.. .. • • .. Samuelson and ors .. (as) v H--ins and ors.. .. Preston
CP..Goodwin and A. . . Ccoke (as; v Wilscn and ano ..1 owndes and Co
41 CPL Fenwiaa ..Vose admix ... ..v Lan. and York. Railway Co.. ..T Aas d J Gandy
41 CP..3 Yates, Jun.. .. Wright and aao ..v Kirby.. .. • •• .. • • ..Hincla
• *.x- It Moore .. .. Scott and ano ..v Hernaman
44 C?.. Evans and Son Stevens and ano v Clementson .•
4.2 0.8.. C and H. Frost .. Wadsworth .. v Wells.. .. • • .. and S
47 Ex... Fletcher and H.. Higgin ..v Robins .. Chilcott
11 Ex. -Booker.. .. Hatton and ano ..v Roils . Shackle on and Co
• Ex... Con way.. ..Nelssn (as) v Seddon .. Holden and Son
30 CPL.Tnrner and Son.. .. Waddingtoa admor ..v Lan. and. York. Railway Co. ..R and W Ascroft
ii CP L.!,ame .. ••a:a:re ..v Same.. .. (demurrer) Same
QB..Littlodale and B Pemberton ..v Arkle and ano..
0 CP.. Eoga le Buxton . ..v Venn and ano.. _Era- cis and A
64 Ez...T s Smith .. - -Collins Murphie ..Swift and Co
• CPL.Barkhonse ..Faittr and ano ..v Brennand and ano -Sale and Co
34 CPL.Same -Same v Same.. (demurrer) Same
al CPL.rame ..Sager ..v Ssme.. Same
CPI -Snowball .. • • .. Woodheed v Plackharst W Blaol:hurst
is CPL.Brethet ton Assop ..v Yates . ..Ward
$1 Ex... Cobb ..Grant , . ..v Denham
12 co.. Littlelile and. Co .. Pay es ..v Critchley ..Holden and Son
ga Ex... Barber _Weisman ..v Taymr Higham and C
64 Ex... Conwa- •• • • .. Nelsan . v Brownel and ano -Miler and P
Ex.- T S Smith .. •. •. ..Muirt.ead v Moore and ano. B Lloyd
CPL.R and W Ascrott ..T..Blackburn and ano ..v Adams. Pale and Co

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

SOUTH LANCASHIRE—LIVERPOOL, AuGusr 22.

CROWN COU Rr.

Mr. BARON WATsorr entered Court at nine o'clock on
3Wurday morning, and proceeded with the hearing of the
criminal bußiness.

UTTERING BASE COlN.—Williana Hatfield, convicted of
passing three counterfeit half-crowns, at Royden, was
sentenced to six months' imprisonment. with hard labour.
MANSLAUGHTER IN LIVERPOOL.—WiIIiam ewiff, aged 31,
antewner, was charged upon a coroner's warrant, with
laving, at Liverpool, on the 21st of July, 1857, killed his
wife, Mary Swift. Mr. Blair stated the case for the prose
anion, from which it appeared that on Monday, July the
21h, the prisoner came home to his dinner about five
erelock. He found his wife at dinner, and from some cause
be appeared to be in considerable agitation, although it
would be seen that he and his wife were both quite sober
at the tim-. Some time before he bad been very much
irritated about his wife going to the races without his
knowledge, or some such cause, and this 'appeared to have
zemained upon his mind. He turned the whole family out
of doors, and locked up the house. Shortly after, how-
ever, he gave the key of the house to the youngest child,
and the children and servant went back into
the house. The deceased did not go back
-until about nine o'clock, when she went upstairs
and lay down upon the servant's bed. Some time after
the prisoner came home. He asked for his wife, and the
meant told him she was not in. He said that was a good
job. He then went into his own room. The servant went
up
stairs to her room, and locked the door. This
appeared to have excited his suspicion, for he came to the
door and demanded to be let in. The servant refused to
do-so, upon which he burst the door open. He went up
to the bed where his wife was lying, and struck her several
times upon the head. Wne•her he had anything in his
band or not, was not shown, but the deceased was covered
with blood from the effects of the blows. These blows, it
was alleged on the part of the prosecution, produced
erysipelas, which resulted in her death a few days after-
wards. Mary Ann Gorman, servant of the deceased, was
examined by Mr. Conway, who, with Mr. Blair, appeared
for the prosecution. She described the circumstances
preceding the assault, as sta ed by counsel. Witness went
fora police-officer, and when she came back the deceased
was looting out of the window of her bedroom, crying cut
That she was nearly murdered, and begging to be taken
eat. Witness and the dicer helped her out. There was a
dog-kennel under the window, on which she stepped in get-
flag out. Her dress became entangled in some way, and she
fell to the grounl. She did not appear to have been hart
t the fall. She was taken to St. Anne's Dispensary,
where she was attended by Dr. Thomas. The following
flay deceased went to the house of a neighbour, (Mrs. Prit-
chard) while she was there the prisoner came in, she went j
eat, and therefore did not see anything occur; but when
she came back deceased had a black eye. Witness took
bar again to the St. Anne's Dispensary. On the following
Friday she died. Witness deposed that she had heard him
on former occasions make use of threats towards the de-
epened. Deceased appeared a quiet woman, and not given
to intemperate habits. Witness also deposed that some
srisegreement took place between prisoner and deceased a
few days before about deceased having gone to the races
after prisoner had gone there, without his consent. Witness
stated that the heard the prisoner talking to a policeman
au the Tuesday, the day following the assault, she over-
beard the prisoner say "here is £5 for you if you won't
go against me." And she saw him take out his pocket.
book at the same time. The policeman said "It was not
I who helped her out of the window." Does not know the
policeman's name, but his number was 131. The policeman
wke helped the oeceased from the window, coroborated the
evidence of the last witness. He stated that the de-
ceased fell from the dog-kennel on her back, and did not
appear to receive any injury from it. The wounds on her
Ewe and head he saw before the fall. The daughter of
the prisoner confirmed the account given of the assault of
the prisoner upon deceased. Several medical gentlemen
deposed that the wounds of the deceased were the cause
of the erysipelas which produced her death, and that these
wounds might heirs been inflicted by blows from a clenched
bazd. It appeared, however, from the evidence of Dr.
O'Donnell and Dr. Gill, both of whom attended the
deceased, that for some days before her death, they con-
sidered her to be suffering from delirium tremens, and
treated her accordingly. Mr. James, Q C., addressed the
jury on behalf of the prisoner, contending that the fall
she received had prodaced some of the wounds in her
head, and that her death had been accelerated by delirium
tremens. The jury retired, and after a short deliberation
returned a verdict of Not Guilty. Several of the prisoner's
friends raised a loud cheer. His Lordship instantly
gommanded that any one making any such noise should be
brought up before him, adding that he would commit any
verb person to prison. The prisoner was then discharged.
BIANSLAhOHTER —James Coyne, aged 17, carter, was
eharged with having at Warrington, killed John Rowland.
XL Raffles prosecuted. The deceased was a child who,
with some others was playing in a street in Warrington.
Deceased was in a barrow which the other children were
drawing. The prisoner came down the street with his
me, and through want of caution upset the barrow.
Deceased was thrown out and killed. Mr. Cross defended
the prisoner. The jury found the prisoner guilty. His
Lordship sentenced him to one week's imprisonment.
ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AT MANCEUerrEit.—John
Thompson, 27, blacksmith, pleaded guilty to a charge of
robbery with violence at Manchester, on the 4th of this
meteth. Sentence deferred. _ _ _

The court adjourned to 9 o'clock this (Monday)
corning. --

NISI 2RIUi COURT.

2E70E2 Mit 11tR0; CII;;;VLCAND A SPECIAL JURY.
Tint QUERN v. SPENCE.— On the sitting of the court at
vine o'clock, the eau% of the Queen v. Spence was resum-
ed. The case for the prosecution closed after the exami-
ostizn of Dr. Frankland. Sir Frederick Thesiger then
woesetied to state the case for the defence. He observed
has the question of a nuisance, as he apprehended, was
stwsys one which must be considered with reference to the
rrextica'ar neighbourhood. They could nst expect in the
rar‘ity of a great manufacturing town that they should
lam the air as pure and as free from corruption as if they
rant to a retired and sequestered part cf the country.
Trade necessarily had an expansive power. It would Ilad
sway naturally beyond the manufacturing town in which
it eight first b 3 established to the outskirts, and greatly
Iltaud itself over the country. This particular valley in
stisasdon, according to the opinion of Dr. Frankland him-
will, bras one which was peculiarly adapted for the pur-
poses of factories, and therefore it was not to be wondered
st that they had sprung up and abounded very considera-
bly in that particular neighbourhood. His learned friend
ad spoken of the capital which the gentlemen engaged in
Ms prosecution had expended on their residences : but
ihosa gentlemen who chose to build their villas on the
outskirts of a manufacturing town, where, if they had the
al ghtest foresight, they limit have taken for granted that
susantactaree would extend, now wished to impose an
lespezetrable barrier against the intrusion of any but a

Deendints' Attorneys.

selected and choice number of manufactories, and to say
to trades of other descriptions, " Hitherto thou
shalt come, but no further." In establishing
a nuisance as a public nuisance, he quite agreed with his
learned friend in the definition which he had given—that
there should be something which was detrimental either
to the health or to the comfort of a large number of her
Mejesty'a Subjects. If what was called a nuisance was
confined only to a small number and to a limited range,
then, although each person who suffered from it might
have his private action for his private and particular injury,
yet that would not be what the law esteemed a public
nuisance; and though in the indictment which was pre-
ferred many of those particular persons in the immediate
neighbourhood might state and show their particular
grievances, yet that would not constitute such a public
offence as would render the defendant liable to be found
guilty. There was a case tried in that very court not many
years ago, which some of them perhaps remembered—the
case of an iron Shipbuilder's yard, which had found its way
along the Mersey into the neighbourhood of a place where
a number of villas were standing. Nothing could be more
distracting or annoying than the continual batter of the
hammers upon the iron surface of the vessels ; but upon
that occasion it was said that where persons fixed them-
selves in the immediate neighbourhood of a flourishing
manufacturing town, he had no right, and had
no power, fortunately, to prevent trade extending
itself, and that that was a circumstance which they must
or ought to have anticipated in the selection of their resi-
dences, and that if by reason of a want of precaution they
exposed themselves to consequences of that kind, although
perhaps they might have a ground of private complaint,
still the criminal law could not be put in force against the
person who had so intruded upon their residences to make
it a criminal offence. In this case he was at a loss to
understand whether it was alleged that the nuisance
which was comp'ained of, arose from the escape or dis-
charge of sulphurated acid gas. The distinction would
be found most important to b 9 borne in mind, because
they had heard that sulphurous acid gas was prejudicial
to vegetation, and that sulphurated hydrogen, except in
large quantities was not. They were, therefore, enabled
to have a test by which they could ascertain the quantity
either of sulphurous acid gee, or sulphurated hydrogen at
any time, which might be extracted from the works and
discharged into the atmosphere; and he thatight it would
reader the question plain to their understanding, if he
took the case on the part of the -prosecution, and
ranged it under three distinct heads, namely, injury to
vegetation, injury to health, and personal and domestic
discomfort. lie would first take the question of injury
to vegetation, and, as it appeared to him, that head would
present circumstances of great importance in the consi-
deration
of the whole of the case ; because, in the first place,
they would be enabled to appreciate from all the evidence
which they would have on the subject, whether the
quantity of sulphurous acid gas which proceeded from the
chimney of the alum works was so great as to produce any
deliterious effect upon vegetation ; and, in the next place,
to test the truth and accuracy of the evidence which had
been given by the different witnesses with respect to the
effect produced upon themselves by the works. With
regard to the injury which it was said arose to vegetation,
they had the evidence of Mr. Williams, a dyer ; of Mr
George Smith, an attorney, whose nose was of such
peculiar construction, that he smelt the gas even when the
wind was blowing in an opposite direction—(laughter)—of
Mr. Davenport, gardener; of Mr. Tattier ; Mrs. Ellis, the
lady who described the nuisance as a "pig styey, lucifer
match smell " (laughter)---and of Mr. Faller, er, nursery
gardener—all of whom spoke of injury to their trees and
shrubs. But how was it that several other gardens in the
vicinity were not affected? lie would produce Mr. Cooke,
who would say that his garden wss not affected. at all, and
Mr. Ruse Jones, who would state that his garden had not
been in the slightest degree injured by the alum works.
If sulphurous acid gas was prejudicial to vegetation, and
if it issued from the works in the large quantities
alleged by the witnesses for the prosecution, there was no rea-
son why its effects should not have exhibited themselves, not
merely partially and locally, but generally over the whole
of the surrounding country districts; and especially in those
portions which were similiary situated to those which were
affected. He would call before him a body of gardeners
and farmers, who would give the most conclusive and con-
tradictory evidence to that which had been furnished on
the part of the prosecution He would call Mr. Shaw,
secretary to the proprietors of the Botanical Gardens at
Old Trafford, who had examined into the state of vegeta..
tion within the radius of a mile, and who would say that so
far from vegetation having been injured in the neighbour-
hood, asit mast have been if the quantity of sulphurous acid
gas were sent out as alleged from the defendants works, the
vegetation was infinitely more flourishing than it appeared
to be within the same distance of Manchester or of any
other manufacturing town. The learned gentleman then
proceeded to the consideration of the question of health,
upon which he said they had the most trifling and insigni-
ficant evidence that could possibly be produced upon an
important question of the kind. One gentleman said that
it set h's teeth on eige ; another that it gave him sore
throat and cough, and another that it affected his
breathing and pained his eyes. But why were not some
of the 300 men employed in Mr. NiMMO'd factory, which
adjoined the works produced ? He would produce
persons who were residents in the neighbourhood for
years, who would say that neither they nor their families
had ever experienced the slightest discomfort or loss of
health from anything arising from the works He would
produce the foreman, who lived on the premises, and
whose children were born there, and he would produce a
medical gentleman, who, having visited the works and
being satisfied of the health of the workmen, was now
actually building houses in the neighbourhood. In regard
to the question of personal discomfort, it was impossible
to ascertain what the parties complained of. He would
give
.them the evidence of persons who had lived in the
immediate neighbourhood for years, and who would tell
them that they had perceived no nuisance at all. He
would prove to them that in 1855, when an endeavour
was made I ) induce the Town Council of Salford to
prosecute Mr. Spence for a nuisance, the Inspector of
Health inspected the premises, and reported there was
no ground of complaint ; and that brought him to
the consideration of the works themselves. They
had a very clear description of them given by Dr.
Frankland. At an expense of £1,500, Mr. Spence
carried pipes from the gas-works to the River Irwell ;
through those pipes the ammoniscal liquor flowed, and
was received into a closely covered barge, and out
of the barge, it was pumped through gutta percha into
the receiving cisterns at the works. No escape of sulphur-
etted hydrogen was ever round, and the question, there-
fore, was as to the discharge of suphurous acid gas.
It was ascertained that a gallon of ammonical liquor
contained only one per cent. of sulphur —29 lbs. in 1,000
gallons. The whole consumption daring the year at the
works was 900,000 gallons, and the quantity of sulphur
issued would therefore bteh?lsel,tr
830, a quantity which
13 curt., or 83 lbs. in the I
working day; taking
even Dr. Frankland admitteilwan
w?oldd.
thditereeelearintedlfeilspedr-
oeptibly in the air. In oa
dwelt on the rain which Wi 1/601.0 Vied* would bring