The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-04-09 00:00:00

COURT OF PASSAGE.

BEFORE EDWARD JAMES, ESQ., Q C.
This court for the trial -of local causes was opened yester-
day morning. There was an unusually heavy cause list.
Many of the cases, however, will, in all probability, be
settled. The issues were eighty seven in number, two of
which are special jury cases. There were seven demurrers
and four wri-s of ecquiry before the registrar.
willies v. QUICK.—This was an action commenced by
Mr. John White, the estate agent of Clayton square, to
recover from the defendant, Mrs. Jane (Ilia, i lady
residing at Oxton, the sum of £:7 10s, being commission
el,imed by the plaintiff for baying let some premises in
' Bold street. The particulars of the case have previously
• appeared in our County Court reports. The jury returned
a verdict for the defendant.
WHITMORE V. 14PGOWAN . BREACH OF CONTRACT,..—MV
Brett appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Blair for the defen-
dant. The plaintiff is a publican, keeping the Rob Roy
public house in Tithebarn street, and the defendant is an
lintel keeper, residing in Carlisle. It appeared that in. April
1834, the defendant entered into an agreement with the
plaintiff to purchase the lease and goodwill of the Rob Roy
public house for the sum of £B5O, possession to be taken
`on the 18th of the ensuing•Jety, when one half of the pur-
chase 'money was to be raid down. The defendant after-
`l,:va'i•ds went back to Carlisle, and wrote a letter to the
eaintiff, declinire: to complete his contract. The agreement
was subject the ,ccepfance of the defendant as a
tenant. '..r.homas Guthiie, a public house broker,
throue!;, whose intervention the negociation for
the purchase of the house was comuienced, was
Willed to prove the facts of the case. The
defence was, that the landlady of the house had retused
to accept the defendant as tenant, and therefore the
agreement was null and void. On the other hand, it was
• alleged that it was the defendant's wish not to be accepted,
and that he had given the landlady £5 to refuse him.
Mr. Whitmore, the plaintiff, in his evidence, stated, that
the refusal to take the house by the defendant had
&predated it in value, and that he bad proposed to the
defendant, th-t if he would pay ten per cent. on the
amount of the purchase money, he would allow him to
be off the bargain ; which the defendant's attornies con-
sidered exorbitant. Mr. James considered that there was
no evidence shown of damage sustained, since
the condition of the agreement was the
acceptance- of the defendant by the lanaarly as a
tenant, and the ascertaining of whose respectability, was
left to the son of the landlady, and it did not appear that
any steps had been taken for procuring evidence of the respecta-
hility. The plaintiff was however clearly entitled to recover
`damages, but from the evidence before him he thought they
should only be nor-,final, and of such an amount as should com-
pensate him for: being compelled to come into court. The jury,
after a abr4rt deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
(lara";es 40s. His Honour reserved to the defendant leave to
move a nonsuit it necessary.
GREEN v. STEVENS.—Mr. Blair and Mr. Raffles appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Brett defended. This was an
interpleader issue, in which the plaintiff, Mary Green,
tenanting a house 30, Hotham street, Liverpool, sought to
recover possession of some of her goods; which .had been
wrongfully seized under an execution against one Catherine
Seaton, who tenanted the premises 30, Hotham street, fur-
nished from the plaintiff, Mary Green. Joseph Wren,
executor for the property in Hotham street, was called
to prove the tenancy by plaintiff, and other witnesses
were called who proved that the goods which were seized
were the property of Mary Green, who had purchased
them from the previous tenant ; the inventory of the
Hods sold, and the reeeipt for the money paid. (Great
krousethent was afforded by the cross examination of the
r, male witnesses, one of whom, in au emphatic manner,
told Mr. Brett, in answer to a questien whether she knew
persors whom he pointed at, that if she was to point to
ever gem leman in court whom she knew or had known,
f.iere were few that would escape.) Another witness,
John Williams a general broker, residing in Queen
Anne street, end having a place of business also in Doran's
lane, Lord street, admitted in his evidence that he
visited the plaintiff in different places, and had be-
befriended her ; for a long time past, she kept houses of
ill fame in different localities. Mr. Brett, in his
address to the jury, riontended that the whole
ease, as laid before the court for the plaintiff,
, was a piece of disgracefially concocted jugglery throughout—
that the pretended ownership of the disputed goods on the pert
of the plaintiff was as vile a conspiracy as ever was concocted
to blind a jury. lie stated that he would prove by witnesses
whom lie would call, that the goods, instead of being the goods
of Mary Green, as alleged, were, from the beginning, the
goods of Catherine Seaton ; and he would trace these goods
frem the time that Seaton occupied a house in Pellew street,
in Der. 1834, up to the present time, when an execution was
issued against them in Hothr.rn street ; that the broker who bad
given evidence, this Mr. Williams, had for many years
Cohabited with Green, and through him the sale and mock
auction and inventory of sale had been got. Several disgraceful
disclosures were made of disreputable proceedings and con-
duct by the witnesses on bob sides, but the defence set
up comp'etely failed in establishing the alleged property
of Catherine Seaton in the goods seized. His Honour
said he could not help drawing attention to to a very discredit..
able act on the part of Mr. Williams, which had been disclosed
in evidence. One of the witnesses, a Mr. Whittingbam, the
fl an. dealer, who had been one of the sureties given for the
loan said to have been obtained from the Imperial Lean
Investment Society, who, a short time previous to the
time of the loan, had passed through the Insolvency Court,
and was, therefore, incompetent as a surety, as it was
required that each surety should be wen!), after
paying all his debts, the sum of £3OO. The witness was
tr.,ther in law to the plaintiff, who was under the protection of
Williams, his surety, who, in order to obviate the disability of
meeting the requirement of the loan society, had lent the
witness the sum of £3OO in money. which, to say the least of
it, was highly disreputable. The jury returned a verdict for
the plaintiff

Several undefended cases were afterwards taken, and the
court rose at about half past five.

THE BREAD POISONING AT HONG KO NG. —ln the
Cathedral at Kong Kong. on Sunday, the 11th January,
1857, a thanksgiving was offered up for the merciful
aseape of the English residents from the effects of the
poisoned bread supplied to them by the miscreant Chinese
bakers : on which occasion the following hymti of thanks
giving, composed by Sir J. Bowring, was sung in full
chorus:—

THANKSGIVING.
Shielded by Thy mighty arm,
We have passed through hurt and harm :
Who but Tuou, our God, could yield
Such an arm and such a shield ? -
From the crimes that dread the light,
From the black designs of night,
Thou bast been our safeguard now :
Who could make us safe but Thou ?
Therefore to Thy name we bring
Gratitude's sweet offering,
Trating Thee, the Mercy-giver,
Now, to-morrow, and for ever !

A Bible, together with 'a handsome gold watch and chain,
ha 4 been presented by the church wardens and parishioners
of Leigh and Bransford to their late curate, the Rev.
Edward Bradley, alias " Cuthbert Bede," formerly a
student in the IT iversity of Durham, who has been pre-
sented to the incumbency of Bobbington, Staffordshire.—
Gateshead Observer.

NOVEL POST OFFICE RCBEERY.-At the Bow street
Police Court, an assistant bagman in the General Pest
Office, was charged with stealing a way bill, and its con-
tents, including remittances to the amount of .£'3oo and
upwards, under somewhat novel circumstances. It was
part of the prisoner's duty to remove from the bag room
the mail bags, which, after being emptied by the sorters,
were thrown on the floor. On the 24th of March, the.mail
bag from Tewkesbnry, after being emptied, was in the usual
manner examined, turned inside out, and thrown upon' the
floor. But a spare bag which had been enclosed in it was
at once thrown on the floor without examination. It is
sapped that a parcel containing two registered letters,
and the money order exchange bill, wrapped OD as
usual in the way bill, had found i's way into the
spare bag. Certainly, it could not b found among the
letters. The sorter at
,once gave information of the
circumstance, and ascertained that the usual advice
had been received,. He returned to examine the spare
sack, but it had been removed to the bag room. He
went there, and cautioned tin) bag men, but cone of
them had sem the parcel. It was subsequently ascer-
tained that the bag when despatched from Tewkesbury
contained the usual parcel, including the Money order
bill of exchange, which amounted to £44 odd, and two
registered letters. One of the registered letters was
male up by Mr. Appleby, clerk to the Gloucester
Banking Company, and addresssed to Messrs.
Williams, Deacon, and Co., of London. It
contained a cheque for £217 bs., a Paymaster
General's receipt for £194 Os sd, and bank, notes
for .£ i6O A few days ago information was received that
the prisoner had passed two £5 notes to tradesmen at
Walworth, with whom he was in the habit of dealing; and
on being taxed with it, he acknowled to the officer' (Hay-
den, City detective.) that he was guilty of the robbery. He
sf,id the rest of the property would be 'Mind in a box in
tl-e hon house, at his aunt's house in Albion place, Wal-
worth, where he resided. Haydon went there, and by
means of keys, delivered to him by the prisoner, opened
the hilx, where he found the way bill, the cheque, the bill
of exchange, and remaining bank notes, All the notes
were identified. Prisoner, who pleaded guily, was corn-
Xlitted for trial. $

POLICE- INTELLIGENCE,—Yesterday.

LIVERPOOL.
BEFORE MR. MANSFIELD.
LADY-LIKE PASTIME.—Louisa Freeman, the keeper of a
flash house in Glover street, Park, charged another proprietress
of a similar house, named alma Mtinro, with having, com-
mitted a violent assault on her. It appeared that the parties
had some dispute about a sugar bowl, and, after a good deal of
" carrying on," the prisoner took up a gloss sugar basin, with
which she struck the complainant a Violent blow on the side of
the face, which, according to the evidence of Surgeon Town-
send, of the Southern Dispensary, inflicted a wound four mews
long, an inch wide, and half an Inch deep. It would diSfigure
her for life. It seemed that the prisoner got great provocation,
het his worship said that was no excuse for her having com-
mitted such an outrage He would inflict a fine of £2O on
her, or, in default of payment, three months' imprisonment,
with hard labour.

A REASON FOR BEING DRUNK.—A young fellow, 22 years
of aze, named James King, was charged with being drunk and
disorderly, and the excuse he gave was as follows :—His
father, he said, was 7& years of age, and he got married to a
young lady who is 22, and the old gentleman turned all the
family into the street, and he had no place to go, and therefore
he got drunk. The Oilicer said the prisoner was an idle fallow,
but his father was a respectable person. The prisoner war put
back for the present.

You CAN'T DO AS YOU LlKE.—Police constable 765,
brought up two gentlemanly looking persons, named Edward
Meadows and John B. Gregor, charged with being drunk, and
creating a disturbance at a quarter to five in the morning, in
Elliott street. Mr. Goodere appeared for the prisoners. The
officer said, at the time stated, the prisoners were in the
street creating a great disturbance, when they were addressed
by an Inspector, who advised them to go away ; they persisted
in saying that they could 'and would do what they liked ;
after some time they moved on, but soon after
commenced " doing what they liked," and as they
disturbed the whole neighborhood, he took them into
custody. He never saw such a pair of " disorderly gentlemen"
in the course of " his professional experience." One of them
flung away a bottle of anchovies, and the other claimed it as
his. Mr. Goodere contended that people could fling bottles of
anchovies about the streets if they liked, and no dou,bt it be.
longed to him as he kept a fidi shop opposite the Adelphi.
The prisoners were fined 5s and costs each, which they paid at
once.

" SHAM." PAIN AND " REAL" PAlN.—Edward Parry, a coo.
victed thief, andW. Mathews, were brought up charged by officer
726, who found them concealed in a doorway in James street,
with a bottle of champagne in their possession, for which they
could not account. In reply to the charge, they said they had
purchased the wine for their own " private use." They were
sent for seven days' hard labour from the champagne to the real
pain of the " mill."