Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-01-05 00:00:00

THE NORTHERN TOMS, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 5, 1859

ray, thei BOROUGH ,SESSIONS.
-
derootatr, Yesterday, the quarter sessions Wor the 'borough of
irty-two,,-Liverpool were opened in the qr:-.,wn amid, St. George's
-sternea
au at ten a.m., by
Recorder. W:oert Henderson; Esq., the
bout 120
in the The following ge;„ttetun were sworn as a
58 feet
Lptply to GRAND JURY.
I-street, nobert ITstle Oldhall-street, foreman.
41,v°_91,97 Battersby, coal merchant, Vauxhall-road.
t,fatlall Bright, merchant, Dale-street.
Thomas Byron, sharebroker, Tithebarn-street.
Barton, tanner, St. Anne-street.
3ARI' James Clerk Boyd, merchant, York-buildings.
ngth ll° 11:obert Bennett, wine merchant, Fenwick-stre t
ssel was, rattiCk ;ht Carson, merchant, OldtreChueurch-yard.
tilder 0, Coubrough, merchant, Sweeting-s
Aunclet idenry Fernie, merchant, Water-street.
ly last; Edward Hatton, merchant, Mersey-street.
the best tharles Moore, merchant, Water-street.
ned, and Edmund Preston, merchant, India- Bo'
built 0 Thomas Sleigh, jun., broker, Exchange-street
d terrace.
East.
with 0,16 Matthew Strang, merchant, Lo
_o
t eet '
a Godfrey Barnsley Shaw, broker, P 151314 Edward Tennant, merchant Fenwick-s r .
Francis Thoorbcg, broker, nope-stre.et.
David Wrigley, cotton broker, Hackm!s-h ey.
Henry Wood, iron merchant, Goree-piazzas.
Thomas Sutton Young, wine merchant, Seel-street.
The learned Recorder, in charging the jty, said—
Gentlemen of the grand jury, the interveA of five weeks'
since. the last sessions, has produced an list of 89 names
of prisoners sent for trial. I .have, reaa most of the
depositions, and :find the cases of sa light a character as
to require no comment from me.. I cave lately taken
occasion to observe, that the irtereastd labours of this
to be accompanied bl a diminution of crime,
't may appear. The present calendar is heavy,
of five 'weeks, bat I ste no reason to change
1 support of it I may refer to the state of
the official:year' itom September 30, 1857,
33, 1858, the daily average number of
he gaol, throughout the year, was 1,088 ;
it number at any one time was in May
Last, when the number was 984. Now, on Sunday last,
theliamber of prisoners in gaol was 833. This, gentlemen,
is a very considerable diminution, and therefore 'you will
tot be alarmed at the extent of your labours; nay, more,
you will see reason to hope that the trouble that you and
this Court take is, to some extent, effectual - more
effectual, perhaps, than any other method of dealing
with prisoners for the stppression of mime. The learned
Recordtr then dismissed the ;rand jury to their duties,
and the gentlemen refh'cd to their room ,to exariine the
variousindictments lazd before them.
A petty jury was :then sworn, and the business pro-
Tetled with as seen as the first set of true tills were

, havini
hag!

l's; WO
ins 0.3 e,
21 Pest
;hs feet+,
specl4,
ds, ariu
o Arch'
carrier;
otnplete
US

g A
0131
REP

36 0
360
36 0
30 0

4
g 'Atia

court seem

strange as i
for the spac

my vies": I

We jail d
to Sentel

prisoners

brtmht in

COURT OF PASSAGE.—YEsTEmyLy

TOILE EIAVARD JAMES, ESQ., Q. 0., ASSF.ESSOR

A SHIPBROIaieS CLAIM. BAY 7V. BARR AND CD.—
The plaintiffs in-this case were Messrs. T. Kay and Co-.,
ship store detkrs, and the defendants Messrs. A. P.
Barr and Co: The action was brought to recover
£6l.lGs. 5d., tile amount due for stores sapplied to sine
ship Charlotte; of Gibraltar. Mr. Mpinall appeared for
the plaintiffs, and Mr. Brett for the defendants. The
stores were supplied to the Ship by the plaintiffs on
defendanti' werder, they being^the brokers for the ship,
which eventually sailed for her port, .nd upon pliintiff
applying fGr payment, defendantsiaid they were not in
funds at thniime, and cmdd not pay the bill. The contention
at present,lowever, was as tovho was really responsible
for
,the debt, the agent or the owner of the ship.
The plitin'tiff slid defendant ordered upon his oval res-
."— but that statement was denied by the
The learned Assessor instructed the jury

aefenc
that

British ament,condrzets business in -this
countrffar a foreign inlVidual, the agent was indi-
vidually and legally responiible. The jury found a
verdictlfur the plaintiffs.
CLA.va ron RENt.—ArEiNsaN T. Hum—This was

an attics to recover £3O, being three-quarter ,of a year's
rent of a house in Finch-street. Both plaintiff and
defendant are licensed vietuiillers. Mr. Aspinal was for
plaintiff, and Mr. Deighten for the defendant. A verdict
was taken by consent for plaintiff for £2l.
ATKINSON T. OGDEN.—This was an action for rent,
plaintiff being the same as in the last case. The amount
claimed was £lO, and as defendant did net appear, a
verdict was taken for plaintiff without opposition.

OWL ILLTON V. SNIfIGE.— A verdict -irae taken by
agreement for plaintiff, for £3O.
JONES AND WIFE V. WAIOOTIIIIY. —TES was an
action to recover damages forfpersonal injurycdone to Mrs.
Jones, one of the plaintiffs. Mr. Brett -appeared for
plaintiffs, and Mr. Aepinal e'er the defendant. At the
time the grievance complained of was committed, the
wife of the plaintiff was ,walking up Brownlow-hill
and crossing at the top towards Edge-hill, when she heard
a car.and horse coming at a.rapid pace, and as she was
crossicg towards the weighing machine there, the horse
inst her, and kneekedrler down, the:car running
s and back, and thereby disabling her front
g her usual oecupationsof a charwoman since that
Defendant's 'serval-it drove near the weighing
which was net a part oof the reg,tdsr carriage
road, and it was through his n*ligence, plaintiff alleged,
that tic accident was -caused. The car ought to have
nd the lamp port instead of the way it did. Mr.
on, proved the extent of injuries sustained
Mrs. Jones_ and a woman who saw tho

over.l2r 1
follawin
turn

machi

gone r
Jones,
by lir

,
ateident, deposed that defendant's servant was driving
furiously at the time. Mr- Aspinal, having addressed the
jury for the defendant, called. he driver of the,earriage,
who saiE he was not driving :,;furiously at the time
the
.wom a

cross-exat
the speed:
allow 41i
Assessor s
that a ver

ran in the way ,c

however, the -Witness admitted that
which he was going was such as would not
pulling up within . ris yards. The :learned
summing up said, it had often struck him
..ommon praetice which :prevailed was inde-

feasible ; ho alluded to the practice iii.car-drivers bellow-
ing out to arsons going across the -street, and that part
of it to which they had right, and \which was set ftpart
for foot passengers just as much as was the footpaths at
e street. The regular street-crossing :was
and the way of foot passengers, ever
td a right to pass :; aid although ;it
morally to look out and keep out of the

each side of it
the footpath
which they I

-was th

way, he

iot think that foot p:

iengers were legall

Allied t

or look out for vehicles iihilst going Wove
a crossing-. It appeared to him to be the most probabl(
and legal course to consider that it was more the duty 01
the cab-driver to stop when the foot passenger wat
•

crossing, than the ..duty of the foot passengers to stop .
Wien the car was crossing. If the foot passenger crossed
at a part of the street to which the car driver was en-
le must not expect the driver to warn him or
leak out for him; but., with regard to the crossings, the-
driver must not expect the foot passengers to wait fur him.
Certainly, to hallo to a timid person who was going over a
'Crossing, and then drive on at the risk of running .over
that persen, was a course that could not be defended„
for they all knew that in the base of nervous persons the
hollooing.was only calculated to confuse them the more.
Drivers should use proper caution and care, on coming to
any turning of the road to which foot passengers were
entitled. Verdict for plaintiff, damages £l5.
II&A(I3LEN Cusirwonru,—The plaintiff in this
case was Mr. Richard Hamblen, builder and plas-
terer, and John William Cushworth, builder, vies
the defendant. Both parties carry on business in
this town. The action was brought to recover
£7 Ms. lid., balance of account alleged to be
due by the defendant to the plaintiff, for work done and
Materials supplied to the latter, in slating and plastering
two houses in Cable-street. The original contract for
the work was for £32., and the present claim was for the
unpaid balance under that contract. Mr. Deighton ap.
Teared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Fenwick for the
defendant. For the defence, it was contended that the
araountClaimed had been withheld because of the work
hasying been improperly and inefficiently performed by
the plaintiff, and that therefore he was not entitled to
the amount he claimed. Verdict for plaintiff.
B. HILL v. JONAS BEEVOR.—This was an action to
recover money paid and received and on account stated ;
and to this the defendant pleaded never indebted. Mr.
Brett apF*ared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Deighton for the
defendant It appeared that the plaintiff purchased, from
a man named Beevor, a quantity of iron plates, which
were delivered to him by Beevor and he paid for theth,
and he now sought to recover back the money he paid for
~,[1:10&e plates, which, through a transaction with a Mr.
.o.Be, fell into the hands of a Mr. Jones who sold them
to Mr, Beevor, the plates passing through the intermediate
hands of a Mr. Thompson before they got into the hands
of Beevor, After the money had been paid for the plates,
Jones and Beevor were both tried before the Recorder
of Liverpool, for obtaining the plates by false pretences;
ft.nd Jones was convicted, but Beevor was acquitted upon
that conviction, the recorder made an order for the
restitution of the plates to Rose, and under that order
illll delivered them back to Rose, but did not get back
m
money, which he now sought to recover. A verdict
was taken for the plaintiff, subject to a special case for
the Court of Queen's Bench.
ACTION ON A BILL OF EXCHANGE. -- I. M'GEE SAUL,
v* 4- SAUL, AND ANOTHER.—This was an action to
recover £lOO due on a bill of exchange. Mr. Brett
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Deighton for the
defendants. The defendant Saul pleaded that he had not ac-
cepted the bill, and that he was not indebted, and the other
Uefendant allowed judgment to go by default. The chief
question at issue was whether the defendants were
partners
in trade, so that one of the defendants was
enabled to bind his partner by accepting the bill of
I,TeYanZe• The defendant Saul was brother of the
faltitf, who was out of business. The defendant Saul,
,
he early part of last summer, became the partner of
"44n, named Vineisberg,-and together they carried on the

business of Heine& merchants, in this town. The
defendant Saul, with the,cotisent of hls partner, borrowed
of the plaintiff the sum of 1100, for which he gave a
bill of exchange. Verdict for plaintiff for amount
claimed.
Tan SronY or All OLD HAT AND A NEW ONE.—
SIXON V. TILE LIVERPOOL Meneerny. —This was an action
to recover damages for slander, contained in a report pub-
lishedin the defendants' paper. The defendants were Mar-
garet Smith, John Maitland, and Thomas Gibb. Mr. Brett
and Mr. Deighton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Aspinall for the defence. Mr. Brett said the plaintiff in
this case was proprietor of Dick's Hotel, Cable-steeet, and
was cashier at the Daily Post office. There was a club,
,consisting of a number of respectable gentlemen, met at
the plaintiff's house, and dined there ; it was called the
Harrington Club. That club was a great source of
revenue to the plaintiff ; and one of its rules was that a
member might introduce a friend. One day, a new hat
of the plaintiff's was taken out of the club-room,
where it was hanging, by a friend who had visited
with a member of the club, and a shocking bad hat—a
dirty, greasy, old hat—was left in its stead. It turned
out that the old hat belonged to a gentleman named
Junker, and that that gentleman had got the new hat.
Plaintiff went to see Junker, and, as they quarrelled,
plaintiff brought his action in the County Court, and
received from Dunker the value of the hat. The Liverpool
Mercury, in its report of the case, had made the plaintiff
state that he was a member of the club, &c. ; and, in
consequence of those statements, which plaintiff never
uttered, and 'which defendants refused to correct, the
Harrington Club left plaintiff's house, whereby he had
sustained considerable damage. The report complained
el was as follows :
" CIA n for Damages for Appropriating a Hat.
Simon v. lunker,
"This was a claim for the value of a hat, made under
the following circumstances : The plaintiff is resident
in Liverpool, and the defendant is said to be a merchant
having an office in this town. According to Mr. Simon's
statement, he is a member of a body of highly respectable •
gentlemen' assembling under the name or style of
the 41Iarrington Club,' at Dick's Hotel, in Cable-
street.' They are in the habit of dining together
at this hotel, one of the rules of the clubeing that
each member shall be at liberty to introdnee a friend
at the dinner table. Some few months age the plaintiff
went to dinner in a bran new hat,' which he had only
evorn a few days, and which cost 18s. or Li. On the
occasion the defendant was made a guest by one of the
members. eln sitting . down Mr. Simon hung his hat
upon one of the rails in the dining-room, and on rising
from the table found that it had vanished, a dirty old
tile' being left in its plate. This was kicked to pieces by
the highly respectable gentlemen' of the club, as being
a disgrace to their dining-room. Subsequently, learning
that Mr. Junker had appropriated his bran net
hat,' the plaintiff called upon him .and asked for corn-
, pensation for the loss of the same. The defendant
indignantly asked, 'Do you suppose that I stole your
hat,' to which the plaintiff I don't know
about your stealing it, but you todk it away.' Defen-
dant -said that he left it his there, and on Mr. Simon
admitting the fact, and observing that it was a dirty,
greasy old thing, he made some depreciatory observations
as tom- the hotel--in which the Harrington Club is held,
calling it a low pothouse. Angry words on both sides
followed, defendant struck plaintiff, who defended him-
, self,' and a regular set-to wound up the interview. Mr.
J inker did not appear, and his Honour gave judgment
for the plaintiff for 165."
The editor of the Mercury, stuck by his reporter's notes,
and told plaintiff and some members of the club, that the
report was correct. The club was,- therefore, much annoyed
at the plaintiff having said he was a member of, and had
olined with the club, and thoy• had never been near his
:.house since- The only torxection the editor of the
Mercury would insert, was this :—" The Harrington
Club : Mr. Simon, of Dkk'seUoffee House, Cable-street,
denies that he stated the other day in the Cennty Court,
that he was a member of the Harrington Club, and our
reporter, who was present, corroborates his denial." The
only reason there appeared to have been for so treating
Mr. Simon, eras the fact that he was connected with the
Daily Paz-4:a rival journal. (Laughter.) The learned
counsel then contended that E,his client was fairly entitled
to substantial damages, and showed how dangerous it
would be if Ike Press were to hare the unbridled power of
libelling whomsoever it might think fit. He then called his
witnesses. Plaintiff said he was landlord of Dick's Hotel;
and advertising clerk at ilte,Daily Post. West to the hotel
in 1857, and.gave £5OO for the goodwill and license. A
club of gentlemen, called::-the Harrington Club, were
daily in the habit of dining.at his hotel, until the publica-
tion of the statement in the_ Mercury, and his profits per
week from them, for the dining alone, would be
1100 a year; but that was not all, as members of
the club were in the habit of calling in for luncheon
and coffee 'lin. the evening, and no gentleman had
now visited the house for months—not since the
time the report appeared in the Mercury. One Junker
-dined at the house as a guest one day, when witness's
best hat disappeared, and that induced him bring an
:action at the County Court. ,Witness did not, at the time
of the action, say he was a emember of the Harrington
Xlub, and did not say that.he had dined with the club.
The hat that was left in the place of the one-Stinker took

away, was an old greasy hat that was useless On hearing
the case, the jnolge of the County Court said that
exchange was no robbery, but that .the case
against Junker vas something more. The Assessor :
Then the judge of the County. Court compounded
a felony ? That libelling the judge of the County
Court, certainly. Witness : Ile said exchanm'''e was no
robbery. The report was published on the 3rd Nov.,
an 4 the club left ou the 6th, and has not dined or visited
my house since. On the 6th- I went to the iffircury
_ _ _ .

Office, and saw Mr. Maitland, and told him what had
occurred at the club. I then, asked him to inquire into
the matter, telling him the report was erroneous ; but Mr.
Maitland said the xeport was correct. Witness denied
that, And told Mr. Maitland .that their reporter, .Mr.
Wilcox, said the report in the 41excury was incorrect.
Mr. Maitland said, if I would write a letter correetipg

proper to do so. On the
.Monday a state-
ment was published in the Xercury. Cross-
examined:: I don't know who introduced Mr. Junker,
but when I.,saw Junker he was very abusive, and said my
house was a low pothouse, and I told ,the Judge of the
County Court. that. I don't know what .Junker is, but I
believe he has an office in town. The Harrington
Club was highly respectable, and I should have considered it
to be an honeur to be a member of it. I never said
Junker was a member of the club. At present I -am a
licensed victualler, and Mr. Whitty's clerk. Junker was
a friend of a member of the club, a Mr. Vanowski, I
think. I said at the County Court the hat was bran
new. I said to Junker that I didn't know what he
might think stealing was, but I thought be took
away my hat. I said that I had a waffle
with Joker at his Offiee. Mr. John Wilcox. sworn : I
am not a short-hand writer ; but I am a reporter, and
have for twenty-five years been connected with the
newspaper press. Remember being at the County Court
when the case in question was heard. Said to the Mercury
reporter " the case is not • important, and is not
worth reporting 1• " but the reporter of the
Mercury said, ". 0h yes, it is ; it concerns one who
belongs to your establishment," Plaintiff did not
at the County Court say that he was a member
of the club, or that he, dined with the members
on the day he lost his hat. Wanted Mr. Simon on the
Saturday to see Mr. Maitland, and witness told Mr.
Maitland that the report was incorrect; but Mr. Maitland
said, " Our reporter says it is so." In answer to Mr.
'Simon Mr, Maitland said he would insert a contradiction,
but witness was compelled to leave before the interview
ended. Cross-examined : Was not copying a. case from the
slip of the Mercury reporter at the time the 'case was
heard. Signed a report as correct after amending it,
and which was brought to me by Simon. Mr. Gray (an
attorney), said he heard the case at the County Court,
and plaintiff did not say he went to the dinner in a bran
new hat, or that he was a member of the Club.
Witness listened attentively to every word that was
said. Mr. S. Spencer, clerk to the County Court
Judge, said he took notice of the evidence given,
and plaintiff did not state that he was a member
of the'Harrington Club, or that he dined with the club.
Cross-examined : I did not hear the whole of the case.
Mr. J. Roberts, clerk to the register, heard the first part
of the trialnt the County Court. Plaintiff did not say
that h@ was a member of the Harrington Club, or that
he went to dinner with them in a bran new hat—he
said he was proprietor of Dick's Hotel. Cross-examined :
I did'nt hear all the trial. I hear a great many cases.
W. H. Andersson, agent of the Norwich Fire and Life
Office, in company with his father, and was a member of
the Harrington Club when the report in question appeared.
Saw Mr. Maitland about the report, at the request of the
club. I asked Mr. Maitland if the statement was true, and lie
saidit was a verbatim, report, and called down the reporter,
who confirmed the statement of Mr. Maitland. In con-
sequence of the plaintiff having stated that he was a
member of the club and had dined there, the 'club left
his house. Cross-examined : That was the only reason
the club left the polaintiff's house. We did not ask plain-
tiff if he had said what was reported, but the club left the
day afterwards. The club was annoyed at plaintiff having
brought their name before the public in connection with
such a story as that about the hat, but the chief annoyance
was at Simon saying he - was a member of
the club. By the Assessor : He did not consider plain-
tiff equal in position to us.
Mr. Aspinall : Well, sir, I
submit it is not a libel to say the plaintiff is a member of
the Harrington dd. The „kese„or said it
way questiO4 a

for the -jury, -but it had not-been proved that the state-
ment had been spoken of the plaintiff,as "the proprietor
of Dick's Hotel." Toprove that the statement was published
to bring plaintiff into hatred or contempt, all that had
been suggested was that it was said against plaintiff as
a clerk of the Da;ly Post. It certainly was not proved
that defendant had said the house of the plaintiff was a
low pothouse, though Junker said so. Mr. Aspinall
defended the character of the Liverpool Mercury against
what appeared to be a very foolish charge, because neither
the Mercury nor its reporter could have any ill-feeling
:against the unfortunate man connected with the Daily Post
Office; and it was impossible to show how defendants
could have had or intended any malice against the plain-
tiff, by stating that he was a member of the Harrington
:Club. Even supposing that something incorrect had
;been accidentally stated—something, in this instance, not
dishonourable to plaintiff in itself, it was absurd to say
that they did it with malice, and in this case there was
no malice whatever. Mr. Wells, reporter, from
the Mercury Office, produced and read the notes he
took at the trial, , and they corresponded with
the report that appeared in the Mercury. "Witness said
he did not know Mr. Simon, but knew that he was a
person who was connected with the Daily Post. At the
time he took the report he did not know that Mr. Simon
was proprietor of the hotel in question. John Taylor,
clerk to Mr. Junker, said he represented his master at the
County Court, and heard the plaintiff say, he was a
member of the Harrington Club. Cross-examined
Plaintiff said he was the proprietor of the hotel. John
Maitland, one of the proprietors of the Mercury, Said he
could read some of the notes of the reporter, and he
found the words he could make out were, " Simon said I
em member of the club." I offered to insert any letter
the, plaintiff or any friend of his might write, and I did
not say, "if I approve of it." This concluded the
evidence for the defence.
The court then adjourned.

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT.—YESTERDAY.
BEFORE J. E.. BLAIR, ESQ.,_ JUDGE.
INSOLVENCY CASES.
The following insolvents came up on their petitions :
Ferram Brooke Girling, late a tailor, outfitter, and
pawnbroker, supported by Mr. Hime, and unopposed.
The final order was granted.
Thomas Foyle, baker, supported by Mr. Gray, and
opposed by Mr. Grocott and Mr. Yates, on behalf of
different creditors. The insolvent was subjected to a
protracted examination, in which it appeared that he was
not properly described as a journeyman baker, as he had
been in business on his own account. It was elicited also
that he had parted with a considerable amount of pro-
perty within three months of the time at which he filed
his petition, In conseqaence of this, the petition was
dismissed.
John Parry, butcher, Brunswick-road, supported by
Mr. Hill, and unopposed. Final order granted.
W. Dinsmore, unopposed. Final order granted.
James Redman, hatter, formerly in partnership with
his brother, and lately a journeyman; supported by Mr.
Campbell, and unopposed. Final order granted.
Joseph Edward Edwards, hair-dresser and tobacconist,
residing at the coroner of Mount Pleasant and Renshaw-
streets, supported ky Mr. Husband, and oppoged by. Mr-
:Wright, a creditor, who opposed ata previous hearing on
various grounds. Gilbert Banks Gough, anether creditor
stated, that he had only one transaction with the insolvent
and at that time he represented to him (Mr. Gough) that
he was in good circumstances, and he wished to obtain
tobacco on a month's credit. This was refused, and the
insolvent then ordered a quantity of tobacco to be paid
for on delivery. No part of it was ever paid for, and
shortly after that the insolvent filed his petition. His
Honour said, the insolvent had come into that Court for
protection, and had left nothing whatever. in the hands of
the creditors except what was in the hands of his landlord.
He considered the case a very reprehensible one, and
he would adjourn the application for three . months
withont protection.
W. L. Protulfoot, schoolmaster, unopposed. Final
order granted.
James Malone, boarding-house keeper, supported by
Mr. Campbell, and opposed by Mr. Chilton. To be
:imprisoned four months, front the date of his vesting
order.
Joseph Ileatheote, jun. came up on application to
be discharged from prison. He was supported by Mr.
Husband, and opposed by Mr. Fletcher. Mr. Husband
endeavoured to show that the opposition was a vexatious
one. His Honour said he would give judgment in the
ease to-morrow (this morning).
William Cowley applied to le, discharged from prison.
He was supported by Mr. Husband, and unopposed. The
-application was granted.
Thomas Earle, publican, supported by Mr. Husband,
and opposed by Mr. Almond, on behalf of two creditors.
In the course of examination, Mr. Almond elicited the
fact, that the insolvent had made a bill of sale of his
property in favour of one Jane Morris, to the prejudice
of the other creditors, previous .to his calling them
together. Committed to prison for six months.
Wool) v. BIGDEY.—In this case, which came before
his Honour on. Monday, our report of Tuesday morning
stated the verdict to be for the defendant ; it should leave
been --verdict for No plaintif, damages, £8 10s.

LIVMPOOL BANKRUPTCY COURT.-YESTERDAY

BEFORE mg. COMMISSIONER PERRY

In rt. Tuolus Bnyt,,N:—This was the last:examination
meeting. of this bankrupt, who carried on business .as a
hatter an St. James-street, in this town. Mr. Brans
supported the bankrupt, and Mr. Richard Williams
appeared for the assignees. His Honour examined the
ba;tkrupti.in explanation of the accounts„.. which were.not
correctly set forth in the balance-sheet, the stock having
been put down as worth £5OO at ;the time of the
bankruptcy, and has siace produced only £283. His
Honour, after strongly commenting on the delusive
character of such a stateaaent, allowed the bankrupt to
pass. The certificate meeting was fixed , for. the 28th of
January. .

In re HEITt',Y TRISTRAM. —This was the day appointed
for the choice .of a new assignee to this estate, 3-11 place
of Mr, Patrick Hunter, who bad been removed upon his
own petition. -Only one new proof was admitted, and
the proceedings were of no public interest. Mr. George
O'Neill, of Liverpool, broker, a creditor on the estate,
was appointed assignee. His Honour fixed a dividend
meeting for the 2ECtli of January.

LIVERPOOL POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BEFORE MESSRS, DIXON AND CASTELLANE.
ROBBERY OF £so.—lsaac Schwensky, a tailor, in
Whitechapel, charged a girl of ill-repute, named Mary
Jones, for having robbed him of £5O. Mr. Bluck
defended the prisoner. It appeared that the prosecutor
the prisoner in. Bold-street,, anti during an
interview or conversation, he fileged that she
stole the money from him. Mr. Bluck said
he would make some strange disclosures this day, to which
the prisoner was remanded, in order to make enquiry about
the money.
EFFECTS OF DRINK.=--A young woman named Hannah
McDermott, who is employed in a millinery establishment,
in Williamson-street, charged a person named John
Jones, with stealing a,-mantle. Officer 388, said he met
the prisoner the previous night, with the mantle
on his arm, and he said it belonged to his
wife, but, not believing the story, he took him into
custody, and, after locking him up, he met the prose-
cutrix, who told him of the loss of the mantle. The girl
admitted that she had taken two glasses of wine, by
" the dint of persuasion " of some friends, and she was
insensible' and did not know what became of her, nor
who took the garment. She lost 2s. 6d. also. The
prisoner was sent to jail for two months.
THE LAST GLASS.—" THE BOULD SOGER BOY."—
Michael Walsh, a fellow with a face like a crocodile, was
charged with having stabbed one Martin Gilmore. Mr.
Muck defended the prisoner. It appeared that Martin
Gilmore, having a great inclination to do some
44 grievous bodily harm" to some Sepoy, enlisted
for that purpose. Monday night , being his last
in Liverpool (which, according to the police, was a
decided advantage to Liverpool) he went about amongst
his friends, taking a parting glass. Having imbibed a
considerable quantity of " ardent spirits," he was going
along St. Martin-street, when Walsh met him, and not
only gave him a parting kick, but stabbed him in the
head with a knife. In reply to Mr. Bluck, the com-
plainant said that about two years ago, he had a bit of a
fight with " Crocodile " Walsh, and when the latter met
him, he said, "I'll giveyou a parting glass," and at the same •
time he struck him with a knife in the-head. Surgeon
Powell proved that the wound was over 4- inches long.
In reply_ to Mr. Bluck, the surgeon said it was a clean
cut, bnt might have been done by a sharp flag or stone,
by a fall. He did not apprehend any danger,
except inflammation might set in. Mr. Bluck proposed
to call some witnesses, but the bench decided on . sending
the case for trial, but, on Mr. Bluck's application, the
', prisoner was allowed out on bail.
FRIGHTFUL.—James Maran, a shoemaker, living in
Vauxhall-road, was charged with having bitten the
greater part of the under lip entirely off a man named
Francis Slaney, another shoemaker. It appeared that
the parties had been drinking, and, almost as a matter of
course, they fell out, and weed to go into spine waste
ground and fight it out. In the course of the row, the
prisoner caught Slaney's lip in -his teeth and bit it off.
(It was handed about the court.) The prisoner was sent
for trial.
ALLEGED ASSAULT WITH A HATCHET.—Margaret
Aaanall Taw stood remanded on g charge of having

•
broken the 'nead of Robert Cashin, with a hatchet, was I
brought up. Mr..Bluek was for the prisoner (the case
Was heard the day before), and produced three witnesses,
who completely disproied the ,charge against the priso-
jaer, and she was discharged:
NOVEL CASE OF WINDOW BREAKING.—PoIice-officer
Back, 807, brought up two young fellows' named James
Phillips and William Tibbett, on the following
charge. Ile said, on the 27th ult., the latter named
prisoner came to him. in Dale-street, and said himself
and the other prisoner had broken the window of Messrs.
Morath Brothers, watch makers,' &C., at 71, Dale-street,
and stolen a watch. The 'narrative of' theprisoner '(said-
the policeman)_ was, they both went out with the inten-
tion of doing something that would get them transported ;
the first thing that presented itself was the window
in question, and they agreed to break it, take out a
watch and stand until they were taken up. They broke
the window, took out a case that contained twenty
watches, and selected one. Phillips, however, broke his
word and 'ran off with the watch, and then the other
prisoner went to the policeman and told him. Ile also
described Phillips, and where he would be found, and he
was subsequently, arrested. The watch was value £5,
and the square of glass £4 10s. The prisoners were
remanded. -
TAKING THE "WRONG MAN." Mr. Charles Quayle was
charged by. William Davis with having broken into cer-
tain premises in Dansie-street, and stealing thereout
certain books, receipts, and some tools. Mr. Bluck
defended. It appeared that a dispute arose between the
operative cabinet makers, whose premises were those
stated. The prisoner ' was the manager, and
one of the lessees of the place. Some of the Managing
Committee (as reported in our paper a day or two ago)
had turned out Mr. Quayle, but he gained possession
again, and took the things alluded to, and for this he was
charged. Mr: Bluck castigated the prosecutor and his
friends, and then produced a receipt for' the rent of the
place, and this receipt was given by the landlord to the
prisoner, as tenant. This at once settled the qnestion,
and the magistrates ordered the instant discharge of Mr.
Quayle. The complainant complained that he had no
lawyer, like Mr. Bluck, to assist him. . Mr. Bluck
informed him that he would require one very soon, for
Mr. Quayle would forthwith commence an action against
him for false imprisonment.

ANNUAL TRADE REPORTS

GENERAL TRADE.

The present position of the general trade of the country
affords a very satisfactory contrast to the gloomy pros-
pect at the commencement of the last year. We were
able in our last annual circular to congratulate our
friends on the comparative freedom from disaster' with
which the hide and-leather trade had passed through the
great crisis of 1857 ; and, although some few instances
occurred in which parties connected with the trade were
compelled to succumb to the pressure of the times, still,
now that we can estimate the full extent of the losses
sustained, we think that the few cases of actual suspen-
sion recorded, must bear the strongest testimony to the
inherent soundness of our trade. During the month of
January the dullness that prevailed was extreme, and the
decline ou every article rapid and heavy, and the full
effect of the panic seemed to be realised ; from that
time, however, a gradual though slow improvement set
in, and continued until the month of September, but
since then great dullness has prevailed, notwithstanding
the abundance of money and the extraordinary cheapness
of food—two chief elements of commercial prosperity.
Speculation as to the future course of business isboyond our
province, but we cannot help thinking that this dullness
has been the consequence of excessive caution on the
part of buyers of leather, and will, in all probability,
result in an active business now that the new year has
commenced, already there are decided symptoms of
renewed activity. BOUTCHER, MORTIMER, GALE & CO.