Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-04-16 00:00:00

from Mr. Newlands

tour:
been
to

Ir. M'Gowan's own
.1:0 that I plead not guilty. The
lefendant to pursue, if any damage had
is walls by the health committee, was
r i• -

angerons state at that
whatever danger was
act of t

corporation

nen it

n for

what - damage might.--11ave been
sustained, the same as a private person. Mr Paynelt
was some three years agq. Mr. M‘Gowan sai: d
he kn ew
nothing about it, but he submitted that the bench had
nothing. to do with that. Mr. Payne said it was
rather hard for the corporation to compel Mr. White to
repair a wall which they themselves had damaged. The
bench bound the defendantcl in his own recognizances of £lO
to repair the wall in ten
SUOP PROJECTIONS.—Isaac i
iDenton,
moned, also, under the
gr,
lfor constructin., a
building which reached beyond
Isl,&f,vlaowed line into the
street, according to the act. Mr. Ti.aors before, prose-
cuted, and Mr. Almond defended. Mr.
that had been before tne magistratlevsas on id
broughttofmitr
question was one
occasions. On one occasion, in 1857, the
before .Mr. Mansfield, who obtained the assistance
Stewart, and they came to what was considered a final eon:.
struction of the act of Parliament. The 47th section of the
act of parliament enacted that no projection should be made
in any building, over the pavement of any street,
more than ten inches, except the cornice, which might
project 18 inches Upon that there would be no difficulty
whatever, because he could show that the cornice projected
22. inches. The health committee had acted uniformly sinco

the decision of the Magistrates which he had referred to,
and they allowed twelve inches for the pilaster, and the
shop front was to run with the line of the building. In
this case the shop front was not on a line with the building,
and accordingly not within the provisions of the act of
parliament. He should, therefore, ask the bench that Mr.
Denton should enter into his own reeognisances, and make
his building according to the act of parliament. There was
another case in Lord-street, but the builder was convinced.
that- he could not contend against the act of parliament,
and therefore consented to take the building back. Mr.

Rishton was called, and stated that he had measured the
building, and he found that it was not constructed
according to the act of parliament. It projected
22 inches in the front. The limit was 18 inches,
being an excessive projection of four inches. There were
two fronts to the shop, one in Park-road and the other in
Park-street. In Park-street, the pilaster projected 131
inches. The windows were eight inches beyond the wall.
A notice was served on the defendant to have the shop
altered. In cross-examination by Mr. Almond, the witness
said, the window itself did not go beyond the pilaster. At
the extreme east, there was an inch and a half over. Mr. W.
Johnson, assistant building surveyor, was also called and
gave similar evidence. Also, Mr. Young, from the borough
engine:3es office, and Mr. Logan. Mr. Almond contended
that, according to his construction of the act of parliament,
there was no infringement of the act of parliament.
After reading several sections, he contended that
shops were to be dealt with differently from
" buildings" mentioned in the act, and that they
should be dealt with in the widest sense. As to pilasters,
&c., if they took it in the popular sense, it meant the shop
front. It did not mean windows alone, or sashes alone,
but the whole front of itself, the whole projection as a shop
front. He quoted other sections, to demonstrate this view,
that shop fronts were different from pilasters, &c., on other
buildings. The whole thing rested on what meaning they
put upon the term shop front. Mr. Ellis, architect, was
called on behelf of the defendant. He said he had made
plans for the defendant, and was familiar with the con-
struction of the building in question, and he did not think
is was contrary to the Building Act in any respect. In
any respect. In cross-examination, Mr. Ellis said he was
of the question being tried in 1857.
s also called, and gave similar
the case was concluded, the
the law of the case, and
Mansfield and Mr. Stewart.

Dixon

ision of Mr

they did not feel authorised to alter that opinion. The-pro-
jections had been proved. They would, therefore, order the

defendant to enter into his own recognisances to alter it.
Mr. Almond said he would advise his client to appeal.
After some objections on the part of Mr. Almond, the de-
fendant was bound upon his own recognisance of £3O to alter
the building in two months
A

ailaiinformation was laid against Mr. John Wilson,
but he consented to comply with the act.

EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF

CONSPIRACY

BY A BARBER,

TO DEFRAUD IRISH MERCHANTS

Ye3terday, at the Police Court, Patrick Lambert, a barber,
having a shop in Lime-street and another in Vauxhall-
road, and a private house in Dawson-street, was brought up
by Detective-officers Laycock, Wilson, and Scaife, on a
charge of having attempted to obtain certain quantities of
tobacco from Mr. Carroll, of Dundalk, and Messrs. Murney
and Sons, of Belfast, manufacturers of tobacco. From the

statement made at the opening of the case, by Laycock, it
appeared that the police had received information that
parties in this town had been writing to several tobacco
in Ireland, under false pretences, for the
were on the look-out,
on-street, where

of obtain.

ed through the window, and
I a man named Davidson in the room.

they -watcl

The man Davidson was writi

and they saw the
eal it

„AL something into it, and i'ney then
in and arrested him, and found the letter contained the
halves of two £lO and one £5 notes, purporting to be

prisoner I

lank of England, but they were forgeries. This
as addressed to Mr. Carroll, of Dundalk, and
another letter, addressed to Messrs. Murney and Sons,
tobacco manufacturers, Belfast. The remainder of this
case will be found in the following evidence. Mr. Cobb
appeared for the prisoner, and cross-examined Laycock,
who said, so far as he saw, there was no concealment of
what the men were doing; the door was shut at the tine:
Mr. Cobb : Who is Davidson ? Laycock : He is the man
the letters for Lambert, and the latter put the
Totes in them ; the letters *ere signed " Samuel Goodere,"
uici the replies to them were ordered to be sent from
Dundalk and Belfast to the Crooked Billet Hotel, 28,
Exchange-street. Liverpool. Mr. Cobb : Is Davidson in
custody ? Nn ; he will be examined here. Mr. Cobb
objected to this, as he had written the letters. Mr. Clough
said he could explain this. Davidson came to him
and told him that he was employed by the
prisoner to do certain business for him, but that he did not
hto proceed further in the matter. Mr. Cobb again
ted to this, and his Worship said it would be better to
he case, and let Davidson be 'examined. The case

01 Lao
letter w

who wr

vvaysa 1.4,1,3,11• J. VT ,Slto YIJ II 1,1/1.4
the letters in reply to Davidson were directed.

iotel, where
I stlw him

several loiters from that

I found a letter

addressed to " Samuel Goodere " there, from Mr. Carroll
of Dundalk. I found bill-heads and envelopes in the
prisoner's house, the same as those sent to Ireland ordering
the tobacco. (Letters produced.] I found a letter from
" Belfast. Mr. Cobb : Who is that
To " Samuel Goodere." I

rney and-
ssect to ?

never saw the prisoner Lambert at the Crooked Billet
Hotel. Davidson, when he took the letters from the
hotel to__ Lambert's house, did not open them on the
I did not see
vlr. Carroll, a

tobacco manufactnrer at Dundalk, said : recived a letter,
on Tuesday week, from Liverpool. As my business brought
me here the following day, I thought a personal interview
best. I could not, however, find the number, 28, Exchange-
street, and I returned home and wrote a letter on the
following Friday. In consequence of that, on Tuesday I