The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-02-25 00:00:00

COUNTY COUR7.—Yesterday.

BEFORE JOSEPH POLLOCK, ESQ , JUDGE.
CARMICHAEL ♦ND CO. V. MACDONALD.—This was an
action which was partly gone into on Monday, and was of a
somewhat peculiar character. 'The plaintiffs Were Messrs.
C..rmicbael and Co., of the Liver Establishment, Church

street, and the defendant was Mr. Hugh MacDonald, of 82,
Grove street. The action was brought to recover the value of
a parcel of calicoes, flannels, and corded skirts, alleged to have
been delivered by mistake to Mrs. MacDonald, and retained
by her. Mr. lime appaared for the plaintiffs, and Mr.
Hughes for the defendant. The first witness called for the

plaintiffs was a parte'. named William Coffey, who deposed
that on the morning of Tuesday, the 11th of November last,
being then employed at the Liver Establishment, ho was sent
out with a parcel directed to a Mrs. MacDonald, 92, Grove
creet, which he took to the house of the defendant. lie saw
Mts. MacDonald, and said he had brought her a parcel from
the Liver. She replied- " quite right," and took the parcel.
On the following Thursday, ho was told at the Liver Esta-
blishment that he had delivered the parcel at a wrong house,

as it wai intended for a Mrs. MacDonn,ld, of 92, Grove sheet,
who had since been encoiring for it. He Itceo.raingly
went to Grove street, where be again saw Mrs. MacDonald,
_ _

the defendant's wife, and told her that the parrel he had

brought was not hers, that it was directed to 92, Grove street,
and that he had brought it to 82 by mistake. Mrs. AireDonald
bbid the parcel was hers—that she bad paid for it at the Liver.
He said, '' Give me the parcel, if you please, or it will be the

xnearis of tin owing run out of cloploytocut." She repeated

that the pAretl teas berg, that she had paid £t2 lUs for it, and
,that it contained a black silk scarf and dresses, adding that

thOre v►as a lady from the Park with her at the time, and that

'Pre changed a note at Ctipps's, Bold street, before going
to the Liver. At the witness's request the catne up to Mrs.
MacDonald's., of 92, Grove street, who told her that &le was
to have received a pars el on the day in question containing
:calicoes, flannels, and corded skirts. Witness stated that in
carrying the parcel he saw that it contained some flannels.

SiacDKiald, the defendant, still maintaiLed that the

parcel was hers, and cantained black scarfs and dresses, Wino
that she would not give it up, and would put the Isi.;er in ti;
' public papers; for libelling her character. Witness asked her if
she could show her receipt 'out altesaid she had mat got it
just then, and would loe;:for it among her papers. Witness
had since been (2;e:charged from the Liver for delivering the
Parcel 3..1 a Wrong place. Several of the young men employed
the Liver were examined, from which it appeared that on
the day hi question llrs. MeeDonald, cf 92, Grove street,
purchased a quantity of calicoes, flannels, and corded skirtings,
*Rican were given to Cotfey to take to her house. A day or
two after she called to say that she hed never received the par-
et,,and on enquiry being made it was found that Coffey had
delivered it at 82, Grove street, the house of defendant. On '
s thwlatter Mrs. MacDonald being applied to, she repeated the
. statement she had made to the porter, and refused to give up
the parcel. She did not, however, produce the receipt, which
she alleged she had received. It was positively deposed that
the latter Mrs. MacDonald, had purchased nothing at the
Liver either on the day in question or on the previous day,
except a lace collar. Mr. G. W. Allman, managing partly'r
of the Liver establishment, was also examined, and confirmed
in this :respect by the production of the books and bills,
the evidence of the clerks and assistants. On the
part of the defence, Mrs. MaeDauald was examined,
and deposed that on the day in question she went to the
• Liver, and purchased some black Alpaca scarfs, dress materials,
*ea. amounting to 42 18s., which she paid. Before going to
`tile Liver she went into Cripp's in Bold street, a few doors
above the Liver, to change a 410 note, but did not purchase
anything there. She deposed positively that the parcel which
, Coffey brought was hers.' On cross examination she admitted
having also purchased a lace collar, which did not go in the
parcel. Mr. M. ,ebottisid was also examined, but his evidence
aiSd not matetially affect the case. Ho stated that he (lid not
recollect a case in an action was brought some months
-eince for coels delivered in mistake to Mrs. MacDonald, and
i.etitined by her. Mrs. MacDonald stated, however, that her
husband was not at home at the time. Miss MacDonald,
.defendant's daughter, deposed that she saw the parcel on the
,evening in question, and that it contained the scarfs, dress
materials, &c: Silo took the dress the same night to a dress-
ausker, named Jones, living in Greek street, to be made, and
it was made and worn by her the next day but one, Wednes-
'day. She added that Mrs. Jones was at present unwell, in
answer to a question from Mr. Hime, whether she was to be
produced as a witness? His Honour then stated, that
-13 t would adjourn the case for the evidence-of Mrs. MacDonald,
bf 92, Grove street. It was explained in the course of the
'evidence that this lady did not appear inasmuch as she had
•smsSeived horn the [Aver an amount of goods equal to what she
had purcleFed, and had therefore no personal interest in the
case., His Honour, however, stated that he should require her
-evidence, and took occasion to state that the proprietors of the
Liver were not only justified but called upon as a duty to
institute the fullest and strictest enquiry into a case where
s.beiam must unqiiestionahly be very gross fiatol somewhere.:
' The above is an outline of the case, which occupied a consi-
'siderable time, diveated of much irrelevant evidence principally
'registring an enquiry before the mag'strates, in which a charge
brought in a criminal form, against Mrs. MacDonald was
dismissed ; and also regarding the subsequent conduct of the
porter Coffey in calling at Mrs. MacDonald's house and insist-
ing on her doing something to compensate him for the loss of
hit sit nation.
Yesterday the case again came on. Thomas lampoon, an
officer in the employment of the High Bailiff, deposed that
he went to serve the summons in that case upon the
defendant. He took it to 82 Grove street, where he saw Ml's.
MacDonald, defendant's wife. Site said Mr. MacDonald had
left the house, but that she had taken it from him ; that she
hclicved he had gone to Scotland, but had heard since that he
was in Birkenhead ; and that he owed her mono; which she
wanted to get. She gave a name, not MacDonald, as her
own. Witness accidentally went away, but was sent back
again there with the -summons. He saw Mrs. MacD maald
attain, and she 'said she supposed the summons was for Mr,
MacDonald, hut she.could assure him lie was not there. He
left the summons. His Honour said it was a very remarkable
and extraordinary case—not rendered less extraordinary by
the evidence just given, Mrs. Jones, dressmaker, of Greek-
street, deposed that she got some black alpaca dresses to make
tip for Mrs. MacDonald, on the 10. h of November, the first
Of which she gave back on the following Friday. Mrs.
MacDonald, of 92, Grove street, was examined, and deposed
that the purchased a quantity et calicoes and flannels at the
Liver, on the 10th of November, which were to have arrived
on the 1 lth, but did not, and on inquiry she was told they
bad been delivered by mistake at 82. Mrs. MacDonald, of
82, told her the parcel she received was delivered on the Monday.
'Mr. Siocombe, of the Liver establishment, deposed that when
he called at defendant's house on the following Monday,
to make enquiries about the parcel, site was unable to produce
any of the goods, or the receipts sire said she had received.
Mrs. MacDonald (defendant's wits) was recalled, and
pOsitively denied that she made the statement sworn, to by the
witness Ilampson. This closed the case on both sides. Mr.
Hughes said ha thought it right to say, as some question had
been raised regarding the character of the porter, that he had
received from Mr. MacClellan, one of his recent employers, a
most unexceptionable character of him. His Honour said lie
was very glad the enquiry had been made, and the result
stated pnblicly. Mr. lime having replied to the evidence, his
Honour said : This is, DO doubt, a very remarkable case, and
a very painful one. Probably in any Other case, except that of
Mrs; MacDonald, I should have arrived yesterday at, the con.
elusion that the plaintiffs were entitled to a verdict. But I
had so Much to prejudice my mind in regard to her, that I felt
doubly anxious to let nothing I knew of her previously weigh
with me in this matter. I have, therefore, given the case a very
careful evening's consideration, and examined most accuratel y
the whole of the evidence. • I now have another positive cc n
tradiction given on oath to Mrs. MacDonald's, on whose tes-
timony, the whole case, in fact, depends ; for lam glad be able
to say that the yOung lady may have been speaking the truth,
and yet Mrs. MacDonald may be incorrect in her statement.
Pethaps it is one of the disadvantages of a bad character that
persens may suffer,sometimes for their had character when they
would not suffer but for it ; and it may be that those local
tribunals have a certain disadvantage connected with them,
owing to the judge being conversant with the character of the
persons vowing before him, and, therefore, likely tb preje.
diced ; while on the other hand; they have the advantage of
being directed by persons who really' do know a great deal
about the habits, conduct, manners, and principles of persons
fregisently before them. It has been my great misfortune to
have seen and known a great deal about, Mrs. MacDonald
and her transactions. Sufficient for ins to say that nothing
in them ever occurred which could impress me very strongly
with an idea of her veracity. But in this case, to which I
confine myself, because I purposely abstained from arriving at
any conclusion yesterday, being most anxious not to allow past
matters to weigh with use in my decision, lam now quite
satisfied that only one parcel went out on the day in question for
delivery, and that that parcel should have been, in the ordinary
course of things, delivered to the lady who was called into the
box to give her evidence this morning. Whether Mrs.
MacDonald, time defendant's wife, did or did not purchase
certain goods on any given day, in the Liver establishment, I
really do not know ; I am very uncertain in that matter.
One thing I do believe, that she had no parcel delivered to her
by the porter on the Monday at all. Whether she took away
any gaols herself, or purchased any on a previous occasion, I
do not know ; but there is no record on the books of the Liver,
which are very carefully and regularly kept, of any such parcel
havinsegoneout at all as she says was sent to her. When it
cornea to a question of veracity, what am I to think of a woman
who, according to the evidence of Hampson—against whose
character I know nothing whatever, during the time be has
been connected with this court, and of whose evidence
I was utterly unaware until this morning—represents to an
officer of the court that her own husband is a stranger to
her, represents him as a person owing her money, and gives
her name as not MacDonald, but another name, thus
endeavouring by such moans to baffle an officer of a court of
justice for the service of a summons; I have come to the