Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-07-21 00:00:00

John Flunk, ami:ihe-mate, James Wright, of the ship

msecuted, and Mr. Bluely defended.
From the statement of Mr.. Cross, it appeared that on the
Bth of July, the mate came on (leek about four o'clock in
the morning, to relieve the captain's watch. The prisoner
went aft to where the mate was standing, and gave him a
great deal, of abusive language. The mate told him to go
forward, which he did. A short time after, the-mate went
forward to see that the watch were keeping proper look-
out, as they were about making the land, bemg then
off Cape Clear.. So •soon as the mate had got .the
1en,,0-th of the galley, the prisoner, who was- cook on
board, came out and get hold of him, and battered him
against the bulwarks, with his head.. He then lifted an iron
bar and struck him over the head with it. Some of the
crew then went torcall the captain. The captain came on
deck and went to remonstrate with the cook ; but, instead of
that hay •

him and pulled him, into the b Iley. He then took hold of
his head and bit him on. the back of the head, and then
tried to force out- one. of his eyes with his thumb,. That
was the assault complained of. The mate and captain were
sailed, and cortoborated the, abOve statement. On,: cross-
bY Mr. Bluck, however, the mate admitted that
he had taken a quantity of fit, which the cook thought be-
longed to him, and.threw it overboard.
,by order of- the cap-
tain, and that was, the reason. of the quarrel. When he
Went to the gallev the cook had. nothing in his hand, and
the witness took'hold,of him: by the shirt and asked him
how he dare give him, such insolence. • He also. admitted
that he went to get something- to strike the cook-with, but

could not find. anything. Bin& contended that the
prisoner had acted only in his. ONVII defence, and' that the
prisoner had not been fairly treated. The ship had been
in, port for eight days, and the action was not- brought
till the crew were all paid oft; in order that they

might deprive the• cook a the opportunity of "bringing
any of them as,witnesses. The prisoner went' an Monday
to the Sailor's Home- to, get paid, and the mate told him if
he had not applied.for wag,es they would have let him off.
The action was not for assault at all, but to try-to deprive
the prisonerothis wages,. Another very strange feature in
the case was, that they captain and mate had come to ,the
magistrates..to get a warrant at one o'clock on Ttiesday, they
well knowing4that the. man was in custody soma hours pre-
vious to that. Dfir:. Mansfield said he would, not have
granted the warrant, if he had known the Inan.was in cus-
tody. It- didtappear to him' however, that there was some
degree of blame oat the cook, but nothing that would forfeit
his wages.; and if, as. Mr.. Bluek had stated, that was the
real ground, f action,. they had lost their case but for each
assault the prisoner was to be imprisoned for three weeks.
Tun Wjzren. CASE.--Samuel Coleman was brought up for
further-examination on the charge of having a watch in his
possession, knowing the same to be stolen. M. John Yates,
Sen., said he •appeared on behalf of the prisoner, not that he
had any. fault to)finct with Mr. muck, nor that he had re-
ceived any feefor his. services, but simply because 'he was
interested in, the welfare of the prisoner's family. He did
not doubt ftir a, moment that the watch was stolen on the
24th June; andlintwned on the 29th, as stated; but admit,-
ting all; that, he• thought he would be able to satisfy his
worship that such a state of things might exist, and the
aami g
ofth
sma
shocas
(Hz
prisoner be perfectly innocent. The fact Was, that the main
Mnrray, .who was Already- convicted for another offence, had
ou
circumstance
whenhiS h
inaso:lodtnetliasdeet,apri:withSoataCnites,t, ft*
Wha theSe watchdSteaie
edll'lrithtßhe
sold it, as..any- admission on his part wank' have made.him
.. Clough said he was satisfied that the watch
' was,got, from: Murray, and that the maul's wife had toll him
everything. about the matter in a plain straightfOrwaniman-
ner, andthebe!ieved her statement. IW.r. Mansfield saiii, as-
suming; the prisoner to be innocent, if he dealt with a bad
man,, he could scarcely expect that his character would not
suffer by it. In this ease, however; he would not, commit
the prisoner for 'trial on the evidence. He was tcb be
dis-
charged, and the watch returned tat the owner.

•
BEng= MESSRS.. a.: R. LAWLENCE AND J". AsITZLN,
rmsENGER RUNNER.---Rebert Cahill, of 1136, Great
liewardt.street, was summoned for refusing to show his
budge -while pursuing his usual,calting as emigrant runner.
Lieutenant Prior prosecuted on behalf of the, Emigration
Commiesioners. The offence.wasproved against the defers
di a, and he was was fined 265.. and costs.
Cirnious CAsE.---Mr. Wni, Harrison was, summoned for
non-compliance with a notice, that he shouktwhitewash the
house, 25, Fontenoy-street of which he was the owner.
Mr. Blackhurst appearedfbr• the defendant., He set up as, a.
defence that, under the 20th section of the Health Act, it was•
necessary that the notice, should be signed by the Mayor
and the Town-clerk, or the chairman of a committee existing
under the Health Act statute, whereas the notice served
upon his client was simply signed by It Higgins, inspector
of nuisances, which, he contended, was. not sufficient. The
magistrates, after considering the act for some time, and
also taking into consideration that the practice, of signin
the notices as the one in question was signed, had existed
for a number of years, they gave it as their opinion that a
wrong course would not have been practised so, long with-
out being. discoNlred, and they thought the Town-clerk
must have, advised the Council on such a subject.. The ease
was adjouniect for a week.

IMPROVEMENT IN GENTLEMEN'S HATS.,—,MaIIy letters
from time to time have, on this subject, appeared in the
"Post' and "Journal," the originals of which are to be
seen at our shops, 9, DAXE-STREET, and 6, CRESCENT.
alt JOHN A. SiIMPSON; the active• partner of the
firm of KINNEAR and SIMPSON, begs to state that
this improvement in Gentlemen's Hats is his own inven-
tion, and registered by him in his own name, and is his
own private property. In bringing this invention so
Prominently before the public, he has avoided say,.
trig one word about it himself. All that has been done
has just been to print, in the " Daily Post " and
the "LivelTool Journal,"• some three or four letters at
a time. The principle upon which the advertisement is,
inserted is the one sa well expressed in Proverbs—" Let:
another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth k
stranger, and not thine own lips." ThQ. whole of those.
Letters are written by persons altogether uninfluencedi by,
any other motive than this—that ther 'really felt the bow,.
fit of Mr SimpsoN's invention, and in such a degree, that,
they thought it only just to him to state. thck 14110% not
a words merely, but also in. writhrg,