Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-08-04 00:00:00

MERSEY CONSERVANCY BILL.

TO THE 'EDITOR OF TaD'NORTHERN Tnttt.

Sir,—Your eotemporaryrthe Mercury, announces,
th is morning, a split between the powers that
be, viz., the Corporate Infc.libles and the vie-
tised Thek Committee; and this split is attri-
but ed to the interference of newspaper scribblers.
C !owing, as I do, under tlviu category, I am not
eon tent to eit down under the charge of having
don. e mischief without same more distinct proof
that ' that contained in a never-Nailer parnp,raph.
En my letter tc you, under date the 28th of July,
I poi anted out that, should the Ciinservancy Bilk
besot nel9w, the Corporation, who, by their foolish
pure!' ase of the Birkenhead Estate in 1.C55, had
alread.v sacrithied to a very great: extent the Town.
Dues, could only suffer in its annual income to
the at nount of £5.,000 m-year,.. or, capitalised,.
maoshoo.

It would appear that the eillculations eo7tainecl
in my la tter have conveyed in formation to Coun-
cillors :and Deck Committee men; which has
induced an alteration of tactics.. Seeing th.at the
Corporation would not materially sy.ffer,-the Dock
Gommittt have-themselves sought an interview
with the Board- of Trade, and proposed 'to with-
draw their opposition to the 03,aser7ancy. Bill—
suah, at least, is,the.rumour.
The Corporate authorities, who loTe a .Parlia--
mentary fight, and a free run at the Btirlington,
see themselves. thus thwarted by their -own nomi-
nees, and their favourite plan upset of- "-arrangiE4
terms, all parties =coming, to Parliament net:sessicst.
for a bill.

To a looker en, like myself, the taaties of the
belligerents is most amusing. The 'row-a Clerk,
feeling that his couseqtaence goes with the Town
Dues, is mancetrvring to continue the fight-through
another session. On the other hand, Ur.. Charles.-
Turner is " too mueh,Yorkshire" not to perceive that
the Government and. Parliament. must; eventually
succeed in legalising the expenditure cc the town's
dues, for the puposes- of the shipping frequenting
the port of Liverpool, and with the taint for self-
preservation for which he is famous, has thought

it expedient to shake hands with Government
before the bill 'decotneslaw.

To such petty motives are the interests of the
dock bondh3lders and the town of Liverpool

sacrificed.

You, sir, .devote many pages of your journal in
condemnation. of th. Pike scheme, and I wish
you success. I cannot, however, but think.
that you have been unaccountably silent upon
the general, question of the future manage-
ment of the port of Liverpool, and you
could not but derive great credit if,. instead of
following the silly cry of your cotetnporaries,
emanating from the Town Hall officials, that
" Liverpir-otig to- be robbed of its Toga .Dues without
compensation," you would prove from the speech of-
Sir James Graham himself-
-Ist—That the Conservancy Bill, "does not seek
to:abolish, one penny of Town Dues." -but simply to
provide that they are spent under the direction of
the ratepayers for harbour purposes ;
2nd—That Liverpool shall be relieved from the
foolish bargain made by our Corporate quidnunces
when they purchased the Birkenhead Estate for
£1,250,000.
3rd--That, as a further compensation, the Dock
Committee shall pay the Corporation £750,000 of
monies spent in widening streets —Your Subscriber,
Liverpool, 3rd August, 1857; QBSERTER.

SURREY SESSIONS.—Arcusr I.

EXTRAORDINARY CASE.—Mr. Spencer Hotah,. 50, dee-
cribed of no business, a highly,-respectable looking gentle-
man, surrendered to take his trial, charged with. ste4ling
in the dwelling-house of Joseph Argent Turner, at Barstow-
lodge and Horne, in Surrey, a. chest containing linen, a
quantity of glass, and other- articles, the property of the
said Joseph Argent Turner. Mr. Tilley prosecuted, and
Mr. Rubinson defended. The prosecutor, a retired captain.
lir aNearevaclaii-ink IXlVlllierLasser.tv,,m, gariv, ettel.
ago. He used to meet him occasionally from September,
11351, to March, 1852, and about the latter tinte.witness was
attacked with illness, when defendant continued to live with
him at Thirstow lodge up to January, 1855, ,he going away
only at short intervals. Occasionally he drove witness
to market, and had dinner at the market-house for his
trouble. In the early part of January, 1852, a difference
took place between witness and his wife, which resulted
in a separation in 1853. At the end of January, 1856,
they moved to Horne House, the defeudant and his wife
aceompenying him; the latter to act as housekeeper and
manage his affairs. Witness had the utmost confidence
in both of themeuntil the end of Jane, when he received
such information from Judson, his bailiff, as led to
some suspicion as to their conduct. On. the 27th
he observed the defendant knocking the head of a
cask in to pack some articles to carry away, and he refused
-tt) allOw him: to use it, but told .him he . might have a
basket if he liked: On several . occasions • p ion-to that
the defendant, had said something„about leaving his house,
but he had no lava he was going to take away property.
On the same day he found that the defendant had taken
away his linen chest, and be expostulated with him about it.
He replied, "Oh that will come back." He moved other
articles ,also,, and told him that unless he brought them
back be shonld detain his truck and whatever propertyhe
had. Ultimately the defendant left on the 2nd of July,
whenihe moved the counterpanes off the bed,isheets, pil o v-
caaes,napkins, bed-ticking, an Indianceal-box,candlesticks,
fire irons,,glass barrels, china, plate, and a large quantity
of other property, all of which was found in Union-street,
Southwark, and Lewes, in Sussex, by the superintendent
-of the Godstone police. The property was here brought
into dead, and flied the tables and all the avenues leading
to the counsels' table. Witness identified it as his, and
gave 'swore that he never it to the defendant or his wife,
and never authorised them to carry it away, conse-
quently he gave them into custody, In cross-ex-
amination by Mr, Robinson, witness said the defendant
and his wife were renters from March, 1852, to April,
1853, and from the latter period Mrs. Hotah
acted as his housekeeper, but no wages were stipulated for.
There was something said about weges,-but he said that
should be settled amicably. During the time they were
with him they were a great incumbrance to him, as Mrs-
Hotah was so poctrly she could net get about without
her husband's assistatice. He took a young -girl named
Margaret Dixon to live with' him at Bn stow-lodge,
and she was left behind when they removed to Horne.
She came to the latter place, add Mrs. Hotah would
not let her in, as she alleged that he was too familiar
with her. That was false. On' the 9th of February,.
his wife left him. She sued - btu in, the Arches Court
for- cruelty, and obtained a -cifyotte., He married her
rge iportion in 1819, and received with tits. ',pt.:rate -la lodge. with 40of
0'
. al
ac
nr eds, owf
hl
itienh he hdadl
d' an
-11
gwei t hw ibtih;'w
oa w a money. He
I:or
improvedne
allowed his wad alimony, and he believed that hhe was in.
court that day as a witness against him. Mr. Tilley called
several persons connected with the prosecutorthe to i
addentify
the property, as well as the superintendent of Gstone
police, when Mr. Robinson addressed the jury at gre a
length fir the defendant, contending that the property in
question was partly carried away by Mrs. Tanner an I given
to his client by tier previous to her leaving her husband, and
that the present proceedings would not havebeen taken had
not a writ been served on the prosecutor for £6.5 due to the
defendant and his wife as wages for looking after the farin.
The learned counsel characterised ...the prosecutor as a very
bad man, who was known in that part of the county of
Surrey as bad principled and everything that was base,
which was proved by thecruelty he h d .
—3 exercised towards
his poor wife, who had been plundered by him of all her
property, ant then ill-used. He eheuld oall witness,s to
prove the facts he had stetea, and be was sure the
jury would at once acquit the respeetable gentleman at
the bar. The learned counsel then called Mrs.
Turner, the divorced wife of the proscutor, who spoke
of his cruelty towards her soon
h i ?fterin t i isme marriage, and
the action she brought against Lein Arches Court,
given against him. She removed s
when judgment was
great portion p
of the property produced t o Lewes before,
ration, and the -remainder that Captain Turner
their separation,
she
gave to Mr. and airs. Hotah. Nearly the
whole of it was left her by her first husband, Mr: Saun-
ders, of Barstow. Other witnesses were called on the,
t of urgedf and after some deliberation, tilt
par .
jury ret a verdict of acquittal.