The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-03-25 00:00:00

SPRING ASSIZES.

ERATTA. —By an unaccountable mistake in our report of
the Nisi Prius proceedings yesterday, the ease beaded
Fletcher v Fletcher, should have been Kershaw v Kershaw,
and the case Fletcher v Grosby, should have been Pettinger
V Grce.y.

CROWN COURT.
BEFORE BARON MARTIN.

His lordship took his seat on the bench yesterday
morning at nine o'clock.
GARROTE ROBBERY AT MANCTIESTER.--William All-
man, aged 32, and Charles Crossley, aged 21, were charged
with having, in Union street, Manchester, assaulted
William Costello, a car driver, and robbed him of is 6d.
On the 11th of January last the prosecutor was proceed-
its- along the street, when the prisoner, Allman, seized
him by the neck, and Crossley came up and knocked
him down. Tie latter prisoner, while the prosecutor
was lying on the ground, stole from his pricker, the sam of
ls 61. While on the ground the prosecutor was most
inhumanly treated, being kicked and knocked about until
he become almost insensible. The prisoners were most
positively identified as the parties who had taken a part
in the robbe y The jury, without any hesitation, returned
a verdict of guilty. Sentence deferred.
HOITSFBRE.! KING AT MAN CR ES IBR —William Dean,
aged 21, a labourer, Thomas Dean, aged 18, a machine
titter, Mary Ann Williams, aged 20, a factory hand, and
Harriet Ogden, aged 21, also a factory hand, stood
indicted with having, on the night of the 17th of
December, burglariously entered the dwelling house of
John Cobb, a draper, in Deapsgate, Manchester, and
stolen therefrom a quantity of clothes. On the night in
question the prosecutor retired to rest at the usuil hour,
but about one o'clock in the morning he was awoke by a
noise at his shop window, and linen going down stairs,
lie missed a number of articles from his shop, amongst
which were a jacket, five waistco Is, and a variety of
other articles. The police constable on duty in the
locality of the shop, on the night in question, saw the
prisoner Thomas Dean, and a female whom he could not
identify, near the shop, and soon after he discovered
that the shop had been entered, and aroused the prose-
cutor. A pawnbroker, living in Manchester, proved that
on the morning after the robbery, the two female
prisoners, Williams and Ogden, went to his shop and
pledged two waistcoats, and gave their names as
Wilson and Smith. Each of the prisoners most
positively denied that they had ever been near
the pawn office, but the pawnbroker was positive that
they were the parties who had pledged the articles. A
sergeant of police spoke to going to a lodging house
where the two prisoners, Thomas Dean and Harriet
Ogden lived, and on the former he found a pair of braces
and a waistcoat, which were afterwards identified as a
port of the property stolen. The prosecutor fully identi-
fied the property found upon or pledged by the prisoners
as a portion of the property stolen. The two male
prisoners were brothers, and cohabited with the females.
Mr. Wheeler addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoners.
His lordship having d up the evidence, the jury
found the prisoner, Thomas Dean. guilty of burglary,
and the oldie -s with receiving the prosier y, knowing it to
have been stolen. A former conviction was proved
against the prisoner, Thomas Dean, whose sentence was
deferred. WTiam Dean was sentenced to five years'
penal setviiude, and the two females to nine month's
imprisonment.

ANOTHER CAGE OP 1101:73EBR,AKUN'G AT MANCHESTER.—
Isaac Vernon, aged 18, an umbrella maker, and James
Mullen, aged 18, a bricklayer, stood indicted for having,
Oki the 19th of December las', burglariously entered the
dwelling house occupied by William Brown, a draper,
and stolen therefrom five pieces of calico, of the value of
about M. The pr'soners were seen near the house on the
night of the robbery, and soon after the property stolen
was found in their possession. Guilty. Sentence de-
ferred.

j ANOTHER BURGLARY AT MANCHFSTER.—James Aspin:lll,
aged 14, a shoemaker, and John O'Brien, aged 18, a
labourer, were indicted for having, om the 3rd of Jan,,
broken into the home of James Willis, aad stolen there-
from a large quantity of wearing apparel. The prisoner
Aspinall pleaded guilty, and was put into the witness
box, to give evidence in favour of O'Brien. He swore
that the latter had nothing at all to do with the robbery.
(The lad was then directed to return to the dock, when
some dumb show took plaee between the judge and the
jury, the result of which was, that the latter were
permitted to retire for one quarter of an hour, From
the elevated position of the " eockloft," appropriated for
the use of the reporters, in this magnificent and costly
con rt, not one of them could hear a single word that was

uttered, and as to what became of the prisoners was a
perfect mystery.)

NISI PRIUS COURT.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE CROMPTON.

The Court sat at 9 o'clock.

GEE v. THE Ear LANCASHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY.—
This was an action brought to recover compensation for
injuries received by the plaintiff through a collision on the
Etat Lancashire Railway. The plaintiff was Mr. Peter Gee,
a cotton thread manufacturer, and dealer in cotton waste,
residing in Bury, near Manchester, who sought to recover the
sum of £B4O, for damages, in consequence of the injuries he
sustained by a collision which took place on the defendants'
line, on the 27th of September, 1855. Mr. Monck and
Mr. Jones appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hill, Q C., for
the defendants. From the statement of counsel it appeared
that on the above date he went to Newchurch to transact some
business, and left there on his return home about twelve
o'clock by the railway, taking a second class ticket. On
arriving at Ramsbottom, he had to change carriages, and after
leaving that station the train passed through a tunnel, beyond
which, at a distance of about 400 yards, there was another
station called the Surnmereeat station. The tunnel being
curved, the engineer could not see that a heavy goods train was
standing at this latter station, and the consequences were
that a violent collision took place, killing the guard, and
severely injuring a number of the passengers, amongst whom
was the plaintiff. who was thrown forward with great force
against the panels of the carriage, receiving severe injuries on
the head and various parts of the body. After the line was
clewed the train proceeded to its destination, and the plaintiff
was assisted home and put to bed. A long illness resulted
from the injuries received, during a portion of which time he
was attended by Dr. Harrison, surgeon to the East Lancashire
Railway. The plaintiff was not able to attend to his business
for thirteen mouths, and for the loss of time, the injuries
sustained, expenses, and detriment to bodily health, the present
action was brought. The facts of the case were admitted, the
only question raised being that of the amount of damages, the
defendants arguing that the lengthened illness was pattly
caused by an attack of rheumatic fever, not consequent upon
the injuries received. Tile plaintiff in his evidence showed
that for the thirteen months he had employed several
medical men besides the company's surgeon, and fur
that period he was so ill that he was sent to
alternately to 3outhport, Boston, and Blackpool for the benefit
of his health, and that up to the present time he had only par-
tially been enabled to attend to his business. Since the
accident, both his memory and sight had become impaired.
Evidence was called to show the extent of the plaintiff's busi-
ness, with a view to estimate its extent, in order to come
to a decision as to the exact. loss sustained for the thirteen
weeks. Mr. Monck, i.i addressing the jury for the plaintiff,
contended that the claim made was a moat moderate one.
He considered that generally the East Lancashire Railway
Company was well conducted, otherwise it would not
have risen to the prosperous condition in which it was
11011 found. In this case, however. there was no doubt
that it was through the negligence of the servants of the
company that the collision .had taken place, through
which the plaintiff had sustained his injuries. Mr. Hill,
Q.C., on behalf of the defendants, admitted the facts as
stated in evidence, but, although the company deeply
sympathised ssith the plaintiff for the injuries he had
sustained, it was their du:y as directors, on behalf
of the shareholders, to resent any exorbitant claims.
Io this instance they considered the claim male by the defend-
ant to be excessive. The object of the comp my was fully to
test the ptiuciple and justice of the claim, which the directors
thought could only be done in a court of justice, where the
best opportunity was afforded of inspecting the books of the
plaintiff, and otherwise sifting the amount of loss he had
suteadned by non attendance to his business through the
accident. The jury had to determine what damages the
plaintiff should have awarded to him under two distinct heads,
viz., the personal iejwies lie had sustained, and the expenses
he had been put to, and the loss in business. The company had
no desire to resist a just claim. His lordship, in summing up,
told the jury that he had no doubt but they would give the
plaintiff a fair compensation. A matt must not make a market
of his injuries in such cases, but as they had all the
items of expenditure before them, on too part of the plaintiff;
and, taking into consideration what the plaintiff had actually
suffered, and the dilapidated state of his health, lie had no
doubt they would come to a just conclusion. The jury, after
a few minutes' deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
Damages £650.

. Di VOYE v. BENNETT AND ANOTII RR, —This was an
undefended cause. Mr. Wheeler stated the facts of the case,
which were to the effect that the pla.ntiffs were Jacquard
loom manufacturers, in Manchester, and the defendants elastic
spring manufacturers in the same town, the sum claimed waa
30 12s 6d for goods sold and delivered. A witness was
called to prove that the' order was given to him to the
amount of £4O 12s 6d, and that he had received
£lO on account. There was no evidence to show
the delivery of the goods, and the jtidge remarked

that, under these circumstances, he considered that thel"..oo,
should be non-suited. On further questioning the
however, he swore that, although he did not deliver the PI,
he had seen them ou the premises of the defendants a...Altera t.
had sold them, and at the time he received the £lO on :it
Under these circumstances the jury, under the direction !atilt
lordship, returned a verdict for £3O 123. 61. for the Plaliof
a bre'C
FEASBY V. DENT.—This was an action for
contract. It was a case similar to the one reported 7°,s's°rjo
10
consequent upon the rise in the price of potatoes at Wier, is
part of last year. The plaintiff iI a wholesale potato deof
Oldham road, Manches:er, and the defendant a farolerwiresf
ra
at Neesham Hall, near Darlington. On the 'ouset
September, the plaintiff entered into a written
of pes•
with the defendant to purchase thirteen acres boist
toes at £3 15s. par ton, the defendant 00
to riddle them, and pick out those which were bruised' d, for
portion of the purchase money was to be paid when res
delivery, and the remainder in a bill at 3 nionths•dity
plaintiff remitted the cash and the bill, when subseque°o to
defendant stated that it would cost him about 10s. Pei 00'10
riddle, sort, and hand pick them, and that the plaindPe'nottle‘
at a portion of the expense, or he might give up the "b, fro°
was appeared that about this time the potatoes were 'r' 0011
£5 to £5 Ss. per ton, and the plaint ff refusing to 10_00
cost in the hand picking, the defendant had soh; a portion et ?oh
again, and the action was brought to recover the 5° the
and the difference in the value of the potatoes. Altbol
case called forth the services of Mr. Hill, Q. 0•1 Wiftr.,ibt
Manesty for the plaintiff, and Mr. Ovens °or:
defence, it possessed no more interest than esme, tte'
The defence was that a great proportion of of the Par" Alt
still in the hands of the defendants, which the 0 1)1_7,o:A
at liberty to take away. On the other hand it was stet7l-froltv"
opnateast,oaensdhatidmtbetheneypwuterientnoo at
wpiotr
twhi ttha
kdi ins
ge a
as
wedayo:l7oo.
a ti's
defendantof bed
paid
dhim stillfo h
for the
theld the
egoo cadsh potatoes in hand,
when
thatpiekteah
rPildadluia.tiefostir;
0
dressed, which should have been done by the defendsejtl
aitting them. The defetttlant also in his evidence 0;00
h. -as ready at the time to fulfil his contract, 431
„
and dt.e.,a the potatoes, but that the plaintiff alleged tVe piekeiw
At the desire of the defendant's 'eregort.b;
too late in ,:to season to riddle them, and they olnit,tets,'"
by the hand.
superintend the pitting and riddling
came to lieosham tc.
them, which the plaintiff vs..:
the defends.:t procured labourers t f?ri,.
potatoes,
his contract 116 • tiff
but the defendant alleged 1S
;t• the Vet
and dress them, which he was ready .to do,
efas
not pay one half of the cost of hand Irsbos7'. he r
estro;
nuired the defendant "tor firldivi
epbea
tee plaintiff to take away the potatoes. Vreedsnit tort
for the jury to deliberate was whether the de., "
taken the contract, inasmuch as it was prorOU
which had passed between the plaintiff and the chafe
that the latter was willing to fulal his contraet,'"os
riddling of the potatoes were concerned, whicu„„tesdel,
terms of the contract. The plaintiff, however, c"giosi,
tha-, the terms of the contract were that the potato° 00'
be delivered to him in a marketable condition,
state tb,
combined theoperation of hand sorting to °P to
Catild 'llO
bad from the good. The defendant • sbi h
riddled and dressed them for ape i'h%
per ton, whereas, if he hand sorted t"iit to "
would cost 94 to 103 per ton. The damage aluildbistba;
recovered was the sum of £6l, which had been Palo
plaintiff before the alleged contract had been bro niot:
also the profits of 60 tons not delivered by the deft Per dt°
the plaintiff, and it, was proved that a profit of Dotsb"-of
could have been realised by the plaintiff had theairber
been delivered at the time stipulated. A great Piiottb.id-
potato dealers and others interested were called to..
ao
when potatoes were purchased in growing croPs
C
custom for the farmers to deliver them in a fai,t,„htted ttil
fit for the market. His lordship having rectilw-tivp
evidence, which was as long as it was uninterlocolf;
jny retired to consider their verdict at seven dc'bsif, thel
having been in deliberation for an hour and a oe in
could come to no decision in this knotty potato etbe;( prCi‘
wishing to ask some questions of his lordshil% Right(
ceded from St. George's Hall to the judgesloofley, S1:14
having propounded the necessary questions, tfit lICt
abrief consultation, returned a verdict
plaintiff—one farthing damages. The effect Wi tor
the farmer and the potato dealer will each havewith 4,
their own costs, which, considering that the cao''parlislo
its witnesses, were brought from the county Rsd sale
will be somewhat heavy. This case onceP
eb
time of the court for upwards of seven hours: Woe, poi
imagine that the judge, the counsel, the jury, and
so 00.0
generally, will consider that such trumpery cases tlaaoo
fitted to be adjudicated before a County Court joeegeea' use ,
a superior court, especially as will be seen 1,9 i„ the
o
that there are no less than 102 trials to be 'cji
Ptius Court.

LORD PALMERSTON'S MAN"- p
The following are the principal passages °f,.,tehney‘iTtlir
Minister's address to his constituents at Tore",-t ail);
question which is submitted to the .in44l:llheandS stiel
country is, which shall be the men to whose -A- 0be.:41,
be committed the destinies of the nation, an-horeo
that charge shall continue to be confided to dto .00
administration or whether it shall be transferrebf elbooe
aggregation of hitherto discordant element!'„,isars,
combined actions on'a late oecesion a vote set
passed upon Her Majesty's Government. ,7%ii of
tits
the conduct of affairs in obedience to the city, °Derr
Sovereign, at a moment of no small difdeue hd,
midst of a great war, and when those men ve",°. hes of
tofore been looked up as the leaders of part'erotbse;ll
various reasons, declined the responsibilitY, ,„ 0 noli
had been unable to form such an administrat'eibenelei
their opinion equal to the crisis. His lordshiP.,o
ctW
to the energy and vigour with which the war ii.ibet ,Ot
on until its close; the firnan:ss which °II,. °CFO°
remove difficulties in the execution of the trea';;;o„,tot
and then passes on the events of the iPnent,,sneinceiresis,
budget, which took off the war portion of the The 1:0171
was approved by a majority of eighty vote fP"
war, which originated in aggressions, beeec-rtliPl°1"1;004
the Persian Government, which put an end tu vied' d
relations with the United States, were rie:°,,,te ent":101
relations with Naples were explained in Par"—, ft Pq,es
none of those matters did the opposition deew,tit. hop;
to find any successful attack upon the Governwoo,oo
Palmerston then presents the case of the Gover;taaeerr
the Chinese question, but events of much freP,°.,; o°,loo
happened in China unforeseen by Her Maj.es..ll/09111,1:000',.."
went, and not the consequence of any steps t
An insolent harbarian, wielding authority
_n,l-001400
violated the British flag, broken the erli,";„h se d
treaties, offered rewards for the heads of 13,r"iructipees1
in that part of China, and planned their 01,1,b 0, ft,
murder, assassination, and poisons. The Or",-01138:rif
civil and naval, on the station, had taken thee-cese.-
which appeared to them to be proper 10;6trto
obtain satisfaction and redress, and d IP( t
Government had approved the course W.:coo:l°o.j
officers, in vindication of the national hon";blaakA' v,
assertion of our national rights. A ec'daite4 r,„if
political parties, not till his last session, Ted -01
carried a resolution, declaring the course Pe,s,,,ceej
officers in China unjustifiable, and, consequentn'Jiovetol.o/
Her Majesty a Government for having 5,17` the; Oiree
cGoluvresren;mbeuntt,ifintshteaatdcooufrdseemwaansauinnjguasntifian'e'.• oPo
apolo-I,t 1.0),
one, and instead of expecting satisfaction, eug so`l,o
compensation to the Chinese Commissioner. ge p 1
course the opponmts of the Government, Li! _,0191
mentary victory had installed them in tgliv-
consistency, have been prepared to puree..,h' 0 brtleetif
British nation give their support to men 7-dret-jee,a
endeavoured to make the humiliation and uei'coo'gi4
their country the stepping stone to power. ;ill Devoi,teij
assert that such will not be the answer the b itite„ooo,l
tKuopinotignldefoaamrppeal now made to the electors °_,',0V:111171)
.diffWereeonfft offer tonc
itplizeescountry a ad
iGt 3:vrciri
u-oraritoVtle'
endeavour to procure peace—peace with W/1%0 riots pi
safety—peace with the maintenance of mica in atePti,"
peace with security to our fellow country, eS'
lands. At home our guiding principles will rove° 11,
and well regulated, economy, progressive 01.tia.„. tee
and in all that concerns the welfare of th.o2-peol:;00
continued diffusion of education among, tni
such well censidered reforms as, from time -
be requined by changes of circumstances,
nereasiug growth of intelligence.

L of"
oa. weeksiltink
eskAdtertjournals—thehaeat,lantllideut
adn_rttp It sinceiacnep'4elywrl )rjci
thea:obi lunelrußtianedsgeAotd:bpi
being
the
being
ia, it
r4:11
theneparci
nht
techdhaattrhgtetilmneg;Hlaehnread
Herald's
shseatrrr
striking
articles
gus
pgip:ar
oer°3rioffr-ob
0-ocoroitotiLy10100,0::11
thetio on h
caseas
ob
te been obtained
eoxbt
lent
dn
ee
dd
sbteefookrecotmhepany was,
10000
is 0
theY °wllarviitlhl rte°l/I*--""-iagt°11:00%r°40;
writer of the Herald's articles,examination
upon the stari_achtioth be /51 I.
he was interested in the stock in clar.,-beta L'tytrlfl'
puffed it in the columns of the Heal' bad il. ow 0$
moneyoiaefnfidrwbhbrieoctthwt
ee e3r articles
.11: littr;;;I:1 I go
iti'
it was not worth a cent ; also, that be Dodos it
the same paper, that the company had Ito!' nic,
dend of 2 per cent. when he knew OW - bee-000,
the case, and that the company had not evela 00 it i
organised! Of course, his motive in Phuiel, it 0103,0
was to induce the public to bur it, his he succeeded in doing, and filled hie r peilltoir 0'
large share of the proceeds. Mr" yerf 14 O.
owner of the Herald, was naturahl the Pad.., id
at such an infamous admission I jeforP;er Lg.
his monetary editor—and in a carwt. d De' 1 P'.lo
public, that he (James Gordon Bennett) 011 This Vat
in any stock jobbing operations whatever•to be 1100 otr:44
no doubt is true, for Mr. Bennett I believe or Wilt oretf
man, so far as relates to stock speculatioosloes no to 4
gambling, but his own plea of innocence. does in gee of
his money writer, who, I learn. is still reta sui letievto
a t ploy.al 1 i
alf
Europe,the Herald's
it
would monetary
b e well articles
such a glaring expose of dishonest New J.O -
conduct to take them earn grano sail,'"
respondent of Alanohcater Guardian.e endll af' f:teruii,
itiporiroard