Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-03-26 00:00:00

THE CONGRESS.

PARIS, Friday.—The Moniteur of this morning
contains the following :
" The Cabinet of Vienna has given its consent to
the proposal of Russia to convoke a Congress.
Count Cavour has quitted Turin. for Paris on the
i uvitation of the Emperor." ,

WANTED A PEW BACIIIELOE.B.•-••It 1-eported that emigra-
tion
to a great extent is about to take place by
many lair
damsels from the parishes of Blagdon, Charterhouse, Paxton,
Congr.esbury, Churehhill, Wrington, Barrington, and But-
combe, to some more fortunate and hrropy 'locality ; for,
though otrange, it is only too true, ,tl,O lon one marriage
was solennnsed in any or eithe-
Y
30th day ol June last to the"
etst4of December.
of those parishes fr.om th.

LIVERPOOL POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-YESTERDAY.

BEFORE MESSRS. PEEL AND HOUGHTON

THE LII;E:STITEETgUPPER ROOM—Joseph Bendano, the
keeper of certain supper rooms in Lime-street, was sum-
moned by Inspector Smith, for " unlawfully suffering
prostitutes to meet and remain in the rooms, contrary to the
act 5 and 6 Viet., whereby a penalty of not more £5 was
incurred." Mr. Temple, instructed by Mr. Snowball,
ista n whicht
ia 1 I y
was
appeared for the defendant, and when the case
at
tntitlhe an
sessions,ind indictment, ern substantially
bwas called on, applied that it might stand over
hangingonveee. could
raa
himl
t the
same offence.
be disposed of by trial. This information was issued since
the bill was found, and the officers knew the case was hang-
ing over the defendant, and that the case had been before
the Judges in Chamber in London, and had been prosecuted
by Messrs. Jones and Pattison, solicitors, for some certain
society in this town, and it was decided that the case should
go into the Queen's Bench by certiorari, and as the case
was exactly the same, he thought it a proper case to stand
over until the discussion of the Superior Court could be had
on the whole question. Mr. Peel said, he understood the
cases were not the same, but it would depend on the evidence
altogether that now might be given. Mr. Temple con-
tended that the case was the same, and the indictment
was founded on a similar information; the first count was on
the same information, so they were exactly similar. He
contended that it was not an information in the ordinary
disorderly house, and certainly he thought the bench ought
not to refuse to grant his application. Mr. Peel said, it
would depend altogether on the evidence, and the magis-
trates would hear the case. Mr. Temple said, if the
evidence went a "tittle" beyond the information, the case
must fall. The case was then proceeded with. Inspector
Thomas Smith was then called, and said : At twenty minutes
to one, on Sunday, the 13th of this month, I visited the
house in Lime-street. Inside the coffee-house were forty
men, and forty-five prostitutes. Inspector nough was with
me, and informed Mrs. Bondano that all the women were

prOstitutes, and if allowed to

be laid ; some of them Nv

minutes past one o'clo'

innn information would
rpfmchments. At ten

;k, I found-t}

fire prostitutes_ there'; on

he liitter had

ments

found fifteen men

d nine

out.
not laid

THE SPRING ASSIZES.
CROWN COURT v
-_ESTEEDAY.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE WILLES

MA.NSLAUGIITER AT LIVERPOOL.—Robert Mitchel, aged
25, was indicted for having, at Liverpool, feloniously killed
and slain David Davis. Mr. Deighton, in appearing for the
prosecution, said that the prisoner was indicted for causing
the death of Davis under circumstances which Amounted to
manslaughter. On Sunday, the 26th December last, about
aix o'clock in the evening, the prisoner, was driving a
vehicle known as a whitechapel along the street, at the rate
of about ten miles an hour. The deceased carried an
-umbrella, it being raining at the time, and while the white-

I was passing, the umbrella became by some mean

, and the consequence was that the
thrown completely round three times. He sus-
lined some severe injuries, and was removed to the
dispensary, where he died the following clay. Two police-
men who were on duty in Scotland-place on the night in
ion, said that they had shortly before the accident
ed observed the prisoner strike the horse, and
msequence was that the speed of the horse was
I from seven to ten miles an hour. Before the man
down, the prisoner did not call to him to get
Ind after the deceased was knocked down he
til one of the officers ran after him. The
drinking, but he was not intoxicated,

led with the wheel

)f the way

and knew perfectly well what he was doing. Mr. Simon,
who appeared for the prisoner, said that the accident was
caused by the deceased's inattention. It was raining,
?,re very few persons in the street at the time ;
2el was on the proper side ; the prisoner had
out to him, " hi, hi," several times, but he did not
notice them, and the consequence was that he was knocked
down, the umbrella being caught in the spokes of the wheel.
lie was only once run over, and the prisoner stopped at once
as soon as he could after the accident. A number of
samined to substantiate this view of the

and there v
the whitch

use. His Lordship said, he must certainly demur to an
opinion expressed by the counsel for prosecution, who said
that it was the duty of every
_person driving to draw up at
all crossings, if they saw a likelihood of any person
endeavouring to cross. If this was the case, the traffic of
the street could never be successfully carried on. There
must be a system of "give and take," and the question for
the pry was, whether the accident was caused by the gross
negligence of the prisoner, or by the inattention of the
deceased himself. He stated the law on the case, and left
the jury to decide who was to blame in the unfortunate
transaction. Verdict, not guilty.
MANSLAGHTER AT MANCHESTER.— Thomas Follett was
charged with the manslaughter of a young
i child at Man-
chester. It would appear that the prisoner s a carter, and
that on the 28th of February he was proceeding along
Byrom-street, Salford, and that he was in charge of two
carts, one of which was lashed to the other. He was in
charge of those two carts. There was another cart along
with it, but it was not in charge of the prisoner. The
carters stopped at the bottom of St. John-street, but
allowed their horses to go along Byrom-street, and the
deceased was playing in the street when the carts came up,
and the first cart passed over it, killing it on the spot. At
this time the men were some fifty or sixty yards in the rear
of the carts. The prisoner was acquitted. His Lordship
said that it was a hardship for the prisoner to be brought
into that court, when the coroner's jury had acquitted the
risoner of all blame.
MANSLAUGHTER AT ASHTOII-UNDER-LYNE.—John Falon
and Thomas Rippingham were charged with the man-
slaughter of Thomas Whitehead, at Ashton-under-Lyne.
Mr. Cross prosecuted, and Mr. Scott defended. It appears
that on Sunday, the Ist of January, the deceased was in
Canning-street, in Ashton-under-Lyne: He was in liquor
at the time, and a number of boys were running after and
t. The deceased turned on the boys and
crashing '

snaking fun of him,

ne two prisoners came
time and interfered, and they 04--
deceased and

them a

with the

kicked

He went home, and made some
ing very sore about the body. He, how-
nit on the Monday, the Tuesday, and the Wed-
was still drinking. On the latter day he began
wrestling with a person in a beerhouse, and sustained a fall
He got up, and was hardly able to walk, feeling very mu
injured on the hip. He looked for a cab, but co
one, and proceeded home the best way he could
to, his bed, and never recovered, d

o'er, went

uld not get
Ile took
9,nd of

nary last. The learned counsel said it wa
isider whether the deceased came to his death thrOugi
reatment he received from the prisoners, or whethe
he received on the Wednesday following: was the

soxters o

ie charge of manslaughter, and they
n the second count, chars

misdemeanor

with inter

them with a

• o
The prisoners were convicted of an assault
do bodily harm, and his Lordship stated that

this was :1/4 case which ought not to have come into the
assizes, and, as the prisoners had already had had above a
month's imprisonment, he should discharge them, upon

h then

y being

AT SALFORD.

-Wm. Grant was charged

ighter of Samuel Hughes. It would

that there had been.a number of peoplefighting Clio,

street, Salf

1, on the Ist of January, and the prisoner and

the deceased was also quarrellinc,. 8A policeman on duty
urged the two to go home peaceably, and they went along
Chapel-street with him. They again began to quarrel, when

ue aeceasea struck Urant a blow on the face. Grant re-
turned the blow, when the deceased called out, " Oh, I am
stabbed," and thei police officer immediately seized Grant,
when the latter dropped something, which he (the officer)
picked up, and found to be a key. He took Grant to bride-
well, and Hughes proceeded home. In the Morniug Grant

1, in consequence of no one appearinfagainst
►e deceased left home, it would appear that he
f being very ill. He went to bed (about six in
), and a doctor was sent for. He did not get
lied on the Rh of January. Mr. Crawford,
Salford, had been called in to see the deceased
at he had received a severe wound on the sidc
On m

was discharges
him. When tl
complain
the mon
better, a

He four

several.
had beer

ing a post mortem examination, he
general congestion of the brain, and

indication; of a severe blo

The immediate cau

treatme

inflammation of the brain, brought on by the
deceased had received. For the d

was alh

ner was smokin,t,

was stru
hand, h(

a wound
key, or it
declared
shank.
Bu LIG

his Lor

1, and inflicted

'ounc►ry,

i the hen

case was resumed. Mr. Wheeler addressed the jury for the
defence. The question was wholly as to the amount of
damages, and the only point for the jury was whether the
amount paid into Court by the defendants was sufficient to
compensate for any injuries caused to the plaintiff. The
jury retired to consider their verdict. While the jury were
considering their Verdict some conversation took place be-
tween his Lordship and the members of the bar present,
relative to the time to be fixed for commencin,,o. the hearing
of special jury cases. His Lordship observed that he under-
stood the criminal cases would scarcely conclude before
Thursday next, and therefore he could not expect the assis-
tance of Mr. Justice Willes before that time at the earliest.
Mr. Atherton, Q.C., Mr. James, Q.C., and Mr. Wilde, Q.C.,
drew attention to several special jury cases which seemed
likely to occupy some time i among the rest a water-course
trial, an action for alleged infringement of a patent, and a
cause of Tyrer v. M'Clelland, a case which involves an alle-
gation of slander, and. in which both the parties are well-
known members of the Liverpool community. His Lord-
ship finally said he would fix upon Thursday for commencing
the hearing of the special jury cases.

VY
B uscEoiannE v. -BA.lniv.-:—The jury in the last case being
still locked up, a new jury was sworn, and the case of
Bracegirdle v. Bally called on. Mr. Fearnley stated the
case for the plaintiff, from which it appeared that the
action was one for slander, and the slander consisted
mainly in the defendant having uttered the following.
words : " Bracegirdle has done such things that I could
transport him ; he forged Mr. Johnson's name to several
letters which I have in my possession, and I therefore must
and will transport him." Other expressions of a
similar character were also alleged to have been
uttered by the defendant. The plaintiff was a kind of agent,
carrying on business in the neighbourhood of Manchester,
where he had been for some time employed by the defen-
dant. Ultimately a dispute arose between them, as to the
sum of £l5, and a quarrel to some extent appeared to have
arisen out of it. The plaintiff's wife happened to be one
day in the house of a person named Gettley, when the defen-
dant came in, and after some conversation, made use of the
expression, " Brace,girdle has done such things that I could
transport him." The plaintiff's wife said, " I don't fear
that, for I do not think he ever did anything you could
transport him for." The defendant replied, "Oh yes, he
has; he forged Mr. Johnson's name to several letters I have
now in my possession, and therefore I must and will trans-
port him." Mr. ,Tames, Q.C., cross-examined the plaintiff's
wife on the part of the defence, and the witness admitted
that defendant said his attorney had told him he could
transport the plaintiff, but that if he paid the debt of £l5,
he would say, nothing more of it. He said something about
certain deeds being hidden in his own house up the chim-
ney by the plaintiff, without his knowledge, and that he
felt put abolit' because of it. He said something about Mr.
Stringer's bankruptcy, and that he could transport them
both. Mr. Stringer, was an attorney, and the plaintiff had
been for some time in his employment. Another witness
named Guest, was examined, who deposed that defendant
told him he had " the privilege" of transporting the plain-
tiff, because plaintiff had forged Mr. Johnson's name. In
consequence of what the defendant said to him, witness
took out of the hands of the plaintff some papers which he
had deposited with him. The plaintiff was himself put into
the witness-box, and Mr. James proposed to ask him
certain questions, for the purpose of discrediting his cha-
racter, and mitigating the damages, but His Lordship,
having consulted with Mr. Justice Willes, declinea to allow
any such questions to be put.. Mr. James, therefore, did
not cross-examine. Mr. James addressed the jury for the
defence, and commented severely upon the course pursued
by the plaintiff in taking advantage of a technical rule of
law to escape answering any questions which might be asked
bearing upon, his character and Naduct. The jury found
for the plaintiff, with damages £25, and costs 40s.

HEW-GILL V. .BATES.—ln—this case the jury returned into
court, after some hours deliberation, with a verdict for the

—The plaintiff in this case was
Joseph Grimshaw, an agent for the sale of grey cloth,
yin:,• on business under the firm of Messrs. Grimshaw
, MOsley-street, Manchester. The defendant,
Sharp, was a manufacturer of the same material in
Manchester. Mr. Atherton, Q.C., and Mr.
wared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wilde, Q.C.,
for the defence. From the plaintiff's
red that the plaintiff had been acting as agent
)f defendant's cloth, on a commission of one
in understanding that the agents could
lot undertake to guarantee the parties with whom they
)ffeeted the sales. Last November 1,000 pieces of cloth
were sold by the plaintiff to a Greek merchant; named
Demetriadi, and the 'goods were in the ordinary course of
business delivered to him. After they had been delivered,
a clerk of the defendant's called upon plaintiff and demanded
payment. The plaintiff replied that he had not then received
payment from the purchaser, but had no objection to pay
the account, although not holding himself liable for the
parties to whom the sale had been made. The clerk
said, " I suppose you would not pay it if you thous,:ht. yoilr
-customer was going to fail," and the defendant replied - " No,
of course, we would not "

SHARP

William

with M

it appea

t., it bein

The account was settled, and
almost immediately after Demetriadi stopped payment, and
under these circumstances the plaintiff sought to recover
mount which he had paid over to defendant. It
.ed from the evidence for the plaintiff that
ransaction with Demetriadi, a change took
ms upon which plaintiff acted as agent for
The plaintiff undertook to guarantee the pay-
ment for any sales effected by him, upon the condition that
he received a commission of one and-a-half per cent ; and
that under this arrangement sale was effected of 500 pieces
more to Demetriadi, for which plaintiff never received any
payment, but for which, as he had guaranteed the sale, he
paid the amount to the defendant as soon as the account
became due. The present action was brought accordingly
to recover the amount of the first sale—L272 2s 6d.
The principal ground of defence was that the plaintiff, as
agent, assumed the responsibility of the sale, and paid over
the amount at his own risk. The manager of the defen-
dant's firm deposed that he asked plaintiff for the name of
the party to whom the sale had been made, and plaintiff
declined stating it, upon which the manager said, in that
case, the goods should be sent direct to the plaintiff and

lirther appear

invoiced to him, and that the plaintiff made no objection.
Of this interview, however, the plaintiff gave a some-
what different version. Counsel having addressed the
jury upon either side, and his Lordship having summed up,
the jury found for the plaintiff for the full amount
claimed.

BRIGGS V. MELVILLE AND ANOTHER.--A verdict was
taken in this case by consent, subject to a reference. In a
cross action, " Melville v. Briggs,". a. similar verdict was

--This was an action
being two quarters' rent of a
treet, Manchester, occupied from
, 1858. The plaintiff was
_..„ ”aieuouse, which he let to a person named
Pickford, at the rate of £230 a year. Pickford became
bankrupt, and the defendants were the assignees appointed
his estate. The assignees took possession of the ware-
and carried on business as well as they could there
time. In March, 1858, they cleared out whatever
'eft in the warehouse, and sent back the key to
• 11. refused to receive the key. In the
- • -^a an the 25th

3ROAD:

T v. POTT AND OTHEI

brought to recover £ll5,

nber; 1857, to June

ickford

tiff again let the premises to him

it to recover
Wilde, Q.C.

he two quarter
and

For the. plaintiffs, Mr. Monck,
Mr.. Monck contended that
called upon the assignees, t(
ld accept the bankrupt's tenantr

to occupy the place fora reasonabl-e.timc;,
)ound by his terms, or liable for more than
His lordship held that the
rave them leave to Move. A

it actual time of occupation
endauts Were Bahl

The Coin

TING

INTELLIGENCE

RACES