Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-10-01 00:00:00

COUNTY COUTIT.--

ESTERDAY.

(Before W. A. Huvrox., .Esq., Judge.) •
JuDGMENT.—BYRNE V. BANNS.—His Honour de-
livered judgment in this case, which was an action
brought to recover the stun of La 10s., which had been
advanced by the plaintiff to a sailor in the ship Alma,
upon a note which the defendant had endorsed. Some
curious points were involved. His Honour directed a
verdict for the plaintiff.

A REcimzsi INSOLVENT.—CharIes Keys, merchant,
late of College Lane, insolvent, came up on an applica-
tion to be discharged out of custody. Mr. Husband
appeared on. his behalf, and he was-opposed by Mr. Rime
and Mr. Pemberton, acting on behalf of several creditors.
In the course of a long examination, the insolvent a dmitted
that he had given a bill of sale to secure the payment of
£163 19s. 81, to a person named Hughes, from whom he
had obtained a quantity of furniture at a time when he
owed several hundreds of pounds to his creditors, as
shown by his schedule. He passed through the Bank-
ruptcy Court in 1851 or 1853 (he did not know which),
his debts at that time amounting to about £2,000. He
believed his creditors on that occasion received a dividend
of 11s. 81 in the pound. In 1857 he was again insol-
vent, his debts reaching to £4,800, and he was impri-
soned in Chester Castle for seven months., Havingbeen
bailed out, he joined the Cheshire Rifle Corps, and paid
£4 for his uniform. The amount of his debts at the
present time was about £l,soo.—Witnesses were called
to prove some of the debts at present owing ; and Mr.
Hime and Mr. Pemberton -made some strong obierva-
tions on the conduct of the insolvent, referring to his
antecedents, and contending that he had contracted `the
debts now owing without • any intention of pay-
ing them.—His Honour, reviewing the evidence, said
he found that between Juiie,-1858, when the insolvent
came out of Chester Castle, and June, 1859, he had con-
tracted debts to a very large amount, without, so far as
he could see, a hope of getting anything out of his
property. On the 30thof April last, he had also en-
tered into an agreement for the purchase of two flats,
for a period, from Mr. Hindley. He used those fiats
up to the time of his arrest, and Mr. Hindley had
never received a farthing for them. About th

time he was obtaining gCiods from Mr. Hughes, not pa
lug for them, but assigning over to Mr. Hughes
goods he had in his possession On the whole, there-
fore, his Honour said, he could not but say that the in-

solvent had been guilty of reckless conduct in his trad-
ing, which, though it did not, perhaps, bring himrwithin
the penal 'clause of 'the Act, certainly brought him
within the diScretionary clause ; and he thought he
should not be doing his duty if he were to say that the
insolvent was entitled to his discharge forthwith. He
should' therefore postpone his discharge for six mouths
from the date of his vesting order.

LIVERPOOL POLICE COURT.-YESTERDAY,

[Before My. MANSFIELD.]

A Disontntrsr CREW.—Captain Taylor, of the ship Maud,
made a complaint against three sailor, named George B
Bennett, Thomas: Patterson, and George Vacy. Mr. Blucl
appeared for Captain Taylor, and said the three prisonen
were shipped at Boston, received £4 10a advance money, wen

brought by steamer to St. John's, N. 8., and from there
on board the Maud, then lying off Partridge Island. A
as they got on board they refused to work, but were g,

day-or two to consider, and they still persisted in the

to work

They were

hen,, along with nine ö

irons. During the voyage they were repeatedly asked to work,
but still they refused. The nine• returned to their duty, and the
Captain forgave them for their insubordination.. The three
prisoners, however, continued in Ci eir determination to refuse
working, and they were givOi in custody on their arrival in

LiverpOel. The p•isoners said that the ship was leaky, and
they refused•to sail in her, but were detained on hoard. The
Captain stated, however, that the leak was not more than three
four hours, and that it only required a few
every two hours to clear away the water.

Mr. Ms hid thafinstead of alleging as theii reason for
riot wonaug that the ship was leaky, it was the very reason
they ought to have exerted themselves, and not to have im-

posed additional labour on their shipmates. He should therefore
inflict the heaviest punishment the law allowed him, viz.,

twelve weeks imprisonment,

• [Before Messrs. HOUGHTON and GRANT.]
BEERSELLERS' CesEs.—The following parties wer
up,- and fined for the offences as under :—Owen Murray, b
seller, Denbigh-street. was fined 'ss, and cost
trading ; William Marshall, beerseller, Horn
ss. and costs for Sunday trading; Ann Harrin
Maddox street, fined 10s. and costs for selling
Joseph 3fanlev, beerseller, Bond-street, was fined 5s
for selling at illegal• hours, and 20s. and costs for re
admit the police ; Margaret Forrester, beersellef
Edwin-street, was summoned for Sunday trading, be
was dismiss• d ; Catherine Edward., be,rseller, Carlt
fined 20s. and costs for selling in prohibited hot

brought

Lby.-street, fi

beersell
Mega]. how

THE GREAT EASTERN.

imiration of the latest wonder of the world, y

bject of undiminished

tish industry
such of the

IOWIVERN DAILY 1 ikitB.

most d

TUE ,S.LINDAY RIOTS AT ST. GEORGE'S-

IN-THE-EAST.

In Testerdays paper, we gave the result of the inves-
tigation bcrore Mr. Yardley, the sitting magistrate at
the Thames Pelice-eourt, in respect, to the charge
against John Peterson, a Swede, about 50 years of age,
desciibed as a sugar-baker, who appeared in answer to
two summonses, charged upon the first with disturbing
and disquieting •the congregation assembled for 'Divine
service., in the parish Church of St. George, Middlesex,
on the afternoon of Sunday, the 18th inst. ; and upon
the second with having committed the same offence at
the Mission Church of St. 'Saviour's Wellclose-square,
in the same parish, on the evening of the same day, by
which he had incurred a penalty of £2O for each offence.
Mr. Joseph Smith, solicitor, conducted the prosecu-
kion on ;behalf of the Bev. Bryan King, the rector of.
St. George's; Mr. Charles Young, solicitor, defended
the accused.

The, court was filled when the case was, called on,'
and among the peopl4 assembled 'were many of the rate-
payers .of St. George's-in-the-East.

Vardley—Do you charge two 'separate offences
against the defendant ? • '

-Mr. Smith—Yes, I do, sir. .One in t'.ie parish church,
and one in the Mission. Church of St. Saviour, in Well-

•
. ,
tiOse=Square.: •
Mr. Yardley asked for the various acts of parliament
bearing upon the case ; and 'the acts Ist William and
;Mary, eap. 18, and the 52nd George 111., cap. 155, were
handed to him ; and the magistrate having read them
very carefully for some time, said there might be some
doubt whether the last-named statute applied to such a
case as this ; there could be no doubt about the act of
'William and Mary meeting the case, for it mentioned
the words "cathedral, church, parish church, or other
congregation." Those words were not mentioned in the
act of George 111., which seemed more particularly to
refer to dissenting places of worship.. He then read the
18th section of Ist William and Mary, cap. 18, commonly
called the Toleration Act, as follows
"If

any person or persons shall willingly, and of
purpose maliciously, or contemptuously come into any
cathedral church, parish church, chapel, -or other con-
gregation, and disquiet or disturb the same, •or misuse
any preacher or teacher, such person or persons upon
proof thereof before any justice of the peace by two or
more sufficient witnesses, shall find two surities to be bound
by recog,nisances in the penal sum of £5O, and in default
of such surities shill be committed to prison, there to
remain till the next general or quarter sessions, and
upon conviction of the said offence shall suffer the pain
and penalty of £20."
Mr. Smith said, the act of William and Mary vas suf-
ficient for the purpose of this prosecution, without trou-
bling himself about the act of George lll.,which doubled
the penalty. It was not necessary for him to say much on
this subject. St. George's Church was the Protestant par-
ish church. It was unnecessary for him to dilate on the
sectional disputes. The services in the, parish church were
conducted with the approval of the rectors on the' princi-
ples of the Protestant faith of the Church of England.
The Rev. Bryan King was the rector, and no one ever
disputed 'his appointment. The Rev. Mr. Maconochie
was , curate, and on the afternoon of the 18th in-
stant was in the parish church to celebrate Divine ser-
vice, and was sent there by a very high authority, the
Bishop of London, and ought to have been respected in
the ministration of his holy-office. The, congregation
met in the parish church for the purposes of religious
worship, and it was not necessary for him to prove the
peculiar sort of services celebrated by the rector, 'his
clergy, and choristers. It was only necessary for him
to' say the congregation met -for Divine worship. In
the next place, he would prove, that the defendant
most irreverently, contemptuously, and loudly in-
terrupted, disturbed, and disquieted the congregation,
and prevented the curate proceeding with it. Mr.
Smith then went through the whole case,. as
stated by the witnesses and said the prisoner
acted the part of a ringleader in one of the most
disgraceful and organised brawls that ever occurred
in a Christian place of worship, and that but for the
strenuous efforts of the police, backed by several mem-
bers of the congregation., the curate would have been
severely maltreated, and would not have got out of the
-church at all with his life. The object of this prosecntion
was not so much to support peculiar opinions and obtain
pecuniary penalties, as it was to preserve order, quietude,
and decorum, in the church and other places of worship in
the parish of St. George. The peace of the Church
ought not-to be disturbed by those who disapproved of
particular ceremonies and forms of worship. People who
disapproved of them could and ought to stay away. The
outrages and disturbances in the parish church were
iszracefal to those concerned in them, and must
law. As to the

dissensions in the parish about the mode of conducting
the services, that was a subject with which the court
had nothing to do. The matter was in the hands of a
very high dignitary of the Church, who would no doubt
come to a just and wise conclusion. Mr. Smith then
called. Mr. William Richard Motion, wine and beer
merchant in the Back-road, St. George's-in-the-East,
who said—On the afternoon of the 18th of SeptemOer,
I went to the parish-church. I was near the rector's
vestry. I was requested to protect the Rev. Mr.
Mr. Maconochie, the curate, as it was anticipated there
would be some disturbance, and that he would
be insulted. I saw defendant and others in the
church. There was a very large number of persons in
the church, and many of them were very disorderly.
The defendant was talking very loudly to persons
.by his side, and said these kind of meetings were the
only way to put. down Puseyism and. Popery. When
the clergyman came out of the vestry the defendant
threw up his arms like a madman, and said " Here he
is ; here he is." The curate, the Rev. Mr. Maconochie,
proceeded towards the chancel, and the defendant and
others rashed after him. The curate was very much
insulted, abused, and hustled. The defendant repeatedly
said " This is the only way to put down Puseyism."
The curate got within the church rails. He commenced
the Litany, but owing to the noise and disturbance
was compelled to desist. There was shouting, hissing,
hooting, and yelling, from every part ,of the church.
Threats were made. use of. I heard a man call out
loudly,. "The rector ought to be strung up." - The
defendant was not the man who used the words. Only
a portion of the intended service was gone through. The
curate was not allowed to proceed with it by the mob.
Mr. Phillip Edwa-d Monkhouse, who first said he
was a graduate at Oxford, and afterwards that he was a
student,said he accompanied Mr. Motion to St. George's
Church on the afternoon of the 18th, and confirmed his
statement in every particular.

Mr. Edmund Seading said—l am an architect, and
reside at No. 10, Carlisle-street, Soho. I went to St.
George's Church on the 18th instant for religious
worship. I expected a disturbance there. If there had
been none, I should have joined in the religious service.
I heard a good deal of noise, hissing, and shouting.
The defendant rushed against the curate when 'he came
out of the vestry and said, " It won't do ; it won't do
in a Protestant church ; no Puseyism here." He was
talking very loudly.
Mr. Yardley said the case must go for trial.
Mr. Smith—l will now proceed with the second
summons. • A

Mr. Yardley—l thought one would suffice ?
Mr. Smith—That suggestion, coming from you,
ought to be attended to.

The gentleman near Mr. Smith requested him to
proceed with the second case.
Mr. Yardley—l wish to know if Mr. Rosier, who was
charged before me on Monday last with making a dis-
turbance in front of the Mission Church, in Wellclose-
square, is here ?'
Mr. Yardley said he was under an impression he
should be sitting here on Monday next, but be should
not attend here again until Wednesday. He must, there-
fore, enlarge Mr. Rosier's recognisances until Wednes-
day, but he would not do that without Mr. Rosier
attended the court. Perhaps some gentleman would
name it to Mr. Rosier that his case was postponed from
the day originally fixed until Wednesday.

Several Ratepayers of St. George—That shall be done,
We will name it to Mr. Rosier.

Mr. Yardley—l will also say this. The object of all
punishment is example and prevention of offences. I
would rather prevent than punish. My decision in Mr.
Rosier's case next Wednesday will materially depend on
the state of things in St. George's on Sunday next. I
hinted at the sort of offence I thought Mr. Rosier's con-
duct amounted to, and how I should act. I thought it
was an unlawful assemblage in Wellclose-square on
Sunday evening, and that Mr. Rosier was one of that
unlawful assembly. I hope the state of things next
Sunday will not compel me to treat his case seriously,
but these disturbances must not continue. They must
be suppressed.
Mr. Pyer then took the depositions formally, and was
occupied for three hours in doing so, and eventually the
defendant was ordered to find bail in the penal sum of
£5O on each summons to •appear and take his trial on
two indictments at the next sessions.