The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-04-01 00:00:00

thought that sporting gentlemen on both sides might have
arranged the matter. The plaintiff said he had offered
to come to a compromise, which had been refused. The
ewe was about proceeding, when Mr Harry Hill,
a well known .betting man, wto was to have been called as
a witness, said that the dispute could be settled, by leaving
it to Admiral Roos, and two other sporting: gentlemen
This was eventually agreed upon, and the came was with-
drawn.

WARDEN v. STONE.—This was an action for a penalty.
of £5O, against the defendant, for practising in the County
Court of Liverpool as an attorney, he being High Bailiff
of the Court at the time. Mr. Sergeant Atkinson, Mr.
Sowler, and Mr. M'Lachlan were for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Milward for the defendant. Mr. Sergeant Atkinson
stated that Mr. Stone, being High Bailiff of the Liverpool
County Court, acted as an attorney, contrary to the 29th
and 30th sections of the 9th and 10th Victoria,
c. 95, on the 9th July, 1856, when he applied
to Mr Conway, who was sitting as Mr Pollock's deputy, for
a worrant under the absconding debtors act, founded upon
an affidavit that a man named Evans, who was indebted to
Geo. Rawlinson and Robert Ragden, was about to quit the
country. Upon this affidavit, Mr Conway issued a
warrant, on which Evans was arrested. On the
warrant was endorsed, " This warrant is issued by
George Stone, attorney, Liverpool." It was admitted by
Mr Milward that Mr Pollock was judge of the Liverpool
county court at the time that Mr Conway was appointed as
his deputy, to sit on the Bth, 9th, and 11th July, 1856.
He admitted also the r.ffidavit on which the warrant was
founded and that a c.zpias was also issued but that it was too
late. These admissions brought the case fully before the
the court, and a verdict was taken for the plaintiff for £5O
and costs, with leave to the defendant to move the court
above.

ALLEGED SEDITCTION.—This was an action brought by
the plaintiff, a farmer of the name of Edmondson, against.
the defendant, James Ryley, for loss of services occasioned
by the seduction of the plaintiff's step daughter. The case
was proceeding after hearing some evidence, when it was
stopped by the judge, as it appeared the girl was out at
service, and not employed by the plaintiff. A juror was
then withdrawn, and the case terminated.

NISI PRIUS COU RT.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE CRO3IPTON AND A SPECIAL JURY.
On the sitting of the court, at half past nine o'clock this
morning, the special jury causes in the Salford list were
entered on. Eleven of the sitecial jurors did not answer to
their names, and his lordship ordered that they should be
fined £lO each.
CAZENOVE AND ANOTHER V. FINNESEY.—This was an
action brought by the assignees of Thomas Bann, outfitter,
of Whitechapel, to recover from the defendant the value of
certain goods and property estimated at £490, made over
to him by the bankrupt Bann after he had made an assign-
ment for the benefit of his creditors. Mr. Atherton, Q C.,
with Mr. Miliward, appeared for, the plaintiffs ; and Mr.
Attorney General Knowles and Mr. Jones for the defendant.
From the statement of counsel and the evidence adduced in
the case, it appeared th .t Bann carried on the business of
an outfitter in' Whiteehapel, and a marine store dealer in
St. Andrew street. In Jnne, 1855, he became somewhat
pressed in his business. and he accordingly arranged with
the traveller of Mr. Martin, of' Manchester, who was a
large creditor, and afterwards became trade assignea, to
assign his property for the benefit of his creditors. The
assignment was made, but net stamped. An epitome of
his property was also made, when it was ascertained that
his total liabilities were £655, and his total assets £495,
including £2OO for the go- dwill and fixtures of his shop.
A few days after the assignment was drawn out, a new
arrangement was propose 1, namely, that he should compound
with his creditors for 10s. in the pound, and that the
defendant, who is his brother-in-law, and carries on the
business of a Rag Merchant in Liverpool, should
become security for a portion of it. Accordingly
an arrangement was come to between the traveller of Mr.
Martin the bankrupt, and the defendant, that the creditors
should be offered a composition of 103 in the pound, and
that it should be paid in two instalments of 5s each, the
fi 'at to be paid, by the bankrupt himself, and the other to
be guaranteed by the defendant, the assignment to be
returned in the event of the creditors not accepting the
composition. All accepted-the composition, with the ex-
ception of a few creditors whose joint debn; did not amount
to more than £lO, and bills as proposed, sva,e given to
them ; those guaranteed by the defendant being taken up
by him when they came to maturity. When he assign-
ment was returned, and the composition guaranteed
by the defendant, the bankrupt made a bill of
sale of his property to him, and the defendant having thus
become possessed of the property, sometime afterwards
disposed of it. The plaintiffs contended that after the
assignment the bankrupt had no right to transfer his
property to the prejudice of his creditors, and they now
brought the present Lotion, representing the general body
of creditors to recover from the defendant the value of the
property so made over to him, and which they contended
was under the circumstances an invalid transfer. Mr.
Andrews, the traveller of Mr. Martin, deposed to the facts
as above set forth. On cross-examination by the Attorney
General, he said that Mr. Martin's debt was first £550,
but that it was reduced by £l3O, the value. of certain
goo's taken back at the request of the bankrupt. There
was also a private arrangement between h7m and the
bankrupt that Mr. Martin's debt should be paid in full,
and bills at long dates, independent of those for the com-
position, were given to him for that purpose by the b mk-
rapt. Witness also received from the defendant a policy
of life insurance on behalf of Mr Martin, and two of the
bills at long dates for £52 each given by the defendant were
paid, but those given by the bankrupt were not paid. In the
epitome of property, the bankrupt's stock, which was nearly
all supplied by Mr. Martin, was valued at first cost,
Thomas Bann, the banktupt; deposed to having first made
the assignment, and afterwards the bill of sale to the
defeqdant. He considered that he was justified in making
the bill of sale, inasmuch as the defendant had not only
advanced him money from time to time, but had also
guaranteed his debts to the amount of £145. On cross-
examination by the Attorney General, he said that the
stock had been mech overvalu ad, and that it had been
done for the purpose of inducing the defendant to become
security for the composition. °When the bills for the
composition were given, Mr. Andrews returned the bill
of assignment, and said, that it might be burned as it was
of no further use. Something was also said at the time
about the defendant securing himself by taking tha
property. Mr. Atherton replied on the evidence, and
contended that the statement of the arrangement, as
given by Mr. Andrews, was the most reliable. The
Attorney General replied for the defence, and urged that
it was unlikely that the defendant would have secured
the composition, if he himse' f had net been secured by
the property being transferred to him. The jury, after
some deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiffs,
damages £lO5, with costs.

POTTS AND OTHERS, ASSIGNEES, V. LAW.—This action
arose out of the bankruptcy of Mr. Wright, cotton
spinner, of Manchester, whose case, from certain dis-
closures as to his mode of conducting business, has
attained an unenviable notoriety. It was brought to
recover the value of a quantity of property, consisting
chiefly of goods and materials in course of workman•
ship, which were removed from the plaintiff's mill and
sold by the defendant somewhere about the 11th of last
July. Mr. Attorney General Knowles, with Mr. Tomlin.
son and Mr. Fearnley, appeared for the plaintiff. and
Mr. Hill, Q.C:, with Mr. Unthank, for the defendant.
The point at issue was chiefly one of law, the facts of the
case being nearly agreed upon between the parties. It
appeared that Mr. Wright carried on the business of a
cotton spinner, partly at Heaton Norris, near Manchester,
and partly at Caton, near Lancaster. He carried on
business at Heaton Norris since 1853, but on the 11th
July last, Mr. Law, banker of Preston, went to the mill
and seized the machinery and the whole of the goods in
proceis of manufacture, and sold them. The circum •
stances which led to this proceeding were as follows :
The mill was some years ago in the possession of a
gentleman named Walsh, who became indebted to
Messrs. Low and Law, cotton brokers of Manchester,
and mortgaged to them all the machinery in it, as
security for a floating debt of £15,000. That was in
1847, and in the following year Messrs. Low and Law
becoming indebted to their bankers at Manchester, the
National and to Provincial Bank, assigned to them, by way
of security, and with the concurrence of Walsh, the
security they had received from him. The effect of
that was to put the bankers in the position of
Messrs. Low and Law, in regard to the mill. In 1851, a
further deed was made, and the effect of it wa; to cover
new machinery, which was introduced between 1847 and
that period. In 1853, Mr. Low, one of the partners of the
firm of Low and Law, died, and appointed Mr. Wright his
executor. That brought Mr. Wright about the mill, and
in 1853 an arrangement was made by which Mr. Walsh,
who had the equity of redemption, was released by all
parties from his debt, and an assignment was made to Mr.
Wright, subject to the mortgage on the machinery. In
the month of May, 1855, the National and Provincial
Bank were creditors of Low and Law to the amount of
£9,900, and they having made application for payment,
the defendant, Mr. Law, banker, of Preston, came forward
and paid off the debt, and took the mortgage on the mill
as security, Mr. Wright being a party to the transaction.
Mr. Law was also a creditor of Low and Law, for an
additional sum of £5,000, and this was also covered by
security on the machinery. These sums being thus due to
Mr. Law, he, as above stated, on the 11th July last, seized
the machinery and goods; and the assigness of Mr. Wright
now brought the present action to recover the value of
this property, which they alleged was improperly seized.
These facts were not disputed, and the question at
issue was as to the amount of the property covered by
the security, and also the extent of Mr. Wright's debt to

Mr. Law. After the case had proceeded some time, it
was agreed to take a verdict for the plaintiff,, subject to
a special case.
IRVING V. THE SOUTH EASTERN RAILW COMPANY.—
Mr. Hill, Q.C., with Mr, Wheeler and Mr. Kai a, appeared
for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Wilde, Q.C., for the (lc fen d ants.
This was an action brog_ght by Mrs. ill try Ana Irving,
pawnbroker, of 11,1:inche,ster, to recover from the
defendants three half yearly dividends upon £1,200 stack
in that company which belonged to her. She became
possessed of the stock in 1853, in three different sums ;
and when in the spring of 1854 the first half yearly
dividend arose, she had some difficulty in getting it, as she
was differently described in regard to the different
portions of the stock. The matter was, however,
explained ; and in May, 1834, on the application of Mr.
Finnay, broker, of Manchester, she was described in the
company's books as Mary Ann Irving, of 198, Stretford
row, Manchester. When the next dividend became due
in 1854, it was paid without objection. There was
another dividend due in March, 1855 ; another
in August, 1855 ; and another in February, 1856,
in all £59 5s 63, and these the company refused to pay,
on the ground that Mrs. Irving had transferred, and that the
transfer was attested by a stockbroker in Manchester, of the
name of David Falkner. Mrs. Irving denied having ever
made such a transfer, and brought the present action to recover
the amount of the dividends in question. The defence was
that Mrs. Irving agreed to a sale of the shares in contango,
and that the present action -was an attempt to upset that
agreement, and to got the shares back into her own hands.
The case had not concluded on the rising of the Court at
halfpast six o'clock,

CHESTER SPRING ASSIZES.

THE HUNDRED Or WIRRALL WAPENTARE COURT.
BUSHELL V. NORMAN.—A c :se which has already appeared
in the papers, and obtained some notoriety, came before
Mr. Baron Bramwell. in the Nisi Pins Court, at Chester,
yesterday. Mr. Washy and Mr. Brandt appeared for the
plaintiff, Mr. Christopher Bushell of this town ; and Mr.
Giffard for the defendant. Mr. Welsby, in opening the case,
said that the plaintiff in this action, Mr. Christopher
Bushell was a merchant residing in the town of
Liverpool, and the defendant, Normae, was a person who
dealt in stone, and resided near Neston. The
present action had arisen in this way. Norman,
the defendant, brought an action of trespass
against Mr. Bushell and Mr. Bennett, in what was known
as the• Wapentake Court, which the legislature had
thought proper very recently to extinguish. The pro.
ceedings in this court were carried on on a very curious
manner, some evidence of which they had already had in
what took place in a trial in the other court. The steward
of this court would be called, before them, and the jury
would then have an opportunity of acquainting them.
selves with the proceedings which had led to the present
action. The learned counsel here proceeded to detail
the particulars of the action brought against the
present plaintiff and Mr. Bennett, in the Wapentake
Court, in June last. On the 23rd of June, there was
issued an interlocutory judgment. The mode of getting
a judgment in this court was very peculiar. It was
effected before a declaration, and a man from the court
at once goes and puts his han's on any goods and chat.
tels which he could get. In the case against the present
plaintiff the sum of £1 19s 11d was adju.iged, which,
together with expenses, amounted to £4 18s ; and
upon this a writ of execution was issued, returnable on
the 28th of July. After this a writ of accedes adcudiam
was taken out by Mr. Bushell, and served upon Mr.
Grace, the steward of the Wapentake Court- But
Mr. Grace, for reasons well known to himself, treated
this writ of accedes adosdiam with contempt ; and the
proceedings in the Wapentake court went on, and Nor-
man himself, the defendant, got a writ of execution
issued against Mr Bushell. Norman, therefore, was liable
for what subsequently took place, and no one else. As he had
already told them, the writ of execution was returnable on
the 28th of July, but before daybreak on:the 29th, a number
of people went and entered upon a field in the possession of
Mr. Bushell, which was called " Bloody Hill Field," in
which field there-was a horse worth £.50. Teat horse was
seized, taken away , and sold ; and up to the present time
Mr Bushell had never got the horse back again. The
learned gentleman then detailed the different pleas put in
by the defendant, which, he said, were curious enough.
The defendant pleaded that he had got a judgment in the
Wapentake Court by the usual process of that court;
but the truth was that that court was, at the tine,
abolished by the County Courts Act of the 28 b of July.
The defendant said the acti el was not pending, isut had
determined before the County Courts Act passed. He
(Mr. Welsby), however, contended that the action was
then pending. The action against the present plaintiff
was, at the very time, pending; but the County
Courts Act came into actual effect on the 29th of July,
and on the morning of that day, at three o'clock, the
plaintiff's horse was seized. The county court was
effective on the 29th of July, and:on the morning of that
day the execution from the Wapentake court was executed ;
and on the 6th of August the return to the writ was made.
The Judge.—Mr Giffard is there any dispute about the
facts? Mr Giffard : No, my lord, I
,will admit the facts.
Mr Christopher Bushell examined by Mr. Welsby—l
atn the plaintiff in this action. In July last I missed a
horse of mine that was in the Bloodhill field, at least my
servant missed it. On the 29th of July last, I went
to Tranmere and saw it. The horse was a va'uable one,
at the time he was stolen. I would not have taken any
money for him ; indeed I did not want to sell him. I
gave for him, at Lucas's, when he was out of condition,
At the time he was taken he was worth between
£4O and £5O. Mr. Robert Grace examined by Mr.
Welsby : I was the steware of the NV, port ;:ske Court of the
Hundred of Wirrall, and kept -the hooks of the court
in the plaint entry against Mr. Bushell and Mr. Bennett.
It was issued by Mr. No:man in person. Ha had no
attorney at the time. The declaration was filed on the 27th
of May, and judgment was signet on the 231 of June.
That is an interlocutory judgment. After that the
defendant applied to me for a suhpeena in the fora:
of a notice to serve a writ of enquiry. The
writ of enquiry was executed on the 24th of July. Nor-
man appeared and gave evidence. The execution was
issued on the 21st of July, at the instance of Norman. It
was delivered to Thomas Meek. I cannot ex ictly tell when
the warrant was returned to me, but it was some-
time in August. I have said I issued the writ
at the instance of Normin. 1 believe he came
to me to desire me to issue it. I should not
have issued the writ unless the attorney or some other
party came to me. He made some complaints to me about
the proceedings not going on fast enough, and I rather
hesitated. Mr. Welsby : Yes, I believe you said to
him, (4 Where be your knights of the shire ?"
(Laughter.) Witness : I believe I did. His Lord-
ship here desired to see the writ of execution
attached to the court, understanding that it was a curious
document. Whilst his lordship was reading a particular
portion of it, Mr. Grace observed : That is merely
recording a fiction, your lordship. (Loud laughter.)
His Lordship : Of course, so it would seem. (Laughter.)
Thomas Meek, examined by Mr. Brandt : I was one of the
bailiffs of the late Court of the Hundred of Wirral].
I received the warrant mentioned by the last witness
on the 28th of July, and I executed it on the morning
of the 29th of the same month. Before doing so I saw
the defendant; Norman, and he asked me if I had not
been down to Neston, to Mr. Bushell's, to make
a seizure, - I went to Neston, and made a seizure of a grey
horse, and brought it to Fernihalgh's Hotel, at Tranmere.
It was afterwards sold, on the sth of August, and on the
6th of August the writ was returned, that was,
the day following the sale. I saw the defendant
after the sale, and he asked me if the horse
was sold and the money returned. I said, " Yes."
Mr. Welsby: What time of the day do you say it was
when you made this se:zure ? Witness :It was about
three o'clock in the morning. Mr. Welsby : Did yoU
give the plaintiff any kind of notice when you seized the
horse. Witness: Yes, I chalked on the gate that I had
seized him under a warrant from the Wapentake Court,
and taken him down to Tranmere. (Loud laughter.) The
Judge . I think you may well call it a Wappingtake Court.
(Renewed lauebter.) This being the case on the part of
the plaintiff, Mr. Giffard contended that there was no
c_se to go to the jury. Mr. Welsby, ou the other hand,
urged that the whole proceeding was illegal, The judge
said he expressed no opinion, but it might turn out to
be only a lawful act at the time, unless Mr. Welsby could
show an actual complicity in the wrong of the
sheriff. In the course of further discussion, Mr.
Giffard said that, upon the facts before the court, he was
entitled to a verdict, because at the time the act of
parliament (the County Court Act) became law, this
action was not pending. Ultimately a verdict was
taken for the plaintiff for £4O nominally, with leave to
enter a verdict for the defendant on the decision of the
superior court.

THE LATE GARROTTE ROBBERY AT ROCK FERRY.—
Thomas Begley was placed at the bar, charged with a
robbery with violence, on the person of Mr.
Henry Saxby. Mr. M'lntyre prosecuted, and Mr.
Giford defended the prisoner. The particulars of
the case will, no doubt, be still in the recollection of
our readers, as at the time we not only gave the particulars
of the statement mule by Mr. Saxby of what occurred at
the time of the alleged robbery, but we also gave the
evidence taken before the magistrate at Birkenhead at the
time the prisoner was committed for trial. Mr. S:aby,
upon being now called into the witness box, again gave his
version of the aff.ir, though it was noticed that while doing
so, he did it with apparent hesitation and doubt. The
evidence of the police in the case went to show that the
prisoner had not been seen to go in and out of his house foe