Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-08-13 00:00:00

MINT CASES.

James Co an, 54, way charged with haying, at Liver-
pool, on the 21st June last, unlawfully uttered two counter-
feit half-crOwns: This was the second offence. Verdict, guilty.
Sentence deferred.—Mary Whelan, alias Vary Delany, 37,
was charged ..with having, at Liverpool, ou the 23rd April
last, uttered three counterfeit 'shillings. The prisoner had
been previously coEvicted. Sentence deferred.—John Wil-
Dixon, 28; were indicted for uttering a
1, on the sth

hilling to Ellen Foul(
The prisoner Dixon 'cross-examined the wit
efended himself with great ability. • Verdicts

riilty. Both prisoners were old offenders
reired.

utences d

The court rose at a quarter to six o'elo,

NISI PRIUS COURT

Justice HILL.]

His lordship entered th

la a few minutes after nin

ACTION :FOB. ASSAULT BY A -ROCHDALE COTTON SPLNN

—DAmEr. .v. .PILLiNo.---The plaintiff in this action, who
resides at Rochdale, is a retired, cotton spinner,, and has filled
everal public offices in .that town, and who is now a poor,
The defendant also resides in -Rochdale.

law guardian

Mr. bverend, Q.C„ and 'Mr. Melhuish appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Monk, Q.C., for the defendant. The
learned counsel for the plaintiff said that, if he was rightly
instructed, an exceedingly violent assault had been com-
mitted by the defendant upon the plaintiff, who was a

gentleman ,of .very considerable position in the town. of
Rochdale. The plaintiff was about fifty-five years of age, and
had filled the office - of commissioner, and several- ether
similar offices, and . was, now a poor-law ~,,ruardian. The
defendant is also a. resident in Rochdale, and at present is a
cotton spinner. On Thursday, the 21st of April, the plain-
tiff met with a person named Quail, with whom he had
previously consulted about some alterations in his house.

Mr. Quail sug,gested that they should gointo an adjoining
public-house, and they accordingly went into the Brick-
layers' Arms. After plaintiff and Mr. Quail had been for
some time discussing their own private affairs, a J 34(
named Metcalf, another man named Brierly, the
Pilling, and some other persons, came into the 1

;e, and

shortly began to iinterfere with the private conversation
that was going forward between plaintiff and Arr.
Quail. . Brierley first commenced the interference,
and asked the plaintiff if the guardians had not
that day been voting £lO away. Plaintiff replied
that they had been voting £lO to the clerk. Brierly then
told plaintiff that he was to have some of it. The defendant
and Briefly, followed up this with insulting plaintiff by a
variety of imputations. Pining . charged him with being
there with two others as .spies of Mr. Cobden. This went
on until about half-past eleven o'clock in the evening, when
the defendant came up to plaintiff, who was sitting in a
rocking-chair, and struck him several severe blows in the
face, when he was sitting in the chair in a defenceless
position. The plaintiff never resisted the blows ; and,
indeed, after the first or second. blow, it was impossible, for
. .

came to himself he found that his vision was considerilly
impaired. It was a totally unprovoked assault; and, itMe
facts were proved by the witnesses, it would be a case ,for
very considerable damages.—John Punier, the plaintiff, was
examined by Mr. Meihuish, and deposed to the main facts

stated by counsel. He added that, whilst at the Bricklayers'
Arms, the defendant remarked to him that he would vote
any way that the town's bully would vote. , Witness said
he (lid not know who the town's bully was, and he said it
was Mr. Livesey.—Cross-examiued by Mr Ilc,nk, Q.O. .
There had be'n an (Ammon of guardians in Rochdale the
wcyk before the occurrence. -Was not aware that political
feeling rau higher in Rochdale than in other places. It
might be so •at that time. There were two candidates
at the general election, Mr. Cobden and Sir Alexander
Ramsay. Sir Alexander Ramsay was, the Conservative
candidate. "Witness belonged to the, Liberal party, and
so did the clerk to the guardians. Was not aware that
the voting of £lO to the clerk caused much discussion
in Rochdale. He did not hear any discussion about
it at the Bricklayers' Arms. Was not aware that the town

ferriiig to it exposed in the Bricklayers' Arms. Would not
swear -that, there was not one. If witness called defendent
a d d puppy, it was because defendant called him.a
d d scamp. He never said to defendant that if he was
a few years younger he would give him a d d good

to defendant that his factory chinniey leaned towards the
bank. lle did not mean to insinuate by that that it ww
pledged to the bank. Could not tell what he meant by it.
They were rating him so that .he said things which he
should never have thought of.—Mr. Quail was next ex-
amined, and corroborated the plaintiff's statement.—Mr.
Monk, Q.C., addressed the jury on behalf of the defendant,
and urged that the plaintiff had provoked the attack, by
going to a public-house which it was well known was in the
interest of the opposite party in politics to that to which he
belonged, and that his insulting insinuations respecting the

fendaiit's factory chimney caused the defendant to strikc
m.: He (the learned counsel) believed that the
,jury would

tie plaintif
iool a

deserved.—Mr. Pitts, schoolmaster of the national
Rochdale, Mr. Brierley, and some other witnesses, who were
present at the Bricklayers' Arms on the evening in question,

were called, and deposed to a number of insulting references
made by the plaintiff to the• defendant and his family.
The witness "Brierley stated that the defendant was obliged
to vote, and he was directed by Mr. Fenton, the banker.

Mr. Pilling, the defendant, was also called, and stated
the plaintiff told him on the evening in question tha

father and his uncles had always b-een obliged to vote a
Mr. Fenton told them, and so was he. Witness denied:it

and asked the defendant to let the dead rest. Plaintiff then
said that he owed the bank money, and that he had it from
good authority. Witness asked him to repeat it, which he
did, and a scuffle took place between them, when he struck
the plaintiff. He did not strike him more than twice. The
plaintiff was not sat down in the chair when he struck him.
The plaintiff was very insulting to several persons present.
He-said to Brierley, " You arc like to vote as Tom Livesey
tells you." His lordship very briefly summed up, remarking
that he would only say that the facts proved reflected credit

defendant struck the first blow, they would give the plain-
tiff such damages as. they might think him entitled to. The
jury found a verdict for the plaintiff'—damages, 40s. and

Costs. His lordship hereupon said : Your :Verdict_ is for
forty shillings damages; the law awards the costs. A
juror said : The aim of the jury was to give the largest
ainatint of damages that Would carry costs. His lordship
said, the jury must give such damages as they thought the
plaintiff was reasonably entitled to. The law awarded the
costs in certain cases, and according to certain rules, with
which the jury had nothing to do.. All they had to do was
with the damages. Did they think that forty shillings was
a reasonable compensation to the plaintiff for the injuries he
had endured at the hands of the defendant ? The jury.

after a few moments consultation, returned a verdict for the
--r,
plaintiff—damages, forty shillings.
GLOYN V. HORWITZ AND ANOTHER.--ThiS was an action
for an alleged breach of contract ocr the part of the defen-
dants, who are Russian merchants, having a place of busi-
ness. at Manchester. The plaintiffs are manufacturers; also
residing at Manchester, and the action was brought to
recover the price of a quantity of goods sold to the ,defen-
dants by the plaintiffs, and also for damages for a breach of
contract. The case was an intricate one; bat, except to the
parties concerned, did not present any feature of interest.
Ultimately a verdict by coma Nns taken for the plaintiff
for £275.