Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-08-17 00:00:00

ievous

The prosecutor, a sailor, was leaving a dancing saloon
in Kent-street, in this town, on the night of the 14th
_May last, in company with some women and the pri-
soner. A quarrel took place, blows were struck, and,

in a strn .sued, the prisoner stabbed the
prosecutor in three different parts of the body. The
jury found the prisoner guilty of feloniously wounding,
with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Sentence
deferred.

.0e which e

lANSLAUGHTER OF A WI

iLFORD

Richard Brown, aged 59, was i

Salford, on ti
slain his
On the

wife, M

feloniou,

wife, threw her on the floc

She wa

aken to the. Manct

died in a few days, in conseqn,
had received. Verdict guilti
mendation to merci

strong recom-

NISI PRIUS COURT.

BEFORE MTh

BREACH OF CONTRA
e ninintiff in f:),;.

YESTERDAY

USTICE HILL.)

WRIGHT V. NAYLOR

Wright, and the defendant was a farmer named James
Naylor, who had been a tenant under the plaintiff on a
farm called Bromley Pool Farm, at Belmont, near
Bolton. The action was brought to recover compensa-
tion from the defendant, for an alleged breach of his
agreement as to the proper cultivation of his farm, and

..•, lILLLIALLIIg, All iv tale, lel. U., aria ..ur.
Millward appeared for -the plaintiff, and Mr. James
Fernely for the defendant.

The'learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that the
defendant became tenant of the farm in question in the
spring of 1858, at which time it was in thorough repair,
and there was a considerable quantity of manure upon
the laud; but instead of cultivating it in accordance
with the custom of the country, he had sold off the
whole of the produce, which had seriously deteriorated
the condition of the land, and he had also allowed the
out-buildings to become delapidated.
_ _

After the statement of the learned counsel. it was
agreed to enter a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to a
reference to a respectable farmer, who should inspect the

property

CLAIN' FOR PERSONAL INJURY

-WALWORTH V. BARTON

In this action the plaintiff was a poor woman, residing
in Ardwick, named Ann Walworth, and the defendant,
Thomas Barton, was a millowner, in Union-street,
Ardwick. The declaration alleged that, through the
negligence of the defendant's servant, a bag of waste
had been allowed to fall from one of the upper windows
of the defendant's mill upon the plaintiff, by which she
was very seriously injured, and for such injuries .she
sought compensation by the present action. Mr.
Wilde, Q.C., and Dr. Wheeler appeared as counsel for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Monk, Q.C., and Mr. Leresche for
the defendant. The plaintiff, it appeared, had for
upwards of twenty-seven years worked as a weaver at

UVIIIpJVIIJ 11111 l VBUXII.,4II'X .11.1111V1Ulf, 411 U upon LUC
6th of June last she was going to ,dinner to her own
house, in Smith-street. When passing by the defendant's
mill, there being at the time no inEeation of anything
being lowered, a large bale of waste fell upon her, from
the fourth story of the mill. She was knocked violently
against the wall, one of her aneles was dislocat(
bone in her neck was fractured, and she was of

heilvise

seriously injured. The poor woman had previously
been a superior mill hand, being able to superintend four
looms, and being enabled to earn, clear for herself,
eighteen shillings a week, with which she supported
herself and her mother. In consequence of her injuries
she was confined to her bed for a considerable time, and
was not only unable yet to resume her employment, but
was permanently injured to such an extent as to be
unfitted for the same employment as she had previously
followed. - The injury to her neck had rendered her
unable to straighten her head, unless when she was in a
lying positiOn. The bale, it was stated by a witness,
was being lowered by hand, and not by a teagle. Appli-'
cation had been made to the defendant for compensation;
but, though expressing his sorrow for the poor woman,
he asserted that the accident was not his fault, but that
of the engineer. Dr. Pennington, who was attending
to the woman, deposed to the injuries which she ha
received. On behalf of the defendant, it was contended
that be was in no respect respongible for the accident.
He had been in the habit of giving the waste, called
blowings, to a poor man named John Riley, the
engineer's brother, who had removed the waste with his
own assistance, and the defendant's servant had nothing
to do with it. He was doing so at the time of the
accident. Riley was called, and stated that, e the
time he was removing the waste, none of the defendant's
servants were on the premises. After this evidence, his
lordship directed the jury to find a verdict for the
defendant:'; but they assessed the damages at'*loo, and
leave was given to the plaintiff to move for that amount.

HOPKINS V. 'T

NET AND ANOTHER

In this action the plaintiff was Peter Hopkins, who
was an importer of German yeast, culling on business at
Kingston-upon Hull, and the defendant was a dealer in
yeast in this town. The action was brought to recover
the sum of £27 14s. 9d., 'the balance of an account for
yeast supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant. Mx
bigby Seymour appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr
Sowler for the defendant. As the case illy(

A matters

of account solely, it was
formally entered for the
hip that the accounts slit

a verdict should be

stiff, with ti

nderstand-

be referred to some corn