The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-01 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—LivERPooL, March 30,
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Hill.)
ALLEGED FROGERY AT SALFORD.

Henry Blore, 27, and Ann Pimblott, 24, were
indicted on a charge of having forged a promissory
note and put off the same, with intent to defraud.
Mr. Higgins prosecuted ; Mr. Scott appeared for
Pimblott.
The prisoner Pimblott had gone to the office of one
Beech, a money lender in Salford, to ask for a loan of
£6 to a person named John Heald, whose address
she professed to give. The person calling to make
the usual inquiry at this address found Pimblott
there, and she represented herself as Mrs. Heald.
Beech agreed to lend the money, and the parties
professing to be sureties (amongst whom was to be
one James Wright) attended at his office, May 15,
1860. The prisoner Blore was there, and signed
his " mark" as James Wright, saying that the
money 'was to be paid over to his " wife, ' pointing
to the real Mrs. Wright, who was present, and
received the money. Heald was never seen in the
transaction by Beech, and had no knowledge of it.
After some of the repayments had been made, Heald
died, end Beech hearing of this, inquired about the
sureties, and learnt from the real James Wright that
some person had falsely represented him. The
prisoners were apprehended in September, Mrs.
Wright being also taken into custody, but after-
wards released in order to establish the case against
the other prisoners.
His Lordship ruled that there was no proof of
forgery against Pimblott, and she was discharged.
On behalf of Blore it was elicited that Mrs.
Wright had told him her husband knew what he
was doing before he represented himself as James
Wright, and that all he received was ls.
The ddtective officer in the case also gave him a
good character, and
The jury acquitted him.
STABBING IN A PUBLIC-HOUSE.
Peter Robertson, 20, was charged with having
stabbed another youth, named Joseph Howard, at
midnight, on the sth of March, after they had been
quarrelling at a public-house in Knotty Ash, near
Liverpool.
Mr. Conway prosecuted ; Mr. Little appeared for
the prisoner.
Verdict—Not guilty.
Sentences.—The following were sentenced to-
day:—Mary Heenan, manslaughter of Mary Asplin
at Liverpool, three months with hard labour.
Catherine Molloy, several times convicted of bur-
glary, three years' penal servitude. Albert Latham,
pleaded guilty to charges of burglary, four years'
penal servitude. Mary Burns, several times con-
victed of uttering base coin at Liverpool, four
years' penal servitude. Margaret Roberts and
Elizabeth Wood, concealment of birth, three
months, with hard labour. John Malone, convicted
of burglary, three months, Charles Franklin
Barlow, uttering forged Bank of England notes at
Manchester, eight years' penal servitude. William
Bent, convicted of burglary at a Liverpool bullion
office, seven years' penal servitude. William Halli-
well, indecent assault, three months' hard labour.
John M•Farlane, burglary and housebreaking, 12
months with hard labour. James Sirniron, who had
pleaded guilty to uttering a forged bank cheque at
Manchester, pleaded that it was hi 3 first offence, and
that he was bordering on desperation when he
committed the crime, at the sufferings of his wife
and children, whom he was totally unable to pro-
vide for, having been out of a situation for upwards
of seven months. His lordship said he had reason
to believe the prisoner's statement, and passed the
comparatively light sentence of nine months'
imprisonment.

GAROTTING AT OLDHAM.
Henry Thompson, 27, and Richard Chisnall, 30,
were indicted on a charge of having, at Oldham, on
the 12th day of March, 1861, assaulted William
Elliot, putting him to bodily fear and danger of
his life, and with violence stealing 30s. of his
monies.

Mr. Cottingham prosecuted, and Mr. Scott
defended the prisoner.
On the night in question, the prosecutor and
prisoners had been drinking at a public-house, and
Elliot left somewhat bewildered. lie went into an
entry close by for the purposes of nature, and
while there had his money in his hand. He was
dragged out by two men whom he believed to be
the prisoners, and being throttled he soon became
insensible. The prisoners were seen in the neigh-
bourhood by various parties, and when apprehended
a purse, a pocket-handerchief, and pieces of money
similar to those stolen from Elliot were found upon
them.

The prisoners were found guilty, and Chisnall
was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude and
Thompson to three years.

FORGERY BY SEAMEN.
James M'Kee, 27, and George Dickson, 17, both
sailors, were charged with uttering a forged ship-
ping note at Liverpool. They induced Mr. James,
keeper of a spirit vaults in Norfolk street, near the
docks, to advance £2 on a document in the form of
a wages-advance note, purporting to be signed by
Thomas Williams, master of the Imogene, lying in
the Prince's dock. The signature was discovered
to be forged, and the prisoners taken into custody.
They were found guilty, and sentenced, M'Kee
to fifteen months, and Dickson to twelve months'
hard labour.

RECEIVING STOLEN NOTES.
Ellen Elkinson, a good-looking, well dressed.
young woman, of 23, was indicted on a charge of
feloniously received three Bank of England
notes knowing them to have been stolen. In the
latter part of February, a cash-box containing about
£4O or £5O was stolen from a public-house in Old.
ham, and oil the Ist March the prisoner offered three
Bank of England notes said to be part of the'property
stolen, at a tea-dealer and money-changer's, at Old-
ham, who hesitated to receive them. She asked if
they were bad, but he replied that he found by his
notice books that they were part of stolen property,
and expressed a hope that she had received them from
some respectable person. She said she had received
them from Mr. Geo, Woolley, waste dealer, Staley-
bridge. The only person to whom such a descrip-
tion would apply was Mr. John Woolley, of Staley-
bridge, but on being confronted with that person
the prisoner said he was not the man she meant,
but "Mr. Woolley, the chief backer of the Staley-
bridge Infant." It so happens, however, that Mr.
Woolley of whom she disclaimed all knowledge, is
the person who enjoys the distinction in the sport-
ing world, Prisoner said she had been living with
a person who represented himself as Mr. Woolley.
She came from London with him.
Mr. Higgins prosecuted, and Mr. Samuel Pope,
who defended the prisoner, urged that if the pri•
soner had known the notes were stolen, a money
changer would have been the last person whom she
would have asked to change them.
Verdict—Not Guilty.
There was some applause on the delivery of the
verdict.

SECOND COURT.'
(Before Mr. Bliss, Q C., and Attorney-General.)
RADCLIFFE V. BENTLEY.-BREACH OF PROMISE OF

MARRIAGE.
The plaintiff sought to recover damages for the
breach of an alleged promise of marriage.
The defendant simply denied the promise.
Mr. Pope was for the plaintiff; Mr. Monk,
Q.C., for the defendant.
In opening thecase Mr. Pope said that the plain-
tiff, Elizabeth Radcliffe, was a young woman of
humble parentage, her father having been for some
time a skilled mechanic, in the employ of Messrs.
Musgrave, keepers of a foundry at Bolton. When
the plaintiff was about 16 years of age she went
into domestic service at the Globe Inn, Farn worth,
near Bolton. The defendant, Isaac BeLtley, is a
keeper of the Cross Guns public-house at the same
place, and it v7ould be proved that he was a man
of considerable substance, he being the owner of
some realised property. Some time ago there was a
vacancy in the defendant's public-house, and the
plaintiff, accompanied by her mother, applied for
the situation. She had been known to the defendant
while she was at the Globe, and an arrangement
was made by which she entered into his service.
Although considerable difficulty arose in these cases
in proving the promise to marry, he believed he
would be enabled to show that not only were there
circumstances from which they might infer such a
was made, but that there were circum-
stanceswhich had arisen to show, on the defendant's.
w mission, that he had entered into a distinct
poprroonmniiaise of marriage, and under that promise bad
effected the girl's ruin, she being now a mother by
him. When she discovered her state she did the

most natural thing for a girl in her position to do
—she explained to her mother the whole matter.
The mother then went to Bentley and asked what
he was going to do.' She said he had effected her
ruin under a promise of marriage, and although he
did not deny the statement, he made an excuse for
its performance by saying she was too young, and
tbrkt he c 01,14 re,t rnF:rtry her. The defendant had
also made ineseots to the girl in contemplati n of
marriage; but he had since been married to another
woman ; and the question for the jury would be, he
thought, simply the amount of compensation to
which she was entitled.

James Radcliffe, plaintiff's father, said he worked
at Messrs. Musgrave's foundry, at Bolton, and de-
fendant kept the Cross Guns public-house at Farn-
worth. When she 16 years of age she went into
service at the Globe, and after being there about 6
months she went to the defendant's place. About
two years ago witness was about to leave Bolton
for Liverpool, and told defendant his daughter would
have to go with them. Defendant said it would put
him very much about :f she left, and witness replied
that he could easily get another servant. He said
she was a very good servant, that he liked her very
well, and that he could trust her with anything.
They did not go co Liverpool, and his daughter con-
tinued in defendant's service. When he went to the
place he saw that he always treated her very well.
In cross-examination by Mr. Monk the witness
said that when his daughter wasl3 years of age she
was a servant in Pease's liquor vaults in Liverpool ;
then she went to Leed's beerhonse at Birkenhead,
afterwards to the British Queen at Bolton, then to
the Globe at Farn worth, and last to the defendant's
house. The Cross Guns is a roadside public-house,
and much frequented by carters during the night
as well as day.
Elizabeth Radcliffe, plaintiff's mother, said that
after her daughter told her the condition she was in
she went to him, and asked what he was going to
do about the matter, to which he replied that he did
not know. The plaintiff had told her that the de
fendant had bought her a silk dress as a wedding
dress, and the defendant said as to the dress it cost
a good deal of money.
This being the whole of the evidence,
Mr. Monk submitted that there was no promise
proved, and that even if he did make the promise
there was nothing to show that the plaintiff agreed,
as the contract must be mutual.

His Lordship thought there was sufficCent evidence
upon which to allow the case to go to the jury.
Mr. Monk then addressed the jury on behalf of
the defendant, urging the most proper way to in-
vestigate the case would have been to affiliate the
child, in which both parties might be examined
upon oath, whereas in this inquiry neither could be
called. He pointed out the very uncertain nature
of the evidence adduced, contending that there was
no proof that the defendant had ever promised to
marry the girl, and dwelling upon the probably
conduct of a girl who had been engaged in such
occupations as those in which the plaintiff had beef
employed.
The learned Judge, in summing up the case.
observed that the question for their consideration
was whether the defendant had made a promise to
marry the plaintiff; and explained that whatever
might be their decision it did not affect the
right of the plaintiff to affiliate the child, if the de
fendant were liable to support it.
After a prolonged consultation out of court the
jury returned a verdict for the defendant.