The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-19 00:00:00

TIIE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENIN(9-, AUGUST 19, 1844.

prisoner, contended that it was a thoughtless act, and
that the prisoner could not have anticipated what
could have been the result.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty of an assault.
—Sentence deferred.
James Brittain was indicted for stabbing Henry
Cotteral, at Wigan, in March last.
Mr. James conducted the prosecution.
It appeared that the parties were related to each
other, and resided in the same house at Wigan. On
the night of the 13th of March a quarrel occurred
between the prisoner and the prosecutor's father, in
the course of which the prisoner struck the old man,
who thereupon sent for the prosecutor, who was ab-
sent at the time. On his arrival he attacked the
prisoner, who snatched up a large knife which was
near, and inflicted a severe and dangerous wound on
the prosecutor. He was shortly after taken into
custody, and a knife which was found in the house,
likely to have been used on the occasion, was found
wet with blood.
The prisoner appeared to be a poor untrained, half-
witted person.
Guilty of a common assault.—Sentence deferred.
Patrick 111‘Crea was indicted for wounding Daniel
M'Avoy, at Rainhill, on the sth of August.
Mr. J. Pollock conducted the prosecution.
It appeared that on the evening of the offence the
prosecutor, who is a labourer, was standing at his
own door, when the prisoner came past. In con-
sequence of some old grievance they were not on
good terms, and the prisoner began using very abusive
language to the prosecutor. The prosecutor advised
him to go home, and he went some distance, when he
suddenly returned with a knife in his hand, and made
an attack on the prosecutor, in which the latter was
wounded severely on the temple, and one of his ears
nearly severed from his head. The prisoner was
shortly after apprehended, when he stated that he had
been struck by the prosecutor, and that drink had
bean the cause of the quarrel.
Guilty of an assault.—Sentence deferred.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice CRESSWELL.)
The first cause on the list was undefended. The
next four were actions by Sir Oswald Mosley, the
lord of the manor, and owner of the market of Man-
chester, against sundry butchers who persist in
selling flesh meat in shops in their own houses
instead of on the stalls of Sir Oswald in the public
market, thereby avoiding the espionage of the inspec-
tors of the market and the payment of Sir Oswald's
market tolls.

Mr. Wortley, Mr. Brandt, and Mr. Denman ap-
peared for the plaintiff; the several defendants ap-
peared in person.
The proof was the same in each of the cases—
namely, that plaintiff was the owner of the market,
with the right to take tolls, and the selling by the
defendants in places out of the market.
In each case a verdict was returned for the plaintiff,
with small damages.
Similar actlqns have been frequently tried before
for infringemerfts of these market rights.

COOKE V. REDDILLION.
This was an action to recover the price of 600 pieces
of mousselin-de-laine, delivered by the plaintiff to
the defendant.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Crompton conducted the case
of the plaintiff, and Mr. Watson and Mr. Atherton

that of defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff, who is a manufac-
turer, had contracted to supply the defendant with a
certain number of pieces of mousselin-de-laine, to be
delivered within a certain time, to be paid for in cash,
with a discount of 2i per cent. for the ready money.
About 1,600 pieces were delivered and paid for; but
it was alleged that those now in question were not de-
livered in time, nor were of sufficiently good quality;
yet the defendant, alleging that he was in immediate
want of the goods to supply his customers, retained
them, and did not send them back. The cause occu-
pied the remainder of the day. A verdict was ulti-
mately returned for the plaintiff for 3301., being the
full amount claimed, after deducting a discount of 2,1
per cent.

Saturday, Aug. 17.
DON, DIM. BATEMAN AND ANOTHER, V. LEVER AND

♦NOTHER.

This was an actionOlejectment, to recover the
possession of a warehouse between Crow-alley and
Bank-street, facing Walker-street, in Manchester.
Ifr. Martin and Mr. Cowling conducted the case
of the plaintiff. The defendant Lever and his wife
and the other defendant :(who said she was no more
than their servant) appeared in person, and way was
made for them on the floor of the court.

It appeared from the evidence that the property
had formerly belonged to a Mr. Clegg, who was one
of the early and successful race of cotton-spinners,
and who amassed a large fortune in that business.
He purchased the property in 1787, and built the
warehouse in question upon it. He died in 1818,
having devised the property to the present plaintiffs,
and Mr. Thomas Wilson, late of Highbury, near
Lslington,, London, -who having died about a year
ago, the property vested in the plaintiffs, as
trustees of Mr. Clegg's will. Last year the property
was untenanted, and a lock was put on the warehouse
door. The defendants broke off the lock, took pos-
session, and barricadoed themselves in, pretendsng
that they had a claim to the property, as the heirs of
a Mr. Hamilton, who died some 70 years ago. The
case was proved on the part of the plaintiffs, and the
receipts of the rentstand profits of them for a series of
years.
During the case of the plaintiff only a few ques-
tions were asked, but on the defendant Lever being
told that he might now address himself to the jury,
said his wife would state his case.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL said he could not allow
that. If he appeared in person, he must speak for
himself. He might have counsel if he chose to em-
ploy one, but his wife could not be counsel for him.
The lady, however, armed with a long paper, would
not so be silenced, and proceeded in her harangue.
The Judge for some time used his endeavour to in-
duce he
purpose, and it soon be-
came shortest way was to let her
ervitaeo
ndtesist,
thatbtuhte to no
have her say. The substance of her harangue was,
that her husband was the real heir to the property,
and that they had been sold for gold.
His LORDSHIP directed the jury to enter a verdict
for the plaintiffs. This being done, he proceeded to
explain to the defendant Lever that he had no defence
to the action, and that if there had been no other bar,
the lapse of time since 1787 would effectually prevent
him from defending the action.
The lady again broke in, and it was only by di-
recting the next cause to be called on that her ha-
rangue was put an end to.

SANDFORD V. JACKSON.

This was an action of troverto—reCOver the value of
a parrot and cage.
Mr. Atherton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Brandt for the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff is a widow lady of a
certain age. She had a brother who first owned the
parrot, and she, it was alleged, purchased Poll and
the cage of him for 51. 10s., a receipt for which sum
was produced. It was admitted, however, that no
money actually passed, the brother being at the time
indebted to the plaintiff in a larger sum. Some time
afterwards a sister of the plaintiff, who resided with
her, fell ill, and could not bear the noise of the bird,
on which account Poll and the cage was sent back to
the brother's for a while. The brother, then being
in difficulties, said he feared if it remained in his
house his creditors would take it, sent it to the de-
fendant's. The occasion of its removal being passed
over, the plaintiff was desirous to reclaim her favourite
bird, and sent to the defendant for it, who refused to
deliver it up, alleging that it belonged to the brother,
and had passed to his assignees ; on which the pre-
sent 'action was brought. It had, however, been
allowed to slumber, and would no doubt have been
dropped altogether, had not the defendant compelled
the plaintiff to proceed with it ; the consequence of
which was a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 51. 10s.
CROWN SlDE.—(Before the LORD CHIEF BARON.)
Joseph Farrell was indicted for the manslaughter of
Amelia Farrell, his wife, at Manchester, on the 31st
of July last.
Mr. F. Pollock conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
Wilkins the defence.
It appeared from the evidence, that on the day
named in the indictment, which was a Sunday, the
prisoner came home to his dinner at a later hour than
usual, at which the deceased expressed her displea-
sure, and accused him of having been 'in the com-
pany of another woman, to whom she applied a
variety of epithets current on such occasions. He
assured her it was not so, and begged her not to use
such language, especially in the presence of " Em-
ma," his daughter by a former wife, She, however,
called him a liar, and continued her vituperations,
when at length he was so much provoked that he
threw some boiled potatoes at her, and as she still con-
tinued, he struck her with the back of his hand once on
the eye, and once on the mouth. She did not fhll
immediately, but after a little time appeared to slip
down beside the wall, when it was found that her nose
was bleeding. The child cried out, and some neigh-
bours ran in. The deceased said " This is hard
usage," to which the prisoner replied , " Then you
should have held your tongue." She walked with
help to a neighbour's house, and the next day kept
her bed, but so far recoved as to go about the house,
complaining of giddiness in the head. On the 7th of
August she got worse, and a medical man
tewasm sent
for. She soon after died. On apt -
amination it was cliscoved that there was considerable
extravasation of blood on the left side of the brain,
which at that time adhered to the skull, and appeared
to be of several days' standing.
It appeared on cross-examination, that before the
31st of July she had complained of her head, and said
she should not long survive her sister, who had died
of apoplexy about a month before.
Mr. WiLitiris addressed the jury for the prisoner,
and contended that the death might have been caused
tbhy, apoplexy,
prizo4er
Theafter deliberating for some time, found
Ganuild b y
.e the
ute nbclerowdeftreorm prisoner.
adth :
jury,