The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-04-02 00:00:00

as to constitute, according to statute, the offence charged in
the indictment.

The jury, after examining the pistol, (a clumsy instrument
in bad order) consulted for a few minutes, and returned a
verdict of not guilty, on the ground that it did not appear
to be proved that the pistol had been primed:
Mr. MURPHY applied to the court to allow the prisoner to
be discharged..
His LORDRHIP.—She had better be detained until the
grand jury are discharged.
James Shaw, 23, James Taylor, 24, Thomas Greenwood,
alias Hartley, 27, and Thomas Hulme, 28, stood indicted for
a burglary in the house of Joseph Saville Roberts Evans, at
Ashton-under-Lyne ; also, with the exception of the last pri-
soner, with another burglary.
Michael Doyle, 22, who was charged with having, at Ash-
ton-under-Line, in September last, felonously assaulted one
Patrick Denally, and stolen from his person, one hat, and one
pair of shoes—was brought to the bar to hear an affidavit
read, on which it was intended to postpone his trial. The
affidavit was to the effect, that a principal witness was de-
terred from coming up to- give evidence by threats from
friends of the prisoner—that if he appeared, they would take
his life. His Lordship ordered the prisoner to be remanded
until next assizes.

John Tudye, 24, was indicted for having, at Ashton-under-
Lyne, feloniously maimed and wounded a cow, the property
of Joseph Taylor. The females were ordered out of the
court. The case was distinctly proved against the prisoner,
and was one of extreme brutality, but of which the details
are wholly unfit for publication. He was found guilty. His
Lordship, in passing sentence, remarked, that he•had never
heard a case, more brutal and inhuman, or with a purpose
more cruel and vindictive. He might transport the prisoner
for life, and should certainly pronounce upon him such a
time of transportation as would secure his being sent to New
South Wales, where lie would be kept to hard labour on the
roads, as a second-class convict ; and from this condition,
he would not be returned, whatever his conduct, under six
years. The sentence of the court was, that he be transported
for ten years.

Thonias Higgins, 27, was charged with having, at Heaton
Norris, feloniously, unlawfully, and carnally known Ellen
Maria Walker, an infant of little more than' four years old.
The trial occupied a considerable time. The testimony of
the child was not, of course, taken. Dr. Brown conducted
the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins defended the prisoner.
The jury found the prisoner not guilty of the capital offence,
and he was then again placed at the bar to be tried for the
misdemeanour; but the new indictment was framed to meet
only the assault, upon which he would have again been ac-
quitted. The prisoner was-then hound over to appear to
another indictment, at the June Salford sessions, himself in
.£lOO and two sureties in .£lOO each. Attie witiiiisses were
also bound over to appear jefilo each.
The court then adjourneeT,Nrnine o'clock this day.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—MONDAY.
Baron Alderson took his seat on the bench a few minutes
after nine o'clock.
JOSEPH PARKER V. SHOMAS WHARF.

This was an action of trover to recover property that had
been put into the possession of the defendant, by his brother
Richard Wharf, who is an insolvent, and had assigned his
property to the plaintiff. The declaration contained three
counts, to which the defendant put in three pleas—first, he
denies the conversion of the property to his own use :
secondly, denied that the property was the insolvents ; and
thirdly, that the assignee had any right to its possession.
From the statement of the Counsel for the plaintiff, it ap-
peared that the plaintiff was the assignee of the insolvent
Richard, the brother of the defendant. Richard was a
farmer. The defendant is a butcher, in Manchester, and has
a residence near Halesbarn, Cheshire, within nine miles of
Manchester. The property iu question was taken to the de-
fendant's house in 1838. The defendant is a widower, and
has a son called Richard. The property now sought to be
recovered, consisted of silver plate, a tankard, eup, and other
articles, and was put up by order of the insolvent's nephew,
Richard, and was subsequently carried off to the defendant's
house. This occurred in August 1837, and in February 1838
the insolvent was arrested in execution, and afterwards he
petitioned the Insolvent Court for his discharge, previous to
which he assigned hig property to the plaintifi. The defend-
ant did not obtain his discharge, and he is now in Lancaster
Castle. Parker sent to the defendant for the property, and
be promised to send it at one time, and again he said he had
it not in his possession. Mr. Parker said if he did not send
it by a certain time, he would consider it as a refusal to give
it up, and would bring an action for its recovery. The de-
fendant has put in the pleas already mentioned—in reply to
which it would be given in evidence, that some of the plate
consisted of prizes obtained by the insolvent at an agricultu-
ral show.

William Fisher, an officer of the Insolvent Court, stated
that the petition of the insolvent was filed on the 30th March,
1838, and that the plaintiff Parker was appointed assignee on
the 28th June, 1838.
Maria Guest.—Before I was married I lived with the in-
solvent Richard, a little before Christmas 1837, on Cheetham
hill, Manchester. Knew Richard the son of Thomas. He
and his wife lived with my master. The witness here de-
scribed the articles of plate sought to be recovered. There
was a silver cup which held about a quart, and had Mr.
Richard Wharf's name on it; there was a silver tankard,
which held about the same quantity; there were five table
spoons and a large gravy spoon ; six tea spoons, two silver
salt cellars, a set of casters with silver stand. They were
taken away from my master's house on the 3d Monday of
August, by Thomas Wharf. Old Richard Wharf was not at
the house at this time, but young Richard was.
William Moore gave similar evidence, and in addition, said
that Richard Wharf told his uncle's housekeeper, Elizabeth
Hawny to keep the plate out of the way, lest any one should
come for it.

Richard Wharf, nephew of the defendant, and insolvent by
a deceased brother, described the plaintiff as the former
witnesses. I went with Mr. Parker last July to demand the
.plate of the defendant, who was then in the Manchester
shambles. On demanding it, the defendant said, pay me
what you owe me first, and I will give it up. Parker said, I
have yet to learn you are a creditor; I believe you are, on the
contrary, a large debtor. Thomas Waugh said, " Aye, very
likely.' Parker said, I will read over the list to you. He
said there was no occasion, as the articles had not been
opened since they came to his own house packed up. Parker
said, if he would not give them up that day, he would bring
an action for their recovery. The defendant said it(Friday)
was an awkward day; he was busy in the market, but as he
wished to have no bother about the matter, he would send
the property to his (plaintiffs) house on Monday. Plaintiff
was satisfied and went away. The property was not received
on the Mond ty. He was examined at much length as to the
steps taken by himself and plaintiff to get possession of the
insolvent's property, but his lordship considered it irrelevant.
Counsel for the defendant submitted, that there were no
demand and refusal that amounted to a conversion. The
demand was made on Friday the 13th; the writ was issued on
the following day.
His Lordship.—The question is, does the omission to send
the articles on the Monday amount to a conversion? It is
very difficult to say there is a conversion here.
Counsel for the defendant—said, that before the law will
permit an action of trover to be brought, it must be proved.
that a demand has been made, and that there has been an
express refusal. In this case there had been a demand, but
there was no refusal. The demand was made on Friday--the
plaintiff was satisfied with the promise to have the property
returned on the Monday following, but the writ was issued on
the intermediate Saturday.
Thomas Wharf proved that the demand was made on Fri-
day the 13th, and that the writ was served on Saturday, as
his father showed it to him on the next Sunday morning.
He produced books to show that money was advanced, and
wages paid, as security, for which the plate was deposited
with the defendant.

Mr. ALEXANDER, for the plaintiff, contended, first, that
the accounts, produced to establish a lien on the property of
the insolvent, were fraudulently made; and next, that the
service of the writ on the Saturday following, the promise to
return the property was not a commencement of the action.
His LORDSHIP charged the jury. He said they had three
issues to determine, two of which they would have little diffi-
culty about. The first was whether the property in ques-
tion was the property of Richard before he petitioned the In-
solvent Court, and then they had to answer whether it became
the property of the assignee as the representative of the estate
of the insolvent. The next issue raises the question, if the
property was Richard Wharf's at the time of the demand
and refusal to restore it by the defendant. There can be no
doubt as to the property being originally in Richard Wharf,
and there can be no doubt that after the petition it became
the property of the assignee. The question then arises, had
Thomas Wharf a lien on the property, and was he bound to
give it up ; because if a person has a lien on property, the
right of possession in the assignee does not exist till the
money advanced on the deposit has been tendered, and they
were satisfied that it was still owing. In reference to this
question, was the plate sought to be recovered deposited with
Thomas Wharf as a security for the payment of wages and
the advance of monies. His Lordship recapitulated the evi-
dence that had been produced, and left it to the jury to de-
cide what credit was to be attached to it. Then as to the
conversion of the property to the defendant's use, which was
the first issue, they would have to determine whether, when
the promise was made to restore it, he really intended to do
so. If they decided these questions in the affirmative, then
they should find a verdict for the defendant ; if they were of
a contrary opinion, they should find for the plaintiff, to the
amount of the value of the property sought, reducible to Is.
damages in the event of the plate being restored. The jury
retired to consider their verdict, and after deliberating for
upwards of an hour, returned a verdict of 4.:500 and costs,
reducible to Is. on the property being restored.
On the first issue they found that there was no intention to
give up the goods, but that a conversion of the property was
intended. On the second issue, they found that the property
was originally, before he petitioned the Insolvent Court, in
Richard Wharf, and that the defendant had no lien on it;
and on the third issue, they found that the property was now
in the assignee.

HALL AND ORS, ASSIGNEES OF GEO. LAW, A BANKRUPT,

V. MESSRS. ROUSE.

This was an action of trover to recover the sum of £414,
being the value of goods which were fraudulently transferred
to the defendants, in preference to the great body of their
other creditors.

Sergeant ATCISERLY stated the case,—He said, George
Law, the Bankrupt, was awoollen manufacturer, near Roch-
dale, and became embarrassed in the month of February,
1837. He had dealings with the defendants, who are woollen-
staplers, and have establishments at Rochdale and Black-
burn. Their first transaction was in the month of January,
1837. Their terms of dealing were a month's credit, and two
months discount. Law purchased goods. from the defen-
dants in January, and in February he bought more goods,
before the month had elapsed when the first goods were to he
paid for. Early in:February, Law became embarrassed, and
showed a dispositiog to prefer the defendants to other credi-
tors. A person named Longbottom, the agent of the defen-
dants, succeeded in getting an interview with Law, but before
this, (an act of bankruptcy) had been issued by law, which,
if proved twthe satisfaction of the jury, would leave the de-
fendants no defence. The transaction with Longbottom,

(which took place ou the 25th February,) would, therefore,
be a fradulent transaction. On that day it would be proved,
they were closetted together--the result of which was, that
the goods in question were packed up on the following day to
he sent to the defendant's stores. It would be recollected,
that at that time the demands of the defendant were not per-
fect against the bankrupt, (Law.) It would also be shown,
that there was flannel in the possession of the Messrs. How-'
arth, which Law gave an order on them to deliver to the
defendants. The goods were delivered accordingly ; and an
indemnity for the act was given to the Messrs. Howarth.
The officer of the insolvent court was the first witness called.
He stated the fiat of bankruptcy was dated the 4th March,
1837 ;—the petitioning creditors were James Butterworth,
and John Butterworth, the elder,—the assignees who were
appointed 25th March, 1837, were Richard Ilall, John But-
terworth the younger, and John Mills.
John Scott Rhodes, a wool-carder in the employment of
the Messrs. Butterworth, the petitioning creditors, proved
that the bankrupt, George Law, was indebted to his master
in upwards of £lOO for carding wool. In the course of each
week, from 1835 to 14th February, 1837, they carded 4501b5.
of wool, the price of which was £3 7s. to £3 10s.
The testimony of a person named Howard, deceased, and
a witness named Crowe, were produced to prove that George
Law had committed-an act of bankruptcy on the 14th Febru-
ary, 1837, and that when he returned the goods he purchased
from the defendants, before the value of them was demanda-
ble, he did so without any necessity or Lona fide pressure,
and therefore acted in collusion with the defendants, with a
view to give them an undue preference over other creditors.
Mr. CRESSWELL, for the defendants, denied that any act-
of bankruptcy was committed by Law on the 15th February:
He would show that Law was indebted to the Messrs. Rouse'
at the time he purchased the flannels and wools. He was
indebted to them on the Ist January, in the sum of £264 ;
and, on that
.day, Mr. Longbottom, their agent, received