The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-08-30 00:00:00

CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER-COLLISION OF STEAM

PACKETS ON THE MERSEY.
John Gillespie, master mariner, was charged in two indict-
ments, with having, on the 24th of June last, killed and slain
Duncan Dallas, and Henry Kachau, by forcing a certain
packet or vessel, called the William Stanley, against another
vessel, called the Monk'. The charge was varied in differ-
ent counts of the indictments. The prisoner pleaded not

Mr. HENDERSON detailed to the jury the circumstances
of the case. He ellucidated his statements by reference to
plans of the Liverpool piers, whereon were depicted repre-
sentations and positions of the floating landing stage. of the
steamers, and of the most prominent objects in the vicinity
of the spot where the fatality occurred.
The prisoner had been at large up to the moment of the
trial; he surrendered immediately when called upon, and was
placed at the bar.

William. Roberts sworn.—l am master of the Victoria
steam tug boat. On the afternoon in question I was on St.
George's pier head. A small boat came ashore from the
Victoria steamer. It was about an hour from low water and

it was necessary to use the wooden stage to go on board the
ferry steamers. The steamers were alongside the Floating-
bridge. The William Stanley was there with her head to the
southward, or up the river. She was nearest to the stage.
There were several other steamers there. The prisoner com•
manded the William Stanley. The Victoria was riding north
and south abreast of the clock belonging to the baths, about
200 yards from low water mark. The small boat which I got
into,was lying with her head to the southward inside the stage
backed up for me to step into the stern sheets. I got into the
boat to go to the Victoria. The engineer, James Duncan
Dallas, got into the boat with me. Two men, Henry Kachan,
and Thomas Williams, had brought the boat on shore. We
started for the steamer before the ferry packets, taking a
course south and by west. We pulled along the shore a bit
first, and then took a course direct for the Victoria. I ob-
served the steamers starting, having previously crossed the
bows of the William Stanley, and being a little upon his star-
board bow. I observed the William Stanley coming ; her
paddles were started rather slowly at first, and we were about
30 yards before her. She advanced upon us. When she
cleared the stage, he kept his helm aport, and steered slant-
ing across towards the small boat. She gained upon us.
Her course excited our alarm, and I called out, " Gillespie,
don't run us down." I saw Gillespie at that time on the
larboard paddle box. I can't say positively that that is
the right place for him, as he has a plank to walk from
one paddle box to the other. He saw us. We were still on
the starboard bow of the William Stanley. The latter did
not stop, but held on her course, the paddles moving very
fast. I called out to him again to stop her, but no notice
was taken. The two sailors were pulling to the westward or
starboard as hard as they could, to keep clear of her, and
keep upon her starboard side, we pulled in the direction of
the middle of the river. Our head was to the southward and
westward. I observed the steam-boat mending her speed to-
wards us, following after us with her helm a-port, which
would turn her head to starboard. Shortly after I observed
the William Stanley close to us, and the Monk's boat as
well. The latter I had not observed till he was quite close
upon us. I did not know what to do, as I saw there was no
chance of crossing the bows or stern of either of the steamers,
and I did not know what to do, whether to jump overboard
or what. The Monk's boat was with her stern to the south-
ward, backing up the river. There was no rudder to our
boat, and we depended on the oars. I made a leap on board
the Monk's boat, just as the closing was taking place. I got
hold of the netting rail, and hauled myself up, assisted by
some of the passengers. The paddles of both boats were
going when I made the leap, or else I would have jumped
overboard. They were both proceeding in the same direc-
tion, one forward and the other backward. We were about
200 yards from the shore then. We were about 150 yards
from the Victoria. I looked from the Monk's Fer►y steamer
for the boat and saw none but one man in the bottom of the
boat. He was not hurt. I saw hats on the water. I jumped
back into the boat and caught hold of Henry Kachan, who

was in the water. He was alive. We next picked up the
engineer, Dallas, out of the water. He also was alive. I
called for assistance from the boats, but got none except that
a man jumped into us. I had but one oar, with which I
skulled on shore. Kachan and Dallas were taken to the
Northern Hospital. They both died. Kachan almost im-
mediately and the engineer in about an hour. I have been a
captain of a steamer ten years, and am well acquainted with the
Mersey. In my opinion, if the prisoner had desired the en-,
gineer to stop the engine " or, to slower" and it had been
done, the accident would not have happened. • I won't say
that the accident might' have been prevented by altering her
course ; there was plenty of water ; but I won't say there was
room or time. The two boats were too near for that, I think.
He might have stopped her or gone slow, so that we might
have rowed as fast as the packet. I met the prisoner next
day, and he said to me, " Now Roberts, do you think the
accident would have happened if it had not been for the
Monk's boat." I said I would not say anything about that,
but if we had, been 50 yards to windward, we could have
cleared them. I asked if he had heard us hail him. He said,
" we did ;" but, said he, " I never gave it a thought ; I never
thought of the small boat after that ; I did not know that you
were under my bow when the collision took place." There
was a light breeze from the northward and westward when
the accident took place. The wind was on the starboard
quarter of the steamer.
Cross-examined by Mr. BRANDT.—The prisoner said he
thought we were quite clear of his packet at the time when
the accident happened. I can give no idea of the number
of steamers there. There might be three, four, or five boats
at the stage. We went about fifteen yards along the shore
before we began to edge across. The William Stanley was
in motion when we began to cross. Gillespie being on the
larboard paddle-box might, if he had looked, have seen
us under his bows,—that is, if we were five or eight yards
from the bow—but not less. When we first saw the. Monk's
boat she was close upon us. She had then come as far to
the southward as the William Stanley. I had not noticed
her before. We had lost our rudder. When we have a
rudder to make use of it, it is usual, for the purpose of
clearing, to paddle stem foremost when leaving the shore.
I can't say how it was that I did not see.the Monk sooner.
My eye was on the William Stanley.
Re-examined by Mr. HmantrtsoN.—l stood up in the
boat, and the prisoner might have seen me when I hailed
him.
Thomas Williams, one of the seamen belonging to the
Victoria tug-boat. I recollect the captain and engineer get-
ting into the boat on the day in question. I rowed. We
started before the steamers. We pulled up the rivet., paral-
lel with the shore. When the steamers moved we had got
20 or 30 yards ahead of them. When the William Stanley
started, we were rather on her starboard bow. In a minute
or two the captain called out to the captain of the William
Stanley calling him by name:, We were about twenty yards
from her then. I saw a man, I don't know who it was, on
the larboard paddle-box. The paddle-box is -a usual place
for the captain of a steamer. The captain directs the man
at the helm, and the engineer always gets his directions
from the captain. The boat's head was about south-west,
and we were pulling as hard as we could. The steamer in-
stead of going right ahead kept her, bow after us. If she
had steered due south she would have cleared us. The pad-
dles were going fast. Our captain sung out' two or three
times. We pulled away as hard as we could. We were
about 80 or 90 yards from the stage when the collision hap-
pened. We got between the William Stanley and the
Monk's boat. I never looked at the Monk's boat, having
my eye fixed upon the William Stanley. The paddles of the
latter were going when she came up to us. I wanted to
jump into the river; instead of which I fell backwards into
the boat. Afterwards I noticed a mark upon the boat's
stern, where the paddles had cut a piece off. Our boat was
heaved all on one side somehow. When I got up I saw that
there was nobody in the boat with me. I saw the two men
in the water, and the captain came with anot' ar Lain and
helped to pick them up.. The paddles were about half
speed when the collision took place. The people on board
the William Stanley could have prevented this accident had
they stopped or gone slow. There was plenty of time to
have done so. They might have reversed the paddles. She
She ought to have gone right ahead, and then we should
have been clear enough. lam sure of it as a packet bad gone
inside of that spot, about fifteen minutes before. If there
had been no Monk, then the William Stanley would have
gone over us for she came right after us and we could not
pull as fast as she came.
Cross-examined by Mr. BRANDT.—There was no rudder
to our boat. If we had pulled due west, and the packet had
kept on her course, we should have kept clear. There is a
bank along there called Pluckington Bank. If a vessel went
due south, she would come upon the bank. To keep off the
bank, it would be necessary to steer south-west.
George Millard worn.—l am chief clerk to the Liverpool
Gas Company. I was a passenger by the Monk on the day
in question. There were five steamers on the day in ques-
tion at the landing stage. The William Stanley was nearest,
and the Monk the furthest from the stage. I was in the
cabin when the Monk began to move from the shore. She
was lying with her bow to the north. When I got to the
deck she was gently backing to get clear of a large steamer
which lay across our bows. This motion took us further
from the shore. My attention was attracted by the approach
of the William Stanley, which was going about the usual
speed with packets cross the river, at what I considered full
speed. The Monk was furthest up the river, and furthest
from the stage, so that she must have started first. I noticed
the small boat in which these men were struggling to'get
clear of the bow of the William Stanley. They appeared at
first when I got sight of them to be on a line with her cut-
water, but they got on the starboard bow, and were imme-
diateley afterwards thrown on the quarter. She (the William
Stanley) appeared to approach us in a curved direction from
the shore. The men in the boat were pulling with all their
might. At first I apprehended danger to ourselves. Almost
instantly the little boat was thrown under the bow of the
William Stanley. If the Monk had not been there, the
same would have happened as regarded the boat. I think she
would have been sunk had the collision, not have taken place.
The William Stanley ran her bow against the starboard quar-
ter of the Monk ; the boat was between them, and 1 don't
know how it escaped being crushed. The captain jumped on
board the Monk. The second man attempting to do the
same was crushed between the two. I saw the body rolled
round, I think, three times between the vessels ; then the
vessels rebounded, and he fell into the water. I did not see
what became of the other man. The Monk lay parallel to
the shore, or nearly so. I saw nothing that could have pre-
vented the William Stanley from taking a course clear of both
us and of the boat.
Cross-examined by Mr. BRANDT,-I have drawn plans of
the vicinity of the accident both fps my own satisfaction and
that of the coroner.
John Forshaw—l reside at Birkenhead and was one of the
passengers on board the Monk on the day in question. lAN-as
in the cabin when she began to Move. I went on deck in
consequence of hearing some confusion there. When I got on
deck, I saw that the William Stanley was just leaving the
stage. We had left before her. She was going very fast and
the Monk's Ferry boat was moving slowly backwards. The
Eastham steamer approaching us in a manner that mated
considerable alarm. I saw the small boat a short distance
from stile starboard bow of the William Stanley. I saw the '
latter approach the sunk boat in such a manner as put,tlle
small boat in danger. I turned away, seeing-that an aeel-
dent would happen and I did not like to see it:/ 'wars,/ tipt-
nion if the engines of the William Stanley had been reverted
and her speed slackened, the accident would have been
avpided. I think the engines of the Monk were stopped be-
fore the collision took place.
Charles James Hamilton, curate of Birkenhead.—l was a
passenger on board the Monk on the 'day in question. There
were about three or four other packets there. I was in the
cabin when she started, but I came up two or three minutes
before the collision took place. When I came on deck, the
Monk lay nearly parallel with the .shore and the William
Stanley was going across the river obliquely but not at a full
speed. The Monk was nearly stationary. There was much
alarm on board the Monk ; the people were screaming and
I was afraid myself. I saw nothing of the small boat till
after the collision had taken place. I stood on the centre of
the deck, and when 'the collision took place no alteration had-1
taken place in the position of the vessels. I should think
there was time enough for the William Stanley to have
stopped and reversed her engines. I attribute the collision
to the Eastham boat. having ran against us ; I cannot say
what caused the accident to the boat as I did not see it.

James Shaw—l am a police officer. V I was a passenger in
the Monk's Ferry boat on the day in question. This witness
corroborated the preceding testimony.
John Jones, engineer belonging to the Monk, proved that
the engineer took his orders from the captain. The first or-
der which he received was to, back. Ile received his signal
either from the captain or the 'man at the wheel. ' Those at
the wheel generally give the orders by a signal. Witness
turned the engine back. Received another signal to stop her.
The engine was not in gear, but he was working her by hand.
You can work her as quick by hand as in gear for a short
time, till you get tired. She was not going fast on that oc-
casion. Saw the William Stanley coming up, and believes
that the engine of the Monk was stopped before she struck.
Cross-examined.—lt was not the captain who was at the
wheel. It is the common course to take orders from the man
at the wheel. The engineer looks to the man at the wheel.
Robert Leach, one of the crew of the Monk, corroborated
the evidence of the last witness. When witness 'saw the
William Stanley coming in, and the perilous situation of the
small boat, he called out, " John, John, for heaven's sake,
stop her !" _ _ _

On cross-examination, the witness said, sometimes the cap-
tain and sometimes the man at the helm gave orders. The
engineer took his orders from the man at the helm—some-
times one, and sometimes the other ; mostly from the man at
the helm.
Re-examined.—The proper place for the captain is the pad-
dle-box, and he gives his orders from that position.
Mr. Neill Arnott, one of the surgeons of the Northern
Hospital, stated that Kachan and the other man were brought
to that hospital. He had an extensive wound of the abdo-
men, from which the bowels protruded. He died in a few
minutes after he was brought in.
Mr. John Askew, Harbour-master of the port of Liver-
pool, during 19 years. If a captain were on board at any
time when vigilance were required, his proper position would
be on the paddle-box. From hitn all orders to the mariners
and engineers should emanate.

This closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr. BRANDT submitted, that -there was no case to go to
the jury. It was not proved that the prisoner had not in
point of fact done all that was required from him. So far as
the proof went he was in his right situation. The learned
counsel cited two cases from Carrington and Payne's reports.
line first was that of the King v. Allen and Clark, for having
run down a smack. It was proved that there was a look out,
and that the defendants were in proper -places. It was held
that there had not been such personal misconduct, as would
make the offence felony. The other case was that of the
King v. Green, which was tried before Baron Alderson,
where it was held that it was necessary to show some act done
by the captain, as ordering the man to leave the helm, &c. ;
a mere omission was, not sufficient.
Mr. TOWNSEND spoke more at large on the latter case,
quoting an opinion of Baron Alderson and the late Justice
Parke, that there was a difference between a coachman on a
box and a captain giving his orders, inasmuch as the latter
was giving his directions to individuals who might exercise
a discretion of their own, and disobey his orders.
His LORDSFUP said, there was not in this case any proof
that any orders whatever had been given.
Mr. BRANDT addressed the jury for the defence. He
thought it hard to put this man upon his trial, and put his
liberty in jeopardy, upon evidence so slight. He contended
that the captain of the Victoria had put himself in peril ; for
if he had not pushed forward, or if he had taken another
course, he would have got clear. It was evident that if .the
Monk had not come up, and if the collision had not taken
place, the accident would not have happeded. Why had not
the captain or steersman of the Monk been called, instead
of clerks in counting-houses, and individuals who knew no-
thing of the river, the State of the tides, or any of the nau-
tical influences that Might have affected the course of events?
He thought, from the evidence, those on board the Monk
were more to blame than the captain of the William Stanley,
as the latter was proved to be in his place, while it was proved
that the captain of the Monk was not, and that the danger
arose from the collision. The learned counsel proceeded to
comment minutely upon the- testimony, and, after speaking
of the great esteem which the prisoner had won during a
series of years, and of the great confidence reposed in him,
he said he would call evidence to show that the prisoner had
fulfilled every duty that could be required on board his ves-
sel on the day in question.
Sir Thomas Stanley, Bart., of Hooton-park, Cheshire,
stated that he had known the prisoner twelve or fourteen
years, and had frequently crossed the river in his vessel fl.om
choice, in preference to all others. Sir Thomas gave the
prisoner a very high character.
The Rev. Archdeacon Clarke said the prisoner resided
near him ; he was a sober, steady, and attentive man, and
an excellent and vigilant seaman.

Mr. Parry, of Seacombe, Mr. Swan, Mr. Willoughby, of
Birkenhead, Mr. John Snow Berrington, of Mold, Mr. W.
Ryland, and Mr. Williams, of Woodside, all spoke in the
very highest terms of the prisoner, both as respected his
moral character and his skill as a commander.

Samuel Jones, the master of a flat which was in the river
on the day in question, stated, that before the collision took
place, he heard the prisoner call out, " Hard a-starboard !
stop her V! He heard screams of alarm on board the Monk's
Ferry boat, immediately after. He looked, and the Monk's
Ferry boat was coming stern on towards the flat.
Thomas Griffiths, driver of the Holyhead coach, who was
on board the William Stanley, corroborated the above.
After he heard the captain of the William Stanley call out,
" Hard a-starboard !—stop her !" he saw the boat between
them. The Monk was going stern foremast towards them.
The-Monk's paddles continued to revolve after the William
Stanley's paddles had stopped. If the Monk had stopped
when they did, the collision would have been avoided, and
the accident could not have happened.
John Matthews, a coachman, gave evidence in accordance
with the above.

Henry Coffield, second engineer on board the William
Stanley, gave evidence tending to show, that if the Monk
had,stopped when the paddles of the William Stanley were
stopped, no accident of any sort would have occurred.
John Carden, a draper, who was on board the William
Stanley, further corroborated the above.
Richard Chaffers, captain of the landing-stage, said, if
the William Stanley had proceeded a hundred yards in a
southerly direction, he would have been aground on Pluck-
ington Bank. He gave the prisoner an excellent character
as a skilful and steady commander.
John Tyson, John Young, a policeman, who was on duty
at the Pier-head, and Lieutenant Collins, R.N., all gave tes-
timony favourable to the prisoner.
Mr. HENDERSON replied.
The Learned JUDGE summed up the evidence. He'said
the prisoner appeared to be in his proper place at the time of
the accident, and it must be borne in mind that a captain of
a vessel had numberless things to engage his attention, as the
safety of his vessel and passengers, the direction of his vessel,
and the many objects from which danger might be appre-
hended.

The jury retired at twenty minutes past five o'clock. They
returned in twenty-five minutes, and delivered a verdict of
not guilty.
A formal verdict of acquittal was taken on the second in-
dictment. The prisoner was immediately discharged.

THE EMBEZZLEMENT CASE.--SENTENCE ON TODD.

Christopber James Todd, who pleaded guilty to a charge
of having embezzled money belonging to his employers, the
proprietors of the eLiverpool Bank, in this town, was placed
at the bar to receive sentence.

On the preceding day Mr. Clarke, commission agent, and
Mr. Lacey, bookseller, appeared in court and gave the prisoner
an excellent character.

The Learned JUDGE addressed the prisoner as follows :
Prisoner at the bar. Your ease is one of a nature extremely
painful, because you have maintained the exterior of a good
character, but, unfortunately, that character cannot stand
you in much stead, considering the length of time you have
been engaged in carrying on..frauds against your employers.
You stand in a superior station of life to those who usually
appear at that bar, which is "an aggravation of your offence,
and I am therefore called upon to punish you the more se-
verely, because you have had the advantage of a good educa-
tion. The learned Judge passed sentence of ten years'
transportation. •

Alexander Mee, convicted of highway robbery, near Man
Chester, was sentenced to ten years' transportation.
The Court adjourned at six o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT-TUESDAY.

TAYLOR V. TAYLOR.
This was a special jury case, in which Mrs. Ann Taylor
was the plaintiff; and Mr. James Taylor, Mr. William
Taylor, Mr. James Lloyd, Mr. Samuel Lloyd, Mr. G. B.
Lloyd, and Mr. Francis Lloyd, partners in the banking
house of Taylors and Lloyds, of Birmingham, were the de-
fendants.

Mr. CRESSWELL,Mr. CROMPTON, and the Hon. STUART
WORTLEY for the plaintiff; Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. WIGHT-
MAN, and Mr. TOMLINSON for the defendants.
Mr. CRESSWELL stated the case. He said that as counsel
for Mrs. Ann Taylor, a widow lady, residing in this town,
he had to request the particular and anxious attention of the
jury to this case. It was of much importance'to her, and to
one at least of the defendants on the record. The jury would
have to watch a considerable detail of circumstances, and he
trusted by means of evidence thatcould not be doubted or
disputed, that he should clearly make out that Mrs. Taylor
had a claim on the defendants banking firm to the amount
of £l2OO and upwards. It was altogether a singular transac-
tion, involving a chargeagainst one of the defendants, Mr.
Francis Lloyd,' of considerable misconduct. Mrs. Taylor,
who was advanced in life, was the widow of a merchant who
formerly resided in Liverpool. He was a person who had
succeeded in amassing a considerable amount of property by
his frugal habits, in which she partook. About six years
ago she went to reside at Wild Green, at Sutton Colefield,
near Birmingham. At her husband's death she had £l6OO
a-year, and her frugality had singe added to the store. Her
income was derived from houses in and near Liverpool. She
was a person of parsimonious habits, and of some eccentrici-
ties. Her establishment at Wild Green consisted of one
female and one male servant, the latter taking care of a pair
of horses.. Not long after having gone there, Mrs. Taylor
called on a person named Jones, an edge tool maker, near
Wild Green, to recommend a farrier to shoe her horses, and
some one to take care of a favourite dog. She went with
Mrs. Jones, the wife of this person, who, being a woman of
good appearance and demeanour, was invited by Mrs. Taylor
to go to her house. The place was one where there were few
persons of rank or'statiOn residing, and Mrs. Jones was in-
vited, and paid every'attention to the wants of the old lady.
The favourite dog died, and it was stuffed by Jones in a way
'Which satisfied her. In consequence of these things, an inti-
macy sprung up between the parties. Mr. Jones was frequently
employed to transact her business ; he opened her letters,
and at her dictation wrote answers to them. Mrs. Taylor
advanced., at different times, sums of money to promote his
success' in' business. This continued for some time. In
1837, Me. Francis Lloyd went to reside at the Manor-house,
near the plaintiff, and about that time there was a robbery
at her house. Mr. Lloyd who was a magistrate, interfered,
and became acquainted with her. She was an old lady of
above seventy years of age • but he paid her the most flatter-
ing attentions--nothing con
ldhave exceeded the attentions he
paid to her. He often wrote to her in terms of regard and
esteem, from which it must be supposed he was anxious to
find his Way into the favour of the old lady,' whether for
pecunitiry•motives or not the jury would have an opportunity
of judging for-themselves. In one of his letters, dated from
Pall-malkhe said—""l hope Mrs. Jones prolongs her staz•
with you,she seemed so attentive and desirous to please ;
droni—which it was pretty plain that he had not begun to
look upon them in the . light which he afterwards did.
In 1837 Mr. Jones reirioveil 'to a place nearer Birming-
ham, buff still there were interchanges of visits between
• the olfflady and 'Mrs. Jones. In 1838 Mrs. Taylor removed
to Swiss Cottage, Round-hill, near Birmingham, and there
Mr. Fraricis‘'Lloyd continued to pay his visits, sometimes
•iltiring" and itfinetinies after bank hours. Another person
lekasthenititrodueed On the stage, of some importance in the
transaetion: Not long after having taken the cottage, a lady,
pretty and-young, and dressed as a widow, came to reside at-
the next,door. She was introduced as a Mrs. Harding, and
represeideld byllr: F. Lloyd as the widow of 'a friend of his,
and he recommended Mrs. Taylor to cultivate her acquain-
tance:- The result was, that Mrs. Harding became very fa-
miliar and intimate with the old lady. The jury would find
that, in some of his letters, Mr. F. Lloyd had spoken of
Mrs: Harding as a person very much to be regarded ; in ano-
ther, that he was about to be married to her, and that he
was about to 'devise some scheme by which Mrs. Taylor
might be spared the expense of keeping an establishment,
together with the consequent annoyance—perhaps hinting that
Mrs: Taylor would do very well to become an inhabitant of.
Mrs. Harding's house. In the letters of Mr. F. Lloyd to
Mrs. Taylor, the most extravagant compliments were paid to
her. Mr. Cress Well then proceeded to read extracts from
several letters. Some of them were confined to the expres-
sion of sentiments of great regard, and announced the for-
warding of small presents, consisting, in one instance, of a
jar of turtle ; in another, of some white grouse from Nor-
way ; and in a third, of Ms of spermaceti candles. In one
letter, dated the 24th Dec. 1836, he said—" I hope it may
shortly be in my power to propose a plan which shall further
your comfort and ease." He had previously, on the Bth De-
cember, stated that he was going to be married to Mrs. Hard-
ing, but that he should deviate froid his plan unless it met
with the approbation of Mrs. Taylor, and unless it should be
carried into effect without separating him from his dear friend,
" I should wish the partner of my life strengthened in her
love of home by you., and her good principles strengthened
by your example, which, I fear, we should lose if we were
to be married, and cease to have you as a neighbour. " Now,
who was the young lady to whom Mr. Francis Lloyd repre-
sented himself as aboUt to be united ? She was the daughter
of a carpenter near Leamington, who had for some years
been living with Mr. Lloyd as his mistress, and had become
the mother of two children. While this was going on, the
jury would find that Mr. Lloyd became the depository of
money to a considerable amount from Mrs. Taylor, and gave
her a pass-book of the bank for it, as though it had been an
ordinary account. It should seem that early in the present
year, Mr. F. Lloyd seemed to think that Mr. Jones did not
look upon him with a very favourable eye, and he sent a note
requesting that Mr. Jones would call upon him at the bank,
as he vvisi.ei particularly to see him. Mr. Jones went, as
requested, between the hours of three and six, 'when it was
not likely that any of the other partners would be there.
Mr. F. Lloyd said, " It seems, Mr. Jones, that you and I
are playir g a game of cross purposes with Mrs. Taylor." Mr.
Jones pr( fessed his ignorance of what Mr. Lloyd meant ; and
to the question of " What do you mean ?" Mr. Lloyd
answered, " Well it seems to me that we are, and I hope we
shall not." Mr. Jones replied, " You seem to think I
am.- intimate with Mrs. Taylor ; but I can tell you
this, that she has had no master, and never will." Mr.
Lloyd then said, "If I were to marry, and ask her
to:come and live with me, would you disapprove of it ? "
Same two or three days after this, having reflected on this
interview, Mr. Jones thought that all was not right, and ex- ,
plained his idea of it to the old lady. A conversation ensued,
in the course of which she produced the bank book she had
then in her possession the heading of which was in the ordi-
nary manner of such books—" Ann Taylor in account with
Messrs.. Taylors and Lloyds." In that book there were credit
'entries to the amount of above :Cl9OO. The last entry was in
January, and was for a sum of £7OO. There were no entries
to her debit ; for she had drawn out nothing from the time she
hadbegun to lodge her money. He (Mr. Cress*ell) did not
believe that she ever went to the bank at all, and it might
be that in the books of the bank there were no entries at all,
but there were in that bookentries to above £l9OO. Mr Jones
cast up the several items, in doing which, he observed an er-
ror of £3O, so that he had a full opportunity of noticing the
contents of the book. Mr. Jones then thought fit to write
to Mr. Weber, a tradesman in Liverpool, who acted as the
agent of Mrs. Taylor, in the collection of her rents, to go over
to Birmingham. Mr. Weber did go, and on arriving at
Swiss Cottage, he found that Mrs. Taylor had come to the
resolution of returning to Liverpool, to reside there. They
were packing up the goods and chattels when Mr. Weber ar-
rived, and Mrs. Taylor said she should want some money be- .
fore leaving Birmingham and requested Mr. Weber to take
her chequebook and cut out a cheque. Mr. Weber took the
cheque book, which purported to be of the firm of Taylor and
Lloyds, of Birmingham, 'and from which not a single cheque
had been taken. He suggested to Mrs. Taylor, that it would
perhaps be better to have two cheques, she consented and he
cut from the cheque book two cheques, which he pasted on
the leaves of the bank book and then handed the latter to
Mrs. Taylor. At the same time he observed that the last en-
try tothe credit of Mrs. Taylor, was £7OO. In the preceding
January Mr Weber himself had remitted to her a sum ex-
ceeding £700; the produce of her rents here. Mr. F. Lloyd,
whose visits had been frequent, waited upon Mrs. Taylor at
this time, and invited her to go out in his phaeton and see his
mother, to whom Mrs. Taylor had before been introduced.
She went, and when they returned, Mr. Lloyd handed to her
a small, paper parcel, saying, " Here is your money madam,
and God bless you till I see yoti in Liverpool." Mrs. Taylor
sent for Mr.' and Mrs. Jones when she opened the parcel.
When that was done, and the notes therein had been counted
Mrs. Taylor exclaimed, " What can he mean by this? I ask-
ed him for £lOOO, and he has given me £250." When waited
upon by Mr. Jones for an explanation, Mr. F. Lloyd replied
" That is all I have of hers. She has got her own book, and
may refer' to it" - He afterwards asked Mr. Jones whether
he had seen the book. " No," replied Mr. Jones, " I have
not." "Well, go and look and you will find it is all I have,"
observed Mr. Lloyd. " No," said Mr. Jones, "it is not : I
have seen the book, and I know you are going to rob her of
£1700." To that Mr. Lloyd replied, " Well, if there is an
entry of that'sort, I must stand by it." Search was made for
the bank-book, but it could not be found. Everything in
the house was unpacked, but still it was not discovered. • At
the time Mrs. Harding was occupied in packing up for Mrs.

Taylor. She said, " I wish some one would give me some-
thing to fill up the corner of this box." There was some
waste paper lying near, and Mrs. Jones went to it for the
purpose of handing part of it to Mrs. Harding, when she
found the bank-book underneath. She took it to her hus-
band ; he, having inspected it, said, -" This is not the book ;
the ink of this is quite wet," and there was the book, which
was quite conclusive of the fraud which had been perpe-
trated. It was headed, " Mrs. Ann Taylor, in account of
Francis Lloyd," and it was in the handwriting of that per-
son. The most cursory inspection would show that it had
been got up in haste, and not at all like a bank-book. There
were entries on the credit and debit side of the book, and
the interest was positively calculated and charged to her
debit. " Interest_ due and paid, £25 8s 1d.," appeared on
the debit side of the book. Was there ever seen such an
entry in a banking-book in the world ? Moreover, there
was this extraordinary circumstance. In July, 1837, when
the first entries were made, the book could not have been in
existence. He would prove that the moulds in which the
paper was made, were not manufactured till August, 1837,
and that no paper could have been made till the following
September, two months after the first entry bore date. How
could the defendant get over that? Would he say that the
book was a copy? Where from ? Where were the vouchers?
In consequence of this discovery, Mr. Weber waited on Mr.
Taylor, the head of the banking firm. A meetinc, was ap-
pointed to take place, and when Mr. Weber went he found
a stranger sitting in the room, whom, on inquiry, he found
to be a lawyer. Mr. Weber objected to enter into the busi-
ness in the presence of the lawyer, as the party of Mrs.
Taylor had no legal gentleman present. The lawyer left the
room, after which, the conversation began. Allusion was
made to the entry of £7OO in the original bank-book. Mr.
Francis Lloyd, in the first instance, said that he had paid all
that was due to Mrs. Taylor. He denied the entry of £7OO.
On 'this, Mr. Weber observed, " I remitted her above that
sum." Mr. J. Taylor then asked whether he could recollect
the numbers of any of the notes. Mr. Weber said he could
not, but that he thought he could trace some of them, as he
had received part of them from the bank. On hearing that,
Mr. Francis Lloyd observed, " I do begin to have some
recollection of a sum of £700." They then separated. Mr.
Weber subsequently succeeded in tracing the numbers of
some of the notes, and remitted them to the banking-house.
This having been done, a letter was received by the nephew
of Mrs. Taylor, from Mr. F. Lloyd, in which he expressed
a wish to close the whole of his pecuniary relations with
Mrs. Taylor, after the ungrateful return he had met with
for his many kindnesses to her, and denied the charges
which had been brought against him. The letter also stated,
" I shall be willing to show you my accounts, and to pay up
the balance. Mrs. Taylor must have been aware, of the
motive I had for refusing to come to an arrangement before,
considering tlie influence she was under. The timer however,
is not far distant when she will do me justice." In a
letter to Mr. Weber, dated the 29th March, 1839, Mr. Lloyd
remitted a check for £373 is 3d, being, as he said, the
balance due to Mrs. Taylor. He stated that he had then
no disinclination to do so, seeing that she was beyond all
influence ; and he proceeded to say, " I have now to repeat
what I formerly said, that I never gave a bank-book to Mrs.
Taylor, considering her a friend." Could he pretend to
say that he, a banker, carried on a private banking concern
with Mrs. Taylor for himself? The story was a most unna-
tural and improbable one. But he was bound to try to
make out that story, because, as a banker, he would be
obliged to enter every item, and be bound by that entry. If
that was not the book within which Mr. Weber placed the
two cheques, where did it come from ? He (the learned
counsel) knew but of one person who could tell how it came
into the spot where it was found, and if she were produced
in the progress of the cause, he suspected it would be made
palpable that it was introduced by some agent of Mr. Francis
Lloyd. If the facts he had stated were proved in evidence,
he should be entitled to a verdict for the plaintiff.
An admission that the defendants are partners in the bank-
ing-house of Messrs. Taylors and Lloyds, was put in.
Several witnesses were then examined, whose testimony-
confirmed the preceding statement.
Mr. ALEXANDER then addressed the jury for the defence.
He began by alluding to the opening of Mr. Cresswell's
speech, and said he was sure that what his learned friend had
said was not unmerited—the character of the case was such
as to require particular and anxious attention. On the re-
sult he would not then pretend to offer the least suggestion;
but this he would say, that considering the relative situation
of the parties, and that the charge involved against the de-
fendant was of the deepest dye, it was to him (Mr. F. Lloyd)
and his friends a matter of the deepest anxiety ; and although
he was certain that no consideration of that sort ought or
would animate the minds of the jury, when satisfied that the
facts alleged were properly made out in evidence, yet he felt
that they would not, without that satisfactory evidence, brand
an individual hitherto respectable in society, unless they
were thoroughly satisfied that the charge was brought home;
and if it was, then be (the learned counsel) should be the
last to ask for protection for him who would deserve no pro-
tection. It was a case, however, not only requiring atten-
tion on that account, but it was one which they would have
to inquire into on the probable workings of the human mind,
and whether certain things were at once to be accounted for
in the way in which evidence had accounted for them, or
whether they were to look deeper, and judge less from the
evidence than the probable and direct influences arising from
the evidence. He thought that this was the difficulty of the
case ; because, if there was no doubt whatever that the wit-
nesses, Jones and 'Weber, had been giving a true statement—
that they laboured under no mistakes and no bias—there
would then be an end of the matter at once. The charge
was to the effect, that a member of the banking firm in ques-
tion had deliberately, consciously, and he. might almost add
feloniously, imposed on and defrauded p, gentlewoman who
was on intimate terms with him, to whom he seemed anxious
to pay attention ; and if it were true, he must have been
guilty, not only of breaking the law of the land, but the prin-
ciples which ought to regulate the conduct of individuals to
one another as members of society. The old lady was one
whom he met at his mother's house, whom he was frequently
in the habit of seeing and paying attentions to, and respect-
ing whom he had in his letters spoken in the terms of sin-
cere friendship. In those letters, he (Mr. Alexander) had
most surely expected to find something more distinctive of
the defendant's character than they offered. There had
been a good round dozen of letters brought forward ; and he
thought, if they were to be taken as showing, a deep, design-
ing villany against Mrs. Taylor, there were few persons whose
letters could not be made to establish such a similar charge,
and with equal success. But this course (continued the
learned counsel) had been adopted for the purpose of pro-
ducing prejudice on the minds of the jury, and they had been
painted, when introduced, in characters which they did not
deserve. Another attempt had also been made to excite pre-
judice. After he. (the learned counsel) had admitted that
the paper of which the account book was made, might' be al-
. .

. . .
lowed to have been made at even a later period than that
even fixed upon, two witnesses were paraded before them (the
jury) for the sole purpose of making the acknowledged fact
more alarming. Flu (Mr. A,)had not only to struggle with
the direct testimony of Mr. Jones and Mr. Weber, but with
the irrevelant evidence of Sarah Adams, Mary Hughes, and
others. Ile could not imagine why they had been brought
forward, unless it were to put the public fully in possession of
the fact that Mr. Francis Lloyd was one of the many thou-
sands of young men who had been associated with a young
woman to whom he was not married. If that were the in-
tent, it had been fully attained ; but what effect that was to
have on the case, he could not imagine. Because he had
violated those rules of morality on which undoubtedly the
happiness of mankind depended—because he had committed
a breach of propriety which was but too common, was that
to be takon as proof that a person in the station of a gentle-
man had been guilty of this vile and deep, and planned fraud,
feloniously to embezzle the property of a friend? He need
say no more about the Adamses and Hugheses, nor of the
last two witnesses who had spoken about the moulds, because
the first had nothing to do with the case, and the last had
spoken to a fact which was admitted before it had been
proved. The defendant did not mean to say that the book
produced—and lie distinctly denied that any other had ever
been in existence—had been written out at the several times
at which the money purported to have been paid ; but that
the book was in fact a copy from Mr. F. Lloyd s memoranda,
made at the period when Mrs. Taylor wished to know how
her account stood. He should .ask the jury whether they
believed the evidence- that Jones had given. If they thought
fit to disbelieve . it, and that Jones was the party who, from
the first to the last, had been preying on Mrs. aylor,
and that he was anxious to. account for the defalcation
by connecting them with Mr. Lloyd ; if they, in looking at
the testimony, took that view, then Mr. Lloyd would meet
with the protection which he merited, and Mr. Jones would
go out of the court with the brand upon him of a false wit-
ness. This case rested entirely on the evidence on the part
of the plaintiff. There had been no proof of anything said
or done but what was exclusively confined to individuals to
be called as witnesses for the plaintiff. Even at the meeting
at the inn in Birmingham, where the parties were to attend
with their friends, the attorney who attended on behalf of
the bank was peremptorily excluded, because Messrs. Weber
and Jones knew that, if any person was allowed to be pre-
sent on the part of those who were now the defendants, they
would be able to give a version of what took place which
would be favourable to those defendants. Mr. \Veber then
distinctly declared, that if a person were present on the part
of the• bank, the meeting should not be held nor the matter
discussed. It was, therefore, out of his power to call wit-
nesses. But he knew that not one of the jury was satisfied
with the way in which Mr. Jonei gave his evidence. He
had watched their countenances during the examination,
and he. knew from the working of them that what he stated
was the fact. From the first to the last that witness dis-
played either a reluctance in answering, complete forget-
fulness, a shuffling, or an attempt to throw in some remark
to deaden the effect of his replies. He (the learned counsel)
must, however, state what he could from that person's
evidence, and see what he could thus make out of the case.
The case was opened as if an intimacy had arisen between
two gentlewomen (Mrs. Taylor and Mrs. Jones) and it was
not until the cross-examination that he found out how the
fact really stood. It appeared that Mr. Jones was a spade
• and shovel manufacturer in Birmingham ; that he had no ser-
vant; but that everything, even down to•offices of the most
menial description, was done by his wife. • Mrs. Jones pro-
, bably went to. Wild Green, in the first instance, as a woman
to assist about the house. From what.was observed and
heard, -it no doubt occurred to the acute husband to reason
thus—" Here is an old widow lady, of 72 years of age, ap-
parently without a relation, and having no one that seems to
have any acquaintance with her. I think that she wants some
creditable person to attend to her; and I think it would be
well, Mrs. Jones, if you and I were to attend to her. She
has a large property, I hear, and as I have given up my busi-
ness in Birmingham to come here, I think it might be of some
. use if we were to cultivate her acquaintance. Some little at-
tention would not be thrown away." Now, was not that sug-
gestion -borne out by the statement of the witness himself.
They found that in two months from the time of the com-
mencement of her acquaintance, Jones began to borrow
money for the purposes of his business ; he whose trade of
spade and shovel making was answering so well in the village.
From the sum of £6O, then obtained, he went on borrowing
until he had obtained the large sum of £2,750. Their influ-
ence over the old woman must undoubtedly have been great,
and that they exercised it for their own benefit was an admit-
ted fact. Having presented a picture of Mrs. Taylor, under
the influence of the Joneses, he proceeded to introduce the
defendant on the stage. The house of Mrs. Taylor had been
robbed by one of her own servants—a circumstance which
was very likely to put her out of the way, and to cause her
considerable alarm. Mr. Francis Lloyd then appeared. He
was a magistrate-and a man of the world ; he was able to use
his eyes, and to see that certain persons were obtaining an
ascendancy which the difference of circumstances and of
' station did not seem to justify. This was, of course, only
a supposition of his own (Mr. Alexander's ;) but he put it
to the jury as a fair ground of the way in which the intimacy
commenced. If Jones had had no influence over Mrs. Taylor,
lie could not see how ,it was that she went over to live at
Aston Green, when Jones remained there. What (lid the jury
suppose took her there? Every other circumstance but the
influence of Jones over her mind was excluded. The real
motive had not been Mentioned, and even if his supposition
had been denied by Jones, it would have mattered little ; for
the way in which ne gave his evidence—the manner in which,
when speaking of the money transactions between him and
the old lady, he jumped about from time to time and date to
date—was surprising and extraordinary. If the witness had
acted in that way on such things as he (Mr. Alexander) had
a chance of inquiring into, how did they think that he would
act on those points into which there was no opportunity of
inquiring ? What did they find with respect to the last ad-
vance? After he had purchased a piece of property, he was
found applying to Mr. Harrison for £3OO on the mortgage of
that, property. A person willing to lend was found ; Jones
brought the deeds, and the mortgage was prepared to be ex-
ecuted, when Mr. Harrison informed Jones that Mrs. Tay-
lor must be a party to the decd. " Oh," says he, " I can't
trouble her took the deeds away and nothing more was
done, notwithstanding the expense that had been incurred,
and his pressing want of- money. That was an odd sort of

f $0
thing. But did the jury remember the observaboU°_, ale
Taylor ? " Those documents of yours are Iniss%oo
Jones : I wonder where they are." Was there enye"_'.; got
in supposing, that he had, by means of his double, k,,f.,e
tree
possession of those deeds, and that when he fouled t_i'aejts.
action could not be completed without the knowleu%d then,
Taylor, he necessarily put an end to it at once'
nireered
he attempted to show that the . mortgage had be in,ofs
unnecessary by the receipt, on the following moials'a7tbere
checque for £l5O. Again, did the jury believ, ,Irobbell
was any systematic attempt on the part of the pueil'e• be
; Del eni
to frighten Mrs. Taylor night after night? °tee°
lieve that Porker was sent to her house as a Pr,,inj ae
Mrs. Taylor might have believed so, and have fen,', ter tli
she was much indebted to her good friend ..N•fr. Jonei., bed
man and the blunderbuss sent up to protect her. el,vbirhar
whether all that was not a part of the foul drama
l_, male.
person in humble circumstances—a spade and sho eiaa ea
—had contrived in a short period to obtain from a 0 the
woman £2700. Mr. Alexander then went
_tlerf.'ieFee
greater part of the letters of Mr. F. Lloyd to _tire.
anieerle
contending that there was nothing in them but the ot,
compliments of a friend to a friend—of 511 Ch eSr,rcat a iOlOri
esteem as it was not at all impossible to supposeet:,eadiage
man might entertain for an old lady, and of the
,'', nothing
certain small presents, and most certainly there o'e'of eebee,
contained in them to indicate or justify a ebaege,, alt. re
zlement. With respect to the announcement le oed
Lloyd; of his intention to marry Mrs. 1-larding',„; that!,
not help thinking that Mr. Lloyd had been Einee`',oo Ras
hoped to bring into respectability a worn bun, well
attached to him, who had sacrificed herself to ,Decte ,
become the mother of his children,. and iluee, But
lee.:
when that union had taken place, there would setii'e
• be one, Mrs. Taylor, who would notice his
with
cb3rge
there anything in the letter that had to do witi! l_., thelo"
• brought there that day ? Did it make Mr. F. Li°)",,e cone;
• thief that he had been represented ? He (the learned roe,
sel) thought not. They next, in the letter of Decetindie aneclei:
. wfoci
lutahntdet
haaennwleixtpodrl
eel
osossiftohtnoi
soafdlltehasere defendant'snfasme ipper to
pation of dining at his dear father's Christmas s., dote!:
that letter to show that Mr. Lloyd waslarch,
fraud? Again, in the letter of the 24th at `the
e 0e03!„
dressed to the nephew of Mrs. Taylor, at the tiivind'toleol
about to return to Liverpool, Mr. Lloyd, not
veyare,loo
what had occurred, states that he wishes for her,a` i, QtliiTint
at the same time repels the charges brought net-flar' diee-e
e.
false and unfounded. He adds, " The day is 110 -ell wo
when she will see that she is mioilsfytafarkeeeolnuingdallncaidctlent'°°;;:.;°ll:l3'l?'llf,;;;
how her money has been going for two or three wear 31,(
is to say, in distinct terms, " I am too well awaiee intone
Taylor has been made the object of forwarding °all earetie
Mr. Jones in pecuniary matters, and am not at
.10 itfrd,
at any deficiency in her money, when for ,two ),,es eel ',tile
seen what has been going on between Mr. Jon'eeeroni e,
Taylor." Was there a sentence in the lettcrs te e).lr.ereoesc
well which had been taken by his learned friena k,agtoboo
? The tendency of the whole of the letters ;000 id
that) Mr. F. Lloyd looked upon Mrs. Taylor 25 el.efel'eP:s
was entitled to his respect, and to whom he t a her,,b,
attentions, having, as had been shown, introdufeeeeling tae
visitor at the house of his mother. it nettS3 er frOIOW be
same kind which made him anxious to pr beut sclier!eo
whom he had looked upon as not her friends; bat elf
found that he could not prevent her throwing out pfii 0,
their arms, he still expressed his well-wisbeettbai thefee
that was owing to her. Mr. Alexander said derroreition
had been carried on in such a manner that he wase i obieeee
- on behalf of his clients, to take advantage of a l,tt. ibereciat
which presented itself. From the first to the lreirs. ,',dsi
nothing to show that the money transactions 0 . e Vied
had been between herself and the bank of Taylore esbecor
the whole of the partners denied that their books es be,
any account between them and the lady ; Mr. l'eant ettet
roborated that statement; he said, that the account all ;bat
tween him and Mrs. Taylor ; that he bad ret,q,'„ but ht,
was due; that he had attempted to return notaiee, it toioo.
was due ; and he (Mr. Alexander) therefore. root:Wont
lordship whether the firm could be liable. heartlfeibea'rli
the learned counsel referred to the evidence as w • t.
the in • 001
said to be due. At the great meeting which ir ber CO" bie
of, £l9OO was said to be due. On that Mr.,N'tae teeetfeee
nothing. He saw the book, according to his , the,' ebt
he saw £7OO, and no other sum. The large sa-v'evee'tisi
was spoken to exclusively by Jones. NOY, anZoviidel'
have been named, if such evidence were to be eitl
satisfactory.lle ibe
IN
Mr. Francis
hnaFednraldaennaLtcr learned
osaeydLsdulsJom.
ye
dnoxfG
oimelnotethnhoeeefny procee d e d t 0 sutra oiler - fe Y lje'ii b /
that in this case Mrs. Ann Taylor sought to .was rece°./ee
tb° there sac
acco u n t betw e e n th e m a d dttv'heh'efehie npcPdlhaaarisnntlinttseei ffra:l;ey°Bgufetd: awti
theel ie
frelale ;515
Mr. Francis Lloyd sas that what account eeon be,
thepl
taiwdhabas
nyckeh,ritmhaui,nt
landhyeat
between
nty it
her
xewrtarasanondrodhti
Tialmanr
yiancc
hiscaos tet,latdn,bii.ve itfuraeal
3vorcie
el ):11.,,:
is:
:0,
,i
a det° el J
ticular attention on the part of the jure. " "' of eg;l''
the plaintiff was now an old woman of 7 Ye'rsa a-oni'!di Der
and he thought that he might say that she wa's,,ted eel a 0
jtahtswi
ethhodaheiowt
nddiitlscoa sgiebohti difficultefntalneteesgghdnot,rtepartoadtut
cene dt
i,
ot oanntidmo
tpmhoors
se. e
Lownl
oe,
yr
dae n. :II
,e:'ll3 arks Po.
,efatbi
ieteeb nec,s_vri
ii e tteervo
money very easily. Mrs. Taylor seemed to liast;er of ,e 0"
mte
etiytore
scnwboheooneufltdalhtdpierlpeenehloaywat:neaddswtf
to
irtiaans‘g,
et hobefeyei‘nl wellpr a
ytpi
nr beg
anewchocj,o
ill
noirftv tosi.,t,,i is
tboe
solitary old woman. What kind of object be 10010fn,''beri:
decide whether his objneb:eltddev,
left him. What did he call on her for 5" rto F*s;lsoY‘of
why did he write letters to her? Did he mean" oleo 0 vet
r
was professing merely a warm attachment t° "; lAA, off,
74„ whom he had known onl eighteen raontbs•,nleieL7;ol:l
his letters he says to her, " I' have turned the, ace tli,'ldre
i ffiat oac
nsualaytt ftooirt tgtesh-teo u:nal,,dri :l' eeo4l:belii,tlifbcoeteht
in my mind, and for the first time in my life,-`, disreisot),
seriously about matrimony. - I have unifornici Y,OOOl,
the suggestions of my friends, although couri•o,` ia eeiri ow
and fashion." Then he goes on to say that be wife cl,,,ce:
unless it meets with her approbation, and litisr and th'e eili
her love of home strengthened by Mrs. TO-I,ll'ot and.,
fore her eyes the example of the old lady. nf the 'Deli' 4
eharidcdwehofiaethhtinedntpagunrroottlfldesehs,fsooaewnodlde.tdow.hThmiisltiresasetgnr•wtoEeeirvis.io-cntletael at,b.i,:eles,clojr:,:::,!
afswseeemhennlipttielnehhedziotnhwhfeefrom Norway. Those things iliell'a•ver),P.'leer„e
that his object was to get hold of .tll;eBY°l?dr. sclbaclsllls''';P'"
uMoro.nWmebre. rih,aaydlomr eanttitohneedhahni
kh,issalvididertireentthialtielclotebbeeel3ierjetliisd;
Mrs. Taylor, the senior partner said, °l),'„,ilgreet: fhae•
mention her as a woman from whom he had
else I for 'it
tions. Ido not like it." He might well 1)-elstanctebete,e' ni
was certainly' not a very favourable cirea";eiclo `,,cl th
' defendant ; but the jury were to sc y how it 5',,,er ';t°,„.
. they thought that nothing unfairl-and finPe-;;'oweety.ol
meant, then any impression of his should final, bet"%eoll,o
them. There was certainly nothing criutina,"profes'if Pc;
gusting it might be, in a young man inakii",,,' do 5110' et fly:
attachment to an old woman, if be chose rile aiSoeilea
feelings would permit him to do it, he flone fier',oo;ie
such things were well known to have bee It ees "preliea'oP
without the person incurring any odium. large le° bn
found that when a man was possessed °ft" a,l'eeoP tIOA co).
even though he had got it by such acts as teeenes,-001"de
say, " Oh, he is a man of large ertY in •orY .•
county, which he got in this way. dbv it .00 1, ill',
propy, The j
„rep gpr
Tnwhether
ryM.
money,hr
had heard
hi Lfe
alhoreydde
otlhiaaeldd
:bieteenietdaric,litgtthilyao.
Alexander, and there were some difficult riceotiee, eloPthe
story of Mr. F. Lloyd was, that there was On 3,0,15 of or
Mrs. Taylor and the bank. The other Pale bo°. aleeit,
that, and there seemed to be no account iiii a poinitbeibe
bank. On that Mr. Alexander had raisecii aided ad oe,
the other partners were liable. It was admit
; :1, °:,lor
Francis Lloyd was a partner in the hankluetbe 004515,
jury were of opinion that he had received/owed )jerebelet
although
ts
oenstui rptgp suppose
shteahttehhmae
trohenceeeysi voheradedictneaiovsteadbieriaetrn, ttnheer;iotrhne vt, rr leere've
of
.0v iotaiiti!
tub-east law ahnadd nre
cs te
imv
eadn i
if et s ti
nj u shtiiac ei.P:dsiticfkittcl'teethii°tahrietb°eallier".'s.te'nli.a`:-I.solpelitiefr3asieeft:tilicileelb•cvfilb'tt,oiotic.sly.ti
15ite'f°0,,i,e‘t,',,i:31,a0,‘:•I..
TaylorsT Francisheju l.
jury
nlwodoy
udi,dc
Lloyds,adreecf ui
dltlelyl
eoe
nxcwluhd.
objectioninhg all
° T.
d '
sec or , te i
There was an old lady, receivingtc nweeasiev freinitter,tore. ? oi
and was it more probable that she should e'o.oe teeelt Oleo:it
on his own responsibility, or to put it 1121.,iti rl':fiirit:o.o
support of the former position, it had been 7-certilitiiiit ete
allowed 5 per cent. on her money, (and rn°sa that jeeo,-
book it was so calculated on both sides') 811):1y5e01resitiot•
much larger rate of interest than any hankelea, tie,. Post
Mr. F. Lloyd admits that he received inoatlii",o )1r- ;vg ee
ee I ejee tet
but says that he never gave a hank le°,t,cont tli6 leo
That seemed a strange assertion at first sig.. 130,0.0. e
the book produced was in his handwritiee; bet u
-" he 00;1
been explained to mean that he never go
,eeote ~rioceenij
t
of the firm of Taylors and LloY'l d tbe e,e el
that she had a cheque book of the bank tieaa-f of tl l ied le
of bank conditions pasted on the
(or bank) book produced, must he tnhio.sutehttb' hea,eveb.a..iite.;
lady to believe that she had an account el
.40int,01.00,er:
Jones had been called as a witness for e '
6 ble e're(lurs• l''' thb'
peered that he had been a person in bun', lth d (lt
• teu w eiteeett
and that he and his wife became Lima."' bad °` c w of ',t
It was highly probable that Mrs. Jones
vices, Ist'bipso rat{'
old lady without being paid for her seta good ,pect rott;,
she and her husband expected to make !With re,f ,s,vanflei
and there was no doubt that they batien,nrovee" .Bwdirt
bringing forward Mrs. Harding, t° "'-'ceeiN'traio-11;e
the facts sworn to by the plaintiff's IV itlir:l-; on e e one
had very powerfully suggeeted that his cli,of jelioeit;ij .b .
been restrained from so doing by a feeline,,c) sli,anee!'e'rr:
was all very true, and he (the learned _falcate n, •orit nee
of the last to ask parties to act in an indel
~ aye irit)rad ae
• udger. pa it 4./
still it was very often the case thate,
nce as, 0 , parr
asked to decide on such amount of ev,",ehoebeie itne 1)1)1 iLI
pleased to produce, not on all that couleief eiteeantei4'alke
In the present instance the case was 0n,e(43, wee., be -iiitsuil;t
to the defendant, Mt. F. Lloyd---One Wl7er, ilniirelreo
btoe,itifthethteercmhsaregmepNlvoeyreedtbryucir. Ale:eau
nest areleave b e
business, and he thought they a dishone fare e tete
Mrs. Harding.
absent T he
foraJL! r
short re retired et dim fortime,
t hceovnrseuitiluti it:nit ileotaetille;o:fctoeti; r it
`rotitl3 'ei
diet for the plaintiff for £l2Bl 10s. Y. ' Ali
----- syspA 0011
Smith, at
CROWN COURT.--WI cOO el,
CHARGE OF AAP for a raP eerer
EAsdieitno,na.guenddser
Ere the first and t tOP
principal witness, „earcelpea _.,ibi
dente, she having been übjected to e ' ,toe lieell .0
giving it as his opinion that the charge uu
11Lwyansei.nd.icted
bo ;2.illsred.,. e.,,cosSid:
there . •• lif°
tuaiainteadt.ion by Mr. Wilkins,s his lortislqta•
speitioatoort I
The foreman of the jury thought iracy • Wl.eo,
make the prisoner the victim of a cou:P
tilt 004iglit;
THE CHARTIsT_d
assa joy eO,
Joseph Booth, indicted for a riot "".. long ffilli'e're
ter e
Johnson, at Manchester, was, after joft° 0, ''
found guilty.—Sentence deferred.
,),beighi, 001 W Or,ol e
Richard Eastwood, Solomon Gt.'l'i riot A!'olifig• e, ,itli
and Thomas Heywood, charged w'r_'.!e very ). of ego oi
also found guilty. The prisoners w°,l_o year' accol' lip
lialgh looked little more thau four!e_ry ou ~ Pea
to Mc" lo't' el J
Crofpigilif,
jurßyobreecrotmGmilleinbdreatnidG, reenhalgh
youth.—Sentencc deferred. /80ac ' re
dieted for participation in the riots a'
Openshaw, Richard Ejtntwpooe calr,soall,lu" "Pilorlerue" :1:104,:jaI5140/(1:,
JlOO 0,0 ~,o,
guilty.—Sentence deferred. phi; iry , soliv
Thomas Farrell, James Pilling,' and fir 0 itt
Merle, John Gill, Joseph Bos
were found guilty of participating iii d the 0 .:.''' 1
r°eN' the I.l° OP ;0'
whole -, Ae cord`
Sentence deferred.jetatreyath, ft
\NTT hiel
haat above cases,
convicteduied nearlye
ra tpl:c eatae
of ,
past
0 "
was placed at the bar, satins udgili ,sylocl"
against him. rter P-
The court adjourned at a q ee,el.. bt lil,,
-------, _aareol.el'' co' ilg OF
NISI PRIUS COVIEC-',,T;e, aS° „rob airee for
TAYLOR V. CLEW:N:SO;I,e actiOn4 thetteeeldie,g:
This was a special jury case. !icy, agelbaciog j belear,
Mr. Henry Taylor, a retired attoin
.. for .
of 11
at ,oti,
• ilwa) ' •ori dot It' Le
of the Leeds and Manchester Ra .11 porn of
s. , 0 01: ~
the purposes of the railwaYb,
tieeltatiin the
iloistytle‘'a'cnAgbretietliet,
ing to him, attached to a-0 -, den' a p boo ,it o.:1 j,
consisting of a grave-yard, a gat 'el their sc, . s'sea„et Ole/
having properly described them i .
_i_4l, e? wa,
isric tote
reference, and for also having tar vilicil.
tod 3.!',Jbe'
another contiguous piece of grlni.npeival2`beeli tilt
by which was in fact occupiedl?,,,ecae ha,
and for which rent was paid..
.'
and decided against the pintff

1113
T• doll
re
oD et
err
ere'
nS tbe
lea alb'
it t to
1'
tt°ll
111 J

d,
01011.'04,
[lofiltirlt:C
ge
)1g 00(
'e° 1011:
-04°1!;04)
r:11,:g; Pi
00
/
k, 1111.1111
1013'
13°
at
the
Mol P.„cor
-

Ca
)1,3r. ht
tOrj
r.fa
d'rv' P
vo,
ttibe,l°,ois
.411 t fOroii(
01- ot•ht
;;C•11)0°' ,A
set grotat,
P, I V
1•1(`