The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-04-12 00:00:00

LEICESTER V. LEICESTER.

This was an action arising out of a dispute existing between
Mrs: Leicester, of Birkenhead, and her son, and was brought
to recover a sum of X-1.

Mr. CROMPTON opened the pleadings. The declaration
stated, that a deed had been executed between the parties,
by which it was agreed, that a chancery suit then pending
should cease and determine ; and the defendant agreed to give
the plaintiff a certain consideration.
Mr. WIGHTMAN, for the defendant, stated that he could
not resist the plaintiff's claim ; consequently, a verdict was
taken for the plaintiff,—damages, £4, and costs.
This case closed the business which had been alotted to
Mr. Baron Park, who seemed glad of his release, being at the
time labouring under an attack of cold and hoarseness. We
believe he left Liverpool on Thursday morning.

NISI PRIUS COURT—WEDNESDAY. •
(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.)
CRIM. CON.—CHANTLER, D. HIGGINSON.

In this case Peter Chantler, of Warrington, was the plain-
tiff, and Thomas Higginson, of the same place, the defendant.
The action was brought to recover compensation in damages
for an alleged criminal conversation of the defendant with
the wife of the plaintiff, under peculiar circumstances.
The Hon. Stuart Wortley and Mr. Watson appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Alexander for the
defendant. To the allegations set forth in the record the
defendant pleaded not guilty.
The Hon. &mull' WORTREY stated the facts of the case.
The plaintiff was a drover' residing in the town of Warring-
ton. He was married in 1833, and since his marriage had
had two children. His wife, since her last confinement, had
been afflicted with insanity, which not unfrequently super-
vened after an accouchement, and she had continued of
insane mind ever since. The defendant resided in the
neighbourhood of the plaintiff ; but he (the learned counsel)
could not inform the jury what occupation he pursued. That
fact could not be proved ; for the defendant did not appear
to have any precise occupation. The defendant knew the
plaintiff's wife, and was perfectly acquainted with the circum-
stances of the family. On the Bth of July last, the defendant
was in a house near the plaintiff's residence, where he con-
tinued until he watched the plaintiff away. He then went
into the plaintiff's house, and under pretence of going to see
Mrs. Chantler he went up stairs, where she was confined to
her bed, in a state of insanity. The servant girl was in the
room at the time, engaged in cleaning. He sent her away to
purchase something. The jury would hear that the girl re-
turned sooner than was expected, and on entering the room
she saw what she would describe to them. He (the learned
counsel) was led to believe that it would be contended that
the defendant was drunk at the time. But it would be for
the jury to say whether intoxication was any palliation for so
brutal and filthy an outrage. The poor woman was probably
unconscious of the crime which she had committed, and if
the defendant was intoxicated at the time, he ought to be
made to pay for such an outrage.

The fiisCwitness called was -
Mary Ridyard.—She stated that she lived as servant with
Mr. Cfsantler, the plaintiff, who resided at Warrington. She
knew Higginson, who also resided at Warrington, not very
far from her master's house. She did not know what Mr.
Higginson was. When she first went to reside with Mr.
Chantler, her mistress was out of her mind. Her mistress
had been confined to her bed eight or nine weeks. Witness
recollected Higginson coming to the house about eleven
o'clock on the morning of the Bth of Feb. last. Her mistress
was then in bed, and Mr. Chantler, who was a drover, had
gone out to Kewdley to bring up some cows. He had left
the house about ten minutes when the defendant came in.
Witness was up stairs, there was • only one room up stairs.
Witness was cleaning in that room in which her mistress was
in bed. Higginson entered the room, and said to witness,
"Go and fetch threepenny worth of brandy." She went to
the next door, the Golden Bull, and 'as they had no brandy
there, she purchased twopenny worth of rum. She was not
long away. She took the runs up to the defendant, and he
drank it He was sober at the time. He was sitting by the
side of the bed. He than gave her a shilling, and told her
to go to Walmsley's and purchase fOurpenny worth of bran-
dy. She did not go so far as Wahnsley's, she went to Hill's,
the Lord Rodney, which was just across the street. She re-
turned as quickly as she could. She ;went up stairs to the
room. [Witness here described the situation in which she
found the defendant and her mistress.] She put the brandy
and eightpence down by the side of the bed, but she did not
go away immediately. She stood behind the curtain a few
moments. She was very much alarmed. She went down
stairs, and the defendant followed in about ten minutes. He
did not go away immediately. There was a man down stairs,
and the defendant stopped to speak to :him. Mr. Chantler
returned home about seven o'clock. Between eight and nine
o'clock witness told her master what she had•seen. He went
out, and shortly after nine o'clock he came back, and took
her with him to the Golden Bull, where she saw Charles Hig-
ginson and his wife. She told him what she had seen. He
put his head down on the table, but did not speak. Mr.
Chantler was very angry ; he was very ill put about.
On her cross-examination by Mr. CRESSWELL, witness
said that she was going of eighteen years of age. Previously
to living with Mr. Chantler she lived with Mr. Warburton,
a farmer, at Winwick. Mr. Chantler is a drover. There
was in his house only one room above and one below. The
stairs from the room below went up directly to the room
above. Witness slept in the same room with her master and
mistress, in which room there were two beds. Mr. Higgin-
son was not in the habit of going to her master's house._
He had been there about five times. They (the plaintiff and

defendant) had drunk together, but not much. She had seen
them together at the public-house, next door. Her mistress
never went out at night. She never knew her master to turn
his wife gut. They put her out once when her master was
ill. . Master Walmesley took her out to the house of her bro-
ther-in-law next door. Her master was out of his mind; and
was confined to hiS bed about five weeks. That was four
months ago. Her mistress once had a black eye, which was
given to her by her husband.
His LORDSHIP asked if it were not a pity to go on? Here
was certainly a gross moral offence, but what damage could a
madman have sustained by the loss of the society 'of a mad-
woman ? Would it not be well to withdraw a juror ?
Some proposals were made, but rejected by" the defendant.
The learned counsel for the plaintiff said he was obliged,
then to proceed. The examination was continued..
Witness stated that it was on the night when she informed
her master of what had occurred with Charles Higginson that
he gave his wife the black eye. • He pulled her out of bed and,
struck her. She exclaimed. " Oh, Peter, don't hit me •he
would come whether I would or not." He gave her a black
eye once before, when she threw a jug at a boy's head. She
was insane at that time. Mr. Chantler never got into her
(witness's) bed. She mould swear, that. She remembered
a young woman named Ellison sleeping with her one night..
Her master came home drunk, and threw himself down at
the foot of their bed. Miss Ellison and the two children
were in bed with her. Her mistress got up and undressed
her master, in the room, and put him to bed. This did not
happen more than once. Her master got drunk sometimes,
but not very frequently. The man who was down stairs when
Higginson was there was Charles Dumbell, who assisted her
mister to drive cattle. Walmsley's house was not very far
off.

Re-examined.—Mather, who kept the Golden Bull, was
her master's brother-in-law. Dr. Grierson attended his mas-
ter, who had now recovered. Mrs. Chantler was sometimes
violent.

•
Charles Dumbell stated that he was servant to Mr. Chant-
ler. He was in the house when Higginson came in ; that was
about twelve o'clock. When he entered he said, " Well,
Charley, you are a smart man, aren't you ?" Witness re-
plied,' What for ?" Higginson said, " Where's William
Chantler ?" Witness replied that he had gone to fetch two
cows. The defendant relied, "That's right. I thought he
would have neglected it." He went up stairs when the girl
was scouring the room. Mrs. Chantler was there in bed, and
she was in a very poor state of mind. He was there alto-
gether about half an hour. The girl went out twice. Hig-
ginson was fresh in liquor. When Higginson came down
stairs he asked witness to have a glass of ale, to which he
(witness) acceded, and they went out together.
Cross-examined.—The girl first brought rum, and then
brandy. He could have heard anything that was going on up
stairs, but he did not take any .. • If there had been any
disturbance, he could have h s. He thought that Mr.
Higginson could not have ill-us . Mrs. Chantler without his
hearipg it. He did not hear anything. He went out with
Higgmson to Mather's and stayed about a quarter of an hour.
Higginson returned with another man, and sent for a pint of
ale. He was very intimate with Chantler.
Mr. Grierson, surgeon, stated that he was in practice at
Warrington. He attended Mrs. Chantler. She was about
thirty years of age. After the birth of her second child she
was attacked by insanity. She and her husband formerly
kept the Golden Bull, but they left it when she became in-
sane. He had not seen her at any time when she was very
violent, but he had been informed that she was so. Her hus-
band and she lived together upon exceedingly good terms.
In October last, Mr. Chantler had erysipelas, in consequence
of which he was delirious during several days.
Ann Ellison stated that she was a servant at the Golden
Bull. She remembered the morning when this circumstance
happened. Higginson and Chantler were at the Golden Bull.
The former asked the latter where he was going. Chantler
said he was going to fetch some heifers. About nine o'clock
Higginson and his wife came to the Golden Bull. Chantler
came in and accused Higginson of the offence charged. He
asked him what right he had to go up those stairs at all.
Higginson did not deny it. Chantler sent and brought his
servant, for the people about would not believe it. He
brought the girl in, and she told what the defendant had
done. The defendant sat down in his seat and did notspeak.
Mr. Chantler was in a very great rage indeed, and was greatly
put out of the way.
Cros-examined.—She knew Chantler, and had once slept
at his house, on which occasion he was drunk. He used to
drink a little sometimes, but not much. He laid himself
along the foot of the bed on which witness was sleeping, but
did not remain there long. She could not tell how. many
days a week he got drunk. He used to take a glass at the
Golden Bull before going off. He was not drunk when he
went for the heifers. Higginson was also at that time quite
sober.

William Slater, farmer at Haydock, near Warrington,
stated that he recollected seeing Higginson at the King's
Head, near Warrington, some time since. He (witness) was
getting his dinner there, and Higginson was drinking. He
spoke of a married woman in an improper manner, and after-
wards mentioned the name of Chantler 's wife. He was talk-
ing some time, but at length he got up. [Witness here stated
that the defendant had, in an exceedingly coarse and disgust-
ing manner, admitted what he had done.] He said he wanted
a son and heir, for he had made a good deal of property, and
was killing himself; he wanted a son to leave it to.
Cross-examined.---Witness could not tell if Higginson were
drunk ;he was drinking. He could not tell to whom the
defendant had been talking, nor how many people were pre-
sent. Higginson did not address his discourse to witness.
He jumped up and began to talk quite suddenly.
Robert Parry proved the marriage of the plaintiff and his
wife on the Ist December, 1833.
Elizabeth Harrison knew the wife of the plaintiff before
her marriage Her name was Ellen Broadhurst. They had
been married five or six years, and lived together very hap-
pily and comfortably up to the time when Mrs Chantler be-
came insane.

Mr. CRESSWELL addressed the jury on behalf of the de-
fendant. He treated the case as one of an exceedingly disgust-
ing nature, which instead of having any merits, must stand
altogether upon its own demerits. He contended that the
evidence which had been offered of the offence, was not such
as any reasonable person could rely upon, or, if the jury did
believe it, the case was not one which called for more than
nominal damages.
his LORDSHIP briefly charged the jury, who, after a few
minutes' consultation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff—.
damages, forty shillings.
HURST V. ST. HELEN'S AND RUNCORN GAP RAILWAY.
This was a special jury case which had been fixed for hear-
ing this morning. After Mr. ALEXANDER, for the plaintiff,
had stated the case, and was proceeding with the examination
of witnesses, an agreement between the parties was come to,
by which the present action and the suit pending in the Court
of Chancery were put an end to. The St. Helen's and
Runcorn Gap Railway Company were to be permitted to com-
plete the works which had been in contemplation at the time
they were put a stop; to by an injunction from the vice-chan-
cellor, granted on application of the plaintiff ; and the railway
company stated that they had it not in contemplation to start
any new works in the vicinity of Mr. Hurst's property ; but
they would not give a distinct pledge that no other works
ever should be started.
BRASS V. MARPLES.
Verdict for the plaintiff for £5OO, subject to a teference.

LINTON v. SMITH.
In this case, Mr. William Linton, the artist, was the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Jonathan Smith, executor of his brother, Mi.
George Smith, lately carrying on business in Liverpool, as a
printer and publisher, the defendant, and the action was
brought to recover the sum of £5O, the value of a picture
sold by the plaintiff to Mr. George Smith.
It appeared that Mr. George Smith, when in business, was
in the practice of engaging Mr. Linton as the engraver for
the illustrated works published by him. Mr. Linton painted
a picture of the Bay of Naples, which was seen by Mr. G.
Smith, who became anxious to obtain a copy (or duplicate)
of the original. Several copies had previously been made,
and the price usually charged for a copy was fifty guineas ;
hut, as Mr. Smith was an old friend, and, as it might be said,
in the business, £5O was the price stipulated with Mr. Smith.
For that sum the picture was to be framed by a person em-
ployed for that purpose by Mr. Linton, and at his expense ;
and the same considerations which had induced the plaintiff
to allow Mr. Smith to have the painting at a reduced price,
induced him, at Mr. Smith's solicitation, to allow a frame to
be furnished of double the ordinary value. During the life-
time of Ma. G. Smith he had been heard to complain that
his copy of " Bay of Naples" was not so highly finished as
the original, or as Linton originally finished his works. He,
however, retained the picture, but died without paying the
purchase money. When the property of the deceased wasto
be valued, for the purpose of paying the probate duty, Mr.
Winstanley, the auctioneer, valued the picture at £3O,
stating that to be a very liberal valuation. The defendant,
convinced from other sources that that was the highest value
of the painting, refused to pay the plaintiff the sum agreed
upon.
A number of witnesses were called, who stated thai the
picture would not, in their estimation, produce more than
from £l5 to £2O, if sold by auction; although, as an acknow-
ledged work of Linton, it might, by private treaty, sell for
£25 or £3O.

His LORDSHIP observed, that the case seemed to him an
undefended one. A person purchased a picture at a stipu-
lated price, retained it, and then the executor of that indivi-
dual refused to pay the price on the ground that the picture
was an unfinished work. A man who engaged an artist to
paint his portrait might as well, when that portrait was sent
home and attained, plead that it was not worth the, stipulated
price, and refuse payment.
Verdict for the plaintiff for the sum claimed.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—YESTERDAY.
ROWE, JUN. V. COPE.
This was an action at the suit of the plaintiff, a solicitor, to
recover from the defendant £2OO. being the amount of a
promissory note for that sum, and for which it was contended
he was liable. Mr. CRESSWELL and another were counsel
for the plaintiff ; Mr. ALEXANDER for the defendant. The
case as stated was this :—ln the summer of last year, a young
man named Woods, who was articled to an attorney, and
who expected a legacy on becoming of age, in conjunction
with his brother borrowed from the plaintiff the sum named,
giving for it a promissory note, drawn up and signed by them,
and to which they had also obtained the signature (as it pur-
ported to be) of the defendant Cope, an oil merchant, with
whom one of them lodged in the same house, and with whom
he was on terms of intimacy. When this note became due,
the two Woods went out of the country, and the action was
commenced in October last by the plaintiff against the pre-
sent defendant, as the only tangible party. The cause was
to have been tried in London, but on the affidavit of the de-
fendant the venue was removed to this town. In that affidavit
he declared to the best of his knowledge and belief, the sig-
nature purporting to be his, was a forgery. On that (suffi-
cient) ground he had refused to honour the note.

The case entirely hinged upon the question whether the
signature to the note'was in reality that of the defendant or
not, and with a view to show that it was, Mr. CRESSWELL
called a number of witnesses, who swore that they had fre-
quently seen him sign his name, and that to the best of their
belief it was his writing. It was signed D. Cope, in the
, usual way in which they had seen him sign it. The signa-
ture to the defendant's subsequent affidavit for removal of
the trial, they all equally expressed an opinion appeared to be
a disguised hand, very unlike the style in which they had
seen him write and, moreover, having the Christian name
" David" at full length. The parties whose testimony was to
this effect, were of respectable character and standing in life
in this town. Several of them, who had had transactions with
the defendant, were requested to go to their places of business
and produce any document that bore his signature. While
these were being procured, Mr. Alexander for the defendant,
with the consent of Mr. Cresswell, produced a great number
of papers with the defendant's signature. These were ex-
amined by the court and jury, and being admitted to bear the
bona fide signature of the defendant, were compared with the
signature on the promissory note, and were found to be uni-
form and to resemble that signature ; but the latter, never-
theless, exhibited some peculiar and manifest difference.
Mr. Cresswell said, that having looked at these documents,
he would not further trouble the jury; but withdraw the
case as for the plaintiff. He hoped, however, that his lord-
ship would so notice the case, that no imputation or stigma
would attach to either of the parties in this case ; for he be-
lieved they had all acted properly. People out of doors were
but too apt to traduce the character of parties who were
losers in a cause ; in this case no blame could be attached to
to any one. The learned gentleman also alluded to the in-
surance case, tried at these assizes, in which the truth of his
remark was unhappily confirmed, although the plaintiff in
the action had no pecuniary interest whatever in the issue of
the trial l

Mr. ALEXANDER rose and said on the part of the Insurance
Office, that they did not attach the slightest blame to the
conduct of the plaintiff, but considered his conduct straight-
forward and honourable.

A verdict was then taken for the defendant.

SINGLETON V. J-ENEINS.
In this case there was another defendant, Hayes, who suf-

fae rs edu
mjudgment
yt
ao
lgeog
ebdy
tdoe
be due
to T ht
bee apcltaii onntiv rffa, sa t
sou rr ee
'
for labour done. The defendant is, also, a surveyor,orii,
Lion-square, London, and director of the " St George 5
way and Harbour Company," one of those visionary 51,!;.„d
tions which, of late years, have sprung up " like a rocket,
`-
come down like the stick." a
Bie"
Mr, R. Massey, being called, said, is a survey 'or ,
; Ravocii:
mingham, and was employed by the St. George s from
Company,. on the part of the intended line of railly*
Mostyn to Flint, and from Bew Bridge to Crewe. The PAoiog
tiff took the levels between the two last narld places, in ,
which he was engaged about seven days. Plaintiff Rea ow;
at work on the different plans. Lithographic plans,. avert
taken from plaintiff's and witness's work. (Thep lan'
produced.) The value of the work done by plaintiff
era.
about £3O. He thought three guineas a day fair remftn
tion.
Cross-examined.—Received his instructions from Mrs I;
Witness 'thought Mr. Sngleton said, at Chester, that
or
employed him, and that he (Pym) was secretary to the °
pimy.
was
Mr. Leather, a surveyor employed by the companYi,,ing
employed on the line in Wales, and spoke to plaintiff .y,',,,
employed from Bew Bridge to Crook, and from l'in°
Ferry to Bew Bridge, or six or seven ays.
Mr. Alexander M` for six or seven days
Mr. Alexander M'Donald, managder of the Corlim,e)o,
Bank of Bngland, in Chester, opened an account wit,'„floa
Shoebridge, in November 1836, and then received Xrfoo
his account. Saw Mr. Jenkins in January 1836, and St
what he heard from him. he headed the acconut,ols
George's Railway and Hubon Company." He dtequee`'
received a letter from him, enclosing some prosPec:4ll
(These were produced, and he reading of them caused I'o
laughter in the court.) Amongst the patrons aPPear„aad
names of the Duke of Sussex, the Marquis of Angle'l'be
other distinguished individuals, including admirals, fo'fogt.
list of directors are headed by the name of a member °
lmg
liament, and the whole bore a very formidable and 118°,.„0..
appearance. Several documents were put in to show the
nection of Jenkins with the concern. Other docurnell,ts.dge,
put in, signed eonjointly by Jenkins, Hayes, and Shoevieldte
A letter was also read from Jenkins, stating that he briOg
at a public meeting at Chester, and then, he wow"
with him, in the same coach, one of the sheriffs of Dr,„ut
and if he could not, "he would come by himself aches'
that that honour." Witness attended the meeting at
lolich
ter, and heard Jenkins make an eloquent speech,.
eam in fele I,
he pictured in pathetic colours the dangers to sen °ea t
navigation of the channel, all of which would be remq to,
the grand harbour scheme of the company he belonged
Mr. Crenshaw, of London, was examined, but thel",
nothing material in his evidence. the Ow
Mr. E. Parry, bookseller, of Chester, supplied •-1
eOlO
pany with printing and stationery. He applied to Ace,
for the amount of his account,. and got from him a".
for £46 175., which he produced. vroo
As the Court did not consider that the evidence yet .„the
Jenkins to be a partner, and after'some consultatl% his
plaintiff gave Mr. Pym a release, so that he might g'.
evidence.
Mr. Pym said he had seen Jenkins and Heys Ogetbtehreillie
January, 1836, and in November and October following cot'
were many meetings, at which both were present. 1
1181,,‘"ive4.
and Oct. Jenkins and Heys were chosen directors• crioe
was authorized by them to employ surveyors in coniuntoi
with the principal surveyor. The resolution to that J eifecae ,
entered in the minute book ; but as this was not P 7
the statement did not go to evidence. In Octobor!
Jenkins gave witness moneyto pay the expenses of o tto'
' in going to employ the surveyors, and Jenkins and
examined the 'accounts of the surveyors, and acted
rector in October. Witness said he had engaged the P apioi
and produced the written agreement from his poekettio
however, was signed by Henry Singleton, the plain °
and began " I undertake to survey and make a map
certain price." t be"
It was decided by the Court that this document 10 AC'
stamped, could not be received in evidence, and theirg:it,
cordingly fell to the ground.—Verdict for the defer°B,,j;aill,: t
This case concluded the business of the assisesc-og
quarter past two, and the learned JUDGE, addreSsl
jury, said, he had great pleasure in discharging themorl,
their arduous duties, and could not but in justiee..,rdo
"
that he had found the juries in this town the best
intelligent he had found throughout the kingdom.