The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-08-16 00:00:00

NISI PRIUS COURT.-WEDNESDAY.

After several cases of minor importance had, been disposed
of, the following was taken.

WARD AND ANOTHER V. REECE AND ANOTHER.
in this case Messrs. Ward and Evans, brewers of this
town were the plaintiffs, and Messrs. Guppy, Reece and Co.,
also brewers of this town, defendants.

Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Ellice appeared for the,plaintiffs,
and Mr. Alexander and Mr. Crompton fat the defendants.
The action was sought to recover;,compensation fori goods
alleged to have been taken away and dainage done. to a cer-
tain public-house belonging to the plaintiffs, in Tithcbarn-
street, and for which injuries thereunto had rendered.. the
plaintiffs unable to fulfil,their:contract with another party.
It appeared that the plaintiffs were proprietors, under a
lease of a public-house, at the corner of Tithebarn-street
and.Hatton-garden. This, house they let to a person ugned
William Profit. Gray. , The house was completely, fitted with
fixtures and every requisite, and which were delivered.,te?mn
ther to Gray, who thus became the sub-tenant
.of„l‘lessrs,:
Ward and Evans. Mr. Gray became indebted to the de-
fendants, who had him in the Borough Court 'for their
money, when they obtained judgment, which was executed
in the month of January. A writ was issue.l by Messrs.
/Guppy, Reece, and Co., and lodged in the hands of an officer
of the Borough Court, who entered and seized. Mr. Cress-,
well, in allusion.to this part of the case, stated that the fix-
tures, which' might be moved and taken away by the sub-
tenant; the officers might have legally taken under such cir-
cumstances. But the fixtures and goods belonging, to the
plaintiffs had no right to be touched. Notice was given to
Kirby, one of the officers of the Borptigte Court, that the
plaintiffs claimed certain of the fixtures arid chattels. Kirby,
however; had directions to proceed to a sale of all the effects,
and when he poiutedout to Mr. Reece that there were cer-,
fain goods which were the property of the landlord, the latter
told hiin to proceed and lie would hold him harmless. It was
Stated that the plaintiffs bought in. goods to the-amount of
£57, and that to place the. premises in as good condition as
before would cost £l5O more.

His LORDSHIP expressed his opinion that Mr. Reece
having, through the solicitor, Mr. T. Harvey, given autho-
rity to seize the goods of the plaintiffs, this, being a wrong
action, did not implicate Mr. Guppy. He would, however,
trust that to the jury.
Mr. CRESSWEtL contended that Mr. Guppy, being a part-
ner, was responsible jointly for whatever was done by the
attorney.

Mr. ALEXANDER followed by Mi. CROMPTO', observed
that the fact of a new assignment, which was produced, men-
tioning a second trespass, that the pla,lti's ought to have
proved a second trespass.
His LORDSHIP consented to reserve the point.
It was agreed that the damage shoUld be settled out of
court.

, The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff against both part-
ners. If the opinion of the judges should be favourable to
the defendants on the reserved point, leave given to enter a
nonsuit.

CROWN COURT.—Tnuasimr.
Mr. Justice COLTMAN took his seat at a little after nine
o'clock.

MANSLAUGHTER.

Charles Thornley, 2S, was charged with killing and slay-
ing one James France, at Manchester, in March last.
Mr. L. Peel appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Wil-
kins for the defence.
The learned Counsel for the prosecution, in stating the
case, said that at the last assizes two men, charged with the
offence for which the prisoner stood arraigned, were acquitted,
the judge being of opinion, that, as the case was involved in
some obscurity, it would not justify a verdict against the pri-
soners. The circumstances in the present case were stronger
against the prisoner than those urged at the late assizes
against the men who who were acquitted. In March last
the deceased and the prisoner met in a public-house in Man-
chester. A person who was selling " sheeps' trotters" was
present. When the deceased went in, the individual, who
was engaged with the prisoner, left him to attend upon the
deceased. A companion of the deceased took a " trotter"
from the basket, which gave rise to a disturbance, and this
individual and the person selling the " trotters" were going
out to fight, when the prisoner interfered on behalf of the
latter, and in consequence of some altercation between the
deceased and the prisoner, the latter struck him a blow on
the face, and subsequently another on the breast. A general
fight commenced, in which the prisoner received injuries.
Mr. Peel said a difficulty would arise as to who it was who
inflicted the injuries which caused death. As there was no-
thing in the evidence to be offered to show a previous con-
sert among the parties inflicting the injuries, the prisoner
could not be held responsible for acts done by others. The
statement of the surgeon would show whether death had been
occasioned by the blows which could be proved to have been
struck by the prisoner. If this could not be established, the
evidence would at any rate clearly prove a common assault.
Mr. Oilier surgeon, of Manchester, said he Is as strongly
of opinion that the deceased had died from injuries inflicted
on the head; in consequence of which. Mrt Feel Alaandoncd
the prosecution for the principal charge, but urged the case
for the assault.

Mr. WILK:Ns consented to a verdict of guilty for a com-
mon assault.
His LORDSHIP said as there were many extenuating cir-
cumstances in the case. and as the prisoner had already been
a length of time in gaol, he thought the purposes of justice
would be served if he inflicted a-week's imprisonment.
MALICIOUS CUTTING.
James Westwell, 40, was charged with havini nd
stabbed one Peter Walkden, in June last, at Culcheth,' th"
intent to murder him. There were other counts in tli!
dictment varying the intent.
Mr. Ramshay prosecuted, and Mr. Wilkins defended the
prisoner.
The prisoner kept a small farm at a place called Culcheth,
about ten miles from Wigan, and in June last was in arrear
for rent to his landlord for ten guineas. The landlord pro-
cured a warrant to distrain, which was placed in the hands of
a bailiff to be executed. The bailiff employed two "follow-
ers" to assist him, one of whom was the landlord and the
other the prosecutor, the latter of whom by order of
the bailiff, entered the house of the prisoner. An attempt
was made to eject him, and in doing so the prisoner seized
a spade and struck a blow at the prosecutor, which caught
him on the thigh, which blow inflicted a severe wound, from
the effects of which the prosecutor was confined for a month.
This formed the subject of the indictment.
Mr. John Latham, of Wigan, the surgeon who examined
the wound, described it to be about four inches in length,
and about half an inch deep, and said it appeared to have
been occasioned by some blunt instrument.
Mr. WILKINS cross-examined the various witnesses, with
the object of showing that the prosecution againstthe pri-
soner had been instigated for the purpose of covering an il-
legal proceeding of the parties bringing the charge, with re-
ference to executing the warrant.
Mr. WILKINS said he would leave the case in his Lord-
ship's hands.
His LORDSHIP said the jury would first have to consider
whether the party charged inflicted the blow, and of this fact
there could be no doubt ; .and next, with what intent the blow
was given. If they should be of opinion that the prisoner
intended deliberately to kill the prosecutor, they must find
him guilty on the first count of the indictment ; but if they
were not satisfied of this, they would then have to consider
whether the evidence would sustain the other counts. The
law had•no specific definition of the words "grievous bodily
harm," but they were understood to imply the infliction of
injury. If the jury were of opinion that the prisoner in-
flicted the blow with this intent, they would find him guilty
on the 4th count ; however, if they were not satisfied that
the blow was inflicted to do grievous bodily harm, they
might, by an alteration which had been made in the law, find
the prisoner guilty simply of an assault, which would not sub-
ject him to transportation; and from the nature of the evi-
dence his Lordship thought that this would be the construc-
tion placed upon the act of the prisoner.
The jury found the prisoner guilty of the assault, but
acquitted him Of the felony. The prisoner was sentenced to
twelve months imprisonment to hard labour.
Frederick Carrington, 23, was indicted for maliciously
cutting and wounding Richard Gill, at Lathom, with intent
to do him grievous bodily harm. ,
Mr. Hulton prosecuted, and. Mr. Wilkins defended.
It appeared from the evidence, that, on Whit-Mcinday, the
prisoner and prosecutor were together at a public-house in
Lathom, where dancing was going on. A quarrel took place
between them, and blows were exchanged. The parties pre-
sent succeeded in parting them, and the prosecutor went and
sat at the top of the room ; in a little time'tte priSoner went
up to hi4,and struck him a kip w on,theßeck, and then ran
off. PrOsecutor.immediately found that he had been stabbed,
ancia. large clasp-knife, with which the wound had been in-
flicted, and which belonged to, the prisoner, was found lying
at the prosecutor's feet.
A great number of witnesses were called.

The surgeon who wa;;:lied Ko- dressihe wound said he
was rather inclined to think that it, bad been inflicted in the
manner in which he had been informed it had, (with a piece
of broken glass,) than with a knife. There was no danger to
be apprehended from it. He thought the rent in the shirt
worn by the prosecutor on the night of the occurrence did
not correspond, either in size or situation, to the wound 'on
the prosecutor's neck.

' The prosecutor was requested to put on the shirt, that the
jury might examine for themselves ; but in consequence of
the neck of the shirt having shrunk; owing to the gore upon
it, this point could not be clearly ascertained..
Mr. WILKINS, in an able speech, addressed the jury for
the prisoner ; and after strongly remarking upon the extra-
ordinary anxiety manifested by the prosecutor to make out a
case against his client, and the disparity which existed in the
statements of the witnesses, contended that the probability
was—as they had been told by the evidence, that the occurrence
took place on a feast day, that a glass had been broken, and
from the surgeon they had it, that it was his opinion that
the wound ,had been inflicted, not with a knife, but with a
broken glass—that at the time the prosecutor had been
drinking some one must have struck against him, and that
the wound had been inflicted by the broken glass.
His LORDSHIP carefully read over the whole of the evi-
dence, and remarked upon it as he went on, and told the jury
it was of the greatest importance for them to be satisfied whe-
ther or not the wound had been inflicted with a knife, for
this would put entirely a different complexion on the case ; if
they should be of opinion that the injury had been caused in
the manner which the learned Counsel for the prisoner had
endeavoured to show, by the prisoner striking the prosecu-
tor's glass, he could only be found gay of an assault.
The jury, sfter consulting together for a few minutes, re-
turned a verdict of not guilty of the charge in the indictment,
but guilty of an assault.
The prisoner was sentenced to six months' hard labour.
This trial lasted upWards of four hours.
HIGHWAY ROQBERY.

Michael Doyle, 22, (remandedfrom last assizes), was
charged with robbing and assaulting Patrick Donally, on the
3rd of September, at Ashton-under-Lyne.
In answer to a question from the Judge, the prosecutor
said the reason he had not appeared last assizes was, because
he had been threatened.

Mr.
counsel.

Whigham prosecuted ; the 'prioner was without

The particulars of the case are thesel—On the 3rd of Sep-
tember there was a foot-race on Kersal Moor, and the pro-
secutor left his home at Stayley Bridge,, for the purpose of
attending it, but meeting with some acquaintance in Man-
chester, he remained there all day. He left Manchester
about ten o'clock at night to go to Stayley Bridge. When
he reached a place called Clayton-road, the prisoner with
others came up. The moon shone very brightly, so that
there could be no difficulty of uis recognising the prisoner

as 'one of the party. The' prisoner seized him by the legs
and " tripped" him up, and three of the persons with him
fell across him. They took prosecutor's hat and shoes
from him, and ordered his companions to search his pockets,
which they did, and not finding anything, they were about
-to strip him of his trousers, but some one coming up, they
ran away. One of the parties who had robbed the prosecu-
tor, left behind him an old hat which prosecutor had seen
the prisoner wearing the day previous. The prosecutor pro-
ceeded to the next public-house, where he told the particu-
lars of -xvhat had happened. Prosecutor the following day
called upon the prisoner at his work with the hat he had
found, and requested him to return him his own along with
the shoes he had taken: Prisoner denied knowing anything
of the robbery, and laug'ned at the prosecutor for being so
simple. Prosecutor told him he should send a police-officer
.to him, and prisoner replied he might do so if, he pleased, for
he was innocent of any robbery.
The individual who keeps the public-house where prosecu-
toi,called after; the robbery, was called, and stated that when
prosecutor came to his house he was perfectly sober.
The prisoner handed in &document, which gave a similar
account of seeing the prisoner drunk on the road to the state-
tnent he. had made
.to the, constable. In the document, he
wished the following questions to be put to the prosecutor :
Where,riiis you robbed? At Ashton-under-Lyne. At what
time was it ? Between n and 12 o'clock. What sort of a
night was it ? Moonlight. Had you been to the prisoner's
friend to endeavdur to compromise the matter ? No. Did
you receive the sum of £1 not to say anything more about
it? No; a sum was offered me, but after consulting with
Mr. Hall, the Magistrates clerk, I refused. The prisoner
called two witnesses who deposed that the statement made
by the prisoner respecting finding the prosecutor drunk on
the road was true, and gave the full particulars of the case ;
and stated that the- prosecutor refused. to'accompany them
home, as he said he was working at a mill, near to where he
was lying, and that if he went home, he should be unable to
get to his work in time.
A; witpe§-s was called who swore that he saw, X 4 paid by the
prisoner s' sister to the prosecutor to compound the matter;
and said that he had spoken-to. him on the impropriety and
consequences of compounding a. felony.
The JUDGE remarked to the witness that he would have
him lx-ware 4s;hat path he took in such matters ; as it was
evident* hacl taken some share in making the arrangement.
The-, prosecutor was re-called, arid stated that what the
last witness had said about him receiving 'Was altogether
falsg —Oltle witness ~had several times been with him, and
told him that if he came against DoYie, " he would get the
sawer's death in Dublin," meaning that they would kill him ;
it was in consequence of this-threat prosecutor said that he
absconded, and did not appear at the last assizes.
Mr. WrirariAm addressed the jury, and contended that
from the nature of the evidence adduced by the prosecutor,
the statements made by the witnesses called by the prisoner
could not be credited.

After being out'of collator three-quarters-of an hour, the
jury, returned into court with ayerdicfof ;guilty, but recom-
mended the prisoner to mercy.
His 'LORDSHIP in passing seneence, said-the prisoner was
liable to be transported for life, but the act of Parliament
did:not make it imperative Upon him to pass that sentence.
The jury had recommended him to Mercy, and upon that
recommendation, and from the fact that no violence had been
committed, he was induced to inflict a very light punish-
ment. The sentence of the court' Was, that he should be
imprisoned for two years, and kept to hard labour.