The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1852-11-16 00:00:00

BIRKENHEAD PETTY SESSIONS,

These Sessions were held on Thursday, before John
Deane Case. Esq., (Chairman,) J. R. Shaw, Esq.,
Congreve, Esq.
NUISANCE IN A RAILWAY CARRIAGE.

James Judson, butcher, of Liverpool, was charged with
committing a nuisance in one of the Chester and Birken.
head Railway carriages.

Mr. Gibson, the Secretary. appeared for the Railway
Company ; ana Mr. Pemberton, solicitor, for the defen-
dant.

Mr. Barton, merchant, stated that on Tuesday fort-
night he was coming from Manchester by railway, in the
afternoon ; and that when between Chester and Birken-
head, the defendant, who was in the same carriage, com-
mitted the nuisance complained of.
Cross-examined.—Complained to the guard at the
Hooton station.

Mr. Callaghan, station-master, deposed that when the
train arrived at Birkenhead, the guard told him of the
complaint against the defendant, who denied it, and gave
his address without hesitation.
Mr. PEMBEKTON denied that the offence had been
proved, inasmuch as it had not been proved that the
bye-law was binding by Act of Parliament.
Mr. KENT, the Magistrates' Clerk, said that, by the
7th and Bth jf Victoria, it was only necessary to show the
publication of the bye-laws, which was proved by Mr.
Gibson, and the Bench over-ruled the objection.
Mr. PEMBERTON said he was prepared to deny the fact,
and called the following witnesses :
.

-
James Fleet, butcher, of Toxteth-park, said he knew
the defendant, ar►d was in the same carriage with him.
Did not see him commit the nuisance complained of, and
was in conversation with him the whole way, sitting oppo-
site to him. Did r.ot observe him get off the seat, and
thinks he did not.
William Lindon, also a butcher, said he travelled with
the defendant and the previous witness, at the time in
question. Sat next to the defendant, but did not see
him commit the nuisance complained of.
The CHAIRMAN said that the Bench did not for one
instant discredit the evidence of Mr. Barton, but the
evidence for the defence had thrown some doubt upon the
matter, of which tbey would give the defendant the bene-
fit, upon his payment of the costs.

REFUSING ADMISSION TO THE POLICE

John Sparrow, an innkeeper at Bebington, was charged
with having, on the Thursday night previous, refused
admission to the police in search of a deserter improperly
harboured.
Mr. Bretherton appeared for the defendant.
Policeman 19 stated that lie went to the defendant's
house between midnight and one o'clock, and on requi-
ring admission, as he was in search of a deserter whom
ho suspected of being in the house, he was repeatedly and
finally refused admission. Had never been at the house
before.
This evidence was corroborated by another policeman.
Mr. Grace, a constable of the township of Bebington,
said he was out with the defendant to assist in extinguish-
ing a fire, and they met a soldier who wanted a night's
lodging, which the defendant gave him out of charity.
The soldier attempted to escape the next morning, but
was apprehended by witness.
Mr. BRETHERTON contended that it had not been
proved that the person who refused admission was autho-
rised to do so.
The BENCH took this view of the case, and dismissed
the charge.