The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-06 00:00:00

BIGAMY

Dr. BROWN applied for the trial of Eliza Daniels, indicted
for bigamy, to be postponed till Friday next, on the ground
of the illness of a material witness.

Mr. WiLanqs, on the part of the prisoner, assented to the
application, and the learned JUDGE granted it.
The court adjourned at a quarter to seven o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-MONDAY

Baron Rolfe took his seat at nine o'clock.
'The following undefended actions in the West Derby List
were decided this morning :
DIXON, PUBLIC OFFICER, V. WRlGHT.—Verdict for the
plailitiff for £460 17s. 6d.

BROOK V. CARN.—Verdict for the plaintiff for £43.
BOND AND ANOTHER V. KlNT.—Verdict for the plaintiffs
or £6l 4s. 6d.

ABBOT AND ANOTHER V. ELLAaf.—Verdict for the plain-
tiffs for £2O 15s Od.
YATES V. EDWARDS.—The action was to recover £152 for
services as an attorney. The defendant pleaded that he was
not alone indebted, but conjointly with others.—Verdict for
the plaintiff for £152.

LORD AND ANOTHER v. PARKINSON.—Verdict for the
litiutiffs, by consent, for £287 7s. 4d.

SPECIAL JURY CASE

,-DEARDEN V. BURGESS

In this case the action was brought by James Dearden, as
lord of the manor of Rochdale, against George Burgess and
James Dawson, for the purpose of trying the right of get-
ting certain stone. . _

The list of special jurymen was called over, when only the
following ten answered :—Messrs. John Anderton, of Dux-
bury; John Bibby, of Halliwell; John Brown, of Liver-
pool; Samuel Clarke, of Hawkshead; Jos. Callan, of Tox-
teth-park ; Richard Edwards ; Geo. Grant, of Liverpool;
Henry Harrison; Gilbert Harrison, of Toxteth-park ; Mor-
ris Montbear.

By consent of Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Dundas, two com-
mon jurors were called to make up the number. John Allen
and Nathaniel Bond were called to make up the number.
They were sworn with the special jury.
Mr. Cresswell, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Tomlinson, ap-
peared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Dundas, Mr. Cowling, and
Mr. Martin, for the defendant.
The case contained no points of importance, and, except
perhaps to the parties concerned, was peculiarly dry and un-
interesting.

Mr. CiEsswELL, in opening the case on behalf of the
plaintiff, said the action was to try his right, as lord of the
manor, to the getting of some stone—a right which he had
but little doubt he should establish. He believed it would
be alleged that the right had been given up by conveyance.
It was true that the land had been conveyed by Lord Byron,
the former owner of the soil, in the year 1690, but it was
with a reservation as regarded stone and coal. There was no
reservation as regarded trees, because the land was of such a
nature that it was not believed at that time that trees would
ever be grown there.

The original deed of conveyance, dated 2d May, 1690, be-
tween the right hon. William, Lord Byron, lord of the manor
of Rochdale, on the one part, and Abraham Scholfield, a
yeoman, and Charles Butterworth, a yeoman, on their part,
was put in and read. By this, certain lands specified were
conveyed from the former to the latter in consideration of a
sum of money owing the said Lord Byron's father, of a rent-
charge of ten shillings a year, with power of distress, a sti-
pulation for service at the manor court, and reservation of
coal and store.

Witnesses were called to prove that the rent of ten shil-
lings a year had been paid till this time, that £3 per annuum
had been paid to the lord of the manor for liberty to get
stone, and thus the party who had permission was compelled
to give up an order to that effect from Lord Byron : that in
1824 the rights and muniments of the manor were handed
over to the present plaintiff's father, and that the plaintiff
succeeded to these rights in 1828 ; than in 1833 a Mr. Wild,
who held part of the lands originally conveyed, was applied
to for permission to get stone, replied that he could not give
it, as the stone was not his—it belonged to the lord of the
manor, and further, that the defendant Dawson, as the ser-
vant or tenant of Burgess, had got a quantity of stone, and
was still working out from the quarry stone which is of con-
siderable value.

The defenCewas, that within the land for which the con-
veyance was produced, there was a small patch (four acres)
of freehold land, which had been freehold from timeimme-
morial, which had, as freehold, been conveyed with all the
rights to get muniments, &c, before the date of the deed in
question, (to wit in 1678,) and that it had since been
treated in almost every way that freehold land could be
treated in this country. It was further alleged by Mr.
Dundas, in his address to the jury, that the property con-
veyed answered the description exactly without this piece of
land, while neither as respected boundaries nor quantity did
it answer the description including this piece of land, which
was actually in 1678 charged 40s. a-year, though only four
acres, while that conveyed, which it was said included this
piece, was charged only 10s. a-year, though upwards of 30
acres. It was contended, therefore, that as these fields in-
cluded the quarry, this was merely a question of boundary ;
and that, though the stone sloped into the property under
the manorial right, yet there was a line perpendicular from
the summit of the edge of the quarry, or the upper surface
where it joined the meadow which was freehold.
The first witness called was Frederick Baines, who was
required to produce certain deeds. The witness presented
himself in the box. He was a little, pale young man, with
a cool, indolent manner.

Witness.—l object to be sworn.
Baron ROLFE.—What is your objection ?
Witness.—l have not had my expenses.
Attorney for the defence.—We have paid him his expenses.
Baron ROLFE.—What have you received?
Witness.—Only five pounds.
Mr. DuNnAs.—Where have you come from?
Witness.—From Halifax.
Mr. DUNDAS.—How long have you been here?
Witness.—Nine days. I came here the day before com-
mission day.

Mr. MARTIN.—Being a special-jury case, and fixed, you
had no occasion to be here all the time.
Witness.--I went back the day after, and returned yester-
day.

Mr. MARTIN.—Then how have you been here nine days?
Witness.—lt is nine days since 1 came then.
Attorney for defence.—We have not the slightest objection
to pay his expenses—never had. We will pay him whatever
the prothonotary says is correct.

Ii Prothonotary.— eis entitled to
his
mileage one way, and
to fifteen shillings per day. That will be nine pounds.
Pour pounds were immediately handed to the witness,
which he coolly put into his waistcoat pocket, and the book
was again offered to him. He paid no attention to the action
of the Crier, but said, " How much a-day is this pray?"
Baron ROLFE (to the Prothonotary).—Has he received
what is sufficient ?
Prothonotary.—He has, my lord.
Baron ROLFE.—You must be sworn, sir.
The witness was sworn.
Mr. MAuTtx.—Now, Mr. Baines, be so good as to pro-
duce the deeds bearing date 6th and 10th March, 1678.
Witness.-1 object to producing them.
.1 UDGE.—What is your reason, sir?
Witness.—lt is not in the covenant.
JUDGE.—What covenant? we have nothing to do with any
covenants here.

ttness.—l submit, my lord, that I am not bound to pro-
duce the deeds. I have furnished abstracts of them.
do you suppose you are not bound Baron ROLFE.—Why
to produce the deeds?
Mr. Du NDAS.—He has been subpoenaed for that express
purpose, my lord.
Witness.—l have furnished abstracts, and I have not been
paid for them.
Mr. DUNDAS.—That is another question with which we
have nothing to do. I understand, my lord, that he has
charged no less than £lB for two abstracts.
Witness.—l appeal to the court for a decision.
Baron ROLFE.—I decide against you then, sir. You must
produce the deeds.
The witness then put in the deeds as they were called for.
They were very numerous, and occupied a considerable time
in reading.
.They went on to show that such a patch of land,
with the privilege of getting the minerals, &c., was situated

in the middle of the other land.
Witnesses were called for the purpose of showing that the
right of getting stone at some place contiguous to the spot
mentioned had been acknowledged from time to time.

Mr. CRESSWELL addressed the jury in reply.
His LORDSHIP put the case_very lucidly to the jury, who
retired at a quarter-past five o'clock, the case having been
on since nine o'clock. They retired in a quarter of an hour,
and returned a verdict for the defendant.

DAVIDSON, PUBLIC OFFICER, V. M`GREGOII

Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plain
tiff, and Mr. Dundas and Mr. Martin for the defendant.
The plaintiff, Alexander Davidson, is the registered office
of the Commercial Bank of England ; the defendant, Mr

Alexander M'Ciregor, is steward to the Marquis of West-
, minster.

It was alleged, in behalf of the plaintiff, that Robert
M'Gregor, a grocer, in Chester, son of the defendant, opened
an account, in 1838, with the Commercial Bank of Chester.
He wished to have a credit of £5OO or £6OO, which the bank
would not accede to without a guarantee. The father agreed
to give it, but did not immediately execute the deed. The
affairs of M'Gregor got worse and worse, till it was found
that he was indebted to the bank upwards of £lOOO, when the
bank ordered a fiat to be issued against him. M'Gregor al-
lowed all his property to be taken for the benefit of his cre-
ditors, and lOs 6d in the pound was paid to them, to
the bank amongst others. The father, Mr. Alexander
M'Gregor, was still held liable under his guarantee.
Robert M'Gregor opened another account, and became fur-
ther indebted to the amount of about £9O. Alexander
M'Gregor refused to pay the amount of his guarantee on the
ground that he had received a receipt from the bank. Mr.
Cresswell said he would shew that it was intended from the
first to proceed against his father, who was bound by his
deed, from which, having once fixed his hand and seal to it,
nothing but as high a deed could release him.
In the course of the defence it appeared that the defendant
had furnished Robert M'Gregor with very large sums of
money, and that ultimately he and another person had taken
up bills to the amount of £2OOO for him. The defendant
had been guaranteed thel payment of the 10s. 6d. in the
pound, and had paid to this bank upon that the sum of £577
10s., for which he received a receipt in full, as payment of
the whole debtlowing by Robert M'Gregor to the bank. Mr.
Dundas characterised it as a fraud, that, after choosing this
transaction with him, the bank should turn round and ask
for a balance of £5OO. The defendant had paid £25 into
court, as the utmost sum that could possibly be owing by
him.

Witnesses were called, but they proved nothing material
the case.
Mr. CRrsswELL replied.
His LORDSHIP summed up, and the jury returned a ver-
Let for the plaintiff for £475.