The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-04-10 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL EASTER SESSIONS.

The General Quarter Sessions for the borough commenced
yesterday, before. James Clarke, Esq. Recorder.
The learned Recorder took his seat at a quarter.pst ten

Thjollowing gentlemen.were sworn of the grand jury:—
Edward Gibbon. Foreman. Edward Humble,
Cieorge Lissant Cox, David Lamb,
John Coward, John Marriott,
John Campell, Alexander Alaxwell,
John Deakin Joseph Parton,
Ralph AbrahaM, W. S. Robinson,
Joseph
.Gibbons, Nicholas Ruskell,
John Greenshields, Thomas Shaw,
Lawrence Heyworth, juu. Thomas Tattersall,
John Highfield, . Edward Tennaot, and -
Edmund Hore, . Chutes Turner, Esqrs.
Her Majesty's proclamatioi against rice and immorality
having been read, the learned RECORDER proceeded to deliver
his charge to the following effect :—lle did not feel it neces-
sary to troubl them with any of the alterations which had been
p
'eeently.reade in the criioinal law. These alterations had been
8,4 lately fullY explained Ly the leas ned Judge who had gone the
the circuit, its well as frequently by himself (the learned Re-
corder) that he did net deem it necessary to make any further
observations on ths st:',ju.,et. One of those alterations had proved
ter)''tieneacial. !f a ;Jerson were guilty of extreme violence
'connected with sss-s. lel injury, they knew that such person
wlight be committe. :or felony, but by the alteration in the law
L° which he the jury had it in their power, if the evi-
dence seemed to Testify Stich a proceeding, to convict the pri-
soner of
.ait assault. This had acted very beneficially. Under
the old law the jury had no alternative but to convict the pri-
soner of felony, and in cases where they Were not fully satisfied
that the offence was of that extent, offenders frequently escaped
without punishment- The jury had now the power to convict
for assault, this could not be thecase. He hoped the moditications
Which had been matte in the law woeld have the effect of dimi-
l'ishing that class oftnanslaughter which haul been so much coin-
Plaitted of recently, and which had been more common in this
county than any otber, He hoped the tendency of these altera-
tions would Le to do away entirely with this disgraceful class of
ansieughters, of which they had so frequently heard so much,
there was another class of manslatighters of which they had
dlately had many instances, which did not arise from any vin-
s.'etive feeling, 'but which were, nevertheless, of a very serious
Vtiure, lie alluded •to those which arose from negligence.
n 'Se classes of individuals who were employed as drivers of
'vets;
'•es On the Public roads—dud whose occupation was to
sass care of the trains on railways had a heavy responsibility
cast upon them. It'vvas or the very last consequence that all
s4suchc Individuals should conduct the vehicles iilirusted to their
charge
with as thecti attention as possible. He hoped after the
'le.examples, that the public would not have further reason to
e
hu7,,lt)laiL• The calendar, on the present occasion, he
.vas
s
to observe, was not very heavy, still it'contained one or
554 very serious cases. • (Jae of these was a burglary of a very
tat Xis and alarming description, which had been mine!
ded
way aeight,ourhood of Liverpool. The case in, the caleu
Wit'hutzulrerett 16, 17 and IS, and number 41 was assn connected
ttfr,nce. The burglary was committed in Bootle-lane,
had ft was the 14 rst case' he believed, which Ste had tried that
tt iil'
91'Peried it: Ole neys borough. They broke int the house,
andst'ole a vast number of artisles, It tdd not ap-
'e4" that they were armed with any weapons, but they used very
violehi„thrests towards the inmates. Ile was not aware that
that
difficulty would arise iu the course of their investigation,
slit
Wut.:l,47faiiiiier them from coining easily to COOCIIISMD ;
uut if there wore itnything upon whicrt they require-din-forma-
tioq,.he :would, give them his best. assistance. there wits also
a case of common larceny to which he would direct-their at-
lentioo. :Some persons might think thnt, as the prosecutor
aye up tire isreperty to tt:e prisoner, the offence would not be
larcerry; ttiat, however, wag not the law now. It used for-
merly to be ,that, to coustitute larceny, the person should take
the property by force; but men were so 'cunning and clever
"that they absolutely induced men -to give up their property.
Here au individual weut into a shop-in Liverpool, saving that
2e wanted certain emu's that were to be sent with biro tiy a boy-
This was thine; and the man got possession of the goods, which
_
eie deliveretLto him. Some might say —" This is not larceny,
we find that the goods were absolutely delivered to the pia-
"oes- 'Rlit the law looked at the interation, and, therefore this
was rightly considered larceny. There sv,is also a case of for- •
gerYi in which the prisoners were charged with having put the
of 'tit -riadiVidual 'to certain orders on which they had
Ined-goiAy He believed it was it case iu which they would
,uitteslerience•anv difficulty whatever.
the calehdar contains the names of 46 prisoners for felony,
anditiftbelnisderneanours.

LIVAI:POOL SPRING ASSIZES.

CROWN COURT.—FRinA v.
Sir John Patteson took his seat at nine o'clock
BENNETT V. CIZOSTON.

This was undeferytetraction, biought by the plaintiff, (..ortzt'
-Bennett,.against Ilichard Croston, to recover the amount of a
promissory note.
Mr.-KNowLES :dated that the defendant pleaded. that the
plaintiff and he adjusted 'their accounts on the sth February,
1837; when it appeared that he owed the plaintiff the sum of
£27 2s. 10d., for which he gave a promissory note, which note
on the 27th August he paid. The defendant had not appeared;
therefore he (Mr. Knowles) wasedtitled to their verdict. IVer-
diet for the plaintiff, £2B 12s. 2-1,1.
It subsequently appeared-'that' the action was tried as unde-
fended, in consequence'of the attor,tierfor the defence having
failed to appear in court when the cause was called. The at-
torney arrived some time after the case was disposed of as above,
and his lordship blamed him in severe terms for hiS neglect.
At the earnest request. of Mr. WHIGHAM, one of the counsel
for the defence, his lordship suffered the case to stand for trial,
and it was accordingly resumed.
Mr. Wightman and Mr. Whigham appeared for the defence.
It appeared that the plaintiff, who had'just received a small
legacy, lent the defendant the sum of £7O. A portion of this
was repaid, leaving a balance of £57 2s. 10d. Some time
afterwards Mr. Bennett, having become unfortunate, the de-
fendant agreed, in the office of Mr. Yates, the' plaintiff's soli-
citor, to pay down a sum of £3O, if the balance, for which he
would give a promissory note at six months, might be allowed
to stand over during that period. This was agreed to, and the
defendant requested That the plaintiff would go with him to his
breWer, who said he would lend him the £3O. 'The plaintiff
and defendant, who were accompanied by a person named Ellis,
met the brewer in the Haymarket, and the party adjourned tn. a
public-house, when the thirty pounds was. handed over to Mr.
Bennett, and the promissory note was given. It was the amount
of the promissory note that was now claimed. _ .

WIGHTMAN said the money hail heeß 'paid, and, though
they had no receipt to show, yet they had possesSion of the pro-
missory note. Mr. Wightman produced the note, and con-
tended that it was not uncommon for parties, on such payments
being made, to consider the note itself a sufficient acknowledg.
ment, without requiring a receipt or the presence of a witness.
Mr. KNOWLES, on the other hand, stated that the note had
been returned to the defendant almost immediately after it was
drawn, it having been conceived that, es he still held possession
of the bill for £7O, he hail no need for' further security. The
note fur the balance, Mr. Knowles said, it now appeared had
li.en retained to serve a's evidence that the money had been
paid•
Mr. William Ellis was called, to prove that the note was-re-
turned for the reason above stated. He also stated, that he had
called upon the defendant recently for the money. and the lattei
stated that he had no money,' but if the plaintiff would take it
out in clover he should be pail
The jury again returned a verdict for the plaintiff's for
£2B 12s. 21d
d.
LAWRENCE V. onnr.t`•.v. .

•
As the defendant iu this case was dead, it was supposed that
the action had abated; and no one appearing for the plaintiff,
the cause was struck Of the list. But it appeared• that the de-
fendant's death had taken place since the first day of the assiie's,
the eau..., on the application of Mr. WHIGMAN, on the part of the
plaintiff, was restored to the list and tried, and a verdict was
given for the plaintiff for £l2l.