The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-04-05 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD, TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 1853

MURDER AT MANCHESTER.—CONVICTION OF
THE PRISONER.
William Tyrrell was charged with having, on the
21st of January last, at Manchester. murdered Joseph
Quin. Mr. Monk opened the case for the prosecution,
observing to the jury that, as the prisoner stood
charged with the grave offence of murder, that fact
would be sufficient to call forth their most serious
attention ; but he was happy to say that their duty
in this case would not be so painful as when a long
string of evidence was called to substantiate the charge,
as in the present case the evidence would be very brief.
John Quin, the deceased, worked in a factory, and on the
21st January last was at Holden's beer-house, in Oldham-
road. Tyrrell, the prisoner, was there also, and, in the
course of conversation, said, " You thrashed me once ;
but I'm bigger now, and you can't do it." He also
pulled out a knife, and said, " This has killed many a
one, and it has one more to kill !" The parties left the'
house, and on turning up Chadderton-street, prisoner
challenged Quin to fight, who refused unless he showed
him his hands. This, however, the prisoner did not do,
concealing his right hand in his pocket. After some fur-
ther conversation, which would be detailed in evidence,
prisoner stabbed Quin iu the abdomen, and also in the
shoulder. No blows were struck by the deceased. The
learned counsel then called the following witnesses :
John Holden.—T keep a beerhouse in Cornwall-street,
Newton-lane, Manchester. On the 21st of January last,
Quin came to my house about a quarter before six o'clock,
in company with two other persons, one of whom went by
the nickname of " Tass." I did not hear them say any-
thing about fighting. Heard prisoner say to deceased,
" This knife has done many a one, and it has got another
to do." Prisoner and deceased had been " chaffing" one
another before this conversation. Prisoner said, " I'm
getting bigger, and think you can't mill me now."
By the Judge : What sort of knife was it which the
Prisoner produced ?—Witness : It was a short pocket-
knife.

John Clements stated that on the night in question he
was going up Oldham-road, and saw Quin close to the
Cheshire Cheese public-house. Another young man was
with him, named either Shannon or Barnett. Prisoner
was also with them. They were quarrelling when he met
them. Tyrrell wanted to fight Quin ; he saki, " Let's go
across the cart-road, and we'll have it out." Quin said
he would not fight except Tyrrell showed both hands.
Tyrrell would not show both hands, and they went up
into Chadderton-street. Tyrrell's right hand was in his
trouser's-pocket. Under the first lamp leading into
Chadderton-street Tyrrell said, " Hit me first" several
times. Quin stood with his hands crossed, but did not
say anything. Tyrrell drew his hand out of his pocket,
and stabbed him into his belly. Witness saw something
glitter in his hand ; he saw it perfectly well by the light
of the lamp. After this, Tyrrell said, " Hit me first"
again ; and ran at Quin, striking him upon the shoulder.
Quin said, " I'm stabbed, I'm stabbed, take me some-
where." Tyrrell made off, and some police-officers came
up. Witness followed the prisoner. The knife which he
saw was about as long as his finger. Went afterwards to
the infirmary and did not see Quin, but afterwards saw
him dead at home. At a later period of the night went
with the police to search for the prisoner, and found him
at Lang's public-house, opposite the Old Church.
Mr. Overend, for the prisoner, cross-examined the
witness, who said that Barnett, who was one of the party,
went by the name of " Tass." Deceased never struck a
blow, and the affair was quickly over. Witness had no
time to interfere. Was close to them when he saw the
knife.

John Kerrington, pork butcher, Oldham-road, saw the
parties near the Cheshire Cheese on the 21st January.
Prisoner said to Quin, " I'll stick you if you hit me."
That was the first thing he heard. Witness went further,
and on his return saw the parties again : this was five or
ten minutes afterwards. Prisoner then said "If you hit
me I'll stab you." Quin said he would not hit him with-
out he showed him his hands. Quin said " I don't want
to fight you ; I could mill you in two minutes, if I fight."
He then saw them sparring at one another, and the pri-
soner stabbed deceased with a knife, right in the belly.
He then stabbed him a second blow in the shoulder.
Both appeared sober at the time. Saw no other blows
given but the two he had just spoken of.
Edward Wall, police-constable, stated that on the night
in question, about half-past seven, he heard some cries,
and Wilkinson, another officer, was with him. At the
corner of Chadderton-street he saw Joseph Quin, with
his trousers lap down, and his shirt lap up. He, said,
" Look here, I'm stabbed." Witness saw part of his
entrails banging out, and the blood flowing. Quin was
conveyed to the Infirmary, and witness apprehended the
prisoner at the Trafford Arms, kept by Lang. When
apprehended, prisoner said, " I know what you want ;
but you can't find a knife on me." Witness told prisoner
he was charged with stabbing Joseph Quin ; and prisoner
said he would bring witnesses to the court to tell the
truth about it. Witness searched for the man Shannon,
but could not find him. While being conveyed to Kirk-
dale, prisoner said that drink was the cause of it; and if
he got off for ten years be should be satisfied."
Frederick Ashton Heath, house-surgeon at the Man-
chester Infirmary, stated that on the 21st January, Quin
was brought in, with a small wound, about an inch and a
half below the navel. It was a clean cut stab, and a
portion of the bowels protruded. There was another
wound on the left shoulder. Mr. Jordan, one of the
surveyors at the Infirmary, attended the patient. This
was on the Friday night, and the man died from inflam-
mation on the following Monday. This was the case for
the prosecution.
Mr. Overend addressed the jury for the prisoner, ad-
mitting that the death of the deceased was caused by his
client ; but he argued that he was not guilty of the
graver charge of murder, the facts of the case only
amounting to manslaughter. The learned counsel then,
proceeded at longth to dotall the sociuibite facts to consti-
tute the crime of murder, and reviewed the evidence in
order to prove his view of the case. He alluded particu-
larly to the swaggering words used by the prisoner at the
beerhouse, which were the mere boastings of a foolish
boy, and not used to indicate any malice or bad blond
which might exist between them. They left the house in
good fellowship, and some further " chaffing" took place,
but nothing to prove that the prisoner intended to com-
mit murder. He complained that in this prosecution the
witness Shannon was not produced, who could have given
every particular, and probably might have mitigated the
crime of murder down to manslaughter.
His lordship, in summing up, explained at length the
law of the case with reference to murder as well as man-
slaughter, and previous to recapitulating the evidence,
regretted the lamentable effects which arose from habits
of intemperance amongst the lower orders in this country.
His lordship then proceeded to comment upon the most
important portions of the evidence, and trusted that
whatever the jury might consider with reference to the
prisoner's guilt, or the necessity of a recommendation to
mercy, they would return a righteous verdict.
The jury retired for about half an hour, and on their
return found a verdict of GUILTY against the prisoner.
His Lordship pronounced sentence of death in the usual
form, without holding out any hope of mercy. The learned
judge assured the prisoner that his serious case had met
with a most careful investigation at the hands of a patient
jury, who had found him guilty of the crime of imbruing
his hands in the blood of a fellow-creature, for which
serious offence his life must be forfeited to the laws of his
country. His lordship alluded to the melancholy results,
which arose from the intemperate habits of young men
frequenting beer-houses, and trusted that the present
would act as a warning to others, who indulged in similar
evil propensities ; for it was truly lamentable to see so
young a man as the prisoner placed in such a dreadful
situation—a melancholy scene, which must speedily ter-
minate with the forfeiture of his life, for this world must
soon close on him for ever. [Prisoner, "Oh ! Lord,
have mercv--spare me—oh, Lord, have mercy on my
poor soul !"] His lordship continued to assure the pri-
soner that he could hold out no hope of mercy, and in
all probability he would expiate his heavy crime in a few
days, when he would be stretched a lifeless corpse. [The
prisoner again begged him to spare his life.] His lord-
ship implored the•unhappy prisoner to let no thoughts of
such a nature intrude upon his serious preparations for a
future state. He would have every spiritual consolation.
and the most important assistance which the ministers of
religion could afford him would be most attentively given
during
this si
dt
eh e
thes h o
gr tr
at
vi me
.e which w
tie
prOi
suol
nd
ebr e
again
al oi
nt t e
sdo tobb
ehdi mon
out,
u t,
"Oh ! my lord, spare me !"] The most solemn por-
tion of his lordship's pathetic address then followed in
nee sentencingk,
and
ht
ihs e
bodyunfortunateu culpritried
wtthoi
nb e hanged
the
precincts b y the
of
the prison. The youthful appearance of the prisoner, and
the dreadful situation in which he stood, produced a strong
impression upon many persons in court, and his lordship
appeared to be deeply affected while proceeding with this
most painful portion of his official duty. The prisoner is
only eighteen years of age

FORGING A SEAMAN'S CERTIFICATE.—MichaeI
charged with unlawfully altering a seaman's certificate,
was recommended to mercy by the officers of government,
and discharged upon his own recognisances of £lOO.
ROBBERY AT BEDFORD.—John Brodie was charged
with stealing a sovereign. a gold ring, and other articles,
the property of Ralph Bethell, with whom he lodged, at
Bedford, in this county. The prisoner broke open a small
box containing the articles in question, and stole the
things, with which he decamped, but was afterwards
apprehended on board a steamer hound for Glasgow. He
was found guilty, and sentenced to twelve months' im-
.

prisonment, with hard labour.
FORGERY AT LIVERPOOL.—JosiaIt Wilberforce Pitt
was charged with forging an order for the payment of
£5l 163._7(1., with intent to defraud John Myers and

others. Mr. Simon was counsel for the prosecution ; Mr.
Tindal Atkinson for the defence. Pitt had been a
short time in the employ of Mr. Mavrocordato, merchant,
Exchange-street East, as clerk. The facts were as follows :

Adrian Lowe, cashier.at the Royal Bank, stated that on
the 15th February last the cheque now produced was pre-

sented to him by the prisoner, and_ he paid it

Inq.uiry

, . . .
was made the next morning by Mr. Mavrocordato respect-
ing the cheque. On examination by Mr. Atkinson, Mr.
Lowe said that on the 16th February he went to the office

of Mr. Mavrocordato and identified the prisoner as the
person who presented the cheque. Mr. Mavrocordato
stated that the prisoner had been in his employ about four
months ' • the cheque presented was not drawn by witness,
nor had he given orders to any one to draw it. On the
16th February he examined his banker's book, and after-
wards went tolMr. Lowe._ There.appeared to have been

a checque torn out which he could not account for. Law.
rence Keboe, detective-officer, apprehended the prisoner
on the 17th February, who denied presenting the cheque
for payment. Mr. T. Atkinson addressed the jury for
prisoner, and called a witnes as to character. The jury,
who appeared to have a doubt as to the identity, acquitted
the prisoner. _
..... ... .

. -
FORGERY AT BOLTON.—Simeon Lord was charged
with uttering a forged order for payment of money, with
intent to defraud William Hamer. Mr. Milne, counsel
for the prosecutor, called Mr. John Thompson, corn-
dealer, Bolton, who stated that on the 17th June last,
Prisoner presented the cheque produced, at his warehouse.
Prisoner said he was Mr. Wm. Hamer's clerk, at Little
Lever

He wanted change for it
_in silver and gold

Witness inquired the reason Mr. Hamer got his cliange
in Bolton ; when prisoner said he usually got it at Ban-
nerman's, of Manchester, who could not supply him that
week. Witness knew Mr. Hamer, and cashed the cheque

for £76 13s. Did not see the prisoner for six months
afterwards, when he saw him in a railway carriage.
This was at Macclesfield, and the prisoner was appre-

hended in a quarter of an hour afterwards. John
Farrar, manager of the Manchester Bank, paid that the

cheque produced was one of that bank, but Mr. Hamer
had no account there.—Mr. Wm. Hamer, cotton spinner,
Little Lever, did not fill up the cheque, nor authorise any
person to do so.—Mr. Blair addressed the jury for the
prisoner, stating that the case was one solely of personal
identity.—The jury found the prisoner guilty, and there
was another similar charge against the prisoner, which
was not gone into. A long list of offences committed by
the prisoner was handed to the judge, and his sentence
was deferred.

FORGERY AT LIVERPOOL.-James Ward was charged
with uttering a forged order, purporting to be signed by
Mr. W. A. Ward, shoemaker, Prescot, upon Mr. Robt.
Whinnery, leather merchant, Old Haymarket, Liverpool.
The note was delivered on the 28th March, and was for
three or four seal skins ; and the prisoner, after delivering
the note, said he would call again for the skins. Mr.
W. A. Ward called at Mr. Whinnery's shop after the
note was delivered, and Mr. Whinnery made up the
parcel. The prisoner called whilst Mr. W. A. Ward was
there, and an officer was sent for, who took the prisoner
into custody.—The jury found him guilty, and his sentence
was deferred until the next morning.
STABBING AT MANCHESTER.—Thomas Burton was
charged with stabbing Robert Brown, at Salford, with
intent to do him grievous bodily harm. Mr. Rushton
stated the case for the prosecution, and called the follow-
ing evidence :—Robert Brown said he resided in Salford.
On the 26th February he was in the Lamb and Standard
Inn, about eleven o'clock at night ; Rosanna Wilson and
James Woolstenholine were there also, and prisoner was
there, but he had never seen the prisoner before. They
left at five minutes before twelve. Prisoner had hold of
Rosanna Wilson ; when they got about fifty yArds, the
" lady" fell down on her back, and prisoner asked wit-
ness to pick her up, and, as he was doing so, prisoner
made a blow at him. When he got her up, prisoner
dragged her into a court where she lived, and said to her,
" Are you a married woman to any man ?" She said
" No." He then said no one should enter the house.
Witness attempted to get in, and they had a scuffle
together. Prisoner then took her up another passage
in Bloom-street, and as witness followed, he stabbed him
in the neck, after which he ran into a pork-shop, followed
by witness, who obtained a constable and gave him in
charge. The jury found the prisoner guilty of the minor
offence of unlawfully wounding. He was sentenced to
three calendar months' imprisonment, with hard labour.
STABBING AT LIVERPOOL.

- -
Thomas Mulligan, a sailor, was charged with stabbing
Sarah Ann Burke, in Liverpool, with intent to do her
some grievous bodily harm.—Mr. Raffles stated the case
for the prosecution, and called the following evidence :
Sarah Ann Burke said she resided in Peter-street. On the
15th January, in the afternoon, Catherine Baxter was
with her, and went across the street from her house for a
pan of water. Witness had not been long up, and was
not quite dressed. Catherine Baxter returned, and as
Burke was looking out at the door, prisoner came up and
stabbed her in the face. He then stabbed her in the
arm, the thigh, and the back ; lie had a sheath knife in his
hand. She then went over to the public-house and fell
into Mr. Spencer's arms. Never saw the prisoner before.
Prisoner said, in answer to a question from the Court,
that he did not recollect any thing of the matter.—cathe-
rine Baxter said she saw the prisoner in the snug at
Spencer's public-house ; prisoner said, " I've lost ten
shillings; thank God I've not lost all." Some fur-
ther conversation took place between the prisoner
and a woman with whom he was in company.
Ile pulled up his Guernsey frock, and feeling of
his belt said, " Oh, good God, all's gone. He
then said he would kill all the girls in Peter-street
by ten o'clock that night. He took his knife out of the
sheath and went into the back yard, where she heard him
sharpening his knife. She then went to Sarah Burke's
house, when the latter went to the door, and was stabbed
as described. Witness ran to a neighbour's house to call
for help, and prisoner went into the house; she soon
afterwards saw that he had turned all the furniture into
the street. He appeared very drunk.—William Henry
Spencer, licensed victualler, Peter-street, said the prisoner
was at his house about eight o'clock in the morning with
two women and a coachman ; one woman was named
Hardigan ; they had a glass of whiskey each, and prisoner
was three parts drunk. They soon went away, and
prisoner came again in the afternoon with Mrs. Hardi-
gan. Prisoner was looking about his clothes ; and soon
after he went into the yard, where he sharpened his knife,
threatening to kill every one in the street. Sarah Burke
soon afterwards came wounded, as already stated, and
Mr. Spencer took her to a neighbour's house, from whence
she was taken to her own house. Prisoner was taken into
custody. Francis Ayrton, surgeon at the Northern
Hospital, described the wounds on the body of Sarah
Ann Burke. One was above the left temple,
three or four inches in length ; another on the face from
the left eyebrow to the lower lip; another on' the right fore
arm, and a stab in the right thigh ; another wound pene-
trated the ribs, into the chest, and was very dangerous.
She was in extreme danger for three weeks, and confined
to her bed more than a month. He attended her as an
out-patient of the hospital. Police-officer Cousins took
the prisoner into custody, and produced the knife, which
he was brandishing at the time. He appeared much
excited, as if he had been drunk and was recovering, but
quite conscious of what be was about. He said he came
ashore that morning, and went to Mrs. Hardigan's, in
Peter-street, where he got drunk and lost his money,
seven sovereigns, four dollars, four half-crowns, and other
coins. He blamed nobody but Mrs. Hardigan for it all.
The learned Judge summed up, observing that voluntary
drunkenness was no excuse for crime. If the jury thought
the prisoner intended to commit murder, they must return
a verdict to that effect ; if not, they would consider whe-
ther he intended to do some grievous bodily harm.—The
jury immediately found the prisoner guilty of wounding
with intent to murder.—Judgment of dcath was IL...curried
against him, and the Judge told the prisoner that his life
would be spared, but it would be on the terms of the
heaviest secondary punishment which could be inflicted.
The court adjourned at a quarter to six o'clock.
The greatest order prevailed in court throughout these
important trials, which reflected great credit upon Inspec-
tor Hime and the officers in attendance.

NISI PRIUS COURT.
[Before Mr. Baron MARTIN.]
TUESDAY, MARCH 29.
SINGLETON V. SELKIRK.—SEDUCTION.—This was an
action in which the plaintiff, John Singleton, sought to
recover damages from William Selkirk, the defendant,
on the ground that he had seduced the plaintiff's daughter,
Hannah Singleton. Mr. Serjeant Wilkins, as counsel
for the plaintiff, stated the case. The plaintiff was a
farmer, residing in Cumberland, occupying about 100
acres of land at Moorside, near Whitehaven. The father
of the defendant, in addition to being a farmer, carried
on the business of a bacon curer and provision dealer, in
Cumberland, and was a respectable man. In September,
1851, the defendant met the daughter of the plaintiff at a
fair, and subsequently at the house of a friend. The
families had been previously acquainted for nearly 30
years. The daughter of the plaintiff was 26 years of age,
and the eldest of the family. The defendant was 28 years
old. He began his visits to the daughter of the plaintiff
in September, 1851. He was accepted by the family as a
suitor, and over and over again promised marriage. The
result of this was that the visits were continued till about
March or April, and then he succeeded in ruining her.
He still continued to visit her, and in July she discovered
that she was pregnant. As soon as she told this to the
defendant, he went to the shop of Mr. Stacey Gee, a
druggist, at Whitehaven, where he procured a bottle of
medicine, and prevailed upon her to take it. Finding this
did not produce the desired effect, he got another bottle,
which also failed. lie then got a third bottle and gave it
her to take, saying that it was stronger than the other
two, but this she did not use. From that time he dis-
continued his attentions, and saw her no more. Mr.
Hill, for the defendant, did not dispute the paternity of
the child, but argued that the father of the young woman
had allowed his daughter to conduct herself in a way
which was not consistent with virtuous conduct, and
therefore was entitled to very small damages. The jury
gave a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £5O.

BARLOW V. LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY
COMPANY.—The plaintiff, Catherine Elizabeth Barlow,
sought compensation from the defendants for the con-
sequences of an accident which occurred on their railway.
The defendants pleaded not guilty.—Mr. Sergeant
Wilkins intimated that an arrangement had been come
to, by which the defendants agreed to pay £375. Verdict
for the plaintiff : damages, £375.
In DANIELS V. OSBORNE, a verdict was taken for £2OO,
subject to a reference.

WRAY V. Dc WOLF AND ANOTHER.—This was a case
in which the plaintiff sought damages for being detained
in Liverpool, owing to the sailing of the Otillia before
her appointed time, his goods, to the amount of between
£3OO and £4OO, being on board. The plaintiff had re-
ceived remuneration to the extent of £5O and seventeen
days' keep, and the defendants agreed to give him £l5O
more, and his store goods.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30

HOLLINS v. SANDERSON.—It appeared that plaintiff
was a cotton broker in Liverpool, and the defendant was
formerly his cashier and bookkeeper, and the present
action was brought to recover £735 which the defendant
had taken belonging to the plaintiff, and under defen-
dant's own handwriting he acknowledged to owe the
plaintiff this sum, in consequence of mistakes he made in
his accounts during the time he was in his service. Ver-
dict for the plaintiff.
n had
agreed to sell to the plaintiffs 1,000 tons of Scotch pig.
ABERNETHY V. THE BIRKENHEAD DOCK TRUSTEES.—
The plaintiff, who had been the engineer to the Birken-
head Dock Works, sought to recover a sum of £1,042,
being the balance of salary due to plaintiff, and £484 tra-
velling expenses, &c. Verdict for the plaintiff for the
amounts claimed, with leave to the defendants to move to
reduce the amount of expenses, &c.
STITT AND OTHERS V. BUDD.—This was an action on a
breach of contract. The plaintiffs are iron merchants,
taonwd
n. the defendant ddaerci ti a
randati 0
n
d areth ma t metal-brokers, bndrtoe, kf
nigrdsoa,o r in t
iron. The plaintiffs were ready to receive the iron, but
the defendant refused to deliver it. The defendant lived
in London. On the 7th of October, 1852, he received an
ate-
sell about 3,000 tons of iron. His
partner saw Mr. Stitt at Liverpool, and agreed to sell him
1,000 tons at 525. 6d. In a day or two afterwards the
sotrrdeeert, fromL London,
Mn,r. to Herz, commission
price of iron rose, and Mr. Herz refused to complete
the agreement, stating that he had never sanctioned it.
The plaintiffs said they would hold Mr. Budd to his
bargain, believing that Mr. Budd was himself the prin-
cipal, and therefore they proceeded against him to re-
cover damages.—His Lordship held that there was no
proof to show that the defendant was the principal, and
that, as a broker acting for a principal, he was not liable ;
and said he would direct the jury to that effect, giving
plaintiffs' counsel choice to elect whether he should
tender a bill of exceptions or amend, the election to be
made on Thursday morning.

THURSDAY, MARCH 31.
STITT AND OTHERS V. BUDD.—In this case Mr. Hill
elected to amend the declaration, and his lordship per-
mitted the amendment to be made—leaving room to
move that the amendment be set aside above. Witnesses
having been examined, the jury, after an abserce of about
an hour, returned into court, and found that the defen-
dant was authorised to make the contract. Verdict for
the defendant. _

WILSON v. THE ROYAL BRITISH BANK.--The actiom

! was brought to recover the sum of £l5B 16s. 5c1., the
amount of a bill discounted by the defendants, which weft
dishonoured, but of which they had not given plainti
notice in proper time, and charged to his account. The
plaintiff, Matthew Isaac Wilson, is a merchant in Liver-
pool. The real question to be tried in the case was
whether the defendants, who in the year 1851.52 were
bankers to Mr. Wilson, were entitled to debit him, 00
account of a bill of exchange for £l5B 16s. 5d., which, 0,11
the sth of May, they discounted for the plaintiff. The
non-receipt of the notice until the 7th of November having
been proved by the plaintiff, his lordship stopped the case!
intimating that it was the duty of the bank to have put,
the notice in the post office, so that it would go by Mat
night's post. They had not done that, and the verdict
must be for the plaintiff.—Verdict for the plaintiff
damages £l5B 16s. sd.
FRIDAY, APRIL 1.
WHIITAKER AND ANOTHER V. LAW.—In this ease
the jury this morning returned a verdict for the defendant
on both counts.
SMITH V. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAT;"
WAY. COMPANY.—This was an action for money claimed
under these circumstances : In the year 1846 n project
had been set on foot to extend the Manchester and Hud-
dersfield railway and canal to Bradford, the intention
being to have a branch into that town. This would have
had the effect of interfering very much with the streets of
Bradford ; and a meeting of the town commissioners under
the local act had been held, in order that the inhabitants
might consider the best course to be adopted. At that
meeting the plaintiff, who was a surveyor, was present'
As it was for the purpose of effecting a friendly settle•
ment, it was resolved, in order to disarm opposition, that
certain protecting clauses should be inserted in the hill;
and it was also arranged that the plaintiff, with others,
should go to town for the purpose of seeing that all Was
done as agreed on ; and it was likewise come to an under•
standing that the Manchester and Huddersfield Ballwin'
and Canal Company should pay all the costs. The plain'
tiff acknowledged that, while in attendance in London on
this business, he wes also on pay for attending upon other
interests. A verdict was taken by consent for the defend;
ants ; but, from the statement of Mr. Knowles, who said
the company had behaved very handsomely, it wog('
appear that some money had been agreed to be paid.
KELLY V. M'COOEY.—A " SCENE " IN COM:LT.—Mr'
Tindal Atkinson for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins
for the defendant. It was an action to recover £27 9s. 3av
for work and labour done and materials found. The
defendant was an Irish cattle-dealer, and the plaintiff, 11
countryman, was employed by him driving the• cattle;
and, when a sum of money was due to him for his err'
vices, he left it in the defendant's hands to keep for hire'
When he demanded it, however, the defendant would notr
as was alleged, pay it to him. It appeared, during the
course of the cross-examination, that several of the items
were put down for the Manchester journeys, which were
understood to have been on Saturdays, Tuesdays and
Mondays, as upon particular dates, &c. ; and, in the
almanac those dates (lid not correspond with the days
question. His Lordship thereupon observed that this
mistake was not very unnatural with an uneducated person,
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins protested against such interruP'
tions : those observations could not fail to influence the
jury, and must obstruct the advocate in his duty.
His Lordship.—Go on.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.--I will, if your lordship 1N41,1,
permit me, and must say that these interruptions are
most extraordinary.
His Lordship.—Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, I will not permit
you to address me in that way !
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.—lf your lordship will interrupte
me in a way in which, most assuredly, counsel ought no
to be interrupted, I cannot help myself.
His Lordship.—Recollect that I am sitting here as 111
judge.

Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.—Yes, but surely a judge is 110
absolute.

His Lordship.—Certainly not, but he ought to be re'
spected.

Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.--No doubt of it, and no one hos
a greater respect for the court than I have ; but I ani
here to do my duty, and I shall do so, despite of BO
interruptions.

His Lordship.—l must say that this cross-examinatil
is the greatest waste of time I ever witnessed in a court
justice.

Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.—l say that no one has done
more to save the public time during this assizes than
have.

His Lordship.—T am not talking of any time but the
present.

Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.—l must say that, in the course
which I have been pursuing towards this witness, I hall
only done what I have seen your lordship do scores
times.

His Lordship.—Then, if I did, I can only say I did
what was very wrong !
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins wished to know what it was bib
lordship wanted him to do ? .

His lordship explained the course which he thought
proper should be pursued with respect to the produce
account, but of which the conflict of opinion arose.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.—Then I bad better throw.°
my brief : this account in question is all false—a ficti°`"„'
from beginning to end.

Mr. Atkinson.—That is not so, Sergeant Wilkins.
Serjeant Wilkins.—l am instructed that it is.
Mr. Atkinson.—Then prove it, and don't say it. a
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.—Really, let me not be schoole
behind as cell as before; one is quite enough at a time',
Mr. Atkinson.—l have a right to watch my client "
interests, and I shall do so.

His Lordship.—Go on :let us lose no more time.
Sergeant Wilkins.—l am anxious to lose no tiroe•
have done as much as any one to save the time at
court during this assize. i
His Lordship.--IA
I say again that I am not ep.akirAg -
any cause or time but the present.
The learned counsel soon after proceeded to address the
jury, and, in the course of his speech, expressed his re'
gret at having manifested any intemperance. He
at a subsequent part of the case, apologised to his lord-
ship, who readily and courteously accepted the declara-
tion. Witnesses were then called for the defence; bet
ultimately the record was %ithdrawn, at the suggestion
of the court, and it was understood that it should be
referred. also,

LITTLE V. JONES.—This was a case of disputed liability
•
to pay certain expenses incurred in laying out Fairfied 1,,,
and other streets, on property belonging to the Freehot
Land Society. The plaintiff had been employed to au„
some work thereon by a Mr. Mansfield, to whom the
work of laying out the streets had been entrusted by
Jones on the part of the society. Mansfield became era,
barrassed, and applied to the plaintiff to do the work 0'
him. and the plaintiff agreed to do so on obtaining froml
the defendant an undertaking to pay him. The defendO!
paid £l3 14s. 'id. into court, and denietl his liability ag
to the rest, contending that the work was inefficiently
done, and also that he had only undertaken to pay hiel
the amount of Mansfield's contract, which he had done,
At the close of the case the jury, after a brief deliberation.,
returned as their verdict—that they believed the plaintiff
did the work, but they could not bring it home to the
defendant.—His lordship said theirs was a very sensible
notion of it : it was a great hardship, and really the man
should be paid.

HIGUAM V. THE EAST LANCASHIRE RAILWAY COg
PANY.--lhe plaintiff was a small farmer at Longton, neat
Preston, and the action was brought to recover £5O, the
amount of damage sustained in consequence of one of t''
defendants' engines, attached to a locomotive, setting 10'„
to a heap of moss, &c., upon his land.—The case was
adjourned till the following morning.

SATURDAY, APRIL 2.
HIGHAM V. EAST LANCASHIRE RAILWAY.
This case was resumed from Friday. The defendant, f/
small farmer at Lonton, near Preston, sought to recover
a sum of £3B, the amount of damage caused by one of the
defendants engines setting fire to the plaintiff's moss.
The defence set up was, that the moss had been NJ.,
several days before on fire, and that the flames carve
from a direction opposite to that of the railway. Verdict
for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.

ELLIS V. UTTLY AND OTHERS.
The plaintiff in this case,E Jane Crook Ellis, residing 8t
Preston, brought an action to recover the sum of £lOO
from the defendants, who were the assignees of her
father's estate under a fiat of bankruptcy. After the
father's bankruptcy, the plaintiff, who had previouslY
lived with her grandfather, the keeper of a dining.roorc,e
in Liverpool, returned to Preston, purchased her father e
furniture, &c., with money which she had saved in Liver-
pool, and did so, it was alleged, on the representation
and with the knowledge of the defendants. Uttley had
subsequently seized and sold the furniture, treating it ge
the property of the plaintiff's father. On the suggestion
of his Lordship, a juror was withdrawn, and the case re-
ferred. MORGAN AND OTHERS V. FRY.
The plaintiffs in this case were assignees of the
estate of
Patrick Hayes, oil-merchant, Widness, and the plain-
tiffs sought to recover £6O from the defendant, an ac-
countant, in Liverpool. On the suggestion of his Lord
ship, a juror was withdrawn, and the case referred.
BETTELY V. RODERTS.—This was an action brought
by the plaintiff to recover a sum of £lOO. The defendant
was the proprietress of the Liverpool Hotel, Water'
street, and owned forty-two sixty-fourths of the shit'
Agenora, which vessel was mortgaged to Messrs. Lam Pol
and Holt. The plaintiff and his partner, and the son 0
the defendant, owned the rest of the ship in question'
Messrs. Lamport and Holt having refused to advance
more money, a second mortgage was made to Messrs'
Wilson and M'Lachlan, to whom the plaintiff paid £lOO
to pay off the balance of the first mortgage. A disse'
lotion of partnership having taken place, plaintiff sought r°
recover this amount. Verdict for plaintiff. Damages £lo‘
WILLIANIS V. HOLIES.—In this case the plaintiff
sought to recover a sum of £8 12s. A person, name'
Marshall, rented a yard from the defendant, in Wood'
street, and Marshall had sub-let the premises to a pergol!
named Hill, an auctioneer, who sold several lots of good:
there. The plaintiff was a purchaser, and paid for th'2
goods which he bought ; but these goods were seized pi;
a distress for rent, and resold by the defendant. Verdle
for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.
HILL V. HOLMES.—By consent a verdict was taken
in this case for £2 7s. The action was similar, and arose
out of the same circumstances as the former one.

MONDAY.—APRIL 4.
The learned judge took his seat a few minutes before
half-past nine o'clock.
BANKS v. OLLERTON.—DISPUTE ON A W rhiILL.--•" t,
was an action to recover possession of a number of o°"
tages at Hindley, near Wigan, under the will of a pert
named Richard Banks, who died in the year 1788.
tb ehe
Mr. KNOWLES,. Q.C., End Mr. SEGAR were for
°
plaintiff, and Mr. AniEivroN and Mfor ar. BLUNDELL
defendant. In the year 1788 Richard Banks died, 113
by his will be left certain property to his widow for list
life, such property, at her death, to be divided eqaud-
-1 etween his daughter, Ellen Fleming, and his
_graiiie,
daughter, Ellen Banks, the daughter of Ann Banlisr,,,io
ceased. In case of the death of either the said Dp
Fleming, or the said Ellen Banks, without lawful jolt";
the property to go to the survivor. In the year 1810 id,
widow of the testator died, v hen the daughter and
daughter took possession of the property under lb°
In 1843, the daughter, Ellen Fleming, was roarrie
second time, to the defendant, Mr. 011erton, and dit d ,1:661
1848, without lawful issue. The plaintiff now c!iii 011
the remainder of the property under the will. The
having been,put in and read,
Mr. ATHERTON, for the defendants, admitted that if
there Was no other objection, the plaintiff must P/P

this al
tothe
the tes
fore i;
law, w
deed
the ph

then
n
and I
daugh

Rie
PlrY,
Wheth
or n(y
The

under
given
BAI
clSely
anothl
verdic
Drc

In
board
tout.
the de
into tl
to use
names
shovel
With a
resisti

WEST
Mr. (
and I
that,
were

busini

and SI
Hougl
The ti
defen(
that t:
claim(

Aft
a legs
tion,

The
first c
the d(
fend&
count
count

the se'
a doe,
, Mr.
piaint
the di

His'(
that 1
lowly

Mr,
Gant.

°ery
A
mefen
for

°II O;
he co
Th,
Do

its case
fen &Du,.

r RAlL-
claimed
project
d lind-
ktention
dd have,
reets of
.s under
thitante
At that
)resept,

93.3 d,

cattle
its set'

r bin,.
ild notr

ftenle
h were
vs and
In the
days i!1
at this
Jerson,

ice the

ip Will
)ns are

erruPt
;ht not