The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-08-20 00:00:00

SHEPHERD V. WHITEHEAD

The plaintiff is a flour merchant, and the defendant a flour
dealer in Liverpool, and the action, which was undefended,
was brought to recover £3l 165., the amount of goods sold
and delivered. Verdict accordingly.

YATES AND OTHERS V. ASKEW

An undefended action,to recover the balance of an account
amounting to £7l is. 9d. for coals sold to the defendant.
Verdict for the plaintiffs.

WILLIAMS AND OTHERS V. BAILEY AND OTHERS

The plaintiffs in this case are bankers at Carnarvon, and
the defendants are an associated body carrying on business
under the name of " The Snowden Slate Company." The
action was brought to recover the sum of £BO which the
plaintiffs had advanced for the use of the defendants upon an
acceptance.

Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiffs,
and Mr. Dundas and Mr. Crompton for all the defendants
except Mr. G. F. Fakelough, solicitor, of this town, who was
defended by Mr. Wortley.
Mr. CRESSWELL stated the case. This was an action
brought by the plaintiffs, who are bankers at Carnarvon, to
recover the sum of £BO, which they had advanced for their
use upon an acceptance given by Mr. Potter to a bill drawn
by a person named Griffiths Davies, who was formerly in
partnership with the defendants, but who, unfortunately for
the had recently died. A year or two ago the
defendants, with certain other persons, hearing of the great
gains made by the owners of slate-quarries in North Wales,
were disposed to enter into speculations of a similar kind,
and they formed themselves into a company, which they
described as " The Snowdon Slate Company," Griffiths
Davies being the managing partner, and residing in the dis-
trict. Griffiths paid the workmen as- their wages became due,
and in fact carried on the whole concern in Carnarvonshire :
he drew hills upon different customers, collected moneys, und
applied them to the purpose of carrying on the affair. In
the month of January, 1840, Davies having, as it would
seem, been disappointed in receiving funds from the defend-
ants for the payment of wages, applied to Mr. Potter, by
letter, (which the learned council read,) to accept a bill at
six months for £BO, in consideration of which he should
receive 15,000 slates before it became due, or if he (Davies)
did not take the slates, the acceptance should be returned.
Mr. Potter accepted the bill on these terms. The bill was
as follows :

" Carnarvon, June 7, 1810.
" Six months after date, pay to my order £BO, value re-
ceived in slates. " GRIFFITHS DAVIES."

Then it was accepted by Potter, made payable at Messrs.
Roberts, London, and endorsed by Davies. This bill Davies
carried to the plaintiffs to be discounted, who knew him to
be partner in the slate company because he had deposited
with them his scrip. When he 'presented the bill to be dis-
counted they said, " No ; this bill is not accepted for the
company." "Oh ! dear, yes," said Davies, "it is so." He
then altered the words, " to my order," and wrote, " per
procuration for the Snowdon Slate Comany, Griffiths Da-
vies," and also altered the endorsement. The plaintiffs,
taking that as an endorsement by the company, advanced
Davies the money. When the bill came to maturity it was
dishonoured, and when they applyed to the defendants, they
were told that the bill had been altered after acceptance, that
the stamp was therefore good for nothing, and therefore they
could not recover upon it. But suppose they could not re-
cover upon the bill, they could recover for money advanced ;
therefore in either way, the defendants were bound to pay.
Before the bill became due, Mr. Potter wrote for the slates.
In answer, Davies, on the Bth September, a day or two after
the bill was due, wrote to the effect that the number of work-
men in the quarry being reduced to six, he could not furnish
him with the 15,000 slates, and that he could not meet the
bill, and referring him to the Company for redress. Mr.
Potter handed this letter over to the plaintiffs, the holders of
the bill, and they had brought the present action. He (Mr.
Cresswell) should have called Davies as a witness to these
facts, had he been alive, but, unfortunately, he died only on
Sunday week ; nevertheless, he should call Mr. Potter, who
would prove the acceptance, and the banker's clerk who dis-
counted it for the company.

The learned Counsel then called his witnesses, who con-
firmed the facts as stated in his opening.
A variety of objections, of an abstrusely legal nature, were
then argued by the learned Counsel for the defendants.
After much discussion, the learned Judge directcd a non-
suit to be entered, giving the plaintiffs leave to move-to enter
a verdict for the principal and interest, upon the conditions
that the Court above should be of opinion there was evidence
to go before the Jury upon the points which the plaintiffs
were bound to establish.

SYKES V. WASKER.

This was an undefended action to recover .E 443. 3s. 10d
Verdict accordingly.
The Court rose a few minutes after five o'clock.

CROWN COURT.--WLDNESDAY•
THE. WARRINGTON BURGLARS.

William Parkinson, 31, William Barber, 28, Thomas
Goodier, 48, Samuel Pinnington, 31, and Henry Ellis, 2.5,
were placed 'at the bar to be tried for various burglaries, an
alleged attempt at murder, &c.. committed in March last, in
various parts of this county. They were first indicted for
having, on the 26th of March last, feloniously entered the
house of Thomas Shaw, at Poulton-with-Fearnhead, with
intent to steal his gOods, and then and there assaulted and
wounded Hannah Barton, with 'intent to murder her, and
further with having stolen £36 in gold, a silver table spoon,
a silver watch, and other goods, the property of the said
Rhomas Shaw. William Woollasten was originally com-
mitted for this offence, but the grand jury ignored the bill.
Mr. WILICINS laid before the jury a very perspicuous nar-
rative of the case as he expected to prove it before the jury.
Part of the testimony, he observed, would be that of an
approver.
Hannah Barton, Mr. Shaw's housekeeper, was first called.
She was still weak and ill, and the trial was taken thus early
in consequence of the surgeon having certified that it would
be dangerous to detain her in Liverpool. She stated, that
on the night of Friday, the 26th of March last, she was in
the service of Mr. Shaw. On that night she went to bed at
nine o'clock. About one o'clock on Saturday morning she
was disturbed by the house dog barking furiously, and by the
scuffling of heavy feet about the door. The door was forced
open with a great crash, and the report of a gun or pistol was
heard. She started out of bed, opened the window, and im-
mediately heard the report of another pistol or gun, and
received a wound in her forehead. (A deep indention, the
effect of this wound was visible in the very centre of the
witness's forehead over her nose.) Three stones were thrown
at her, one of which struck her. She went down stairs, and
saw four men in the room where her master and the man
slept. She went to the back kitchen window, and endeavour-
ed to break it, but was unable. She went into the workshop,
broke the window and got through. She was immediately
che mn e. out
One of theof these parlour
men where v
seized by the prisoner Ellis, who came from the back of the
house. She
sianwtotwthoemkeintc o
masterlanternand
was'a
pistol in his hand. The dog made furious de-
monstrations of an intention to attack them, and one of the
erhead a
her
men said " D—n him, knock his brains out." She asked
him to let her go to her master, but he presented his pistol
at her face, and said if she stirred he would give her that.
He had a black mask on. They went away after a time, and
locked the door after them, taking away the key, which was
missing next morning. (A key was here produced, and the
witness identified it as the key of Mr. Shaw's door.) She
found the side of a lantern in the kitchen next morning.
Thomas Shaw stated, that on the 26th March last he and
his family went to bed at nine o'clock. Witness went on to
say, that after he had been asleep some time, he was aroused
by hearing the dog bark, and presently the front door was
thrust in with a great crash, and four men entered his room,
two of whom had'crow-bars and two pistols and lamps. They
had black masks on. As they entered they made a great
noise, exclaimirw, " Oh, you b—g—s, your money—Your,
money. We'll have your money, or we'll take your life."
The least of the men struck his man, and then they all seized
him (the man), and threw him on the bed, and covered him"
with the bolster, exclaiming, " Your money—Your gold.
He released his head, and called to him (witness) to give !31..s
money. He took his purse from his pocket, anti it wasernt:
in-
stantly snatched from his hand, the person who did it threat-

ening him with death. There were 36 sovereigns in the
purse. A short man said, "We will not leave the house in
this way—we'll do some murder before we go." They pro-
ceeded to break open all the drawers, a cupboard, and a box,
turning out every thing in them, including some title-deeds
in a tin box, and took away some silver spoons, a watch, a
bottle of rum, &c. The main body then went away, leaving
one of their number in the room, who held a pistol close to
his head. When the otherq. had gone some time, this man
went away, pointing his pistol at Mr. Shaw all the way. lie
shut the doors behind him, and they were found nailed up
afterwards. Mr. Shaw identified his key.
William Care, Mr. Shaw's man, corroborated the testi-
mony of the latter.
Thomas Sutton (the approver) stated that he lodged for
some time in the house of Parkinson, with whom Pennington
also lodged. The house was in Stafford-street, Choriton-on-
Medlock. On the 25th March last, he and the prisoners all
met at Parkinson's house before dinner, and planned the
robbery of Mr. Shaw's house, which was about 16 miles from
thence. Next day they set out between two and three o'clock.
Soon after leaving Parkinson's they separated, Ellis, Parkin-
son, and Pennington going one way, and Barber, Goodier, and
witness the other. They reached the neighbourhood of Shaw's
house about ten o'clock, and met the other three in the stile
road leading td the house, at the distance of about a quarter
of a mile. They went to the house, and after remaining near
it a short time, witness and the others left Pennington and
Goodier, and went away for the purpose of endeavouring
to get a drink of buttermilk at the house of Mr. Bibby,
a relative of Sutton's, who resided at a short distance.
They went to Bibby's house, and at first mistook the door.
They knocked at the door of a Mr. John Shaw, who directed
them to the next door. • They went next door, knocked up
Bibby, who was in bed, procured a can of buttermilk, drank
it, had the can re-filled, and took it to their comrades who
were waiting for them near a heap of manure. They pro-
ceeded to the barn, where they waited about an hour. Bar-
ton, Pennington, and Ellis went to the door, when the dog
began to bark furiously, upon which Parkinson observed " we
must go in." Ellis went to the back door, and the other
two got a stump, or billet of wood, and dashed in the front
door. Pennington immediately fired off a pistol; a window
was heard to open, and witness threw three stones at it, but
he did not see any body. Goodier, Parkinson, Barber, and
Pennington went in, and witness remained outside. He
(witness) stood till he heard some glass broke, when he went
round to the back. Ile had Ellis's umbrella in his hand.
He found Ellis with the young woman, and threatened her
not to break through the window. He went back to the
front of the house, and presently the others came out and
locked the door: Parkinson had previously stolen some
spoons, and produced some rum which they drank amongst
them. Barber produced ..£7 103. in gold, and gave them a
sovereign each. Having left their companions they overtook
a cart, in which. they rode to Stretford-road-end.
On cross-examination, it appeared that the prisoner had
been convicted of felony, and imprisoned for poaching.
Mr. Jones, the constable of Warrington stated, that hav-
ing heard of the robbery, he proceeded on the 28th to Mr.
Shaw's residence, where he found impressions of crow-bars
on the doors and drawers, and footmarks near the manure
and about the premises. In consequence of information
which he had received, he went to Parkinson's house, where
he apprehended Barber. The others were apprehended with
Sutton at the railway station in Manchester. A pair of pis-
tols and two black frocks, two black crape masks, two bullet
moulds, &c., were found in the house, with a quantity of ske-
leton keys, crow-bars, &c. The key which was identified as
the key of Mr. Shaw's house, was also found at Parkinson's
house, with two dark lanterns, one of which was without a
slide. A slide which fitted it was found on the floor of Mr.
Shaw's kitchen. At Barber's house a number of keys were
found, a crow-bar, a black calico frock, and some lucifer
matches. He went to Goodier's house, and found him
crouched behind the door, naked, with his clothes under his

The jury found the prisoner guilty.
Parkinson and Goodies, were placed at the bar with
William Dixon, 35, and Jamis Unsworth, 25. They were
charged with having, at Warrington, feloniously broken and
entered the silk manufactory of Messrs. Spencer, Birkham
and James Pownall, and stolen therefrom 41 silk warps,
value £2OO, and 21s. 4d. in copper. James Unsworth was
charged as an accessory after the fact. The chief proof again
rested on the testimony of Sutton. On the night of the 15th
of February they went to the factory, Parkinson, Dixon, and
Goodier carrying with them crowbars and long skewers, for
the purpose, as they said, of picking out the mortar and
taking away the bricks. They had also large bags made of
window curtains, which were for the purpose of carrying
away the silk. They arrived at the factory shortly after two
o'clock, and set Sutton to watch. They commenced opera-
tions on the bricks, Sutton giving them notice whenever a
boat appeared on the canal, when they desisted work for a
short time till it had passed. They were some time before
they had removed all. the bricks which they found necessary,
as they were very thick. Having made a sufficient aperture
they went in, Sutton still watching. When it began to be
light they came forth with the bags filled. with silk. It was
proved that Unsworth purchased a portion of the silk. Se-
♦eral witnesses were called who corroborated points in Sut-
ton's testimony.
The jury acquitted Unsworth, and found the other three
prisoners guilty.
William Dixon, James Unsworth, and William Parkinson
were again placed at the bar, charged with having in Decem-
ber last, burglarionSly broken into the dwelling-house of
Abraham Ackers, of Bickershaw-hall, and stolen a pair of
duelling pistols, three keys, a canvas hag, containing a bullet
mould, silver and copper, 170 old copper and silver coins, a
box of cigars, a cash box, &c.
The jury acquitted Dixon, and found the other two pri-
soners guilty.
Mr. WILKINS said there was another indictment against
the prisoners ; perhaps his lordship would not think it ne-
cessary to proceed with it.
The Loan Cutup- JusTicE.—l shall not proceed further
to-night, you can use your own discretion to-morrow, Mr.
Wilkins.
The court adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT
SHUTE AND OTHERS V. CROFT
This was an undefended action, brought by Stephen Shute
and others, assignees of Messrs. Allanson and Frankland,
bankrupts, against John Dealy Croft, to recover the sum
of £546 12s. Gd., the balance of a promissory note for
Xl2lB 2s. 2d. Verdict for the plaintiffs for the amount
claimed.

,-WEDNESD AN

FALCON AND ANOTHER V. DENN.
This was an action brought by Messrs. Falcon and Alex- 4
ander, ship-builders, of Workington, against Mr. Thomas
Benn, of Greenbank, near Whitehaven, to recover a sum of
£250, the balance of an account for building a ship, called
the Athena.
Mr. Dundas and Mr. Cowling conducted the case for the
plaintiffs; Mr. Cfesswell and Mr. Robinson for the de-
fendant.
It appeared from the statement of the plaintiffs' counsel,
that in 1838, the defendant contracted with the plaintiffs for
them to build him a vessel of the following dimensions, 100
feet long, 26 feet wide, 17 feet 6 inches deep in s
t e barquethehold,samemanner
intiffs
Thomas .Lee, a vessel previously built by the pla
some other parties. The price to be paid was £l3 10s. per
ton. It was also contracted that there should be no extras
charged for in wood or iron work, except for patents if fitted
keel as in the Thomas Lee. In June, 1839, the
Athena was
laid down, and Mr. Asbridge, the gentleman who was after-
wards appointed to the command,of her, superintended the
building, as the defendant's agent. Captain Asbridge, when
the keel was laid down, as the. plaintiffs alleged, on the de-
fendant's authority, had the keel made 10-1 feet, and her
width extended four or five inches, in order that her appear-
ance might not be too flat. In the middle of the ship there
was no variation from the contract, but in the depth same 18
inches were given in pursuance of Captain Asbridge's instruc-
tions. The vessel was launched in January, 1810, and in
February an account of the extras, rendered necessary by
the alterations was sent in to the defendant, to which he then
made no objection, except as to some smiths' work. The
builder's certificate was sent to him, and he had the ship duly
registered. If the contract had been adhered to the vessel
would have been of 303 tons burdens. She was however,
now, in consequence of the variations, 330 tons. The de-
fendant said he was willing to pay for 318 tons and no more,
although the contract was for only 303, and next, that there
was a special contract that no extras should be charged, yet
the plaintiffs claimed on that account £219 12s. 6d.
Several witnesses were examined in corroboration-of the
facts, and the items charged in the extra account were mi-
nutely compared by the learned counsel for the defence, with
those found for the barque Thomas Lee ; an argument of
considerable length ensued on the pleas in the declaration.
The learned JUDGE intimated pretty clearly that they were
in a great measure wrongly laid, and that the only question
he should leave to the jury would be the amnunt of the extra

charges.
Mr. CRESSWELL then addressed the court on the part o
the defendant, enlarging on the great importance in building,
vessels by contract, and paying for them according to the
registered tonnage, of the prescribed proportions being duly
observed. It was of the utmost importance to the shipowner
that for the purpose of capacity, the depth of the vessel
should be in exact proportion to her length and breadth,
otherwise he would be paying the builder for a larger tonnage
than he would have an equivalent for, in the capacity of the
vessel for carrying cargo. On the other hand it was the build-
er's interest to make the vessel as long and as broad as he
could, but to make it as shallow as possible ; but the defen-
dant gained nothing by the little more depth which the plain-
tiffs had put into the vessel, because it was not made 'mid-
ships. He sanctioned the alterations from 303 tons to 318
tons, and be was willing to pay for that ; but the plaintiffs
made the ship 330 tons, and for the difference the defendant
refused to pay, inasmuch as he had not authorised it. The
fact he (Mr. Cresswell) could prove by Capt. Asbridge, but
unfortunately he was abroad in the vessel, and it was the
knowledge of this fact which had induced the plaintiff's to
bring the cause to trial. The learned counsel then directed
the judge's attention to the several pleas in the declaration,
particularly the fourth and fifth, contending that the plain-
tiffs had been paid more than the amount which they claimed
for 303 tons, beyond which they did not go in their plea, in.
asmuch as they had been paid for 318 tons, and that the diffe-
rence would overtop the bill of extras, which they ought not
to have sent in.
After a very long discussion, it was arranged that the exac
amount of the extras supplied should be settled out of court.
Under the direction of the learned JUGDE, thejury returned
a verdict for the defendant on the fourth plea, that the
plaintiffs had built the ship according to the contract, and on
the fifth plea that the defendant had paid all that he was
bound to pay. On the other counts, which were merely for-
mal, the jury found for the plaintiffs. The result, substan-
tially, is in favour of the defendant.
FOULDS V. wietcuennv.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Abraham
Foulds, against the defendant, Seymour Willoughby, for the
recovery of the value of a mare and filly, which the defend-
ant found and converted to his use.
Mr. WATSON stated the case. The plaintiff sought to
recover a sum of about £lO,, being the value of a grey mare,
a bay filly, and a saddle. he facts of the case were short
and simple. The defendant, who resided with his brother at
the inn at Birkenhead, was the owner of the
.Birkenhead
Ferry. In the summer of last year the plaintiff had the
horse in question at the fair of Birkenhead for sale, but,
being unable to dispose of them, he was bringing them bads
to his place in Liverpool, at about two o'clock in the day,
He paid the ordinary ferryage for them (one
defendant was oneinshailclionngfiannec(
sixpence) at the pay-gate, and had them placed
situation on the deck of the steamer. 1
on board at the time. Shortly afterwards some furniture
was brought on board, and the plaintiff was then directed to
Place his horses in another position in the boat. They had
not remained there very long when the defendant, for some
cause or other, insisted on their being taken on shore. The
plaintiff refused to comply with the request, whereupon the
defendant led them ashore, and took them out of sight of
the plaintiff altogether. The plaintiff was then offered the
IS. 6d. he had paid for their ferryage, but he refused to take_
it. He also refused to follow the horses, which, it appeared,
were taken up to the Birkenhead Motel, and he came back
in the boat to Liverpool. The following day he went over,
in company with a friend, and demanded the horses from
the ostler who had them in charge. At the time the defend-
ant and his brother had gone out shooting, but the horse:
were standing in the stables. The ostler having refused tc
give them up, the plaintiff returned to town. The animal
were then turned out to grass upon a place where little gran:
was to be found they fell off very much in condition ; and
on the 12th of December following, the defendant brough
them over to Liverpool and had them sold by auction.
horses being of little or no value at the time, they were sold
for little or nothing at the sale. The plaintiff, therefore,
sought the value of them at the time they had been taken
from him, which was about £4O. The saddle and bridle
were worth about £4 extra. The defendant pleaded that he
was not guilty.