The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-08-21 00:00:00

ALBRECHT V. MOORE

Mr. WIGHTMAN appeared for the plaintiff ; the defendant
did not appear, From the statement of the learned counsel
it appeared that the plaintiff, who is a merchant in London,
chartered a vessel called the Dorothy Gales, of which the
defendant was owner and commander, to convey a cargo of
goods from Liverpool to Ceylon, in January last. All the
goods were regularly. delivered on board except sixty half-
barrels of gnupoWder, for Colombo, which, according to the
rules of the port, could not be sent on board whilst the ship
lay in dock. 'rimy were, therefore, put on board a boat and
ordered to be taken on board the Dorothy Gales, from near
the Black Rock ; but when the vessel arrived there the de-
fendant refused to receive them. The gunpowder had to be
sent by another vessel, and the action was brought to recover
the value of the freight. A verdict was returned for the
plaintiff. Damages £2l 2s. 3d.
WOODCOCK V. MARCH.
Verdict for the plaintiff, £75 2s.
SAME V. SAME.
Verdict for the plaintiff, £l9 14s. Bd.
LAWSON V. JACKSON.
Verdict for the plaintiff, £29 17s. 2d.
CLARKE V. SCOTT.
Verdict for the plaintiff, £l3O 19s.
COTTRELL V. STOCKS.

This was an action against the defendant, a cotton manu-
facturer, at Heaton Mersey, to recover damages for certain
injuries done by his negligence to Elizabeth Cottrell, the
plaintiff;
Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Atherton appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Alexander for the defendant.

Mr. ATHERTON opened the pleadings. The plaintiff in
this action was Elizabeth Cottrell, who sued by her nearest
friend and guardian, the Honourable Anthony Ashley Cooper,
commonly called Lord Ashley. The declaration stated that
the defendant was possessed of a certain mill, and a shaft in
the same mill, which shaft, when in motion, proceeded with
great velocity and power. The plaintiff was employed in this
factory, and the defendant, neglecting his duty, had omitted
to fence or box off the shaft, in consequence of which it
caught the plaintiff's clothes, and inflicted certain injuries
upon her, whereby she had been put to certain expenses.
The defendant had pleaded not guilty.
Mr. CRESSWELL then addressed the jury. He was happy
to inform them that their time would not be occupied long
in the investigation of this case. His learned friend and
himself, after a few minutes' conversation, had arranged what
serving
should be done between the parties ; but, inasmuch as the
case presented one feature which was
n t nota fs e
tvuerrvy,
sued common,he
re
namely, that a young woman,
by Lord Ashley, as her next friend and guardian,' he thought
it but right that the circumstances under which the action
had been brought should be correctly understood. He dared
say it was well known to the jury, that that noble lord had
devoted his time and his talents to a great question, which
had more than once been agitated in parliament, namely, the
degree of legislative interference that ought to take place be-
tween the owners of factories and their servants. The noble
lord, turning his attention to that subject, could not fail to
feel, as every man would feel, for those unfortunate beings
who, by thousands, were called to work in factories beyond
their strength, in order to obtain a scanty subsistence. That
noble lord could riot but feel it was necessary that some pro-
tection should be interposed on behalf of those who were so
rteuart
seexttsenett. that feeling
huandabbleeetno
had been passed, whereby :nspectors and superintendents had
sphrsorteedc
ut hhe
ym :lei
el v
legislature
been appointed, in order to watch over the necessities and
islTatouraeg,
poor children serving in certain factories. As to the nature
safety, and to act to a certain extent as the guardians, of the
of the contracts which might be made with the master, by
which they might be put to certain descriptions of work, and
the hours they might be kept to it, the legislature had inter-
posed, and appointed certain persons to take care that the

igulations established by law were not violated. But there
'as another particular in which the legislature had not inter-
wed, because the common law of the land, if rightly under 7
tood, would be found to give an adequate degree of protec-
mn, namely, as to the construction of machinery in the neigh-
ourhood of which these children were called upon to attend
their duty., Accidents would be sometimes happening
f the most frightful description, owing to the construction
f the machinery being such, that an adequate degree of pro-
action was not given to those who served it. This case was
,ne of that description. An upright shaft, revolving at the
peed of some sixty revolutions iu a minute, was left without
.ny casing round it, so that those who passed near it, par-
icularly females, were liable to have their dresses caught by
t, and to be torn in the most frightful manner. The poor
_

girl, who was the plaintiff, was caught by her clothes by this
haft revolving at the great speed he had named; and, sup-
ring five minutes to have elapsed before the engine could
)e stopped, and the motion of the shaft to cease, she must
lave made 200 or 300 revolutions. He would not describe
he nature of the injury she had received. She could only
•eceive a pecuniary compensation for it, and the amount
lad been arranged between hii learned friend and himself.
tut as it was not generally understood, the defendant was
tot for a time convinced that the law bound him to make

ompensation to those who sustained any injury in conse-
uence of his machinery having been left in such a state as to
xpose the servants in his factory to a degree of danger to
rhich they ought ,not to be exposed. The plaintiff, a poor
ectory girl, had no means of instituting such an action as
he present in her own behalf. She might, perhaps, have
Irevailed upon some person to undertake the risk of bringing
uch a case into court, naming her father as her next friend ;

int Lord Ashley, hearing of this am^”.".. -filer circumstances
:onnected with factories, thought .t beams ',im, as a noble-
nau who professed to entertain a deep fe3 tog on behalf of
'hose engaged in these pursuits, at t,... place his name
won the record as her guardian, so that if he were wrong in

opinion that the Lai; did not take the responsibility ftOin
tbl mill-owner, he might be found to pay the expenses of the
set' in. It was with that feeling that Ms lordship's name
Nu daced upon the record, that it might not be said a pauper
was brought forward, who could not pay the costa if he
failed ; and that if it had been found that the law gave no
protection to persons suffering as the plaintiff, then it was
time to call upon the legislature for its interference. But
the defendant was now satisfied that the law did impose upon
him such an obligation ; and he (the learned counsel) trusted
that others would be convinced the defendant had not yielded
without good advice, and that they had their machinery in
ouch a state as to expose their servants to risk, they would
forthwith cause it to be altered. He would not trouble them
with any further observations. Poor compensation, indeed,
must money be to the poor girl, for she had been reduced
from health to the state of a cripple for life ; but still more
moderation had been observed. Undoubtedly the misfortune
was not wilfully caused—it was Merely negligence, which
vas always removed from criminality. A verdict would be
taken by consent for £lOO
Mr. ALExANDite. would take advantage pf the present
,opportunity to say a few words to the jury on the part of the
defendant, in order that there might be no mistake as to his

character. The defendant felt very deep regret that such a
misfortune should have happened; but it was perfectly clear,
as far as he was personally concer►►ed, he could not have had
any share in the negligence, or in any other mischance to
which this accident was referred. He had no doubt the jury
were aware of the able, praiseworthy, and he ►night almost
add, the godlike conduct of the noble lord who had inter-
fered for the last few years in protecting the interests of the
helpless factory children. They would all feel alike upon
that subject. But he might be permitted to say, that although
the public might now be better informed as to what was a
master's duty with regard to his machinery, that the machi-
nery in question was made in the year 1835, by one of the
oldest firms in this county, and it had been in work till Janu-
ary last, when this misfortune occurred, without the least-in-
terruption or accident. The defendant himself was at Man-
chester at the time, at some distance from the place where
the accident happened, therefore he could have no share in it
whatever. But, influenced by motives which did honour to
human nature—for had there not been a doubt, the case would
not have gone before a jury—he had consented to an arrange-
ment whereby the plaintiff would be satisfactorily provided
for during the lengthened continuance of her sufferings. He
(the learned counsel) did not think that the settlement in this
case could do anything but afford pleasure to the poor and
helpless ; and he was sure the verdict would raise, ►n the es-
timation of the jury, the defendant, who was represented to
him as one of the most independent and respectable manu-
facturers there was in this county.
Mr. CRESSWELL observed that it would not have cost
more than 10s. to have put the machinery in proper order.
A verdict was then taken for £lOO. and costs.
WOOD V. RENSHAW.
Verdict for the plaintiff, £3B. 6s. 3d.
BIRKETT AND ANOTHER V. DELLIS.

This was an action to recover the sum of £45, the value of
a horse and delivered to the defendant by the plaintiffs.
Mr. Creswell and Mr. Wortley were counsel for the plain-
tiffs, and Mr. Alexander and Mr. Martin for the defendant.
This trial lasted for several hours, but the facts of the case
may be very shortly stated. Mr. Birkett, one of the plain-
tiffs, is a clerk in the house of Sir Thomas Brancker and Co.
sugar refiners, but is also in business, in partnership with a
Mr. Benn, as a cal-lowlier. The defendant is a horse-dealer,
residing near Market Drayton. The plaintiffs had some time
before bought horses from the defendant ; afterwards, being
about to discontinue one of their teams, they sent a person to
Wigan fair for the purpose of selling the horse which formed
the subject of the present action. This person met the de-
fendant, and the defendant sold the horse to a Mr. Lee, who,
after having had it for some time, returned it as unsound.
Both the plaintiffs and the defendant refused to receive it,
and the animal wandered about the streets till a policeman
took charge of it. The police sold it for £3O.
The answer of the defendant to the case was, firstly, that
he had not bought the horse ; and secondly, that if he had
bought it, it was through the false representations. of the
plaintiffs' agent.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £45.

BATTYE V. TOMLINSON.
Verdict for the plaintaiff, £139. 8. 2d.
KERR V. HUGHES.
Vardict for the plaintiff, £2OO. subject to a reference
BURGESS V. EDWARDS.
Verdict for the plaintiff, £5O.
NiCHOL AND ANOTHER V. FARRIMOND.
Verdict for the plaintiff, X 55. 10s. - .

---~--

CROWN COURT.—YEsTE RDAT

Bernard Hickey, 35, was charged with unlawfully having
in his possession 828 pieces of false and counterfeit pennies,
and 530 counterfeit halfpennies, he well knowing the same to
be false and counterfeit.
Police-officer Moneypenny said—l was on duty at the
Clarence Dock, on the 2d of August,in the morning. I know
a porter named Richard Bryan. He was carrying a box.
I asked him who owned it. He said, " this man," pointing
to the prisoner. I asked the prisoner what it contained, and
he said " copper." I took it to the hut. The prisoner gave
me the key of the box, and I opened it. I found copper
money made up in papers. I sent for the inspector, and took
the prisoner to Bridewell, where he was searched. Some
silver was found upon him and some had copper. The cop-
per was produced.
The JUDGE asked the witness how he knew it was bad.
He said he did not know, but it was not like the usual money.

One of the jury remarked that such money was current.
The ATTOILNEY-GEN EIZAL said it was base notwithstand-

ing.
The porter, Richard Bryan, said he carried the box, and
was to receive sixpence from the prisoner.
Inspector M'Gill said he asked the prisoner what the box
contained, and he said, " bad copper money." He said he
had bought it ; had not given half price for it, and that he
intended to sell it. He added, in reply to questions, that he
was going to take it to a Mr. M`lieirs, where a man named
Martin lodged, who would assist him to get shut of it. He
was taken to the Bridewell.
The prisoner said he was a stranger in the town. and that
Martin would assist him. The witness admitted that the
prisoner had said so.
Mr. Dowling said—l received the money. It consisted of
pence, halfpence, and tokens. There were 138 pence of Geo.
111., 386 of Geo. IV., 7 of 'William IV., 228 Irish pence,
of different reigns, 19 halfpence of Geo. IV., 108 of Geo. 111.,
8 pence made of lead, and 1 halfpenny. There were many of
what are termed harps. The whole of the coin was not pro-
duced.
The Inspector of the Mint said they were base. They
were cast in loose moulds, of what is called pot metal. About
28 of them (the pennies) to the pound. Of the genuine there
are only 24. The counterfeit ones are filed and redened.
The metal is worth only 6d to 7d. The Mint pays lid a
pound.
This was the case for the Mint.
The prisoner said he bought it as old copper, and brought
it here on sale. • •
The JUDGE summed up, and the jury immediately returned
a verdict of guilty against the prisoner.
The learned JUDGE then, without remark, sentenced the
prisoner to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour in Kirkdale
House of Correction for 12 calendar months.

John Watson, aged 40, Francis Pullen, 23, Denis
Rogerson, 28, and Mary Richmond, alias Lawlor, 28, were
indicted for having, on the 19th of July, at Wigan, unlaw-
fully uttered and put offeight counterfeit sixpences, knowing
them to be so. They stood further indicted with having, at
Ince-in-Mackerfield, feloniously had in their possession a
die, or mould, having the impress, and apparent resemblance
of both sides of a sixpence.
The case presented no features of peculiar interest, though
the evidence to prove the several acts of uttering was neces-
sarily gone into minuteness. The three male prisoners and
others, had gone to several public-houses, in each of which
one or other of them, in payment for ale, &c., of which they
all partook, gave sixpence, which in each case was found to
be bad. In the house ot! Rogerson, a constable found the
mould together with a slow cinder fire and a small pot, in
which was a quantity of white metal. Pullen, on being taken
into custody, was told the charge against him, and cautioned
that he did not say anything unless he liked. He then stated
that he had met Richmond and 'Watson at Preston on the
Monday before ' • and that all the bad sixpences be had paid
he had received from Watson. He also admitted that he had
passed some of them, and that he was present in a beer-shop
in Standish, and at a public-house there, when others were
passed by the other prisoners. The inspector of coins of her
Majesty's mint proved that the coin was counterfeit, and
cast in the same mould. In reply to questions from the
judge, he explained the process of moulding and the peculiar
marks by which he identified the sixpences to be from the
same mould. The metal was a composition of tin, bismoth,
zinc, &c. The prisoner Rogerson said that Pullen came to
his house in company with the other two. Pullen was his
brother-in-law, the others he did not know. In the after-
noon, Pullen and Watson, he said, asked him to go and
drink with them, which he did, and Watson paid a sixpence
for it ; but he (prisoner) did not know it was bad,—and that
the mould found in his house, he added, might have been
brought there by Watson and Pullen. He called Isaac
Crusha, who had worked for him as a shoemaker. The
witness spoke to knowing the prisoner, but nothing affecting
the case. There appeared to be no evidence of the presence
of the female prisoner at any of the utterings charged. The
case as against Rogerson was not very strong ; nor did it
appear that Watson was so strongly implicated as Pullen.
The jury found a verdict of guilty against Pullen of separate
.utterings on one day, which is felony ; Watson guilty, simple
larceny—and Rogerson and the woman Richmond—Not

guilty:
The learned JUDGE, addressing the female, said she had
been properly acquitted ; but that she had in all probability
been aware of two of the sixpences being false, and he
cautioned her as to her future conduct. She was then dis-
charged. His Lordship then addressed Pullen, who he said
had evidently been dealing in a wholesale way. He sentenced
him to imprisonment and hard labour in Kirkdale gaol for
two years. His Lordship said he was not sure whether, if
the truth were known, he was not the more guilty of the
two. He then sentenced him to imprisonment and hard la-
bor in the same house of correction for twelve calendar
months.

• MANSLAUGHTER.
Thomas Fletcher, a stout man, aged 45, stood indicted for
having at Manchester, on the 21st of April last, feloniously
killed and slain one William Wallworth. It appeared that
there were several fights on a hard piece of ground, and the
prisoner and deceased were fighting together. In the end
the deceased received a severe kick and other injuries, of
which he soon afterwards died. The deceased was in the act
of rising after a fall when he was kicked. He died in ten
minutes or a quarter of an hour afterwards. The prisoner
afterwards appeared to be greatly distressed. A surgeon
stated that the deceased died from apoplexy of the spine.
The vessels of the spinal marrow in the upper part of the
neck. It might have been occasioned by a kick rather than
a fall. As soon as the frenic nerve was pressed upon, the
party would die. Mr. Brandt defended the prisoner.

The jury found the prisoner guilty of manslaughter.
The learned JUDGE severely commented on the conduct of
the prisoner, through whom the deceased had come to his
death. He would not be doing his duty to society did he
not visit the offence with severity. The sentence of the
court was that he should be imprisoned and kept to hard la-
bour in the House of Correction for the county, for eighteen
calendar months.