The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-13 00:00:00

CHARGE OF RAPE

Thomas Twist andi;;;;;P;;;;w7i, two lads about 18
years old, stood indicted for having feloniously ravished and
carnally known Margaret Prescott, a girl of 16 years of age.
The facts of the case appeared to be as follows :—The pro-
secutrix was a looker-on at Ackerley's colliery, in this
county. The prisoners were drawers at the same place. On
Saturday, the Nth of last October, the prosecutrix was about
to ascend the shaft, but having forgot a spade after her, she
returned for the purpose of fetching it, and took a candle in
her hand. The prisoner Twist then came up to her, took
hold of her by the arm, and used some term of endearment,
such as "my love." She repulsed him, and attempted to
go back, but the prisoners put out their candles and nearly
involved the place in darkness. Penman then came up,
knocked the candle out of her hand, laid hold of her by the
breast, and knocked her down. The prosecutrix having had
a pair of trousers on (trousers being usually worn by colliery
girls), they then proceeded to unbutton them, when one, she
could not say which, effected his purpose. She screamed
violently. When she got to the top of the shaft she imme-
diately informed the banksmau that she had been ill-treated,
and then went to her father and informed him also of all the
circumstances.

Mr. Wilkins defended the prisoner Twist, and Dr. Brown
the prisoner Penman.

The prosecutrix and several witnesses were examined to
prove the case; after which the jury, having considered their
verdict for about twenty minutes, found hoth the prisoners
not guilty of rape, but. Guilty of an assault..
His LORDSHIP haying been informed that Penman had
been in gaol for the last six months, and Twist for the last
seventeen weeks, senteticed the former to, one and the latter
to two calendar months'. imprisonment; and directed them
to enter into recognisances of 410 each for their good be-
haviour for the next two years.
The court adjourned at eight o'clock.

NISI PRIUS.—SATURDAY.
(Continued from the Supplement.)
PURCHASE OF RAILWAY SHARES.—STEWART V. CAUTY.
The declaration in this ease stated, that the plaintiff, was
Mr. John Duncan Stewart, and the defendant Mr. Henry
John Canty ; and the action was brought to recover the sum
of £361 is., being the amount of loss which had resulted to
the plaintiff from the sale of twenty half-shares in the'Great
Western Railway, which the defendant had purchased from
him, but afterwards refused to receive.
Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Henderson appeared for the plain-
tiff; and Mr. Alexander for the defendant.
Mr. CRESSWELL, in stating the case, said, the plaintiff
was a merchant in Liverpool, and the defendant either an
apothecary or a medical man. On the 26th August last, the
defendant employed Messrs. Radford and Co., sharebrokers,
to purchase for him twenty half-shares in the Great Western
Railway, at the clear mice of £52 per share. Messrs. Rad-
ford and Co. purchased the shares from Messrs. H. Davies
and Co., share-brokers, at £52 per share, being £4O paid
and £l2 premium, to which the commission had to be added.
It was agreed, that the commission should be 2s. 6d. per
share. Sharebrokers in Liverpool had established for them-
selves certain well-known rules, the first of which was, that
the buyer should give the name of the transferer within three
days after sale ; and, if the buyer's broker did not give the
name to the selling broker in that time, the name of the
buyer was to be put in. The vendor was also allowed seven
days after the receipt of the name of the transferer to com-
plete the transfer. Mr. Canty, after the sale, was asked for
the name of the tranferer, and he replied, that he was not
prepared to give it. Messrs. Radford pressed him for the
name, and, at the same time, he was informed, that, unless
it was given, his own, as the selling broker, would be put in.
At length Messrs. Radford put in his name, not wishing to
make themselves liable. The defendant afterwards gave
to his brokers the name of Mr. John Whittle, of
Gloucester, gentleman, as the transferer, and, on agree-
ment, his name was substituted for the defendant's.
Mr. Stewart was the holder of these twenty shares, but
had not received the transfer from the person who had
sold to him, and he had to communicate with that person
to enable him to make the transfer to Mr. Little. In two
days afterwards Mr. Canty went to Messrs. Radfords', and
asked for the transfer. He was told that the time for trans-
fer had not yet come on, when he said, " Oh, you have press-
ed the for a name, and now I will press you." Mr. Radford
told him it was of no use to do so, as the rules gave the sell-
ing party seven days : he advised Mr. Canty not to press for
the transfer, as the seller might he offended, and take the
whole seven days. The transfer was got ready on the fifth
day, instead of the seventh. In the meantime shares had
been falling, and Mr. Cauty then said he would not have the
shares. A tender of transfer was formally made, although it
was unnecessary, and the defendant refused to accept it. On
this the shares were resold, after the usual notice, and the
loss was £l6O. The present action was brought to recover
that amount.
The learned counsel then called evidence in proof of this
statement. In cross-examination Mr. Thomas Radford ad-
nitted that the defendant stipulated, in making the purchase,
hat the contract should be completed immediately, and that
_le had asked for the transfer several times.
Mr. CRESSWELL then put in the rules of the Liverpool
Sharebrokers' Association.
Mr. ALEXANDER submitted that the rules of the associa-
tion could not be evidence, as neither Mr. Davies, the plain-
tiff,:nor the defendant, were members ofit, • • •
The Learned JUDGE was -of opinion the rules were evi-
ienCe, as the defendant's attention bad been called to them,

and all the sharebrokers acted in accordance with them.
Mr. ALEXANDER requested the learned judge to take a
note of the objections. He then addressed the jury for the
defendant, contending that the sale, after the defendant had
refused to fake the shares, should have been earlier. Had
that been so, the loss would not have been more than £54
on one day, or £7O on a day still later.
The JUDGE then summed up, and the jury found for the
plaintiff, damages £l6l Is.
PURCHASE OF A WRECK.—BROWN AND ANOTHER V.

WESTHEAD AND ANOTHER.
Messrs. Brown and Haskayne, ship-chandlers, of this
town, brought this action against Mr. Peter Westhead, pub-
lican, of Waterloo, and another person, for having converted
to their own use some timber, the part of a wrecked vessel,
called the St. Andrew, which they had purchased. The case
was perfectly uninteresting. It ended in a verdict fur the
plaintiffs, damages £4O, with leave to Mr. Crompton, for
the defendants, to move for a nonsuit.
FREIGHT AN D .DEMURRAGE.—HARRISON AND OTHERS V.