The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-03-30 00:00:00

period he observed the prisoner engaged
t shillings. Having procured assistance,
n to the cellar, and found the prisoner
,00ns, broken up for the purpose of melt-
)me plaster of paris, a file, a mould, and

gs, which corresponded exactly in' size
hen the prisoner was apprehended, his
ad certainly been using..the mould, but

of amusement only

was, that he had found

Id mould in an old pot ; that
man named John Daniels, who

)rtnight before, for passing counter-
) been imprisoned twelve months for
from him at a halfpenny
le ground that it would
;ave information to the
f having made any of

Daniel

gave th

e prisoner a good cha-

;over not

atimated that an indictment
for having a mould feloni-

Bernard Henry, ag

`eloniously in the:

Mr. Pollock prosecitted. The

t of February, Inspectors Beswick and
ther officers in the Manchester police
twin-street, in that borough, where they
a prisoners were carrying on a system of

men there, the two prisoners
Ape. Cox was found with one

BUTTON V. CLIFFS

another between his feet,
sr were both near the fire,

' something into his mouth,
efore it could be ascertained what it
•ds .cen to put something more into
pped from swallowing it, and it proved

1 from the

counterfeit shilling just

spoons, some plaster-of-paris, and two
In a room up stairs 18 counterfeit shillings
a bed, all of which appeared to have been

, said he had had nothing to do with coin-
taken him into the house. Henry told a

hem both Guilty

homeis Entwistle

Z 7, were

Bolton, feloniously and

ited twenty crowns, and eleven
ng in their possession a mould for

Pollock appeared for the
risoners.

d that Boyd, the super-

police at Bolton' went to a house in Spaw-
n of Sunday, the 13th of December last,
five officers, in the expectation of making
The two prisoners were found there, and
le ensued between them and the officers.

zed he had a mould in his hand,
i it. Several crown pieces were
and one half-crown in the ash-

Thomas Barlow and Cornelius Taylor were sentenced to
18 months' imprisonment and hard labour. The former pri-
soner, who had conducted himself most impudently on hear-
ing the sentence, addressed the judge in these words—
" You'll be in hell before I've served that."
Owen Rooney, 35, pleaded guilty to an indictment charg-
ing him with feloniously uttering a counterfeit shilling, and
with having eight other false shillings in his possession. He
was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment and hard labour.
John Rozelle, who had been before convicted of stabbing
and cutting at rodmorden, was again placed at the bar, on a
charge of stealing at Todmorden and Walsden—a silk gown,
the property of William Bock.
It appeared that the prisoner lodged with the parties at
Todmorden who had removed into another house. The dress
was then lost (according to the principal witnesses), but it
was not missed for twelve days afterwards, when a box was
found broken open.
The prisoner cross-questioned the witness at considerable
length. He excited some amusement in the court, and elicited
the admission that many other persons were in the house when
the box was said to be broken open, and that one of them was
a man of very loose and bad character.

Another witness swore to the prisoner having pledged the
gown at Rochdale. On cross-examination by the prisoner,
the witness said that when he pledged the dress he had a
very black eye, and was disfigured in the face, yet she knew
him again when she saw him before the magistrates. She
admitted that the prisoner earned a good deal of money in
his trade as a shoemaker, and that the distance from Tod-
morden to Rochdale was nine miles.

The prisoner said in his defence, that the party of bad cha-
racters who had been with him, bore a strong resemblance to
himself in every point, and been mistaken for him on several
occasions. This was not denied.
Any of the charge of i The '

learned JUDGE summed up, and the jury found the
prisoner—Not Guilty.

The learned JUDGE then proceeded to pass sentence on the
prisoner for stabbing James, Lawe. Both the prisoner and
the wounded party were in liquor at the time, and the knife,
a small one, was pulled out under irritation. The prisoner
was afterwards struck and kicked most grievously. This
should be considered : but the prisoner should nev

carry a knife. The sentence d the Court was that he
imprisoned for eight calendar months, and kept to bard
labour.

The Court rose at five minutes past six o'clock

NISI PRIUS COURT.—MONDAY.
Mr. Baron Rolfe took his seat at half-past nine o'clock,

By this action, which was undefended, James Hutton, an
iron merchant, of Manchester, sought to recover from Joseph
Cliff, an ironfounder, of Huddersfield, the sum of £66 6s 6d,
on a bill of exchange, for goods sold and delivered. Verdict
for the plaintiff.

MIDDLETON V. SHERBURNE.
Baron ROLFE asked if any arrangement had been made
respecting the above case.

Mr. CRESSWELL replied, that his client had, since the
subject was last alluded to, received a notice to inspect 581
documents. He had previously received notice to inspect
126 documents, and now this order had come suddenly to
him. It was extfemely painful to his (Mr. Cresswell's) feel-
ings to interfere when it was desired to fix a day for this or
any other trial, and after the observations which had been
made upon the subject he found that it would be most satis-
factory to his feelings not to interfere in the question.
Mr. DUNDAS was about to address the Court, when

Baron ROLFE said, he felt the full force of what Mr.
Cresswell had said. In this case there was evidently a strong
reason for not forcing on the trial.

Mr. DUNDAS said; from communication which had been
made with Sir W. Follett, he found that he (Sir W. Follett)
could come on the 12th of April, if neither the sth nor the
Bth would suit Mr. Cresswell.
STATHAM AND ANOTHER, ASSIGNEES, V. YATES.

Mr. Alexander and Mr. Tomlinson appeared for the plain-
tiffs, and Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Hoggins for the defence.
The action was brought by the assignees of Messrs. John
and Joseph Moss, dyers and bleachers, near Manchester, to
recover from the defendant, Mr. Joseph Yates, the sum of
£lB Ils Bd, for dying a quantity of yarns, in the months of
September and October, 1839. It was alleged, on the part
of the plaintiff, that in the month of September, in the above
year, a quantity of yarns were sent by the defendant to
to the plaintiff's to be dyed brown. The process which
the goods underwent to fix the required tint was described,
and the yarns, when finished, were tested by competent per-
sons, in order to prove if the colours would stand. The yarn
was sent home, and an invoice with it, at the bottom of which
appeared a notification that all yarns sent to be dyed at
Messrs. Moss' would be considered as general liens for mo-
ney owing to them, and that all claims for damage, unless
made within one month, would not be allowed. The charge
made for this parcel was £lO ss. A second parcel was sent
on the 4th of October, part of which was dyed brown by the
same operation, and similarly tested by bleaching, and was
found to have been properly dyed. On the 3d of November
following Messrs. Moss became bankrupts; the accounts
were gone into, and the defendant, amongst other persons,
was found indebted to them. Application was made to him
for payment of the sum in dispute. The defendant objected
to pay, on the ground that some of the brown yarn in the
second parcel was'not properly done. This parcel, as alleged
by the plaintiffs, was charged fifteen shillings. The defen-
dant said that all the fabric of the brown yarn dyed had been
spoiled ; therefore he would not pay, and the plaintiffs might
go to law. An action was accordingly brought, which was
to have been tried before the sheriff : but that was prevented
by a demurrer, and the case was therefore brought for trial
at the assizes. The pleadings on the part of the defendant
were, first, that he was not indebted ; second, that he admit-
ted the work, but it was a custom amongst dyers that they
should deduct the amount of any damage done to goods in
the process of dying ; and, third, that one thousand pounds
of the yarn sent in the second parcel had been so ill done
that it was of no use ; that damage to the amount of £2O had
been done, which, as that was more than the £lB Ils. Bd.
claimed, the defendant was not indebted.

The witnesses for the piaintiffs were principally the work-
men who had superintended the process of dying the yarns
in question. It was stated that the first part of the process
was to put the yarn in lime-water, then into a solution of
bronze liquor, again into lime-water, again into bronze li-
quor, and, to use the words of the witness, " you carry on
in this manner, according to the mode required, till your
stuff is done brown :" it is then put into a solution of chlo-
ride of lime, then into a solution of hot alkali (called soap),
and then into a stove and dried. The testing process was to
put the stuff into boiling hot alkali, then into cold chloride
of lime, and to wash thoroughly with cold water. It was
then put into a weak solution of sulphuric acid. and after-
wards into the hot alkali again. This process was repeated ;
and it was stated that undyed yarns subjected to the same
process (or " punishment," as the witness termed it) were
thoroughly bleached.

Depositions were read which shewed that acts of bank-
ruptcy had been committed by Messrs. Moss, both ante-
cedent and subsequent to the transaction in question.
Mr. CRESSWELL contended that the action was not pro-
perly brought, and that the plaintiffs must be nonsuited.
This was not a contract between the Messrs. Moss and the
defendant, as alleged, the work having been done by the
Messrs. Moss as agents for the assignees, because the for-
mer were bankrupts at the time it was done.

His LORDSHIP said tlie assignees were not necessarily
bound to look to any prior acts of bankruptcy. An act of
bankruptcy had been committed subsequently to the trans-
actionrand they became assignees at a particular date, when
the parties were really made bankrupt. .However, he would
make a note of the point, and give Mr. Cresswell liberty to
move for a nonsuit.

Mr. baE;;;ETL said, he apprehended his friend must be
nonsuited on another ground. The yarns were accompanied
by written instructions, which had not been produced.
Mr. ALEXANDER said the bankrupts' papers had got into
confusion, and those papers be had shown could not be found.
The learned counsel had stated this in his opening, but he
had not proved it. His lordship allowed a witness to be
called for the purpose of furnishing this proof. The witness
could not give the required testimony, but he was prepared
to show what the letters of instruction contained. This se-
condary evidence was not admitted. His lordship refused to
receive the objection on a ground of nonsuit, but he reserved
he point With the other.