The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1847-04-06 00:00:00

TUE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

SOUTH LANCASHIRE ASSIZES.

CROWN COURT.—TuEsDAY.
Elizabeth Johnson, agod, 33, who was attired in widow's
weeds, and was accommodated with a seat in the dock,
was indicted for the wilful murder of William Henry
Johnson, on the 27th of November last, at Barton-upon-
Irwell, by administering arsenic-to him. The jury retired
for about half an hour, and at twenty minutes past seven
o'clock returned into court, and delivered a verdict of not
guilty. The prisoner bore her trial with great apparent
fortitude ; and after the summing up of the judge, her
countenance betrayed no symptons of uneasiness whatever
as to what might be the verdict of the jury.
The trial occupied the Court the whole of the day.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-TIIZSDAY.
DOE DEAL MOLES WORTH V. ELLIOT AND OTHERS._

This was a special jury cause' in which- the Rev. J. E.
Nassau Molesworth, the present vicar of Rochdale, was
the plaintiff, and the defendants were a numerous party
of individuals residing at Rochdale, of which Mr. Elliott,
attorney, was the principal, who had become tenants
under leases granted by the predecessors of the plaintiff.
The action was one of ejectment to recover possession of
certain glebe lands, and to test the validity of the leases
under. which it was held by the defendants.
Mr. Knowies, Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Robinson ap-
peared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Martin, Mr. Watson,
and Mr Cowling for the defendants.
Mr. Knowles stated the case. By an act passed in the
year 1764, power was given to the vicar for the time being,
and his successors to make a lease for 99 years under cer-
tain conditions, and let land to parties applying for it; in
order to improve his possessions and render them more
profitable. The conditions of the lease were, that the
most improved ground-rent should be obtained, and that
there should also be a covenant to build and keep in re-
pair. At the time of the passing of the act the Rev. Dr.
Drake was the vicar, and he afterwards exercised the
powers granted by it, but not with discretion, and for the
benefit of the church ; he granted several leases, and
among others was the one in question.
Some discussion took place between the opposing coun-
sel, with the view of settling the matter, as the question
was considered merely a legal one for the opinion of his
lordship ; but no agreement took place.
A number of documents were then put in, showing the
rights of the plaintiff, and the leasing of the glebe lands,
&c., by the Right Rev. Dr. Drake, in the manner stated
by Mr. Knowles. Subsequently another attempt at com-
promise was made, which resulted in a verdict being
taken for the plaintiff subject to certain conditions.
After the arrangement had been made,
Mr. MARTIN complained that the terms obtained for
the defendant were not very liberal, and remarked strongly
npon the case.
A verdict was returned for the plaintiff.
A bill of exceptions to the summing up of the Judge
was tendered by Mr. Martin, which will have to be argued
in the superior courts.

LEES V. THE HUDDERSFIELD RAILWAY AND CANAL

COMPANY.

This was another special jury case, in which Thomas
Lees was the plaintiff, and the Huddersfield Railway and
Canal Company were the defendants. The declaration
stated that the defendants had seized and caused to be
removed certain buildings belonging to the plaintiff, for
which he was entitled to compensation to the amount of
1:5000. The defendants pleaded four pleas, upon which
issue was joined.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cowling appeared for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Martin, Mr. Hoggins, and Mr. Robinson
for the defendants.

Mr. KNOWLES stated the case. In the yearlB4s, the
defendants obtained an act of parliament authorising them
to make a railway, and to purchase land, &c., for that
purpose; and under the provisions of this act they took
possession of the premises of the plaintiff, and were there-
fore bound to make adequate compensation.
Mr. MARTIN, upon the part of the defendants, admitted
that the facts were not disputed, but he contended that
.C 5,000 was an exorbitant demand, about £2,500 over and
above what a competent appraiser had valued the property
at.
A verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the full
amount claimed.

WATSON V. ASPINALL,
A case of no interest, closed the Salford list. Verdict
for the plaintiff, by consent, £7OO.

CROWN COURT.-WEDNESDAY.

Michael Fitzgerald and John Richardson, found guilty
of obtaining money under false pretences from Messrs.
Barbour, of Manchester, were sentenced—Fitzgerald to
two years' imprisonment, with hard labour, Richardson
(recommended to mercy) to one year's imprisonment,
with hard labour. •
Maria O'Neill, for feloniously wounding and stabbing
Margaret M'Cumsky, was sentenced to two years' impri-
sonment, with hard labour.
Michael Trainor pleaded guilty to forging a promissory
note ; sentenced to three months' imprisonment, with
hard labour.

Walter Tattersall, convicted of housebreaking at Liver-
pool, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, with
hard labour.

Michael Bird, convicted of having killed Mary Anne
Meldon, a child five years old, by pressing her with his
cart against the wall, was (it being an accident) sentenced
to fourteen days' imprisonment.
William Warbrick, police constable, was convicted of
slaying a lad, named John Riddell. This was quite unin-
tentional, and the man was a steady well conducted officer,
who threw a stone at some lads in a boat, to make them
come to land ; a small injury was caused to one of them,
which being neglected, after- some--days inflammation
took place, and caused his death. Fined ls.
William Bradley, for snaking a false declaration in
regard to a pawn ticket, was sentenced to one month's
imprisonment, with hard labour.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-WEDNESDAY.
ACTION AGAINST A SHERIFF'S OFFICER.

LEIGH v. STANDISH.—'-The plaintiff in this case was
Mr. John Leigh, a saddler, in Liverpool, and the real
defendant, Walch, a sheriff's officer. Last year, a Dr.
Cronin being indebted to the plaintiff, the latter brought
an action against him, and having obtained judgment, -a
writ was issued for the debt and costs, amounting toge-
ther to £44 3s. 10d. This writ was entrusted to Walch,
but he returned that Dr. Cronin had no goods on which
to levy. Walch had at the time in his possession the
remnant of a former levy on the, goods of Dr. Cronin,
which he did not hand over. He was also informed by
plaintiff's attorney that there were certain goods belong-
ing to Dr. Cronin lying at the house of a person named
Redmond ; the defendant, however, took no steps to
secure them, and returned that Dr. Cronin had no goods
on which to distrain.—Verdict for plaintiff; damages, £l5.

AN ARCHITECT'S BILL.

ED WARDS AND ANOTHER V. HENDERSON.—The plain-
tiffs, Messrs. Edwards, are architects and surveyors, car-
rying on business in Hanover-street ; the defendant,
Francis Blair Harrison ; and the action was brought to
recover payment for the drawing of plans and superin-
tending the erection of a house in Ashton-street. It is
usual, it appeared, for architects to charge five per cent.
upon the estimated cost of a building; but in this case,
by agreement, the defendants were to receive only £3 per
cent., at which rate they were entitled to £6O, and a
further sum was claimed for measurement. After being
partly gone into, the case was referred to Mr. James.
DOE DEM. GOIIST AND ANOTHER V. TIMOTHY.—This
was an action of ejectment, brought to recover possession
of the Grapes Inn, Lime-street, from Mr. Timothy, who
has occupied it since 1829.—Verdict for the plaintiffs ;
speedy execution.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—THURSDAY.
ACCEPTANCE OF A BILL.
KENDALL AND ANOTHER V. BROWNELL (s. J.)
In this case Messrs. Martin, noggins, and Robinson
appeared for the plaintiff, and Messrs. Knowles and
Atherton for the defendant, and the action was brought
upon an alleged acceptance of a bill of exchange for
£B2BO 14s. 2d. The plaintiffs are the executors of Mr.
William Brittain. who died in the year 1838, and Mr.
BroWnell is the partner of the firm of Messrs. Brittain,
Wilkinson, and Brownell. an old-established house in
Sheffield. Mr. Wm. Brittain was formerly a partner in
the firm constituting thiS house, but ceased to be so in the
year , leaving a larie sum of money belonging to him
to the then existing partners, to be used for business pur-
poses, in trust for himself. The business was carried on
some time, Mr.• Geo. Brittain being a partner. Connected
with the house at Sheffield there was a house at Rio Ja-
neiro in the name of Brittain, Scheiner and Co. - In 1828
Mr. Wm.Brittain had retired, and the house in Shef-
field was carried on by Mr. Charles Brownell and Mr.
Robert Robinson and others. On the death of Mr. W.
Brittain, his executors the plaintiffs, became entitled,
and the. present action was brought upon a bill
of exchange alleged to have been accepted by the
Sheffield house, drawn by Mr G. Brittain, payable
to Mr. W. Brittain. This bill was said to have
been drawn at Rio Janeiro by Geo. Brittain, upon the
house of Brittain, Wilkinson, and Co. The bill was ad-
dressed for Mr. William Brittain, and remitted to Eng-
land, and arrived here in due course of time, and, it was
alleged, accepted by the Sheffield firm. The question at
issue between the parties simply and shortly was, whether
the liability to pay was absolute liability or conditional to
pay in the event of George Brittain's interest in the Shef-
field house. Mr. Knowles was proceeding to contend that 1:
it could not have this meaning, when Mr. Baron Rolfe
interrupted him, and said it was clearly no acceptance ;
the defendants refused to accept the bill, but said that
they would pay over certain sums, if directed by Mr.
George Brittaln. Mr. George Brittain wrote them ac-
cordingly, and the letter which, in consequence, they
wrote to Mr. W. Brittain on January 6th, 1830, must be
taken to: be the carrying out of that previous agreement.
The learned Judge, then addressing the jury, said that in
the case• of oversea bills like the one in question, it was
not necessary, as in the case of inland bills, that the
acceptance should be on the face of the bill ; it might be
by letter, or even by word of mouth ; but, in the present
case, there seemed to be a positive refusal to accept on
the part of the defendants. They said they could not
accept the bill drain by Mr. G. Brittain, but that they
would pay over any sums that they might realize on his
account. A. letter afterwards comes from Mr. G. Brittain,
authorizing them to do this, and they then s dd they were
glad to have received instructions " to credit the draft,"
which could not mean to "accept the bill," but to do
that which they had said they would do before.—Verdict
for the defendant.