The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-04-07 00:00:00

.5) -,7)

.. 1_

J i

4 S-N

\.

j,

with him then. I believe I mentioned to him that the check
brought by Edwards purported to be of the value of £5,
Mr. Oxley, -on my mentioning the subject of the check,
seemed rather fluttered, and said " say nothing about it,
here is the money fur the groceries," and he threw down the
sovereign and I gave him the change. 1 know the firm cf J.
A. Kaye and Co., and know them to be highly respectable.
If I had seen their names upon the check produced by Ed-
wards to me, I should have cashed it at the time, as I had
plenty of money in the house to have done so. I merely
said that I had not because I would not cash a check for Oxley
without making enquiry.
Cross-examined by Mr. COTTINGIIAM.—I informed the
secretary of the Guardian Society on the Tuesday following
the tendering of the check verbally and the report complained
of was published a week or two afterwards. I will swear it
was more than a week after I informed the secretary, that the
report was published. lam not threatened with an action
for libel by the plaintiff. I know that Messrs. Reay and
Evans wereapplied to give up to the author of the report, but
1 do not know that that was for the purpose of bringing an
action against the author. I examined the check by gas
light.
By Mr. JEt.vis.—The circular containing the report was
dated the 30th of January.
Mr. George Hardisty called and examined by Mr. Tows-
SEND.—I lately carried on the business of a wine and spirit
merchant in Liverpool. The witness Edwards was in my
service in 1833. I have heard him asked about the matter
of the bill.
Mr. TOWNSMEN') was then about to ask the witness as to
the nature of the transaction of the bill before alluded to,
when
The. JUDGE said,—l do not think you can ask that ques-
tion about the bill. You can ask him whether he would
believe the witness on his oath.
Mr. TOWNSHEND.—You have said that you have known
the witness from being in your service. Would you believe
anything that he said?
Mr. Hardisty.—l say, from my own knowledge of his
character, that I would not believe him on his oath, unless
he were corroborated.
Cross-examined by Mr. WEnsay.—lt is about seven years
since Edwards was in my employ. I heard him examined
at the Sessions-house, in Liverpool, against a female, who
was acquitted. I can almost give you the words of Mr.
Clarke, the recorder, on the occasion.
Mr. WELSBY.—WeII, what were they ?
Mr. Hardisty.—Mr. Clarke, the recorder, looked at the
jury, and said, " Gentlemen, you may see as clear as I do
into this case." The jury then turned round, and immedi-
ately acquitted the prisoner.
Mr. COTTINGHAM.—A very excellent summing up, I
think. (Laughter.)
Mr. Weaver, a boot and shoemaker, in Hill-street, Tox-
teth-park, was then called.
Mr. TOWNSHEND.—Do you know the plaintiff in this
action?
Witness.—l do.
Mr. TOWNSHEND.—What is his character? Is it good
or bad ?
Mr. COTTINGHAM said that he objected to that question
being put. The plaintiff had been libelled, and had denied
that he had been guilty of that laid to his charge, and, that
as he could not put in evidence of his good character, it was
not legal that general evidence of bad character should be
received.
Mr. JERVIS contended that the evidence could legally be
received, and quoted several cases from Roscoe's Reports,
among which were those of " Moore v. Oastler," tried at
York, " Hardy v. Alexander," tried at Liverpool, and the
more recent case of Holden v. Richards, against the Guar-
dian Society, in all of which general evidence against the
plaintiff's character was admitted. An argument on this
point ensued between the plaintiff's and defendant's counsel.
The JUDGE, after referring to the cases quoted, said he
would admit the evidence, although he did not like the prin-
eiple of it.
Mr. COTTINGHAM hoped the Judge would take a note of
the objection.
His LORDSHIP said be would do so.
The Witness then stated that he knew the plaintiff, and
from his own knowledge, and from reports, he could say that
his character was-not good.
Mr. JERVIS said a Mr. Cottingham could enter into
particulars with the witness if he thought proper.
Mr. COTTINGHAM declined to do so.
Mr. John M`Quistian, a landing-waiter, of Liverpool, was
then called by
Mr. TOWNSHEND.—I know the plaintiff, and have done for
two or three years, and 1 can swear that be has a bad cha-
racter.
Cross-examined by Mr. COTTINGHAM.—I employed the
plaintiff as an attorney, and he sent in a bill of sale of my
goods.
Mr. JERVIS.—What do you mean by a bill of sale of your
goods.
Witness.--I employed him to settle with a person to whom
I owed money, and he received the money from me, and
did not hand it over to the creditor, and I ant now paying it
over again.
Mn. John Askew, the harbour master of Liverpool, was
called, and said, that he had sold Oxley some goods, and had
never received payment for them. He had only one trans-
action with hint. On cross-examination, the witness said,
that he had no great. opinion of the plaintiff, nor of attorneys
in general, for he had sold property to one of that pro-
fession to the aincernfof £23,000, and had not got paid.for it.
Mr. J. Williams' emtmined.l am a charcoal-burner in
Liverpool. I have known 'the plaintiff and his, family for
many years. He had been 'a soldier, and I know that hiS.
character and reputation-is bad. When he first came to
Liverpool, I recommended him to some friends to get in
money for them, and he received the money but never
handed it over to his employers. The parties to whom I re-
commended him, said I ought to make up his deficiencies ;
they claimed from me inconsequence of my recommendation.
I do not hesitate to say, that 1 would not believe him upon
his oath.
Cross-examined by Mr. COTTINGHAM.—I have been a
bankrupt and an insolvent, but my misfortunes were brought
on by the attorneys. The plaintiff never supported my fa-
mily~ at He used to come to a fruit shop kept
by me in that town, with his comrades, to purchase goods;
but that is all he ever did for me. I never heard of any kind-
nesses done by the plaintiff to my family. I was connected
with some alum works at Rotherham, and left of my own
accord, and was not discharged for concealing myself on the
premises, to obtain possession of a secret.
By Mr. JERVIS.—I am an operative chemist. The plain- I
tiff came to me, and said that he had been abroad among the
bush rangers, and after some conversation. I said that • I
could get him plenty of business if he would be honest. He
never gave up the money I recommended him to collect.
By Mr. COTTINGHAM.—I never knew the plaintiff was
an ensign in a regiment. I understood he was a private
soldier.
Mr. Ackroyd, a tailor and draper, of Liverpool, was then
examined.—l saw the prisoner on the 20th of September
last, and he swindled me out of a suit of clothes.
Mr. CorrlleGllAM.—l suppose you made a suit of clothes
for him and he did not pay you. That is it, is it not?
Witness.—He got them by false pretences. He said he
would try them on to see if they would fit, and then he would
pay me ; but when he had got them on, lie would not part
with them again, and said that there was no law in England
which could take them from him. I never give credit, and
the plaintiff could read on a large board in my shop, as if it
was over this court, "No credit given." I did not proceed
against the plaintiff, because I thought lie was nothing bet-
ter than a common swindler, and that I should get nothing
by it.
By Mr. JERVIS.—The plaintiff first sent his servant for
the clothes, but I would not part with them without the
money, and lie then came himself and said that he wanted no
credit, but to try the clothes on at home, as he did not like
to try them on in the shop. I sent them to his house, and
he promised to send the money back, but I was miserably
disappointed.. (Loud laughter.)
Mr. Blacker.—An auctioneer in Liverpool, on his ex-
amination by Mr. TowresitEND.—Said that he had had
dealings with the plaintiff, who was formerly a friend of his,
but he was truly sorry to say that his character was very
bad. He bad reason to say so from having employed him,
and also from his general reputation.
By Mr. COTTINGHAM.—I sold the plaintiff's household
furniture when he was in difficulties, and I have accounted to
him for every farthing of the proceeds of the sale. I era
not a member of the Guardian Society.
Mr. .1-Env's said that he could call a number more wit-
nesses to give similar evidence, with regard to the plaintiff's
character, but he thought he had shewn sufficient, and here
concluded the defendant's case.
Mr. COTTINGHAM then addressed the jury in reply, stat-
ing that the evidence against the plaintiff's character had
nothing to do with the question for the jury, which was whe-
ther or not the publication in the Guardian Society's circular
was a libel on the plaintiff's character or not. He believed
that attornm s generally were not popular with the public,
which might account for the evidence given. However
respectable an attorney conducted his business, people could
be found to say something against him.
The Learned JUDGE then summed-up the evidence, leaving
it to the jury to say what the amount of damages should be.
With respect to the publication, he had no doubt of its being
libellous.
The Jury, with but little hesitation, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff.—Damages one farthing.
Mr. JERVIS.—I hope your lordship will certify in this
case ?
The JUDGE.—I will take time to consider of it.

FELTED CLOTH.—In reference to the recent patent for
manufacturing felted cloth, a correspondent has directed our
attention to the following passage in Dr. Rees' Cyclopsedia,
at the conclusion of an article on the " woollen manufacture,"
in vol. 38 :—" Among the attempts to improve the woollen
manufactures we must not omit to notice the invention of
Mr. Joseph Booth, for fabricating woollen .cloth without
spinning or weaving. This was effected by felting wool into
a web by the aid of machinery, which operated mechanically
upon a tissue of carded wool, to entangle -and interlace the
fabrics together. The inventor took a patent for this in 1793
or 1794, but before the time for the enrolment of the speciti-
cation of his process, he obtained an act of parliament, the
preamble of which states, that on account of the great
importance of the art, and the danger of = its being carried
abroad to the injury of the staple manufacture of the king-
dom, parliament had determined to keep the specification
sealed; hence we are not able to give the details of this ma-
chinery. We find these expectations have not been realised ;
for, although the process has been repeatedly tried on a large
scale and in the most complete manner, it has been aban-
doned. Three large mills were established at Taunton and
near Salisbury, by experienced woollen-manufacturers of the
west of England ; another mill was converted to the purpose
at Lewisham, in Kent; and the last mill was erected at
Merton, in Surrey, the property of James Perry, Esq. We
learn from this gentleman, that he was able to manufacture
cloth of a fine surface, and of a very even and regular sub-
stance, but it was rather deficient in strength, for want of
the threads which form the substance of common cloth ;
and in respect to wear it was less durable than common
cloth, as it did not withstand brushing; otherwise the ex-
pense of the process, which was not one-fourth of the com-
mon process, would have brought it into general wear."
BE'S F.VOLF.NCE OF HER MAJESTY AND PRINCE ALBERT.
—Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to signify her in-
tention
to provide for the widow and children of Lieutenant
Saunders, late of H.M. steam-yacht Firebrand, who died
very suddenly soon after he had the honour to bring over his
Royal Highness Prince Albert to this country. In early life
Mr. Saunders, who was then a pilot, had the good fortune to
prevent her Majesty from being injured, perhaps killed, by
warding off from her the spar or gatr-boom of a sailing-yacht,
near which she was sitting with her illustrious mother, en-
joying an aquatic excnrsion. For this act he was promotedi
to the quarter-deck, and ultimately to the valuable and lu-
crative command of a government steam-yacht. On hearing
of poor Saunders's death, her Majesty is said to have been
much affected, and lost no time in communicating her gra-
cious intention to his disconsolate widow. The other inci-
dent is as follows :—When his Serene Highness the Reign-
ing Duke of Saxe Coburg and Gotha left this country, on his
return home, in the Firebrand, Mr. Hicks, the master of the
royal yacht William and Mary, having been temporarily
placed in command, his serene highness made several kind
inquiries after Lieutenant Shambler, the officer who had on
a former occasion brought him over, and learning that he
had accepted the command of a West Indian packet, and
fallen a victim to the climate, his serene highness, in the kind.
eat manner, warmly expressed his sympathy for the orphans
immediately
wrote widow, who were left totally destitute, and
wrote a letter, which he requested Mr. Hicks to take charge
of, and personally deliver to. Lieutenant F. Seymour, one of
the equerries to his Royal Highness Prince Albert, which
humane mission the gallant officer faithfully. performed, and
the result is, that Mrs. Shambler has received a royal inti-
mation that the long services of her husband will be rewarded
by a pension to the widow.—Morisiv Herald.