The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-02-12 00:00:00

were towing, which he was going to send to the captain of the
St,l'attiele. The cookwas.accordingly discharged..., _ • "
Mr: Tyrel, the inspector of the dock-police, deposed to:Capt,
Clark coming to the station-house, and wanting them to let off
the cook, and telling him. that they had got the brandy out of n.
vessel they were towing, which he was going to stud toCaptain-
Kave's house. . • '
;doe of the Custom-house officers deposed to its being foi'ehrn
brandy, and that there was about two gallon's.
That was the case for the prosecution. •
Thos. King,sweleanate of the .Gipsy, deposed to their Owing
the Renown out, and to a quantity of brandy being Benton board
for the men. The men preferred whiskey, and the captain gave
it to them instead, and took the brandy himself. lie would
swear he had had some whiskey himself; what the steward had
sworn was false. -
Mr. Laking said the customs had selected the higher penalty,
but he thought 'if they had known the particulars, they would
not have done So. The fact was, the captain suspected his
steward, and sent the 'brandy on shore fur safety to another
captain's house close at band, who was in .the same einploe.
He did not send it home for his own consumption. He found"
his own spirits on board for the passengers, and he intended to
send it back. They must admit the fact of the brandy being
sent on shore, sand were thus liable for the penalty- but he
trusted, under the circumstances, the full penalty would not be •
inflicted.
Mr: Hall said they had nothing to do with the selection of the
penalty by the Custom-house; he thought it a case for mitiga-
tion.—Fined in the mitigated penalty of £25, and £l. ss. -costs:
AN Beetcreisre POLIGEMAN.—Robert Hughes, one of the'
new Police; appointed by the watch committee, a man about
six feet high, who had the appearance of a broken-down tailor,
and who had a tremendous black eye, brought a charge against
a little man of the name of Layrey, for knocking him down.
The complainant, extending his arm, addressed the magistrate
in true theatricil style. I was. corning down Mile-end; it was
on yesternight. I found amen lying at the top of Collingwood-
street, bleeding profusely, who, in the agony of distress; pointed
to the prisoner, who was walking away. I followed him,: and,
before I knew where-I- was, he turned round and knocked me
down. 'He made several kicks at my body, and,.gentlemen,
look at my dy_e, (slowly raising his arm in a circle till the point
of his forefinger touched his cheek, and turning his dark side
slowly' round for 'the 'admiration of the court, amidst great
laughter.) One -of the regular police fortunately came up and
rescued me from his .oppression. (Laughter.)—The prisoner
said heavorked atthe docks, and earned 14s. a week.—Batchel-
dor did not think he. bad earned 14s. for the lasefour years.—
He was ordered 'to pay a. fine of £l, or be committed for one
month. . -
. John Leyland, who was epreanded the day before, was again
brought up. Mr. Roberts, the clerk of Mr. Pownal, depoied
tkat saw Mr. Pownal pay the prisoner £2l)4s. on the .124th
tat month. Flockhart deposed that the prisoner told him the
day before in Bridewell, without any promise, that he had re-
ceived £2O odd from Mr. Pownal, and. £22 odd from Mr-Water-
house, for which he had not accounted. He also acknowledged
tha: the receipt which Mr. Roberts showed him was in his hand-
writing. The prisoner here asked Mr. John Mather if he had
not tendered him the money, but that being too busy he did not
take it? Mr. Mather answered that he had. Mr. Hall said this was
the only case of which there was any evidence against the ri-
.soner; the charge of his receiving money of Newton, Lyon, aril
Co. was not correct; it had been found entered in the cash-book.
The prisoner then submitted that Mr. Mather had taken a false
oath, and that he was entitled to an acquittal. Airisreorth, the
constable, also deposed to showing the prisoner some bills against
Mr. Waterhouse, which he had receipted, and which he acknow-
ledged was his handwriting. Mr.'Waterhouse's clerk was sent
for, but did not appear. The Magistrate ordered the depositions
in Mr. Pownall's case to be taken, in order-to his commitment.
THURSDAY —(Before Tiros Jas. HALL, Esq., the. Magistrate.)
To-day John Leyland was *again brought up, and a further
charge preferred against him. Mr. Wm. Henry Jones stated
that he lived at Preston. On the Bth Januarylast he went to
Mr. Mather's, of Liverpool, and bought a sheet of lead, for
which he
.paid and received a receipt. Theprisoner sold him
the lead; it amounted to £6 13s 3d.; he received the prisoner's
receipt for it. Ile wanted the 3d. knocked off; but the prisoner
would not do it, be said he was not the master and could not do
it.—Mr. Parker Jones, the brother of the last witness, corrobo-,
rated this statement, and that he saw his brother pay. the pri.
soner.—Mr. John Mather deposed to the prisoner being clerk
to his brother, and having authority to sell lead during their ab-
sence, and also to receive money in such cases. They were ab-
sent on this occasion. The money hod not been accounted for
to him. •He was cash.keeper.—Mr. Mather deposed to being a
partner in the house. The prisoner never accouniecrto him.fer
themoney. He ought to have accounted for it to his brother John.
The prisoner had not to their knowledge debited himself with
this amount in any book.—The magistrate ordered the informa-
tions for his commitment on this further indictment also to he
taken.—Mr. Crewe, on the prisoner's behalf, applied to know
if bail would be taken.,-The magistrate said be would consider
of it ; his present impression was that bail in this case could
not be taken.

COURT OF PASSAGE.-FRIDAY.

(Before-.W. WA I.I.ACE CUR tilE, Esq„ Mayor, and HENRY

ROgCOE, Esq.: Assessor.)

. _
CHAMBERS r. COLf,ARD.-Mr. HeNuatisos appeared for the
plaintiff, and stated the case. Mr. COTTINGHAM conducted the
defence. .
_ . .

The plaintiff was a livery stable-keeper, and let out horses
and gigs to hire. The defendant, who was a respectable :man,
hired a horse and gig of the plaintiff in May, 1833, which,
whilst in his care, were seriously damaged by being ,Apset.
The defendant had left the gig and mare in question standing
without any person takinl.T care of it; near tbo railroad, and the
carriages passing:soon after, the mare had taken fright, galloped
across the railroad, upset both the gig and herself, and in so
.doing had damaged the gig and injured herself, and, what was
must material, had become inistet4;heil, and was ever-after unlit
;for liarness„ The farrier's bill had been paid by dhe defendant
for curing the horse; the present action was brought fur the de-
terioration in the horses Value.. .
Mr. CorritsGirssi submitted that on the record .no mention,
was made of the temper of the mare being injured, and no da-
' niages consequently there-sought on that account, but merely
that-the mire was lacqristed and torn by,such
satiated that the action muSt :be confined to the reelird,ther
evidence of the injury to 'the temper of the mare could not be
'Omitted.
Mr. HENDERSON replied. - •
The ASSESSOR determined that 'on'ihe whole he thought it
his duty to admit the evidence. •
John Atkinson was then called.—lle deposed to being a livery
stable-keeper. In the summer of 183.3 he was in the employ.
ment of Mr. Chambers. who kept livery. stables. On the 22d--
May, Mr. tellard 'hired the gig and 'mare. He brought her
back at night much injered and the gig broken. The mare's
legs were all Scarred. He said he was sorry to say he had met
with an accident; He had Jett the mare standing in tC farm
yard near the railway at Huyton, and in consequence of a train
of carriages coming up, the mare took fright, and ran across the
railway, and in so doing upset the gig and. injured herself. He
told him to take the mare to the farriers, and the gig to be re-
paired, and he would pay. He took the mare to Mr. Chambers'
veterinary surgeon. She was not fit for service again of five or'
six weeks. -His master had to keep her during that time doing
nothing. They charged 14s. a week for keeping the mare.
Before the accident the mare was a quiet and safe mare in a
gig; after the accident she was very techy, and would run away
if a coach came after her. He attributed it to the fright she had
received. " She was not fit to let out to drive afterwards. She
was by no means so valuable an animal after the accident- as
before. She was deteriorated in value at least £5 or £6.
Cross-examined.—Believed Mr. Collard had paid the farrier's
bill. The injury was very perceptible, any person might see it.-
e had tried her in a gig after the accident, and she was not fit
to drive; she was quiet before. They durst not let her out in
consequence.
William Thomas deposed to being gate-keeper at 1-luyton
gate on the railway at the time in question. Recollected a gig
and mare coming to Mr. Redson's farm yard, about twelve yards
from the railway. The gentleman got out, and left it standing
without any one to take care of it. The beating of one of the
engines coming up frightened the mare, and she ran away and
crossed the railway. l'he gig and herself were turned upside
down, and she began fighting against a wall with her feet; he
ran and held her down ; her legs were bleeding. She was left
alone perhaps ten minutes.
Cross-examined.—Ten minutes was a long time. He had not
kept Ins two eyes fixed on her all that time: he had but one.
(Laughter) He kept his one eye, which was a piercer, on the
gig the whole time. Would not swear it was more than five
minutes;.. would not swear it was more than three. Saw no
young woman at -the horse's head.
George Chambers deposed to being the brother of the veter-
inary surgeon. Recollected the mare being brought to him.
Her legs were very much injured. His demand fur attending
her was-18s., which was paid by Mr. Collard. Such an accident
was calculated to spoil the mare. Scars were left on her legs.
He had sat behind her both before and since the accident. She
was blemished In consequence, as well as her temper injured.
He thought she was £7 or £8 worse.
Mr. John Wood, wine and spirit dealer, deposed to Having
engaged the mare before this accident for his journeys ; shethen
drove steadily and well, though a spirited mare. Ile had had
. her a fortnight's journey since her accident, and she had - run
away with him twice. He would not go -out with her again.
He would not give any thing like the price for her he would
have done.

=That was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. -COTTINGHAM addressed the jury in mitigation. of de—
rnagea. The defendant had paid for the curing of the mare and •
for the injuries done to the gig, and yet three ysara.afterwards
this claim was brought, after the mare had gooe.out otthe
plain-
tiff's possession. The gravamen of the charge was .the Injury
to the mare's temper. If Mr. Collard had been in the
l iab gig'whle the engines engines passed on the railway, she was eq_uay to
have run away, in which case he would not have been liable for
such a claim. If they were convinced that the neglect was not
greater than any gentleman would have used in similar circum-
stances with his own gig, which he thought he had'l shown, he
should be then entitled to their verdict.
The ASSESSOR, in summing up, said the r
unt of law was, in
such cases, to take such care of the property rusted to a per-
son's charge as a prudent and careful man would take of his own
property. If he did that, he was not liable for any damage that
might ensue; if he did not, he was, of course, liable.' The only
question was, whether the facts'adduced amounted to neglect;
it suffering the gig to remain in the yard without any person
near it was such neglect as to entitle the plaintiff to d-ainageS
If it was, plaintiff was eutitled, not only for damages done exter'
pally to the mare, but also for the injury her temper had re-
ceived. It was evident from defendant paying the farrier, tha-
he thought himself liable for the consequences of the aecidentt
If they thought there was neglect, in his opinion plaintiff wa.
liable; if they thought he had used proper prudence and cans
lion, they would find their verdict accordingly:
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £7.
SATURDAY.
PRIVILEGES OF ATTORNEYS—WEVOY V. HUGHES.

This was a writ of trial from the Court of Common Pleas,
Lancaster, in which Mr. Venables. a barrister, appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Bardswell, an attorney, for the defendant.
The case being called on, the following discussion took place :
Mr. VENABLES.—Without imputing anything improper to
any gentleman engaged in this cause, 1 am requested by the
bar to call the attention of the court to the right of Mr. Bards-
welt to be heard, and, as the junior barrister, I rise for that
purpose. Mr. Bardswell is not the attorney on record for the
defendant, and, although the court has allowed the attorney on
record to conduct his case, no other attorney has a right to hold
a brief. In this case, Mt. Robinson is the attorney for the de-
fendant. I, therefore, with the full concurrence of the bar, ob-
ject to Mr. Bardswell being now heard.
Mr. COTTINGHANI.—I perfectly agree with my friend 'term-
bles, and object to Mr. Bardswell being heard. An attorney haf
no right to address the court when the bat is present. To this
effect the judges have already decided ; and,:for Abe purpose °t
establishing a regularity in practice, without meanitig any thing
offensive, I object to Mr. Bardswell being heard, d
Mr. El ENDERSON.—I also make the same obfeCtion, and agree
e
in what has been said by Mr. yenables and Mr. Cottingham,.,,
t:ctrou is now
Mr. BARDSWELL.-'-I don't know why th.isbi
This is a writ of
made. •unless from some
trial from a superior eourPt,":dmircitert Tel:tried in this co..u:ti
and an attorney has the full right to advocate a cause he
pleases, whether he be the attorney .onrecord or not. In simi-
'ler cases on writs of trial before the sheriff, attorneys' 'hold
briefs, and have the tight to do so. this court, also, on writs'
•