The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-04-14 00:00:00

THE RETURNED CONVICTS.

Chailes Dolphiisand Trillium Emmonds, tic two returned
convicts, who were sentenced to three months' imprison-
ment and transportation for life, were placed Lt the bar.
His Lei:A:ism? said, that, on consideration,he had deter-
mined upon altering their sentences. Instead of three
months' imprisonment, previously to being trsisported, they
were only to he imprisoned one month.
His Lordship proceeded to the trial of the following civil
cases.

TARLETON V. ASHTON.
This action was brought to recover the vale of certain
timber sold to the defendant. Mr. WIGHTMAIF was about to
enter upon a statement of the case, when Mr. SCARICIE inter-
rupted him, and said the parties had consentel to withdraw
a juror.

ASSAULT.-PIKE V. GRIFFITHS.
The plaintiff in this case was Mr. Hayes Pike, of Everton
and the defendant Mr. David Griffiths, the deputy rate-co 1

lector of that district. This action was brought to recove
compensation in damages for an alleged assault. The defend-
ant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. MARTIN', on behalf of the plaintiff, stated, that both
the parties in the case were " good conservatives," yet the
dispute arose out of a political question. They agreed on
almost every subject of general politics ; such as the war with
China, the acts of the Ministry, and other matters ; but, un-
fortunately, they differed on the subject of the person who was
to represent the ward in the town-council of Liverpool. The
defendant had taken a strong part in these contests, and it had
been alleged, and he should offer it in proof, that the defend-
ant had given receipts for taxes to several persons who had
not paid the money, in order that they might be placed on the
registry. (His lordship informed Mr. Martin, that he could
not bring forward such evidence.) Mr. Martin proceeded to
state, that the plaintiff and defendant had met at a coffee-
house, in Everton, where the plaintiff taxed the defendant
with having given these receipts; upon which, the defendant,
who was a powerful man, knocked the defendant down.
His Loansnu suggested, that the parties would; probably,
be better friends in future, if such a trial as this were not pro-
ceeded with.

The plaintiff's attorney objected, as there was the question
of costs to be settled by the trial.

His LORDSHIP said, from the opening of the case, it was
not so sure that the plaintiff would get the costs.
The defendant's attorney. through Mr. Sargent Atcherley,
said he was willing to withdraw a juror.
The plaintiff's attorney still objected on the ground of the
costs.

His LORDSHIP said, as it was evident great provocation
had been used in the accusation alluded to, the plaintiff
should consider that he was not by any means sure of his
costs.

Ultimately, the plaintiff agreed to the Judge's suggestion,
and a juror was withdrawn.

THOMPSON V. THIOADFOOT

Robert Thompson. the plaintiff in this action, was formerly
steward of the ship Abbotsford, on a voyage to Bombay, and
he sought to recover compensation for an alleged assault and
false imprisonment by Robert Broadfoot, who commanded
the above vessel during a part of the said voyage. The de-
fendant pleaded, first, not guilty ; second. that he was justi-
fied in the imprisonment on the ground of mutiny; and,
third, that he was justified on the ground of the plaintiff hav-
ing tried to excite a revolt on board the ship.
Mr. HENDERSON, on behalf of the plaintiff, stated, that
the ship, on her outward voyage, was commanded by Captain

„ -
Tucker, who became ill, and suddenly disappeared frotia his
berth in a mysterious manner, and the belief was, that be
had jumped overboard. The defendant, who was chief-mate,
took the command.. Shortly afterwards, he called upon the
crew to sign a paper, which Thompson refused. On • their
arrival at Bombay, the plaintiff was imprisoned by the cap-
tain's orders, and when the vessel again sailed fur England
the plaintiff was liberated and taken on board, when he found
that a new steward had been engaged, and he was ordered to
do duty as a mariner, which he did not understand. In eon-
seepienee of his refusal to do what he did not understand, he
was imprisoned. His legs and arms were manacled, and he
was placed upon some water casks, on which a few sails were
laid, and he was kept entirely in.solitary confinement, where
his sufferings were intense. He remained .in this state one
month, with no other food- but bread and water. On the
arrival of the ship at this port, the plaintiff was given into
the custody of two police-officers, but the defendant could
not make out any charge on which the authorities would de-
tain him.

William Threlfall, the carpenter during the voyage alluded
to, was called. From his statement it appeared, that the
plaintiff had been very harshly treated, but that he had also
behaved very ill, and had circulated a very offensive rumour
respecting the mode in which the former captain had disap-
peared.
At this stage of the case, the parties agreed to withdraw
a juror.