The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-03-28 00:00:00

BIGAMY.

William Wallace was charged•with bigamy, he having,
at the parish church of All Saints, Newton Heath+ on the
14th June, 1846, married Hannah Sparrow ; and at the
Cathedral Church of Manchester, on the 2d December,
1853, married Hannah Newton, his first wife being still
alive. Certificates of both marriage ceremonies were
given in and proved ; and the prisoner was identified as
the man who was married in both instances. For the
defence it was contended that the first wife was a woman
of very immoral habits, and that the second wife was
aware of his previous marriage. Hannah, Newton, the
second wife, was examined, and stated that she knew of
his being married, and living separate from his wife.
Prisoner's family were all aware of his wife being alive.
Verdict, guilty. Sentence, to be imprisoned and kept to
bard labour for six months. _ _

The court then adjourned at a few minutes before six,
till nine o'clock to-morrow (this morning), when it is
understood that an application for postponing the trial of
the parties indicted. for conspiracy, at. Preston, till next
assizes, will be censidered.

NISI PRIUS, COURT.—(Before Mr. Baron PLATT.)
TUESDAY, Atinon 21.
ALLEGED ILLEGAL EXECUTION.— WINTER V.
STYRING.—The plaintiff is an accountant, at Greenfield,
Saddleworth.. The defendant is a brewer and dealer in,
spirits, at Huddersfield. Some time ago a person of the
name of Thomas Morris was station-master at the Green-
field Station of the London, and North-western Railway.
Close to the station there stood at that time a beerhonse,
which Wain an unfinished state. The defendant induced
Morris to, take the house, complete it as a public-house,
and become the tenant of it. He made Morris advances
in money to the amount of £230, which sum was ex-
pended upon the public-house, towards the completion of
it. Morris entered the public-house, and the stipulation
between him and the defendant was, that he was to
obtain. all his liquors from the defendant. lin that way
the £230 debt was increased to £3lO, and then, Mr. Styring
asked for some security, and obtained a warrant of attorney
from Morris. The public-house did not answer; the con-
sequence was that Morris got into difficulty. He called
in December last upon Mr. Winter, the present plaintiff,
to consult him about his affairs. Mr. Winter advised him
to borrow money for the purpose of paying off his debts.
He agreed to take that advice, and Mr. Winter endea-.
voured to obtain him a loan of £4OO upon mortgage of the.
lease of the house, stock-in-trade, and furniture, but suffi-
dent money could not be raised upon this security, and in
consequence of that Morris made. an assignment to Mr..
Winter of his property for the general benefit of his credi-
tors, the object being, as alleged on the part of the plain-
tiff; that all the creditors should share and share, alike.
Under that assignment Mr.. Winter entered into posses-
sion of the premises, and arranged with Morris that he
should remain there and be paid weekly wages, but that
all money should be paid over to him (Mr. Winter) and
accounted for regularly, which was done. Information
was given to the various creditor. Altogether there were
nineteen creditors of Morris, and amongst the creditors
there was another brewer, who was applied to to become
trustee. He declined to do so, but approved of what was
done, and out of the nineteen creditors thirteen were made
aware of the assignment, and expressed their approval of
it. The remaining six were creditors for a very small
amount, the thirteen representing the whole substantial
estate of Morris, save and except Mr. Styring, the de-
fendant, The assignment was executed on the 9th of
January last, and on the 3rd of February, Mr. Styring
having entered upon judgment, under his warrant of
attorney, levied the property which was the subject of the
assignment. That gave rise to the present action, and
the question was whether in truth the assignment made
by Morris to the plaintiff was made in good faith.—Mr.
Hill, for the defendant, called his lordship's attention to
the fact that not a single creditor had signed the deed of
assignment, so that the document was wholly inoperative
as against the execution creditor.—His lordship said the
question of fact which the jury had to decide was whether
this deed was executed with the faithful intention of con-
veying the property in those goods, that the value of them
might be realised and divided for the benefit of the credi-
tors, or whether it was executed for the purpose of being
a cloak or protection for those goods for the debtor. The
latter would be a fraud, and the execution would be void
against the execution creditor coming in. The jury
returned a verdict for the defbndant.
RUNNING DOWN A CANAL BOAT.—OGDEN V. BOOTIE.
MAN AND OTTIRRS.—This was an action to recover damages
for injury done to a canal boat and its cargo. The plain-
tiff, Paul ()ado, hi a carrier by the wale in the neigh-

bourhood of Manchester. The defendants, Mecstsrs'l3°°ant'd
man and Babington, are extensive nianuf3ure
the 9th °f
dealers in lime, and are owners of boats. On f
August, the boat of the plaintiff, with a eart).„°tiff, pro-
under the charge of two servants of the P lirad got to
ceeded towards Macclesfield. When the boat r 3
the Beswick aqueduct, which goes over the au"
p to the
horse that was thawing the defendants' boat was _
stern of the other. In the short space betweisen.t,teitx,
wick aqueduct and the Beswick lock no boat • andante
pass another by the rules of the canal. The °nig to
boat did, however, attempt to pass, but, in attaenag_nnk it.
do so, it went right over the plaintiff's boat a, in
The plaintiff sustained considerable damage, a°?..o. done
the expense of weighing his boat, and from the ia.11.".L.410
to it, but also from the injury done to the cargo'
jury found for the plaintiff; damages £35. edict iro
KERSHAW v. KERSHAW.—In this case a v greed
taken for the plaintiff', by consent, subject to terms
upon between the parties.
BROS ° rcl,
A WIFE'S MA.INTENANCE.—WORSWICK V. boa
—This was an action to recover payment toirn,,,ool
lodging, washing, and necessaries, which the Pia e The
provided for the wife of the defendant by his recta s'doiea
defendant, William Ormerod Bradshaw, by his
his liability, but did not appear to defend the actle7•fro
fo
amount claimed was £37 10s., being 10s. a-wu
iled for the
June, 1852, to October, 1853.—The jury
greDted
plaintiff for the amount sought, and his lord.shiP
immediate execution. case the Cleel'if:
SLANDER.—OLIVO V. HAMSON.—III this -
ration was for slander, and the defendant PleiP':;ei for
guilty. Mr. Atherton and Mr. J. Russell were en
ie_ der
the plaintiff; Sergeant Wilkins appeared for. tn. „%ftt•
dant. Mr. Atherton, iu stating the case, said tr 50,4
tiff, Mr. Marco Olivo, was by birth a Greek, am_l_ Voter.
on the business of a commission agent in 313110001
The defendant, Mr. Joseph Hamsou, was also ja,.„.0.00
at Manchester. He was the son of Mr. Joseeh,..ur;,o,oo
carrying on business at Constantinople, and Nvw.`,A the
the plaintiff some time ago was in partnershipo;:L 0,1
plaintiff had been compelled to bring this actiuTt 10.1
purpose of vindicating his credit, which the deft nniooF,
thought proper to impugn hy slanderous e%Prr); thea
which be refused either to qualify or withdraw..ed bF
4th of January fast the defendant, aecomPallithatT
younger person, went to Mr. Lee's warehouse,
pose, apparently, of making a purchase of gouriose
purchase was made on that occasion ; but in t_lll. nurse'
pis
the interview, between the defendant and Mr. w
Lee, who acted as salesman for awe brother, they
which the plaintiff complained re used. li`eir. WM'
menced with a question put by the defendant to 3,,,
qye
Henry Lee—" Do you do business with Mr. Oliva , oile,
answer was,
in We do." " Dees he pay cash r' b ques,;
and-a-half a month. Why do you ask subortil.
Uons ?" The defendant answered, " You will see s
He was then asked, "Have you heard anything
owrildloseyeosuhlo-iritryran, ymthiesneg
woforhthimber'ingThuseeadu,swioi'vetma:
once looked into the account between himself &mice °
plaintiff, and in the course of the dap the circurns_A, via/
this imputation having been made upon Cry.. 14
13e. 't
communicated to the plaintiff himself by Mr..Joa4nerget
Lee. The plaintiff sought reparation. Mr* --
gie
Wilkins, for the defence, contended that there wrotea
slander contained in the words made use 0f..-31r•,ht titsPlatt, in summing up, said that if the jsiry thole. eta'
defendant meant to impute that the plaintiff, in rd
ratter as a trader, was, an unfit person to be trusiiieti t"
goods upon credit, then the plaintiff was etwoalta:
recover in this action.—The jury, after a short ~,,.gosn'
tion, found for the plaintiff ; damages .10.5.-31 r. 7,ited
Wilkins asked that execution might be stayed. ALA' he
JOULE v: VAILLET.—The action was not deftna-,;(lba``,
defendant, John Daniel Varley, is an estate agent
received the rents of the plaintiff's property. Is•
was returned for the plaintiff for £67 ss.
A RAILWAY ACCIDENT.—TYSON AND WIFE ,
LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY Co3oo,„"iiff
In this case the declaration stated that the female plait''
was was a passenger by a locomotive carriage of the defenthw„.o
that by reason of the negligenceof the company she.#:
knocked about and forted against the sides of the earf,33t,
that she suffered very much in her own person • and
in consequence, her husband was deprived of her boo
ante and domestic management. The plaintiffs sciligthef
recover compensation• in damages° for the iltitir3r con?.
respectively alleged they had suffered. The railwaY. of.
panyhad not denied that theinjuriesresultedfromthor.
said
ligence, but they had paid into court £3O, which. the,? tot
° to'
was sufficient compensation. The jnryreturned perila _„;
the defendants, thereby affirming that the money r7vicro•
court was sufficient compensation under the circunx-4vo,
AGREEMENT BETWEEN MASTER' AND SEBNfAa", jiff'
TYSON V. DICKINSON.—The plaintiff, .Thomas TYs'eclag
machinist, and was one of the plaintiffs in the Preahia°
case; and the defendant, William Dickinson, is 5
maker, having an establishment at Blackburn. 111 ";;th
1853, the defendant entered into an agreeraehl'i of rf
plaintiff, that he shuld serve him as general rn,i_anisiatr;
establishment for threeyears, at £4 a week. `servP'
under the agreement, entered into the defendant's years'
and was willing to continue to the end. of the thre.;,,'ejbi
but when abouthalf a year had gone byhe was dis°,ll,l,"ro se;
the defendant, who alleged that the plaintiff had 'e
dent ability to discharge the duties of the situatioi., coal,
the plaintiff had been examined, an arrangement:verdie'
to, under which the defendant submitted 1°
against him for £l5O.
The court rose at twenty minutes past five o'clock

WEDNESDAY, MARCH c)f.3•
t
f resej
MELLOIL V. TayLo.—This was an action °- gr"
the declaration charging the defendantywithintn,%-pr
entering the plaintiffs house, shop, and,preims• es, e:
chester, and taking his goods, and keeping these,
There were also counts for converting the goods 9',"
paftssointghaotftthheemgo.odsThweelefesenizdeand tusupdlees4er
a..wdanx.aot gulhjef'd
of the Manchester Court of Record._ The 11',.,tlitisisiutt-ireft....4'L4c,;
joiner, and Taylor, the defendant, is sergea--aba,aw'
and Cowell, the other defendant, is one thiewl Deefij
The original debt was paid after judgment
esse Jibe
obtained, and an execution issued. After the_ jto
ill
proceeded to a considerable extent, it was age court
referred. Shortly before the adjournment of thiefeolOiso
the evening, Mr. Hill, one of the couns4 for the ae c`
informed his lordship that the attempt to refer
„TO
had failed. tile
DISPUTE ERTW.tuiN INSUEINCR AGA, -5; nt by to
v. Ronson.—The. declaration was for mouey bl, ar;
plaintiff to the defendant, for money reeeic tboaaang,
defendant for the plaintiff's use, and for moneY:o26
upon an account. The action was to recov'for
tb
alleged to have been received by the defendant', Try to
the plaintiff, and which he had not paid °v,el`,.l set'riOa
defence would be,. whether the defendant lia";ise(7)fr,
that amount. After the plaintiff had been esoducea,-,oce
several letters and documents had been Pr,,, no di"tlie
James, on the part of the defendant, said he tne:eed t° the
of keeping up the case, and did not wish to ,„,Ptstiff
jury. A verdict was then given for the c.
amount claimed. Mr. Hill applied for sPe7e tiaqv
and his lordship granted execution after four oe P
HOUSE FIIIINISHING.—HURBIR v. i
SICER„,I'--; 014,04'
tiff in this case was Joseph Hilton fir.prs..' o rl'reet,
defendant was Augustus Sichel. The plaill"r:,cleY4,:f
able cabinet-maker and upholsterer, in tr
Manchester; and the defendant is s
ge
Jewish persuasion, carrying on business as ~a„A,O
the same city. The action was to recover ed at
a balance.- for work done and materials snPreonli"p4l"'
12 requesteavwin 8g z ofbalanwthcee. defendant. Ththethweh:ultaea,l:l::oisi:sti:ol:f.
due
ef
amounting to
19s. 44. of frilat
A good many clashing accounts, and nosraiw t oep
plat
conflicting evidence was given. Mr. Baro orr,el
ming up, said the question was really a Ncer),,;s old
which the jury had to try. It was inerell 6-4iatif tit
believe the plaintiff or the defendant ? thekt.
to be believed, he was entitled to the ce,,r Ime
defendant was to be believed, he was entitiene 'teo er
The jury retired, and after an absences 02,4,;-.05
returned a verdict for the plaintiff, daula, 14 Ye pitrt
DAWSON (ADMINISTRATOR) v. MARSJIA-nyi tb
WIEB.—In this case Mr. Sergeant Wilkins,
.ro;
r,OlOl
the plaintiff, consented to a nolasuit. ~,, A. a „
Proof
BRADFORD AND ANOTHER V. WATRRS A-13
—The plaintiffs in this action were Janie!ndiog
Henry Rawson, trustees of the-League J3ntand‘ec,o3,,i
at Manchester, and the defendants were J°Gerdsnts
Waters. The declaration stated that the defers
tenants of the plaintiffs of certain premisesocrotiat-tbeled t 1 i
Side Mills, at Manchester, and. upon her, but
they should keep them in tenantable reps, gl
ic)01
had failed to do so. After the plaintjto refe t,
opened by Mr. Hugh Hill, it was agre'r.,;da
matters in dispute between: the parties ;j there:4
taken for the plaintiffs for £2,000, subect w
The court rose about ten minutes bfore SIA,

mt
........... aittr.3
THURSDAY, MARCit a ilie 0,-
MBILon v. T At .; fot oce'
ATIOR AND ANOTTIEA" tfiXe,,ere 0
of the court this morning, a verdict was 4 re' Itt t
ASTLEIE v, L.taicet.—This was an ae!10-',0:14.
nbanyAsactotlenhysee,nt, damagesg' £5O, subje_
~.to .10.0,1,0.0057,
recover £55 Os. 93/4d., the balance of au_r"-The,Arr
~- .
and labour done and materials supnlie"„ ',.„,a ar'ill'Aiti‘
teJorh;
plaintiff,Mehres. disefeanpdalunmt,bmerr,.artot Pbertenoteou—n%earis tVoive ;
facturing chemist, having works at Lueet,a to ~
After the case had been opened, it was agr'''
verdict for the plaintiff,subject to
3 r 3l, ,
CLAIM BY THE BEIDGEWATHE Ci-VcloBllB°
THE EARL OF DEVON AND OTHEBS 27. '-inder t 0:06,
ln this case the plaintiffs sued as trustees 'tees tileiblifrlie,
of the late Duke of Bridgewater, and as trustees estitt.
the owners and managers of several canaLs_.„o"; ater gistsi.e
___ meats belonging to the very large .I,„qurthe
_,,esiliotl 0 ot
rxie. defendant Mr. Nathan Eckersley,v7—thisiw-ciao 0
colliery at Shackerley, slid s t
near TyldesleY, ~,,,00eY 4ceter,
brought against him for the recover 0.1,,,,—nute `octo,II!
tonnage and tolls. There would bearo, "lii. i,t 0,,p0r.,t)
to_ whom credit was given. It app" „t his 0,, noPhio
' 1851, the defendant, Mr EckersleY, he it °,ete1.4,))10
named Nathan Ramsdell.ask if lie ' se.'- 01' i
, to
ood,s be went oen
might have monthly credit for the g 0 :I,oe ~,,, t
efereeei.ol.lll
canal. Mr. Fereday Smith, the prineiPt, anti rfeno,, .
proprietors of the canal, at once granted/1 t the 'let col/:htf
went on regularly for months; butts
`ellW gregootip
went to the oMee and said it would 3 the ritaa'l4
nience indeed to him if, instead of senclinfo his g,,,v1)1f
accounts to him,. they would send theini.ester• „¢ii
who was carrying on business at Yane.fentlaT. shiPso
of lading which had been sent to the ,o'r canal 'ore ,-.,.•
before this time were headed " Bridgew,3‘ehottoiii,is fcl4rgeo
by Nathan Eckersley." Then at the satlitToo); ri3O
words, "To be charged to the account ?keotion f ' le,rit.
ley, Shackerley Colliery?' After thisistateailLing!, tiri
the bills of lading were altered, arl!``,„...,'"— ley' tZerr,
charged to the account of Nathan .r,,f,'`—be cbou.' fr"till,,
ten at the bottom, the words were - 1_...„0 --e oilerilie vo;
account of Nathan Ramsden. ' The name ilwet.
ley was still at the top. For some rooilLA terlf cP',- tl
also Pa` Orali"Arr—J
were sent in to the grandson he „i , ldr. *0 0`.4
at last he fell into arrear. Last „ay of Lold 07-,
upon Mr. Eckersley for the arac4liit. feilasoa i'll
£93 2s. 9d. Upon that occasion his =Os tlieliajore,;,s
he was very sorry; he believ7but," lle inl iof l'ijt
ring on the same as before ; _Ait re parcolt
' for the future you must not ern an the 1) vie
The case for the plaintiffs having clo.v:,„tiol ,031000..
defendant it was submitted that ti
.roftllf,,he,e
upon a declaration to recover the anloa;cs ealiofpo 11,
the defendant for the carriage el his
a _,lr
g- til‘i
It was quite clear there never ,Ive,reg S,,an liw--
fondant carried along the COW 14' '—