The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1847-08-17 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

band : Thank you, my lord. (A laugh.) The prisoner
was forthwith discharged. The court adjourned at 20
minutes to six o'clock.

SATURDAY,

Samuel Irish was convicted of cutting and stabbing
Thomas Willet on the 27th of March at Manchester. He
was sentenced to ten yesrs' transportation.
James Lever was sentenced to ten years' transportation
for burglariously entering the dwelling-house of George
Balfour, at Great Bolton, on the 13th of May, and stealing
one shirt, &c. _ _

Ralph Walker, a lad of stunted growth, about 14 years
of age, was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, with
hard labour, for burglariously entering the dwelling-house
of Elizabeth Sorton, at Manchester, on the 3rd of May,
and stealing therein.
William Brown and William Doran were sentenced to
four months' hard labour for a burglary in the dwelling-
house of John Beresford, in Jackson-street, Manchester.
John Pearson, for a burglary at the dwelling-house of
John Ashworth, at Bury, on the 28th of April, was sen-
tenced to four months' imprisonment and hard labour.
Daniel Flaherty was acquitted of a charge of bigamy, in
having married at Ashton-under-Lyne on the 13th May,
1847, Margaret Bryan, proof being wanting that the pri-
soner was really married to Catherine Ayres, his alleged
former wife.

Richard Broadhead and John Loany, two youths, were
found guilty of having assaulted and robbed John Kinnis-
ton on the 27th of May last, at Manchester. Loany, who
bore a good character, was sentenced to twelve months'
imprisonment and hard labour. Broadhead was ordered to
be imprisoned for three months, and kept to hard labour.
.Adolphe Schutz, who on the preceding day had pleaded
guilty to having forged a warrant for the payment of
£2,000, with intent to defraud Theodore Merche and
others, was placed at the bar to receive judgment. Mr.
Pollock, who conducted the case for the prosecution, ex-
pressed a wish that no more severe sentence should be
passed than his Lordship thought was compatible with
the ends of justice. The really guilty parties were now in
custody at Vienna, and there existed no doubt that the
prisoner had been merely an instrument in their hands.
Mr. Fowler for the prisoner, in further extenuation, re-
marked on the youth of the prisoner, and on the fact that
he had afforded every facility for the recovery of the
money, nearly the whole of which had been returned.
His Lordship, under these circumstances, after a warning
address to the prisoner, sentenced him to twelve months'
imprisonment and hard labour.
John and Lee .Ashurst, two youths, who had been
committed under a coroner's inquisition for manslaughter,
were discharged, there being no evidence tendered on the
part of the prosecution.
William Riding, convicted of a burglary in the dwelling-
house of David Scott, and who had been previously con-
victed, was sentenced to ten years' transportation.

THE LATE MURDER AT KNOWSLEY

Mr. BURKE, in the case of John Dwerryhouse,
charged with the murder of Ann Leyland, at Knowsley,
(the horrible circumstances of which must be fresh in
recollection,) made application to his lordship as to
which of two courses his lordship would adopt. The
prisoner, who, there was no doubt, was insane, had been
removed to the county asylum. The course adopted
had been to respite the recognisances and postpone the
trial ; but the more regular course would be for the pri-
soner to be brought up upon a habeas corpus to ascertain
whether he was in a fit condition to take his trial.

His LORDSHIP said he should adopt the latter course

DISMISSAL OF THE GRAND JURY.
About three o'clock, p.m. the grand jury brought in
their last bill, and were discharged.

NISI PRIUS COURT

THURSDAY,

Before Mr. Justice Wightman. The cause list is lighter
than usual. In Salford Hundred only 28 entered ; in
West Derby Hundred 85. Nine are special jury cases.

-LANSDALE V. CLARKE AND ANOTHER

In this case application was made to postpone the trial,
and a rule granted to show cause.

PRCIMISSORY NOTE

-HAMER V. KELLY

In this case Thomas Hamer was the plaintiff, Francis
Kelly the defendant, and the action was brought to recover
the.amount of a promissory note for £5O, signed, amongst
other parties, by the defendant. It appeared that £2O
had been paid into court, and a verdict was taken for the
remaining £3O.

HAMER V. CANNON.
This was an action on the same note against Bernard
Cannon. Verdict also for £3O.
PROMISSORY NOTES.-LARMOUTH V. BOARDMAN AND

OTHERS.

In this ease. Thomas Larmouth was the plaintiff, and
Robert Boardman and four others the defendants. Mr.
Hill and Mr. Atherton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.

Serjeaut Wilkins for Thomas Edwards, One of the defend-
ants. The others were undefended. The parties, it ap-
peared, were members of a money club at Manchester,
and the action was brought to recover the amount of two
promissory notes of £llO each, or rather a balance,
amounting to £203. The defendants denied their liability
and alleged fraud in connexion with the preparation of the
instruments. Mr, Robert Ogden, inspector of nuisances
for the Corporation of Manchester, deposed that he wit-
nessed Edwards and the defendants sign their names. On
behalf of Edwards, Mr. Serjeant Wilkins called two wit-
-sses, an inkeeper and an auctioneer, who expressed
belief that the writing on a note produced was not
—Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £203165.

their I

V. AUSTEN

is an action to recover £2OO in money. The de-
ileaded, first, that he was never indebted, and,

second, that the cause of action did not occur within the
last six years. Mr. Crompton stated that the plaintiff was
a gentleman residing in Bolton, the defendant was 4 shoe-
maker in the same place, and the plaintiff was in the habit
of lending him sums of money. Some time ago he had
lent him a sum of £2OO, for which interest was paid down
till Oct. 1843, and there was another loan of £lOO on
which interest had been paid. Notice had been given to
produce the books recording the payment of the interest,
but he understood that they were not forthcoming. Mr.
Crompton then called Joseph Austen, the son of the de-
fendant. He denied that there were any books in which
there was any such transaction entered. He had never
heard his father say that this money was due, but he had

heard him repeatedly assert that he did not owe i
had never heard him say that he owed Mr. Albinson any-
thing, or that he had paid him any interest whatever.
Mr. Crompton : Then, my lord, I had better withdraw.

Withdrawn

DEBT-ALLEN V. IRVINE

In this case, an action for debt, a verdict was taken by
consent for the plaintiff, for £75 18s.

BILL OF EXCHANGE-BROADBENT V. COWELL.
In this case, in which William Broadbent was the
plaintiff, and R. E. Cowell the defendant, a yen
recorded for the plaintiff, damages £57 19s
REMUNERATION OF LAND SURVEYORS-

.MAL ONE AND

ANOTHER V. TURNER

Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, with whom was Mr. Sowler,
appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Attorney-General
Knowles, with Mr. Segar, for the defendant. Dennis
Malone, one of the plaintiffs, was, it appeared, a land
surveyor and engineer, and Thomas M`Mahon, the other

plaintiff, his assistant. The defendant is a manufacturer
in Manchester, and employed the plaintiffs to survey and
make him plans of eight estates which he possesses at
Haslingden, in this county. The plans were made, and
delivered as they were finished, and the defendant had
paid £2O into court, which, he contended, was enough,
inasmuch as the work was not well done. A surveyor,
d, said the plans were accurate, and he esti-

who was call

another surveyor, thought the work was excellent, and
valued the small plans at £lO, and the larger ones at £4O
each. For the defence, it was contended that the plaintiffs
had engaged to execute the work at an understood specific
price—so much per statute acre—and a surveyor from
Haslingden, who was called, considered the money paid
in would be most ample remuneration. A verdict was
eventually given for the plaintiffs for the amount sought
(X 75), deducting the £2O paid.
The court then adjourned.

The learned gentleman then called witnesses, one of
whom an auctioneer of the name of Whiff, from Roch-
dale, swore that the goods had been sold for within about
five shillings of their real value, whilst Mr. Whittaker,
woollen manufacturer, of Spotland, near Rochdale, swore
that he bought at the sale goods for £66, which he consi-
dered to be of the fair valtie £99 ; and that the plaintiff's
sons stated that the defendant himself bought for £6 55.,
two blue vats worth £25 to. £3o.—Mr. Martin replied at
considerable length, contending that the plaintiff was en-
titled to far more substantial damages.—His Lordship, in
summing up, reviewed the evidence of the various wit-
nesses, and said that, in one instance at any rate, the jury
had the means of knowing from the evidence of Mr.
Whittaker, who had been called for the defendant, that
the goods had been sold for two-thirds of their real value,
and if they took his evidence as a criterion, the plaintiff
would be entitled to £2O in addition to the sum paid into
court. If they thought that the value of the goods was
not more than £212, their verdict must be for the defen-
dant ; but if they thought the value was above that slim,
the verdict must be for the plaintiff. The jury retired,
and after an absence of an hour returned into court, a
verdict for the plaintiff—damages £3O. The defendant
had refused to refer the cause. •
ACTION ON AN AWARD.-BROOKS AND OTHERS V. LEES.
This was an action on an award, brought by Mr.
Samuel Brooks, of Manchester, banker, and the. other
assignees of the estate of Mr. Aaron Lees, late of Gor-
ton, and of Crumpsall, near Manchester, cotton-spinner,
to recover a sum of nearly £7OO, due to the plaintiffs
under an award. It appeared that, after the bankruptcy
of the defendant, in the year 1837, he was employed by
them to manage the mills, at a salary of £5OO per
year. Some differences having arisen between the assig-
nees and the defendant, in May, 1841, all matters in
difference between the parties was submitted to a Mr.
Peat, of Manchester, who, on the 16th of August in that
year, delivered his award, which stated that £2254 17s 10d.
was due to the assignees. The defendant subsequently
paid them £l7OO and odd pounds, and it was for the
balance that this action was brought. The only question
was respecting the execution of the award by Mr. Peat.
This having been proved, a verdict was returned for the
plaintiff. Damages £620 15s. 6d. As it was stated that
Mr. Lees was now in a condition to pay the money, exe-
cution was ordered in a month.

PAULING AND ANOTHER V. M'CORMICK AND ANOTHET
This was an action brought by Messrs. Pauling and Co

railway contractors, to recover the value of about £5O
worth of stone, which the defendants were alleged to have
converted to their own use, which, it was stated, belonged
to the plaintiff. The caie-Avhich was of the most trum-
pery description, occupied the attention of the court for
several hours. The jury retired about six o'clock to con-
sider their verdict.—Verdict for plaintiff, damages £5.

SATURDAY.

SCHOLES V. SCOTT AND ANOTHER

This was z n action brought by the plaintiff, Sarah
Scholes, against James and John Scott. The declaration

was in debt for the recovery of the amount
sory note for £2OO, made by the defendants
to the plaintiff. The defem
make the note. A verdict was returnee
for £228 14s. 9d

nd payable

[ants pleaC

hat they di

LANSDALE V. CLARKE AND ANOTHER.
This was an action brought by James Lansdale against

value of certain goods sold and delivered. The defendants
pleaded that they were never indebted, and a payment of
£lO into court. The plaintiff was an innkeeper at Swin-
ton, near Manchester, and he brought the present action
to recover the amount of a bill for refreshments furnished
on behalf of the defendants, who are builders in Manches-
ter. It appeared that, a few years ago, the Swinton In-
dustrial Schools were built by the Board of Guardians of
the Manchester Union. The defendants took the contract,
and when the school was finished, the next thing was to
have the work measured, in order that the contractors
might be paid. Accordingly, in Jan. and Feb., 1845, the
work was measured. Various parties went to measure it.
It took nearly a fortnight to complete the measurement,
and during that time the parties had their refreshments

at the inn-of the plaintiff. Measurement seemed to be a
hungry and thirsty sort of work, for they had lunches,
dinners, wines, cigars, and brandies at the plaintiff's, and
so the eating and drinking went on until the bill amounted
to £2l and a fraction. The dinners were charged at the
rate of 2s. a-piece, laying on the wines, brandies, and ci-
gars in addition. The defendants were present at all the
dinners, but when the day of reflection came they refused
to pay more than £lO. for all the enjoyments they had at

the expense of the plaintiff. It was contended for the de.
fendants, that £lO was a sum sufficient to discharge the
amount really due ; t
one day

joyed a glorious smoke,—(laughter,)--which, however,
sickened them, for upon the next day only ls. Bd. worth
of cigars appeared to have been smoked. A verdict was
returned for the plaintiff for the full amount.

RICHMOND V. COODI

In this case a witness of the name of Charles Mott was
called upon his subpoena, and he not having answered to
his name, Mr. MARTIN consented to a verdict being taken
for the plaintiff for £62 14s. 3d. Mr. WATSON observed,
that there were no fewer than fifteen pleas put upon the
record.