The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-08-27 00:00:00

POST-OFFICE FRAUDS

Thomas Miller, for secreting a post letter, was sentenced
to transportation for life i and William Davies, for stealing a
post letter, was sentenced to 14 years' transportation.

STABBING

John Ball, for maliciously cutting and wounding Thomas
Kelly, was sentenced to 14 years' transportation.
John Lovatt, for shooting at William Newsham with in-
tent to murder him, was sentenced to 15 months' imprison-
ment and hard labour.

FORGERY.
Thomas Brown and Christopher Robinson Bell, convicted
of forgery, were sentenced to transportation for life.
The court adjourned shortly before six o'clock.,

NISI PRIUS COURT,-YESTERDAY
RIGBY AND ANOTHER V. WESTMACOTT

This was a special jury case, in which Thomas Rigby and
another were plaintiffis, and Henry Seymour Westmacott,
defendant. The declaration was an issue to try whether the
plaintiffs were entitled to certain flint stone.
Mr. Cresswcll and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plain-
tiffs ; and Mr. Baines and Mr. Martin for the defendant.
Mr. CRESWELL informed the jury that the parties had
come to an understanding which would save them the trouble
of going into a lengthened investigation.
A verdict was accordingly returned for the plaintiffs, by
consent.

His -LounsfurP then charged the jury. It was the duty of
the sheriff's officer to ascertain whether there were any other
writs against Walton before he discharged him from custody.
If he had applied to the officer at Preston he could imme-
diately have ascertained that there was a second writ against
Walton at the suit of the plaintiffs. The question was, whe-
ther Walton was in the sheriff's custody at the time that the
sheriff had the second writ in his tare ; and, upon this point,
it appeared from the evidence that the man had been in cus-
tody from the 10th to the 14th of July, and that the writ at
the suit of the plaintiffs was consigned to the sheriff's keep-
ing on the 9th of July. There had been no evidence of any
conspiracy in the case, but there bad been evidence of great
neglect on the part of the sheriff's officer, who, it appeared,
had not taken the ordinary precautions before he liberated
Walton from custody.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for the full
amount.

JONES V. BANKART,

In this case Watkin Merrick Jones, was the plaintiff, and
Frederick Bankart, the defendant. The action was brought
for the recovery of the sum of £l6O, being the amount in
which the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff for monies
advanced, and on account stated.

Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Watson appeared for the plaintiff,
and the Hon. Mr. Wortley and Mr. Crompton for the de-
fendant.

Mr. CRESWELL stated the case. The action had been
brought by the plaintiff, a gentleman residing in Liverpool,
to recover from the defendant, who was a compound of an
attorney, a bill discounter, and an agent in London, a sum
of about £162, under the following circumstances :—lt ap-
peared
that a Mr. Worthington, also practised as an attor-
ney in Liverpool with great respectability, and who filled the
office of solicitor to the Dock Trustees at present, became
considerably indebted to the plaintiff. There had been ex-
changes of property between the parties, which left him a
debtor to the plaintiff to a large amount. In the course of
those transactions, Mr. Worthington had accepted a bill for
the plaintiff for £lOO, which would become due on the 19th
of March, 1840, and the plaintiff had accepted, for the ac-
commodation of Mr. Worthington, a bill for £221 ss, which
would become due on the 20th of March in the same year.
Both those bills had to be provided for by Mr. Worthington,
but he not being in a condition to provide for them, the plain-
tiff remitted a bill on the 4th of March for £196 10s, and on
the 18th of March he remitted another bill for £286 17s,
which made a total of £483 7s to meet them. Those two
bills were then handed over to the defendant to take up the
bills which were falling due; and on the 22nd of March,
1840, the plaintiff wrote a letter to the defendant, informing
him of the terms on which the two bills for £196 10s, and
£286 17s had been remitted. The difference between the
first two bills for £331 ss, which were taken up, and the
second two bills for £483 7s, which had been remitted for
the purpose of taking up the others, was now claimed by the
plaintiff; for when the defendant was subsequently applied
to for the balance, he said he would keep the bills for what
they were worth, although they had both been ultimately ho-
noured, and he had received the amount of them in full.
Witnesses having been examined to prove the transactions
between the parties,
The Hon. Mr. 'WORTLEY addressed the Jury on the part
of the defendant. He said the plaintiff in the case had pro.
lite(' very considerably by a familiar intimacy which had ex-
isted between Mr. Worthington and the defendant, in getting
paper discounted, which otherwise would have been negocia-
ble. It would appear that Mr. Worthington, findinE him-
self under considerable embarrassments, went to London
and applied, not to a common money-lender, but to his
familiar friend, the defendant, for accommodation. The
plaintiff and Mr. Worthington happening to have dealings
together, and both being in difficulties, Mr. Worthington ap-
plied to the defendant, with the knowledge of the plaintiff,
and at his suggestion, to assist him in discounting the bills
for £lOO, and £231 ss. The defendant then accommodated
the parties ; and he (the learned counsel) thought it rather hard
that plaintiff should turn round on the defendant after that
gentleman had accommodated him. The defendant claimed
the bills as his own on account of a balance which was owing
to him by the two parties—the plaintiff and Mr. Worthing-
ton, both of whom acted as if in partnership together, and
the latter appearing in the capacity of an agent to the former.
The defendant had subsequently been obliged to sue upon
the bills, and ultimately succeeded in recovering their
amount, less costs and other expenses. For ten months
afterwards the plaintiff acquiesced in the transactions with
the defendant ; but at present, in the last hour, in his des-
peration and want of funds, and when he found Mr. Wor-
thington unable to pay him, he turned round upon the de-
fendant, who, through his friendship with Mr. Worthington,
had been induced to grant accommodation to the plaintiff.
A number of letters were here read which had passed be-
tween the parties.
Mr. CRESSWELL replied.
His LORDSHIP then charged the jury, who, after an ab-
sence from court of twenty minutes, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff for £162 10s.

Verdict for the plaintiff for the sum claimed.
DOE DEM BROCKLEBANK AND OTHERS V.HOLT

This ;as an action of ejectment brought by the Rev. Mr.
Brocklebank and others, trustees, against the defendant,
John Holt, for 'the recovery of a certain farm called Ban-
nisters.

Mr. Cowling appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Tomlin-
son for the defendant.

Verdict for the lessor of the plaintiff, subject to a rule to
show cause fur a nonsuit. . _ .

The court adjourned, at ten minutes to six o'clock, to nine
this morning.
At the rising of the court last evening, there were only
three causes in the West Derby Hundred list, and 29 in the
Salford Hundred list undisposed of.