The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-08-21 00:00:00

mittt4 ig aatt both Art d.c hill anti the loan, The interest
on filo bill was £1 ic, W., making the total debt on that Re-
count X20110.5d. This, with the £l5 lent, made £35 lls. bd.,
for which amount the Jury returned a verdict in favour of

Slit Bi4NJAMIN SMITH V. JI:NNINGS

This action was brought to recover £BlO arrears of En an-
nuity. The defendant had covenanted to pay the money, but
he pleaded a release. As he did not appear in court to prove
his plea, it fell to the ground. Vert:ict for the plaintiff, .£BlO.

WARD V. CARSON

This action was brought by Mr. Edmund Ward, attorney,
against Robert Carson, a publican, to recover £7 17s. 6d., a
balance of account for work and labour done. The defend-
ant pleaded that he was not indebted.
The action was undefended. ' •

The plaintiff is an attorney at .Prescot, and the defendant,
a publican at Wigan. The defendant formerly 'bought his
ale from Messrs. Birchall and Cross, brewers. In the year
1935, Alexander Smith, who travelled for Messrs. Birchall
and Cross, called upon Mr. Carson for orders, as usual.
Carson showed Smith a promissory note from person named-
Parkin, of Liverpool, and requested him to call and get the
amount for him. Smith was unable to get thy, money, and
ha received order: from Carson to take legal measures for the
recovery thereof. Mr. Ward, being the attorney for Messrs.
Birchall and Cross, the case was put into his hands, and the
action was ultimately settled.' The taxed bill from Mr. Ward
was £l7 17s. 6d., of• which £lO had been paid, leaving a
balance of £7 17s. 6d. due.

The above facts having been proved on the evidence of Mr.
Smith and Mr. Thomas Oliver, Mr. Ward's London agent,
the jury returned far the plaintiff damages £7 17s. 6d.

I.IULGRAVZ V. WORRALL

The plaintiff, in this case, was John Mulgrave, an Irish
labourer, and the action was brought to recover £24 fecm
John Worrall, a farmer of Halewood, for work and labour
done.

Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wightman
and Mr. Whigham for the defendant.
The witness, on behalf of the plaintiff, stated, that Mul-
grave had -worked during the years 1829, 1830, 1831, and
1832, and that he had subsequently been engaged by him in
1834, 1835, and 1836,- during the two latter years of which the
plaintiff had suffered his wages to accumulate in his master's
hands. It was assumed, that the wages, durif g 1835, were
411, and during 1836 413 per annum ; but the proof on these
points did not come out. It was stated, that the defendant
had admitted, from time to time, that he owed the plaintiff
upwards of 420. Oa behalf of the defendant it was con-
tended, that the whole evidence produced by the plaintiff was
a fabrication; and witnesses were called to show, that
though Mulgravc had been employed by Worrall at different
times he had always been paid. A document was also pro-
duced, showing that, in July last, the plaintiff only claimed
410, which it was contended had been paid in a sum of
411 155., which the defendant's man swore he had seen paid.
The latter, on cross-examination was asked if he had not re-

quested his brother-in-law, who was not called as a witness
in the main case, not to appear in court, as it would " break
the old man," (the defendant.) He, (the defendant's son,)
said belied requested his brother-in-law not to appear, but
it was on the ground that it-would make mischief in the
family. The brother-in-law was called by Mr. Martin. He
said that young Worrall had requested him not to appear be-
cause it would " break the old man if, he had to pay Mul-

grave's wages."
Mr..WitlifrmaN, in the reply which he was entitled to
make, on this witness being called, contended that the wit-
ness was unworthy of eredit.

Mr. MARTIN, in return, called on the Jury to believe that
all the witnesses for the defence were unworthy of credit,
and that the paper produced was a mere fabrication, got up
for the purpose of evading the payment of the sum due to the
plaintiff.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; damages £24.

BELLIS V. COWARD

This was an undefended action brought by John Bellis, a
horse-dealer, of Staffordshire, to recover £42, the value of
three horses sold to the defendant, James Coward. The de-
fendant pleaded that he was not indebted. The sale and
amount were proved by the signature of the defendant to the
contract. Verdict for the plaintiff; damages £42.

CARR V. I3IDDLE

In this case John Carr was the plaintiff and Richard Biddle
the defendant. The action was undefended, and was brought
to recover £250, on a promissory note, given for money lent.
The defendant denied that he was indebted. The loan and
signature to the note were proved, and the Jury returned a
verdict for the plaintiff; damages £250, with £l5 4s interest.
The court adjourned at five o'clock.
TELE C&USE PAP/CR.—The following causes were disposed
of in the West Derby list :
Plaintiff, 1,2, 3,6, 7,8, 9, 10, 11, 22, 29, 30, 33.
Nos. 4 and 5 were understood to have been settled out of
court. No. 31 is fixed for trial this morning.

CROWN COURT—WEDNESDAY.
The business of the court commenced at nine o'clock
CHARGE OV BURGLARY.

Samuel Horrocks, aged 36, and Joshua Kirk, 28, were in-
dicted for having, in May last, at Failsworth, burglariously
entered the house of James Clare, a publican, and stolen
therefrom two casks, seven gallons of rum, one gallon of
British brandy, two bottles and two gallons of French
brandy, and two gallons of whiskey.
Horrocks was defended by Mr. Wilkins.

Mary Crompton, Mr. Clare's servant, proved that on the
night of the 25th of May last the house was properly secured-.
On the following morning it was discovered that the premises
had been broken into, and a quantity of spirits, &c. stolen.
On the night of the 29th of May, Thomas Haslam, a pub-
lican, saw Horrocks and Kirk in company together at a
'tavern kept by Mary Sewell. Next morning Horrocks called
upon Haslam with a cart. He asked Haslem if he would
purchase some spirits. Haslam replied that he did not want
any spirits, upon which Horrocks drove the cart away, ob-
serving that he must take the spirits somewhere else. About
a mile and a half further on was the residence of Mr. Win.
Hurst, a publican. Here both prisoners called soon after
they had been at Haslam's. They had the cart with them.
They drank two pints of ale, and Horrocks asked Mr. Hurst
if he would purchase some spirits, indicating that he had
some in the cart. Mr. Hurst not being in want of any
spirits, he went directly to a tavern at a short distance, kept by
a Mr. Booth, and asked the latter if he would purchase some
rum. In all these cases he • said he could sell the liquor
cheap ; and in one instance, when asked where he had got
the spirits, he replied, he believed they were some smuggled
spirits which had been found in the cart. Meanwhile two
officers who had been cognisant of the robbery at Mr. Clare's
house, heard that the prisoners were offering spirits for sale.
They set off in pursuit, came up with the cart at Mr. Hurst's,
and apprehended Kirk and Horrocks on the return of the
latter from Booth's. Two kegs of spirits were found in the
cart. A constable named Wilde deposed, that on the way
to the lock-up Horrock's sister called out to him—" Now,
James tell the truth and say_ but little." . He replied, "_I

will. I did not do it myself, but I know who did. Only
two know beside myself." On cross-examination touching
this point, it appeared that the prisoner said further. that
" Tom Bainbridge and Kirk had stolen the liquor, and had
requested him to sell it for them. If," said he, "I am
committed for it, lam committed innocently." Bainbridge,
the constable said, had been transported for felony since the
alleged burglary took place. The kegs found in the cart
were identified as the same which had been sent by Mr.
Gill, spirit mercly.:.nt, to the house of M. Clare, and which
had been stolen therefrom.

Mr. \\rumsls said he should prove that Horrocks could
not have been present at the burglary, and, however repre-
hensible his conduct might have been in attempting to put
off goods under such circumstances as they had heard de-
tailed, as he was indicted for having committed the robbery,
if they found that he had not been a participator in that
crime they would be bound to acquit him.
Kirk, in his defence, said he overtook Horrocks on the
road with the cart, and merely accompanied him along the
road. It was not his place to ask what was in the cart, and
he did not know that there were any spirits in it.
Abigail 'Clayton was called by Mr. WILKINS.—She stated
that Horrocks and his children lived with her. On the
night of the 25th of May she saw him in bed at ten o'clock.
She slept.with his children in the same room with him. She
k rot up at five o'clock, and employed herself in weaving.
Horrocks got up between six and seven, and went out to his
work about eight.
Mrs. Mary Schofield, whose husband is a cart-owner, for
whom Horrocks has been employed to drive, deposed that
the latter went to his work in the morning of the 26th of
May, about eight o'clock, or between eight and nine.
His LORDSHIP thought that nothing had been offered to
show that the offence was a burglary, as the robbery might
have been committed after six o'clock in the morning.
The jury, after a few minutes' consultation, acquitted both
prisoners under this indictment, but expressed an opinion
that Horrocks was guilty of knowingly having the stolen
goods in his possession.
His LORDSHIP ordered another indictment to be prepared.
MINT CASES.—POSSESSION OF A MOULD—SINGULAR CASE.
John Matthews, aged 30, was charged with having had in
his possession, in May last, a mould for casting coin to re-
semble shillings.
Mr. Sergeant Atcherly and Mr. Penny conducted the pro-

secution.
It appeared that in April last year the prisoner made him-
self known to the police of Manchester, and stated that he
could give them some information relative to parties who
were engaged in the manufacture of counterfeit money. He
stated to Superintendent Allcock that a man named Ken-

nedy, a tinker, who resided in a cellar neario him, was in
the habit of making and selling bad coin to some extent.

The superintendent attended to-the information which the
prisoner gave him from time to time, and furnished him with
money with which to purchase counterfeit coin. The pri-
soner brought several packages of base sixpences which he
said he had bought from Kennedy for twopence each, and
some shillings for which he said Kennedy had charged him
threepence each. The superintendent asked him if he could
not detect Kennedy at work making bad coin. The prisoner
said it would be very easy to do so, and on one occasion the
prisoner informed the police that if they would go that night
to Kennedy's cellar they would find him at work " making
money." The superintendent caused the cellar to be recon-
noitred that night, but nothing was seen to indicate that anv
such operation was going forward. The superintendent, in
order if possible to get at the truth,. frequently watched the
cellar of Kennedy through a hole in a door which communi-
cated with another cellar at the back, but he could never see
anything suspicious. At length the superintendent imbibed
the opinion that his informant (the prisoner) might himself
be the guilty party. Measures were immediately taken to
discover if these surmises were well founded. The prisoner
told the officers that if they would search Kennedy's cellar
at a particular time, and look in a particular place, they
would 'find some materials for coining. The officers, being
watchful to discover the truth, set one of their number to
observe the prisoner. On the day when he had requested
that' the experiment should be made on Kennedy's cellar,
the prisoner was seen to go to his own residence, and to
come out with a small parcel, with which he went to Ken-
nedy's, where some neighbours were assembled, as Kennedy,
being about to change his residence, was disposing of his few
goods. The prisoner sunt into Kennedy's cellar with the
parcel in his hand. He' went up to the fireplace, and there
lighted his pipe. Without addressing himself to any person,
he quitted the cellar, and the officer who was on the watch
observed that he had no longer the parcel in his hand. The
officers went to Kennedy's cellar at the time appointed, and
there, above the fireplace, in the very spot to which the pri-
soner had directed them, they found a mould for the purpose
of counterfeiting shillings. The prisoner's own residence
was afterwards searched, gild the officers found some mate-
rials commonly used in coining, a piece of a mould which
corresponded with that found at Kennedy's, and several
counterfeit shillings which had been made from that mould.
The prisoner cross-examined the. several witnesses very
adroitly, and with much boldness of demeanour. In the
course of his cross-examination of Superintendant Allcock,
he asked that officer if he had searched a belt which Kennedy
wore round his waist. The officer said he had searched him
minutely, but he did not remember exactly whether he wore
a belt or not. The prisoner said Kennedy was then in court,
and be had no doubt he had then the belt on in which he
kept Isis bad money. Mr. Sergeant ATCUERLY said he should
call Kennedy, and the latter was desired to stand forward
till he was wanted. When Kennedy was examined, he said
he once had a light with the prisoner, who had in the course
of, a dispute with a man named O'Neille, bitten off his
(O'Neille's) lip, and flattened his nose. Kennedy took
O'Neille's part, and fought the prisoner, who was subse-
riSoner had subse-
quentlyqilenr Ihnrpe ar tseonneedd if for
otehbn een
ear
dse syv aeunlgt
tolde. revenged T }oh nnl yoe
tea enddy
uf
po r
and tha tt
aakf
fair of O'Neille's."
his revenge then. He replied that he would take it in ano-
ther way. A witness stated that he had heard the prisoner
say that he would have his revenge for the six months which
be had served in Manchester for the assault: lie would
transport Kennedy if he were twenty years in compassing it.
This witness was asked by the prisoner if his cellar had not