The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-03-30 00:00:00

BURGLARY

John Thorpe, aged 2.3, was charged with having on the 28th
of February last, burglariously entered the house of .Robert
Pearson, at Worsley, and stolen therefrom a quantity of wear-
ing apparel.
Mr. Cross conducted the prosecution.
It appeared from the evidence of the witnesses, that Mr.
Robert Pearson had made his house fast On the 28th of Febru-

ary and retired td bed., Op the following morning when he
got up,,he found that an entrance had, during the night, been
effected into the premises, by breaking open the window of a
• workshop. It' was discovered 'that a cloak, three shawls, a
gown, a shirt, a pair of shoes, five_ aprons and a bedgown had
been stolen.' These articles were afterwards pledged by the
the
- prisoner at kpawnbroker's in Bolton. A man named Whit-
taker stated, that he was drinking with the prisoner on the
night of the 28th of Febroary. They were proceeding along the
road together. The ptisoner left the road near Pearson's
house; Whittaker to wait for. hitn, :When he returned'
he had two,amdles, though he had nothing in hishand at first.
• The jury consulted together fora few moments, and.returned
verdict of Guilty. ,
'The JUDGE senteacedllie prisoner to transportation for 10
,
years. . . • -

UTTERING' A FORGED NOTE.
, John Howarth was indicted for having on the 7th of Feb. 1837,
uttered a gorged Bill of Exchange for £lOO.
Dr. BROWN• conducted the prosecution; Mr. BRANDT ap-
peered for the delenCe.
It appeared that the prisoner. was in the habit of dealing
With the Ilewton 'drown Glass Couipany, the warehouse of
~-,which. was at Newton-in-the-Willows.. On the 7th of February
he paid in
,on•*Mint of what 'he owed the company a Bill of
• .(li.:sehauge for the, sum of £l.9o;which Was Subsequently disco
covered to be forged. •
' • • . .I'he Jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to
transportation for'life.
'UTTERING A FORGED CHEQUE.
.John Dixon, aged 31, was charged with having, at Manches-
ter, on the 9th October, uttered to Jbseph Barwise, a forged
• cheque for 1.100. well knowing the same to be 'forged.
Dr. 'l3nowN and Mr. BrisNoT conducted the prosecution;
• • Mr. L. 1-',.Nut. appeared for the defence.
It appeared that the prisoner was, with two others persons
named Davis and Dawson, was a joint trustee 'or a society its
Manchester called the IlYdratilc Packets' Society. The so-
' Mitt/ had the such of_ £200•%a the Bank of Mesars;Jonesi Lloyd,
. & Co. at Manchester. = On 'the- 9th of October,- the prisoner,
with two other, persons; not members of the society, went to the
Bank, and drew 'a Cheque' for the'aniount (E 200.) Ile signed
his own,-name to the elltrque, Ak,dithe other two men also affixed
to the cheque the names of Davis and Dawson 'the other two
• trustees. Thoae two signatures were forgeries,-und on this
'cheque the priscner .Obtained the money. It wassrproYed that
the two iignattires Were not in the, hind-writing of Dawson and
• Dais and that Dixon had no anth.qrity•to receive the motley.
• 'rho. Jgry fotind the prisoner guilty.
The J UDGE sentenced the prtsotter to tr4nsportation for life.

NISI PRIUS COURT.--Tucasnay.
STRINGFELLOW V. Clt-OALE.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is. an attor.
pep; to recover the amount of his bill from the defendant, for
Work done. The bill was EGG lUs.. 3d., and £2 had been paid
on.account.., it appears, that the defendant is a,quarryrnan, and
brought an. action against a man.in. Liverpool, who owed him
money, the cause went nearly to court; when it was referred,
and a-verdict went for- the present defendant. The defendant
was unable to pay, and went to goal, and the attorney: for the
then plaintiff, and the present defendant came upon him for his
bill.

. .
Verdict for the plaintiff for the amount
• STEMIENSON v. sTUIIns.
This was an action brought. by the plaintiff, who is an ale and
spirit merchant, to recover £l2 18s. from the defendant, who is
beer, seller, for.goods sold and delivered.
„ Verdict.for-the -plaintiff for the amount. -- •
. .
.„ . • . WiL ty..nuNToN.
• 7 This Was--an action liseught, to recover the amount of a bill
of exchange for £l3l 16s. 6d., and the interest drawn by the.
Lee-defendant, .
Verdict for the plaintiff £133,105. It was undefended.
WILDE v. GARTsrDE, AND ANOTHER.
This .was .an action' brought by the same plaintiff, against
• William aiad -George Gartside, who were the acceptors of the
same bill_ as the above action was brought for. The Plaintiff
being theindorser of the bill. • .
'Verdict for the plaintiff .for £133.105.
• ..noBERTs v.• HOLI.AND.
• -'This was an action brought to : recover the value of certain
.. articles of furniture, belonging to the plaintiff, of which the
defendant had got possession. It.was proved, that the defendant
held possession of a mahogany. chest of drawers, and other
furniture, and also of sundry pairs of stockings, but there was
no evidence of the value. '
His Loensute. said, it was very wrong in the plaintiff giving
no evidence of the value, and the jury must form their own
.. opinion of it, taking care not to give too much.• It appeared,
• "I. 'both the plaintiff and defendant are dealers in fancy boxes.
- y. The jury. found a verdict for the defendant, damages £B.
, • • • STRAKER-v. cRAM—CHARTER•PAIITY.
- .
Phis was an action brought by the plaintiff, the owner of a
tahip called the Niagara, against the defendants, Messrs. Swain-
sen and Cram, for the recovery of thirty guineas demurrage.
It appeared the plaintiff and defendants had entered into a
charter-partyrthe defendants agreeing to Charter the vessel for
4, voyage to London, 14, days .being allowed for loading, and
4
guineas.a day afterwards to be paid for demurrage. The
•sessel. was nine or ten days more.than the-fourteen in loading,
.and the owner:brought the action to recover.ten days demurrage.
or the defence it was endeavoured -to be proved, that there
',:ere goods enough supplied to load the vessel in the time agreed
•l'on; but it was replied, that the goods were of such a nature
the supplied, namely, very heavy goods and very light, that
~`" vessel had to be unloaded several times to put the heavy
''''argo below, and that that the fault of. the defendants caused the
,- Verdict for the plaintiff—damages £2B 14s. The defendants
gave notice of a new trial.
•DEIIPSEY AND OTHERS V. REDMAN.
. This was an .action brought 'by Messrs. Dempsey, Benbow,
et, and Co. to -recover from Mr. G. C. Redman, of London, the sum
rAl4,4s. and ttefra.ction,which the plaintiffs said they had
overpaid on.a earito ofeirieher which they eentractedio purchase
",;'..f Mr. Redm an,. in 1.837. The contract for the timber was wade
!?.yrMessrs. Chapman and Willis, of Liverpool, on the part of
. lie an, and was dated the 3d of October, 18,36; and by
that cor racte.Chapman and Willis agreed to sell to Messrs.
Dempsey and Benbow a.cargo of GOO loads of sound, merchant-
-lable African teak timber, the price of the timber to be 70s. per
load of 50 cubic feet, the amount of the timber so supplied to be
paid for by a bill of exchange, on the delivery of the bill of
4tading, aabject.to be reduced in amount afterwards,- if the
mea-
di&trot prose the same as the bill of lading. the de-
eetive timber.:either in size or•quality; to be valued by two in,
tthfferent •pereens,-to be. reamed by .the seller.., The timber did
:le defective, and a party was aptiointed trs value-. the goods;
h were.pronituncett to be defective to the'amount sought
-to be recovered.
Thadury.lotiad_ a verdict for the plaintiffs, £144 I6s. . •
THE 611.1-KEN V. BLAKE.
This was one of the eliernical nuisance indictmen's.. The
41efendant consented to a verdict of guilty.
Loan-v. RANSOM AND OTH,7RS.
fr. ALEXANDRE and Mr. Cowetee 'appeared for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. CEESSWELL for the defendants.
'Phis was an action brought •to ' recover the amount of the
• plaintiff's bill for work done, he being an attorney' at Wigan.
• the yearelB32; Mr. Lord was ,applied to•by the defendants,
anon and toMax, to settle zome matters with respect to some
property left to-thetn by an uncle. The uncle left them Some
roperty subject to ,certain debts and legacies, and the legatees
became urgent on the trustees for payment, and they determin-
Rd to sell the property, pay off the legacies, and have done with
4he business, and the young men, the defendants, were anxious
to preserve the property, thinking they could make more of it,
And•enkplvyed Mr. Lord _Le prevent the sale, and through him
9ffered to give a, guarantee, absolving tile trustees from all claims
naonthem and. . take the property with all its liabilities- them-
. (Selves. in conducting, this 'business the bill of costs of the
plaintiff 'was incurred, , Oe his sending this in they told him'
'they: would not pay it, and he.might, take what proceedings he
liked to recoVeret,.. Several witnesses, the clerks of the plaintiff,
.and atiorneii,.with whom he had communicated, were called to
prove the various items of the. hill. In the course of
aininaiien it appeared. that Ranson was a farm labourer, and
Lomax a weaver, and that the amount of the bill was £123 and
a fraction. The witnesses, On cress-examinatiou, could give no
• proofehat the pletiatiff been enthorieed to. take certainpro-
_ceedings and incur cert penses,charged in hisbill.. M r. Gas-.
;Kell, attorney, Wigan ewes examined. Was attorney to the trus
<tees who wanted to sell the property. Mr. Lord offered to advance
,the money required tp•theAhjendants, to Doff the: legacies on
.security of a mortgage of the prepert), butiLoinak refused, and
'eventually the•propertv was sold, and the balance 7,8, or E9OO
-
;paid over to the defendant.
•
Mr. Adam. Lomax. Haworth, .solicitor, of Bolton, was ex-
amined, tit Kove.t hat theplaintiff bad. repeatedly seen hnn 'on
In- the whole
,the business of the defendants.-
Mr. CaEssw.i.p, then ruse for the defence.
,thane of his experience tie never. saw a more
•tiais. del ragged case
tf 123 17. . en, au!s were called on to pay a bill of
the p hievieg one farthing's worth of, bench
ssioaal Knowledge or ext!rtkais of Mr. Lord.
-Whey had this curious iaet,. that. Mr. Lord was anxious to get
ate property into his
met,i uo
agda ei et and lend money 'on
'enough not to let Mr.
•- .; but that these two cnung ''''nds
"s
tjeivoor do
riettilt Ite;ei s
ifinugronre ov Ist the property. ln the bill they had firsi
jury we're of opinion.
mat th -•-. .„: to, 40101 t ; if the
ese jou rnteutief e teicoulmuni~cate''ri.atiewosaftterqf basiness,
• Nen allow Mr. Lard lo
. to liitott, and niake. Mr I laimiles over
liineaS-• • -• tt ?("no",..Par for this •
rw( pleasant trip two
he #llfl have to, weave
found an iteatin_the two weeks. fr hey
Acme £2 121. 6(r. ; I here Here several "Peuse*ltoing' to her
ere several other similar
Atte i
• tite tfislitto?tOns for the leas f charges.
folios; , e 0 i Ir. Bakal!' drawing
108 , a-71,0 drawing fair -co •'
for drawing leakealetat which no on k making 7 45.,'?
there was another journey to 'Bolton t e new arivtbing. Then
did'not know Wbetthe other -o see Mr. Haworth. He
journeys-were to be char 2
unli'tss Mr.biird-thetirode-u-rough.trettin charged £ 12s 6d.
g horse (Lau lit
r.(.3resewell: then; proceeded. to dissect the whole bill ,'and
er.)
• Aell44,.tnat. many things were charged. "foreign con_
to th
.busioress oil which Ain Lrd wadefendant
;there for the e
;there was tarii.witig the abstract -of the
the
immeses.
sum
of £3O. What on earth .necessity was theie in the business
6n which, the attorney was • employed, to drain' such anab-
&tract. -There' were two item; for conveyancing, one of
£6 3s, and the other of £7 17s. the difference between which
eonveyance ,could. not understaud, but it appeared a double
charge for the same thing under a different title. He con-
eluded with calling on the jury to give the plaintiff what he
tvas entitled to,' but If he bad been doing work for his own benefit,
and not according to the instructions of the defendants, not to
allow that.
His Loansule, in charging the jury, called on them to put
!side all-prejudice which might exist' in their minds against at-
torneys. The plaintiff was entitled to some recompense on the
evidence, and they must determine that.. There were some
items which he' thought oughti not to 'be allowed, as not con-
nected with the business nn 'which 'the plaintiff was employed,
suet they had no evidence -4 his being at all authorised to in-
quire into the title. for the defendants; he might have done it
fnr'hiertself intending perhaps to purchase, but ought no to
charze the defendants with that. His lordship then pointed out.
sortie other items as objectionable. They must look on the
Plaintiff as on any other man. They were in the situation of
anofficer of the court to tax the bill, and they must do it as well
Re they could_
Ihe jtirv. after an absence of about half an hour, found for
the plaiirtiff, daraaufes £0.85 41, being about halt' the amount
of the bill.

WARD V. WINFIELD. • .
1 was an action brought by the pliiintiff,
who is a publican
itt Williamson-square. to recover. £4O. and.a fraction, for,board
", "'I "taint!' from the defeni,laut, who staid with his wife at his
14 /Ilse about ten weeks.—Verdict for the plaintiff, £25.
'lite court adjourned at aLout six o'clock.

CAusn ,S;ilfurd I;st has been disposed of.
and 2f) causes in the seconil have been got through. Mon-
day. Toys,lay and Frill's.. n(.xt are fitted for the trial of special
jary caußeg. Several intimrtant causes have to come on. In
tart the t 11 1r rety_ant.l undefended causes of the first,list have
justei;;l) gbt through, There remain 111) causes to try.