The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-08-20 00:00:00

Witness assisted to put her in the bed. She afterwards saw
the prisoner, who said he thought she had been -drinking
poison or something. When she first saw her, prisoner said
nothing about her having been drinking. On the second oc-
asion the prisoner was crying.
Another female saw the prisoner push the deceased, and
afterwards saw her fall.
Inspector Oottam apprehended the prisoner. He told him
he was apprehending him for killing his wile. He replied
she was not his wife. . .

Mr. Eckerly, surgeon, made a post 7nortenz examination
of the body. There was a fracture of the skull, which was
the cause of death. There was no mark on the side as of a
blow. She had stays on when he first saw her.
The sister of the deceased said she (deceased) was not mar-
ried. The prisoner and she bad lived fourteen years together.
Mr. MURPHY spoke at some length in behalf of the pri-
soner. _ . .

His LORDSHIP summed up perspicuously, and the jury
returned a verdict of guilty. His LORDSHIP, after seriously
admonishing the prisoner on the violence of his conduct to
the deceased, who was under his protection, sentenced him
to be imprisoned four months,—the first and last week in
solitary confinement.
Luke Mills, was indicted for causing the death of Stephen
Settle, at Ratcliffe, near Bury. _

Richard Settle, brother to the deceased, said that on the
night of the 24th April, he was going home with him,
reckoning their wages, when the prisoner came up and said
something, to which his brother replied. They called each
other nicknames, They afterwards struggled together. Both
pulled off their jackets, and they fell several times. Luke
had iron clogs on. He threw deceased over his head, and ran
two or three yards to him and kicked. Deceased afterwards
walked home with witness. He held his hands to his belly
and said he was ruined. He died on the Sunday night after-
wards, (next day.) He was well before.
Cross examined.—His brother had been labouring under
a looseness of the bowels for three days.
James Blakely saw the affray. They rolled a little on the
ground. Stephen said he would pull of his jacket, which
witness took to be a challa nge to fight. They both took their
jackuts off and began again. Stephen struck first. Mills
then threw him over his head, and afterwards gave him a kick.
He was close to him at the time, and the kick was not a
heavy one. They wrestled again and rolled a little. Stephen
afterwards walked away by his brother's side, without any

assistance.
Another witness corroborated the last, in essential par-

ticulars

11Ir. Holmes, Surgeon, made a post mortem examination,
and found inflamation and rupture of the bowels, also slight
mortification. A kick or a severe fall would produce it.
There were no outward marks of violence.

Cross-examined by Mr. WHAtiss.—l cannot say what
time inflammation had been going on. Mortification is the
death of the parts. If I had not heard of the wrestling, I
should have attributed the rupture to external violence._ 1
do not think that the inflammation would cause the rupture.
The bowels might be ruptured, by their being elastic, without
having an external mark.
Mr. MURPHY addressed the jury fir the prisoner, con-
tending that the diarrhoea under which the deceased laboured
might have produced inflammation, which would reach to
mortification ; and that the parts having lost their power, a
rupture might arise from the abruption of the contents,
without a blow. _ _ _ _

HIS LORDSHIP summed up, noticing the kick with a clog
tipped with iron, which was not denied ; and he knew of no
sort of fair lighting in which such an instrument could be
used. His lordship inclined to take the evidence of the me-
dical witness in preference to the suggestion thrown out by
the learned counsel.

The jury found the prisoner Guilty.
The learned JUDGE in passing sentence adverted in a for-
cible manner to the horrid practice of kicking, of which he
was glad to find only this case in the present calendar. '1 he
sentence was, that he be imprisoned for three calendar months
and kept to hard labour, and that the concluding week in
each month be in solitary confinement.
Alexander M'Cauley was indicted for the killing and slay-
ing, at Liverpool, of John Williams. Some difference had
arisen between the prisoner and deceased at the corner of a
street, and a few blows were exchanged, when the deceased
fell, and almost imrnediaiely expired. It.appeared, however,
from the evidence of the surgeon who had examined the
body, that the immediate cause of death was a disease of the
heart, which the slightest encounter might render fatal. The
jury acquitted the prisoner, and he was discharged.

POST-OFFICE CASE

In behalf of Thomas Miller, who had pleaded guilty to a
charge of having embezzled and secreted three letters from
the post-office establishment, given to him for delivery, six
witnesses of respectability spoke as to character. They had
all known him for many years as a well-conducted and re-
spectable man. His Lordship said he should look at the de-
positions before he passed sentence.

SENTENCE ON WAINWRIGHT

Several witnesses gave the prisoner an excellent character
as a fellow-workman at Mr. Berry's foundry, (where he had
killed a man in a .provoked encounter,) as a quiet, inoffensive,
and well-disposed youth. His Lordship fined him is. and
discharged him.

-----~-.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—THURSDAY
EDWARDS V. BAIRD.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, John Edwards,
against the defendant, James Baird, the amount of certain
goods sold and delivered, and work and labour done on an
account stated. The defendant pleaded that he was never
indebted to him and has a set off to a greater amount than
that claimed.
Mr. MARTIN stated the case. The plaintiff had formerly
been a surveyor for a gas-light company in Liverpool, and
since then, he acted as excavator of different works about
the town. The defendant had retired from business, and was
the owner of a good many houses. The plaintiff's demand
for excavating houses belonging to the defendant, and super-
intending their erection, amounted to £7O. The parties
were connected, and had been on good terms with each other
until lately. The facts of the case were few and simple. It
appeared that in the beginning of the present year, the de-
fendant proposed to build eight houses near Dean-street, in
a court, and to convert a large house, situated at the corner
of the street, into live tenements. Afterwards, however, he
altered his determination, and the large house was pulled
down and live small houses built on the site of it. The
plaintiff had excavated the ground. At first it was determined
that a Mr.' Wood should be the architect, but subsequently
that determination was altered also, and the plaintiff actei
in the capacity of architect and surveyor until the ereetioi
had been nearly completed. The first item of his demand
was for excavating the foundation, and that amounted to
£l7 10s. The next was for superintending the erection of
the houses. He attended regularly from six o'clock in the
morning until the same hour in the evening; and for this be
charged 10s. a day. The next item was for the cartage of
the rubbish from the houses, for which he claimed a sum of
£26. The defence was that the plaintiff was indebted to the
defendant for the value of a team of horses and a cart, which
had been sold by the latter to the former.
After the examination of the first witness,
Mr. Ca.ussweLL, on the part of the defendant, agreed to
have the case referred for settlement to parties out of court.
A verdict was accordingly taken for the plaiutifl, subject
to a reference.

RRETHERTON V. PALMER.
In this case Joseph Bretherton was plaintiff, and John
Palmer defendant. The action was brought for the recovery
of money lent, advanced, and paid, and for .stabling and
medicine supplied to the defendant's horses.
Mr. CROMPTON stated the case. The plaintiff is a
veterinary surgeon, in Liverpool, and is in the habit of re-
ceiving and stabling horses which arrive from different parts
of the country. He is also in the habit of advancing money
to his customers to enable them to make purchases of horses,
and on the sale of them afterwards he charges a guinea a
week and 5 per cent. commission. Having had dealings with
the defendant, who was a horse dealer at Northampton, and
who had horses at his establishment in the year 1839, ac-
counts were settled between them on the footing of the
charges mentioned. From the month of April to that of
June of the present year they had had considerable dealings
together, and at one period the sum of £350 was owing by
the defendant to the plaintiff, of which he had subsequently
paid about 1:250. A balance of £97 4s remained due, and for
the recovery of that sum the present action was brought, he
having disputed the payment of the five per cent. commission,
upon the ground that it should not have exceeded two and a
half.
Lawrence 'Walsh having proved that 5 per cent. was the
usual commission charged at the plaintiff's concern, the jury
returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum claimed.

FLETCHER V. GREY.
Verdict, by consent, for the plaintiff, for £l4 13s. sd.
HEATON V. YATES AND ANOTHER.
This was an action in replevin, brought by the plaintiff,
John Heaton, against the defendants, Henry Yates and John
Rye, for the recovery of the value of certain articles of fur-
niture, sold by the defendants for a quarter of a year's rent,
amounting to £22.
Mr. JAMES appeared for the defendants. No counsel ap-
peared on behalt of the plaintiff, and the witnesses on both
sides having been absent from court, a nonsuit was entered.

DOE DEM FARNWORTH AND OTHERS V. JOHNSON.
This was an action of ejectment. Verdict for the plaintiff

DEO DEM HUGHES V. JONES

TODD V. WELLS AND ANOTHER

BATEMAN AND OTHERS V. PINDER.
This was an action brought by the executors of James
Bateman, against the defendant, Robert Pinder, for the re-
covery of the amount of a promissory note for £75 ls. Bd.
The note was drawn in the year 1830, and had been signed
by several persons of the name of Pinder and Pinn, who were
severally related to each other. Various small sums had been
given in part payment of it, which went in discharge of the
interest and a portion of the principal, but a balance of £55
remained due, for the recovery of which the action had been
brought. Tile defendant pleaded that the note had been
made upwards of six years since, but as as a payment of £1
had been made subsequent to the bringing of the present ac-
tion, it was contended by counsel that such payment amounted
to an acknowlegment of the debt, and took the case out of
the statute.
His LORDSHIP ruled that the payment in question
amounted to an acknowledgment of the debt ; and a verdict
was returned for the plaintiffs for the full amount of the sum
claimed.

ELLISON V. BLINKAItN.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Richard Elli-
son, against the defendant, William Blinkarn, for the recovery
of the amount of a bill of Exchange for £4O. Verdict for
the plaintifffor the sum claimed

This was an action of ejectment brought by the plaintiff,
Thomas Hughes, against John Jones, to recover possession of
a certain lease, which had been seized under a fieri facial,
and sold by the sheriff at a low price. The execution credi-
tor was the purchaser, and after satisfying the debt and costs
for which the execution had been issued, a small surplus was
handed over to the lessor of the plaintiff. The defendant
obtained possession of the premises under this proceeding.
The question for the jury to decide was, whether the defend-
ant was entitled to retain it, the sheriff not having executed
any assignment of the lease.
Verdict for the plaintiff, subject to a motion for a non-
suit.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, James Todd,
against the defendants, John Wells and Margaret Fitch, for
the recovery of the amount of a promissory note for £lOO.
The plaintiff was a farmer residing at Huntingdon, near
York, and in the year 1827 had lent the defendants the sum
in question upon their promissory note. They continued to
pay the interest on tye money regularly until October last,
when the plaintiff said he would require £5O of the principal
in the present, and the remaining po in the next year. The
first £5O not having been duly paid, the action was brought
for the recovery of the full amount.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum
claimed.

HORNBY AND OTHERS V. BROWNE.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, Joseph
Hornby and others, assignees, against the defendant, Ellen
Browne, for the recovery of the amount of a bill of exchange
for £5OO. Verdict for the plaintiffs for the sum claimed.

KELLETT V. HEAP AND OTHERS.
In this case William Kellett was plaintiff, and John and
William Walker Heap were defendants. The action was
brought for the recovery of money lent on account stated.
Mr. MARTIN stated the case. The plaintiff was an inn-
keeper at Leyland, and the defendants were cotton manufac-
turers, but had subsequently resigned business. The ques-
tion the jury had to decide was one of considerable import-
ance, as a great number of other cases would depend upon the
fate of the present one. It was whether the defendants were
liable to pay money which had been l'orrowed by a person in
their employment, named Joseph Edge, and for their use
and benefit. In Lancashire it was the practice for manufac-
turers to put out work to be woven by weavers, and to send
a person, who was called the " putter out," to the different
towns to collect the work done, and to deliver out materials,
and there was generally some appointed place where the