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

COINING

James Crossley, 30, and Margaret Crossley, 28, were
charged with having made eighty counterfeit sixpences, at
Whalley.
The Attorney-General and Mr. Pollock appeared for the
prosecution, and the prisoners were undefended.
Part of the proof, in this case, rested on the testimony of a
man named Abraham Mitchell, who had made acquaintance
with the prisoners, and who had informed the police of their
proceedings, and upon the evidence of a woman who had her-
self been accused of coining. These two testified to the fact
of the prisoners having been, seen employed in the act of
making sixpences. The male prisoner averred that Michael
himself took the moulds and other materials to his house,
and cast a number of sixpences, melting down bad shillings
for the purpose. The police officers went to the house, and
found moulds and other materials usually found in casting
counterfeits, with several base sixpences and shillings.
His LORDSHIP expressed a strong opinion that the em-
ployment of individuals for the purpose of bringing crimes to
light by espionage was extremely reprehensible, and fre-
quently productive of great evil.
The jury inquired if Mitchell were to receive anything on
the conviction of the prisoners. It appeared that he bad re-
ceived regular wages, and that nothing Untied on this con-
viction.

The jury found the prisoners guilty, but recommended
them to mercy under the opinion that they had been the
dupes of others.
Sergeant ATCUERLEY said that the male prisoner had but
just been released, after having served two years in Lancaster
Castle.

HIS LORDSHIP deferred passing sentence.
FORGERY.

Charles Thompson, aged 36, a very respectable looking
man, was charged with having feloniously passed a receipt
for money, with intent to defraud the Sheffield and Man-
chester Railway Company.
Mr. Brandt and Mr. Hulton appeared for the prosecution;
Mr. Shaw for the defence.

The prisoner was secretary to the Sheffield and Manches-
ter Railway Company. An account of £447 was due to
Messrs. Mawdsley of this town for advertising. The pri-
soner drew that amount from the directors, but remitted
only £347. An acknowledgment was transmitted, and
Thompson, it was alleged, had altered the word " three"
into " four."

John Dalton, one of the directors of the Sheffield and
Manchester Railway Company, stated that in September,
1839, the prisoner was in the employ of the company as
secretary. They had an account with Gore and Son of this
town. for advertising. On September 25th, a meeting of
the directors was held at Glossop, and Gore and Son's ac-
count was brought forward by Mr.i Thompson, and ordered
to be paid. A cheque was drawn for the amount on the
District Bank of Manchester and Liverpool. The cheque
was handed over to Mr. Thomson. Witness and Mr. Sykes
signed the cheque, and the body of it was in the handwriting
of the prisoner. It was handed to him, and his duty was to
send it to the party in whose favour it was drawn. The re-
ceipts of parties were usually pasted in the voucher-book.
(The receipt from Messrs. Gore was produced.) The letter
r in the word four the witness thought was like the writing
of Mr. Thompson. The word altogether was like the general
character of his hand.

Mr. Cunningham cashier to the District Bank, stated that
on the 26th September, 1839, the prisoner presented the
cheque for payment. It was paid; £lOO being given in
cash, and a letter of credit for £317, payable to Messrs.
Gore and Son, of this town.

Thomas Kerrison, clerk to Messrs. Mawdsley, (Gore and
Son), proved that in September, 1839, the Railway Company
owed them £447, and that they, in that month, received a
remittance of £347, which was acknowledged. The letter of
acknowledgment was handed in. Mr. Kerrison showed that
the word " three" had been altered to "four." A letter
from Mr. Thomson, which accompanied the letter of credit,
was read. It set forth the total sum remitted, namely, £347,
and that some of the accounts for advertising in other papers
having come in, the balance was retained till another audit
of the board, he would call and see Messrs. Mawdsley (Gore
arid Son), . respecting the accounts. Mr. Kerrison stated
that he never had any conversation with Mr. Thompson on
the subject of the letter.
Mr. James Mawdsley stated, that he was a partner in the
firm of Gore and Son ; there were more than two partners.
Mr. Thomson called a month or two after the letter alluded
to arrived.

Gross-examined.—Did not arrange that Mr Thompson
to pay the deficient £lOO by an acceptance. Mr. Thompsor,
proposed that mode, but it was not acceded to. He (Mr.
Thomson) then proposed to pay by instalments. He (Mr,
Mawdsley) agreed to that.
By Mr. BRANDT.-Mr. Thomson stated that the director:
were displeased that he had given such extensive orders fo►
advertisements, and he would therefore pay the residue out
of his own pocket. That was the reason why he (Mr.
Mawdsley) acceded to the proposal to pay by instalments.
Mr. SHAW took several sl►ghtobjectious to the form of tin
indictment, none of which was entertained. He then ad.
dressed the jury at some length in favour of the prisoner.
The jury found the prisoner guilty.
HORSE-STEALING.

Thomas Wright, alias Tommy Boots, aged 26, was charged
with having stolen a horse, the property of Win. Baker.
Mr. Hutton conducted the prosecution.
Mr. Baker, it appeared, had a flat in the canal from
Northwich, and the prisoner, who possessed a horse, was
made captain of this flat, his horse drawing it. Baker,
having made some disbursements on account of the prisoner,
agreed to purchase the horse for seven guineas, and a balance
was struck between them, and the horse was delivered to
Mr. Baker. The prisoner continued in Mr. Baker's service,
and shortly afterwards sold the horse again in Manchester,
to James Thomas, a publican, for £2 10s.
The jury found the prisoner guilty. A good character was
given to the prisoner, and he was sentenced to six months'
imprisonment, the first and last week in solitary confinement.
William Randall, aged 19, a respectable-looking but evi-
dently exceedingly impudent young man, was charged with
having, at Salford, stolen a horse, gig, and harness, the pro-
perty of Mr. John Sharpies.
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Monteith conducted the prosecution.
On the 10th of May last the prisoner called at the livery
stables kept by Mr. Sharpies, in Manchester, and calling for
the stable keeper, asked for a saddle-horse, saying that lie
had left his own mare at a stable, to the owner of which he
referred the other. There was not a saddle-horse in all Mr.
Sharples's stables, and the prisoner asked if they had no
horse in. He was told that there was a harness-horse in.

He said that would do, as he had to go to Altrinchatn. The
horse was put in harness in a gig, and while the ticket was
being made out, the prisoner drove off. It was proved that
he drove to the house of Mrs. Scholefield, near Oldham,
about nine miles from Manchester, and there borrowed a
saddle and bridle. He told Mrs. Scholefield that he was
one of the firm of Houldsworth and Co., wine-merchants, of
Manchester, and son to Mr. Houldsworth. He then rode
away to the Brown Cow, at Leeds, where he inquired for a
purchaser for his horse, saying, that he must sell it suddenly,
as he wished to remit some money to his mother. He
sought for a purchaser, at first asking £l5 for it, and after.
wards coming down to £6. The prisoner cross-examined
the witnesses in the most impudent manner, and astonished
a sturdy Yorkshireman, who had told a very plain story
against him, by averring that he had never seen him in his
lire before.
The prisoner addressed the jury, representing himself as a
person of high family connexions. He denied any intention
of selling the horse, and said that he hired it for the purpose
of going to Leeds, to look after some property.
The jury found the prisoner guilty, stating that it was un-
necessary for his lordship to snm up.
His LORDSHIP said he was sorry for the young man, but
he was a very proper example. He was sentenced to 15
years' transportation.

THE POULTON, GOSTON, AND BICKERSHANVE-HALL

BURGLARIES

On the application of Mr. Wilkins, his lordship fixed the
trial in this case to come on first thing to come on to-morrow
morning (Wednesday.)
The court adjourned at a quarter-past six o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—TUESDAY.
(Before Mr. Justice IVIGHTNIAN.)
The learned judge took his seat a few minutes after nine
o'clock.

BARNES V. WRIGHT

This was an undefended action against the drawer of a bill
of exchange for £Bl 3s. Verdict for the a►nount claimed,
with 7s interest.
JONES, PUBLIC OFFICER, V. SMITH.
The plaintiff in this case is the public registered officer of
the Sheffield and Hallarnshire Banking Company. and the
action was brought against the defendant as the acceptor of
a dishonoured bill of exchange, to recover .01 7s, and £1
interest. Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £62

LLOYD AND ANOTHER, ASSIGNEES, V. SKINNER•
Verdict for the plaintiffs, by consent, for £6OO.
GILBERT V. ANDREWS.
In this case a verdict was taken, by consent,
for the plain-
tiff for £3OOO, subject to a reference.

WAREING V. TRESSWELL.
In this case Mr. Dundas and Mr. James appeared for the
plaintiff; Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Crompton appeared for the
defendant.
This was an action to recover £44 lOs 7d. the balance of
an account between the parties, which had been running from

the beginning of 1834 to the end of 1537. When the trans-.
actions took place the defendant was a tanner at Sheffield
but now he is carrying on the business of a brewer there; and
Mr. Wareing is a skin merchant in Liverpool. The plaintiff
supplied the defendant with skins during thaeperiod, and the
defendant furnished him with great quantities of size and
glue. In addition to these there had been many bill trans-
actions between the parties. Altogether the case was one of
much complication, but of no public interest whatever. At
the end of Mr. Dundas's opening the learned JUGDE recom-
mended a reference to some gentleman at the bar, but the
plaintiff refused to consent. The cause proceeded, and occu-
pied upwards of three hours. The jury returned a verdict
for the defendant.

STANLEY BART. t

SIR THOMAS BIRCH

This was au action against the High-Sheriff of the county,
anu o.r. Watson, on the part of the plaintiff, applied to the
court for the Learned Judge to appoint a day for the trial,
for the convenience of the Attorney-General, who is specially
retained in it. He applied for Friday or Monday next, or
Monday to be appointed.
Mr'. CRESWELL had no objection to Monday, as be could
very well imagine why the Attorney-General wished to have
it over before Tuesday.

Mr. WATSON said he could understand why many other
members of parliament should wish the same.
The JUDGE appointed the case to be tried on Monday
next.

SHORROCKS AND ANOTHER V. MILLER AND ANOTHER.
In this case a verdict was returned to theplaintiff, by con-
tilt, for £640.

LUCAS AND ANOTHER V. GIBBS

This was au action against the acceptor of a bill of ex-
change for £54, with £1 6s. for interest. Verdict for the
plaintiff for the amount claimed.

MOTTRAM AND ANOTHER 2:

This was an undefended action on a bill of exchange to re•
cover £2O. Verdict for the plaintiff.

WOODS AND ANOTHER V. M4KENZIE

This was an action brought by Robert Bryce Wood, Hugh
Mackay, and George Bolton, trustees of the Liverpool and
Manchester Coal Company, to recover the sum of £l3O,
being the balance of an account due from the defendant,
who is a coal-dealer at Rock Ferry, Cheshire.
Mr. CRESSWELL and Mr. CROMPTON appeared for the
plaintiffs, and Mr. Watson for the defendant. •
The delivery and receipt of the coals were proved on the
part of the plaintiffs. Mr. Watson then took an objection to
the action, contending that it was not properly brought. It
should have been brought by the conartnerS instead of the
trustees, as the copartners had no right to give any three in-
dividuals the power which they had exercised in this case.
The JUDGE said, he had some doubts whether the action
was properly brought. lie woulL:, however, consent to a
verdict for the plaintiffs, and give leave to the defendant to
move to enter a nonsuit:

A verdict was taken accordingly
UOULT V. TU

The declaration in this case claimed compensation in
damages from the defendant for having by his negligence
killed a horse and damaged a carriairc belonging to the plain-
tiff.

Mr. Murphy appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. James for
:he defendant.

On the part of the plaintiff it was shown, that he is the
proprietor of certain omnibuses which ply between Liverpool
and the Old Swan. The defendant is a cartowner, and one
of his carts was engaged in dinning coals to Liverpool, the
direction it was going being opposite to that in which the
omnibus was going upon this occasion. The driver of the
omnibus was going upon the left or proper side of the road,
when he overtook sonic carts which were going, upon the pro-
per side, towards the Old Swan. When he reached them he
was obliged to swerve to the right in order to get clear of
them, and on so doing he saw the defendant's cart coming
in a direction to meet him. He called out to the driver of
the cart, but there was no person who appeared to have
charge of it ; in point of fact the only person with it was a
boy between 13 and 14 years of age, who was walking behind.
The horse in the cart, on seeing the omnibus, started, and
the result was that the shaft of the cart entered the breast of
the off horse belonging to the plaintiff; and it died imme-
diately. The shaft and harness was also injured. The acci-
dent, the cause of it, and the amount of damage was proved,
among other witnesses, by Mr. Lawrence Heyworth.
Mr. JAiIES, in reply, contended that the accident had
happened through the negligence of the plaintiff himself, in-
asmuch as the omnibus might have retired on the other side,
although it was contrary to what was called " the law of the
road," before he met the cart. He admitted, however, that
the defendant's carter had been guilty of neglect, but never-
theless, it was not his neglect which had caused the accident.
Several witnesses, among whom was the boy who had the
care of the cart, were then called by the learned counsel.
One of them, named Wm. Mason, said, that he had a glass
of gin with the omnibus driver before be started, and he then
appeared the " worse for liquor."
Mr. Muarirr having replied, the Jury found a verdict for
the plaintiff, damages £l5.