The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-03-30 00:00:00

ng into fh,

billing was not a bad one ; but, he wool

I the shop to.

that intention
he found the y

right. They left together with
port as the boy got to the step

suer had decamped

quently detained • but released WlenthePrisoneri;dbeen
apprehended. When he was taken he threw a counterfeit
shilling away, which was proved to have been made from the
same mould as that with which he had sent the boy to Mr.
Gillespie's.

I The jury found the prison

r Guilty

Ifor havi
ui

26, and William Kearze, 22, were indicted
'eloniously had in their possession two moulds,
s impressed the resemblance of the Queen's

Cavanah

Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLEY and Mr. POLLOCK were for th
prosecution.. Mr. MURPHY appeared for Keane, Cavanagl

was undefended

•ed that on the evening of t,

be 23ri

February last,

wo prisoners went to a female named Mary Ann Taylor,
who keeps a small shop in Chapel-street, Salford. They
bought some herrings from her, in payment of wYch they
offered a shilling, which she said was a bad one, and should
nt I detain it. They then went away, leaving the shilling, and

,errings. In consequence of this, the-police
, and the next day they were apprehended
together in Great Ancoats-street, by Inspector Besuret, and

without th

watch

sub•lnspector Levingston. On Cavanagh two moulds were
found, and upon Keane six counterfeit shillings, all of which
were made from the mould found in the possession of the
other prisoner. It was found that two pounds of plaster of
paris had been purchased from John Bianchi, some days
before this affair happened, but by whom was not clearly
made out

Mr. MURPHY contended that there was no case against
Keane, inasmuch as the evidence proved the moulds to have
been not in his but in Cavanagh's possession. He referred
to the interpretation clause of the act in support of his point.
Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLEY said the point had been decided
against his learned friend in the case of the Queen v. Rod-
gers, recently argued before the 15 judges.
The learned JUDGE overruled the objection, but said he
ld leave to the jury to say whether Keane knew Cava-
. ithe moulds in his possession.

nagh L

Muttruy then addressed the jury on the part of

loth the prisoners Guilt

who had been acquitted on the charge
L 1
The present indict-

og, was

ment charged him with having a mould in his po-ssession with•
The evidence was substantialy the same

out lawful excuse

aim in the preceding case

The jury re-

turned a verdict of Guilty
Thomas

Barlow was next placed at the bar charged with a
misdemeanour by a " doubling uttering," that is, by having
paid two shillings, one after the other, to two different parties.
The transactions, it appeared, occurred within half an hour
of each otoer. The mode adopted was that of " ringing the

changes." The shillings were paid to Mary Ann Walker
and to Sarah Walwsley, in Salford, on the 27th October last.
The prisoner cross examined the witnesses with considerable

)f his displays

ay created much

wished from on

. _
ing able to obtain such answers as he
ale witness, the following colloquy took

Prisoner—Go a

, woman

Witnes

—I shan't go away for your orders
Prisoner—Go away I tell you—you
Witness—l shall not go

y on your o

rs. Your bet-

ters must t
The Jud
advantage

conviction

pmfoultlr Inc

WPit.34 MAI

ao good as to endure a very severs bieachtng process. The
yarns were returned, and, when manufactured, were sent to
a Mrs. Beeley to be bleached, where they stood all to which
they were subjected in the process, and were rather improved
thereby. When the second parcel was sent, the former in-
structions were referred to. The goods were returned, and,
having been manufactured, were sent again to the dyers. It
was then discovered, on merely washing the fabric, that the
brown colour would not stand, and notice to that effect was
sent to the defendant. The reply was, that it was absolutely
necessary that the fabric should be bleached, and a request
was made that the utmost care should be taken to preserve
the brown colour, which had been interwoven with other
colours in a quantity of quiltings. The goods were bleached,
and the operation was completely fatal to the brown colour,
which, in all the pieces into which it was woven, entirely dis-
appeared, while orange and several other much weaker co-
lours bore the test. Mr. Cresswell produced several speci-
mens, which were examined by the jury. The colour, in
some instances, was discharged by the action of the air. The
learned counsel's solution of this was, that on the second
occasion Miss Moss being in embarrassed circumstances, bad
materials were used, and the work was done in a slovenly and
improper manner. The whole loss sustained by the defend-
ant, in consequence of the failure of the brown colour in the
second parcel of yarns, was sworn to be 4:44 lls. 4d.

Mr. ALEXANDER, in his reply, rested his case chiefly on
the notification at the foot of the invoice, which he said the
defendant must have read. As it was there set forth that no
claim for damage would be allowed unless made within one
month, it seemed rather inconsistent with the defence set
up, that the damage had not been mentioned till the month
of December.

The trial commenced at half-past nine o'clock in the morn-
ing, and the JUDGE concluded his charge at twenty minutes
past four in the afternoon. The jury immediately found for

the defendant

BAMFORD V. RADCLIFFP

In this case Mr. James Bamford sought to recover from
Mr. Joseph Radcliffe a sum of £95, as balance of money
which he had held in his hands for the plaintiff's use.
Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Brandt appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Alexander and Mr. Tomlinson for the defence.

It appeared by the witnesses called for the plaintiff, that
Mr. Bamford was formerly in partnership with two persons
named Parsons and Greenwood. Owing to a fire in their
mall the affairs of this firm went into confusion, soon after
which a dissolution of the partnership occurred, when it was
agreed that the defendant should collect in the money due to
the concern, pay out Parsons and Greenwood, pay the debts
due by the firm, and hand over the residue to the plaintiff.
Mr. Radcliffe drew in account of the firm £1576, and certain
smaller sums from others. When all was settled, there re-
mained a balance of £95 due to the plaintiff. The defendant
made a charge for his trouble which was objected to by Mr.
Bamford, who alleged that it was contrary to the agreement.
When Mr. Radcliffe showed the account of his proceedings,
it was disputed by the plaintiff. The defendant afterwards
refused to pay the money unless an acknowledgement were
given to him that the sum of £95 was all that was due to
him from the plaintiff. This was declined, and as the de-
fendant maintained his resolution not to pay without it, the
present action was brought for the recovery of the money.
The case fur the plaintiff was proceeding, when Mr. Cress-
well having ascertained that the nature of the defence would
render it necessary to examine many accounts, proposed a
reference. This was acceded to. A nominal verdict was,
therefore, taken for the plaintiff, subject to a reference to
Mr. Jonathan Peel.

JONES V. ROBINSON

This was an undefended action, brought by Mrs. Mary
Jones, a calenderer, of Manchester, to recover compensation
for loss sustained by the non-fulfilment of a contract.

Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff.
It appeared that the defendant had been employed by Mrs.
Jones to make a pair of calender-checks, to fit certain rollers
with which she furnished him. He undertook to perfom the
work, for which he charged £3O, which was paid. When
Mr. Jones came to work the machine, it was found that the
defendant had spoiled not only his own work but the rollers
which had been entrusted to him, whereby Mrs. Jones sus-
tained great damage in the loss of her business, connection, &c.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £B6.
The court rose at a quarter before six o'clock.

OIiMMiIi==MII=UNTEI

kinprrial Varitanunt.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—THURSDAY.
The consolidated fund (X 8.000,000) bill was brought up
from the commons and read a first time. The house was oc-
cupied the remainder of the sitting in receiving petitions for
and against various measures in progress.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TUURSDAY.
Mr. Fox MAULE stated, in reply to a question from Mr.
Hume, that the Secretary of Stste for the Home Department
and the commissioners of police had repudiated the idea of
allowing a pecuniary compromise of the trial of a noble lord
for an assault on a policeman.
In reply to a question from Mr. Ewart, it was stated by
Mr. STANLEY, that there was no intention on the part of
the Woods and Forests to make any alteration in the exist-
ing arrangemeots relative to the Regent's Park and Richmond
Park.