The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-03-28 00:00:00

BIGAMY.

William Wallace was charged with bigamy, he having,
at the parish, church of All Saints, Newton Heath, on the
14th June, 1846, married Hannah Sparrow ; and at the
Cathedral Church of Manchester, on the 2d December,
1853, married Hannah Newton.„ his, first wife•being still
alive. Certificates of both marriage ceremonies were
given in and proved ; and thee prisoner was identified as
the man who was married in both instances. For the
defence it was contended that the first wife was a woman
of very immoral habits, and that the second wife, was
aware a his previous marriage. Hannah Newton, the
second wife, was examined, andstated that she knew of
his being married, and living separate from his wife.
Prisoner's family were all aware of his wife being alive.
Verdict, guilty. Sentence, to be. imprisoned and kept to
hard labour for six months.

The court then adjourned at a few minutes before six,
till nine o'clock to-morrow (this morning), when it is
understood that an application for postponing the trial of
the parties indicted for conspiracy, at Preston, till next
assizes, will be censidered,.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—(Before Mr. Baron PLITT.)
TUESDAY, MARCH 21.
ALLEGED ILLEGAL
is lti
EXECUTION.—WINTE
ST ING.—The plaintiff an accountant, at Greenfield,
Saddleworth. The de i fendant s a brewer and dePler in
spirits, at Huddersfield. Some time ago a person of the
name of Thomas Morris was station-master at the green,
field Station of the London and North-western Railway.
Close to the station there stood at that time a beerhouse,
which was in an unfinished state. The defendant induced
Morris to take the house, complete it as a public-house,
and become the tenant of it. He made Morris advances
in money to the amount of £230, which sum was ex-
pended upon the public-house, towards the completion of
it. Morris entered the public-house, and the stipulation
between him and the defendant was, that he was to
obtain all his liquors from the defendant. In that waythe £230 debt was increased to £3lO, and then Mr. Styring
asked for some security, and obtained a warrant of attorney
from Morris. The public-house did not answer ; the con-
sequence was that Morris got into difficulty. He called
in December last upon Mr. Winter, the present plaintiff,
to consult him about his affairs. Mr. Winter advised him
to borrow money for the purpose of paying off his debts.
He agreed to take that advice, and Mr. Winter endea-
voured to obtain him a loan of £4OO upon mortgage of the
lease of the house, stock-in-trade, and furniture, but suffi-
cient money could not be raised upon this security, and in
consequence of that Morris made an assignment to Mr.
Winter of his property for the general benefit of his credi-
tors, the object being, as alleged on tho part of the plain..
tiff, that all the creditors should share and share alike.
Under that assignment Mr. Winter entered into posses-
sion of the premises, and arranged with Morris that he
should remain there and be paid weekly wages, but that
all money should be paid over to him (Mr. Winter) and
accounted for regularly, which was done. Information
was given to the various creditor. Altogether there were
nineteen creditors of Morris, and amongst the creditors
there was another brewer, who was applied to to become
trustee. He declined to do so, but approyed•of what was
done, and out of the nineteen creditors thirteen were made
aware of the assignment, and expressed their approval of
it. The remaining six were creditors for a very small
amount, the thirteen representing the whole substantial
estate of Morris, save and except Mr. Styring, the de-
fendant. The assignment was executed on the Bth of
January last, and on the 3rd of February, Mr. Styring
having entered upon judgment, under his warrant of
attorney, levied the property which was the subject of the
assignment. That gave rise to the present action, and
the question was whether in truth the assignment made
by Morris to the plaintiff was made in good faith.—Mr.
Hill, for the defendant, called his lordship's attention to
the fact that not a single creditor had signed the deed of
assignment, so that the document was wholly inoperative
as against the execution creditor.—His lordship said the
question of fact which the jury had to decide was whether
this deed was executed with the faithful intention of con-
veying the property in those goods, that the value of them
might be realised and divided for the benefit of the credi-
tors, or whether it was executed for the purpose of being
a cloak or protection for those goods for the debtor. The
latter would be a fraud, and the execution would be void
against the execution creditor coming in. The jury
returned a verdict for the defendant.
RUNNING DOWN A CANAL ROAT.—OGDEN v. BOOTEE.
MAN AND OruEns.—This was an action to recover damages
for injury done to a canal boat and its cargo. The plain-
tiff, Paul Ogden, is a carrier by the canals in the neigh-