The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-27 00:00:00

THE4TRE ROYAL.—The Theatre Royal was extremely
full last night, to welcome Mrs. Warner and Mr. Charles
Kean. Macbeth has been got up in a style seldom, or pe 7
haps never yet seen in the provinces.
By the Shinandoah which left Philadelphia on the 3d in-
stant, papers have been received to that date from Phila-
delphia, and from New York to the 2d inclusive, being one
day later than the last arrival. In neither journals do we
find any intelligence worth communicating.
PROTESTANT OPERATIVE MEETING FOR EXCHANGE,
CASTLE-STREET, AND ST. PAUL'S DISTRICT.—The quar-
terly meeting for the above district was held yesterday even-
ing, at the Moorfields School-room, Mr. Joseph Crisp iu
the chair, for the purpose of promoting signatures to the
petition to Parliament, praying for an inquiry into the col-
lege of Maynooth. The meeting was addressed by Mr.
Parsonage, Mr. Ratcliffe, Mr. Barrow, and others.

THE PRESIDENT.—We are once more compelled to state
that no intelligence has been received of this vessel. A cor-
respondent of the London Times, under the signature of
" Palinurus," offers some suggestions which are worthy of
attention, emanating, as they are alleged to do, from a dis-
tinguished naval officer of great experience. According to
that competent judge it seems to be quite possible that the
President, even if she had been steering for Bermuda, might
have missed that island, (not an unusual occurrence,) and
then made the best of her way to the West Indies, in which
case there has yet not been time to hear from her. Prior to
our next publication, in all probability we shall have the In-
dependence, British Queen, and Acadia, the last of which
would leave Boston on the 16th instant, and if she conveys
no intelligence of the President, the hearts of the stoutest
will be subject to very melancholy misgivings.

REGISTRY OF SHIPPING.—An advertisement in another
column convenes a meeting, to be held this day, for the pur-
pose of considering the best means of establishing a registry
book of shipping. Why such a step has been so long de-
layed is the more surprising, since our merchants, under-
writers, and shipowners have been compelled to submit to a
grievance which has -long been felt and acknowledged as
such. The London Registry of British Shipping contains
not confessedly a faithful representation of that which it
affects to report, and we therefore anticipate that our com-
mercial gentlemen, now that the subject is brought practi-
cally before them, will hail the opportunity of rescuing
themselves and their fellow-townsmen interested in such
matters from a bondage in which they have too lone been
held. The proceeds of the Liverpool surveys are devoted
to anything rather than the benefit of the shipowners, and
we call upon them resolutely to second the praiseworthy
efforts which are now making to reform such an abuse. The
metropolitan self-elected committee may oppose such a step,
but that only furnishes another reason for unwearied ex-
ertion on their part.

EXTENSIVE ROBBRY.-Likt the Kirkdale Sessios on
Saturday, Sara Pugh, Robt. Jones, and Ann Jones,n were
placed at the bar, before the Rev. Rector Brooks, chairman,
Charles Birch, Esq., Adam Hodgson, Esq., John Formby,
Esq.. James Heyworth, Esq., Richard Alison, Esq., and
other magistrates, to take their trial for felony. Dr. Brown
appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins for the de-
fence. The indictment charged that Sarah Pugh, late of the
township of Walton-on-the-hill, being servant to Mr. Ro-
dolph Zwilchenbart, did, on the 4th day of January last, fe-
loniously steal seventy-four pair of stockings, thirty-two pair.
of socks, forty-one handkerchiefs, twenty-three caps, thirty-
four frocks, nineteen night caps, sixteen petticoats, seven-
teen napkins, fourteen shirts, seventeen pair gloves, twelve
shawls, eleven towels, eleven neckerchiefs, seven gowns, se-
ven tippets, nine collars, eight pair drawers, five pelises,
four pair stays, five scarfs, four habit shirts, five pockets,
four singlets, twenty-one pair trousers, four vests, &even pair
boots, twenty pair shoes, five umbrellas, twenty yards diaper,
twenty yards satin, ten yards muslin, ten yards lawn, ten
yards linen, twenty yards ribbon, ten yards calico, a watch,
and many articles of valuable jewellery, with a vast number
of other things.—Robert Jones, and Anne his wife (sister of
Sarah Pugh) were charged with having feloniously received
the above property, knowing it to have been stolen. All the
prisoners pleaded not guilty. After the trial had proceeded
to a certain length, the prisoner Sarah Pugh withdrew the
plea of not guilty, and pleaded guilty. She was sentenced
to three years' imprisonment, and hard labour. The other
prisoners, who were charged with receiving the goods, were
acquitted. The value of the property stolen was from £2OO
to £3OO. As the details of the case were published a few
months ago, it is unnecessary to give any further par-
ticulars.

KIRKDALE COUNTY SESSIONS.-YESTERDAY

THE OVERSEERS OF TARVIN V. THE OVERSEERS OF PARR.
Mr. Hulton appeared for the appellants, and Dr. Brown
for the respondents.
This was an appeal against an order made by Richard
Edwards, Esq., and Charles Orrell, Esq., county magis-
trates, for the removal of a pauper, named Job Lee, from
Parr to Tarvin.

Dr. BRONVN stated the case for the respondents, and
called witnesses to prove that the pauper, Job Lee, had ob-
tained a settlement, by birth, in the township of Tarvin.
John Leighton, governor of the workhouse of Sutton, said,
that previous to the removal of Job Lee to Tarvin he was of
unsound mind, and was not able to give any account of his
place of settlement, and that he was much the same now.
Mr. HULTON said—His learned friend had proved a sort
of prima facie case of settlement in Tarvin ; but, although
the birth and christening of the pauper had been proved, he
still doubted that the cottage was really and truly in the
township of Tarvin. It might be in the parish of Tar-
vin ; but as there were several townships in that parish
which supported their own poor, the question to be decided
was, whether it was in the parish of Tarvin or one adjoining.
If the court was not satisfied that the respondents had proved
that it was in the township of Tarvin, then its decision must
be given in favour of the appellants. But the settlement on
which he (Mr. Hulton) should rely was stated in the notice
of the appellants, and he would read it to them—this was a
settlement on Haydock Green; and the grounds were, that
Job Lea married a woman named Ruth Gleave, then a yearly
tenant in a cottage on Haydock Green, and resided there
some years after the marriage. This the parties did not deny,
hut he would call before them a person, the daughter of Ruth
Gleave by a former marriage, to prove this fact. It did not
depend upon the payment of a rental of £lO a-year. If his
learned friend endeavoured to prove that it did, he would
refer to a decision upon an appeal against an order of two
justices for the removal of a pauper, in which the order was
confirmed at the sessions. The pauper's wife, being at the
time a widow, took a house and garden in another parish
at a rental of £3 per annum, went into the house immediately
after taking it, and married the pauper, who continued to
reside there. Lord Tenterden and Justice Bailey had decided
that this was a class of cases which were not ruled by the
statutes requiring a certain amount of rent to be paid by
tenants, to obtain a settlement ; but that " a man marrying
a woman, then a yearly tenant of premises under the value
of .ClO, gains a settlement." If he proved in this case that
the woman took leasehold premises—of whatever value he
cared not—if her husband married her after becoming such
tenant, and resided there forty days afterwards, then the
case must be quashed. In this case, however, there was
some little difficulty as to the means of proof. A subpoena
had been served upon the daughter of Ruth Cleave in that
room ; but he understood that, at the time the subpoena was
served upon her, some party—he believed the overseer of
Parr—endeavoured to persuade her she was not bound by it,
and the consequence was that she was not then in court.
However, if he called " spirits from the vasty deep," and
they did not answer, he hoped the court would grant a res-
pite.—ile then called Thomas Gardner, who proved the
serving of the subpoena.
Shortly afterwards Ann Riley came into court, and, on
being called to the witness-box, was examined by Mr. HUL-
TON.—Her mother had lived in a cottage in Haydock two
years previously to her marriage with Lee, and seven years
subsequently. Did not know Mr. Leigh, the landlord.
Did not know what rent was paid ; believed very little. Did
not know who was Mr. Leigh's steward. Never saw the
rent paid, and did not know when it was paid.
A desultory conversation followed, as to the exact locality
of the cottage occupied by Lee, which ended very unsatis-
factorily.

Dr. BROWN contended that his learned friend had failed
in establishing his case.
The CHAIRMAN said that an occupation by the widow
Gleave had been proved for two years, and after her mar-
riage with Lee for seven years ; but that the appellant had
failed in proving a tenantcy. The court, therefore, confirmed
the decision of the magistrates.
JOHN BALL V. THE MAGISTRATES OF LANCASHIRE.

This was an appeal against the decision of Richard Ley-
land and Christopher Lawson, Esquires, by which the ap-
pellant John Ball had been convicted of encroachment on
the highway, under the 63d and 69th section of the highway
act.

Mr. Wilkins appeared for the appellants, and Mr. Hulton
for the respondents.
Mr. HULTON read extracts from the highway act, specify-
ing that no building, fence, or ditch, should be constructed
within 15 feet from the centre of the road. He then stated
that Mr. Ball was the owner of a house at the distance of 11
feet from the centre of the road ; and put in several plans
shewing the position of the house, and the enclosure, which
he contended was an encroachment. This had been impro-
perly enclosed for a long time, probably 20 or 30 years. Mr.
Ball had been in the habit of placing his dung in such a po-
sition „as that it sometimes overflowed into the road ; this
was complained of, and in consequence he erected a new en-
closure, which, even supposing the ditch to be the boundary,
had encroached over what was not in a line with the highway.
and which was marked in the plan by the increased width of
ditch. The learned counsel concluded by saying that Mr.
Ball had come 6 feet further into the road than he ought to
have done ; that the law of the case in the words of the sta-
tute were very precise ; and that if the jury were of opinion
the appellant had done so, the conviction must be confirmed.
•Mr. Richard Stunner, surgeon, of Formby, examined.—
Was one of the surveyors of highways last year. The width
of the road opposite the encroachment was 18 feet. Enclosure
was put up in October last. Between this and the honse
there was a dung-heap. Two loaded carts meeting in this
particular place could not pass.
Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINs.—He could not say who
was carrying on the case for the respondents. Was not there
on subpeena, but at the solicitation of Mr. Miles Formby.
During 15 years that he had known the premises in front of
Mr. Ball's house, they had always been used by Mr. Ball's
tenant for manure, but further. The road was not benefitted
by the fence being put up : there was not sufficient width.
He considered the road reached up to the building. The
fence was not in a line with the termini of the ditch. It
came further out than the old take-in. It came further into
the road than the old ditch, but not to the full ex-
tent. This encroachment was made in consequence of
a former complaint, in order to prevent the filth from
the dungheap getting into the road. The encroachment
made by Mr. Bond, the tenant of Mr. Ball, made the road
narrower. Did not know whether the road had been en-
croached upon by Mr. Marshall on the opposite. side. Thos.
Marshall and himself filled up the ditch at the north end a
few inches. During his year of office he had repaired the
roads. Did not recollect the road opposite to Mr. Ball's
house being repaired before he did it in February or March
last. ' The complaint was laid against Mr. Ball on the 6th
March. The alteration or ditch was not made to suit the
purpose of this information; he did it to better the road.
By Mr. HULTON—The ditch for 8 or 10 yards is much
wider than at other parts. The water from the dung-heap
runs out, and as it is considered good manure, the farmers
clean it out, which widens the ditch. The old encroachment
is the garden opposite the house.
about 6070
Robert Sutton examined—He lived inFonn
years of age. Recollects the road in question bfyo; W
years.
_Did not recollect the garden being taken in.

_
Mr. HULTON said that was the case.
Mr. WILKINs.—My learned friend says that is his case.
With all deference he has made out no case at all. The
conviction against which we appeal is, that the appellant en-
croached upon the carriage-way, by making a certain fence
within 15 feet from the centre. He contended that the act
specifying that " if any person encroach by makihg or causing
to be made any building, hedge, ditch, or other fence in
the carriage-way, within fifteen feet from the centre of
the road, should be subject to a penalty of 405." and
so forth, was not applicable in all cases, inasmuch as it
implied a necessity that all roads should be 30 feet wide. He
proved that the old ditch was part of the appellant's pro-
perty, and not part of the highway ; that in consequence of
a complaint having been made, the fence had been raised,
and that the appellant bad not gone a single inch beyond his
own land.

Mr. HOLTON then endeavoured to prove that the new enclosure
had gone beyond the old one.
The CHAIRMAN was of opinion that this was not the case. If
he wished to build a wan to his land, he should build it outside the
ditch. With regard to the old encroachment, it bad been for so or
60 years as it is, and he considered the appellent entitled to it.
Conviction quashed.
Mr. WILKINS applied to be allowed the costs, which were, how-
ever, refused.