The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-06 00:00:00

BIGAMY

Dr. BROWN applied for the trial of Eliza Daniels, indicted
for bigamy, to be postponed till Friday next, on the ground
of the illness of a material witness.

Mr. WILKINS, on the part of the prisoner, assented to the
application, and the learned JUDGE granted it.
The court adjourned at a quarter to seven o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-MONDAY

Baron Rolfe took his seat at nine o'clo;;IL • •
The following undefended actions in the West Derby List
were decided this morning :
DIXON, PUBLIC OFFICER, V. WRlGHT.—Verdict for the
plaintiff for £460 17s. 6d.

- BROOK V. CARN.—Verdict for the plaintiff for £l3.
BOND AND ANOTHER V. KaNT.—Verdict for the plaintiffs
for £6l 4s. 6d.

ABBOT AND ANOTHER V. ELLAM.—Verdict for the plain-
tiffs for £2O 15s Od.

YATES V. EDWARDS.—The action was to recover £152 for
services as an attorney. The defendant pleaded that he was
not alone indebted, but conjointly with others.—Verdict for
the plaintiff for £152.
LORD AND ANOTHER V. PARKINSON.—Verdict for the
plaintiffs, by consent, for £287 is. 4d.

SPECIAL JURY CASE.-DEARDEN V. BURGESS.
In this case the action was brought by James Dearden, as
lord of the manor of Rochdale, against George Burgess and
James Dawson, for the purpose of trying the right of get-
ting certain stone.

The list of special jurymen was called over, when only the
following ten answered :—Messrs. John Anderton, of Dux-
bury; John Bibby, of Halliwell ; John Brown, of Liver-
pool ; Samuel Clarke, of Hawkshead ; Jos. Callan, of Tux-
teth-park ; Richard Edwards; Geo. Grant, of Liverpool;
Henry Harrison; Gilbert Harrison, of Toxteth-park ; Mor-
ris Montbear.

By consent of Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Dundas, two corn-
non jurors were called to make up the number. John Allen

and Nathaniel Bond were called to make up the number.
They were sworn with the special jury.
Mr. Cresswell, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Tomlinson, ap-
peared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Dundas, Mr. Cowling, and
Mr. Martin, for the defendant.

The case contained no points of importance, and, except
erhaps to the parties concerned, w•as peculiarly dry and un-

interesting.
Mr. CIcESSWELL, in opening the case on behalf of the
plaintiff, said the action was to try his right, as lord of the
manor, to the getting of some stone—a right which he had
but little doubt he should establish. He believed it would
be alleged that the right had been given up by conveyance.
It was true that the land had been conveyed by Lord Byron,
the former owner of the soil, in the year 1690, but it was
with a reservation as regarded stone and coal. There was no
reservation as regarded trees, because the land was of such a
nature that it was not believed at that time that trees would
ever be grown there.

The original deed of conveyance, dated 2d May, 1690, be-
ween the right lion. William, Lord Byron, lord of the manor
if Rochdale, on the one part, and Abraham Scholfield, a
.eoman, and Charles Butterworth, a yeoman, on their part,
vas put in and read. By this, certain lands specified were
!onveyed from the former to the latter in consideration of a

sum of money owing the said Lord Byron's father, of a rent-
charge of ten shillings a year, with power of distress, a sti-
pulation for service at the manor court, and reservation of
coal and store.

Witnesses were called to prove that the rent of ten shil-
lings a year had been paid till this time, that £3 per annuum
had been paid to the lord of the manor for liberty to get
stone, and thus the party who had permission was compelled
to give up an order to that effect from Lord Byron : that in
1824 the rights and muniments of the manor were handed
over to the present plaintiff's father, and that the plaintiff
succeeded to these rights in 1828 ; than in 1833 a Mr. Wild,
who held part of the lands originally conveyed, was applied
to for permission to get stone, replied that he could not give
it, as the stone was not his—it belonged to the lord of the
manor, and further, that the defendant Dawson, as the ser-
vant or tenant of Burgess, had got a quantity of stone, and
was still working out from the quarry stone which is of con-
siderable value.

The defence was, that within the land for which the con-
yeyanct was produced, there was a small patch (four acres)
of freehold land, which had been freehold from time imme-
morial, which had, as freehold, been conveyed with all the
rights to get muniments, &c, before the date of the deed in
question, (to wit in 1678,) and that it had since been
treated in almost every way that freehold land could be
treated in this country. It was further alleged by Mr.
Dundas, in his address to the jury, that the property con-
veyed answered the description exactly without this piece of
land, while neither as respected boundaries nor quantity did
it answer the description including this piece of land, which
was actually in 1678 charged 40s. a-year, though only four
acres, while that conveyed, which it was said included this
piece, was charged only 10s. a-year, though upwards of 30
acres. It was contended, therefore, that as these fields in-
cluded the quarry, this was merely a question of boundary ;
and that, though the stone sloped into the property under
the manorial right, yet there was a line perpendicular from
the summit of the edge ofothe quarry, or the upper surface
where it joined the meadow which was freehold.
The first witness called was Frederick Baines, who was
required to produce certain deeds. The witness presented
himself in the box. lie was a little, pale young man, with
a cool. indolent manner.
Witness.—l object to be sworn.
Baron ROLFE.—What is your objection?
Witness.—l have not had my expenses.
Attorney fur the defence.—We have paid h!ni his expenses.
Baron kOLFE.—W hat have you received?
Witness.—Only five pounds.
Mr. DuNnAs.--Where have you come from?
Witness.—From Halifax.
Mr. DUNDAS.—How long have you been here?
Witness.—Nine days. I came here the day before com-
mission day.

Mr. MARTIN.--Being a special-jury case, and fixed, you
had no occasion to be here all the time.
\Vitness.—l went back the day after, and returned yester-
day.

Mr. MARTIN.—Then how have you been here nine days?
Witness.—lt is nine days since 1 came then.
Attorney for defence.—We have not the slightest objection
to pay his expenses—never had. We will pay him whatever
the prothonotary says is correct.
Prothonotary.—He is entitled to his mileage one way, and
to fifteen shillings per day. That will be nine pounds.
Four pounds were immediately handed to the witness,
which he coolly put into his waistcoat pocket, and the book
was again offered to him. He paid no attention to the action
of the Crier, but said, " How much a-day is this pray ?"
Baron ROLFE (to the Prothonotary).—Has he received
what is sufficient?
Prothonotary.—lle has, my lord.
Baron RoLFE.—you must he sworn, sir.
The witness was sworn.
Mr. MARTIN.--NOW, Mr. Baines, be so good as to pro-
duce the deeds bearing date 6th and 10th March, 1678.
Witness.-1 object to producing them.
JUDGE.—What is your reason, sir?
Witness.—lt is not in the covenant.
JUDGE.—What covenant ? we have nothing to do with any
covenants here.
Witness.—l submit, my lord, that lam not bound to pro-
duce the deeds. I have furnished abstracts of them.
Baron ROLFE.—Why do you suppose you are not bound
to produce the deeds ?
Mr. DuNnAs.—He has been subpoenaed for that express
purpose, my lord.
Witness.—l have furnished abstracts, and I have not been
paid for theta.
Mr. DUNDAS.—That is another question with which we
have nothing to do. I understand, my lard, that he has
charged no less than £lB for two abstracts.
Witness.—l appeal to the court for a decision.
Baron ROLFE.—I decide against you then, sir. You must
produce the deeds,
The witness then put in the deeds as they were called for.
They were very numerous, and occupied a considerable time
in ruadiag. They Went on to show that sucha patch of land,
with the privilege of getting the minerals, &c., was situated