The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-08-28 00:00:00

SHEEP STEALING

John Whitton, an elderly man, and. Timothy Whitton, a
boy, (his son), were charged with stealing a sheep at Pendle-
ton, the property of John Batterson.
There was nothing peculiar in the case ; and it appeared
that the son was merely employed by his father to leave the
skin at a place of sale.

Mr. WILKINS spoke at considerable length in behalf of
both prisoners.
The jury found the elder prisoner guilty, and the younger,
by his lordship's direction, not guilty.

Sentence on John Whitton wag deferred. The boy way

discharged.
Daniel Atkins, 25, was indicted on a charge of having, at
Liverpool, feloniously gut and stabbed James M`Laughlin.
The prisoner was a witness at a recent trial for assault at.
these assizes, and his testimony went to the conviction of the
accused. He is a shoemaker ; and, it appeared, was called
upon by the prosecutor and some other parties while he was
at work, and a quarrel and a challenge having ensued, he
went out, fought the prosecutor, and proved himself the
better man. The prosecutor, it appears, and a number of
others, friends of the convict before alluded to, afterwards
burst into his house, while he was quietly seated, cutting
some tobacco for his pipe, and so assaulted him that he con-
sidered his life in danger, and made use of the knife in his
defence. The jury, after retiring for a short time, returned
a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged.
The court adjourned at eight o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—THURSDAY.
On Mr. Baron ROLFE taking his seat, he informed the
counsel in the last cause tried yesterday, that the jury had
found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £ll9O, but that the
father-in-law was not privy to the act of bankruptcy ; that
the issue of the execution was bona fide on his own account;
in fact, therefore, that the son-in-law, the bankrupt, had
procured the issue of the execution. Consequently, accord-
ing to his view of the case, the bankruptcy act of last year
protected the father-in-law. What must be done then must
be to enter a verdict for the defendant ; it could not be a
nonsuit, because it resulted, from the finding of the jury,
that the father-in-law was not privy.

THE QUEEN V. THE MANCHESTER AND LEEDS RAILWAY

COMPANY

This was an issue from the Court- of Queen's Bench, for
the trial of several questions arising out of a return from the
Manchester and Leeds Railway Company, to a mandamus
obtained at the suit of the trustees of the Rochdale and
Oldham Turnpike Road, and commanding them to comply
with certain directions contained in the act of parliament
authorising the formation of the railway, with regard to a
bridge or viaduct for carrying the line over the turnpike-
road at Rochdale. A special jury was sworn, most of whom
had previously paid a visit to the locus in quo for the pur-
pose of personal inspection.
Messrs. Alexander, Starkie, and Wightman appeared on
behalf of the trustees ; Messrs. Cresswell, Tomlinson, and
Hildyard for the railway company.
The pleadings, which were very voluminous, having been
opened, and one of the most material of the pleas alleging
that the company had done what they were required to do
by the mandamus, Mr. CRESSWELL contended that the
affirmative lay upon the defendants, and consequently that
he had a right to begin. After some discussion the learned
JUDGE decided the question in his favour, and
Mr. CRESSW ELL proceeded to open the case for the defend-
ants, illustrating his observations by reference to a very neatly
executed model of the viaduct, turnpike-road, and premises
adjoining.
It appeared that in 1836 the company obtained an act em-
powering them to make a railway between Manchester and
Leeds. Subsequently they proposed to carry the line nearer
to Rochdale than they had originally contemplated, and this,
a subsequent act, obtained ou the sth of May, 1837, enabled
them to do. About the tinacathat application was made for
this act, the Rochdale Canal Company made certain altera-
tions in their line, interfering with the contemplated line of
railway, and in consequence of this, when the company came
before parliament, a clause was introduced in committee,
which imposed upon them the necessity of departing from the
line which it was proposed to take, and to take very nearly
that which they had adopted. It happened, however, that
the property adjoining the new line had not been mentioned
in the books of reference, so that the company had no power
to compel the owners to sell it. The last act pointed out
the place in the outskirts of Rochdale, where the railway was
to cross the turnpike road, and directed that there should be
an opening for the bridge of 30 feet wide, leaving a passage
of 24 feet wide for carriages, &c., and one footpath of six feet
wide, exclusive of the pillars between the carriage road and
the footpath for foot-passengers ; and also that the ground
should be excavated and lower"d so as to keep the turnpike
road on a proper level. By the original plan for the bridge
prepared by Mr. Gooch. one of the engineers of the com-
pany, it was proposed, in strict conformity with the act, to
make an opening of thirty feet wide, devoting six feet of it to
a footpath, and the rest to the carriage road. They had just
commenced with the bridge, when Mr. King, one of the
trustees of the turnpike road, Mr. Hibbert, the clerk, and
Mr. Luar, the surveyor to the trustees, called upon Mr.
Gooch at his office in Manchester, and in consequence of
their suggestions the bridge was built' as it now stands,
namely, with a centre opening of 24 feet wide, and two side
openings of ten feet wide each, one on each side of the street.
Instead, however, of excavating and lowering the whole road,
only that intended for carriages was lowered, and the foot-
path on each side was left several feet above that level, being
protected by retaining walls, and steps being provided at
intervals for the accommodation of passengers and persons
occupying the houses on each side of the street. The
soil was of a loose and sandy nature, and it was shown,
on the testimony of Mr. Gooch and various other wit-
nesses, that any further excavation of the road would have
been dangerous to the houses, the foundations of some of which
were very slight, and particularly to a large cotton-mill,
which stood on one side of the street. The case of the de-
fendants was, in fact, that the road in its present state was
much better for the public in every respect, than it would
be if lowered in the manner required by the mandamus. To
prove these points a host of witnesses, including surveyors,
engineers, mill-owners, and others, were examined, many Of
them very tediously, apparently to prove, amongst other
matters, that a wide road is better than a narrow one,
where the former can be had. Amongst the witnesses were
two or three members of the firm of Messrs. Livesey and Co.,
cotton-spinners, whose mill fronts the turnpike road, one
end abutting on the railway viaduct. They expressed their
perfect satisfaction with the alteration, and said it was much
better as it was than it would be if the foot-path had
been lowered to the level of the carriage road. They were
of opinion that if the foot-path had been lowered the founda-
tion of the mill would have given way, which, indeed, Was
actually the fact with respect to the end abutting on the via-
duct, when the foundations of the latter were laid. Mr;
George Parker Bidder, once the celebrated "calculating boy,'
now surveyor to the London and Blackwall Railway Com-
pany, said that in the formation of the viaduct and footpaths,
the defendants had done all that they were required to do Inv
the act, and much more than he would have done unless he
were especially consulting the convenience and advantage of
the public. After the examination of some other witnesses
on the part of the defendants, the court adjourned at a qua"
ter before seven o'clock till this morning, when the case for
the prosecution will be opened.