The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-04-04 00:00:00

TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 1854.

.......• 0 e
thd letter and now coming into court to a
job . cee
the 01 to
learned counsel commented strongly- upon, boater
for the plaintiff, as to the giving of a 000 u c droten;
Wilcock, although it was believed that she was ,of the
and he argued that, except as regarded one orcrt,.t the!
witnesses, there was good ground for concludine, uticle or I
had been guilty of a sort of conspiracy eVintur to dr
Wilcock, by representing her as drunken, in order
of the
mane her credit as a reliable witness in the inn -A, eoo,;
affiliation.—The case for the plaintiff occupied the
mhiosraedtabraensseifgohrtthhoeursdef;eannddaitirthen Mr. Atherton c°,.-- ad'
flutes to six o'clock), his lordsfh‘iitpbesianidg atbl,7ttatethOelrdrre
could not be concluded that night, there could be °Odell;
fitting point at which to adjourn. His lordsbit drorl
caution to the jurors, not to allow themselves te,f:.....'11e
into conversation on the matter during the evewu'
court then rose.

THURSDAY, niscrt 30.
Mr. Baron Platt took his seat at nine o'clock.
LIBEL.—SHRIVALL V. SeCLEL-05'
W
E eft
This case was resumed this morning, tbst •
deuce for the defendant. —lt was adinitteidth
plaintiff might have appealed against tilft.jobl;
trates' order, and that he had not done so:- re,'"
Wybergh, clerk to the magistrates at LiverKe „fh!
notes taken by. himself of the evidence at tles.u'ores°:,
before the magistrates when the order was grant
raefugale
examined by Mr. Sergeant Wilkins : He had p, for fur
give a copy of his notes to Mr. Evans, atterll:l'rue
plaintiff He had furnished a copy to the ata,bpoed
the defendant, but only after he had been sutbst t tba
produce them in court. He would not swear
were reporters present at the first examination'that
jaorKej
verbatim copy of the notes he had read 613 sapPlitv
which appeared in the Liverpool MercurY,,.wsliono
by him. This was in consequence of an aPPl'ir!„„iag; ue
magistrates, by Mr. McClellan, at the second ".70isedi
complained of the improper introduction of pa' ,100,e
the first hearing, and asked that in justice to.,iic.,-1.1,011
full report should be allowed to go to the Pne but
Judge : Then you refused a copy to one side; eopP4
lied 3 .115
gave a copy to the other, and you also suPP • is bet
publication.—Jane Wilcock, in her examination.
veitb
declared that Mr. Shrivall began to take libertiesol
about a month after she went into his service,
en
he was always very free in speaking to her, egvuell
Mrs. Shrivall was present. Her evidence was ...ilia It
given in affiliation cases. She never got drunk 1•115
She refused to go to a surgeon, or to take some Ply beesoe
Mr. Shrivall offered her. She left her service° for 5° s
Mrs. Shrivall said she (witness) had been delicate takiago
time, and would be unfit for the extra work frlietli riot
lodger, as was intended; but Mrs. Shrivall dist' but
her that they were not parting upon bad tern's'her
Mr. Shriven thought change of air would do had lorte
And she also said that if a young person wh°,l was
engaged for a fortnight did not suit, Mr. Sliric:7lll.r,b;
willing that witness should return. Mrs. S,nii' Aftet:id
mended her to go to Ireland to see her mother. to et
ft she got a young man named Walter Nels° rodrt vere
letter to Mrs. Shrivall—she could neither, it ire
write. Nelson read the letter to her, and
the words, "I am surprised to hear that you lapl
take back Harriet [Kingsley, who was a witueroo, be
plaintiff], after you calling her so much; 00a5.
a great deal to say about the master. She sal4ohe of
was keeping two or three fancy women, and Op
afraid of coming down stairs when he was nu , iatOcsbe
his taking hold of her. She afterwards bad 3'1,0. 010
with Mrs. Shrivall, in the presence of Enit ietteArisa
then told Mrs. Shrivall that all that was in tnics'
true ; that she had also told Harriet that Mr. ay 50
toff
kissed her in the bedroom, and that she wonldlis.
face if he was fetched from the draw/TIP"- she'd I
A thell au
Shrivall went out, but returned alone ; and ~,, ps
" You had better get a situation as soon as 3'..5.,`"----ss" for'
will give you a character to any lady that ean bavet fat
you deserve, and that will not be a bad one. garq sot
given you for sending the letter, and so has she dl
what you've said." Witness never said that 'e
know what was in the letter, and that if the,re °fit' 310'
thing about "fancy women" she was not a'?" leiter•Ae
acknowledged the truth of all that was in the or
_„19,1-
tier
Shrivall never required her to take an oath,it apes
promise not to get drunk again; she never wet, 061 yo,
knees and begged for a character. She had jib% WeOtifilete
this, ever asked for a character ; and when 61041.
Shrivall made an appointment to meet the ,y) be"
never was a syllable said about her (witness ob'. 014
charged for drunkenness, and drunkenness,.ffiew, gs,
shis ion Is
witness was examined as to an
other in4li, 11.011
circumstances upon which Mr. and. Mrs.
ley, and other witnesses were examined forth
aerisPtiee fisr.
Wednesday. The accounts were wholly .at 000 to
each other.] She never told Harriet ICI9P, force 111,i, tile
marry her; she never said anything of
M'Clellan was her " beau," and she cola" sort, er'„oroe
thesilaa's ;Or
effect ; she never made mention or Mr.
to Kingsley. She never said anything of the -she waste to
tioned M'Clellan's name to Mrs. Evers.°Asians,,,,ll-sit'S
recollect that she ever mentioned M
r. obis halo
any one. On one occasion, when she wen" anitwkolln
rooms, and saw the plaintiff, he refused to, dosoul,' is 01
her ; and she threatened, if he did dot, she ,vot steches
his young lady pupils and tell their maVstatius,,,:sad:'l,llo
man he was.—Cross-examined by Sergean"by
she came into court on Wednesday nioriL'');, bet clog,
a white straw bonnet ; Mr• "`Thettet Si
~ad pvie.
arm and led her out, saying that she R 41,11.4
it; she did so, but did not change allY"-baa
had found through life that she had had 5 mil, Or",
she could not tell whether it was morniug, t OA*
when Mr. Shrivall first kissed her. It wag abolifijigl.
after she went into his service. She never had artied
or love for Mr. Shrivall ; in fact, she rather
It was against her will that the impropery in tes,"'d
took place. She screamed with all her might ate
with all her might. Mrs. Shrivall came horne:;)4l°l,soo
o'clock; but witness did not cry or tell 17110 d 5: Sll4'
what happened. She did her work as usnlita feel
next morning she gave Mrs. Shrivall notic.e fact, a Pivesoll'
Shrivall persuaded her to stop. She had, in 00 te a tile,
,
hatred for Mr. Shrivall ; but there. was 117,,, her sulle 110
she could make complaint. There was ,011,4,a if Po stir
nurse, and it would have been rather awawe'aoor• oh
gone out, as there was no one to answer th ;sh
had asked, Mrs. Shrivall would have re tell sou
ea her
have gone without asking, and could not p'""
not.—Re-examined When Mr. M'Clellan !too., etioil•
of court on the previous morning, she was fag!ii rge.e°ll, Of{
thing she had said had been from her end nearbej
[The examination of this witness oecnPie„.sre-
hours and a quarter.] Several witnesses -a te" i‘sfebei
examined. They contradicted, directly t° 111
that had been said on the other side, as....dw hall'
tween Wilcock, her mother, Mr. and l'-iiasingecienti
others ; and they represented Wilcock as hat 3."tser'
years sober, modest, and truthful.—gr.,,.l,m-his 10beistg„t
the defendant, said that Wilcock lived with e ese'i,,
about three years, while he was residing tehe_cl,lt.„-a,iiipio
widower. He never saw a nicer, handier s
auto
tbues,
er
saw or heard of anything as to her being autO lierife ji
He never saw or heard anything contrarY ,spet,
every respect honest, truthful, and trustiv.orlfe.4 dio.riore
conducted himself in any way with the shgn."l so u:01,
towards Wilcock.—[Mr. Sergeant Wilkains„*.a betlore;s
to insinuate anything of the sort.]-11e 'l,,ees he„a(1?
sth and 12th of November of the procee,Rc;iserViiiic
magistrates ; that the girl had no legal sdoggeubtl,'''tz
his own name had been most improperly d. he ``.`k to
case. It was for these reasons he interfere,Absecosr
a report in the Northern Daily Times, L'.`ea
•of
his letter.—Cross-examined He never ad:vTer noot.;',,'-tett
change her bonnet; it was done by his sin at'''ottlb" 11'
gave the Mercury any indemnity for the_aco iota oi
his letter ; they had asked for none, and hyailoi toe;
to the paper several times.—Mr. Sergeant aste etteo3;oo
in described described the defence as a shameless Waste
stns ,0
insult to the understanding of the jury, a."ll_-'. heta'.atet,
desecrate justice. As to the contradicts the Eh sl'Ls
Leichman and Mrs. Shrivall, respecting'.
Wilcock, there was no doubt that both Ile the
the truth ; but Mrs. Shrivel], was the moridea trite
lect what did occur, because she had )tat
itendej to r9ir
ly
portunity of Wilcock, and was from the delftr
if the question should be put, yet she rge ht.Yie for
that it was not. He attributed the c'e'specba forbes
to a desire to father her guilt upon a rAde to Ps;flietasiit
parently wealthy man, who might be
to
act of her paramour; and he appealed to _ the _s. e(
before the libel complained of was writtetlloole'ast
'the jalljefell
must not have been—while perfectly "the deetlif.
Wilcock's position—at least actuated
the plaieni.oryr,
sonal malice and malevolence towards sush ", of i,eo
premium were given to the making virtue.. prej
man would be safe. Even the exalted ,01; ;
Gladstone could not save him from a","tierer
the attributing of motives which shoula °'"-t it de.
entertained for an instant.—The learned
i7Jity, tallet:ce,
as the case had occupied, such was its gri:bat ficle" er'
impossible to regret a single moment ._ the „ oth oft
voted to it. There was so much contest !"." or tvbe
so much dreadful wickedness on one s'auho'd-jitliot w
that it was absolutely necessary theY, fip,cotet
cautious how they trod, lest they shoo.: aie'clisio: to rL toe,
he was sure was the object of both,— a'a,,etef;llo
sistent with justice and truth. The actlo,,:clor",(11),0°
blip
compensation for a slander upon a nlle 01313/.01:110'11
libel was of a very strong kind ; but t ~cao Dyes',
by
written and published it, took the bull _
—he neither denied its publication„ .I.ll'zkaoo.e . et
character; he came forward and said,. liberatedhecalro!./
whole of it ; but I justify its utterpublicatiot 0004,,
is true." No man was permitted to i,045 he (OA 01;
by written or spoken language, unless if izto
_op
prove the truth of what he uttered ; coransu'Agi
lib° the Ycr;
the law would protect him• Theby • dulterY nerdeeJ
contained not only a charge of a • yOll 'to peiis
in his own house, and upon one of his you
0,0
whom, as the head of a family, hew a6heu be Voili
in addition to this, it charged that ott Def
upon to do that ordinary justice wh' fo
ads
done ;wrong in this way ought to pet for es*itti
himself resisted the miserable sunP,,tiou nary, b
innocent child, but that when an app_via per) rt 11/,),03"
the magistrates he not only by h,is, sapP° ft ere;
the perjury of others, that he brone,ll.v,s,',itiee.
all that he could to defeat the ends .
°ejcleadlY P,°Pfeta,
possible to conceive a deeper or moil;
with auicoria t hor;
that imparted by this libel; no Paa in the sgssise eto
to character, could ever show himself , th
be true,.;!fie. atio
if what were alleged were the
_
idence sa","de_ 004
Notwithstanding this, if the ev their bot' otan, ,fro•
that the plaintiff was guilty, it bad nd, tileop
give a verdict for the defendant tnu-,
- other be'ltuocil
with consequences. But if, onthere was trust °Aid
not satisfied—if they thought
uld not •t, cc-a nO
bability in the evidence that they could vercbcoall 000
plaintiff would be entitled t°!!!",,es ti‘oa
too, for such an amount of arTie °filled et e °/11.01/
their sense of the enormity o ao
estti,
ble tee' biol.
be to any man of honourable
used • the a c 4
which it must necessarily have , belief 00.0. an 003 j,
upon the jury /OA e'ir jos
matter would depend the t, ef
of the criminal connexion betweento this fac cu,
cock ; if they believed Wilcock::lied 'll)°,l:l;tr'itiietCe
for the plaintiff could scarcely " that the
ship said it was to be regretted _ strict 4,oojat ge
should have abandoned a tours eruendered tiOot wiloo
the parties; his having done s (7,4 a' tO4
have Is.
suspicion that he might
_lid ayerlo_l,diantiliSV
militated against one party, 4*
It was vereal'iljg tGo
had an opposite tendency. „id vac
what interest Harriet Kingsley „id
but th.Q truth; and tier oideu" "

TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 1854,

with
4,
mat.of Wilcock. In conclusion, his lordship di-
'ereiCe inrY unhesitatingly to return a verdict for the
11114 11. on,t if they thought he had established his plea of
of
But if not—if they believed that this charge
thinal intercourse was a pure fabrication—for upon
,174/1t all the evidence depended—then they should
wopireMiet with such damages as would show to the
h' that they itit • believed the plaintiff not liable to such an
tie„. station and would at the same time mark their con-
kirpiou of one who could make such a base, wicked,
404tb°1ical charge The jury retired at 20 minutes
ktilitLight o'clock, and after an absence of 25 minutes
tv.,Land gave a verdict for the plaintiff : damages,
court then adjourned.

Mr. Wood, commissiomagent, was in the plaintiff's
shop a few days before the fire, when the stock appeared
to be a large one ; and, judging from his dealings with
the plaintiff, and from what he saw in the shop, he
estimated the value at between £3,000 and £4,000.
To Mr. Sergeant Wilkins : Did not know that the
plaintiff sold goods to pawnbrokers.
Mr. John Pearson, of Manchester, deposed to selling
goods to the amount of £137 19s. 6d. to the plaintiff in
the three months before December.
Mr. Hill was proceeding to call a number of other wit-
nesses to show that, within the three months preceding
the fire, the plaintiff had purchased goods to the amount
of £7,776 19s. 10d., when
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins said he would admit that not
only that amount, but if his learned friend desired it, that
goods to the amount of £50,000 had entered his shop.
Mr. Pring, traveller for Messrs. Jones and Co., creditors
of the plaintiff, deposed that, in August last, he went
through the plaintiff's stock, and found it to be worth
upwards of £4,000. In November he was again in the
shop, and found the stock materially increased.
To Mr. Allerton : Iu examining the stock we did not
take the goods out of the drawers, merely judging of theli
value by the bulk.
This closed the evidence for the plaintiff.

FRIDAY, Mannar 31.
Aeljel7l2t„ospenea. this morning at nine o'clock, and the
sle(l,;_t was called over. The following gentlemen
for not being in attendance :—Messrs. R.
rnaderv,,‘ Liverpool ; John Bellhouse, Rusholme
licrogden, Kirkdale ; Robert W. Carlton,
etTI Le' J. F. Erskine, Liverpool ; Wm. H. Fitzhugh ;
t:el les so),eri,, Rusholme; Charles Saunders, Wavertree;
-enaY,Withington Daniel Waterhouse, Liver-
gal
yid soa r
Cokt, ItE LANCASHIRE AND YORSKIIRE RAIL-
-4i1.115-r•—in this case the record was withdrawn.
? 004, r• THE LANCASHiRE AND YORKSHIRE RAlL-
kttljtiria,:NY-----This was an action to recover damages
"ph th'et sustained. on the defendants' line of railway,
Do, tl 000 r.legligenee of their servants. The defendants
into court, as ample compensation. It ap-
;ll4 hall' theplaintiff, who is 29 years of age, is the son
tlinlakt enian carrying on an extensive business as a
,oetaerlirer of China clay, in Cornwall, and acted for
a!eia,„c ~as traveller, being paid by commission on the
to,2.,ceived. In March, last year, he was travelling
11):101te4-"' of England. On the 4th of March, he was
land having transacted business there, he took
lZ train to Manchester from Halshaw Moor.
tollt-s,,,,"eing somewhat late, travelled at very consi-
ma sred to regain the lost time, but did not continue
alst,a-Ter3' long, for shortly after passing the next
'-'IX on-fold—the accident through which the
;,20,2041'efeived the injuries for which he sought corn-
-I.tilrieNM/ place. As the wrong was admitted, the
141Ar-ern
for the jury was the amount
the counsel of comnsa-
conversation betweenfour the
• the
k 0.,, defendants offered to pay £5OO to the plain-
-1/41141:aa)114°,„,o. to the £l,OOO already paid into court.—in
fat t,k offer was accepted, and a verdict for that
ash alas en for the plaintiff.
to;nALL.—This was a cros action on an
takli,he ( leei
f. took place a few days ago sand the counsel
submitted to a verdict for the plaintiff.
kfjether-"P, subject to the 'opinion of the court above as
ea,,, a et)„,,u_t not the correspondence in the case consti-
Voe 47act.
teta,„"ife, ha Winn v. YATES.—The plaintiffs are husband
oa tii4Nail,, the action was brought to recover damages
sa,e2ea," comniitted on!Mrs. Cook, by the defendant,
latiatl'il2f last month. The whole affair arose out of
Itott7 "„Ing at a tithe meeting at Prescot. On the
Nt. 'oe day 'in question, Mr. Cook being absent
haZin B,°rce longer than his wife thought right, she
of him and found him and the defendant
te,noe went between them, and the defendant
SeNienal,enhuder the jaw causing her much pain, and she
etat„;',l. Led to wean a child which she was then
relai."„,sa%-'ll, the part of the defence, the affair was repre-
the es • 'eri pot-house squabble, and as the parties were
'1.i1„,,/ilslli't't was suggested to withdraw a juror, in which
ege,
o,! refused to concur. Verdict for the plaintiff,
IIIii')1.,11,1,".„e farthing.
441,7, va`l. v. RusrnicK.—This was an action by the
1)141.aq described himself as a, passenger broker, at
Zat.,.qit'a7ear hist the defendant, who is the owner of the
Velivi:er not carrying 20 passengers in the poop of
N,,ellat:,elll Liverpool to Quebec, according to contraet.
kAgol4 fOr the defence threw up his brief, saying it
t'lk.ji,.`Ase at all for this ccrart.—His lordship assented,
v41).1'3' returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages
ea;l%,:lteet to a reference.
a cent .r • M`DoNNELL:—This was an action to re-
‘a,,ln sum of money under an agreement, for
ad„4ettist'luered. The plaintiff was a seafaring man, and
14‘sta s,,taed to act as the master of a ship. The de-
04;8'e:tiler with his brother, James M`Dennell, were
the Plaintiff
the brig Eliza, of Liverpool ; and they en-
!ri "etee44,lntlff to be the master of 'that vessel, by an
a4lltraaws'ated the 30th of March, 1852, at the ratefof
'Maga wages. On the 2nd of May, the plaintiff
kacn„)-403'age to Buenos Ayres with a cargo of, coals
It a Ito M`Donnell and his wife went as passengers.
',4,""th Passage he arrived at his destination on
to t'laiugust in the same year. He made a trading
1,4,44,15 etc-iv Cape de Verde Islands, by direction of the
sl_nyother, -and subsequently he sailed on his
`r°3 age to England. He arrived at Bristol from
Le.s, on the 'loth of December, 1853, where he
L;s
_cargo, which occupied fourteen days, and
ahaaN. g his vessel, returned to Liverpool to receive
rlsv, He had been absent twenty-one months and
la which at £9 per month would entitle him to
;IN it. 095.185., In addition to tlia.t, he had made small
KIN ,Ale crew, from time to time, which amounted
tot...r`, • and various petty disbursements to the
itt‘,4lßiate"4lB 14e. 2d, thus making his total claim on the'
4%,,11 t232*25. 4d. from which -would have to be de-
-14k4 t 1U ss. received, leaving a balance due, the
Sh_ttittla,°l,satight to be recovered, of about £l2O. The
litt;g th''snlitted that he was drunk seven or eight times
atbe royzae; that he had entered into a charter
llNt4ggeenoe Ayres which the. owners refuse to take up,
it they had to pay £3 65.; that at Queens-
r"elv cei i 7. Irregularities took place on his part ; that he
11 et\ e e
4,11‘1,e1.4 at that place for £95, but he only re-
,ZZ,4tnat value, not the money itself, and that
tilYs to show the cost of the goads. The
faeNll,7,sleb.,throughout the -speriod of his service the
erkr clesic"eg.l.l: etlLtially intoxicated;
.and. that he, either
di " ce arising out of his intemperance, or
"444 sitel/ d gThe
ed 4.01112(4 8 tIeAA e- up expenses against his owners.
44,0 however, on the part of the defendants
I/4 41'4,11; the eh 'es and the jury therefore re-
4tia het f arg • ' •
Oh . or the plaintiff. Damages £127.
®iii"daat Nalt BENNISON.—This was an undefended
god ,;edf; et a3' the plaintiff, a hosier, against the de-
loat4,lAa„,,gule.er, in this town, to recover £2O 12s. for
j;Lt' Verdict for the plaintiff for. the
-ctsb, so.
v. THE LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE
~`-':)..kri,Ny.—The plaintiff in this case was a
31 years of age, having a wife and two
er and it appeared that about the middle of
0% t lie was in the service of Carver and Co.,
its.,lte;;lre per, ihe Halifax station .of the Lancashire and
'‘%-a3, Company to do the horse work, and to
a'ha'4l a )a,,elxis trains. He was going one Thursday
''s cover .'se to shift some ,trucks, and there being a
. tits la the pathway, which he did not see on ac-
in. see, ,darkness of the night, he fell, and the wagon
:`,.3 arm, and severed his right hand from his
till,lte.3ll,tiesZerefore now sought to. recover damages for
tkae i„ace of i"11 he had received-in consequence of the
tc, the the defendant's servants in leaving the
k 'l'44 110 h -tliwaY.—The plaintiff in this case submit-
tl,l Btnt
414. th the objection bx; the defendant that
4akmes - servant of Carver and Co., but was simply
Vllihn"ant in the place of another man who had
e°!' that man not being authorised to do so.
'Jet/riled at half-past five.
SATURDAY; APRIL 1.
t • TAEfOrN'th Rove". INSURANCE COMPANY.—Mr.
N and Mr. Aspland were for the plaintiff;
Attktetttalit Wilkins, Mr. Atherton, and Mr. Foster
1va.,,,,k2c347at5. The facts of the - ease, as stated by
,Liph were briefly as
.followal follow:—The' plaintiff,
7.0,1,•%De_ formerly carried on business as a
tv 41,2 r, 111 Mill-street, in this town, and had a
abstllraell,araace with the defendants. -In November
aa7aost destroyed by fire, and he now claimed
\741;').:)6a-t; on account of his stock-in-trade, £3OO
ktilaa,_ are, „rags,
.and £5O on the plate-glass windows.
(6 Plaintiff made an assignment to his crech-
Qa3,akt a"l:,,e, the:real plaintiffs in the action. All time
tiktlet,t4etd.ll-;11"8 concerning the plaintiff's buena' ess were
144,% %Nal, fire. -For the defendants several pleas
Oistele o;:zacinally to the effect that the stock at the
Isl7a; ' thaeiwas nothing like the amount stated by the
talseld aLlle had not :fulfilled the conditions .of the
et 'll atia. ""0-attributin the disposal of his property
great g •
,antisr, number of witnesses were examined
1)0:4410 at case, with the view of proving the value
tat,ltte4- la Is. the time of the fire. Joseph Evans, the
Itiar,:p evidence, stated that the fire occurred
,LlitB teof iciP as t four Welock hi the morning, and the
tl4lk.)' lat,,estlad.°llse had only gone to bed between tsvo
,44p,e He had been busy taking stock. The
4-";,.1 Ote"-"' efrected in April, 1853, and there had
kt the paid on it. He valued his stock
el. time of the fire. The salvage amounted
e*c: vvaii: He had £2,515 in bank notes in his
tat were also destroyed.
-*°ae about half-past six.
patA t i MONDAY, APRIL
•
r• ekse .r.DIAL INSURANCE COMPANY.—The
1a: et,,Arles rneurned.
Yeti ek, I),Ratters estimated the value of the plain-
theeelner:te°o!,cals to the fire, at £4,000. From the
)444141-aintifrt .1-843 he himself had had transactions
kolie , in the buying and selling of goods, and
1/4;1 SY:eel/mat Y to the plaintiff for which he received
taktae ottate• At the time of the fire these transac-
-4,ll'4aVa_inaiittatilhimards of et,ooo. In November he
tv taw er for goods or as advances, between
c
, 184,3 °nen, who had transactions with the plain-
, 't1,3,1,4'te(1 anlountin to £1,300, deposed that the
ttnck usersta3lllwothficrieg, his opinion, if liana
ttktlittS 111444-staee' twife the'D°polaintiff, stated that she slept
"s to
,0.1-1 the night of the fire, because it was
ON to he"'!? that she should do so, as he did not
144.ka1..f 41:1stha,111eaaetriarn fined by parties witch
were about the
*eider g to serve him with orders.
fat heA'
ea th 2rrls, accountant, of Manchester, de-
aad h e nlght of the fire he called at the plain-
ween e estimated the stock then on the prerai-
s '• -4,000 and .
ak we,,Weant t5'34:11
heohli.am k 2,5001. eaue.—He estimated the woollen
4410 q "tint Nberts, shaper, said in the. year 1845_
saw
assit.'Szl,stak`,_ic hip with the plaintiff. He
let tkizgit huer„, the Alonday previously to the fire,
Ott
hit Pitza,..,"veen £4,000 and £5,000.
i'l44'lle;" tdaintiFraons, tailor, spoke to the large
beta's Wils 8 stack.
Itt p.prethen was at the plaintiffs shop on the
fire, and -estimated the stock at up-
killet*i.eant ay.
abo llkins: Saw the plaintiff, on the
it46,.(shegj hira ,14,,scrlie money ; but plaintiff said he
11—'‘u he had paid his other creditors
op e
tyrl we egt'rt,"nateci the woollen cloths in the
tq tiotOt Wilk, u• 2,500.
Clielt'lB* ''llB I allowed for all sorts of
lett,th,t
1/4,1,16tA5t thetwleer, general merchant, Manchester, de-
ethe three months of August and
A het
ref C2Ay7ltint'fr goods, principally Scotch,
'toe,- 44 ul the ' ; and that on the 10th of
'ed. Plaintiff's shop, which appeared

Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, in addressing the jury for the
defence, said he should prove that plaintiff had knowingly
and wilfully prepared himself for the catastrophe to which
he now sought to attribute his ruin, The plaintiff had
stated that he was not interested hi the issue of the case,
whereas no one could be more deeply involved in it, while
the witnesses were scarcely less interested, inasmuch as
upon the result dependedtheamountof dividend they would
derive from the estate. The learned sergeant next pro-
ceeded to examine the evidence of the witnesses, two of
whom, he said, had valued the woollen stock at the same
price, £2,500, whereas he should show by the evidence of
respectable appraisers, that those goods were worth only
from £1,700 to £l,BOO. He should further prove, that
the statements as to the quantity of broad cloth contained
in the boxes were grossly. exaggerated; and that, in fact,
they would contain only about half the quantity, if even
steam pressure were applied. He would further show
what was the position of the plaintiff before the fire ;
and how he had conducted himself then and since.
He should prove that his creditors had become
importunate ; that he had not furnished an accurate state-
ment of his accounts ; that he made an appointment to
meet them on a certain day, but did not, making an ex-
cuse that. he overslept himself ; that on the night of the
fire he sent his wife out of the way, and that he had given
various excuses for doing so, and made conflicting state-
ments as to where she went. He should show also some
of the modes he adopted on the night before the fire took
place to get rid of a large quantity of stock ; that, on the
night before the fire, he insisted on the payment of certain
money ; that on the night of the fire the plaintiff was
himself the last on the premises, and that if a fire had ac-
cidentally broken out he must have seen it. He had
himself thought much of the case, early in the morning
and late at night, and it had likewise been a cause of
anxiety to him while in bed, and the only conclusion to
which he could arrive was, that the plaintiff had been
guilty of a shocking attempt at fraud.—Daring the deli-
very of these words, Mr. James, Q.C., smiled significantly ;
whereupon the learned sergeant, with great solemnity,
look him to task for so much frivolity on a matter of such
grave interest; observing that "every dog had his day,"
and that he supposed his learned friend was endeavouring
to make an impression on the jury.—Mr. James thanked
his learned friend for his civility.—Mr. Sergeant Wilkins
concluded his address by stating, that he should satisfy
the jury that this was a fraudulent claim, bolstered up by
misrepresentation and gross exaggeration.
Thomas Place examined.—Said he was in the employ of
Messrs. Arthur and George Holme, and made the model
produced. The fixtures are an exact representation of
those in the shop, the scale being on aninch to the foot.
Mr. Thomas Gray, sub-manager of the Insurance Com-
pany, was next called, when Mr. Hill drew attention to the
fact that he had been in court during part of the case.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins expressed his surprise, observing
that he did not know Mr. Gray from Mr. Black. His evi;
deuce was allowed to be taken. He stated that, on the
morning after the fire, he went on the plaintiff's premises ;
he saw the plaintiff, who told him that he and his shop-
men were the last persons in the shop on the previous
night ; that lie had a lighted candle in the shop shortly
before closing ; that he had left bank notes on the counter,
to the value of £25,015, all of which had'been destroyed,
as well as all the books and documents. Previously to this
conversation, witness had found a book in a drawer, which
he believed to be a stock:book. On questioning him as to
his receipts, he (plaintiff) said he had taken as much as
£3OO, £4OO, and £soo—in'no week less than £5O. He
asked plaintiff if he had made shipments to Australia,
and he replied-that he had net. Witness did not supply
the claimant's demand, because the evidence he .placed
before'him was unsatisfactory.
To Mr. Hill : Had employed detectives to-see 'if they
could find that any portion of the plaintiff's property had
passed into other hands about the time of the fire.—To
the Jury : We have not -discovered that any goods were
shipped by the plaintiff to Australia.—His Lordship: That
was a rumour which, no doubt, has given rise to much of
the suspicion against the claimant.
Mr. John Thomas, auctioneer and appraiser, Manchester,
said that, on the 13th- of December last, he was employed
by the Royal Insurance Company to value the-plaintiff's
salvage stock. He did so, and made a liberal suggestion.
It appeared to the witness, from the appearance of the
place when he inspected it, "as if the premises had been
set on fire in three Places." From what he saw of the
state of the shop, he calculated that, if well stocked, it
would contain from £2,000 to £2,800. In his opinion,
'judging from the appearance of the shop; he was convinced
that there was -nothing but mufflers. ties, &c. He
did not think that :a large stock of woollen goods
had been consumed ; for, in that case, the whole
building must have come down; nothing could save
it. - Woollen cloths burned very slowly it would take a
long time to consume £5OO worth. The total amount of
the valuation of the stock, according to the statement of
Tomkins, the shopman, amounted to £2,139 7s. M. In
his opinion, this was at-least 20 per cent. over the real
value.—To Mr. James : s Witness was an auctioneer, at Man-
chester, as well as " High-bailiff to the city. court." Was
not the "brim-bailiff."—Mr. Sergeant Wilkins : My friend
asks him if he is "bum-bailiff,' because he believes he
may be kicked. (Langhter.)--To Mr. James : The value
of the salvage would be.about £3OO. The value of those
goods, before burned, I should say would be from £1,200
to £1,400. He believed that the place was set on fire in
three places.
Thomas Thistle, formerly woollen draper and outfitter,
in St. James's-street, Liverpool, gave similar .esidence as
to the value of the stock and the salvage.
At this stage of the case, the court adjourned until 9
o'clock in this morning.

[About three o'clock, Mr. Hill, Q.C., called •the atten-
tion of Mr. Baron Platt to the fact that his learned
brother, Mr. Justice Cresswell, had left the court, being
obliged to go to London. There were still a number of
.common jury cases -to be .disposed of, and his lordship
would perhaps take into consideration what arrangements
should 'be taken to meet the public convenience.—His
Lordship replied that it was most desirable to get through
the common jury cases as speedily as posssible, in order
to dismiss the jury.—lt was .ultimately decided that Mr.
Baron Platt should take two common jury cases, in which
Mr. Watson, Q.C., is concerned, the first thing this morn-
ing, and that Mr. Watson .shovid dispose of the remainder
of those cases, to leave the learned judge at liberVto
proceed with those marked for special jury.]

hit LIVERPOOL STANDARD, AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL ADVERTISER.

On the 30th ult., at Drury-villa, Aigburth-vale, the wife
of W. D. Chidson, Esq., of a son.
On the 31st ult., at Erskine-street, the wife of Mr. Hugh
Goold, of a son.
On the 31st ult., at Bromborough-hall, Cheshire, the
wife of Robert Rankin, Esq., of a daughter.
On the 2nd inst., at 4, orlett's-place, Falkner-street,
Windsor, the wife of James Carlane, labourer, of three
children. Both the parents are deaf and dumb, and they
have four other children living.