The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-04-14 00:00:00

LIABILITY OF INNKEEPERS.-COOKSON V. CARTER.

This was an action brought. by Mr. William Cookson, a
manufacturer of waistcoat pieces, carrying on business in
Kendal, against Jane Carter, the keeper of the King's Arms
inn, in Old John's-lane, to recover the value of a bag, said
to have been lost from the premises of the defendant, through
the negligence of herself and servants. The defendant
pleaded not gifilty.
Mr. WATSON stated the case for the plaintiff. The plain-
tiff was in the habit of travelling through the country for or-
ders, taking with him a variety of specimens in a bag. On
the 6th of January last, he came to Liverpool, and put at the
house of the defendant. 5n the evening of the 9th, after
having been out seeking orders, he returned to the inn, de-
positing his travelling bag in the commercial-room, where he
himself sat down. Shortly after, a man And woman came
into the commercial-room, and the plaintiff, not liking their
company, went into the news-room. When the disagreeable
persons had gone, he returned into the commercial-room,
and ascertained that his bag had gone from the place where
he had deposited it. It could not be found, and, no doubt,

had been taken by those two persons. The value of the hag
was estimated at £42. 12s. 6d. Mr. Watson said that as a

plea of not guilty had been entered, all that he should, by the
rules of pleading, have to prove, was, that the bag had been
lost, and to call evidence to show the value of the property
lost. He also wished to ask for damages for the loss of busi-
ness which had resulted to the plaintiff in consequence of the
loss of his specimens; but, on his lordship representing that
that was quite a novel claim to make on an innkeeper, Mr.
Watson abandoned it. _

Richard Browne, who was, at the time mentioned, boots
at the King's Arms, stated that he saw the plaintiff's bag in
the commercial-room about seven o'clock on the evening of

the 9th of January.
Mr. William Charles Stripe, tailor and draper, White-
chapel, proved that about five o'clock on the same evening
Mr. Cookson called at his shop, having then with him his
bag of specimens, and that on the following morning., when
he again called according to appointment he was without it.
Witnesses were called to show the value of the specimens,
which was estimated at a much lower amount than that
claimed. _ _

Mr. CRESSWELL, who appeared for the defence, said that
though, an innkeeper was ,undoubtedly liable for the loss of
any of his guests' propertt, when that loss Was owing either
to his own negligence or-that of his servants, he was not
liable when the loss resulted from the fault of the guest him-
self, and that, he contended, was the case in the present
instance. On the evening mentioned, Mr. Cookson saw a
man and a woman, or a gentleman and a lady, or whatever

other title might be more suitable, standing in the passage,
and they asked him the way into the house, he showed them
into the commercial-room, and then politely requested them
to take a seat near the fire. They, however, refused, and
presently after the old gentleman (the plaintiff) went out of
the travellers'-room into the news-room ; laughing at what
he conceived to be a very merry occurrence ;—he had seen
the man chuck the woman under the chin, and toying with
her. He told the company in the news-room whet he had
witnessed, and added, " I have come out of the traveller's-
room, for fear of spoiling good sport." He was asked what
he meant, when he told of his having introduced a man and
woman, who seemed to him at first to he father and daughter,
into the commercial-room ; but he had now found out that
his first idea was incorrect, as he had seen the old man chuck
the young woman under the chin, and —. When Mr.
Ford, a person who assisted in the management of the inn,
heard Cookson speak in that light manner of the two persons,
he went, as a necessary precaution, into the room, but found
two very respectable looking persons, not at all answering the
description given by the plaintiff. He (Mr. Cresswell) would
also prove that when the bag was lost, Cookson said, " Oh,
it is no matter; when she (taking it for granted that the fe-
male was the thief) finds what is in the bag, she will be dis-
appointed. She has got a few things that, if she makes
patchwork of, they will not cover a chair ; they are not worth
25." The plaintiff might, undoubtedly, have meant that they
would not be worth 2s. to her; but still the way in which
he spoke, showed that the estimate that day upon the lost
specimens, was a most extravagant one.
Mr. Ford, the manager referred to, was called, and testified
to the facts opened by Mr. Cresswell. He also deposed,
that on the evening named he saw Mr. Cookson enter the
house, and that he had not then his bag with him. When
the plaintiff mentioned his loss, witness asked him whether
he had brought his bag in. The plaintiff hesitated, but at
last said that he had.
Other witnesses were called. His LORDSHIP then summed
up, and the jury found for the plaintiffs—damages, twenty
shillings.
The court rose at seven o'clock.

Once or twice during the afternoon there was extreme dif-
ficulty, and at length an impossibility, in raising a jury. The
following gentlemen, who had been called over in the early
part of the afternoon, and again in the evening, and who did
not answer on either occasion, were ordered by his lordship
to be fined .-E.s:—Messrs. William Carter, John Eaton, Ben-
jamin Fletcher, John Grantham, John Harrison, Henry
Higson, Jas. Lister, James Nasmyth, John Pilling, Daniel
K. Reay, Peter Saville, Daniel Waterhonse, and J ohn Ware-
ham. The list of absentees would no doubt have been found
much greater, had not Mr. Sergeant Atcherley entered into
conversation with his lordship with respect to a case which
he wished to have tried that night, but stating that it seemed
to him needless to attempt getting a jury. During the con-
versation, the jury which had retired came in, and they were
empanelled to try the case, though sorely against their in-
clination.

CROWN COU RT.—SATURDAY.
Mr. Justice Coleridge, who had doffed the scarlet and
ermine in favour of his black silk gown and short wig, took
his seat a few minutes after nine o'clock. His lordship looked
considerably the worse for his labours in Liverpool, which
have, undoubtedly, been very severe.

SENTENCE OF MR. HENRY CASH AND THE HON. EDWARD

SYDNEY PLUNKETT.

His LORDS I P asked if the above-named parties were in
court, and, having been answered in the affirmative, he or-
dered that they should stand up.
The defendants, who were sitting on two of the seats op-
posite to his lordship, usually occupied by counsel, immedi-
ately arose.
His LORDSHIP, addressing the prisoners, said :—Edward
Sydney Plunkett and Henry Cash, you are now to receive
the sentence of the court for the offences of which the jury
who tried you have, after a very long investigation and the
examination of many witnesses, found you guilty. You,
Edward Sydney Plunkett, have been convicted of having par-
ticipated in the rescue of a fellow-officer, named Fraser, from
a sheriff's officer of the county, and of an assault on Mrs.
Burgoyne ; ;and you, Henry Cash, have been convicted, by
the same jury, of an assault only on the person of John Bur-
goyne. His lordship proceeded to say, that, had this been
a case of mere assault, and had the verdict been to that effect,
he should still have regretted that gentlemen of their station
and profession should so far have forgotten themselves, under
whatever circumstances of annoyance, as to have committed
such an assault. He could not but think, and the feelings of
all gentlemen, he was sure, would go with him, that even an
insult from persons in the station of the parties assaulted
should have passed without any such notice as had been taken
of it, as the line of conduct which had been adopted supposed
a sort of equality which did not exist. Though Mr. Plunkett
had disclaimed the kick, he had not disclaimed the use of im-
proper language ; and he (the learned Judge) greatly re-
gretted, that the defendants had so far forgotten themselves.
He said nothing of the person assaulted by Mr. Plunkett
being a woman, because he entirely acquitted him of any un-
manly feeling in the action ; and he believed that he did not
kick at her with the intention of doing her any bodily injury.
He regretted that this was not the only circumstance in the
case of Mr. Plunkett, for he had been found guilty of an of-
fence which, committed by any person, the law regarded as one
of great magnitude, but, 'committed by a soldier, it was greatly
aggravated. He had always considered the profession of a. soldier
as one of the most honourable, but it was only honourable inits
combination with the character of citizen. A soldier never
drew his sword with propriety unless in- defence of the liber-
ties of his country or in support of its laws, and he never
bore it honourably unless he bore it among his countrymen
as a fellow-citizen. It was a melancholy state of society
when it was otherwise, but what could be expected, if
soldiers found, in their officers, an incentive to break the

laws ? He had, in the course of this trial, heard of one cir-
cumstance, which he noticed with great pain. It was, that
one of the soldiers had said, that the magistrates held their
places only by the support of the military. He thanked God
it was not so, and he hoped it never would be so ; but that
soldiers should speak thus, when they were led by their
officers to violate the laws, was not much to be wondered at.
It was the interference of the soldiery with the civil power
that gave this case its peculiar features of aggravation. He
always regretted exceedingly when the sentence of the law
was likely to be attended by any collateral effect, and he
should be very sorry if, in this case, the sentences which he
felt it his duty to pass were attended by any other conse-
quence than the punishment inflicted by their fulfilment.
He should deal with them as if there were to be no ulterior
result, and, so far as lie had any power or influence, he
should use it that such might be the case, as he should con-
ceive the ends of justice fully answered. His lordship passed
sentence as follows :—The sentence of the laiv on you,
Edward Sydney Plunkett, is, that, for this offence, you be
imprisoned in the. Castle of Lancaster for a period of twelve
calendar months ; that, at the expiration of that period, you
enter into recognizances, yourself in five hundred pounds,
and two sureties in one hundred pounds each, that you be of
good behaviour and keep the peace towards all her Majesty's
subjects for the space of two years. The sentence upon you,
Henry Cash, is, that you be imprisoned in the Castle of Lan-
caster for a period of three calendar months ; that, at the
expiration of that period, you enter into recognizances, your-
self in three hundred pounds and two sureties in one hundred
pounds each, that you be of good behaviour, Sic-for the space
of two years.
During- the delivery of the above address and sentence,
Mr. Cash stood looking fixedly at the Judge, with a smile
on his face. Mr. Plunkett, who is a gentlemanly-looking
young man, hung down his head, and appeared ashamed
and dejected. The parties were immediately beckoned by
Mr. Amos, who was in the dock, and they walked reluc-
tantly into his custody.
Immediately after sentence being passed upon Mr. Plun-
kett and Mr. Cash, his. LORDSHIP addressing the bar and
auditory said, in effect—l wish to take this opportunity to
remove an erroneous impression, which, I regret, has gone
abroad, with reference to some remarks that fell from me re-
garding the prosecution, at an early period of the assizes, of
two men—l believe Larkin Lee and William Pearce. I
must have been greatly misunderstood in what I stated on
that occasion, if it could be so construed as to imply that 1
. meant to cast any reflection, with respect to the commitment
of the parties, upon the magistrate who sent them for trial.
On the contrary, I now distinctly state that I had not even
the magistrate in my mind at the time. I'certainly did make
some strong remarks with reference to the manner in which
one one of the prisoners had been dealt with, but I alluded
solely to those who conducted the prosecution. A charge of
uttering forged notes had been brought against that man, and
when it was found that it could not be sustained before the
Grand Jury, it was intended that he should he used as an
innocent witness against the other prisoner, Lee, after he,
(Pearce) had been detained in gaol from the month of
August. This I considered reprehensible, and Ido not with-
draw any observation I then made respecting the course
taken by the attorneys for the prosecution ; but I repeat that
I disclaim having• imputed any blame to the committing
magistrate, who acted only on the, evidence brought before
him.

THE RETURNED CONVICTS.
Charles Dolphus and William Emmonds, the two returned
convicts, who were sentenced to three months imprison-
ment and transportation for life, were placed at the bar.
His LORDSHIP said, that, on consideration, he had deter-
mined upon altering their sentences. Instead of three
months' imprisonment, previously to being transported, they
were only to be imprisoned one month.
His Lordship proceeded to the trial of the following civil
cases.

•
TARLETON v.ASHTON.
This action was brought to recover the value of certain
timber sold to the defendant. Mr. WIGHTMAN was about to
enter upon a statement of the case, when Mr. STARKIE inter-
rupted him, and said the parties had consented to withdraw
a juror.

MISAULT.—..PIKR v, ORIFFITHS.
The plaintiff in this ease was Mr, Ilayes Pike, of Evetton
and the defendant Mr. David Griffiths, the deputy rate.col
lector of that district. This action was brought to recove
compensation in damages for an alleged assault. The defend.
ant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. MARTIN, on behalf of the plaintiff, stated, that both
the parties in the case were " good conservatives," yet the.
dispute arose out of a political question. They agreed on
almost every subject of general politics ; such as the war with
China, the acts of the Ministry, and other matters ; but, un-
fortunately, they differed on the subject of the person who was
to represent the ward in the town-council of Liverpool. The
defendant had taken a strong part in these contests, and it had
been alleged, and he should offer it in proof, that the defend-
ant had given receipts for taxes to several persons who had
not paid the money, in order that they might he placed on the
registry. (His lordship informed Mr. Martin, that he could
not bring forward such evidence.) Mr. Martin proceeded to
state, that the plaintiff and defendant had met at a coffee-
house, in Everton, where the plaintiff taxed the defendant

with having given these receipts; upon which, the defendant,
who was a powerful man, knocked the defendant down.
His LORDSHIP suggested. that the parties would, probably,
be better friends in future, if such a trial as this were not pro-
ceeded with.

The plaintiff's attorney objected, as there was the question
of costs to be settled by the trial.
His LORDSHIP said, from the opening of the case, it was
not so sure that the plaintiff would get the costs.
The defendant's attorney, through Mr. Sergent Atcherley,
said he was willing to withdraw a juror.
The plaintiff's attorney still objected on the ground of the
costs.

His LORDSHIP said, as it was evident great provocation
had been used in the accusation alluded to, the plaintiff
. .

should consider that he was not by any means sure of his

costs

Ultimately, the plaintiff agreed to the Judge's suggestion,
and a juror was withdrawn.

THOMPSON V. BROADFOOT.
Robert Thompson, the plaintiff in this action, was formerly
steward of the ship Abbotsford, on a voyage to Bombay, and
he sought to recover compensation for an alleged assault and
false imprisonment by Robert Broadfoot, who commanded
the above vessel during a part of the said voyage. The de-
fendant pleaded, first,- not guilty ; second. that he was justi-
fied in the imprisonment on the ground of mutiny; and,
third, that he was justified on the ground of the plaintiff hav-
ing tried to excite a revolt on board the ship.
Mr. HENDERSON, on behalf of the plaintiff, stated, that
the ship, on her outward voyage, was commanded by Captain
Tucker, who became ill, and suddenly disappeared from his
berth in a mysterious manner, and the belief was, that he
had juinped overboard. The defendant, who was chief-mate,
took the command. Shortly afterwards, he called upon the
crew to sign a paper, which Thompson refused. On their
arrival at Bombay, the plaintiff was imprisoned by the cap-
tain's orders, and when the vessel again sailed for England
the plaintiff was liberated and taken on board, when he found
that a new steward had been engaged, and he was ordered to
do duty as a mariner, which he did not understand. In con-
sequence of his refusal to do what he did not understand, he
was imprisoned. His legs and arms were manacled, and he
was placed upon some water casks, on which a few sails were
laid, and he was kept entirely in solitary confinement, where
his sufferings were intense. He remained in this state one
month, with no other food but bread and water. On the
arrival of the ship at this port, the plaintiff was given into
the custody of two police-officers, but the defendant could
not make out any charge on which the authorities would de-
tain him.

William Threlfall, the carpenter during the voyage alluded
to, was called. From his statement it appeared, that the
plaintiff had been very harshly treated, but that he had also
behaved very ill, and had circulated a very offensive rumour
respecting the mode in which the former captain had disap-
peared.
At this stage of
,the case, the parties agreed to withdraw
a juror.

- -
OXTON V. SHARP.---lIREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE, &C

This action was brought for the recovery of damages for a
breach of promise of marriage, and also of various sums of
money lent by the plaintiff to the defendant. It appeared,
by the statement of
Mr. JOHN HENDERSON, counsel for Mrs. Oxton, that she
had some property left to her by her deceased husband, and
that her father left her proprietrix of the Steam-packet
Tavern, near the northern docks, in this town. The defendant
had known her many years, and it had been arranged more
than once that they should be married. The defendant, who
was a musical instrument maker, in this town, had induced
her to dispose of her house, telling her that he did not wish
to continue in the public line after they were married, but
that they would take a shop in Church-street and pursue his
business. He obtained possession of her money, which she
had placed in Messrs. Leyland and Bullin's bank, and placed
it in Hope's bank, in his own name. In the month of Octo-
ber, 1836, the defendant married another person, and the
plaintiff had subsequently borrowed a sum of money which
she had lent to him. She was now reduced to poverty, and
sued as a pauper.
Margaret Birchall, formerly a servant with Mrs. Oxton
when she was at the Steam-packet Tavern, was called. She
proved some circumstances tending to corroborate a portion
of the above statement. Before her examination was con-
cluded, the defendant agreed to a proposal that a verdict
should be taken for the plaintiff, damages £3OO.
DAXENDALE V. SHAW.

The plaintiff in this caseYwas Mr. Richard Baxendale,
coach-builder, of this town ; the defendant, Isabella Shaw,
keeper of the Edge-hill Coffee-house. The action was
brought for a balance on a promissory note, and for goods
sold and delivered. The defendant pleaded, that the note
was obtained by fraud ; that it was an accommodation note ;
and that the only balance due was £6 13s 6d, which had been
paid into court.
Mr. MARTIN, counsel for the plaintiff, in a very humour-
ous address, which was, withal, in some parts, rather indeli-
cate, stated, that, some time since, a person, named Lewin,
arrived from London, who was possessed of personal attrac-
tions which Miss Shaw was unable to resist, and, accordingly,
she married him. At this time, she and Lewin had a car
built by the plaintiff, for which the bill of exchange in ques- •
tion for £BB Is 10d was paid. Subsequently, a wife, whom
Lewin had married previously, came from London, and car-
ried him off. After this, the defendant called her creditors
together, and arranged to pay them all, if time were given to
her. On the bill of exchange she paid, at the rate of .1:5 per
week, all but £22 is 10d. Subsequently, she had another
car built and other work done, on account of which some
money was paid, leaving a balance due on these transactions
of X73.13s 6d. • . •
Witnesses having been called to prove the work done and
the delivery of the goods,
Mr. CROMPTON, who appeared for the defendant, admitted
that he had no defence.
A verdict was accordingly given for the. plaintiff, damages
.£95 15s 4d, less £6 13s 6d paid into court.
WILLIAMS B. BERRY.

This was an undefended action, brought by Mr. Williams,
coaldealer. of this town, to recover £64 2s t'id from Thomas
Berry, builder, for coals and slack sold and delivered. The
sale and delivery were proved, and the jury found for the
plaintiff for the amount claimed.
WHITEHAME V. FLOCKTON,

Mr. COWLING, who appeared for the plaintiff in this case,
stated, that the action was brought in respect of certain calls
on some shares in the Great North of England Railway,
which the defendant, Mr. Flockton, on purchasing the shares,
had undertaken to pay. The defendant pleaded that he never
made the contract alleged, and that the contract was illegal, •
inasmuch as the company itself was illegal, not having been
incorporated by act of parliament at the time of the sale.
From the learned gentleman's statement of the case, it ap-
peared that Mr. Whithame thought favourably of the under-
taking above mentioned when first it was proposed, and that
he paid a deposit of £2 per share on twenty shares of £lOO
each, before the act, which had been applied for, had been
passed. As the shares rose rapidly in value, he determined
on disposing of them, and, in pursuance of this design, he
sent the scrip to a Mr. Dashfield, in London, who sold them
to Mr. Flockton, the defendant, the latter giving a written
undertaking to pay all the calls. The act was subsequently
passed, and since then the defendant had sold the shares ;
but in regard to the other ten he had refused to fulfil the
terms of his contract. There had been eight or nine calls ;,
but for some time the company did not press the plaintiff for
payment, and he had forborne to press the defendant. At
length the company became urgent for Mr. Whithame to pay
the calls, and he had called upon the defendant to pav them,
as he had undertaken, which he refused to do. The first
plea of the defendant, that he had never made any such con-
tract, would be met• by the evidence of Mr. Dashfield, that
he had done so, and it was, in point of fact, admitted in the
second plea, which was that the contract was illegal. The
pretence that the company did not act as a corporation till
the act was made, was idle, as the company was formed for
the purpose of obtaining the act.
Mr. Lake Dashfield was called. He swore, that he re-
ceived the scrip of the shares in question in March, 1836,
and sold it, on the same day he received it, to Mr. Flockton,
for £6 per share, receiving for himself 2s. Gd. per share
commission, which made the whole amount put into his
hands £122 10s. He stated to Mr. Flockton, that they
were sold for a friend in Liverpool, and Mr. Flockton gave
him a receipt and a written undertaking to pay all future
calls. The receipt, &c., were given on the head of a sheet
of writing paper, on purpose that he might send it to Liver-
pool. The defendant also gave him a receipt for his own
private satisfaction. The undertaking was put in and proved
by the witness.
Mr. Dashfield was cross-examined, at very great length,
by Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLY, who, with Mr. Hoggins, ap-
peared for the defence. The object of the cross-examination
was to show, that the witness had purchased the shares for
£BO from Mr. Whitehame, and sold them again to Mr.
Flockton as from himself. The witness stated, that he had
made copies of the letters which had passed between him
and Whitehame on the subject, and that the transaction ap-
peared on his books. He had had a running account with
Mr. Flockton, and owed him money at the time, and though
he admitted that the price of the shares was settled in ac-
count, he denied that the shares were turned over as his own
for the purpose of paying part of what he owed Flockton.
His books, he said, were in London, and he could give a
more minute account of the circumstances upon which he
was pressed, if he could refer to them. He afterwards ad-
mitted, that he had given his books up to the clerk of the
Insolvent Debtors' Court, on the occasion of his taking the
benefit of the Insolvent Act. He paid Mr. Whitehame also
in account.
Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLY suddenly produced the books,
which had been brought from London by the clerk of the
Insolvent Court.
The witness examined the books, but could not find any
entry beyond February, 1836. He then said he had other
books in London. Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLY: Did you not
swear, when the list of nine books was delivered in at the
Insolvent Court, that you had given in a full list 1" Witness:
" I don't know : I swore what was required." Mr. Sergeant
ATCHERLY said, his books had been examined, and there
was not a trace of the name of Whitehame throughout, nor
was there any copy of the letter to him spoken of by the wit-
ness. ' The witness was examined on his banking check-
book, touching shares which, it was recorded on one of the
counterparts, had been purchased from Mr. Whitehame for
£BO, and touching certain remittances to that amount, also
recorded in counterparts, bearing dates 18th March and Ist
and 4th April, to have been sent to a Mr. Ruddle, a relation
to Mr. Whitehame. The witness varied very much in his
explanations of this and other circumstances. He, however,
admitted, that he had only remitted £BO to Mr. Whitehame,
• though he had received £l2O for the shares from Mr. Flock-
ton. He said, as he had made a bargain for the sale of the
scrip to another person who had wished to be rid of the pur-
chase, though the shares were rising in value at the time,
and, as he had paid this person £2O for not taking the shares,
• he thought himself justified in putting the remaining £2O
into his pocket. The name of Whitehame did not appear in
the undertaking given by Mr. Flockton.
It was proved, by the clerk to the company, that the shares
still stood in the name of Mr. Whitehame, and that calls to
: the amount of £43 per share had been paid up.
Mr. COWLING stood upon the undertaking, and produced
accounts tending to show, that, however Dashfield might
have acted in the transaction, he had conducted it as a sale
of shares belonging to Mr. Whitehame, and had received a
commission of £2los. from Flockton for the sale.
Mr. Serjeant ATCHERLY left it to the jury to say whether
they could believe the witness upon whose testimony 'the
allegations of the plaintiff were established and the proof of
the documents rested.
The jury retired, and, after an absence of two hours, they
returned and delivered a verdict for the plaintiff—damages,
£430.
Leave was given to move for a new trial or a nonsuit.
LAWRENCE V. HOPKINSON. . .

Thomas Lawrence, a coach and omnibus proprietor, in
this neighbourhood, was the plaintiff,: and George Hopkin-
son, a coachmaker, the defendant.

Mr. WIGHT:4A gtatad that the plaintiff chimed a hal awe
of £74, on a long series of accounts which commenced in
1837. As the accounts were very intricate, he would pro-
pose a reference. This was at once acceded to, and- a verdict
was taken for the plaintiff, subject to a reference.