The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-08-21 00:00:00

MALICIOUSLY WOUNDING

Alhii-ton, aged 21, was charged with having, at
Ashton,. in April last, unlawfully and maliciously wounded
one Michael Connor, on Saturday, the 4th April last.
Michael Connor, a soldier of the 86th foot, said :—On the
day in question a number of men came to the door of a pub-
lic-house out of which I was coming, and the prisoner came
out from amongst the crowd with an iron weapon behind his
back. He drew it to strike me. He struck me across the
forehead with it first—a back-handed blow, that knocked me
down. When I was getting up, he struck me again' on the
cheek with the same weapon. I have not the use of my
cheek yet. I fell again to the ground. I then received ano-
ther blow on the head with some weapon. He struck me
twice on the same part of the head. I afterwards became in-
sensible from loss of blood. never saw the prisoner before
that time. I recognised the prisoner afterwards at the In-
firmary. He came with some other men.

John Longinore, a private of the same regiment, was with
Connor when the matter happened. When coming up to-
wards the barracks from the public-house, we saw some men
standing at a corner. We went into the middle of the road,
to keep out of their way. When we got opposite to them,
two men came out from amongst them, and one of them
struck my comrade. (The witness corroborated the testimony
of Connor, and said he was sure the prisoner was the man.)
The other man who was with him caught me and threw me
down. They both went away. Connor was ou the ground,
insensible, and I could not lift him. I left a woman with
him, and went for a picquet, and he was carried away. In
cross-examination, witness said that a man came to the
guard-house with his head bleeding, from a blow of a stone
thrown by him (the witness) just as he was entering the bar-
rack-gates.

Luke Smith said :—At the time in que3tion I saw a man
with a poker in his hand, near Thus. Abraham's beer-house.
I saw a soldier lying on the ground. I did not see a blow
struck. The man threw the poker across the lane, and ran
towards Newton. I cannot say that the prisoner was or was
not the man.

William. Smith heard the poker sound on the, pavement,
and saw the prisoner afterwards. He afterwards picked up
the poker, and gave it to his mother. It was given by her to
one of the picquet.
James Muugan, one of the picquet, produced a tremendous
thick kitchen poker.
Thomas Pennington.—l keep a public-house in Ashton.
I believe this poker is mine, but cannot swear it. I missed
it on the Sunday. It was there on the previous night. My
house is aboutlialf a mile from the spot where Connor was
picked up.
William Smith, recalted.---The knob-end of the poker was

all over blood.
Mr. John Strath, assistant-surgeon to the 86th, said,—l
saw the witness Connor between two and three on the Sun-
pay morning. He was insensible. The skull was not inter-
nally fractured. There were cuts on the head, cheek, and
nose. There was a contused wound on the left side 'of the
head, with much swelling. The forehead was cut, and the
nose. He was insensible for nearly three days, and was in
great danger fdr some time after.
Cross-examined.—There is still a depression of the skull ;
but I do not think his mentallaculties are affected by it.
Mr. M ORPHY addressed the jury in behalf of the prisoner,
dwelling particularly on the absence of evidence to prove the
identity of the prisoner. It was, he said, extremely difficult
to identify parties at a glance, between one and two in the
morning on the 4th of April. The soldier, who spoke more
particularly to this, admitted that he had been sitting several
hours in the puglic-house, and had drunk only one pint of
beer ; but the probability was, that he and his comrade were
intoxicated at the time. The prosecutor was so much injured
that he was altogether incompatent to identify him, and,
moreover, had never seen the prisoner before. If any doubt
whatever existed, the prisoner must have the benefit of it ;
and he contended, that the preponderance of the evidence
went to create a strong doubt of the prisoner being the man.
His LORDSHIP summed up with great perspicuity.
The jury retired, and were absent for about a quarter of an

hour: Tliey returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
• The prisoner, a rather good-looking, stout young man, ap-
parently a labourer, smiled when the verdict was returned,
and said, " My lord, and gentlemen of the jUry, I thank you,
although I am not guilty of the crime that I was brought

here tor."
The JUDGE

—" I hope you are not guilty."

FORGERY

Donald Munroe, (whose case we recently reported, as it
transpired in the police-court, on Monday Ilst,) stood in-
dicted for having forged an order on the Liverpool Savings
Bank for £7O 18s., with intent to defraud Jonathan Brookes
and other trustees of the said bank.

Mr. STARKIE (with whom was Mr. Henderson) stated the

Margaret M`Bride sworn.—l am the wife of Alexander
M`Bride, Custom-house officer, and live in Heath-street,
Toxteth-park. I knew Robert Munrose. He was a sailor.
I had known him for five years. He left the pass-book with
me frequently, and I have gone with it to the bank, and got
money. He left it with me when he went to Demerara. The
prisoner is his brother. He came to me five or six weeks ago,
and said his brother was dead—that he had died at Demerara
in August last. He told me to go to the bank and give a
month's notice that Robert Munroe's money would be
wanted. I kept the book for the month, and then gave it to
the prisoner. I gave it because he called for it. It was on
the 6th of this month. I never saw it again till I saw it in
the hands of Mr. Shaw, the secretary at the Savings Bank.
Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—He told me his
brother was dead. I had heard of his death before. My
daughter was present at the time, and he asked for the book.
I knew that the deceased owed the prisoner money. I saw
him pay the prisoner four sovereigns, some years ago, as part
'payment. Ido not know what he owed in all. The prisoner
kept his brother five years while he was ill and unable to go
t) sea.

The Rev. Jonathan Brooks said he was one of the trustees
of the Savings Bank. His brothel: rector was also a trustee.
I paid all the money. A person brought this book on the
Pith August. (The rev. gentleman here explained the form
which he pursued on paying money, as it appeared in our
paper of Tuesday last.) The money was asked for. It
amounted, with interest, to £7O 18a.. ,The clerk who re-
ceived the check was'Robert Lawton.
Robert Lawton said, that ou that day he prepared and re-
ceived the book and _money orders or checks for payment.
This order is filled up by me. I passed it over to the party
who produced the pass back, to be signed. I donot remem-
ber the prisoner. A person signed it and I believed it to be
his own signature, Another clerk received the check and the
pass book, and deposited them in the usual places.
Mr. Shaw, secretary of the bank, rout with Ainsworth on
board the Maria, lying at the Rock. and found the prisoner,
who was captain of the ship. Witness said there was some
mistake about the money he had received at the bank. Pri-
soner said there could be no mistake in his money, as he had
drawn one fifty pound note, two ten pound notes, and
eighteen shillings. The officer said there was a mistake, and
he must go on shore and have it rectified. He was taken to
biidewell. The officer showed him the check and asked him
if the signature was his, and he said it was. The officer then
asked him his name, and he said it was Donald Munroe. He
was asked why he wrote it, and replied either " ignorantly"
or " innocently," I don't remember which. •
Ainsworth, police officer, corroborated this. He went to the
prisoner for his keys and he gave them to him. I asked him
if he had any money on board, and he said no. He after-
wards said it was partly spent in fitting him out. He then
said " I'll tell you the truth—the money was my brother's,
who died at Demerara; he was a man before the mast in the
ship Kingston." The ship the prisoner commanded was
bound to Africa.
Mrs. M`Bride recalled.—l never saw or heard of any
brother of the prisoner's but the deceased—nor ever heard of
any sisters.
Mr. Bradburn, from the office of the Clerk of the Peace,
Preston, produced documents showing that Mr. Jonathan .
Brooks was a trustee ; they also embodied the rules of the
Liverpool Provident. Institution or Bank for Savings. The
check was read, signed Robert Munroe.
Mr. MuaPuY addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner.
He contended that the questions to be tried were not whe-
ther the prisoner had signed the check, • or received the mo-
ney, but whether he had signed it with a fraudulent inten-
tion. He commented on the openness of the prisoner's con-
duct. He stated to Mrs: M`Bride and her daughter that
the money would be wanted. He made no secret, required
no manoeuvre to be practised. He told her to give notice at
the bank in the usual way. That he signed the check in his
brother's name, arose probably from a mistake. He proba-
bly, when he received the check, asked what he was to do ?
and the clerk might have said, "Sign Robert Munroe at
the bottom ;" and lie did so accordingly, thinking it a form
required. He dwelt on the fact that he had for years sup-
ported his brother, who, it had been proved, owed him mo-
ney ; and as he knew his brother to be dead, he naturally
considered himself his heir, and applied for the money. Had
he been a lawyer in place of a sailor, he would have taken out
letters of administration, or procured a probate of the will of
the deceased ; but how could it be supposed that a seafaring
man like him should know that this was the legitimate mode
of proceeding ? As to fraudulent intention, there was no
one else to claim the money ; no one shown to have a right
to it but himself. He concluded by depicting in strong
terms the general character of a sailor, who was made up of
strong impulses, and but little discretion, and therefore more
liable than other men to be led into error. . .
Jane Blissett, a respectable female, said she had known
the prisoner from his infancy, and gave him a good character.
The Learned JUDGE summed up with great perspicuity.
The jury in a very few minutes returned a verdict of " Not
guilty of a fraudulent intention,"—which amounted to an
acquittal.
William Spencer, aged 24, was charged with having felo-
niously forged and uttered a certain order for the payment
of money, purporting to be the order of one Matthew Brig-
nall, upon the Union Bank of Manchester, for £66, with
intent to defraud the said Matthew Brignall.
Joseph White, a boy between ten and eleven years of age,
said.that he was in Marble-street, Manchester, on the 20th
of June, at six.o'clock in the evening, wihn he saw the-pri-
soner. The prisoner asked him to go an errand. Witness
said his master was in, and he could not go. Prisoner said
tie would give him a penny then, and three-halfpence when
he came back. Prisoner came back in about a quarter of an
hour after he (witness) had shut up, and asked him to go to
the Union Bank for him. Prisoner Went to the top of the
street to show him where the bank was. He then gave wit-
ness a note, and told him to get it changed for him. He
told him to get five notes for it. Witness went to the bank,
and gave the note to a gentleman there. That gentleman
(whom the witness identified) asked him who gave it to him,
and he told him. He was told to tell the person who sent
him to come himself. He went to the prisoner, and told
him.

William
Sudworth.—On the 22nd June last, the prisoner
asked me to take a note or letter to the Union Bank, and
directed me where it was. lie told me to wait for an an-
swer. I went. I was to meet him again in Market-street.
In place of giving the money, they took the prisoner into
custody.
Mr. Mansell, of the Union Bank, remembered the witness
White coming to the bank on the 20th June. He handed
me the check. I said, " What will you have for it; " and
he said " Ten"—not tens. I asked him the amount of the
check, and he said he did not know. I finally told him to
tell the man to come for it himself. I kept the check. I
afterwards marked it and gave it to the officer. On the 22d
June the witness Sudworth brought a note. I took him into
the private room. He said a man had given it to him. (A
note or letter was here produced.) The prisoner was taken
into custody.—ln cross-examination witness said that no
doubt at the time. arose in' his mind that the signature to
the check was genuine.
Mr. Mathew Brignall being shown the check, said, the
signature is so like mine that I will not swear it is not, but I
believe it is not. The cheek is not filled up by me. I
never authorised any body to fill up a check for me. I
Never signed a blank cheek. I find there are two places, if
not three, without any marginal references in my check book.
That check was not drawn out with my consent. No one had
access to the counting-house when 1 kept the check-book but
the prisoner and myself.
The check and the note were both read. The note pur-
ported to be signed by Mr. John Clegg, in whose favour
it was drawn, and was to the effect that he had sent a
check fur £66. on Saturday, by a boy, who brought back a
message, to. the effect that it. was closing hours, and he must
send again, and that. he would feel obliged if the hank would
now pay the amount to bearer.
• A police-officer said he apprehended the prisoner. Wit-
ness told him he was charged with sending a forged check

by a boy on Saturday, and afterwards with sending by
another a note to procure cash for it that day. The prisoner
said he knew nothing of it.

Mr. WILKINS, for the prisoner, addressed the jury with
great eloquence and ingenuity. He contended that as Mr.
Bagnall would not swear that the signature of the note was
not his ; yet he swore that he never signed a blank check,
and that the check was not filled in by the prisoner. Here
was a gross inaccuracy, and the probability was that he had
himself written out andsigned the check in favour of Clegg,
with whom he admitted he had dealings, and that the check
had been laid aside, and afterwards stolen by the prisoner.
That was a crime and a great one; but it was one for the
commission of which the prisoner was not on his trial this
day; and if they thought with him, (the learned counsel)
they must acquit the prisoner. As to the charge of forgery
there was no evidence to prove that the prisoner ither filled
up or signed the note.
Several witnesses gave the prisoner a good character.
In summing up, the learned JTIDGE said, in whatever way
the case was viewed, the prisoner had undoubtedly acted in a
very dishonest manner. This was evinced by his employing
the boys to go to the bank. His lordship carefully recapitu-
lated the evidence, and commented upon it as he proceeded.
The jury, after some minute investigation, found the pri-
soner guilty of uttering the check, knowing it to be forged.
His Lordship deferred passing sentence until this morning,
and the court closed for the day, five ►ninutes before seven.

At twenty minutes past six the grand jury had completed
their labours, and his lordship, in taking leave of them Said,
that the country was much indebted to them for the atten-
tion which they had given to the cases brought before them.
In all the murder cases, four in number, true bills were
found.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-THURSDAY

HUMBLE V. LANGSTON

This was an action brought by Mr. Michael Humble of
this town, against Mr. Langston, a sharebroker, in Manches-
ter, to recover a sum of between £9OO and £lOOO, which he
had been compelled to pay in consequence of the default of
the defendant.
Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Alexander and Mr. Cowling for the defendant.
From the statement of the learned counsel, and the evidence
of the witnesses for the plaintiff, it appeared that in the year
1838 the defendant was speculating considerably in the share
market. In the beginning of that year he was disposed to
speculate in the shares of the Bristol and Exeter Railway
Company. He requested Messrs. Atkinson and Townley,
sharebrokers, Uf this town, to purchase some for him. They
accordingly purchased thirty shares for him, from Messrs.
Richardson and Thompson, who had them on sale for the
plaintiff, for £7 2s. 6d. per share. After the purchase had
been concluded, the shares were sent to Manchester to the
defendant, whci sold them again at a considerable profit. He
now sought to avoid the liability of ,haying the calls upon
them, and to throw it upon the plaintiff. 'The transfer had
been sent to the defendant ; it was not in the name of the
plaintiff,.but of another person ; but the defendant took it to
the office of the company, and, instead of getting the shares
registered in his own name, he caused them to be entered in
the name of the plaintiff, thereby making him responsible for
the payment of the different calls that were afterwards made
upon and paid by him to the company. Mr. Townley and
Mr. Thompson, the two brokers, gave evidence as to their
part in the transactions, and Mr. J. P. Badham, secretary to
the Bristol and Exeter Railway, proved that the calls upon
the shares had been paid by the defendant. Some corre-
spondence between the defendant and the brokers was also
put in. The case for the'plaintiff being closed,
Mr. ALEXANDER, for the defendant, submitted to his
lordship that he was entitled to a verdict, upon the ground
that there was no evidence of priority between the plaintiff
and the defendant.
The JUDGE said this very question had been raised at
Taunton, and was now depending for decision in the Com-
mon Pleas. He bad himself reserved the point in that case,
and it seemed to him that the best course now would be to
take a verdict for the plaintiff with leave to the defendant to
move for a verdict.
Mr. ALEXANDER said he had, further, considerable evi-
dence to produce which would shew that this rule existed
among brokers—that the broker employed by the vendor
was, unless the contract provided other stipulations, the one
whose duty it was to enter any change in the ownership of
shares in the books of the company, in order to rescue his
principal from any risk that might otherwise ensue.
Mr. CRESSWELL intimated that he was satisfied with the
Course suggested.
A verdict was then taken for the plaintiff for £9OO. with
liberty to the defendant to move for a uonsuit.
During the trial of this case, Mr. Bentham, bookseller, of
Manchester, one of the jurymen, was suddenly taken ill, and
being unable to attend to the proceedings, they proceeded by
the consent of both sides with only eleven jurymen.
JONES JUN. V. LITTLER.
The plaintiff in this case is Mr. Robert Jones, jun., brewer,
of Rosehill, Liverpool; and the defendant, Mr. Peter Littler,
manager of the stone quarries belonging to the Earl of Der-
by. The action was brought to recover damages for certain
slanderous words spoken of the plaintiff by the defendant,
whereby he had sustained certain damage in his business.
Mr. Cresswell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Alexander
for the defendant. It appeared that the offensive words were
spoken on the occasion of a coursing match at Kirkby, at a
public house. The parties continued drinking in the public
house till near midnight, and in the course of the evening the
alleged slanderous words were spoken. Part of the words had
reference to the case of personation by the man Connor, which
will be in Ihe recollection of our readers, and another part to
• the effect that • Mr. Jones had been in a sponging house for
debt within a fortnight before.
Mr. Cnr,sswtm„ after opening the case, said, if the de-
fendant was sorry he had used the slander, and would say so,
and indemnify the plaintiff against the costs of the action,
he (Mr. Cresswell) would be content.—Thisoffer was declined,
and the action proceeded. It was not of the slightest interest.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 40s.
RUSSELL AND WIFE V. SMITH.
In this case the principal point in which was a dry ques-
tion of Scotch law, a verdict was returned fur the plaintiff,
subject to a case.