The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-08-25 00:00:00

viously made. Deceased then struck the prisoner, when force an entrance into the mill ; he went in the direction
the latter laid hold of the deceased, threw him down on whence the noise proceeded, where he met with the pri-
the floor, and repeatedly kicked him with great severity on soners, to whom be spoke. Angry words ensued, and
the left side. The injury inflicted was described by the prosecutor was knocked down and severely beaten, until
surgeon as the cause of death. The prisoner was in bed he became in a state of insensibility, and, upon recover-
when his father died, and on being told of the circumstance ing, he found that his lanthorn and bat had been taken
said, " I wish they would hang me now." Tne jury away.—His LORDSHIP expressed an opinion that the
found the prisoner guilty, and his lordship, after a very evidence was not sufficient to sustain the charge of rob.
appropriate and impressive admonition on the nature of bery. and '
the crime he had committed, sentenced him to seven years' not be proceeded with on that indictment
transportation. left the court to consult Mr. Justir-
James Brierley, 21, was charged with having feloni- point, and, upon his return, sal
ously counselled, aided, and abetted Hannah Gee in com- with him, that unless there was
miffing bigamy. The principal witness not appearing, intent was to commit a robber
the prisoner was discharged. could not be sustained, for if st:
.Roger Horrocks, 41, was charged with having assaulted must be Licluded in another indictrrer
Thomas Greenhalgb, and robbed him of a sovereign and quitted the priQoners. and they were die
half sovereign, at Bolton. The innocence of the pri- CHARGE OF THEFT OP. EMBE-
soner was made manifest, and he was acquitted. James Buller was indict-•d far en,'
DISCHARGE OF. THE GRAND JURY. the property of his employers, IV
Shortly before four o'clock, the grand jury entered the and Francis James Gill. Mr.
court with the last of the bi'ls which had been entrusted prisoner was without counsel.
to them for their consideration. Wm. Entwisle, Esq.,
the foreman of the grand jury, read the following pre-

ssault could
His lordship
Cresswell upon the

ing so, the minor charge of

.d his brother Jud

nee to show that t

was charge
—The jury

£5 17s. I ld

William Moll.

Hutton pros

,uted ; th

vers at Leigh, and the prisoner was employed by there
the capacity of clerk, and it wzs part of his duty to

sentment :
"The grand jury having concluded their examination
of the cases submitted to them, feel it their imperative
duty to place on record their opinion as to the prevalent
habit of drunkkenness, so forcibly alluded to in the charge
delivered to them by Mr. Justice Wight man, as being at
least the cause of four-fifths of the offences comprised in
this and almost all other calendars, as well as with regard
to the best and most efficient means that can be adopted
towards the extinction of that degrading practice.
" It is obvious, from all the records of crime, that a
large proportion of offences are committed by those who
are imperfectly or not at all educated ; and on this most
striking fact the grand jury rest their conviction, that no
great improvement can be expected until the means of
education are placed within the reach of all classes of the
people.
"They are, at the same time, sensible that such an ob.
jest can only be attained by means of a provision for na-
tional education to be made by the state; and, for this
purpose, they do respectfully call upon the government to
introduce, in the ensuing session ot parliament, a measure
which, by its comprehensive and conciliatory nature, shall
be likely to obtain a general consent, and which shall have
the effect of securing the general education of the popula-
tion of these kingdoms.
"The grand jury are satisfied that, while early educa-
tion alone can gradually eradicate the vice, and prevent
the evil consquences of drunkenness, it is also most im-
portant that a better spirit and tendency should be pro-
duced in the mass of the community, by providing the
means of recreation, and employment ot leisure hours in
other puquits than those which now so unhappily prevail;
and they point with great gratification to the exertions
which have lately been made in this town and in Manches-
ter, by the establishment of public parks, museums, and
libraries, for that purpose. It is in vain to look for any
amendment in the national character until an inducement
can be offered to those who have now hardly any other
enjoyment, to relinquish the evil indulgence of habitual
drunkenness.

toe nanus in the mill, and for that purpose, on the Ist of
August, he received £163 Ye. Cd., and after paying- wages
accounted for the balanec in the " mill book," but it
turned out that he had entered different items for greater
sums tha❑ had actually been paid. Mr. Alajor not being
present to prove the rendering of the account by the pri-
soner, his lordship ordered a❑ acquittal, and the recogni-

disallowed.—Before. the court rose, Butler was a;
!licted on a similar charge, upon which occasion Mr

Jur, toe prosecutor, gave evidence. The jury found him
guilty. He had been previously convicted, but owing to
an informality the convicrion could not he proved. The
prisoner was sentenced to six months' hard labour.

EMBFZILEMENT.
Matthew Sherlock Hilton, 19, was charged with hav-
ing embezzled £7 9s. 2d. with intent to defraud John
Woodcock. Another account laid the charge with intent
to defraud John Newton and others. Mr. Brandt prose-
cuted, and Mr. Joseph Po:lock defended the prisoner.—
Messrs. ICeates, Newton, and Co. arc the partners con-
stituting the British and Foreign Copper Company, at
Sutton, near St. Helen's, and the prisoner was employed

as clerk under them, and it was his duty to reed/
check the acionnts of the bills due from the firm, a
the 4th of July he took a bill for £7 9s. 2d. purporting to
be receipted by John Woodcock to the cashier
money was given to the prisoner, and it was sub,- _
ascertained that it bad not been pa'Al to Woodc,
neither was the receipt to the bid that of Woodcock.-
Tne defence was, that the prisoner had not acted with a
felonious intent, but under the impression that hell,
authority of Woodcock to do what he had done.
jury acquitted the prisoner.—The prisoner was then
dieted for having embezzled £4 lls. belonging to his em-
ployers, by representing that he had-paid divers sums for
wages, which in fact he had not done. Mr. Pollock took
an objection to the indictment. The prisoner was found
guilty, but Mr. Pollock's point was reserved for the opi
nion of the judge.

quently

" The grand jury are aware that this is not the occasion
to enlarge further on these points, however important;
but they earnestly hope that this public expression of their
feelings, consequent on their position, will conduce to the
public good, by promoting the consideration of these sub-
jects. _ . _ . _ .

Al A LICIOUSLY STABBING.
Francis Riley, 21, and Elizabeth Hailes, 20, were in
dieted for having hi miously cut and wounded Ann Sa
cage, with intent to do her grievous bodily harm. Th,
prosecutor, who is a woman of some sixty years of aze

" On behalf of the grand jury,
" Wm. ENTWISLE, Foreman."

prisoners, and in June last a quarrel took place amongst
them. In the affray the male prisoner stabbed the prose-
cutrix with a knife, and Hai!es was assisting and abetting.

Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN said, he was sure the public
were very much indebted to the gentlemen of the grand
jury for the consideration they had given to the subject,
and for the just observations they had made. He hoped
the matter would receive that consideration which it de-
served. He congratulated them on the conclusion of
their labours, and conceived the county was very much
indebted to them for their valuable services.
John Cremplon, 18, and Thomas Greoson, 18, were
charged with having assaulted Thomas Whitehead, at
Little Bolton, and robbed him of 3s. 6d.—Acquitted.
Patrick Dowling was found guilty of stealing a cow at
Little Hutton, and sentenced to twelve months' impri-
sonment.

Tire prisoners were found guilty of an aggravat
and were sentenced to twelve months' ioaprisol
hard labour.

,-FRIDAY

RAWSON 'V

This was an action brow
Thomas Anthony for the

ht by Henry Rawson against
!ecove.ty of the value of fifty

shares in th

was reauy anu willing to deliver, but which the defendant
refused to receive. The defendant pleaded that he did
not make such a contract as the plaintiff alleged.
The plaintiff was, at the time of the transaction, a hosier
at Manchester. He was at pre,ent a sharebroker ; the de-
fendant was also a sharebroker: and the action was brouzlit

John Hoyle was acquitted on a charge of robbery
\Vorsley, in consequence of the prosecutor having it
duced him, by promise of forgiveness, to acknowled
his guilt.

to recover the value of a lot of shares which we
him by the plaintiff. The substantial quetion in the c
was this : whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to
deliver the shares within a reasonable time.

sold to

The following prisoners pleaded guilty :—Thos. Croft,
23, charged with bigamy. Edward Darcy, 30, charged
with bigamy. Bernard Ryley, 26, charged with forgery.
Hannah Gee, 25, charged with bigamy. Thos. Simms,
17, charged with bigamy. Mary Bell, 23, charged with
having, at Liverpool, endeavoured to conceal the birth of
a child, of which she had been delivered, by secreting it
in a chimney. The sentences were deferred.

The jury returned a verdict fur the plaintiff on the
and third issues, and for the defendant on the second

The case occupied upwards of five hours, but with the
exception of the parties mainly interested, it was of very
little public importance beyond that of exposing some of
the tricks of the trade.
Ile JUDGE said he had never sat with so little sltisfac-

NISI PRIUS COURT.

—Tn U,RS D AY

BREACH OF CONTRACT.—MOSS V. DICKSON.
Mr. MARTIN stated the case. The plaintiff, John Moss,
was a corn and meal merchant, carrying on business at
Manches'er. The defendant, Alexander Dickson, was a
distiller and miller at I3elturbit, Cavan, Ireland. and this
action was for a breach of contract for the sale of oat-
meal. In 1844. Mr. Dickson's meal had a very good
name in the market. It was known as " Dickson's fine
meal," and brought a very high price. On the 29th of
September. a contract was entered into by which the de-
fendant agreed to supply 3000 loads of his best fine meal
at 21s, 6d. free on board, freight 4s. 6d. to Runcorn, to
be delivered at 500 loads per month, commencing Octo-
ber, 1844. After September, 1844, grain began to rise,

and the shipments made by defendant turned out to be of
an inferior quality. The defendant maintained that the
meal shipped was of the best quality, declined to leave
the matter to arbitration, and said he should be glad to
have an opportunity, in a court of law, of proving that
he had fulfilled the contract. Toe plaintiff had the ship-
ments surveyed by Messrs. Powell and Slattery, corn
merchants, of Liverpool, who gave it as their opinion
that the quality was not only 2s. 6d. per load inferior to
any. of Mr. Dickson's former shipments, but below any
of the shipments from Ireland.--Several witnesses were
examined.—John Herd. corn merchant, of Liverpool,
said the meal that came from Ireland in 1444 and 1845
was generally of a good quality. Saw some meal at
Fletcher and Co.'s warehouse, in Manchester. It was
not Dickson's best meal ; it had a bad colour and smell,
and was ground so small that it was almost impossible to
tell what it was made of. The dust seemed all to have
been retained. His (witness's) opinion was that the pin-
head meal had all been taken out, and the rest ground
down together.—Cross•examined.—Did not come there
with an unfriendly feeling to Mr. Dickson. Had not
made up his mind whether he would bring an action
against Mr. Dickson after this. Had offered to quash
the matter altogether, but defendant had refused. Mr.
Dickson had commenced an action against him, (witness.)
but dare not carry it on. It was not stopped by his
(witness's) misfortunes. Daniel Powell, corn merchant,
of Liverpool. On the 15th March, 1815, went over with
Mr. Slattery to the Old Quay Co's warehouses, at Man-
chester, to examine some oatmeal. The quality was very
inferior. It was very inferior to Dickson's best fine meal.
He agreed with Mr. Herd's description of it. The nutri-
tious quality was abstracted, and the remainder was unfit
for food. Examined some meal on board a flat, and it
was of the same description as that in the bins of the Old
Quay Company ; 21s. 6d. per load in September, 1541,
was an extreme price. Thomas Slattery, corn merchant
in Liverpool, accompanied Mr. Powell to Manchester, in
March, 1845, to examine some oatmeal. The meal in the
flat and in the bins was of the same quality. It was very
inferior. The best part of the oats appeared to have been
taken out, and the oats had been ground before they were
dry. Agreed with Mr. Herd and Mr. Powell as to the
quality. He thought the difference was 3s. or 3s. 6d. per
load. Mr. Knowles took an objection to the declaration,
on the ground that there was a difference between the
two contract notes, the one stating that the consideration
was 3000 of fine oatmeal, and 300 loads pin-head meal ;
and the otker only mentioning the 3000 loads of fine.
His lordship, on the application of Mr. Martin, amended
the declaration. Mr. Knowles then contended there was
no proof of a compact at all. His lordship considered the
objection of no avail. Mr. Knowles then addressed the
jury for the defendant, and called several witnesses to
prove that the meal was good. The learned judge sum-
med up, and the jury, after a few minutes' consideration,
found for the plaintiff, damages £3OO.

RAILWAY SHARES.—DARTON AND ANOTHER v. LEES.
The plaintiffs, Messrs. Barton and Birchall, were
sharebrokers in Manchester, and the defendant, Samuel
Lees, a n.erchant there. The action was brought to re-
cover the sum of £478 2s. Gd., the price of 150 shares in
the Trent Valley and Continuation and Holyhead Junc-
tion Railway, which it was alleged by the plaintiffs had
been bought by them for the defendant. Verdict for the
defendant, on the ground that the order had been revoked.

REED V. NUGENT.
This was an undefended action on three bills of ex-
change, the defendant being the acceptor of two, and the
drawer and endorser of the other. Verdict for the plain-
tiff for £lB5 15s. 6d.

CROWN COURT.

-FRIDAY.

MALICIOUS

Charles Lyon, 29, was indicted for having, at Knows-
ley, maliciou,,ly shot at J -hn Wainwright, with intent to
do him some gt ievous bodily harm. Mr. Brandt appeared
to prosecute, and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins defended the pri-
soner. The nominal prosecutor is a gamekeeper to the
Earl of Derby, and on the night of the 15:11 of April last,
along with another keeper named Birch, was keeping
watch on the preserves of the noble earl, and whilst doing
so they met the prisoner in company with another man,
named Lloyd, who were armed with guns and in quest of
game. No words took place between the parties, but a
gun was discharged, which was alleged to have been fired
by the prisoner, and Wainwright received slight shot
wounds in his knuckles and leg, A witness was called
who stated that on the evening of the night in question he
was in company with the prisoner and the man Lloyd, at
a public-house in Knowsley, where the prisoner said he
and his companion were goirg in search of game, and
that if they were " mislested" by Birch or Wainwright,
he would do their business for them.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS addressed the jury at some
length, and submitted. in the first place, that the question
of identity of the prisoner was not made out; and next,
that if the prisoner was the man who fired the gun, it was
not done with the intent charged in the indictment.
The jury, after retiring for about two hours, found the
prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to fourteen years'
transportation.

cturer at S:

of bus

was given to

John VV

, in a very e

plaintiff on the 15t

Isondon, of tile;

with goods to the amo

e line.
th No-

if a hardware

of Purvis, w
150, the defe

answerable for the value in three m
amount of .£ll9 o,A

)ods to t

nounts

s to the v

:ion was brought

ria nt would

s after that time.

VerdiC

DVENTURE IN SEARCH OF NITRATES 0

1 these two

BE COAST

FRICA

WINCI-I.AND OTHERS V. HAMILTON AND. ANOTHER.
This was an action brought by Henry Winch, John
'e, and John James Melbnish, shipowners,. of Li-
,gaifist John Hamilton and James. Baines. ship-
.

Stockdal

verpool,

ber of twent

:yen ple

plaintiffs to proceed to the coast of Af

ate of potash. The

.c 1), 1845

well if the a

ition of_cultivators were turned