The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-09-28 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

CAUTION.—KEEN SPORTSMEN.—Two respectably dressed
young men were on Wednesday charged before Mr. Hall
with having fired their fowling pieces in Edge-lane. The
officer who had caused them to be summoned, stated that the
inhabitants of Edge-lane complained bitterly of the annoy-
ance resulting from the practice of boys and men firing off
guns in that vicinity. Mr. Dowling said these complaints
were not confined to the neighbourhood of Edge-lane, but
the inhabitants of the environs generally stated that they are
exceedingly annoyed by these town sportsmen. A gentle-
man had called upon him a short time back, who stated that
hearing the report of five-arms in the vicinity of his house
he went out to ascertain the cause. He had not proceeded
far when a charge of shot came full against him and destroyed
the lapelle of his coat. If the piece in that instance had
been a litle more elevated, the shot might have injured his
face or destroyed his eyesight. Mr. Hall said it was not long
since a gentleman had complained to him of similar circum-
stances, a charge of shot having lodged in his hat and perfo-
rated it with small holes. The defendants stated that they
were going out to the country to shoot, and they were merely
scaling their pieces, into which they had not put either shot
or wadding. They were fined I.oi. and costs. One indivi-
dual, who represented himself as a butcher, was charged with
a similar offence. He stated that he was shooting to kill
sparrows, which had committed great devastation on a crop
of oats belonging to him. All the sparrows in the town
assembled in this field, and if he did not kill them he thought
he thought he should not have a grain of corn left. Mr. Hall
said he supposed the sparrows had entered into a combine-

tion again.st the defendiint. He advised him to stick to killing►
cattle, and to leave sparrows, goldfinches, and such small
deer to their amusement. The defendant was fined ss. and
costs.

STABBING.—John Francis, aged 15, was placed before the
magistrates on Wednesday, charged with having stabbed
Richard Bryan. It appeared that Bryan was on Tuesday
performing some work in School-lane, which attracted the
curiosity of the lad, who stopped to watch him. Bryan told
him to begone, and gave him a push. Francis laid down a
bag which he was carrying and took out his knife. He made
a rush at Bryan, and stabbed him thrice in the abdomen. A
surgeon's certificate was produced, which stated that the un-
fortunate man was lying in a dangerous state, and altogether
unable to attend the court to give evidence. It was stated
that the prisoner, on seeing the blood pouring from Bryan,
and being made aware of the extent of the injury which he
had inflicted, was so alarmed that he fainted. The prisoner
was remanded till the result of his rash act shall be mani-
fested either in the recovery or otherwise of Bryan.
ROBBERY BY A SERVANT.—Catherine Dogain, was on
Wednesday placed before Mr. Hall. charged with having
robbed Mr. James Morton, of No. 11, Marybone. Mrs.
Morton stated that the prisoner lived in her service about a
month when she was discharged, but was allowed to remain
another week in order that she might look out for a place.
About eleven o'clock on Monday night the prisoner went to
bed. Next morning, at six o'clock, the prisoner was missing,
and it was discovered that many articles of apparel had been
taken away. The front door of the house was fastened, and
the key was missing. Information was given to the police,
and on Tuesday morning, at eight o'clock, the prisoner was
apprehended by police-officer Joseph Burrell, on the Cla-
rence Dock Quay. She had a bundle with her, and was
about to proceed to Dublin. It turned out that she had
stolen a large quantity of valuable wearing apparel, and a
purse containing 1:1s. 6d., belonging to Mr. Morton. The

prisoner was committed for trial.
A DAINTY MORSEL.—Yesterday at the poliee-office, an
Irishman named John Corkan, who had his nose all plaistered
over with sticking plaister, appeared before the magistrates
to prefer a charge against Samuel Whitehouse, for having bit
the end of his nase off. The complainant stated that on
Tuesday night he went into a public-house in New Bird-
street, for a glass of ale; there was card-playing going on in
the house, and the prisoner pressed him to play a game of
cards with him for a glass of ale. He did so, and beat the
prisoner at cards, when, said the complainant, he "bin aman
that could fight, b'in an Englishman, an' I only an Irishman,
he squared at me, an' knocked me down; I tou'd 'im to be
quiet, but he bit a piece right out ov my nose ind. I skriked
out murther, would dhey sae a man murthered in dhat way,
so dhey turned'irn out, an' he got ill used an' dhat black eye
which you see. And' dhat's the note ov the surgeon for the
damage." (Considerable laughter.) Mr. Hall—(who ap-
pears to have a pretty good idea of Irish character,) to com-
plainant—You struck him first did you not? Complainant
—No, I did not shtrike 'im till he shtruck me. The land-
lord said he saw them fighting, and tried to part them but
could not, and sent for a policeman. Mr. Hall—Did you
see his face after the bite? Landlord—No sir; a very small
bit was taken off his nose, and the doctor said he thought it
would grow up again after a time. Mr. Hall—(reading the
doctor's certificate)—The doctor says it will be some slight
disfigurement. The landlord said that the two men were
shop-mates. Mr. Hall—(to complainant)—You have been
at some little expense; the doctor says you have paid him
10s. Complainant—lt's not honly chat sir, but I'm working
at colour grinding, and as we use a dale of arsenic, the doc-
tor says it 'II eat my nose off if I go to work before it's well.

(Loud laughter.) Mr. Hall—(to prisoner)—Well, what do
you say ? Prisoner—Well, I don't deny biting his nose,
that is right enough. He was strangling me ; he had got
me round the neck on the floor, and his hands in my hand-
kerchief, and had bit my ear right through, so I was like to
do something. I bi't the man in self-defence. The officer
here examined the prisoner's ear, and said it had been bitten
completely through, he had also got a tremendous black eye.
Mr. Hall—Then this was in retaliation? Well, I will give
you an opportunity of talking to the complainant; he has
been put to some expense. The prisoner expressed his
thanks to the magistrate, and the parties retired. In a short
time they again appeared, and the complainant said the pri-
soner would not pay him. Mr. Hall said he had given the
complainant an opportunity of taking the 10s. and he was a
great fool for not taking it. Complainant—Considhur the
time I shall be out ov work; will, thin, I'll tek a Pound and
costs. Mr. Dowling said the prisoner had offered to pay that
and the complainant refused to take it. Complainant—l'll
tek it thin. Mr Hall—You just want to make a job of it;
you just want to wring money out of his pocket. You are
making a great deal more about it than the case deserves,
besides it was not done without provocation ; if you choose
still to settle. I will give you an opportunity; I am willing
the money should go into your own pocket, rather than he
should be fined and you get nothing. The Irishman then
agreed to take the £1 ss, which the prisoner immediately
paid, and was discharged.
MaznimoritaL FELlClTY.—Yesterday at the police-office,
a Welsh woman, named Morgan, with a considerable indi-
cation of the virago in her face, appeared before the magis-
trates to prefer a complaint against her husband, also a
Welshman, for beating her. The complainant commenced
her complaint by stating of the defendant that he was "a ferry
pad huspant, he swore at me, an' trinks an' tills me py inces,
an' on Tuestay night he peat me ferry much, an' hurt my
side, an' 1 can't lif with 'lin no lonkarr." On being asked
what he had to say to this, the defendant said—On Tuestay
night she would not untress the child; so I untress it myself;
it is a child py another wife; she would to notin, an' when I
was asleep, I felt somepody clampering on the top ov me,
outside te clothes, an' it was hur, my wife tere, right on top
ov me, (loud laughter) an' I thought she was coin' to murter
me, so I pushed her off te ped ; pud she held fast py te
clothes, an' so we poth tumpled clothes an' all on to te floor,
(roars of laughter) an' tat's te way she cot hurt on her side.
I nefer had occasion to come pefore a magistrate pefore; she
is my third wife, only married since March last, but she looks
what she iss; only look at her, her looks tell you what she
iss. (Continued laughter.) Mr. Hall—How old are you ?
Defendant-50. Mr. Hall—You had better have kept single
and taken care of your children; however, as you live so un-
happily together,you had better separate : what will you allow
her? The defendant agreed to allow his wife 3s. a week, to
be paid through Mr. Evans at the parish office. Mr. Hall
—Well pay her 2s. for this week—pay her now. Defendant
—Oh, r will ;if her 2s. now, as well keep her from te toor.
Complainant—(in a tone savouring of salts of lemon—vinegar
was nothing to it)—l am not sorries. Mr. Hall—Well, give
her her clothes? Defendant—She nefer had no clothes when
she came to my house. Mr. Hall—Well, don't molest each
other again. Go away, and fancy you are single. The
"happy couple" then left the court.

INFORMATION UNDER THE SMALL TENEMENTS ACT FOR
THE DETERMINATION OF TENANCY.—Yesterday, at the
Police-office, Mr. Kenyon, solicitor, appeared in support of
an information under the above-mentioned act, taken out by
Mr. Joseph Shakeshaft against Mrs. Gooding, an old woman
occupying a cellar in Paradise-street. We give a full re-
port of the case, as it is the first which has succeeded under
the new act.
Mrs. Precilla Grant deposed that she knew Mrs. Gooding,
and that she occupied a cellar, formerly occupied by herself
in l'aradise.street, the property of Mr. Shakeshaft, for which
she had paid 3s. 6d. a week, and which she afterwards let to
Mrs. Gooding at 3s. 6d. a week, and told her bow it was to
be paid. She believed sbe began to hold the cellar on a
Monday; this was two years and a half ago.
John Blakeley deposed that he was in the employ of 111

Shakeshaft, andthai in March 1837 the defend;nt-lived in
a cellar under Mr. Shakeshaft's shop in Paradise-street, and
she was to pay 3s. 6d. a week rent, and to pay it every
week.
Mr. Kenyson.—That is the proof I tender for the holding.
I now hand in the notice to quit. On the 25th of August I
served that notice on Mrs. Gooding, and told her it was a
notice to quit, and left a duplicate with her.
Mr. Hall.—Did she say anything to you at the time?—
She said she would not have it; she threw it back again.—
Has any rent been received from her since?—No, nor for
nine months previously; we have not accepted the tenantcy
nor distrained her.
Mr, Hall.—First of all give us some evidence that you
went to demand and receive possession, and that she refused
to give it.
Mr. Kenyon.—Do you not think the retaining possession
is sufficient without the demand ?
Mr. Elall.—l don't know that: she may be ready to give
it up to-day, or any time previous.
Mr: Kenyon.-1 will prove that I called on Tuesday, and
she refused either to give up possession or to attend here.
Mr. Hall.—That is subsequent to the notice?
Mr. Kenyon.—Yes.
Mr. Hornby was here examined. He deposed that a
notice produced was his hand-writing, and that he served it
on the daughter of Mrs. Gooding on the 19th of September.
Mr. Hall.—First of all prove the owners wand-writing to
that; you are going too fast. Did you serve the notice of the
intention to apply? Witness.—Yes, sir.
Was it signed ?—Yes, sir.
By whom?' By Mr Shakeshaft ?—Yes-
In your presence?—Yes.
Did vou read it to her ?—Yes.
And explain it to her?—Yes, 1 did.
' Now prove that your notice annexed to your complaint is
a duplicate of the original.
Mr. Kenyon (to witness)—Did you examine that notice
with the original ?—I did.
Whose hand writing is that at the bottom ?—Mr. Shake-
shaft's.
Mr. Hall.—Now prove that he has been to take possession.
Mr. Kenyon.-1 prove that on Tuesday I went there.
Mr. Hall.—When was the notice served?—On the 19th.
Then she would have seven clear days. When did you call
again?
Mr. Kenyon.—To-day, or yesterday, is the expiration of
the seven clear days.
Mr. Hall.—When did you call to get possession ?
Mr. Kenyon.t—On Tuesday, after the notice to quit was
expired.
Mr. Hall.—Well, then, you gave her notice according to
the intention, that unless possession was given up in seven
clear days, which must be exclusive of the day of service, you
should apply. Then prove to me, that at the expiration of
seven clear days from the notice to apply, that she refused to
give up possession.
Mr. Kenyon.—Very well. I prove that she is now resi-
ding there.
Mr. Hall.—Exactly so; but she might have been ready to
give it up.
Mr. Kenyon.—l submit that there is neglect and refusal
to give it up.
Mr. Hall.—That is what I say. Show me neglect or refu-
sal? You are confounding the two notices, the notice to
quit and the notice to apply.
Mr. Kenyon.-1 respectfully submit that a party retaining
and continuing in possession after that notice, is a sufficient
refusal to comply with the terms of the act. I will prove to
you that she is now there and still retains possession.
Mr. Hall.—How can a person be said to deliver up posses-
sion to a landlord when nobody is there to deliver up posses-
sion to. Am Ito throw away. the key?
Mr. Kenyon.—Take a notice to quit for example. If you
remain there after the expiration of the notice to quit, you
are a trespasser.
Mr. 11a11.—You don't understand the thing at all. This
is an act of Parliament by which 'we are bound. This is
giving a jurisdiction to the magistrates, by which we are
bound. The act of Parliament says this, that after you
have done certain things, all of which you have proved this