The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-11-02 00:00:00

" JOHN R. EvANs, Chemist
'—See Advertisement.

SHAMEFUL FRAUD.—A case was brought before Mr
Rushton, on Friday, of some importance to the public, and
ought to put persons on their guard against purchasing pawn-
tickets from unknown individuals. It appeared from the
statement of Mr. Dowling, and Constable Ainsworth, jun.,
that it has been the practice of certain pawnbrokers in Li-
verpool, to carry on a species of fraud of an exceedingly dis-
graceful nature. The manner in which it is done may be
gathered from what follows :—John Graham, a person well-
known to the police us a suspicious character, was charged by
Constable Ainsworth, jun., with attempting to defraud Win.
Williams of the sum of 163., by offering for sale a pawn-
ticket purporting to be the ticket of a watch pledged for
£2 13s.' with Mr. M`Pherson, pawnbroker, Titheharn-
street. It seems that upon making inquiry into the value of
the article, it was not worth near the amount of money
stated, and that it was supposed IT Pherson, having a num-
ber of watches an hand which had not been redeemed, re.•
entered them into his book, in a fictitious name, for perhaps
three times the amount of the actual value, and afterwards
employed such persons as Graham for the purpose of dis-
posing of these false tickets for such sums as could be re-
alised, and upon the present occasion he had offered for sale,
to William Williams, the ticket as above stated. Constable

COURT OF PASSAGE.-FRIDAY, 29nt OCTOBEB
(Before CHARLES CROMPTON, Esq., Assessor.)

CONNOLLY V. MOMIN.AUD

This was an action to recover the sum of £l9los. for meat
drink, and necessary attendance, supplied for, and at the re.
quest of the defendant, to Margaret Tipton,- and for work
and labour done. The defendant pleaded that he was not
indebted and on this issue was joined.
Mr. Munntv, M. P., who appeared for the plaintiff,
having recited the several counts in the declaration, said the
plaintiff was a poor widow keeping a lodging house in th'
town, and the defendant was an extensi'
also holding the office of French consul
time in the year 1840 he had a female
named Margaret Tipton, who was posse,
personal attractions. A slight lapse tow
and Mr. Morinand, the defendant. The
that Mr. Morinaud, being a married roan,
that the matter should come to the ears of Mrs.
felt it necessary to remove her for the purpose of her accouch-
ment to some place beyond the observation of his wife. He,
therefore, took lodgings for her at the house of the plaintiff,
in the month of May, 1840, to whom he agreed to pay 12e. a
week for her board and lodging, during the time the girl re-
mained there. It would appear in evidence that she rein,' --
there from the 20th of May, 1840, to the sth of
1841—a period of 27 weeks; which, at 12s. a
amount to £lB 10s., which added to £1 for the attendance or
the nurse, during the accouchment, would make the amount
he (the learned counsel) sought to recover by the verdict of
the jury. The mode by which he sought to fix Mr. Mori-
naud with this debt, and he had no doubt whatever of being
able to ao it, was by showing that he had gone to the plain-
tiff's house over and over again, to see Margaret Tifton, as
often as three or four times a day—that he had exhibited a
great deal of solicitude for her during the period of her ac-
couchment, and that he had more than once promised to pay •"
the amount then due. He should show that on one particular
occasion Mr. Morinaud had taken her into Cheshire, and re-
mained with her all night—that when they came back, he
repeatedly enquired after her comfort, receiving the satisfac-
tory assurance that she felt as comfortable as, under the
circumstances, might be expected. It would further he
proved in evidence that in consequence of some arrears of
rent not being paid, the plaintiff, who, as he had said 1,--`
was a widow woman, wanted money to discha.,,
ticularly as the bailiffs had been put into the house.
money due for the maintenance of Margaret Tipton were
paid, she thought it would have saved her from this impending
visit. She therefore employed a female named Doyle, whilst
the bailiffs were in the house, to wait upon Mr. Morinand to
represent her destitute condition, and to ask him to advance
the amount of £lO. This woman would tell the jury that Mr.
Morinaud then said that the account which she had put into
hand was correct, but as lie had not at that moment sufficient
money to pay it, he would call and settle it very soon. The
matter went on; the plaintiff's things were seized; and she
had not up to this moment been paid by the defendant, ac-
cording to the terms of the agreement, which were, that, so
long as Margaret Tipton remained in the plaintiff's house,
he, (the defendant,) held himself liable for the charge of her
maintenance. This poor woman, however, was not able to
bear the expense of sustaining her, and as she was not able
to support herself, she was at length removed he believed by
the parish ; and now he, (the learned counsel,) appeared be-
fore the jury, to claim compensation:for her board, lodgin,
and attendance, amounting to £l9 10s.
cumstances, he thought the jury would
demand was not unreasonable
called—

'e wine merchant

in his house

[4l orinaud

week, would

e them, I

and under

that the p 1

—The learned course! th

Mary Connolly, daughter of the plaintiff. She commenced
her evidence by identifying the defendant, who sat imme-
diately in front of Mr. Venables, who appeared for him. She
recollected Margaret Tipton coming to reside at her mother's
house in May, 1840: she remained there till April, 1841.
Mr. MURPHY here explained to the jury that the plainti"
only claimed up to February, in order to I
within the jurisdiction of the emir.
The examination of the witness being resumed, she pro-
ceeded to state, that in August Margaret Tipton was confined
of a daughter, and she was nursed for one month. The
.terms of the agreement were, that she should be lodged and
boarded by the plaintiff at 12s. a week and £1 for nursing.
Witness had frequently seen Mr. Morinaud at her mother's
house in the period between May and August, sometimes as
often as four and five times a day. She followed him out,
when he sent for her. Before she was confined, witness re-
collected going to the pierhead perfectly well; on that Occa-
sion Margaret Tipton and Mr. Morinaud went across the
river together, and they did not return that night. In May
witness recollected her mother asking the defendant about
the board and lodging, and he then asked Margaret if she
was satisfied with them, and she replied that she was as
if she was at home. Something was then said about pay-
ment. Mr. Morinaud asked witness's mother if she was
willing for Margaret to stay at her house ; she -replied she
was if he would pay all demands for her, and he replied that
he would be answerable for all until he sent her home, as he
intended very shortly to send her to her parents. He did
not mention any time up to which he would pay, nor was
anything said about the time of Margaret leaving. Mr.
Morinaud never came after the child was born.
By the ASSESSOR.—He came to our house up to within
two weeks before the child was born. He did not come to
enquire himself how she was during her confinement, but he
sent a gentleman.

1g the a

By Mr. MURPHY.—She remained with us till Februar
1841. The parish relieved her from that time, at our ho'
till she was taken to her own parish, which was on thr
of April.
In cross-examination by Mr. VaNABLES on the p
the defendant, the witness said she was 22 years of age
unmarried. She was living with her mother -
keep a small shop, but she gave it up about
ago, and she had since maintained herself by keeping
They had no lodgers, neither " ladies nor gentlemen" when
Margaret was brought ; nor had they any occasional " visi-
tors." Witness spent her evenings at home sometimes in
sewing, and never walked out in the way he (the learned
counsel) meant. Witness was quite sure she had never been
married ; and her mother had been a widow for eighteen
years. er mother was sent for, before Margaret was brought
into the house, by Mrs. Rowan, the next door neighbour,
but Margaret did not come that night, nor till the morning
of the 20th of May, a week after Mrs. Rowan had called.
She did not see Mr. Morinaud till a fortnight after Margaret
came. Witness did not know Madame Morinaud; she never
saw that lady.with the defendant at her mother's house M,
Morinaud never remained all night at witness's house r
all day either, but he came often enough. Witness die
know what he can.e about. She could not tell where 11
ore,.

...4 Ma . A! .11 ilicautt
came to witness's house before Margaret was brought there.
It was the first time he called that he said he would pay all
expenses till he sent Margaret home, and this would be in
May or June ; he called again and said he was going to take
her to London, and he asked for the bill. He did not say
that he and Mrs. Morinaud were going to France through
London, and they would take Margaret with them. Her
mother had got .*;1 16s. from Mr. Morinaud by instalments ;
witness had heard her ask him for money ; be always made
excuses, and said he would send it. Witness was quite posi-
tive that Mr. Morinaud came to their house to see Miss
Tipton repeatedly, and sometimes four or five time a day ;
and she never heard him tell her she might go to France with
he and Madame Morinaud, in her mother's presence. Wit-
ness was not in the habit of walking out with Miss Tipton,
although she dined and slept with' her. She was not in the
habit of walking out with people in the scanner the learned
counsel meant. Her mother afforded to keep Miss Tipton
during all the time without receiving any money for her
board by working. She worked at sewing. Miss Tipton
never worked at all. Witness was-never at Mr. Morinaud's
house.
In re-examination by Mr. Mußrny, the witness declared
there was not the slightest foundation for the insinuations
which had been levelled at her character. Her mother
thought Margaret was a poor girl who had been deluded, and
therefore she protected her. Mrs. Rowan would have none
but gentlemen lodging at her house, and witness believed
that was the reason she applied to the plaintiff on behalf of
Margaret.
Jane Doyle, one of the plaintiff's neighbours, said she
knew Margaret Tipton when she resided in the plaintiff's
house, and had repeatedly seen Mr. Morinaud go there. His
visits were a matter of observation ; every neighbour spoke of
them. On the 6th of October the plaintiff became em-
barrassed ; the bailiffs were in her house for rent ; and at her
particular request witness took an account of hers to the de-
fendant, and gave it to him. She stood in conversation with
him for a quarter of an hour, and told him of the distressed
situation of the plaintiff. He told her the account was
£lO 145., and he had not cash enough in the office to pay it,
but would come and bring it as.soon as possible. The bailiffs
were not satisfied, and they took all the plaintiff's things,
and that night neither Margaret nor the child had anything
to sleep upon. He said nothing about the account being
either right or wrong, but that he would come and pay it.
Cross-examined,—Mr. Morinaud's office was in Sweeting-
street, near the new bank. At the request of the learned
counsel she here pointed out Mr. Morinaud, Who was in the
attorneys' seat. Witness had never seen Mrs. Morinaud
call at Mrs. Conolly's. Had been a neighbour of the plain-
tiff's for twenty years.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. VENABLES then addressed the court and jury on be-

half of the defendant. He commenced by saying that it was
neither his habit nor his wish to attack the character of
females who might be placed in the witness-box; but when
he was instructed that particular facts might be elicited on
cross-examination, he thought, and he should always think it
his duty to his client to sift them as far as lay in his power.
He hoped that in the cross-examination which it had been
his duty to make on the testimony of Mary Connolly, he had
not stepped beyond the bounds,or exceeded the license, wlich
counsel retained for defence were entitled to use, particularly
as the particulars which he had endeavoured to elicit formed
part of his instructions. klad he not exercised the power
which he possessed as counsel for the defendant by pursui.
the instructions he had received, he should have been
a breach of duty to the interests of his clients. He therefore
made no excuse for the line of conduct he had adopted.
Mr. Morinaud, the defendant, was a gentleman of rank and
influence, holding the office of French consul at this port.
He resided at Birkenhead, but his office was in this town.
It happened unfortunately for him, that the kindness of his
disposition towards an unprotected female, who had had the
misfortune to be seduced in his house, had brought upon him
all the difficulties of his present position. The young woman
of whom they had heard, was, as his learned friend had said,
possessed of considerable personal attractions ; and she was
an excellent servant. She had been in the service of Mrs.
Morinaud for some time, when that lady, who was a foreigner,
discovered that she had become pregnant. Knowing that
the girl bad erred from the path of duty, not from vicious
inclination, but that she had fallen a victim to the arts of a
seducer, whom he should name, instead of acting with cold
repulsiveness, and turning the girl into the streets, with all
her shame upon her, both Mr. arid Madame Morinatid deter-
mined to keep her in their service ; they determined to hide
her shame, to protect her in the time of her accouchernent ;
to endeavour to reclaim her into!the path of duty ; and,- in
short, to take her with them to France, as their servant still.
She left the service of Mr. Morinaud, at a moment's notice,
yet her wages were actually settled; she came to Liverpool,
and made the acquaintance of Mrs. Rowan, Mrs. Connolly,
at the solicitation of Mrs. Rowen, provided her with lodg-
ings. He found no fault with the manner in which Mrs.
Connolly had taken her, because [she had treated her with
kindness up to the time she was brought to bed of the infant
of which she was 'hen pregnant. He supposed that Mrs.
Conolly had protected her, arid found her with sustenance up
to that time. Mr. IVlorinaud, with that kindness of disposi-'
Lion which he had from time to time shown to this poor girl,
had before allowed her to wait at table in a state of pregnancy,
as would be shown by the evidence of a gentleman whom he
should call, and could they believe that aladatne Morinaud
would have permitted a woman in a situation of pr egnancy
to her own husband to have officiated in her household to
have waited at her table, or to have remained in the house
for one moment ? It would be a strong fact before the
jury, with which only be could meet the assertions that
had been made, namely, that M m
adame orinaud was cogni-
zant of the situation of the girl, that she was protected by
both her and her husband, and that it was not until they
were about going to France that Mr. Morinaud said he would
settle whatever might be due ttothhaAetl Connollyarosc.csio n
admissionst
h a otfomNr
on account
ey was
mentioned by Mr. Morinaud. of the girl. He bad shown by
Con-
nolly herself it was only t
Ipon lf this were the fact, the
alleged undertaking was one by which in point of law Mr.
Morinaud was not bound. Mrs. Rowan took Margaret to
the plaintiffs, and no application was made to the defendant
for m payent till Mrs. Doyle went to him on the 6th October.
He had no doubt whatever that Mr. Morinaud, with-the
kindness of disposition which characterized him, did say to
' her " I have no money now to give you, but when I have' I
will send it to Mrs. Connolly anti--Margaret Tipton ;" his
whole motive was one of kindness, and surely the jury would
not visit the kindness by which he was influenced with the

uilty of