The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-08-20 00:00:00

After several witnesses had been exatnined to prove the

Mr. CRESSWELL addressed the jury on the part of the de-
fendant. He contended that all that was done, admitting
that it was wrong, did not amount to a conversion of the
property. He stated that the horses had been an annoyance
to the ladies on board the steamer, and that it was merely
to prevent that annoyance that the defendant proceeded to
take them on shore. Mr. Cresswell admitted that there
might be grounds for an action of trespass, but not for one
in trover. _ _

His LORDSHIP, in charging the jury, gave it as his opinion
that there was nothing in the first part of the case, in turn-
ing the horses out of the boat, or in the subsequent facts as
proved, to show a conversion.
The jury, without leaving the box, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff for £3O damages.

KENT D. LEA 'AND -LAWTON

In this case Frederick Kent was plaintiff, and Fabius Lea
and William Lawton were the defendants. The action was
brought for the recovery of the value of certain fixtures and
property which were detained and sold at a sacrifice to setisfy
a landlord's demand for rent. _ . . _ _ _

It appeared from the statement of the case that the plaintiff
was a licensed victualler in Crosshall-street. The defendant,
Lea, was the owner of a certain house in that street, which he
let to a person of the name of Wm. Brown. Brown se-let it
to the plaintiff. It was held on an old lease. The plaintiff
became the tenant of the place in July last year, when he
purchased fixtures, fitted up the interior, and continued
in possession until the March following. An execution was
then laid on for six months' rent which was owing by Browne,
and in consequence of that execution, the plaintiff was at
present in great distress. The plaintiff had nothing whatever
to do with Lea, and only owed a quarter's rent to Browne,
at the time of" the execution. On the 18th of March the
other defendant, Lawton, who was a sergeant of mace, made
the distress for half a year's rent, and it was for what then
took place that the present action had been brought. Ac-
cording to the statute, it appeared that although a landlord
was authorised to sell whatever goods might be found on the
premises to satisfy himself for the rent due, yet that, if he
seized more than the rent amounted to, he was liable to an
action. A considerable portion of what had been seized con-
sisted of the fixtures. and as to fixtures, the law laid it down
that the party had no right to make distress at all. The
property detained amounted in value altogether to about
£lOO, while the half year's rent did not exceed £2B.
After a number of witnesses had been examined on both
sides to prove value, &c., the jury decided as follows :—We
do not consider that there was any misconduct at the sale,
or that any damages should be allowed for the irregularity of
the appraisement • but we find a verdict for the plaintiff for
£2O, loss sustained by the sale of the fixtures.

The court adjournd at a quarter past six o'clock

CROWN COURT.-YESTERDAY

FORGING AN INDORSEMENT TO A BILL OF EXCHANGE,

AND UTTERING THE SAME WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD

Thomas Brown, 30, and Christopher Robinson Bell, 35.
were inicted for having, at Manchester, feloniously forged
and uttered a bill of exchange in writing, for the payment of
£194 155., and with having uttered the same to one Samuel
Appleyard, with intent to defraud him, they well knowing
the same to be forged.
The prisonerS were both fine-looking men, and were repre-
sented (more particularly Brown) as having, until recently,
each borne good characters, and having carried on busineSs,
though not conjointly, in a manner that was considered highly
creditable to themselves, for a succession of years. Brown
is stout, inclining to corpulency : Bell of slender and smaller
build, and both bearing an undoubted air of gentility. The
case, as affecting the commercial community, excited very
general interest in the court ; but as the evidence was volu-
minous—occupied the greater part of the day—;and moreover
from the requirements of the law, somewhat tedious and in-
volving much of the tortology of corroboration, we deem it
advisable, in the previously crowded state of our columns, to
condense (though necessarily imperfectly) the whole into
a narrative of the leading points.

Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Green conducted the prosecution,
and Mr. Baines appeared for the prisoner Brown, and Mr.
Adolphus for Bell.
It appeared from the evidence that the prisoners, though
not ostensibly connected in business, had for some months
past aided and abetted each other in the preparation and ut-
tering of two bills, one of which,—the last that was uttered—
formed the subject of the present indictment. Two bills had
been uttered by the prisoners, both purporting to bear the
indorsement amongst others, of Messrs. York and Sheep-
shanks, of Leeds. The first bill, purporting to be drawn in
April last, in York, was for the sum of £156, and apparently
by one Atkinson and one Hall. Amongst the indorsers were
the names of York and Sheepshanks. The prisoner Brown
took this bill to the Manchester Alliance Bank, and presented
it to Mr. Farrar, the manager, who enquired of him who Mr.
Hall was. The reply was that he wa a respectable manufac-
turer of Leeds. The jury was not however, called upon to
decide on that fact, but whether York and Sheepshanks's
signature was genuine, as attached to the subsequent bill,
and whether the prisoners had uttered it with intent to
defraud. The first bill was dishonoured and advice was
given of the same. It further appeared that the parties
finding themselves involved, drew out the bill noticed in the
indictment ; also containing the assumed signatures of York
and Sheepshanks, as endorsed. With this, a purchas of
goods was made from the prosecutor Appleyard, which were
sold at a sacrifice, and the dishonoured bill for the £156 was
taken up by Brown, with the proceeds. Brown appeared
to be surprised when he learned that there was a forgery
on the face of the bill. An application was made for
the bill to be returned by the bank, but this was re-
fused, until the bank wes satisfied that the transaction
was a fair one. The goods selected by Brown from
Appleyard, amounted to £259, and the former told the latter
to make out the invoice to Brown, Bray, and Co. Bray, as
't afterwards appeared, being a person with whom Brown had
entered into some sort of partnership through the negocia-
;ion of Bell, in the interim between the drawing of the two
Sills. Brown stated that the bill was got from a person
lamed Greenwood—naming his residence. It appeared, how-
wer, that Bray was a person lodging in a small cottage in the
)utskirts of Leeds, and that the Greenwood alluded to had re-
sided where it was stated, but had been dead two years. Brown
himself indorsed the second bill, and it was proved that the fill-
ing up of it was Bell's writing, and the signature of York and
Sheepshanks (his former employers) also in his writing,
somewhat disguised. The prisoners were apprehended in
Leeds, and on their persons were found two copies or drafts,
of attempts to draw the bill, one of which was on a stamp ;
but, as it contained a mistake, it had evidently been aban-
doned. The evidence on the whole did not appear so strong
against Browne as against Bell, as related to a general know-
ledge of the fraud. •
The prisoners were ably defended, but no witnesses were
called.
The judge summed up very perspicuously. and left it to
the jury to consider first, whether the bill was forged, of
which he thought no doubt could be entertained ; and second-
ly, whether the prisoners uttered it, knowing it to be forged,
which was sufficient to sustain the indictment, whether they
themselves forged it or not. There were some collateral
points in the evidence, but they were of minor Importance,
with the exception of the fact that it did not appear distinctly
that Brown had received the written notice from the bank
of the first bill being dishonoured, before lie aided in the
uttering of the other.
The jury retired, and after being absent for 35 minutes,
.eturned, on re-entering the box, a verdict of Guilty against
)oth prisoners.
Sentence was deferred, with a view to the hearing, previ-
of witnesses, as to the former character of the