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

the beginning of 1834 to the end of 1837. When the trans-
actions took place the defendant was a tanner at Sheffield
but now he is carrying on the business of a brewer there; and
Mr. Wareing is a skin merchant in Liverpool. The plaintiff
supplied the defendant with skins during that period, and the
defendant furnished him with great quantities of size and
glue. In addition to these there had been many bill trans-
actions between the parties. Altogether the case was one of
much complication, but of no public interest whatever. At
the end of Mr. Dundas's opening the learned JUGDE recom-
mended a reference to some gentleman at the bar, but the
plaintiff refused to consent. The cause proceeded, and occu-,
pied upwnrds of three hours. The jury returned a verdict
for the defendant.
STANLEY BART. V SIR THOMAS BIRCH.
This was an actin against the High-Sheriff of the couuty,
anu nir. Watson, on the part of the plaintiff, applied to the
court for the Learned Judge to appoint a day for the trial,
for the convenience of the Attorney-General, who is specially
retained in it. He applied for Friday or Monday next, or
Monday to be appointed.
Mr. CRESSWELL had no objection to Monday, as he could
very well imagine why the Attorney-General wished to have
it over before Tuesday.
Mr. WATSON said he could understand why many other
members of parliament should wish the same.
The JUDGE appointed the case to be tried on Monday
•
next.
SHORROCKS AND ANOTHER V. MILLER AND ANOTHER.
In this case a verdict was returned to the plaintiff, by con-
sent, for .E 6-10.

LUCAS AND ANOTHER V. GIBBS.
This was an action against the acceptor of a bill of ex-
thange for £5l, with £1 (is. for interest. Verdict for the
plaintiff for the amount claimed.

MOTTRAM AND ANOTHER V. SLACK.
This was an undefended action on a bill of exchange to re.
cover £2O. Verdict for the plaintiff.
•
WOODS AND ANOTHER V. M`KENZIE.
This was an action brought by Robert Bryce Wood, Hugh
Mackay, and George Bolton, trustees of the Liverpool and
Manchester Coal Company, to recover the sum of £l3O,
being the balance of an account due from the defendant,
who is a coal-dealer at Rock Ferry, Cheshire.
Mr. CRESSWELL and Mr. CROMPTON appeared for the
plaintiffs, and Mr. Watson for the defendant.
The delivery and receipt of the coals were proved on the
part of the plaintiffs. Mr. Watson then took an objection to
the action, contending that it was not properly brought. It
should have been brought by the copartners instead of the
trustees, as the copartners had no right to give any three in-
dividuals the power which they had exercised in this case.
The JUDGE said, he had some doubts whether the action
was properly brought. He would, however, consent to a
verdict for the plaintiffs, and give leave to the defendant to
move to enter a nonsuit.
A verdict was taken accordingly.
HOULT V. TICKLE.

The declaration in this case claimed compensation in
damages from the defendant for having by his negligence
killed a horse and damaged a carriage belonging to the plain-

Mr. Murphy appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. James for
the defendant.
On the part of the plaintiff it was shown, that he is the
proprietor of certain omnibuses which ply between Liverpool
and the Old Swan. The defendant is a cartowner, and one
of his carts was engaged in betting coals to Liverpool, the
direction it was going being opposite to that in which the
omnibus was going upon this occasion. The driver of the
omnibus was going upon the left or proper side of the road,
when he overtook some carts which were going, upon the pro-
per side, towards the Old Swan. When he reached them he
was obliged to swerve to the right in order to get clear of
them, and on so doing he saw the defendant's cart coming
in a direction to meet n. He called out to the driver of
the cart, but there was no person who appeared to have
charge of it ; in point of fact the only person with it was a
boy between 13 and 14 years of age, who was walking behind.
The horse in the cart, on seeing the omnibus, started, and
the result was that the shaft of the cart entered the breast of
the off horse belonging to the plaintiff, and it died imme-
diately. The shaft and harness was also injured. The acci-
dent, the cause of it, and the amount of damage was proved,
among other witnesses, by Mr. Lawrence Heyworth.
Mr. JAMES, in reply, contended that the accident had
happened through the negligence of the plaintiff himself, in-
asmuch as the omnibus might have retired on the other side,
although it was contrary to what was called " the law of the
road," before he met the cart. He admitted, however, that
the defendant's carter had been guilty of neglect, but never-
theless, it was not his neglect which had caused the accident.
Several witnesses, among whom was the boy who had the
care of the cart, were then called by the learned counsel.
One of them, named Wm. Mason, said, that he had a glass
of gin with the omnibus driver before he started, and he then
appeared the " worse for liquor." -
Mr. Murtritv having replied, the Jury found a verdict for
the plaintiff, damages £l5.
SHEPHERD V. IVHITEHEAD.

The plaintiff is a flour merchant, and the defendant a flour
sealer in Liverpool, and the action, which was undefended,
was brought to recover £3l 165., the amount of goods sold
ind delivered. Verdict accordingly
YATES AND OTHERS Z

NIASKENV

An undefended action, to recover the balance of an account
amounting to £7l is. 9d. for coals sold to the defendant.
Verdict for the plaintiffs.

WILLIAMS AND OTHERS V. BAILEY AND OTHERS

The plaintiffs in this case are bankers at Carnarvon, and
the defendants are an associated body carrying on business
under the name of " The Snowden Slate Company." The
action was brought to recover the sum of £BO which the
plaintiffs had advanced for the use of the defendants upon an
acceptance.
Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiffs,
and Mr. Dundas and Mr. Crompton for all the defendants
except Mr. G. F. Fairclough, solicitor, of this town, who was
defended by Mr. Wortley.
Mr. CRESSWELL stated the case. This was an action

SYKES V. WASKER

brought by the plaintiffs, who are bankers at Carnarvon, to
recover the sum of £BO, which they had advanced for their
use upon an acceptance given by Mr. Potter to a bill drawn
by a person named Griffiths Davies, who was formerly in
partnership with the defendants, but who, unfortunately for
the plaintiff, had recently died. A. year or two ago the
defendants, with certain other persons, hearing of the great
gains made by the owners of slate-quarries in North Wales,
were disposed to enter into speculations or a similar kind,
and they formed themselves into a company, which they
described as " The Snowdon Slate Company," Griffiths
Davies being the managing partner, and residing in znv alto -
trict. Griffiths paid the workmen as their wages became due,
. and in fact carried on the whole concern in Carnarvonshire :
he drew hills upon different customers, collected moneys, and
applied them to the purpose of carrying on the affair. In
the month of January, 1840, Davies having, as it would
seem, been disappointed in receiving funds from the defend-
ants for the payment of wages, applied to Mr. Potter, by
letter, (which the learned council read,) to accept a bill at
six months for £BO, in consideration of which he should
receive 15,000 slates before it became due, or if he (Davies)
did not take the slates, the acceptance should be returned.
Mr. Potter accepted the bill on these terms. The bill was
as follows : _

" Carnarvon, June 7, 1810.
" Six months after date, pay to my order £BO, value re-
:eived in slates. " GRIFFITHS DAVIES."

Then it was accepted by Potter, made payable at Messrs.
Roberts, London, and endorsed by Davies. This bill Davies
carried to the plaintiffs to be discounted, who knew him to
be partner in the slate company because he had deposited
with them his scrip. When he presented the bill to be dis-
counted they said, " No ; this bill is not accepted for the
company." "Oh ! dear, yes," said Davies, "it is so." He
then altered the words, " to my order," and wrote, " per
procuration for the Snowdon Slate Comany, Griffiths Da-
vies," and also altered the endorsement. The plaintiffs,
taking that as an endorsement by the company, advanced
Davies the money. When the bill came to maturity it was
dishonoured, and when they applyed to the defendants, they
were told that the bill had been altered after acceptance, that

the stamp was therefore good for nothing, and therefore they
could not recover upon it. But suppose they could not re-
cover upon the bill, they could recover for money advanced ;
therefore in either way, the defendants were bound to pay.
Before the bill became due, Mr. Potter wrote for the slates.
In answer, Davies, on the Bth September, a day or two after
the bill was due, wrote to the effect that the number of work-
men in the quarry being reduced to six, he could not furnish
him with the 15,000 slates, and that he could not meet the
bill, and referring him to the Company for redress. Mr.
Potter handed this letter over to the plaintiffs, the holders of
the bill, and they had brought the present action. He (Mr.
Cresswell) should have called Davies as a witness to these
facts, had he been alive, but, unfortunately, he died only on
Sunday week ; nevertheless, he should call Mr. Potter, who
would prove the acceptance, and the banker's clerk who dis-
counted it for the company.
The learned Counsel then called his witnesses, who con-
firmed the facts as stated in his opening.
A variety of objections, of an abstrusely legal nature, were
then argued by the learned Counsel for the defendants.
After much discussion, the learned Judge directed a non-

suit to be entered, giving the plaintiffs leae to move to enter
a verdict for the principal and interest, upon the conditions
that the Court above should be of opinion there was evidence
to go before the Jury upon the points which the plaintiffs
were bound to establish.

This was an undefended action to recover £443. 3s. 10d
Verdict accordingly.
The Court rose a few minutes after five o'clock.

CROWN COURT.—WEDNESDAY.
THE WARRINGTON BURGLARS.
William Parkinson, 31, William Barber, 28, Thomas
Goodier, 48, Samuel Pinnington, 31, and Henry Ellis, 25,
were placed at the bar to be tried for various burglaries, an
alleged attempt at murder, &c.. committed in March last, in
various parts of this county. They were first indicted for
having, on the 26th of March last, feloniously entered the
house of Thomas Shaw, at Poulton-with-Fearnhead, with
intent to steal his goods, and then and there assaulted and
wounded Hannah Barton, with intent to minder her, and
further with having stolen £36 in gold, a silver table spoon,
a silver watch, and other goods, the property of the said
Rhomas Shaw. William Woollasten was originally com-
mitted for this offence, but the grand jury ignored the bill.
Mr. WILKINS laid before the jury a very perspicuous nar-
rative of the case as he expected to prove it before the jury.
Part of the testimony, he observed, would be that of an
approver.
Hannah Barton, Mr. Shaw's housekeeper, was first called.
She was still weak and ill, and the trial was taken thus early
in consequence of the surgeon having certified that it would
be dangerous to detain her in Liverpool. She stated, that
on the night of Friday, the 26th of March last, she was in
the service of Mr. Shaw. On that night she went to bed at
nine o'clock. About one o'clock on Saturday morning she
was disturbed by the house dog barking furiously, and by the
scuffling of heavy feet about the door. The door was forced
open with a great crash, and the report of a gun or pistol was
heard. She started out of bed, opened the window, and im-
mediately heard the report of another pistol or gun, and
received a wound in her forehead. (A deep indention, the
effect of this wound was visible in the very centre of the
witness's forehead over her nose.) Three stones were thrown
at her, one of which struck her. She went down stairs, and
saw four men in the room where her master and the man
slept. She went to the back kitchen window, and endeavour-
ed to break it, but was unable. She went into the workshop,
broke the window and got through. She was immediately
seized by the prisoner Ellis, who came from the back of the
into he kitchen. One of these men had a.
house. She saw two meu come out of the parlour where her
pistol in his hand. The dog made furious de-
li' h
lantern master
andwss , a
"monstrations of an intention to attack them, and one of the
men said " D—n him, knock his brains out." She asked
him to let her go to her master, but he presented his pistol
at her face, and said if she stirred he would give her that.
He had a black mask on. They went away after a time, and
locked the door aft.g. er them, taking away the key, which was
missing next morning. (a key was here produced, and the
witness identified it as the key of Mr. Shaw's door.) She
found the side of a lantern in the kitchen next morning.
Thomas Shaw stated, that on the 26th March last be and
his family went to bed at nine o'clock. Witness went on to
say, that after he had been asleep some time, he was aroused
by hearing the dog bark, and presently the front door was
thrust in with a great crash, and four men entered his room,
two of whom had crow-bars and two pistols and lamps. They
had black masks on. As they entered they made a great
noise, exclaiming, " Oh, you b—g—s, your money—your?
money. We'll have your money, or we'll take your life.
The least of the men struck his man, and then they all seized
him (the man), and threw him on the bed, and covered hug
with the bolster, exclaiming, " your money—your gold..
He released his head, and called to him (witness) to give his
money. He took his purse from his pocket,
and it was in-
stantly snatched from his hand, the person who did it threat-