The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-08-23 00:00:00

kill and murder him, iv
eighteen months.
The court rose at

sentenced to be imprisoned for

a little before si
WEDNESDAY

Vivian O'Keefe, 19, indicted for having feloniously
shot at one Jane Riley, with intent to kill and murder
her. The prisoner was in a shooting-gallery, in William-
son-square, into which the deceased woman followed him,
and whilst an altercation was going on between them, a

gun which be had in his hand was discharged

and sentenced to one month's impris
THURSDAY.

ROBBERY WITII VIOLENCE AT LIVERPOOI
indicted for having. at Liverpool,

Thomas

with other persons unknown, assaulted Richard Morgan,
and robbed him of a watch, was found guilty, and sen-
tenced to seven years' transportation.
FORGING A SEAMAN'S NOTE.—John Plumley, indicted
for having, at Liverpool,- forged a seaman's advance note,
and uttered it to one Henry Priestley, of the Pilot Boat
Inn, was found guilty, and sentenced to three months'
imprisonment with hard labour.

ROBBERY AT WARRINGION.—P et er Knowles (aged 28)
was indicted for having, at Warrington, on the Ist August
last, stolen £3 from the person of William Lee. A second
count charged the prisoner with receiving the money,
knowing it to be stolen. The jury returned a verdict of
larceny against the prisoner, and he was sentenced to six
months' imprisonment with hard labour.

BURGLAiI" AT WARRINGTON.— William Cuncliffe
(aged 40) was acquitted on the charge of having, at War-
rington, stolen a gown, the property of Mary Monks, and
also with burglariously breaking out of the house of John
Asperry.
STABBING- AT BOLTON.—Charles Henry (aged 24) was
convicted of having, at Bolton, on the 31st July, stabbed
Richard Mottram, with intent to disable him, and sentenced
to four months' imprisonment, with hard labour.
BURGLARY AT RADCLIFFE.—James Honey (aged 21)
was convicted for having, at Radcliffe, on the 28th July,
burglariously entered the house of Mr. Walker, and stolen
therefrom a pair of compasses, two, shirts, and two sheets.
Sentenced to six months' imprisonment. with hard labour.

The court rose at ten minutes before Six o'clock
FRIDAY.

FORGERY AY SALEMM.—Stephen Eanes, a young
man, was charged with having forged the name of John
Rance to a certain promissory note for the sum of Xo',
whereby he intended to defraud the Salford Equitabl6
Loan Society. The prisoner was acquitted.
A FALSE DECLARATION. —Margaret Dodd, aged 22.

was charged with havhig made a false declaration before
Thomas Booth, Esq., one of the magistrates of Liverpool,
whereby she got an affidavit to release some ear-rings
belonging to another woman,_ from pawn. She pleaded
that the ticket had obeen sold to her, and, missing the
ticket, she sought to get the ear-rings without.—Acquitted.
TICROWING VITRIOL.—A middle-aged man, named
Jonathan Slater, was charged with throwing vitriol
Upon his son, a young man, at Blhckburn, whereby he
slightly injured him and almost destroyed his clothes. It
transpired that on one occasion previously he had at-
tempted to throw vitriol upon his. son; but extenuating
circumstances were stated, in so far that the son had be-
haved harshly and unfeeling to him flaying turned him
out of the house. The jury returned' a'verdict of guilty,
with., a recommendation to mercy. Sentence two mouths'
imprisonment._ _ _

The- court adjourned al

-past' seven.

NISI pnrcrs COURT. —TUESDAY, AUGUST 16.
(BEFORE MR. JUSTICE KE12.0.)
r, WRIGIIT.—This was an action for an

LINDIFAV
assault.—Mr.. _
plaintiff; and Mr. Serjeant Wilkins ana
for the dettindant.—lt appeared that at the litter end of
last May thwplahltiff, a commercial travellr,, was drink-
ing at night in a public-house called the Wellingt
Manchester, when the defendant entered witli,some. dogs,
The plaintiff add Fessed him immediately, as- M Justice
Erie observedith the jury, "civilly, for his classi"lsyasking

ton, at

him familiarly,. " Will you have a glass wit
I with you P" to,which invitation the defendant' gay
most distinct and definite notice to the plaintiff that he
did not wish to. join company with him," by reptriig, "he

fi me; or s

_ _
would see hisn- cl—d first?' The plaintiff immediately
rejoined, " Quits~ right." A match at " trotting'z' then
, commenced, or- as another witness called it shaffing,"
the plaintiff remarking that " the defendant's dog, were
very valuable dogs, worth £60," and asking, " what he
would sell them for,"' and a great many " disrespectful
words" passed Between the plaintiff and the defendant,
finishing with a declaration by the plaintiff that "'the de-
fendant was far too clever to die a natural death." At
this time the dogs growled, or had been made to dam)' and
the company complained of them as a nuisance, and, called
to have them turned out. An attorney's clerk out of em-
ployment, named'Handforth, who was present, then: made'
some observationythat "the defendant was a pretty fellow
to be growled at by his own dogs," and the defendant,
provoked, pushedliim down on a chair, and seized him by
the leg to upset him, and, getting hold of his boot, it
came off in the- defendant's hand. The plaintiff cried
out, " For God's'. sake' don't - strike him, he's a cripple ;".
the defendant immediately swung the boot round„ and
said, " Then I will strike you," striking at the plaintiff
with the boot, the heel of which struck the plaintiff a'
violent blow on thetemple, cutting it, and nearly render-
ing him insensible.. The wound bled considerably, an&the
plaintiff's nervons• system received a severe shock.—For
the defence, Mr. Serjeant Wilkins cross-examined. the•
plaintiff, endeavouring. to show that he was given to dram-
drinking, and that his nervous system had received,:its-
•. shock' froTr- thht; In the course of his cross-examina-
tion, the plaintiff, "in an. impudent manner, said he -bad"
drunk wine at Dick's Coffee-house with the learned ser-
jeant—not at the Berk:an-es expense, but sitting iirthe•
same box with him. This the learned serjeant deniertianct
said the plaintiff was ono of that style of men who seemed
to live only towork mischief. It was his indulgence in
this spirit which had bro-aght on this pot-house roan, and
he called on the jury to mark their sense of his conduct by
the amount of damages. which they gave.—His lordship
having summed up, the jury found a verdict for the plain-
tiff—damages ls.

DAVIS V: LA NCASITIRIY AND YORIZSIIIBE RAIL ,Y.—
In this case the plaintiff applied for damages for injuries
sustaind by.a collision which took place at the Bootle-
lane station; on the 26th July last ; and, after the Attorney-
general had Mated the particulars at some length, the case
was settled, a verdict having been taken for £350.
BoLTolf,(AssioNEu-oic.) v. BBADIMILY.-oWing, to the
absence of the witnesses in this case, the plaintiff was
non-suited.

MARTIN AND ANOTIIER (ASSIGNEES) v. L AIVTO•N—
Serjeant Wilkins and Mn Monk appeared for the plaintiffs,
and Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cobbett for the defence. The
action wes.brought to recover a sum of £220, held by the
defendant; and which, it was alleged, belonged to the,
estate of a Mr. Holland, commission agent, of Manchester,.
for which: the plaintiffs were the assignees. A.-great deal
of evidence was adduced, some of which was exceedingly
contradictory; and the Judge, in• summing up, •said that
on one, side or the other there had been wilfuLartifice and
forethought in framing a story, and then;coreing into
court-and swearing to it. The jury, after an absence of
two hours from court, returned with a verdict for the
plaittiffs for the amount claimed, namely, damages, £220;
costs, 40s. WEDNESDAY.
CORRIGAN & &Z. HELENS CANAL AND .TUILWAY COM-
PUTT.—The plaintiff in this case was a labouring man,
44 years of age, with a wife and family, who claimed com-
pensation for having his arm crushed, by an engine
belonging to the defendants, as alleged, through the care-
lessness of their servants. The railway, of the defendants
is a branch running from the main line, called the
Gerard's-bridge branch, about a mile from St. Helens.
There is a single line of rails over the. branch, which is
worked exclusively for goods supplie4.l3y the neighbouring
works. About a mile and a half from the main line a
shunt, called Evans's, runs out of the branch, and upon
this there is a very sharp curve and a great deal of traffic.
On the WA of December the plaintiff, who was in the
employ :of Mr. Evans, was pushing up some waggons
to the curve, and whilst so employed an, engine belonging
to the company, and driven by ene of its servants, ran up
this shunt at a rapid pace, struck the waggons which
plaintiff was pushing, and tbe •result was, that the plain-
tiff's, arm was crushed and hroken between the waggons.
For the defendants it was contended, that this was an
accident, and that it was in a great measure caused by the
negligence of the plaintiff himself; and witnesses were
called to prove that the driver sounded his whistle three
or times ; and that t was the plaintiff's own care-
lessness that he did not get out of the way.—Mr. Serjeant
Wilkins having replied on this evidence, his Lordship
summed up, leaving it to, the jury to say on which set of
witnesses they relied. If they believed the plaintiff's wit.
nesses they must give. the plaintiff such compensation as,
in their judgment was in some degree adequate to the 104 s.
he had sustained by being rendered incapable in future to
earn his living.—The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff',
damages, £l7O.

80i:inLEEN v. HAATolv.—This was an action of ejection
to recover possession of part of a house at Aspull, near
Wigan. It was to determine whether a kitchen was a
part of a house.. The plaintiff was a hand-loom weaver,
and the defendant a man of eccentric habits and consi-
derable wealth. When the notice of action was given, the
defendant gave up all claim to the house except to the
kitchen part, to which he had a right. The house in
question is situated at Morris's-fold, Aspull, near Wigan,
and is one of six houses built by a man named Morris,
and devised separately to his different children. Te his
daughter Ellen he devised the house in which John Win-
stanley lived (the house in question), and to a second
daughter he devised the house in which he himself lived.
The plaintiff, who was a son of Ellen, claimed the kitchen
as belonging to the house devised to his mother, whilst
the defendant alleged it was the house occupied by Morris,
and devised to another of his daughters, from whom he
purchased it. The queStion for the jury to decide was,
to which house the kitchen in question originally be-
longed. It was also alleged that the defendant had pur-
chased the kitchen in question from the father of the
plaintiff and his brother William, who was proved to have
been born before the marriage of Ellen with plaintiff's
father, consequently the purchase was not valid. Under
the direction of his Lordship, the jury &Auld a verdict for
the plaintiff.
CHAPLAIN, Exon. v. LEvT.—The plaintiff sued the
defendant on a bill of exchange for a sum of £32. The
plaintiff, Mr. Chaplin, was executor under the.will of Jas,
Hannan, and the defendant was Daniel Levy, who
pleaded that he had never accepted the bill. After the
bill became due, a letter was written to the defendant,
asking him for payment. To this he replied that he had
to see the drawer of the bill, Mr. Holme, and that after-
wards his request would be complied with. After this the
defendant's attorney made this admission : " Chaplin v.
Levy. I hereby admit that the acceptance of the bill of
exchange on which this action is brougbt is in the hand-
writing of the defendant. Henry Bradden, July 26th,
1853." This, it was contended, was a proof of the accept-
ance of the bill by the defendant. After some discussion
between his lordship and the learned counsel on both
sides, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff; for the
amount claimed. _ _ _

BARBER V. DAwsoN.—Benjamin Barber, the plaintiff,
was a gardener and nurseryman at Walter Clough, near
Halifax, and the defendant is Arthur Dawson, of Walter
Clough-hall, and the owner of the ground occupied by the
plaintiff. The action was brought to recover a sum of
£l6O, which the plaintiff alleged he was entitled to re-
ceive from the defendant as the amount of a valuation in
which the defendant refused by his valuer to concur as to
the value of certain plots, &c., which the plautiff in.

,nce on the part of the plaintiff had beer

lin rose at six o'clocl
THURSDAY.

ON A CHARTE33

schooner called the Zilleika, 142
I January last

I twelve years, ar