The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-08-25 00:00:00

stantial evidence alone; and in a review of the testimony
of the various witnesses who had been examined, showed
many important discrepancies, and endeavoured to
shaw that some of the witnesses were • not to be
credited, having only come forward at the last hour, he
suspected in order to get up a case for the sake of getting
to Liverpool. He commented also upon the improba-
bility that such a murder could have been deliberately
committed by two such boys, and contended that there
was nothing to shew that death had been caused by vio-
lence at all. The articles found upon the prisoners he
spewed could all be accounted fur, as belonging to them,
except the box, which might have been accidentally left
by the deceased himself when in the cabin.

At ten minutes past seven, his Lordship commenced
summing up, which occupied until about a quarter to
nine, at which hour the jury retired ; and returned into
court at ten minutes past nine with a verdict of not guilty
as to both the prisoners.
The elder boy, Seddon, maintained his appearance of
stolid indifference to the last; and whilst the jury were
absent eat heartily in the box. Dean's countenance be-
came agitated, and he cried bitterly. When the verdict
was given, he brightened up a little, and bowed as he
left the dock, Seddon showing no emotion. Dean was
ordered to be given up to his friends.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-YESTERDAY.
BUSSE: L V. GEMMELL.-RAILWAY SHARES

This was an action to recover the price of some railway
shares. Mr. BAINES and Mr. JONES appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. CROMPTON for the defence.
Mr. BAINES stated the case. The plaintiff Mr. John
Russell. is i sharebroker in Liverpool, and the defendant,
Mr. Juhn Gemmel], jun., is an agent for the sale of ale
and beer in the same town. In September last the de-
fendant was disposed to have some shares in the Shrews-
bury and Hereford Railway, and instructed the plaintiff
to buy 50 of them for him. In accordance with these in-
structions the plaintiff, on the 13th of Sept.' bought from
Mr. Croxton, another sharebroker, 50 of these shares, at
£2 Ils. 6d. per shake, on which £1 only had been paid ; the
premium, therefore, was £1 11s. 6d., and the total
amount was £l2l 15s. This money was actually paid to
Mr. Coxton by the plaintiff, early in October. The de-
fendant had been duly informed of the purchase of the
shares prior to this, and at the time of the plaintiff's pay.
ing the money for them he obtained scrip, and sent it to
the defendant. The defendant promised to pay the
money in a day or two, and take up the shares • he also
sent a letter to the same effect. Immediately after this,
the shares began to fall in the market, and might have
been falling in price ever since, for he, the learned counsel,
understood they were now very low : but what his client
said was this—that he bad pain £l2B 15s. for these shares,
which the defendant had commissioned him to procure,
but which the defendant had never taken up nor paid for;
and there was also a sum for his commission of £3 15s. ;
amounting altogether to £132 10s. The purchase of the
shares by the plaintiff for the defendant having been
proved, as well as the actual payment of money for them,
his Lordship directed the jury to find a verdict for the
plaintiff. Damages £132 10s.

BOOTLE V. MAJOR AND ANOTHER

This was an action for damages for an alleged illegal
seizure and sale of property at Southport. Mr. Watson
and Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Martin
and Mr. Atherton for the defence. Mr. Watson stated
the case. The plaintiff in this action was Miss Ellen
Ann Bootle, and the question to be decided was, whether
certain goods or chattels which were taken at Southport,
by the sheriff of Lancashire, on the 23rd of May last, on
an execution issued at the instance of the defendants,
were or were not the property of the plaintiff. The plain-
tiff is a young person who has carried on for a length of
time the business of a milliner and dress maker, and her
mother lived, until lately, in St. Anne-street, in this
town, where she carried on the business of her late hus-
band, who was a stay-maker; but being left in rather
embarrassed circumstances sbe was soon compelled to
give it up. The present plaintiff went, in the summer of
1842, to Nassau, New Brunswick, where she went into
business, and by her industry was enabled to save a little
money. She returned again to this country in the sum-
mer of 1845, but during the time she was absent she had
sent home to her mother £lO 12s. She found that
her mother was unable to carry on her business, and de-
termined to go again into business. herself. Sbe there-
fore took a house at Southport, and her mother being
greatly embarrassed, she purchased from her furniture
and other things to the amount of £62 125., in payment
of which she gave her mother £52, the £lO 12s. origi-
nally sent to her making up the amount. With this mo-
ney the mother paid off her rent, £4 arrears of taxes, for
whic3 there was a summons in the house, and a sum of
£2O to a creditor at Manchester, of the name of Dew.
hurst. The plaintiff went to Southport in October, 1845,
and carried on business there on her own account up to
May, 1846; in which month'the defendants, Messrs. Ma-
jor and Radcliffe, of Manchester, creditors of her mother,
directed the officers to seize the goods in question, which
goods, there was not the slightest doubt, were the pro-
perty of the plaintiff—she having purchased them from
her mother in the month of August preceding.
Witnesses were then called to prove that the house at
Southport was taken and held in the daughter's name,
that the sale of furniture by the mother to the daughter
actually took place, that. in addition to this, the daughter
had purchased and paid for other household articles, with
the view of commencing in business at Southport, the
bills and receipts for which were produced in court; and
that the daughter had previously carried on a prosperous
business at Nassau.

Mr. MARTIN, for the defence, contended that having
administered to her deceased husband's effects, Mrs.
Bootle had rendered herself liable for hi■ debts, and had
no power, while an ac tin for debt was pending agaihst
her, to dispose of or transfer any portion of that property
to any other person.

His LORDS.HIP decided that it was not a disposal of pro-
perty, but merely a conversion of property of a certain
description into property of another description, the same
being afterwards applied to the benefit of the estate.

Mr. MARTIN then characterised the transfer of the fur-
niture to the daughter as a fraudulent and utirral tran-
saction, for the purpose of defeating his clients, in their
attempt to recovrr a debt due to them by her late hus-
band. Messrs. Major and Ratcliffe are sateen manu-
facturers at Manchester, and not being able to obtain
payment of an account for goods furnished to the hus-
band, brought an action in this court, in March last,
against the widow, and judgment went by default. They
then issued execution against this property at Southport,
for the recovery of their damages and costs of suit, firmly
believing that the property belonged to Mrs. Bootle, and
that no real transfer of it to the daughter bad ever taken
place.

Some witnesses were examined to show that from
transactions and conversations they had with Mrs. Bootle,
at Southport, they were led to believe that the house was
held by her, and that the furniture also belonged to her.
Mr. Watson replied, and the learned Judge went very
minutely through the evidence, after which the jury, with-
out any hesitation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff

HATES V. PARSONS - ANOTHER ALLEGED ILLEGAL

DISTRAINT

The plaintiff is a licensed victualler of this town, and
the defendant is an attorney who had a claim against a
carter named Wright, brother-in-law of the plaintiff, to
satiey u hich he seized the two horses and cart, and bad
them sold by auction, under the belief that they were still
the property of Wright, but which, as he (the learned
counsel) should be able to prove, were then the property
of the plaintiff. The facts were briefly these. Wright, in
May last, finding himself in difficulties, applied to his
brother-in-law to purchase his horses and cart, and the
plaintiff said he had no objection, aiki would give him any
sum of money which a person acquainted with their value
might set upon them. A person, named Medhurst, a
carter, was called in, and he valued them at £4O. At
that price the plaintiff took them, and having handed
over the money to Wright, he took immediate possession
of the property. He' bad the horses removed to his own
stable, and his name was affixed to the cart. In a few
days afterwards, the defendant seized the goods as an
execution creditor of Wright's. and had them sold. After
the examination of Wright and Medhurst, who deposed
to the facts stated, it was agreed between the counsel to
withdraw a juror.