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

FALCON AND ANOTHER V. BENN

This 'was an action brought by Messrs. Falcon and Alex-
ander, ship-builders, of Workington, against Mr. Thomas
Benn, of Greenbank, near Whitehaven, to recover a sum of
£250, the balance of an account for building a ship, called
the Athena.

Mr. Dundas and Mr. Cowling condneted the case for the
plaintiffs; Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Robinson for the de-
fendant.

It appeared from the statement of the plaintiffs' counsel,
that in 1838, the defendant contracted with the plaintiffs for
them to build him a vessel of the following dimensions,the hold,
and
feet long, feet wide, 17 feet 6 inches deep in
to be fitted up and equipped in the same mannert
Thomas Lee, a vessel previously built by he as
plaintiffs at ihnet ibffasn er
some other parties. The price to be paid was £l3 10s. per
ton. was also contracted that there should be no extras
charged for in wood or iron work, except for patents if fitted
keel as in the Thomas Lee.. InJune, 1839, the Athena was
laid down, and Mr. AsliTngne,tldi e
ofgentleman
superintended the '
e who was after-
wards appointed to the Lo
building, as the defendant's an
agent. Captain Asbrid,,e' when
the keel was laid down, as the plaintiffs alleged,. the de-
fendant's authority, had the keel made 10-1 feet, and her
width extended four or five inches, in order that her appear-
aice
might not be too flat. In the middle of the ship there
wasi no variation from the contract, but in the depth some 18
inches were given in pursuance of Captain Asbridge's instruc-
tions. The vessel was launched in January, 1810, and in
February an account of the extras, rendered necessary by
the alterations was sent in to the defendant, to which he then
made no objection, except as to some smiths' work. The
builder's certificate was sent to him and he had the ship duly
registered. If the contract had been adhered to the vessel
would. have been of 303 tons burdens. She was however,
now, in consequence of the variations, 330 tons. The de-
fendant said he was willing to pay for 318 tons and no more,
although the contract was for only 303, and next, that there
was a special contract that no extras should be charged, yet
the plaintiffs claimed on that account £219 12s. 6d.
Several witnesses were examined in corroboration of the
facts, and the items charged in the extra account were mi-
nutely compared by the learned counsel for the defence, with
those found for the barque Thomas Lee ; an argument of
considerable length ensued on the pleas in the declaration.
The learned Ju DGE intimated pretty clearly that they were
in a great.measure wrongly laid, and that the only question
he should leave to the jury would be the amnunt of the extra
charges.

Mr. CRESSWELL then addressed the court on the part of
the defendant, enlarging on the great importance in building
vessels by contract, and paying for them according to the
registered tonnage, of the prescribed proportions being duly
observed. It was of the utmost importance to the shipowner
that for the purpose of capacity, the depth of the vessel
should be in exact proportion to her length and breadth,
Otherwise he would be paying the builder for a larger tonnage
than he would have an equivalent for, in the capacity of the
vessel for carrying cargo. On the other hand it was the build-
er's interest to make the vessel as long and as broad as he
could, but to make it as shallow as possible ; but the defen-
dant gained nothing by the little more depth which the plain-
tiffs had put into the vessel, because it was not made 'mid-
ships. He sanctioned the alterations from 303 tons to 318
tons, and he was willing to pay for that ; but the plaintiffs
made the ship 330 tons, and for the difference the defendant
refused to pay, inasmuch as he had not authorised it. The
fact he (Mr. Cresswell) could prove by Capt. Asbridge, hut
unfortunately he was abroad in the vessel, and it was the
knowledge of this fact which had induced the plaintiffs to
bring the cause to trial. The learned counsel then directed
the judge's attention to the several pleas in the declaration,
particularly the fourth and fifth, contending that the plain-
tiffs had been paid more than the amount which they claimed
for 303 tons, beyond which they did not go in their plea, in-
asmuch as they had been paid for 318 tons, and that the diffe-
rence would overtop the bill of extras, which they ought not
have sent i
After a very long discussion, it was arranged that the exact
amount of the extras supplied should be settled out of court.
Under the direction of the learned JUGDE, thejury returned
a verdict for the defendant on the fourth plea, that the
plaintiffs had built the ship according to the contract, and on
the fifth plea that the defendant
whichpaid wereall t that
merelyh e
fv,o'ar s_
unhtasd,
bound to pay. On the other e
mal, the jury found for the
.plaintiffs. The result, substan-
tially, is in favour of the defendant.
FOULDS V. WILLOUGHBY.
This was an action brought_ by the plaintiff, Abraham
Foulds, against the defendant, Seymour Willoughby, for the
recovery of the value of a mare and filly, which the defend-
ant found and converted to his use.
Mr. WATSON stated the case. The plaintiff sought to
recover a sum of about £3O, being. the value_ of a grey mare,
a bay filly, and a saddle. The facts of the case were short
and simple. The defendant, who resided with his brother at
the inn at Birkenhead, was the owner of the Birkenhead
Ferry. In the summer of last year the plaintiff had the
horse in question at the fair of Birkenhead for sale, but,
o• them back
being unable to dispose of them, he was bra nginb
to his place in Liverpool, at about
ttweom (one shilling and
sixpence) the day.
He paid the ordinary ferryage for them
sixpence) at the pay-gate, and had them placed,hedefendant was in a confined
situation on the deck of the steamer. 1
on board at the time. Shortly afterwards some furniture
was brought on board, and the plaintiff was then directed to
place his horses in another position in the boat. They had
not remained there very long when the defendant, for some
cause or other, insisted on their being taken on shore. The
plaintiff refused to comply with the request, whereupon the
defendant led them ashore, and took them out of sigh_
the
tof
the plaintiff altogether. The plaintiff was then offered
Is. 61 he had paid for their ferryage, but he refused to take
it. He also refused to follow the horses, which, it appeared,
were taken up to the Birkenhead Hotel, and he cause back
in the boat to Liverpool. The following day he went over,
in company with a friend, and demanded the horses from
the ostler who had them in charge. At the time the defend-
ant and his brother had gone out shooting, but the horses
:were standing in the stables. The ostler having refused to
-give them up, the plaintiff returned to town. The animals
aveze then turned out to grass upon a place where little grass
'was to be found : they fell off very much in condition ; and,
on the 12th of December following, the defendant brought
;them over to Liverpool and had them sold by auction. The
tones being of little or no value at the time, they were sold
!for little or nothing at the sale. The plaintiff, therefore,
:.sought the value of them at the time they had been taken
Strom him, which was about £4O. The saddle and bridle
avere worth about £4 extra. The defendant pleaded that be
was not guilty.

After several witnesses had been examined 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 bad 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
iu 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 V. 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 re-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. Au 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 distrqss 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 adjourned 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 Vis., 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 4noreover
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 .£1513, 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
it afterwards appeared, being a person with whom Brown bad
entered into some sort of partnership through the negocia-
tion of Bell, in the interim between the drawing of the two
bills. Brown stated that the bill was got from a person
named Greenwood—naming his residence. It appeared, how-
ever, that Bray was a person lodging in asmall cottage in the
outskirts 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 lie 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 he aided in the
uttering of the other.
The jury retired, and after being absent for 35 minutes,
returned, on re-entering the box, a verdict of Guilty against
both prisoners.
Sentence was deferred, with a view to the hearing, previ-
ously, of witnesses, as to the former character of the
prisoners.

MANSLAUGHTER CASES

Edward Stanton, aged 74, stood charged with having, at
Bolton, killed and slain Betty Stanton, his wife.
Ann Thompson knew the deceased. She was in the habit
of getting drunk, and she and the prisoner then quarrelled.
On the 11th of July witness saw her on the floor, and the
prisoner was leaving her. She assisted to put her on a chair.
He then kicked her, and struck her over the eye. She
groaned, and made a deal of noise. She was assisted up
stairs, and complained of pain in her side. • She could not
draw her breath. A doctor was sent for, and bled her. It
happened on a Wednesday. On Saturday she appeared bet-
ter, but died on Sunday.
Cross-examined by Mr. WiLxiss.—Deceased had not
been out on the Wednesday. She got drunk in witness's
presence, at home. Her husband said, in her presence, that
she was subject to fits. Leeches were also applied to her
side.
Bridget Stothart saw them quarrelling, and saw the pri-
soner draw his hand at her, on the day in question. Saw
her assisted up stairs. She had difficulty in drawing her
breath. Saw her on Sunday morning. She still complained.
The prisoner seemed much distressed.
Cross-examined.—l have seen her in fits. They generally
came on after drinking. They were " stir-up fits."
Deceased's sister saw her before her death, and she was
very ill.
Mr. Heap, surgeon, opened the body on the Monday after
her death. There were internal injuries that caused mortifi-
cation, and corresponding marks exteriorly, as of blows.
Cross-examined.—The marks might have been caused by
falling in a fit.

The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. The prisoner
was discharged.

Frederick Wainteright was charged with having, at Li-
verpool, killed and slain Thomas Ball the younger, in a fair
stand-up fight. He withdrew his first plea of not guilty, and
pleaded guilty. Sentence deferred, in order to hear witnesses
as to character.

Daniel Shields was indicted for killing and slaying George
Myers, at Liverpool. The deceased, it was stated, came to
his death by a blow from a brick, thrown from a house on
the day of the last election.
George Chesworth, a shipwright, of this town, said, I
knew the deceased who was engaged as a flag bearer. At
about eight o'clock on the night of the election, I received a
blow from a stone on the arm, in Fisher-street. I saw the
prisoner go on the roof of his mother's house. He and
others commenced throwing stones from the root. I saw a
stone pass by me, and deceased immediately fell. He was
carried away. Stones were thrown at us from the roof till
we got out of the street. The blood was running down the
deceased's face. 1 saw him afterwards with his had on the
table, and afterwards saw him when he was dead. I did not
see the stone strike the deceased.

Wood, a ropemaker, saw the deceased after he had re-
ceived the wound. He died some days after.

Edwards, a shipwright, said, I ;awticeprisoner on the
top of the house with a brick in his hand.

(Mr. Murphy here voluntarily defended the prisoner.)
Cross-mnined.—Stones might have fallen easily from the
houses further off, from which other parties were throwing.
Ann Myers, widow of the deceased, said he was brought
home much wounded. He died on the Sunday but one
afterwards.

Mr. Pennington, surgeon, said, I was called in to see the
deceased on the 4th of July. I attended him until he died.
His death was caused by the violence of the injury. He was
trepanned and died soor? afterwards.

James Patterson, police-officer, apprehended the prisoner.
He said Myers and his gang threw stones into his mother's
house first, and they were obliged to throw for self-pro-
tection. His brother, who had gone to sea, Was, he said,
present at the time. .

Cross-examined.—There were violent assaults made upon
houses, and many parties were injured. Several cases
showing this were tried at the last sessions.

Mr. MonPRY ably addressed the jury in behalf of the
prisoner. He contended that there was no proof that the
prisoner committed the violence that caused the death of the
deceased.

The jury found the prisoner Not Guilty.
Edward Nickson was indicted for killing and slaying Mar-
garet Robinson. The case was pretty fully reported in our
police intelligence shortly after the occurrence.
John Nickson a boy, said, he lived at the time in Norris-
street. The prisoner wasi his father. On the 31st of Mai last his
father came home tipsy, and lay down on the bed. His mo-
ther came home with some muscles. She asked him to get
up and have some. A quarrel ensued,
and he got up and
kicked her. She tried to get out of the cellar. He pulled
her down, and struck her in the side with a knife.
..She
called witness to go for the police,
and prisoner said, it he
did he would serve him the sameay. She again got up the
steps, and he pulled her back and she fell on her side. She
got up, and he caught her by the breast and threw her on the
floor on her back. She cried, " Don't lick me !" She sat
down on one of the steps. She then endeavoured to get out
again, and he pulled her back and she fell with her head on
the lower step. She .was afterwards put on the bed. She
never spoke afterwards.
Cross-examined.—She was not tipsy when she came home
that he knew of. His father kicked her about four times.
The knife bent when he struck her on the waist. There was
a procession that day. His father carried a colour, and his
.
mother went to see ; she was not drunk that he knew of.
A female, named Musker, said she saw the deceased lying
on the floor of the cellar. Shedid not appear to be sensible.

Witness. assisted to-put tier in the bed: She afterwards saw
the prisoner, who said he thought she had been drinking
poison or something. When she first saw her; prisoner said
nothing about her having. been drinking. On the second oc-
asion the Prisoner was crying.
Another female saw the prisoner push the deceased, and
afterwards saw her fall.

Inspector Cottani apprehended the prisoner. He told him
he was apprehending him for killing his wife. He replied
she was not his wife.

Mr. Eckerly, surgeon, made a post mortem examination
of the body. There was a fracture of the skull, which was
the cause of death. There was no mark on the side as of a
blow. She had stays on when he first saw her.

The sister of the deceased said she (deceased) was not mar-
ried. The prisoner and she had lived fourteen years together.
Mr. MURPHY spoke at some length in behalf of the pri-
soner.

His Loubstur summed up perspicuously, and the jury
returned a verdict of guilty. His LORDSHIP, after seriously
admonishing the prisoner on the violence of his conduct to
the deceased, who was under his protection, sentenced him
to be imprisoned four months,—the first and last week in
solitary confinement.

Luke Mills, was indicted for causing the death of Stephen
Settle, at Ratcliffe, near Bury.

Richard Settle, brother to- the deceased, said that on the
night of the 24th April, he was going home with him,
reckoning their wages, when the prisoner came up and said
something, to which his brother replied. They called each
other nicknames, They afterwards struggled together. Both
pulled off their jackets, and they fell several times. Luke
had iron clogs on. He threw deceased over his head, and ran
two or three yards to him and kicked. Deceased afterwards,
walked home with witness. He held his hands to his belly
and said he was ruined. He died on the Sunday night after-
wards, (next day.) He was well before.

. .
Cross examined.—His brother had been labouring under
a looseness of the bowels for three days.
James Blakely saw the affray. They rolled a little on the
ground. Stephen said he would pull of his jacket, which
witness took to be a challange to fight. They both took their
jackuts off and began again. Stephen struck first. Mills
then threw him over his head, and afterwards gave him a kick.
He was close to him at the time, and the kick was not a
heavy one. They wrestled again and rolled a little. Stephen
afterwards walked away by his brother's side, without any
assistance.

Another witness corroborated the last, in essential par-
ticulars.

Mr. Holmes, Surgeon, made a post mortem examination,
and found intimation and rupture of .the bowels, also slight
mortification. A kick or a severe fall would produce it.
There were no outward marks of violence.
Cross-examined by Mr. WimuNs.—l cannot say what
time inflammation had been going on. Mortification is the
death of the parts. If I had not beard of the wrestling, I
should have attributed the rupture to external violence. I
do not think that the inflammation would cause the rupture.
The bowels might be ruptured, by their being elastic, without
having an external mark.

Mr-.-MutwitY addressed the jury for the prisoner, con-
tending that the diarrhoea under which the deceased laboured
might have produced inflammation, which wouid reach to
mortification ; and that the parts having lost their power, a
rupture might arise from the abruption ,of the contents,
without a blow.

His LORDSHIP summed up, noticing the kick with a clog
tipped with iron, which was not denied ; and he knew of no
sort of fair fighting in which such an instrument could he
used. His lordship inclined to take the evidence of the me-
dical witness in preference to the suggestion thrown out by
the learned counsel.

The jury found the prisoner Guilty.
The learned Junct; in passing sentence adverted in a for-
cible manner to the horrid practice of kicking, of which he
was glad to find only this case in the present calendar. The
sentence was, that he be imprisoned for three calendar months
and kept to hard labour, and that the concluding week in
each month be in solitary confinement.

Alexander Cauley was indicted for the killing and slay-
ing, at Liverpool, of John Williams. Some difference had
arisen between the prisoner and deceased at the corner of a
street, and a few blows were exchanged, when the deceased
fell, and almost immediaiely expired. It appeared, however,
from the evidence of the surgeon who had examined the
body, that the immediate cause of death was a disease of the
heart, which the slightest encounter might render fatal. The
jury acquitted the prisoner, and he was discharged.