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

ening him with death. There iiete 36 sovetelgos in the
Purse. A short man said, "We will not leave the house in
this way—we'll do some murder before we go." They pro-
ceeded to break open all the drawers, a cupboard, and a box,
turning out every thing in them, including some title-deeds
in a tin box, and took away some. silver spoons, a watch, a
bottle of rum, &c. The main body then went away, leaving
one of their number in the room, who held a pistol close to
his head. When the others had gone some time, this man
went away, pointing his pistol at Mr. Shaw all the way. He
shut the doors behind him, and they were found nailed up
Afterwards. Mr. Shaw identified his key.
'William Care, Mr. Shaw's man, corroborated the testi-
tnony of the latter. _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Thomas Sutton (the approver) stated that he lodged for
some time in the house of Parkinson, with whom Pennington
also lodged. The house was in Stafford-street, Chorlton-on-
Medlocic. On the 25th March last, he and the prisoners all
met at Parkinson's house before dinner, and planned the
robbery of Mr. Shaw's house, which was about 16 miles from
thence. Next day they set out between two and three o'clock.
Soon after leaving Parkinson's they separated, Ellis, Parkin-
son, and Pennington going one way, and Barber, Goodier, and
witness the other. They reached the neighbourhood of Shaw's
house about ten o'clock, and met the other three in the stile
road leading to the house, at the distance of about a quarter
of a mile. They went to the house, and after remaining near
it a short time, witness and the others left Pennington and
Goodier, and went away for the purpose of endeavouring
to get a drink of buttermilk at the house of Mr. Bibby,
a relative of Sutton's, who resided at a short distance.
They went to Bibby's house, and at first mistook the door.
They knocked at the door of a Mr. John Shaw, who directed
them to the next door. They went next door, knocked up
Bibby, who was in bed, procured a can of buttermilk, drank
it, had the can re-filled, and took it to their comrades who
were waiting for them near a heap of manure. They pro-
ceeded to the barn, where they waited about an hour. Bar-
ton. Pennington, and Ellis went to the door, when the dog
began to bark furiously, upon which Parkinson observed " we
must go in." Ellis went to the back door, and the other
two got a stump, or billet of wood, and dashed in the front
door. Pennington immediately fired off a pistol ; a window
was heard to open, and witness threw three stones at it, but
he did not see any body. Goodier, Parkinson, Barber, and
Pennington went in, and witness remained outside. He
(witness) stood till he heard some glass broke, when he went
round to the back. He had Ellis's umbrella in his hand.
He found Ellis with the young woman, and threatened her
not to break through the window. He went back to the
front of the house, and presently the others came out and
locked the door. Parkinson had previously stolen some
spoons, and produced some rum which they drank amongst
them. Barber produced £7 10s. in gold, and gave them a
sovereign each. Having left their companions they overtook
a cart, in which they rode to Stretford-road-end.

On cross-examination, it appeared that the prisoner had'
been convicted of felony, and imprisoned for poaching.
Mr. Jones, the constable of Warrington stated, that hav-
ing heard of the robbery, he proceeded on the 28th to Mr.
Shaw's residence, where he found impressions of crow-bars
on the doors and drawers, and footmarks near the manure
and about the premises. In consequence of information
which he had received, he went to Parkinson's house, where
he apprehended Barber. The others were apprehended with
Sutton at the railway station in Manchester. A pair of pis-
tols and two black frocks, two black crape masks, two bullet
moulds, &c.. were found in the house, with a quantity of ske-
leton keys, crow-bars, &c. The key which was identified as
the key of Mr. Shaw's house, was also found at Parkinson's
house, with two dark lanterns, one of which was without a
slide. A slide which fitted it was found on the floor of Mr.
Shaw's kitchen. At Barber's house a number of keys were
found, a crow-bar, a black calico frock, and some lucifer
matches. He went to Goodier's house, and found him
crouched behind the door, naked, with his clothes under his
arm.

The jury found the prisoner guilty.
Parkinson and Goodier, were placed at the bar with
William Dixon, 35, and James Unsworth, 25. They were
charged with having, at Warrington, feloniously broken and
entered the silk manufactory of Messrs. Spencer, Birkham
and James Pownall, and stolen therefrom 41 silk warps,
value £2OO, and 21s. 4d. in copper. James Unsworth was
charged as an accessory after the fact. The chief proof again
rested on the testimony of Sutton. On the night of the 15th
of February they went to the factory, Parkinson, Dixon, and
Goodier carrying with them crowbars and long skewers, for
the purpose, as they said, of picking out the mortar and
taking away the bricks. They had also large bags made of
window curtains, which were for the purpose of carrying
away the silk. They arrived at the factory shortly after two
o'clock, and set Sutton to watch. They commenced opera-
tions on the bricks, Sutton giving them notice whenever a
boat appeared on the canal, when they desisted work for a
short time till it had passed. They were some time before
they had removed all the bricks which they found necessary,
as they were very thick. Having made a sufficient aperture
they went in, Sutton still watching., When it began to be
light they came forth with the bags filled with silk. It was
proved that Unsworth purchased a portion of the silk. Se-
veral witnesses were called who corroborated points in Sut-
ton's testimony.
The jury acquitted Unswortb, and found the other three
prisoners guilty.
William Dixon, James Unsworth, and William Parkinson
were again placed at the bar, charged with having in Decem-
ber last, burglariously broken into the dwelling-house of
Abraham Ackers, of Bickershaw-hall, and stolen a pair of
duelling pistols, three keys, a canvas bag, containing a bullet
mould, silver and copper, 170 old copper and silver coins, a
box of cigars, a cash box, &c.
The jury acquitted Dixon, and found the other two pri-
soners guilty.
Mr. WiLicirls said there was another indictment against
the prisoners; perhaps his lordship would not think it ne-
cessary to proceed with it.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—I shall not proceed further
to-night, you can use your own discretion tomorrow, Mr.
Wilkins.
fire court adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.

,-WEDNESDAY

NISI PRIUS COURT
SHUTE AND OTHERS V. CROFT.
This was an undefended action, brought by Stephen Shute
and others, assignees of Messrs. Allanson and Frankland,
bankrupts, against John Dealy Croft, to recover the sum
of £546 12s. 6d., the balance of a promissory note for
£l2lB 2s. 2d. Verdict for the plaintiffs for the amount
claimed.

FALCON AND ANOTHER. V. BENN.
This was an action brought by Messrs. Falcon and Alex-
ander, ship-builders. of Workington, against Mr. Thomas
Berm, 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 conducted the case for the
plaintiffs; Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Robinson for the de-
fendant. _ .

It appeared from the statement of the plaintiffs' counse.
that iu 1838, the defendant contracted with the plaintiffs fo,
them to build him a vessel of the following dimensions,
feet long, 23 feet wide, 17 feet 6 inches deep in hold,thebaqnode
to be fitted up and equipped in the same manner as the barque
Thomas Lee, a vessel previously built by
the,as
£l3 10s. per
plaintiffs for
some other parties. The price to be paid ~
tou. It was also contracted that there should be no extras
charged for in wood or iron work,. except,lB39, the Athena was
for patents if fitted
keel as in the Thomas Lee.
laid down, and Mr. Asbridge,lntheugneentleman who was after-
wards Asbridge
appointed to the command of her, superintended the
building,buildin, as the defendant's I,„,entlaintiffs alleged, on the de-
. Captain
i when
the keel was laid down, as the p
fendant's authority, had the keel made 10-1 feet, and her
width extended four or five inches, in order that her appear-
ance
no
nor ight not be too flat. In the middle of the ship there
variation from the contract, but in the depth same 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 dclaration.
The learned JUDGE 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 band 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 be 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
to have sent in.
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, the jury 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 had paid all that he was
bound to pay. On the other counts, which were merely for-
mal, the jury found for the plaintiff,. The result, substan
tially, is in favour of thedefendant.

FOULDS U. 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 £4O, 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
had the
Ferry. In the summer of last year the plaintiff
horse in question at the fair of Birkenhead for sale, but,
being unable to dispose of them, he was bringingithem back
to his place in Liverpool, at about two o clock n the day.
He paid the ordinary ferryage for them (one shilling and
sixpence) at the pay-gate, and had them placed in a confined
situation on the deck of the steamer. The defendant was
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 sight ol
the plaintiff altogether. The plaintiff was then offered the
ls. Gd. 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 came back
in the boat to Liverpool. The followirb, 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
were 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
horses 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
from him, which was about £4O. The saddle and bridle
were worth about £4 extra. The defendant pleaded that he
was not guilty.