The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-08-27 00:00:00

COINING

John Fisher, James Crossley, and Margaret Crossley, con-
victed of coining, were sentenced—the first to six months'
imprisonment, the second to 14 years transportation, and
the third to 12 months' imprisonment. .

POST-OFFICE FRAUDS

Thomas Miller, for secreting a post letter, was sentenced
to transportation for life ; and William Davies, for stealing a
post letter, was sentenced to 14 years' transportation.

STABBING.
John Ball, for maliciously cutting and wounding Thomas
Kelly, was sentenced to 14 years' transportation.
. .

John Lovatt, for shooting at Newsham with in-
tent to murder him, was sentenced to 15 months' imprison-
ment and hard labour.

FORGERY.
Thomas Brown and Christopher Robinson Bell, convicted
of forgery, were sentenced to transportation for life.
The court adjourned shortly before six o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—YESTERDAY.
RIGBY AND ANOTHER V. WESTMACOTT.
This was a special jury case, in which Thomas Rigby and
another were plaintiflis, and Henry Seymour Westmacott,
defendant. The declaration was an issue to try whether the
plaintiffs were, entitled to certain flint stone.
Mr. Creswell and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plain-
tiffs ; and Mr. Baines and Mr. Martin for the defendant.
Mr. CRESSWELI. informed the jury that the parties had
come to an understanding which would save them the trouble
of going into a lengthened investigation.
A verdict was accordingly returned for the plaintiffs, by
consent.

TAYLOR V. HAIVKINS.
This was an undefended cause, in which Benjamin Taylor
was plaintiff, and James Hawkins defendant. The action
vas brought for the recovery of £3O 3s. Bd., being the amount
of a balance due from defendant to plaintiff.
Verdict for plaintiff for the sum claimed.
MARTIN V. POTTS AND ANOTHER.
This was an undefended cause, in which Richard Martin
was plaintiff, and John and Joseph Potts were the defendants.
The plaintiff was a drysalter, at Manchester, and the de-
fendants were silk-dyers. The action was brought for the
recovery of £3O ss. 10d., being the amount of goods sold and
delivered. _ _

Verdict for plaintiff for the sum claimed.
COATES AND ANOTHER V. BIRCH, DART., SHERIFF

This was an action brought by Samuel and Benj. Coates,
against Sir Thomas Bernard Birch, Bart., high-sheriff of the
county, for the recovery of the amount of a judgment for
£B3 3s. 10d. The declaration set forth, that on the Bth of
July last a writ of capiaB ad reapondendurn had been duly
issued to the chancellor, at the suit of the plaintiffs, against
a Mr. Walton ; that the sheriff, under a writ issued at the
suit of a man named Scott, arrested Walton, and afterwards
suffered him to go at large, whereby he became indebted to
the plaintiffs for the amount of the judgment. The defen-
dant pleaded that the writ had not been delivered to him ;
that he did not take Walton, and that he had not had him
in execution ; and that there existed a conspiracy between
the plaintiffs and their attorney, to lodge their writ at such a
time
that it would be impossible for the sheriff to execute it
pr,Rerly.

Mr.buntlas and Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiffs,
and Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Crompton for the defendant.
mongers at NV
Mr. DUNDAS stated the case. The plaintiffs were iron-
in Liverpool olverhampton, and in the habit of doing busi-
nesswith Mr. Walton, against whom they
brought an action hi the January of the present year, and
obtained a verdict for the aura of £B5 3s. Md. Mr. Waltoni
not being forthcoming, the
lathaiuttiifftswassuetdheoduutttyhoeifrtwheritshoen
the Bth of July, for the purpose of .
proceeding on the judg-
ment. The jury were aware')
riff, when he received a writ, to take the man into custody,
and in that way the debt was recovered. The action in the
present case had been
Drought against the sheriff for his de-

fault, inasmuch as ha took Walton into eustofly; and after-
wards suffered him to escape : in consequence, the sheriff had
rendered himself liable for the amount of the judgment. It
would appear from the evidence, that on the Bth of July last,
a writ was sued out against Walton, at the suit of the plain-
tiffs, and that the following day it was delivered to the sheriff,
at his office in Preston. At the same time there happened
to have been a writ out against Walton, at the suit of a Mr.
John Scott, which writ was delivered to a man named Kirby,
the sheriff's officer, who arrested Walton in Liverpool, on
the 10th of July. The action between Scott and Walton
was then settled, whereupon Kirby, without searching the
sheriff's office, at Preston, to ascertain if there were any
other writs against him, suffered him to go at large, whereby
the plaintiffs had lost the benefit of his arrest. In point of
law, when the sheriff receives several writs against an indi-
vidual, and that individual was arrested on one of them,
be was virtually in custody on every one of the actions. For
instance, if there were, six writs out against a man, and he
was arrested on one of them, he was virtually arrested on
all the others, because it would be absurd on the part of the
sheriff to arrest him on each separately ; and them fore when
Walton had been arrested at the suit of Scott, he was virtu-
ally arrested at the suit of the plaintiffs ; because, when he
had been arrested at the suit of Scott, the writ of the plain-
tiffs was issued : under those circumstances, the sheriff was
liable for his default.

Several witnesses were then examined to prove the case;
after which,

Mr. CRESSWELL addressed the jury on the part of the
defendant. He said that the two writs had come down si-
multaneously, in order that Walton might be arrested on
rnesne process and let out, and that the sheriff should then
be fixed in the costs of the present action. Both the writs
came down on the same day, the 9th July : one of them was
sent to an officer of the name of Kirby, and the second to an
officer of the name of Ogle. Walton was then arrested by
Kirby, and when the action at the suit of Scott had been
settled, he kept him for a day or two after in custody, and
then liberated him, not knowing that there was another writ
against him at the suit of the plaintiffs, and the officer Ogle
knowing nothing of Walton's arrest. He (the learned coun-
sel) was not quite sure that Walton had not been a party to
the transaction, and that lie had not been instrumental in the
getting up of the farce, which might well be called " a new
way to pay old debts ", by making the she►ifl' of the county
liable for the demand of the plaintiffs instead of himself.
There appeared to have been an arrangement between the
parties that Walton should be arrested and put in jail ; that
the second writ should be got down at the same time with
the plaintiff's suit ; that Walton should be liberated upon
Scott's writ, and that the sheriff should be made to pay the
amount of the second execution. For this purpose W alton's
arrest on Scott's writ had been kept a profound secret lest-it
should come to the ears of the officer, Ogle, and lest mea-
sures would be accordingly taken to keep him in custody. If
the jury should be of opinion, under these circumstances,
that there had been a conspiracy between the parties, and a
piece of hocus pocus in the bringing down of the two writs
at one and the same time, they would release the sheriff from
liability.

His 'LORDSHIP then charged the jury. It was the duty of
the sheriff's officer to ascertain whether there were any other
writs against Walton before he discharged him from custody.
If he had applied to the officer at Preston he could imme-
diately have ascertained that there was a second writ against
Walton at the suit of the plaintiffs. The question was, whe-
ther Walton was in the sheriff's custody at the time that the
sheriff had the second writ in his care ; and, upon this point,
it appeared from the evidence that the man had been in cus-
tody from the 10th to the 14th of July, and that the writ at
the suit of the plaintiffs was consigned to the sheriff's keep-
ing on the 9th of July. There had been no evidence of any
conspiracy in the case, but there had been evidence of great
neglect on the part of the sheriff's officer, who, it appeared,
had not taken the ordinary precautions before he liberated
Walton from custody.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for the full
amount.

JONES V. BANKART

In this case Watkin Merrick Jones, was the plaintiff, and
Frederick Bankart, the defendant. The action was brought
for the recovery of the sum of £l6O, being the amount in
which the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff for monies
advanced, and on account stated.

Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Watson appeared for the plaintiff,
and the Hon. Mr. Wortley and Mr. Crompton for the de-
fendant.

Mr. CaESSWELL stated the case. The action had been
brought by the plaintiff, a gentleman residing in Liverpool,
to recover from the defendant, who was a compound of an
attorney, a bill discounter, and an agent in London, a sum
of about £162, under the following circumstances :—lt ap-
peared that a Mr. Worthington, also practised as an attor-
ney in Liverpool with great respectability, and who filled the
office of solicitor to the Dock Trustees at present, became
considerably indebted to the plaintiff. There bad been ex-
changes of property between the parties, which left him a
debtor to the plaintiff to a large amount. In the course of
those transactions, Mr. Worthineton had accepted a bill for
the plaintiff for £lOO, which would become due on the 19th
of March, 1840, and the plaintiff had accepted, for the ac-
commodation of Mr. Worthington, a bill for £221 ss, which
would become due on the 20th of March in the same year.
Both those bills had to be provided for by Mr. Worthington,
but he not being in a condition to provide for them, the plain-
tiff remitted a bill on the 4th of March for £196 10s, and on
the 18th of March he remitted another bill for £286 17s,
which made a total of £483 7s to meet them. Those two
bills were then handed over to the defendant to take up the
bills which were falling due ; and on the 22nd of March,
1840, the plaintiff wrote a letter to the defendant, informing
him of the terms on which the two bills for £196 10s, and
£286 17s had been remitted. The difference between the
first two bills for £331 ss, which were taken up, and the
second two bills for £483 7s, which had been remitted for
the purpose of taking up the others, was now claimed by the
plaintiff; for when the defendant was subsequently applied
to for the balance, he said he would keep tine bills for what
they were worth, although they had both been ultimately ho-
noured, and he had received the amount of them in full.
Witnesses having been examined to prove the transactions
between the parties,

The lion. Mr. WORTLE Si addressed the Jury on the part
of the defendant. He said the plaintiff in the case had pro-
fited very considerably by a familiar intimacy which had ex-
isted between Mr. Worthington and the defendant, in getting
paper discounted, which otherwise would have been negocia-
hie. It would appear that Mr. Worthington, finding him-
self under considerable embarrassments, went to London
and applied, not to a common money-lender, but to his
familiar friend, the defendant, for accommodation. The
plaintiff and Mr. Worthington happening to have dealings
together, and both being in difficulties, Mr. Worthington ap-
plied to the defendant, with the knowledge of the plaintiff,
and at his suggestion, to assist him in discounting the bills
for £lOO, and £231 ss. The defendant then accommodated
the parties ; and he (the learned counsel) thought it rather hard
that plaintiff should turn round on the defendant after that
gentleman had accommodated him. The defendant claimed
the bills as his own on account of a balance which was owing
to him by the two parties—the plaintiff and Mr. Worthing-
ton, both of whom acted as if in partnership together, and
the latter appearing in the capacity of an agent to the former.
The defendant had subsequently been obliged to sue upon
the bills, and ultimately succeeded in recovering their
amount, less costs and other expenses. For ten months
afterwards the plaintiff acquiesced in the transactions with
the defendant ; but at present, in the last hour, in his des-
peration and want of funds, and when he found Mr. Wor-
thington unable to pay him. he turned round upon the de-
fendant, who, through his friendship with Mr. Worthington,
bid been induced to grant accommodation to the plaintiff.
A number of letters were here read which had passed be-
tween the parties.
Mr. CRESSWELL replied.
His LORDSHIP then charged the jury, who, after an ab-
sence from court of twenty minutes, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff for £162 10s.