The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-03-30 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD

the same pit as Wrigley, one of the prisoners at the bar. On
the Monday before Christmas day, Wrigley said to him, that
they might make a good day's work by robbing the banksman
that they worked under. Witness replied, " We should be found
out if we did it." Wrigley replied, "He could get two chaps
that would do it." On the Wednesday following, he he
would go and fetch Thomas Bales and John Thompson to do
this job. On Friday Wrigley told him, that the men had come.
Bales and Thompson were sawyers. He had an interview with
them at Wrigley's house. Witness here identified the prisoners
at the bar. By Wrigley's direction he exchanged his white hat
for a black one. Witness here described, that they went alto-
gether to the place where the job was to be done. Witness was
sent to keep watch at the bottom of the field. It was a dark
night and Robert Wrigley agreed to go to the top of the field,
and show Thompson the man. In about a quarter of an hour
afterwards, he heard somebody call out, "Oh dear!" Wituess
ran away, being afraid of being taken if, he remained. Bales
and Thompson came running after him. Bales remarked, that
he (Duckworth) called out rarely. He and Bales got over the
hedge, Bales remarking that Thompson had got the money.
He also said, they held the banksman down in the field. They
met Thompson at Oldham, and at first said, they would go to
the King's Arms and divide the money, but fearing that if they
were seen together it would excite suspicion, they went to Bates'
house, where •witness remained outside. After a time, Thomp-
son came to him, and said, they had got £5, and gave him £2
10s. to divide between him and Wrigley.
Witnesses were called, who proved, that the handle of the
pick found in the field belonged to Wrigley. A man who heard
them conversing in prison detailed matter which they had spo-
ken, which showed that they bad a knowledge of the robbery.
Mr. MURPHY spoke at great length in defence of the pri-
goners.

The jury found all three guilty, and the court passed sentence
upon them of transportation for life.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—TUESD
(Before Mr. Justice Coleridge.)

Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Brandt appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Alexander for the defendant.

The declaration stated that this was an action brought by the
plaintiff, who is a surgebn, against the defendant, for using de-
famatory words against him, in stating that he was a quack, and
not entitled to practise as a surgeon.
It appeared that the plaintiff is a surgeon at Ashton, near
Manchester, and the defendant was steward to the Earl of
Stamford and Warrington. It appeared there had been a con-
servative supper at Ashton, to present a piece of plate to Mr.
Higginb,ottom, of that town, when the plaintiff, a person named.
Gregory, a Mr. Newton, a Mr. Worthington, and a Mr. Tay-
lor, who were liberals, went into an adjoining room, and listened
to what...was going on, in which they were detected, and this
conduct caused much talk in the town. A few days afterwards
a number of persons were assembled at the Commercial Inn,
where the before-mentioned individuals, with the exception of
the plaintiff, were assembled, and the defendant, when they
began conversing about the conservative supper, and the con-
duct of the listeners; when the defendant said, " Don't mention
Dr. Daubs, (meaning the plaintiff,) he is a quack, and not
entitled to practise as a surgeon; you may tell him that I will
prove it." And subsequently he stated that two apprentices
had been obliged to leave the plaintiff because he had not passed
Apothecaries Hall. A witness, named Edward Gregory, was
called to prove the words used ; and deposed to the defendant
having used the words, and that he had told the plaintiff of the
words.

His lordship severely commented on the evidence of this wit-
ness. To every question on his cross-examination making
against his friend the plaintiff, it was, first, "it might be so,"
then,. " perhaps it was so," then, "I believe it was so," and
finally, " I have no doubt whatever it was so."
Mr. ALURANDER, for the defence, called the, witnesses' evi-
dence an "ascending scale of evidence." lie strongly de-
nounced the shabby conduct of the listeners, and said that par-
ties who would take so mean an advantage over a political op-
ponent would take the opportunity which the words which
formed the subject of the action afforded to found an action on
them to injure a political opponent.
His lordship said if they were of opinion that the slander was
substantially proved, they would find for the plaintiff.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages, one far-
thing.

BACK HOUSE AND ANOTHER V. SANDIFORD AND OTHERS.

Mr. CRESWELL and. Mr. HOGGIN S appeared for the plaintiff
and Mr. ALEXANDER and Mr. WIGHTSI A N for the defence.

The plaintiffs in this casedealt very considerably with Messrs.
Sandiford, Hewitt, aad Wetherby,- calico-printers, of Manches-
ter. The latter firm dissolved partnership in September, 1836,
and at that time there was a balance owing from the firm to the
plantiff, Mr. Backhouse, of about 41;200. Mr. Sandiford drew
out or the firm, leaving Messrs. Hewitt and Wetherby, to carry
on the business, and they soon after failed and became bank-
rupti in the debt. of Mr. Backhouse, who now came upon Mr.
Sandiford, who had withdrawn from the firm, for the amount of
his debt. This was the point 'at issue, M. Sandiford pleading
that he was exonerated by the dissolution of partnership; then
that he was exonerated by agreement. with the plaintiff, which
was denied; and then that he was exonerated by the Flain-
tiff 's having received a bill from Hewitt and Wetberby,in pay-
ment of the debt, and that he therefore could not come upon
Sandiford. This, it was said, was accepted with an understand-
ing that it was not to invalidate the plaintiff's claim against
Sandiford. The defendants, Hewitt and Wetherby pleaded
their bankruptcy, and the action therefore rested against San-
diford. Mr. Backhouse was in partnership with a Mr. Price,
who was the other plaintiff in the action. For the defence it
was attempted to be proved that the goods were supplied to the
subsequent firm, and not to Sandiford and Co. _ _ _

His LORDSHIP, in summing up, said there could not be a
doubt about the responsibility of Mr. Sandiford.
The jury- found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £1,087 Gs.7d.

SEGGITH V. BYWATER

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. STARKIE appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. BRANDT for the defence.
The plaintiff in this action is a coach-builder at Scarborough,
and the defendant is the keeper of a carriage bazaar at Man-
chester. 'The action was brought to recover the value of a
carriage; sent by the plaintiff to 'the defendant's bazaar to be
sold, which the defendant did sell, but which the plaintiff could
never get eaid for. The defendant paid £l9 into court. A
verdiCt was agreed to in additiiin for £2O.
There being no further causes ready to go on with, his Lord-
ship sent "over to the other court for an indiettnent to go on
with.

pass this over as a very light offence. Example demanded that
he should inflict a somewhat severe punishment. The prisoner
was sentenced to imprisonment for twelve months, with hard
labour.