The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-08-21 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL ASSIZES.

CROWN COURT.---FRIDAY.
I His Lordship took his seat at nine o'clock.
Previously to the commencement of business, the following
sentences were passed.
John Ill'Gowan for maliciously stabbing, was sentenced to
15 years transportation.
The three Wigan rioters, Brennan, Horne, and Carmen
for maliciously stabbing, 15 years' transportation. ,
William Andrew, aged 33, was charged with having com-
mitted a rape on the person of Elizabeth Harrison.
Mr. L. PEEL, who conducted the prosecution, finding,
after a few preliminary questions put to the prosecutrix, that
he could not support the charge, abandoned the proceedings,
and the prisoner was discharged.
Charles Dagnall, aged 58, was indicted for an offence, the
details of which cannot be published. The jury found him
guilty of the assault, and he was condemned to imprisonment
and hard labour for three years at Kirkdale Gaol.
CHARGE OF PERJURY.
James Bark was charged with having committed wilful and
corrupt perjury, at Manchester.
Dr.,BROWN conducted the prosecution, and Mr. BRANDT
and Mr. Ilui.ToN the defence.
Jeremiah Hall, a butcher, of Manchester, stated that he
kr.ew the defendant, James Bark. He called upon witness,
at his house, on the 29th October, at a late hour in the even-
ing. Witness had retired to rest. He went down stairs and
let the defendant in. He said he had a summons for him.
\Vitness said, " You might, Mr. Bark, have come earlier."
Some disturbance ensued, and witness wanted the watchman
to take Bark to the lock-up. The watchman advised them
to go to the police-office, and settle their disputes there.
They proceeded to the police-office together, and witness was
lucked up all night, and taken before the magistrate next
morning. There the defendant charged the prosecutor with
having torn the summons, and assaulted him. Witness
stated that the defendant afterwards produced the same sum-
mons.

The case created much amusement, for the attorney for the
prosecution stated that the summons was handed to the ma-
gistrates, by the defendant, and that the defendant at the
same time swore that the same summons had been torn to
pieces.

It appeared that the question put to the defendant had been
misunderstood by him. The jury acquitted the defendant,
and his Lordship said there was not the slightest imputation
against his character.

`His Lottos Hip refused to allow the expenses of the prose.
cution.

This terminated the crown business.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY.
BARR V. GIBSON.—(SPECIAL. JURY CASE.)
This was an action brought by Mr. Barr, the plaintiff, to
recover front Mr. Thos. Cummins Gibson the sum of £4,200,
paid for a 64th part of the ship Sarah. The defendant sold
to the plaintiff the 64th part of a ship called the Sarah, for
the consideration of £4,200. The sale occurred on the 21st
of October, 1836, the vessel being then on a voyage to Prince
Edward Island. Shortly after, intelligence was received of
the vessel having been wrecked on the coast of New Holland
on the 13th of October, her bottom stove in, and that she
was sold by the captain, on finding her totally wrecked, for
£155. The question therefore arose, whether or not, when
the sale was completed, the vessel was a vessel, or merely a
congeries of broken planks. The action was before tried at
Lancaster, and a verdict was found for the defendant. It
appeared that the share had been insured for £3,800, which
insurance had been obtained on the loss of the vessel, An
application was made to the Judges of the Exchequer for a
new trial, which was granted on the ground that the vessel,
when she was sold, though lost, was a vessel for the purposes
of transfer; or, as Mr. WIGHTMAN, who was one of the
plaintiff's counsel, expressed it, " their lordships ruled for a
new trial, on the ground that the vessel was not lost because
they knew where it was." (Laughter.)—Mr. CRESSIVE,LL
stated, that so complete a wreck was she, that a canoe had
been rowed into her hull, and that she might with as much
propriety be called a pond to paddle a canoe in, as a ship,
for the usual purposes of a ship.
The case was not gone into, the parties coming to an ar-
rangement to refer it. A verdict was agreed to for the plain-
tiff, damages £3,800; some accounts between the parties to
be referred.

BINNS V. WILLERT.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a spin-
ner of cotton yarn at Manchester, to recover from Mr. Paul
Frederick Willert, a dealer in cotton yarn for the purposes
of exportation, the value of 500 bundles of cotton yarn. It
appeared that the defendant contracted with the plaintiff for
the yarn, which was to be furnished by a certain time, and
of a certain quality. A part of the yarn was furnished, and
then the defendant refused it on the ground that it was of
inferior quality, and immediately purchased the whole 500
bundles elsewhere, th•iugh the time of the contract was not
ended. It was hinted by the plaintiff's counsel, that the
market was a falling one, and that at the time when the de-
fendant had repudiated the yarn, the same quality was to be
bought for much less than at the time when the contract was
made, and that it was in order that he might get yarn of the
same quality at a cheaper rate, that the yarn in question was
repupiated. For the defence it was contended, that the yarn
was not of the quality ordered.—lt was agreed to refer the
decision to a gentleman on the jury who understood yarns.

I.EADBRATER. V. HART.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a paper
stainer and hanger, at Manchester, to recover a sum of £2O
from the defendant, who is an attorney, for hanging papers
furnished to him. It appeared that the defendant, who was
furnishing a house, employed an upholsterer to furnish it,
and went along with the upholsterer to the plaintiff's to
choose the papers. The upholsterer became a bankrupt, and
the plaintiff then charged the defendant with the papers in-
stead of the upholsterer. It was contended for the defence,
that the paper-stainer was in a situation to be benefited by
some ready money, and that for that reason the upholsterer
took him there, expecting him to pay for the papers, and that
the defendant had paid nobody for them.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount
of the claim.

FALLOWS 2% STEPHENSON.
This was an action brought for the recovery of a watch.
The plaintiff is a clock and watch maker, and the defendant
is a publican, keepini, the Old Red Lion, at Salford. The
plaintiff raffled a gold' repeater watch, 40 subscribers at 10s.
each ; and a Mr. Mather, the keeper of the Oxnoble public-
house, was in the first instance a subscriber under the name
of " Oxnoble." Before the raffle commenced, a note was
received from Mather withdrawing his subscription, and
Fallows offered the share to the company, but all refused it,
and he then took it himself, and asked Stephenson to throw
for him, as he never had any luck. The defendant threw,
and won the watch with Oxnoble's share, and soon after,
asking to look at it, pocketed it, and insisted that he had
thrown for Mather, and that it was Mather's watch, and he
took the watch away with nim. For the defence it was stated
that Mather's note was never read till the raffle was over,
and then it was, and Fallows claimed his share, it then hav-
ing won the match. Stephenson insisted they were all a
parcel of rogues, that he had thrown for Mather, and that it
was Mather's watch. Witnesses were called on both sides,
who swore directly opposite to each other. The learned
counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. CRESWELL, said the action
was one of the most disgraceful which had been tried during
the assizes, for there was direct and disgusting perjury on
one side or the other, and he heartily wished that such ano-
ther cause would not be brought before the court. The ma-
jority of the witnesses were a pot-house, drunken looking set
of fellows. His LORDSHIP said, in proportion to the small-
ness of the interest was the profligacy of swearing, and put
it to the jury which set of witnesses they would believe.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—a farthing da-
mages, and a farthing costs.

NISI PRIS COURT.—SATURDAY.
POLE AND OTHERS V. TINSLEY AND ANOTHER.
Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Archbell appeared for the plaintiffs,
and Mr. Wightman and Mr. Tomlinson for the defendants.
This was an action brought by Messrs. Pole and Co., who
are extensive dry-salters in London, against the defendants,
who are the owners of a mill, called Bank Mill, at Manches-
ter. The plaintiffs were in the habit of purchasing dye woods
and depositing them with the grinder, who was in the habit
of grinding the woods as from time to time they were required.
In the course of the last year the plaintiffs purchased a con-
siderable quantity of fustic, and sent it to the defendants'
mill, then tenanted by a person of the name of Yates, to
grind and take charge of. Yates gave up possession of the
mill into the hands of the owner, a quantity of plaintiffs'
wood remaining on the premises. The key of the mill was
given up to Tinsley, and Tinsley carried on the mill, and
sometime after sold part of the plaintiffs' log-wood on the
premises for Yates's rent ; and the plaintiffs had brought this
action to try whether they were obliged to pay Yates's rentor
not. A custom prevailed in Manchester, where on trades-
men requiring customers to place goods on tenants' lands,
that the landlords should not have a right to distrain on those
goods not. the tenant's, but the customer's. The defendants
did not deny the custom, but alleged that the goods were not
lying there under the circumstances which placed the goods
in question under the custom. By an amended act of Queen
Anne, the landlord had a right to distrain on a tenant's
goods, or any goods on a tenant's premises. The question
as whether or not Yates continued in possession till the
distress was made. Evidence was gone into to prove that the
key of the mill was sent by Yates to Tinsley before the dis-
traint, and that the mill, at the time of the distraint, was in
the occupation and working of Tinsley.
The jury found a verdict on the issue of possession for the
plaintiffs; and other issues in the cause were agreed on be-
tween the parties.

LUCAS V. nownEN.
In this case the plaintiff Lucas was the surviving asignee
of a bankrupt named Holden, a calico printer, at Manches-
ter, and the defendant Bowden was a sort of confidential
servant in the employment of the assignees of the plaintiff.
After Holden became a bankrupt, his business was carried
on for the benefit of his creditors, by two assignees, Hunter
and Lucas. I-hinter died, and Lucas carried on the business
so successfully, that the business had paid all the creditors of
Holden's estate 20s. in the pound; and it then became ne-
cessary for Lucas the assignee to transfer the business back
again to the bankrupt. It was then found, on a partial ex-
amination of the books previous to the transfer, that Bowden
the defendant, who had been in the habit of paying the work-
man's wages, had appropriated to himself a large sum, by
putting down as paid to the workmen considerably more than
they claimed or earned. Mr. Alexander, on the part of the
defendant, begged that as it was a case which so seriously af-
fected his client's character, and as there were accounts ex-
tending through six years to be waded through, that the plain-
tiff would agree to a reference.
Mr. CUESSIVELL, On the part of the plaintiff, reluctantly
assented to this, on the proviso that the inquiry be entered
into instantly, and that the arbitrator have power to grant a
certificate of execution, on the verdict being in the plaintiff's
favour. This was agreed to, and the case was referred to Mr.
Armstrong as arbitrator.

BARBEE V. WALLACE.
The plaintiff in this case keeps the Northumberland Arms,
in Warwickshire, and the defendant was a person out of busi-
ness, in the habit of living for a length of time at different
public houses. The present action was brought by the plain-
tiff against the defendant to recover the amount of t 9 hoard
for 10 weeks, at the rate of 10s. a week for tbe defendant and
his friend, and ss. a week for a bed, altogether, £22 lls.
For the defence, it was contended that the defendant paid as
he had gone on. Several witnesses were examined on both
sides, and there was the usual hard swearing which distin-
guishes such petty cases. The jury found a verdict for the