The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-08-16 00:00:00

A number of I
enraged he

soner, who struck her twice in the anal with a knife. The
jury found her guilty of unlawfully wounding, and his
Lordship sentenced her to one mouth's hard labour, she

having been already in prison for two months.
GAROTTE ROBBEIIT AT SALFORD.—rhonas Rogers,
aged 17, was indicted for a felonious assault on Richard
Barlow, at golfing, and robbing him of I
and key. On the night of the 26th of

the pro-

secutor was

twelve o'cla

when th

two in

;hind. The c

i seized h

.oat, while the other two took his watcl

aid. guard

from him. The m
him violently dm
woman, named M

ana Li
ma' iSlorso:

lye A
t, and
and

heard the prover*

almost immediate
down Berry-street

I into (

seeutor followed direct
who ha

d come up in the meantime. She
chat she had seen, and they all u
which is close at one end

He was identified toy- the pi
men who had stood iu front of him,when he was robbed.
The. woman, who also saw the man run past, identified
the prisoner as one of them. The jury found the prisoner
guilty! and, eleven previous convictions having been
proved against him, he was sentenced• to twelve years'

transportation

B bier...ANY AT

SA.LFORD.—Ja6iiert Jon

indicts& with hai:ing linrglariousfy
Joseph Taylor, at Salford, on the ls

against riorce and Dorgan, they we
years' transportation, on which Jon
my lord, get a free passage to th(

sPiitericed• to sever
said, .!` Thank you,

. -
ROBBERY AND VIOLENCE AT
Procter, aged 23, was indicted
assaulted =I-robbed Henry Dixoi

nth of February

6th of February, thel

with his friencis ieund
use in Deansgate, Manchester.

urrounded by nine 'person

ine of whom w

,i) him; and he, ac

rincipal

cant's counsel.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, for the defendant, submitted
that the death of the plaintiff's wife was occasioned by
want of care and caution on the part of the plaintiff and
his wife, and that no blame could be attributable to the
~.:.`rtes to I driver of the omnibus.

Witnesses having been called to support the defends 'S
view- of the occurrence, and his lordship having-sum ni.ed
up, the jury, after some consultation, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff. Damages £2O for the plaintiff, and 00
for his infant child.

BARLOW AND OTIXERS V. GLEDUILL.—This WON au
action for goods sold and. delivered, and money found to' be
due on an account stated- The plaintiffs were mercl►ants
at Manchester, and the defendant was a draper at Chester"
field, in Derbyshire, and an action was brought to recover,

a sum of £548. 6s. 6d., being the amount of goods sold and'
delivered to the defendant in the mouth of December,
1852. The question the jury would have to consider was,
whether the goods were sold by the plaintiffs to the defend
dant, or to a person named Richardson, also a draper at
Chesterfield, without whose order no goods would be sal)"
plied to the defendant by the plaintiffs. The goods in
question were sent to Mr. Richardson, instead of to the
defendant, who refused to pay fo' them, alleging the3l
were ordeved for Richardson, from whom defendant
purchasedthem.
At tile conclusion of the plaintiff's case, the court add

ed,a,t7 twe

minutes to seven ecloek;

TORE MR. JUST

Two undefended actions, each for a. bill of e.vahange,
were taken, first. In the one case, " Clavelly r. Bonne-
vialle," a verdict was returned for the pialutiff ; principal,
£lOO, interest, £l. 16s. In " Fauntleros, e. -Murchison,
the amount of bill was £3OO, and though the defend-
ant had at first denied his acceptance, he had subsequentlYo
through his attorney, admitted it. Verdiet for the plain-
tiff ; princip4 -X3OO, interest £l. 13s. Bd. Tlie"-Dufte of
Norfolk v. Loxiey". was an undefended action. for ekct-
ment, in which; -however, under the advice of'the•learued
judge, counsel kir the plaintiff declined to take- a•verdict
(in consequence eft the non-appearance of the, defendant,/
choosing rather to wait the proper day for Inidefenad
actions, when he maid do so without risk.

BARLOW AND MILERS v. GLADRILL.—Mr.- Atherton:
Q.C., commenced- the defence in this case, contending:
that, although the order was given by the. mouth 01'
Gledhill, and although he admitted it was intended and

contemplated that ultimately the goods shordd -form 3
portion of the stocle--of Gledhill, yet all the• fat/6-and
documents showed that the plaintiffs, who might have
had the option in the matter, declined by theirconduets
if not their language, .to deal with Gledhill. They took•
the order from Gledhill's mouth ; they sent the, goods
upon that order ; but-still they elected to make Richard-
soil their debtor, declining to deal with Gledhill '=as 3
therefore, they were not entitled to.receive
Anent from him. The jury found for the plaiatiffs,
2348. 6s. Bd.

MAUGHAM V. JEICUEIV AND ANOTHEIL—MV. Sergeant
Wilkins said that bothq)laintitf and defendants were iron
and steel merchants, the one in Sheffield, the other' lo
Manchester. The plairdiff had for some time carried on
his principal business in. Manchester, but somewhere ribins,
the year-1851 he made up his mind to confine the whole 01
his business to Sheffiebt,: and applied to the defendants to
purchase a quantity of goods which he had stored. in g
It was agreed that they should

arehouse at Manchester

he a portion of the stool ~.eonsisting of small aid large
Liars of steel, and pay for them when they had sold them;
ther portions, however,-..-being purchased out and out-
ie portions of the steel they were to give 30$. Per
r some masons' tools 44d. per lb., and for some files
The goods were weighed. and delivered, and two or
hi'ee days afterwarclsllia•plaintiff called upon the defend,
ants-, and having heard, for-the first time, that there was
some objection as to the; amount of the bill, a new ar7
sal/gement was made, by, which it was agreed that the
large bars should be returned, the plaintiff agreenig to
pay the carriage. Miring twelve months, tbo %Li
the plaintiff called repeatedly, and asked the rei,arnoci:
the goods as a favour;. they were not returpea'cahte.
the . action was brought to recover theirsiratsons
For: the defence it was urged by Mr. '
t sold,
R.A Q, that the goods, in dispute were
and that,
but .merely left with them as warehousemen,
though the invoice ineltuled the of the good?, it ""*"
a mere formality as far as related to those which were
retained in their capaeity as.warehomemen. The defold-
antaalso pleaded a set-off against the claim of the plain,
tiffh .of. warehouse-rent;for 108 week* and £5 14,94 whieli
they. alleged to be due to them upon a previous settlement
Mr, Justice Erie stated- the case to the jury, pointing out
that the evidence of-the - witnesses was directly contra,-
aietory,
_that one sidennist be stating what was not eor-

red, and it was for the_ jury tw decide, according to their
iitisiness experience and best judgment, which version of
the ease was the true.. one: The jury returned a verdict
fffr. the defendant.

The next action,_ which> was undefended, was brought
br the " Stourbridgc:.:Navigation Company v. Lewty and
others," for non-payment of tonnage accounts which the
defendants, wjio Lave• works on the Sixteen Locks, had
not paid. Verdict far the plaintiff for the amount ohiiined,
£93 4s 3d ; costs 40a4

BROOM; AND ANOTHER V. KNOTT.—The plaintiff
William Joseph Brooks and Robert Fraser, at the time
when the claim in dispute arose, were in partnezuhiP
Manchester as bill-brokers:; the defendant is a brewer and
spirit-merchant ht. the same place. The action was to
'recover £3B lesl.l@d,, with interest, the amount of,a bill
,due on the 10th,. Feb., which was drawn by a Mr, Johnsen
upon a Mr. William. Lee, and accepted by theJatter. Iti
was indorsed bF. Johnson to the defendant, and by, him to
the plaintiff. The defence was, that virtually no notice
of dishonour had beea served upon the defendant in con`
,sequence of au. imperfect address being placed upon a letter
to , Mr.
Knott._.. The address on the letter,. however, it
turned out, was only too correct, inasmuch as it gave two
addresses, instead of' one merely, of the defendant, who
occupied two, houses, both of which were described cor—
rectly on thecover. Verdict for the plaintiff.
SCOTT, v.. LONG)IORE.—An action for a d)ill for 220(:li.
drawn by Gtorge Longmore upon William Longmore, 1115.
father, (since deadj in favour of John Stuart and another,.
and indorsed by them to the plaintiff, Mr. Henry Scott-
The plaintiff teas a member of the firm of John Stuartand
Co., who, carried on business in Manabiester, and hada
branch, establishment at New York. The defendant wag
a wholes,ale provision-merchant, in Manchester. In the
year 184' the defendant went to the United States,,taking
with him a letter of credit from his Manchester house,'
and obtained from the house in New York money to the
extent of £2,000, which he covered by two acceptances.
each. for £l,OOO. The first of these bills was duly hoooured;
tbe.second the defendant wished! to have renewed; anl
in, consequence, the plaintiff's firm took two, biaff
of £2OO each, and another for £6OO. The latter
was, still unpaid, and in the hands of Stuart and C 0..,
at present. One of the bills of £2OO was. honoitrelb
and it was for the remaining bill for £2OO that the action.
was. brought. The defence was, that the plaintiff lif , onse'l
being the drawer of the MR though iu strict low he
would not be liable to an indorsee of that bill unless, the
bill having arrived at maturity, it were presented to the
person upon whom it was drawn, and, being dishonoured,
notice were promptly giveit to the drawer; or unless the
drawer, previous to thee maturity of the bill, dispensed
with the necessity of that presentment.. The bill in
thequ father, at
daotubmatedlturiy uoy'a. s .nThoteprpeslauient;rd
st I not Longmore,e pretend
that such was the case, but they said, that they failed to
make that presentment because the defendant himself re-
quested, through his. brother James,, that the persons who
held the bill should- not present it. The plaintiffs were
nonsuited on the ground that authority from George
Longmore to Jamos to act in the way stated was not provea•
The court rosy about half-past five o'clock.

hau
THE EIRL,QF DERBY has granted a site for a torreA",ed
at Cheetham,son the condition, that the plans are aPPr",.,,ri
by him, and that the premised shall be for ever sPPr"-
ated to public purPoses•
Tim JAca.k.x.r..—A little• steamer, brought here to run
as a tender to the Cunta, vessels, is now on her statien..•
The boat is very pretty, and, though built in Scotland'
has adopted Mr. Laird'a patent for steering at both cols,:
DISCOVERIES OF GITA.NO.—At the meeting of the
of Crosby, near Liverpool, and Mr. James Bell,
Royal Agricultural Society, on Wednesday, Mr., Faun"
of, york-
place, Edinburgh, gave some statements connected with
the, discovery of extensive excrementitious deposits of
birds, on islands and caves along certain ranges of the
eastern coast of Africa. They also forwarded a collecti??.
of samples, showing the varying nature of the deposit*
according to circumstances of situation and depth. Mil
these was a deposit containing 80 per cent. of phosT"'""'
of lime (without carbonate), and a crystallised substal
containing 91 per cent. of nitrate of soda, found in sin
lakes, upwards of a yard and a half in diameter, in :
verns, and in valleys ; and surrounding these smallLleldij
as crystallised incrustations, to an almost incalcula,be
amount." These gentlemen remark, in reference to vti..
guano : "The immense amount of deposited guano
not be calculated ; it is found iii extensive caverns
deep as could be pierced with two boarding pikes,
together, about twelve feet. It is also found comPlete
covering the side of the island least exposed to rains. of
FACTION FIGIITS.—On Tuesday the neighbourhood
Marybone was in an uproar, from the recurrence of one°:
those disgraceful faction fights which are indigencrtiro
that savoury locality. In the course of the " row, b3r
men, named M`Laughlin, were severely stabbed, and, „
the interposition of Superiutendent Ride, who was on teire''
spot as soon as possible with a body of police, they tore
conveyed to Bridewell. On being questioned, they stated
that the man who stabbed them was a Patrick Levings.V„„
who resided in Bispham-street. Superintendent Ride tP-,
lash ist
sent police-officer Carroll there, with orders to arrest era
but the officer soon returned, and stated that Levinge_r
had threatened to stab him with a knife. On thus,
eldl!L
711 was sent with Carroll to assist him, and, while
former former kept watch at the door, Carroll entered the
s!elS'
Here, while groping about in the dark, he was sa
e'leseL,
attacked by Levingston, who was concealed in a.ir. the
and who stabbed him with a knife in the face,
facial artery. ' Ultimately the ruffian was taken Lilo!
tody, and Carroll, who seemed to fear that he was,
wounded, was conveyed to the Northern Hospitg, "ere
facts w
he at present lies in a dangerous state. These reeceurto
detailed to the niagiStrates next day,. at the
41:"gis.t°a;j1tirsa
rebymanSupededrinftoernd:awt
eßield,e;nacondnsthecieuperisucoencl tiels!:l4lowhe
Gil IV and Pgaia§t 1414.