The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-03-27 00:00:00

FISEIVC V. PORTER.

This Was an action brought by the plaintiff agatnst the defemd-
ant as adaiinistratrix other father, for the stun or £127, fur.the
matinfacture of ginger beer, furnished by the plaintiff.tu
' defendant's father at the rate 0f.64 per dozen, the. delendaiit's
father residing iu the cellar of the plaintiff. The parties reside
at Manchester.
" After the case had been briefly gone into, it was agreed to
refer it, and a verdict was taken forthe.pla.iutiff.

NEWTON V. HARDING.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a plumher
and glazier, at Manchester, to recover the sum of ifs 2, tor pork
-done fui the deferidant, who is an attorney, and who was a great
speculator in buildings.
The parties agreed to a reference.

. . .
71-11f111..E V. LQMAX AND ()THEM
. ..
This
.was an action brought.by the plaintiff, as registexesl offi-
cer of the Northern and Central Bank of England, to recover
i*, -from the defendants, James Lomax, a gentleman named Da-
: ',king, and a marine store dealer at Liverpool,. named M`.Ghee,
' 'who were a co-.partnership guarantee to the.bank,alung with
,Others, for the honouring of the drafts of a Mr, Broadbent, who
.W. s placed' by them to manage the paper manufactory of. a Mr.
. , nghes, situltted near Manchester. )Ir. Hughes became em 7
,e
_,.. arrassedinlis circumstances, was its debt to the defendants to
, a.couside rab le amnuut,and they determined to carry on hisworks
fOr their benefit. Se7eral of theparties who.had signed the guar-
rantee were dead; Lomax, one of the defendants, had. become
bankrupt, and. pleaded Isis bankruptcy, and the case was, not
pressed against him; another, Daking had allowed judgment
,to go by default, and it was stated was unable to pay, and the
whole responsibility therefore rested. on. M'Glaee. The trans-
_ ,fictions with the hank commenced in May 27,1834, and coati-
„ trued till 483 G, when the account was closed, and,at which time
,e;"there• was dug to the bank £4082. The guarrantee was read
Lyt bpd proved, and,thie amount advanced by the bank. Itappeared
0,,,1hat 411!(;hee, as, well as leing jointly responsible for this
~ timouut on accoornt of
.the concern, of which be and others had
'faken thernanagernent. was a creditor of Hughes tuthe amount
3. r.
about 1.:3490. ...
Mr. ALEXAN ostt, for the defence,,expatiated on,the,hart4hip
~,pfthe case ,as affecting .M'Ghee,.who,
,besides losing hip; own
lairge debt was thus made responsible for the additional amount.
'due to ihe,bank, from a praiseworthy desire to carry on, along-
with others, the insolvent concern for the benefit of all the cre-
,ditorP-: . ~
. .
His LORDSHIP said, however hard ,it might be on IV.l;f;lree, it
was his voluntary act, and the bank ,ought nut to suffer, and the
Ye4ct.must. therefore be for the plaintiff.
Verdict accordingly ,for the amount.

PLATFORO V. WHINF-LEI.D...
This.l7tas.an action brought by, the plaina, a.tailor, of Man-
chester, to recover the aumuut of his bill, £5. 6s. 41.
Verdict for the plaintiff for.the amount- .
BS~GEOCH, ASSIGNEE, MARRING,
This was an action. brought. to recover the, Amount of £127,
the value of the furniture of a bankrupt named .Dutton, of
~,Whioni the defendant Harding, a relation of JOs ,bught it, .The
„,plaintiff, as the assignee of Dutton, brought the action, on the
,ground that the furniture was improperly sold whilst the hank-
„ropt.was insolvent, and that ,therefore the. £127 was the piu-
perty of the assignee fur the benefit of the _creditors, Harding.
having afterwards sold the furniture for the same amount.
thg defence, it was contended, that.the sale.w.as.toade two mouths
4 FlUr to the bankruptcy. and that it was,paid, fur in full to the
451°147.ent. Witnesses were called on ,both.sides.
"A:fle. jury upresseil. a to retire; after an 4bsenge of a
qttarter_of an hour they found a verdict for the plaintiff—
,D4rnAgos £92.
lt*is time no other causes were ready.
. 14.10anAktiti e;tpressed; his determination to sit until six
o'clock each night, and.seut over to the other court for a pri-
„Rotterto .try.
CUTTING AND STABBING NEAR OLDHAM.

mire :end .i4g,linent they endeavoured to make people
fee! that.this vans an a:mini:tattle crime., lie hai.l.heep found
gitilty of an tisaiilt, and after the npininn tie expresvil, he
should certainly treat Into severelv. Halle!: not, he WaS sorry to.
s,ay, power to transpoit him, or he Certainly
,iy•914(.1; the law
only' allowed him to itnprison_him for a long period ; lie
meant to pass sat It apttinshineui Upon htun that ail the rlikys
his life he wont.! remember the 29th of October, and that these.
presetitniight know that it was no light up.t.tcr to quarrel tO.
that way, and to stab their neFghbour with The see-
fenee op toe. Cuurt was, that he he 'inoprisoUed in the gaol of
liirkrlale Fn- the space of 2 years, and during thatlime to be.
kept to hard labour. .
The Court then rose at half-past five o'clock.

George Ba!sorer, who had beed at large on bail, having sur-
rendered himself, was pladed at the bar charged with haying,
at :Milton Norris, in January last, caused the death of Mary
Wards,,verth, by• his gross misconduct and ignorance while act-
ing in the capacity of accuucheur and man-midwife.
Mr. Brandt and Mr: fititton conducted the case for the pro-
secutien, and Mr. Cottinghani appeared for the defence.
Sarah Rutter (examined by
.Mr. ttut,ltiN.)—Witness stated
that she lived' at Heaton Norris. She knew Thomas Wards-
werth and his wife Mary. The latter bad had nine children,
and in January last, she was pregnant,agaio. .Witness saw her
On the filth' of January, at nine o'clock. She was sitting on a
cfiairbefore the fire, and was evidently in a situation to require
the immediate assistance of an accouchenr. The prisoner Bal-
saver was sent for,, and he arrived at four 9'ClOck. 'When he
arrived 'Mrs. Waridtworth was still sitting .in a chair. After
some preliminary*lnquirieS and examinations, Mr. Balsover
'prommuced it' to be a cross bifth,-saying, that it was cress
Altogether." " She was put to bed, and the .prisoner teid her to
and above all things to ki!-.ep herself qiiiet, as it
.weuld
be some tone. Ile went away, telling them to send fur a pow-
Aer. The -husband of the ,deceaSed went for the powder. At
six o'clock Mr. Balsover tailed again, and asked -Mrs.
..I,7Ards-
W,irth'bo-w she'vras, but did not examUie her. He4l,Plaip
parted, 'telling:them to send 'for another, powder. hp eshand
of the deceased went far the powder. in about au hour. alsOver
jent word by the husband that if Mrs: Wardsworth were "stirldeu ly
talset worse they were to send for some other iuedkcaltriaii.
Mrs. Warcliworth complained next morning that the :powder
had dunitied her limbs. She grew much worse till Saturday
rnorning; when a medical man named Cheetham was Sent for.
• When the latter arrived, he sent for Mr. Graham and 1l r. Ryan,
two other surgeons. The 4th of January was Thursci.y, and
the deceased coiktinued to get worse till the following Wednes-
day, when she died. • .
Class-examined by Mr. COTTINGHANI.—Witness was a single
woman-, 'and had never. had auv children. Mrs. Wordsworth
told, her that the prisoner bad attended her during five previous
iiccouchnients. She had always had very quick Utiles, and two
of her children were burn 'before the prisoner arrived. The
prisoner had been in practice in that neighbourhood' more than
twenty years. : . .
Charlotte Andrews, sister-in-law of the deceased, stated that
she was a widow, and had had children. On Thursday, the 4th
,Of January, 'she wentto see AlFs. Wordsworth. She had been
• twice before in the forenoon. Mrs. Wardsworth was; from the
state of her feelings, anticipating immediate confinement. She
(witness) was there when Mr. BalsoVer arrived. after they
had got her to bed, he examined her, and told her tocompose
herself And keep warm, for it must have time. fig.sid it
• was cross altogether." He went away, and returned' at six
o'clock. He said‘she was no better, and she rnust have some
red wine. lie 6kt:them that he was going to Heaton-lane, and
tliere'they would find biai if he were wanted. tie called again
.ar ten o'clock, in company with his housekeeper. Ile did not
-at Any time give her any assistance, but When he went away he
Said' they.were to tend for another powder. Witness remained
with her till next morning, when she complained of her linibs
being numb. Witness was called up on Saturday-morning, at
,five o'clock. The husband of the deceased then went for Mr.
Balinver," but he did not come. Mr. Cheetham, a surgeon, was
then sew. for.

. • CROWN COURT.—MONDAY.
His Lortsbio took his seat at nine o'clock.

ALLEGED MANSLAUGHTER BY THE NEGLECT OF AN
ACCOt;CHEUR.

This witness was alsecross-examined by Mr. COTTINGHAM.
Teoma.s Wordsworth, the hoSband of the deceased, proved
.that .he had gone to prisoner's house on the 4th of January twice,
and each time he received a powder. Mr. B,alsover told Wit-
' riess that if his wife were suddenly taken worse he had better
send for another doctor. lie went between two and three
o'clock. Saturday morning fur Mr. Balsover, when he was told
that'he was not home, by the houSekeeper, who spoke from the
window. Witness sent to look for. him at the places mentioned
by the latter, hut could not find him.
Cross-exainined by Mr. CUT, r NGH m.-7-When he saw Mr.
Balsover, on Friday, he told him that he had other cases to
attend to and he feared he should not be able to attend to the
deceased.
Mr: George Young Graham, Mr.'Sarnuel Howard Cheetham,
and Mr. Rai nes, all surgeons practicing at Stockport and
Heaton Norris, who were called on to sae Mrs. Wordsworth on
the Saturday morning, were examined touching the state in
which they found the deceased. They described minutely the
appearances and reason which led to her death. It appeared
that she could not have got through the accotichment without
assistance, as the operation of " turning" ought to haVe been,
perfOinied. By an operation.a dead child was brought into the
Weald, and the deceased Subs'equently died of inflammation.
Mr. GoTTINnktAm addressed the jury for the' defence, and
went niiiintely.intd all the circumstances brought out in evi-
dence; Contending that no gross ignorance or negligenCe had
been preyed., He should show by
revidence that Mr. Thilsover's
housekeeper,•Who slept in the tront apartment,
.while he slept
in a back room, and who answered' the vii Hess Woriisworth,
thought that Mr. Balsover was really out when she told'him so,
and that the applicatiOn was never communicated
' Elizabeth Bennett, Mr. Baliover'S housekeeper, stated that
She ho lived with him twelve years. She stated that as Mr.
Balsover had told her that he had to gosput to two other labours
'she. drought' he'had gone out, andtold the huSband so, directing
him to those places where she expected he Would be found.
Other witnesses were called, who Proved generally that the
Prisoner was an attentive and skilful man, and that he had two
Other-casei•which reqiiired his attention, er might do so, at that
'time; and that he distinctly told both her and her husband so.
The sister-in-law of the deceased proved that she (the deceased)
hail actually' admitted to her that Mr. Balsover told her he
Could not attend her, and she might get another, ,doctor.
BitANDiad,lressed the jury in reply.
The J ociE said the jury. must be satisfied that there had
been gross-negligence and igoorance ere they.could convict the
Prisoner. A mistake or error iii jhrigment was not sufflCient,
because it would be a fearful thing if a wediCal wan in the
practice of his profession were to be placed at the bar for every
error ofjudgment.
'The jury returned a verdict of not eniltv, 'and the prisoner
was instantly discharged.
CHARGE OF M A NSLA UGHTER.
Whem • aged 22, was Charged in atri indictment with
havinir at Manchester, on the 12th September last,aisaulted
Mid slain Thoreas
Htitton for the prosecution and Mr. Murphy for the de-
fence. • . , , .

- • _ .
..,-,Jusiale„Gregees. labourer, was indicted for cuttiog and stab- •
• laissgahornaa Broadbent, copier, at Shaw, near Gldham. There
were three counts in the indictment: .the.first charging ,him- '
with au intent to murder the prosecutor; the second, with in-
.,tarsi to.diatigure him, and the third to do-him some grievous
bodily harm. . . • - .•
Mr. Brandt supported the •prosecution, and Mr. Green de-•
feu tied. the prisoner.
B ELAN Dr. briefly stated the case. On the 29th of October
~last, thearrosecutor was at beer shop, at Shaw, near,Oldliain, and
-,-.schilsithete the prisoner came in .and created a disturbance,
:iattut the prosecutor interfered to put hitn out. • There was some
struggling.; and- during ,the struggle.t he prosecutor felt himself
.wounded, and- that his ear, his face, and his throat were cut.
Theavounds were of such a nature as to make it clearthat it was
...i.theintention• of the party to inflict the wonuds. It would be
.!•for the consideratiou of the jury whether there was a sufficient'
--,,degree of malice to bring the case within the indictment with
intent to murder, or if not, whether sufficient to make the party
guilty of. an assault.. • • •
Thomas Broadbent, the prosecutor, an extremely stupid, ant
. uneducated looking...man,. a complete specimen of a Lancashire
. Amor, then deposed., that it was:at half past five o'clock on Sett-
day.morning, the 29th of October last, called Beitomley's, that
tha.."-job happened ".• " We hed bed, " said the witness, " a
—foootin agate.... 1 was asleep, and Joseph Greaves awoke me by
. drawing his finger through my lips. .When I wacken'4 he began
to .:be wranglesoine, and made nuke work, staggered, and
knoc,lterl‘aleawt liiike. I had hed enought, so I put him eawt
..itit! dorm,: Whenhe got outside, he begun o' cutting me with a:
knife. I first felt it na my mouth, again any teeth. 1 then felt
it in my ear, and then in my cheek, and next in my throat; he
said he'd cut my heard off.l hed hed a quarrel with hint about
....three months before. Ho had a row with me, and ran 'his
heard, into my belly, and then I fended myself, and got t' !nes-
ter of hint, and then he tuk a warrant, again me. On the 7th
.01 -October, he came before my window, and pulling out a
,knife, said, here's a thing 'll do thy job, and next week
bring a pistol. . •
- Mr. Baamin....—Was this on the Ist of October ? Witness.
Jitun; 1 doant kttaw,-I'se no scholard. (Laughter.) After I
was ent -vary numb.
44oss-examined.—l. was noan drunk, I was drinking from
nine o'clock 00 Saturday night, till four o'clock on Sunday
niorning. The first thing Greaves did after he wa(thened me,
.;was to; begin .feeghtin',. his knoif again Jos. Hilton's
They then pood toau at 'tether abeawt a bit, an .Greaves began
cawin' us a' Max o' names. Id. know a man of the name of
'James •Bradlev. I wrestled with hint once. He knew a man
named -Bunt; he never struck Bunt " sirs he was born," but
shad wrestled with him. He hart had a battle with John Shep-
herd. •,He had .wrestled " oust" with John Sugar. .
Joseph Hilton deposed, that he was present when the above
transaction took place. Greaves first awoke the prosecutor by
drawing his finger through his mouth, and then began pushing
him hackwardsand-forwards. and Broadbent put hint out; when
.'he saw. Greaves draw his knife, and make three stabi at the
prosecutor. saying he would cut his head off, and would have,:
dune it before, if -he had had tools in his pocket.
Henry Hilton gave similar evidence. As soon as the prisoner
had, dune this,•he ran up some steps. and seized a large stone,
and threatened to kill any one who followed him, when Mira-
ham Farrow got near him, and jerked the stone out of his hand,
and-he was eventually secured.

i73.1t evened froth the evidence that 'the deceased was in the
habitvr einofilries whi'ch shea
busing his wife,and.that.in consequence of some se-
'received in the'rnonth of June last, she
summoned hire before the magistrates, When in default of hail
he' was committed to the New Bailey prison. where he remained
Three MOuths. When the deceased got out of-prisen on the
12th of Setitember, be went to the house Where his`Wife lived.
He threatened her till she 'fled from fear that he Would 'inflict
`some injury on her. He went out, but returned in the evening.
The prisoner, who was Step-On to the deceased, was there.,The.
deceased attacked-hig wife with great 'Kirk, beat her, ,hriitally,
and it appears she was fearfill'that he Would Murder her: 'Her
itil.rfereci:B'nd, as Its wai 'alleged:. struck he. deceesed
,on
the head with a poker. The,deseased afterwardieither fell' or
was thrown through a window. Tfire witnesses for the prosecu-
tion made it appear that the deceased was thrown through the
window, while. Mrs. Alellor. who was called Inr.the defence,
swore be fell down stairs and cut ,his head, and afterwards
rushed through the Window.
Mr. Muneili addressed the jury at great length in defence
Of the prisoner.
I,ounsiitP said, if the jell, were of opinion that thB pii-
aoner had' only interfered to defend his mother, he could not be
convicted. The jury must, .however, distinguish as to whether
he had used more violence than was necessary for that purgose.
The jet c, after a few moments consultation, returned a ver-
dict of Nut Guilty. The,priauner was discharged.

. : Mr-George Wisittiiker, surgeon, deposed, that about .seven
o'clock of the morning in question 9 the prosecutor came to him
to get hi; .wounds dressed. All (.4 them were superficial, and
not -diligerow. The one on his cheek extended to his ear,
which was cut through ;, the one on the throat was only through
the skin, but had it been a little deeper it would hrze divided
the carrot id, and sub clavian arteries, and perhaps the jugular
vein. ,
--This was the case for the prosecution.
• Mr. GHBEN, for, the defence, contended that there was no
malice, hut that it was the act of an irritated drunken man.
His" LOttDSHIP minutely pointed out the law of the case to
the jury. 111,should.recommend them to find that he had no
intent to cosimit murder.

The ...Jury, after. a short consultation, fannd the prisoner
,guilty of the minor offence, an assault only. •
• His Loans it P, then addressing the prisoner, said, the merci-
ful consideration of the jury had acquitted•bim of all the serious
• isharges in the indictment, and had fuund•bim guilty only of the
assault. it was extreinely.fortunate for him that that was the
case, for if he had .been found guilty of any of the other offences
• charged against. him, .he should have transported hlm .for his
life, or at.least for 15 years ; because be thought that his con-
duct :in .the transaction had been most brutal and violent;
- and 'because he could not shut his eyes to the •fact, that in
this .countl..aud in other .counties in the North of England,
the use of the knife was become shaniefully prevalent. In
former times, when Englishmen quarrelled, they were accus-
-tamed .to appeal to their native strength to settle their differ-
_

ences. Rot the people had taken up a practice, borrowed from
other taxids,.to nee their knives in a cowardly and malicious
"mminec .Most severely would he:punish everyone that caine
before. him. neater such circumstances, in order to.put down. so
horrid an °hawse.' He thaught eo judge did his duty unte43

defendant's case was opened first. The cause was one of very
little interest.
Toe jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, for the amount of
£3lB.

a Ito DBIONT v. LED:WA RD --111..c0 VT.!: y ttV pier Di: S.
This was an action brought by tht plait:tall', against Mrs.
'Wiry Led Ward, to
‘recover three oil pa-intings, which, it was
alledged. she retained ,without any just rich!.. ..The defendant
pleaded first, that she did notd?tain thein;seCondly, that they
were not Broadbent's, and third, that the actiondid jiot ikee.,ou
within Six years. The plaintiff set a peculiar valtie on the pic-
tures, frfpin ciretirnstances connected with them. Mr. Bruail-
bent was a free Mason, and in 1814 was member of a lodge
number 311, of which Mr. Astley was master. This gentleman
was P. G. M., of all the lodges in Lancasbire,.and took great.
interest iu the prosperity of all,
,freemason's lodges generadv.
He was necessarily absent a good deal from home, and Mr.
Broadbent was appOinted D. M. of Lodge 311. In the year
1814, iu January, a lodge was openeil in what. was called the
third degree of inisintry, a rather more solemn meeting than
usual, and Mr. Broadbent preSided. The meeting was held at
the house of John Bradley, at Dukinfteld, the husband of the
present defendant. Mr. Astley went there, and remarked, when
he went in, that the room lOoked very handsome, with some
pictures, which, it appeared. he had sent to adorn the room,
One of the great masonic festivals was held on St. John's day,
and one of these pictures was a painting of St. John. These
pictures were to be kept by Mr. 13roadheut for the use
of the lodge, and to ornament the room, and remainee. there
till the year 1832, when Mr. Bradley died. There was then a
sale of his effects, and Mrs. Bradley herself was aware that the
pictures did not belong to her bus-baud, and pointed them out
as not his, property, but that they belonged to the freemasons.
Mrs. Bradley afterwards married a Mr. Ledward, an innkeeper,
and he had also since died, and from that time Mrs. Ledward
claimed the pistyres as her own.
.Sbe was desired to give them
up, but refused, and saidthe did not belong to any one but her-
Self, ,end obstinately persisted in retaining them. After the
case had beep gone into, when it appeared,t hat the pictures bad
been Made a present to the:, lodge, by Mr. Astley, and the
defendant refused to give them up, a.noniinal verdict was taken
for the 'plaintiff, for £lOOO to be reduced to one shilling, on the
restoration of tire
.I)kt:tures.
itiqGtxtsoTiot AND 0TH11.,11,S V. RHODES, AND ANOTHLR.,—
,TAl,EspilsS.
, _

This was an action brought the .plain,tiff's, John 11,iggin-
bottom, and John and James Buckley, againsfWilliam abodes,
James Milues, to determine between .the parties which were
intitled to a mine of coal, situated at Crompton, near. Oldham.
The plaintiffs held the land under which was the mine,.on a
lease for 999'years, intitlina them to the coals and minerals
beneath the surface, which lease had been demised to-theni.
The defendants afterwards became possessed of the land as
tenants, and under that tenure iina,,,,tned they had a right to
the coal underneath the surface, and came and-broke down the
;machinery of the plaintiffs created for procuring the coal.-
The parties, before goieg into the case, cameto an agreement
to refer it, and a nominal verdict was taken, by consent, for the
plaintiff. Damages, 1.:10,000, subject to a reference.
PENS FOR THE COUNSEL.

Mr. ALEX:ANDRE,' (addressing the Under Sheriff,) will you
furnish us with "suite pen's, Mr. Under Sheriff? . None have
yet been furnished tie. • • .
The UNDER SHERIFF, (handing aver the court the pen with
which he was writing,) I have gut one here for you.
,(Loud
latighter.) • Is not this creditable to Liverpool?
HALI: AND OTHERS V. ROUSE AND OTHERS.

This *as an action brought by' the •AssW,nees of a person
namep Lowe. Lowe was a manufacturer at Pally Green, near
Rochdale, and the defendants were woolitaplers at Bradford
and other places. Lowe becarine bankrupt in 18:37; after which,
the defendants, by an got possession-of a large
quantity ofproperty, id flannels end woollen Cloths, which they
applied to their own use, defrauding the rest of the creditors.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs,- damages, £450.
MARTIN V. lIA.I2GIiEAVESD/iBT.

Mr. Alexander appeared far the plaintiff, and Mr. Cresswell
for the defenc,3.
The declaration stated that this was an action for a debtor
£330 for the price of work done by the plaintiff for the *defend-
ant. The defendant had'paid'£24o, part of the sum, but had
not paid the residue. Ta whica the defendant pleaded that he
never was indebted. On this plea issue was joined.
In this case the plaintiff was a hook-kee:;er, at Bolton-le-
moors, and the defe.tolant was one of theyno,n extensive carriers
in the North of England. In the year 18.14 . Mr.. Hargreaves
was in' want of a clerk, and, finally the plaintiff was eugaged,,at
21s per week. Afterwards, Mr. Hargreaves's brother vacating
his office of cashier to the establishment, the plaintiff was ap-
pointed, and was paid 27s per week, and had filled the situation
about three Years at that salary when he left it. The plaintiff
had to keep the defendant's private ledger, to examine all con-
fidential matters, to receive cash from .different collectors, to
pay servants' wages, &c., and to give a general inspection
to the different rail Way businesacs of the defendant, to look over
the tradesmen's !recounts, and order every article about. the
concern. Upwards of £lOO,OOO had passed through his hands
whilst iu this situation, and the plaintiff thought that 27s per
week was not an adequate remuneration for .these services, but
that he ought to have at the rate of £lOO per annum, which he
alleged was promised to him by the defendant.
A person named Stokes was called, who now fills the same
situation formerly,occupied, by the plaintiff, and his evidence
went to show that the plaintiff was incompetent to fill his situa-
tion, and that he had told witness repeatedly that he had applied
over
.arid ,Over again for' an increase of salary, but he never
could get it.
HisLoansnri, here stopped the case. There could be no
doubt, Whatever the plaintiff might think, that after receiving
275. a week for years, he could not call on his master to give

floe Juyy found a v?rdic,t for the defen,clant.
TOOMA;SAND ANUTHER, ASSIGNEES CONNELL.

. .
Mr. Creaswell, Mr, Alexander,. Mr.. Wig,htnian, Mr. Tom-
insOO, and Mr. Cowling appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Wat-
son and Mr.. John Henderson for the defence. .'•
Mr. CirEssww„ in opening the .case, said, the plaintiffs in
this ease represented the creditors of.Samtiel Brown and. James
Cheetharu, of Manchester.; andithe defendant represettted the
Northern and Central Bank of England. • The action was
brought to recover a considerable ,sum of money, about £llOO.
which was paid into the Northern and Central Bank, between
the 22d of November, 1836, and the 4th of. February, 1R37.,/,
Brown and Cheetham made voluntary. payments, in older, (so
said the plaintiffs) to make their account, with the bank better
than, wnh the other creditors. In the course of their business
they became embarrassed in their affairs. .Brown absented
himself from the manufactory .for a considerable time, and
Cheethain struggled ow, :hut from time to.time creditors were
pressing on them, and these they were puffin,. off as well as
they, could. After ‘! robbing Peter to pay .Paul," according to
• the approved system, fur some time they succeeded io 'arming
an account with the South Lancashire Bank, some friends
.guaranteeing them, and therefore it was an object with Brown
and Cheet haul to pay off this in order to save tneir friends from
any liabiltty. FromNovernberto December they were paying
much into the Bank, and drawing nothing out, and all that
they could collect from their different creditors went to oneac-
count, and all the rest of their creditors who were urgent for
their money, could never get a farthing. In this way the South
.Lancashire". Bank got sortie £llOO. the produce of goods which
were sold.under circumstances which induced. the assignees at
.the last assizes to bring an action, whichterminated in a ver-
dict which courpelled them to refund the money they had sore-
ceived., It would appear that in the month of November,
there were some hills of a person of the name of Maguire.
in. Ireland, coming due, Messrs. Brown and Cheetham had
given acceptances for £5OO, and .some intimation was given
.that these bills were not likely,to be paid; and when Brown
antl.Cheatham were satisfied in their own minds, if these bills
were nut paid, the consequence.:must be: they must infallibly
.stop. Accordingly, a person. in their employ, was sent over.to
Ireland to se,e :what he could.make of Maguire, and also to see
and get some cash from some of the .other creditors. But if
they, had succeeded in that; it would-be:found that la was on ly
to wind up their affairs; and as soon as th.e.liank.was paid
commit enact of bankruptcy. Their agent wrote that Maguir e
arts worth nothing, and that very day the letter_was receive ,
the whole of their goods were sold off, .to the amount of 8 or
£9OO, to Cheat ham"s sou-in-law, Silley ; andahen.Silley, by way
of papnent, paid the money into the. South Lancashire. hank.
This sheaved a determination -on their .[:art to protect their
;friends at. all hazards. This transaction was proved and con-
sidered to be a fraud tie the other creditors. Mr.Cresswell con-
tended that these moneys were paid into the Northern and •
Central Bank in order to place them in a better situation than
the other creditors... lithe. jury Sound that such . was the case,
the assignees were entitled to have that money in order to make
an •• equal distribution to the creditors. He should prove that
while a person of the name of Thowas.applied for mouey and
. could get nothing but a bill, the .bank•had been receiving the
same .day, £250, the day after,£2Bo,la fortnight after, £24B;and •
three days after that £l6O, whilst they.had told Mr. Thoinias
that they had no money whatever. And during the whole of-
that time they had only drawn out £4O from the .'aank. .
Mr. John Shee, a clerk of the bankrupts was examined, and
deposed .to many of the facts above stated. Ile went over to
Ireland, and got no money for the bankrupts, and on his re-
turn, found they had sold the stock. On being cross-examined,•
he could not state that the bank had repeatedly dunned Brown
and Cheatham, and required them to pay up.
Other witnesses were called to prove that.they had dunned
the. bankrupts for accounts awl had not succeeded.
The examination of Mr. Connell, the manager.of the bank,,
the present defendant, made before the Bankrupt Corn.'
t»issioner, was put in.and read, from which it appeared that the
several .sums .mentioned above, and others, ,had, at various
times, been paid ,into. the bank, from November the 21st,'
amottatiug ,to -.EI 1,1 1, and that cash only to the amount of £4O,
had been drawn out on the 2nd of January.
This formed the case for the plaintiffs.
Mr. WATSON, fur the defence said, the question which the
jury had to try was, whether the whole of the payments made
into this bank from the 22d of November to the 2d ofFebruarY,
when the bankruptcy took place, should be refueded. That was
a most monstrous and unjust thing. Up to the time of his
bankruptcy. the bankrupt "by. law had a right to dispose of his
goods and money as he thought fit, if he did not commit an "aet
of fraudulent prefe'rence. The jury, before they could find for
the plaintiffsonust be of opinion that thelankropt- at that time
contemplated an act of ,bankruptcy; and that these payments'
were made in contemplationof their defrauding -the rest -of their
creditors. But it' the payments were made with any apeeific
object, for the • purpose of staving off a bankruptcy; or other
purpose, then the defendant would be entitled to their verdict.
He should show to them that there was a pressure from the bank
from time to time on the bankrupts, and if the payments were
made under the pressure,•he -should be 'entitled to their verdict.
In May 1836 the bank wrote to• the bankrupts, wishing a gra-
' dnal liquidation of their debt. On the 21st oiNovember, the
bank wrote requiring an immediate 'settlement withiwa week,
by cash or bills, of the debt due from the bankrupts to the
'bank ; and another letter on the 281h,aif November, reqtiiring
the balance of the banking account in a few days,
Witnesses were called to prove the abovepressure of the
bank. , . . , . •
Mr. CRESSWELI. replied. He contended that arta, payments
I by a bankrupt two months before his bankruptcy; must not be
' of the character of ,afraudulent preference, but bona fide pay-
ments in the course of his trade.
ills Lotman P, sionnaing up said, if a creditor was more
pressing un a debtor than the'general body of creditors, and by
abet means obtained payment- by goods or 'money of his debt,
be was'cilorred by law-to retain his advantages over the general
body of the creditors, if at the time of payment, an act of bank-
, ruptcy .had not been committed. But threlaw would not albiav
a bankrupt anticipating bankrtiptcy'voluntarily to take a sum
of money or goods and hand them over to a particular party to
save them from loss. The jury would- judge from the facts Of
the case, though M r. Silky, the son-in-law, hind been frambilently
'favoured, do not let them suppose that the bank had not been
pressing for payment, and+ got their money fairly.
if
i
been made out; which it had not, that the sureties to the batikt had
were the relations of 'the bankrupt, it would not have been' a
fraudulent preference in favour of the bank, which they had to
get back of the relations. As it was, there appeared no motive
why they should favour the bank: If they were of' opinion that
the payments were made voluntarily in favour of the bank, and
NISI PRIUS COURT.—moNnAy. in contemplation of bankruptcy, the plaintiff would be entitled
( Before Sir J. F. Coleridge.) to a verdict; but if they were of opinion that the payments were
KNIGHT V. REYNOLDS. , • made from the pressure of the bank. then the defendant was
This was an action brought to recover the sum of £3OO, on entitled to their verdict.
two acceptances given hy. the defendant of £l5O each,.for. the Thelma, after a consultation of a quarter of an hour, fouud
vnit;e ut. „wine oil.ctoth. It was (.0111.1141,d Scathe defanceothat for the plaintiff, damages £776 10s. 4d, •
the oil cloths were deficient in both quality and quantity. The I The court adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.

Wheat Qrs
Barley. Qrs
Oats Qrs
Flour sacks
Ditto... ...... Barrels
Malt Cwt
Oatmeal Loads
Bran... Qrs
Beans Qrs
Teas Qrs
nye Qrs
Shelled Barley... Cwt
IZioleseed - Barrels
ledian Corn Qrs

533
343
1374
4217

LIVERPOOL COTTON MARK

The demand is but moderate to-day;
including 300 fur export.

639
1754
4302
4354

T-TH RIM O'CLOCK.

the sales are 3000 bags,

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE.

TUESDAY, MARCH 27.—Wind N.N.E.

ARRlVED,—ritledonis, Commell; Matitaret, &bah : and Diantha
s•tili.d 17th FA.—Montgnmery, from Mobile—Alexander,
frig° Charleston—Catherine, from Antwerp

tonann. , arid CaledOnia, Liddell, hence, at Batavia
Clot-fide, hence, at Antwerp
Sportsman, llutchinson, from St. Domingo at London
George Canning, Harvey, from Maceio at ditto
Maria. Smith. from•Demerara for Cork for orders, at Waterford
Conceigne Feelix, Pedro, sailed from Fayal for this port 28th Nov.
and has not since been heard of

... . -.
Elvis, for Calcutta, that was on shore near Leasowp, was got off this
morning and briniglit in by two steamers
Mediator. from London to New York, has put back to Portsmouth,
with loss of cutwater and forefoot damaged under Water, having been
in contact with a ship in the channel

Benjamin, Goudo,,id. which sailed for Newcastle 10th ult., and has
not since been heard of

-WATERFORD. M'Ancn 24 —The Active, from StUhes to Liverpool,
which *as on shor in•Tramore Bay, was grit nil yesterday, after dis-
charging part of her cargo, and brought into nines Lark Harbour

• , Died, this morning, at his residence, Murrapistreet, Mr. Charles
Hammond, of the Hummums Inn, Williamson-square, of an affection
of the heart. Mr. Hammond was formerly connected with the
theatrical profession as an actor, and in his line was considered un-
equalled. He was a member of the Tbeatre-Roral company of this
town and Manchester, and seceded from it to undertake the (business
of a publican, in which situation, as well for his private virtues as his
public conduct, he was universally respected by a large circle of
friends.