The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-05-21 00:00:00

FORGERY

George Farrell was indicted for having, in March last,
feloniously forged and uttered a request note for the delivery
of goods, with intent to defraud Mr. William Wainwright,
sugar-refiner, of Batchelor-street.

Mr. Cottingham conducted the prosecution.
Mr. Richard Maberley stated, that he was a bookkeeper
in Mr. Wainwright's service. Mr. Wilson Morgan, a gro-
cer, in Dale-street, WaS a customer at times. On the 31st
of March last, a man called and presented an order for ten
lumps of sugar, purporting to have come from Mr. Morgan.
This order witness indorsed to the warehouseman, on the
faith of the order being genuine.
Joseph Southern stated, that he was Mr. Wainwright's
warehouseman. On the 31st of March last, the prisoner
presented him the order indorsed by the bookkeeper. Wit-
ness delivered to the prisoner the ten lumps of fine sugar.
The sugar was placed in a hand-cart, and taken away by the
prisoner.

William Morgan deposed, that he was a grocer in Dale-
street. About three years ago the prisoner was in his ser-
vice as a porter. The prisoner had formerly had orders
under his hand at that time to receive goods. The order
produced was not in his handwriting, nor had he authorised
ony one to give such an order. He had never received the
lumps of sugar specified. When the prisoner was in his
service he dealt with Mr. Wainwright.
The prisoner addressed the jury. He said he was not in
the town on the 31st of March. He received a letter at the
latter end of March, to say that his uncle was dead. He
then lodged with Mr. Leonard, in Eldon-place. The letter
arrived on Saturday, the 27th of March, and he went away
to Dublin on Monday, the 29th. He called
Elizabeth Farrell, his sister. She stated that the prisoner
left her at the Clarence Dock on the 29th of March, to go to
Dublin. He went on board the packet, and she left him
there. He returned on the 4th of April.
Cross-examined by Mr. COTTINGIIA in Chaucer-
street with my mother. I get my living by sewing. I some-
times take it in, and sometimes I go out. I go to service
sometimes. I lived in service at West Derby, and also at
Leonard's, in Eldon-place. Nothing was elicited against
the character of the witness.

Catharine Farrell, the prisoner's mother, stated, that on
the 29th of March, she got him ready to go to Dublin, and
accompanied him to the vessel. She did not see him again
for seven or eight days afterwards.
Mr. COTTINGIIAI said the defence which was set up was
either the very best or the very worst that could be brought
forward. If the prisoner was in Dublin on the day when
this offence was alleged to have been committed, it was plain
that he could not be the guilty person. There was one very
extraordinary feature in the case which would induce the
jury to doubt the accuracy of the statements made by the
mother and sister. When he was accused and brought before
the magistrates, if it were as had been alleged, he would
naturally have said, " Why you say I have got this sugar in
the name of Mr. Morgan, on the 31st March, I was at that
very time in Dublin, and if you will send for my mother and
sister, they will prove it." He, however, said no such thing.
The prisoner said it had been alleged, that he did riot bring
the fact before Mr. Rushton. He wished to do so, but he
was hurried out of the dock, and missed the opportunity. He
had another witness in the court who was not present when
his mother and sister were heard.

James Lynch having been sworn, said bluntly, be was with
me on the 21st March, in Dublin. He left me on the 4th
April.
Cross-examined by Mr. COTTINGIIANI.—I am a labourer,
I have not known the prisoner long. I became acquainted
with him last winter. It was before Christmas.

Mr. COTTINGHAM.—NVhat day of the month is Christmas
day on ?

Witness (looking puzzled).—You have put me to a stand
now, sir. I met him in Dublin, however.
COTTINGIIAM.—Do you know when Easter was ?

Witness.—Yes.
Mr. COTTINGHAM.—When was it ?

Witness.—lt was this year. (Laughter.) Oh, if you in-
tend to come that you know—l have not much learning.

Mr. COTTINGIII:M.—When did you go to Ireland ?
Witness.—Some time after Christmas.
Mr. COTTINGIT AM.—Was it after Easter ?
Witness.—l can't tell—l am a man of no learning.
Mr. COTTINGHAM.—Where did you go to when you went
to Ireland ?
Witness.—l went to Dublin.
111 r. COTTINGIIAM.—HOW long did you stay there ?
Witness.—l have not learning enough to tell that. The
witness said he met the prisoner first at a public house in
Vauxhall-ruad, and had known him ever since.

Mr. COTTINGIIAM made a few remarks on the testimony
of the witness.

The prisoner said it was very hard to be accnsed of what
he was not guilty of. The last witness swore that he was in
Dublin with him on the 31st of March, and that he left him
on the 4th of April.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
LARCENY.

John Ray; aged 31, was charged with having stolen a
copper measuring-can, the property of John Sixsmith.
It appeared that on the 21st of March last, police-officer
Hitchmough met the prisoner in Victoria-road, carrying a
copper measuring-can. The prisoner was stupidly drunk.
The officer stopped him, and soon after discovered that the
can had been stolen from Mr. Norman, a publican.
The prisoner pleaded that he was so drunk, that he did
not know anything of the matter.

As the prisoner-had been in gaol since the 22d March, he
was sentenced to one week's imprisonment.

STEALING A COAT

Mary 111` Nally, aged 48, was charged with having, in
March last, stolen a coat, the groper ty of Thomas Iligginson,
a pawnbroker.

It appeared that, on the day in question, the prisoner
went into Mr. Higginson's shop, and, after having finished
the business which took her there, she walked off with a new
coat. The assistant followed her and took her into custody.
The jury found the prisoner guilty.
The Recorder passed sentence of three months' imprison-
ment.

SHADES FOR THE EYES.—Although it is improper to
exclude the light and air from the eye to so great an extent
as is often done, care must be taken not to fall into the oppo-
site error of leaving the eyes exposed to the full glare of the
sun, or the action of the wind. Bonnets with small fronts
and narrow-brimmed hats are therefore unfit for those whose
sight is weak, and indeed for any one. I have myself
remarked the effect produced on my own eyes by wearing a
hat with a narrower brim than usual. Children especially
should have a broad front to their caps, and yet it is_n°;`,T_tne
__
fashion for them to wear caps turned up in front.—uterruu"
tae Ptwervation of Sight.

PUBLIC MEETING OP THE OWNERS 6Pr'litrHh
AND COTTAGE PROPERTY.

Last evening, a public_meetbag of the members of the
Cottage Owners' Association, and of persons interested in
the above property, was held at the Swan Inn, London-road,
for the purpose of adopting measures to secure the exemp-
tion of this borough from the oper,tion of two bills now

before the House of Commons, and which have passed a third
reading in the House of Lords, the one entitled " An Act
for regulating Buildings in large Towns," and the other, "An
Act for the better Drainage of large Towns and Villages."
The notice convening the meeting added—" As each of

these measures must, if they should become law, seriously

, •
affect both the owners and occupiers of houses already
erected, or hereafter to be built ; and as the value of unbuilt
land will be materially deteriorated, it is absolutely necessary
that efficient means, to prevent the threatened infliction. be
immediately adopted." The meeting' was numerously
attended.

Mr. EDWARD FORD was called to the chair. Having
stated the objects of the meeting, and expressed some regret
that the bills referred to had originated in the House of
Lords, whereby they went into the Commons robed and
sanctioned by the authority of the upper house, he observed
that it had become the duty of owners, now that the legis-
lature was about to inflict restrictions upon and interfere
with their property, to represent their case to the House of
Commous. The chairman then proceeded to describe the
operation and effect of each bill, should they become the law.
The drainage bill, in the first clause, compelled the draining
of land upon which any house should be erected, previous to
the commencement of building, and even authorized the
razing of houses built without such drainage. Then the drains
were to be of such a depth and width, and of such a size, as
the commissioners under the act might require—a provision
which he considered both arbitrary and unnecessary. For
instance, in case of houses whose foundations were suffici-
ently dry, iustead of being a convenience and an improve-
ment, it would be a nuisance, and the buildings would become
the haunts of rats and vermin. The second clause gave a
discretionary power to the commissioners to order and direct
that every house now built, or hereafter to be built, should
be drained in the same manner as required by the last clause.
This was a very great discretionary power. They might, if
they thought proper, enforce the drainage of every street in
the town ; and although the commissioners might not put
this clause into operation, it was still very desirable it shouid
not be suffered to pass without defining in what cases drain-
age should be authorised. The twenty-fifth clause required
owners to pay for sewering opposite to their own property
in every street, certainly, however, not in one payment but
in five yearly instalments. By the 27th clause it was enacted
that any cost or outlay under the act should be borne by a
rate upon lands and tenements; it did not say the tenants
should pay, but he presumed the owners were to pay, for he
found in clause 29, a power to distrain either upon the owner or
occupier for the rate. It was desirable, therefore, that the
commissioners should be restrained in the power of dis-
training upon the goods of owners, for an outlay which was
altogether unnecessary, arbitrary, and unjust. (Hear,
hear.) The chairman then referred to the building bill.
The fourth clause of this bill enforced from the builder
the payment of certain fees to the surveyor appointed
by the commissioners. To some parties these fees would
amount to a serious sum. For a first-rate house they were
£3 10s; second rate, £3 ; third rate, £2 lOs ; fourth rate,
£2 ; fifth rate, £1 10s, and sixth rate, £1 ; and for every
alteration one-half of the above fees were to be paid. This
would be most obnoxious, as under the present system
buildings were surveyed only by the corporation surveyor,
who was paid out of the public money. Clause 14 enacted
that houses should not be built above the level of the streets
without an area—and, as they all knew, it would be attended
with considerable expense to make areas both at the front
and back. The benefit arising from this enactment would
not be commensurate with the outlay it would require.
The 16th clause, by imposing upon the owner the
necessity of making areas to the front of cellars, would at
once shut up every cellar habitation in Liverpool. Clause
17 imposed a fine of £3 a-day for every day that a cellar was
let not in accordance with the act ; and by the 18th clause,
houses in courts were not to be built back to back, but there
must be a clear space of 20 feet between them ; a very unjust
and improper infliction upon owners. The 19th and 20th
clauses enacted, that no courts should be of less width than
20 feet, and no street of less width than 10 yards

dimensions he considered unnecessary, and their enactuient;
most unwarrantable interference with the owners of ground.
In fact, there were many points in these bills which shewed
that the legislature wanted information upon the subject
from practical men. This bill transferred the powers of our
local commissioners for pavingand sewering to central com-
missioners, a change to which he strongly objected; but the
local commissioners might be authorised to carry the bill into
effect with the additional power of putting it into force all
over the borough. He ought to inform the meeting that un-
der the direction of the town council, there was a bill now in
the House of Commons, emanating from the Health Com-
mittee, undertaking all the responsihilty of sewerage, the
same as imposed by Lord Normanby's bill, but in a milder
degree, inasmuch as the Commissioners were not to enforce
the act except when tbey might deem it as quite necessary.
If the power were transferred to the corporation instead of
to the commissioners, there would only be one surveyor to
consult instead of two, as there must be if this act came into
operation, and the fewer men owners had to deal with in
this matter the better.—The chairman, after a few further
remarks, said the meeting would not object to the bill
brought in by the town-council, but that they could not
avoid feeling a strong repugnance to Lord Normanby.
Mr. E. KN APPER, in a speech of considerable length,
moved the first resolution, which, with the rest, will be
found advertised. He had no doubt that when Lord Nor-
manby brought in his bill for the regulation of buildings he
had the good of the community at heart, but instead "of bet-
tering the condition of the poorer classes by such, legislation
as this, be would deteriorate it.—Having referred to the re•
port of the Health Committee of the Council to prove that
both bill. would be impracticable and inexpedient if practicable,
the speaker further objected to them, because they would be
retrospective in their operation, entail an unjustifiable ex-
penditure upon owners, which would materially affect the
security of mortgagees, cause a cessation to all buildings in
cottages, thus compelling two or three families of the poorer
classes to inhabit one house, reducing the value of large
houses, thereby increasing the danger of contagious maladies,
and reducing the standard of morality.

Mr. JoriN JONES seconded the motion, and after a few
words from Mr. THOMPSON, it was carried.
Mr. DUCKWORTFI proposed the second resolution, and
supported, by an excellent speech, full of practical knowledge,
the views of these two bills taken by the chairman. He
strongly condemned general legislation upon such a subject.
Mr. T. C. BEw seconded the motion, and it was adopted.
On the motion of Mr. DucxwonTn, seconded by Mr.
KNAPPER, a petition against the two bills was agreed to be
presented to the House of Commons.
By the next resolution, the meeting agreed to enter into
subscriptions to defray the charges of entering into this op-
position,

Mr. GrnioN, in an excellent speech, for which we regret
our inability to find room, proposed that the resolutions be
advertised.

Mr. KNAPPER seconded the motion.—Carried unani-
mously.

Thaiiks were then voted to Mr. Ford for his able conduct
in the chair, and the meeting separated.