The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-04-08 00:00:00

thtE LIVERPOOL STASTDARb.

, .
prisoner about two and a half. tears.' tie hall borne a good
character. Heard of his being taken up two days afterwards.
t-14,1 seen him on the evening of the robbery in his master's
shop. Prisoner paid holm B+. that evening ;it was from seven
to half-past. He staid aboul five minutes. The Bs. was paid
fen• gools he had bought.. Had been in the 'habit of dealing with
the prisoner for two and a half years. It would be a mile or a.
tulle and a half from Falkner-square. Itis in the dired road
from his master's shop.
. Jane With tin. —Lives in Robert-street, Clarence-street. Saw
prisoner on the Bth 06tober from half-past seven to eight in
BrownloW-hill ; he was crossing Brownlow-hill to Rupert-street.
Does not know Crabtree-lane. Knows where the railway is.
The. place I spoke of is nearer to Ranelagh-street than to the
railway. Was not examined when the prisoner was commit-
ted. Has known the prisoner for eighteen months.
This closed the evidence. The jury consulted,together for a
minute or two, and returuad a verdict of guilty. Sentence de-
ferred:

. . ,
NISI P111155.--=TtAst?Ai:
Haaniassi v. tioRNSLkY.—BREAcO OI: 'AGIIKEMEINIT.
Mr. WiGuniaN and Air. CRi.:sswEi,r, appear:Nl for the pro-
secution, and Mr. ALEXANDER for the defence.
'lifts was an action brought to recover the,,u,n of El4o,l.chich
was agreed by the defendant to be paid to the plaintiff, who was
his brother-in-law, and which stun was alleged to be due to hiS
wife, on
,conclition that he'should do his beSt to find out a person
of the name of Robert Thonipson, and in•default of his not pay-
ing the £l4O, the plaintiff fulfilling his part of the agreement,
giving the plaintiff power to sell some house's defendant pos-
scisedat Piikington. To this defendant Pleaded that Plaintiff
did not do what he could to find Thompson-L.-that he did not
enter into such au agreement, and next, that it was obtained by
fraud.
Mr. CitiasswELL, in opening. the case, said this would appear
a very siagreementolagreement to the gentlemen of the jury , as it
undoubtedly did 'to him in the firSCiti-itance. The learned
• , from
which theu entered into ttiejanqty. history of the parties; from
which it appeared that the defendarit‘k-fale-e had married a
Mrs. Thompson, who was alleged to be a iqd vt,ibtfclelendant's:
father had issue by her. Ili;„gli wit ft ser4-1 tine
entitled to a share of the def hid 'Math ts . ~.wri ti)trOltitli
himself. The defendaAtfipi B ar iii2L fil .", cf: -lifirlifirA'
husband was still living' ilk 4 ' ihAinstisei: fittaii6e,this Ritis-
ill,
i_,
tlit
bert Thompson, her Brat' 40i " • ft' 0MOVO1088(B6` iiiiieSseftf,
of the bulk of his fatliel•isli,p, v. 'llWri&iftlUfit li%lo
got gOod deal of property. or ‘4llOl elidniias- Af* tVbe
due to the plaintiff's wife, who Was his half-siiter. 'Thiqiii&hey
the defendant Consented to pay to the plaintiff, on conditiOn that
he would do his best to find out Robert Thompson. The plaintiff,
who is a poor man, and to whom the aura of £l4O would appear
very great, left his work in consequence. and travelled about the
country in search of this Robert 1 hompson, neglecting his work
and doing' his utmost to find-him. A promise was given' to
plaintiff in the first instance, afterwards an agreement was drawn
up by the schoolmaster, which was signed by the parties,^and
attested by several witnesses, known to the parties, who were
passing at the time. The plaintiff had done his utmost to find
the said Rabert Tohinpson, but without success; and there could
not lie a doubt that no such person existed. The defendant re
fused to pay, alleging that the plaintiff had not done his best to
find out Thompson. Ile should call evidence to prove the
agreement, and to plaintiff endeavouring to find Thompson, ac-
cording to the agreement. He called
Samuel Lord, WhO deposed to being a collier, and being called
into the house of William Hardman, a mine:. at Pilkington; in
March last to witness an agreement, which he signed. The
agreement produced was the one which he signed.
Cross-examined.—The plaintiff came for hint to witness it.
James Yates deposed to being a collier, and to Hornsby not
followiug any business. He witnessed an agreement in Man-
chester. The one produced was what he witnesseil
William Lord.—ls a' collier, and witnessed the agreement
produced.
James Roster is a well sinker. and deposed to heaiingde-
fendant promise to the plaintiff £l4ll if he would find hirn'tint'
aioi
personlig
so.named ThoiripsoiL Plaintiff lost a great deal of work

CrosS-examined,-He did not'expect any part of the £l4O if
the plaintiff succeeded. The 'defendant, he believed, was only
just of age. ,
Robert Greenhouse a schoOlmaster. He was eMplOyed to
draw up an agreement between the parties. The agreement
produced was the one he diew up.
This was the case for the' prosecution.
Mr. ALEXANDER, in defence, designated the transaction as
It shameful attempt on the part of a person much older than the
defendant to induce him, being a silly young man, by misrepre-
sentation to believe that his stepmother had a former husband
living, which would be of benefit to defendant to prove, and that
he (plaintiff) could find him; and had thus induced defendant
to sign this agreement on conditi,m that he should try to do so,
knowing at the time'that no such person existed.
The JUDGE, in summing up, said the case was a very sin-
gular one. The whole rested on the agreement itself. No
proof was offered in what manner the plaintiff had fulfilled his
part of the agreement, if he had done so at all.
The Jury found for the plaintiff on the first issue as to the
agreement, and on the second issue for the defended as to the
non performance of the agreement; on the third issue the jury
were discharged.
The verdict was therefore for the defendant.
RIGHT OF ROAD.

CHADW:CK v TWEEDALE.—Mr. Alexander, Mr. WiAtman,
and Mr. noggins appeared for the prosecution, and 'Messrs;
Cresswell, Tomlinson, and Seager for the defence.
This was an action to try the right of road throu a farm belong-
ing to the plaintiff, situated at Martand, near Bodulaierhe de-
fendant had a mill on the river Roach, and claimed a right of
road in a private lane leading' aceross the plaintiff's farm into
the Bury and Roachdale road, which litas disputed, and the
defendant had on one occasion sent a letni of horses and Yoked
them CO a gate and gate posts erecteddetrry,-, the lane by the
plaintiff, and pulled them up. The plaintiff then laiinediately
brought this action. .
A great number of witnesses we 4 ex°arnined, and the case
occupied the court-till eight o'clock. The jury reincned a ver-
dict fiir the defendant' for IMrSes liird—foot pith, -and for the
_plaintiff for carriages. ' '

small fire which was in the bedroom. Soon after three o'clock
heardan alarm of fire. The lire was burning, and the roof had
fallen in prisoner's house. Went back to the- house and saw
prisoner. Said-it was a.bacl job for Witness. Ile said shemight
go to hell. He '(prisoner) was about mix- or seven vards from
the barn door. E e said I might go and tell Nlr. 'Warder the
tates Idiad told him before. Saw nothing further of him tilt
about,eighto'clock in the morning. Prisoner said they had
dode their worst taking his bed and everything, and he had now.
done fordthem.

Cross-examined.—Cannot say whether prisoner was drtink or
no.

Ralph Leigh deposed to living nearly opposite the prisoner.
On the 2Jth of-February last saw the prisoner about dark; he.
WM forward in liquor.
Henry Bowker.—l am a miner.. Was at Woods's house at
the time of-the fire. Heard an alarm about three in the mOrn-
ing. Sawa light through the shutters. Went out to the fire.
Assived in getting the potatoes out. Saw no cattle. The pri-
soner came up about ten minutes after. I asked him to assist,
and he said he w,:uld not; he would see it at hell first; if spit-
ting would put it out he would not do it. Prisoner was asked
for the key of the house, but would not give it up. I said we
would burst the door open, when prisoner said we dare not. The
door was afterwards burst open. Saw prisoner the next day
before the ma,ristrate. He was dressed the same as at the fire.
He never assisted to put out the fire.
Cross-examined.—There were several persons present at the
fire. Prisoner spoke openly.
Joseph Moulds asked prisoner, on the morning of the fire, if
he had the key of the cottage. He said he had. I said to him,
Oliver, the barn cannot be saved, let us try and save the cottage.
He said he would not. _ _ _ . . . •

John Birchall.—ls a carter, and lives with Yates. Assisted
in putrin'ont the fire. Saw prisoner there, who said, " Lad's,
what's amiss?" Mrs Yates said there was plenty amiss, and
pointed to the barn. Prisoner cursed her. She then said, "Oli-
ver, it is our loss net yours." He said "he didn't care, they had
done their worst for him, and he would serve them nut."
Several other witnesses were examined,, who gave similar
'testimony.
For the defence witnesses were called to prove that prisoner
was quite drunk before the tire, and also to a man being seen
near the premises with a lighted candle and some straw, who
Was pot the,prisoner. A witness also deposed to the good cha-
racter cif
.the prisoner.
'r he,JknOx summed up very minutely, commenting on the
evident.* a.sihh.proceeded. The Jury expressed a wish to retire,
and atler ap absence of about an hour, returned a verdict of Not