The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1849-08-21 00:00:00

DISCHARGE OF THE GRAND JURY.

His LORDSHIP, in discharging the grand jury, said that
he was happy to say that their labours were at an end
much sooner than he expected they would be. He bad
no reason to detain them longer, and he thanked them
for the duties they had so ably discharged to their country.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—WEDNESDAY.
At the sitting of the court, Mr. Knowles intimated that
as regarded the case left over from the previous day, Hull
v. the Star Fire Insurance Company, he would not offer
any evidence for the defendants. A verdict was then taken
for the defendants upon the third plea, and for the plain-
tiff upon the other issues, subject to a decision of the court
above on certain legal points.
CATTERALL V. LEES.—In this case the plaintiff, who
did not appear when called for by the officer of the court,
was nonsuited.
RAILWAY CONTRACT.—MILLS V. FAVIELL.—Robert
Mills, a mason, carrying on business at Todmorden, was
the plaintiff, and Mark Faviell, person largely engaged
in railway contracts, the defendant. The action was
brought to recover compensation for losses alleged to have
been sustained by the plaintiff in building a row of railway
bridges, by the defendant not strictly complying with the
terms of the contract. The case was of no interest. It
was agreed to take a verdict for the defendant for £B4O,
subject to a reference of all the matters in dispute.
AN EXECUTOR'S LIABILITY.—EYRE V. HILTON AND
OTHERS.—The plaintiffs were Thomasand Charles Eyre,
drysalters, of this town, and the defendants Nancy Hilton,
Ellis Allen, and Samuel Horrocks, executors of a person
named Hilton, a dyer at Radcliffe, who died in October,
1848. By the will of the testator, the business was to be
carried on by the executors for the benefit of his children.
The business was so carried on, under the direction prin-
cipally of Mrs. Hilton, the widow, and Allen and Horrocks
occasionally coming over to the place where the business
was carried on. The question was as to the liability of
Horrocks and the executors, and was purely a matter of
law. It was agreed to take a verdict for the plaintiff,
with liberty to the defendants to move for a nonsuit, if
the court should think there was not sufficient evidence to
warrant a jury in finding a verdict for the plaintiff.
JONES AND OTHERS V. EVANS AND OTHERS.—Mr.
Watson and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiffs.
The cause was undefended. The plaintiffs in the present
suit were the executors of one David Jones ; John Evans
and Joseph Hughes were the defendants ; and the action
was brought to recover the value of a promissory note for
£lB5, bearing date the 17th December, 1830. The note
had been given by the churchwardens and overseers of
Eglwyrrhos, in Carnarvonshire, to the plaintiff, who, in
consideration of it, had agreed to advance the sum stated
to the parish, to aid in building twelve almshouses at
Towyn. The only question involved was, whether the
five per cent. interest (that had been agreed upon) had
been so paid from time to time, as to take the case out of
the statute of limitations. This the evidence failed to
establish, although there was proof of the payment of
interest in 1847 and 1848. His lordship put it to the
jury whether the evidence warranted the belief that these
payments- had been made with the consent and by the
authority of the defendants.—The jury returned a verdict
for the defendants.
PRESTON AND WATSON V. CABABE.—The plaintiffs in
this action are the highly respectable firm of Preston and
Watson, ship-brokers, in Liverpool, and the defendant is
a foreign (say Syrian). merchant, Paul Cababe, of Man-
chester. The action. was brought to recover &sum of

L

£741, which consisted paitly ce an accommodation bill
given by the plaintiffs to defendant for £5OO, which the
defendant had promised to meet at or before maturity,
but had refused to do, and consequently the plaintiffs
were obliged to pay the amount to the holders, the Union
Bank of Manchester, together with expenses thereon.
The remaining portion of the demand was for work and
labour done, and for moneys had and received by defen-
dant
for plaintiffs' use. The case was opened by Mr.
Martin on behalf of the plaintiffs, and although a refe-
rence had been offered by defendant's attorney, he con-
sidered himself hound, in justice to his clients, to decline
it, as the plaintiffs wished the fullest and clearest inves-
tigation of all matters of account or in dispute. The
plaintiffs fully established their case. Mr. Watson was
counsel for the defendant, and ably argued his client's
case. The defence made was a variety of set-offs, which,
although numerous, were ultimately proven, with .the-
exception of two amounts, to have been all correctly set-
tled in former accounts. These two amounts were for
£4B surplus freight per " Dusty Miller," and £59 for the
" Gem."—A verdict was ultimately taken by consent for
plaintiffs for £633 and costs.

CROWN COURT.—THURSDAY.
.Tames Doyle, 26, was indicted for having, at Manches-
ter, feloniously assaulted Michael Gallagher, and having
stolen from his person a purse and other articles. Prose-
cutor was a clothes dealer, residing in Manchester. On
the evening of the 9th of May last he was in a spirit vaults,
in Swan-street : the prisoner and several other prisoners
were also there. About half-past eleven o'clock the pro-
secutor left to go home. He had .not got more than two
hundred yards before he was knocked down by several
persons and robbed of the whole of the contents of his
pockets. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was
sentenced to seven years' transportation.
Patrick Summerfield, 25, and Charles Hamer Grimes,
(ne:ther of whom could read or write), were indicted for
having burglariously broken into the dwelling-house of
Francis O'Neil, and stolen a quantity of silverplate, &c.
The prisoner Grimes pleaded guilty. The jury found the
Prisoner Summerfield guilty, and he was sentenced to ten
years' transportation. Grimes was sentenced to six
months' imprisonment.
Ann Parkinson, 37, the woman who was committed for
having murdered John Parkinson, was discharged from
custody, the grand jury having cut the bill.
John Fox, 25, Thos. Verdon, 25, Esther Hill, 26, and
Mary Ann Dempsey, 28, were indicted for having feloni-
ously assaulted John Cochrane, and robbed him of his
watch and silver snuff box. The prosecutor is a gentle-
man belonging to Preston, and the robbery took place at
a house of ill fame in Manchester. Fox and Dempsey
were acquitted, the other prisoners were found guilty.
Verdon was sentenced to seven year's transportation, and
Hill to one year's imprisonment.
John Clarke, 18, John Smith, 21, and James Living-
ston, 22, (all of whom could read and write imperfectly,)
were indicted for having assaulted Robert Healey, at
Manchester, with intent to rob him. They were found
guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for twelve months.
Wm. Boardman, 16, and James Massey, 16, were in-
dicted for breaking into the house of Mr. Brown, at
Ordsall Cottage, Salford, and stealing a quantity of arti-
cles. The jury found the prisoners guilty. Sentence
deferred.
Wm. Gledhill, 24, was indicted for having burglariously
broken into the house of William Greenwood, at Ashton-
, under-Lyne, and stolen therefrom a quantity of wearing
apparel. The jury found the prisoner not guilty.
James Beesley, 24, and Richard Urrnson, 25, were
indicted for feloniously assaulting Thos. Holding, and
robbing him of ten sovereigns. On the 16th of May, the
prosecutor left Liverpool for Wigan fair, to make a pur-
chase of a cow. He did not make the purchase, and
started from Wigan, to walk home. On the way he met
with the prisoners, in a public-house at Billinge, and
upon leaving they followed him, knocked him down, and
rifled his pockets of ten sovereigns. Guilty. Sentence
deferred.