The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-08-27 00:00:00

BALDWIN V. BENNETT AND ANOTHER

This was an undefended action, brought by the plaintiff,
William Baldwin, against the defendants, John and Joseph
Bennett. The declaration contained counts for goods sold
and delivered, and interest on an account stated, and a pro-
mise to pay on request. The plaintiff was a dealer in oil and
tallow, residing at Manchester. The defendants were cotton
spinners. The action had been brought for the recovery of
the sum of £7l 10s. 6d., being the value of 331 gallons of
oil, and interest on that amount for six months from the
sale, which took place in July, 1839.
Verdict for plaintiff for the suni claimed.
BRAG V. JACKSON.

In this case, John Bragg was the plaintiff, and John Jack-
son defendant. The declaration set forth that the defendant
had assaulted and falsely imprisoned the plaintiff. The de-
fendant pleaded " not guilty."

Mr. Cresswell anciVrT3i;rtin appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Dundas for the defendant.

Mr. CRESSWELL stated-thecaTe to the jury on the part of
the plaintiff. He had to lay before them a case requiring their
serious attention. It was not one of aq ordinary character.
At the time of the occurrence the plaintiff had been engaged
in an act of charitable interference, on behalf of an unfortu-
nate fellow-creature, and the conduct of the defendant had
been harsh, cruel, without justification, and excessively cal-
culated to injure the plaintiff in his reputation and feelings.
It would appear in evidence that at the last spring assizes a
young man, of the name of Coates, had been convicted of
forgery, at the Chester assizes. Coates' father, who was
dead, had been a respectable man ; the young man himself
had been decently educated ; he had unfortunately acquired
bad habits, and had uttered a forged bill purporting to have
the acceptance of a gentleman of the name of Vickars, a
cotton-spinner, near Stockport. The fraud had been
committed on the Bank of Stockport. and he was con-
victed. Subsequently, the convict's uncle tried to get
up a petition on his behalf, in the hope that the chief
secretary would advise her majesty to extend a degree of
mercy to him ; for he had been sentenced to transportation
for a period of ten years, and the prayer of the petition was
to procure a remission of that sentence. It being desirable
to obtain the sanction of the party who prosecutes, and whose
name is forged to a petition of the kind, for if he adds his
name, it will be taken for granted tkat lie thinks it a case in
which the clemency of the crown may fairly be interposed,
the convict's uncle was anxious to obtain the signature of
Mr. Vickars. Accordingly, not being acquainted with the
gentleman himself, he applied to the plaintiff to know if he
were acquainted witlalisa. Ile..seitihe was, and promised to
speak to him on the subject. A note was then sent to him,
and afterwards the plaintiff and the uncle of the convict met
Mr. Vickars in Manchester, and got him to sign it. Having
procured his signature on the 13th of May, they proceeded
to the bank at Stockport, for the purpose of seeing whether
the manager, who happened to be the defendant, would sign
it also. They accordingly presented the petition to him,
stating that they had got Mr. Vickars to sign it, and expres-
sing a hope that the defendant would likewise attach his
signature. He (the manager) begged of them both to
leave it with him for a time, and that he would give an
answer. They said they would, left it with him, and de-
parted. In consequence of the convict having executed a
deed of gift to his mother, in order that two or three things
of which he was possessed might become her property, in-
stead of being forfeited to the crown, the plaintiff and the
convict's uncle then proceeded to the mayor, and made ap-
plication to him to have the said things given up. The mayor
said he would take time to speak to his brother magistrates
on the subject, and while they were debating the matter to-
gether, the defendant entered, and spoke to the two men
with reference to the petition. They then went into the
mayor's room, and had a private conversation with his wor-
ship, after which they went back to the bank. On their ar-
rival there, they found that the defendant had two policemen
in attendance, and by those policemen the defendant had
the two men apprehended on a charge of having forged the
petition. This was a very cruel proceeding to say the least
of it. What interest could the plaintiff have to get a peti-
tion of the sort signed ? Could he have had any other
motives than those of charity and kindness ? Could the de-
fendant.sl
genuineness
nintnuht
eiaanntnecylei
tdewhs,
eas
of
y lye ?,
oif he chose not to
sign
young man had been
justly
might have said
so. tlf it
he
Mr. Vickars' signa-
ture he might have sent for that gentleman, and asked the
v convicted b i
eupon
dout
bhteeddefrauded
tandhby
groundey
question whether he bad signed it or not; and if he then
found that the petition had been gotten
up by improper
means, he might with propriety have written to the Secretary
of State to be on his guard against it. But that a person
who was going about in the cause of mercy, presenting a
petition of the kind, and asking a gentleman whether he
would sign it, should--because the defendant fancied there
wasvar
variance between the hand-writing of Mr. Vickars to
the petition and the manner in which he usually wrote his
impute a felony, and have the •
name—immediately
apprehended and taken into custody. showed a degree of
harshness, violence, and
cruelty
most painful to the feelings
of the plaintiff. The defendant said,
fendant said, he was ready to swear
that it was not Mr. Vickars' hand-writing, and the Mayor
said, when they were brought before him, that he would
hold them to bail. The plaintiff's father then bailed them,