The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-10-28 00:00:00

6&r..‘28., 1836,

The Rix() RDER summed up the evidence, and at the request
Uf the oounsel for the presecution the witness front the bank. of
Ireland was re-called. lie explained that notwithstanding,'
here was the word " Dublin" upon the counterfeit plate which
was not upon the genuine plate, yet the counterfeit plate would
produce an imitation of a genuine note. The word " Dublin"
was printed with type upon the genuine note.
The jury found the prisoner guilty.
He was tried ou two other similar indictments, and sentenced
upon the second indictment to even years transportation.
The court sat again yesterday morning for a short time. The
eases, however, possessed little interest, and were merely cases,
the particulars of which have appeared at full length in our
police reports. The court was adjourned at noon, until this
morning at nine o'clock, when the Post-office explosion case
will come on.

COURT OF PASSAGE.—TUESDAY.
This court was held in the Nisi Prins Court, at the Sessions'-
house, before William Wallace Currie, Esq., Mayor, and
Charles Crompton, E4q., Assessor.
PARRY V. WILLIAMS.
Mr. RUSHTON appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, who is a
joiner, carrying on business in Camden-street, Liverpool. He
*aught to recover from the defendant, a beershop-keeper, the
sum of £7 15s. Id., for work and materials used in the fitting up
the defendant's. premises. The, jury}found a verdict in favour
of the plaintiff for the sum claimed.
!serum V. SCHOLES.
This action was brought to recover Ilfilbs. weight of pork,
.sold by the plaintiff bo the defendant. The question in dispute
• yam, whether the price agreed upon was 4d. or 51d. a lb. The
Jury.returneil a verdict for the plaintiff for £2 3s. ,bd.
LOSSELI. V. HRAMINGWAY.
An undefended action on a bill of exchange. Verdict for the
plaintiff £lO 10s.
• WOOLRIGHT AND ANOTHER V. RAWLINS.
Mr. VENABLLS appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. COTTING-
HAM for the defendant. The action was brought by Messrs.
oolright and Chidson, silk mercers, of Bold-street, against
the defendant, a gentleman residing in Liverpool, to recover
Payment for certain articles furnished for the defendant's father's
funeral. The order was given by Mr. Rankin. in March, 1834,
„iit the name of the executors of the late Mr. Rawlins. There
was no evidence to prove that the defendant was an executor of
his father, and the plaintiffs consented to be nonsuited.
ASSAULT BY A POLICE INSPECTOR.—SMITH V. LYONS.
Mr. HENDEIRSON opened the pleadings. The action was
brought by the pleintiff to recover damages from the defendant
for an assault committed by him upon the plaintiff's wife. he
having seized her, and dragged her along the streets to Bride-
well.

Mr. VENARLES stated the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff kept
a.Fook shop in the neighbourhood of the theatre. On the 15th
of last month he went out to carry some supper to the house of
a person named Jones, and his wife went out into the street to
inset him. Whiie she was standing there the defendant came
up and (according to the eridence of a witness named Mullin,
a private Watchman.) said to her, "You will know me when you
3" me again." Mrs. Smith said, "I have known you before,
ou which Lyons denied the assertion, which she reiterated, and
the defendant then said, " I will make you madam keep better
hours for the future ;" to which she rejoined, " You can do as
Zou like." Lyons to this answered, Will you be insolent ma-
dam ?" and on her saying that she had not used any insolence,
Ile threatened to take her to Bridewell; and she immediately
-"
You dare not." Lyons then crossed the street, and tak-
ing hold of her, pushed her before him to Bridewell, where she
was detained all night, and discharged at the Police-office in the
rpornir, g. It was for this assault and imprisonment that the
defendant sought to recover damages.
The Learned ASSESSOR said, that under the present form of
the pleadings the plaintiff could not recover damages for any
injury done to the wife; he could only recover mere nominal.
"wages for the loss of her services during the time she was
imprisoned.
Mr. Rusturost, the defendant's counsel, consented to the
amendment of the record, and it was accordingly altered so as
to make the plaintiff and his wife jointly interested in the issue.
George Grieves a bridewell turnkey, (one of the plaintiff's
witnesses) deposed that on the night of the 14th, or morning of
the 15th of September, Mrs. Smith was brought to the Town
Bridewell, by bnspector Lyons. She passed the night there,
and was accommodated with the best room in the building.
There were no other prisoners in the room. 4lrs. Smith refused
to pto bed. Next morning witness walked with her to the
police-office; she followed the rest of the prisoners. She was
discharged at half-past eleven o'clock. The charge against her
Was being disorderly in .Marble-street, Whitechapel, at two
o'clock in the morning. In answer to a question from the
court, the witness said that Lyons appeared to support his
charge at the Police-office the next day. The case was fully
gone into.
Mr. Ituswrom on behalf of the defendant, submitted that his
client was justified under the provisions of the sth and 6th of
William IV, in the conduct ho had pursued towards the plain-
tiff's wife. The 51st section of that act provides that persons
keeping cook-shops should not have their shops open after the
hour of midnight, or before five o'clock in the morning. The
48th section gave constables the power of apprehending tran-
sient offenders usin obscene, abusive, or indecent language,
provided they did not know the parties. And by the 77th sec-
tion of the same act, it was enacted that all actions against
persons carrying the provisions of the act into execution, should
be tried in the county, and that notice should be given one
Month before the action was brought. In support of this posi-
tion he quoted the core of Theobald v. Crickinore, reported in
Barnewell and Alderson, page 227, in which it was held that an
action could not be brought against a constable after a given
- period. for breaking open the front door of a house, in order to
execute a distress warrant. The learned counsel also relied
!urn the case of Barenger and Fellis, Ist vol. Meeson and
Wal•bY, Page 208.
~The AssESSolt considered that this was a case to go to the
jury.
Mr. RUSHTCrN then said that if that was the opinion of the
earned assessor, it would become his duty to address a few
observations to the jury, who would bear in mind the fact of
persons keeping cook-shops being prohibited from keeping
theic houses open after the hour of twelve o'clock at night.
. The plaintiffs were clearly acting, at the time the assault
Was committed, in open violation of that rule. Should they be
of opinion that the inspector had acted in a manner unauthor-
ized by the act, they would not' forget that. he had acted with
singular care towards Mrs., Smith, he having provided for her
the best accommodation which the place afforded. In con-
elusion, the learned counsel said that while the town council
Were resolved to enforce the laws for the protection of the pub-
lic peace of the town, and to defend their officers in the execu-
tion of their duty, they were' determined not to defend those
officers if they exceeded the bounds of their authority,
• Mr. IieNABLEC, claiming his right to reply, in consequence
of thedefendant's council having produced the Bridewell journal
- la evidence, contended that the defendants had nut made out
sitt answer to the case. Mrs. Smith was not unknown to him,
fulcra* regarded the cook-shop, if any offence had been com-
mitted, the husband was the responsible party, and might have
beta summoned before the magistrates the next day ; but he
(the learned counsel) had yet to learn that it was an offence to
Iliad out food at any hour of the night or day, the intention of
the act being the prevention of the practice of harbouring int-
,: P pi r eharacters upon the premises, and so long as persons were
not suffered to enter or be served on the premises,
. no offence
Was committed. With regard to the qaestion whether Mrs.
,Smith had ,acted in a disorderly manner in the street, he had
tuilv to ask the jury was she disorderly ? If so, why not have
utlfed.the policeman who came up when the defendant struck
his stick on the pavement. If it was proved that she had been
disorderly, he was content to let the defendant have the verdict;
• but if the jury were convinced that she was not, he hoped the
the plaintiffs would have the benefit of that decision, and re-
t'ais'a at the hands of the jury compensation in damages for the
• injury the defendant had inflicted upon them.
The Learned AssEssoii summed up. the evidence, declar-
- lug that the defendant was not justified in his conduct by any
• authority given him under the provisions of the act of pasha-
liient under which he had received his appointment.
The jury returned a verdict for the Plaintiffs. Damages £5.
MAUNSEL v. POOLE.
This was an action to recover damages for an assault com.-
.Mitted by the defendant, an inspector of police, upon the plain-
tiff,

Mr. VuN ANBLES, the plaintiff's counsel, stated that his client
was a Liost respectable man, a native of Ireland, who bad been
violently assaulted by the defendant, an inspector of police,
who did not appear to defend the action, but had contented
himself with pleading the general issue. The plaintiff, it would
aPpear by the evidence, had been requested to serve a copy of a
writ upon the defendant, and for that purpose bad waited upon
him, at the police office. The plaintiff' served the writ in a
quiet and secret manner, and did nut say anything to the de-
fendant calculated to give him offence. However, the defend-
ant thought proper to push him against the wall, and finally
ejected him with great force from the office.
Joseph Robinson deposed that he was an extra officer at St.
John's Market. in the latter end of September witness saw
the plaintiff and defendant at the police office. The defendant
laid hold of the plaintiff with one hand and forced him violently
through the door of the office with the other. The plaintiff was
rushed out of the room. The defendant is about five feet eight
Itt height. The plaintiff "is a weak, sickly, gentlemanly sort
of man, in every respect." He had been employed in the
Custom-house some years ago, and since that time had em-
ployed himself as a collector of rents, and occasionally serving
writs. The assault was committed at the back of the police
office, in the presence of Mr. Hall, the magistrate.
Two other witnesses were called, but they did not appear.
The ASSESSOR summed up, observing that there was no evi-
dence of the plaintiff having given the defendant the least
provocation.
The jury found for the plaintiff, damages forty shillings.
13EETHAM t'. KMNYON.
This was an action brought by a solicitor in London to re-
cover the sum of £2l, the amodut of monies recaived by the
defendant, a shopkeeper of Liverpool, in the name and for the
use sof the plaintiff. The defendant had been employed by Mr.
!rheheeename
n tter, of Manchester, to serve a writ issued by the plaintiff,•
of a client; against a clergyman of this county.
rlneg:ya tcnnteea
galetit immediately paid the debt and costs, but the
whom d
as
agent.to pay the same over to the parties for
u errisiGnAst submitted main-
tained, as it • the action could not be main-
Mr. Foster, oughtwho p to have been brought either in the name of
original suit. The plaintiff
the defendant, or the plaintiff in the
miXdOPORD t'. SPEED.
Mr. VENABLE% was nonsuited.
out of custody of the Se for the defendants to be discharged
stated that he was arrested by'alt at Mace, on an affidavit which
the officer to the sergeant this
morning, when proceeding to
the court to attend the trial of an
action
sessionsbrought by him against the plaintiff, entered at these
The Learned ASSESSOR said, that the law
.
protected suitors
courts of justice, and ordered the
defendant to be forthwith discharged.
ead witnesses when attending
WEDNESDAY.

HUTCHINSON V. mccorottoa
This was an action brought to recover the sum of £45, bor-
rowed by a former partner of the defendant, who is an excava-
tor, from the plaintiff for the purpose of payin,, wages. A
Verson of the name of Stephenson, the former partner ofM'Cor-
!nick, was the principal evidence against the defendant. The
evidence of this witness was severely commented on by Mr.
• Rashton, who appeared for the defendant, and he was subjected
to amost searching cross-examination. It appeared that Stephen-
- tort had joined in partnership with M'Corinick, and had taken
£BO into the clncerii ; that they had afterwards quarrelled, and
he had obtained back £6O out of the £BO, and on a settlement
of the partnership accounts by arbitration he had had awarded
to him £l5O. The witness, in his cross-examination, repre-
tented himself as a gentleman living on his own independence.
It, however, turned out that he had been living on the £l5O
twaroled to him; that he had been insolvent, and had only just
got out of (what the learned counsel termed) it his country
h"e,e—the Borough Gaol."
though
the story rested entirely on the credibility of Stephen-
son, till if Stephenson, as a partner of M'Cormick, bad bor-
rowed this money. ,epr!senting that it was for partnership
rurposes, M'Corniick must pay it, though Stephenson had a ppro-
Iztrtated the Money (which was what was alleged) to his own
"I"nies; because a person had a right in such a case to the
security of kkith p.trtuers,aul Stqhpution by his insolvency was
1•61 for the plaintiff, damages £45, trader the point