The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-03-30 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDAJW

the same pit as Wrigley, one of the prisoners at the bar. On
the Monday before Christmas day, Wrigley said to him, that
they might make a good day's work by rubbing the banksmais
that they worked under. Witness replied, " We should be found
out if we did it." Wrigley replied, "He could get two chaps
that would do it." On the Wednesday following, he said, he,
would go and fetch Thomas Bales and John Thompson to do
this job. On Friday Witgley. told hint, that the men had come.
Bales and Thompson were sawyers. He had an interview with
them at Wrigley's house. Wittless here identified the prisoners
at the bar. By Wrigley's direction he exchatiged his white hat
for a black one. Witness here described, that they went alto-
gether to the place where the job was to be done. Witness was
sent to keep watch at the bottom of the field. It was a dark
nigh and Robert WI igley"averd to go to the top of tne field,
and show Toompson the man. In about a quarter of an hour
afterwards, lie heard somebody call out, "Oh dear!" Witness
ran away, brill, afraid of being taken if he retnamed. Bales
and Thompsou came running atter him. Bales remarked, that
he (Duckworth) called out rarely. He and Bales got over the
hedge, Bales remarking that Thompson had got the money.
He also said, they held the bankstnan down in the field. They
met Thompson at Oldham, and at first said, they would go to
the King's Arms and divide the money, but fearing that if they
were seen together it would excite suspicion, they went of Bates'
house, where witness remained outside. After a tittle, Thomp-
son came to him, and said, they had got £5, and gave him £2
lUs. to divide between him and Wrigley.
Witnesses were called, who proved, that the handle of the
pick found in the field belonged to Wrig,ey. A man who heard
them conversing in prison detailed matter which they had spo-
ken, which showed that they had a knowledge of the robbery.
Mr. MuttPdv spoke at great length in defence of the pri-
soners.

The jury found all three guilty, and the court passed sentence
upon thew of transportation fur life. ..

NISI PRIUS COURT.—TUESDAY.
(Bej;ire Mr. Justice Coleridge.)

Mr. Creswell and Mr. Brandt appealed fur the plaintiff, and
Mr. Alexander fur the defendant.

The deClaration stated that this was an action brought by the
plaintiff, Who is a surgelia, against the defendant, for using de-
famatory words agaitist him, in stating that he was a quack, and
not entitled to practise as a surgeon.
It appeared that the plaintiff is a surgeon at Ashton, near
Manchester, and the defendant was steward to the Earl of
Stamford and Warrington. It appeared there had been a con-
servative supper at Ashton, to present a piece of plate to Mr.
igginbottom, of that town, when the plaintiff, a person named
Gregnry, a Mr. Newton, a Mr. Worthington, and a Mr. Tay-
lor, who were liberals, went into an adjoining. room, and listened
to what was going on, in which they were detected, and this
conduct caused'inuch talk in the town. A few days afterwards
'a number of persons were assembled at the COminercial Inn,
where the befure-mentioned .individuals' wit, the exceptionmf
the plaintiff, were assembled, and the defendant, when they
began conversing about toe conservative supper, and the con-
duct if the iisteners; when the defendant sai t, •• Don't mention
Dr. D.why, (meaning the plaintiff,) he is a quack, and not
entitled to practise as a surgeon; you may tell him that I will
prove it." And subsequently lie stated that two apprentices
had barn obliged to leave the, because he bad not passed
Apothecaries Hall. A witness, named Edward Grcgory, was
called io prove the words used; and deposed to the defendant
having used the words, and that he had told the plaintiff of the

His lordship severely commented on the evidence of this wit-
ness. To every question on his cross-exandrition making
against his friend the plaintiff, it was, first, "it might be so."
then, "perhaps It was so," then, "I believe it was so," and
fin 111 , " I have no d.inlit whatever it was so."
Mr. ALFOCANDER, for the defence, called the witnesses' evi-
dence an "ascending scale of evi knee." tie strongly de-
nounced the shabby conduct of the listeners, and said that par-
ties wki would take so mean an advantage over a political op-
ponent would take the opportunity nhich the words which
formed the subject of the action ;iffurded t? found an action on
then► to injure a political opponent.
His lordship said if they were of opinion that the slander was
substantially proved, they would find for the plaintiff.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages, one far-
thing.

BACKIIOI,SR AND ANOTHER V. SANDIFORD AND OTHERS.

Mr. CaEsswELL and gr. ILIGGIris appeared for the plaintiff
and Mr. ALEXANDER and Mr. WIGHTmAN foribe defence.

The plaintiffs in this casedealt very consideiably with Messrs.
Sanditord, Hewitt, sad Wetherby, calico-printers, of Manches-
ter. The latter firm dissolved partnership ►n September, 1836,
and at that time there was a balance owing from the firm to the
plantiff. Mr. Backhouse, of about £1,21/0. Mr. Saudiford drew
out of the firm, leaving Messrs. Hewitt and Wetherby. to carry
on the business, and they soon after failed and became bank-
rupts in the debt. of Mr. Buckhouse, who now came upon Mr.
Sandiford, who had withdrawn from the fit in, for the amount of
his debt. This was the point at issue, M:. Sanditord pleading
that he was exonerated by the dissolution of partnership; then
that he wiaexonerated by agreement with the plaintiff, which
was denied; and then that he was exonerated by the riaiu.
tiff's having received a bill from Hewitt and Wetberby, in pay.
merit of the debt, and that he therefore coat,' tint come upon
Sandiford. This, it was said, was accepted with an understand-
ing that it was not to invalidate the plaintiff's claim against
Sandiford. The defendants, Hewitt and Wetherby pleaded
their bankruptcy. and the action therefore, rested against San-
difouf. Mr. Backhouse was in partnership with a Mr. Price,
who was the other plaintiff in the action. For the defence it
was attempted to be proved that the goods were supplied to the
sultst•quent film, and not to Sandiford and Co.
His Lottosnip, in summing up, said there could Pot be a
doubt about the respon.ihibt y of Mr. Sandiford.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff damages £1,087 68.7 d.