The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-08-20 00:00:00

After several witnesses had been examined to prove the

Mr. CRESSWELL addressed the jury on the part of the de-
fendant. He contended that all that was done, admitting
that it was wrong, did not amount to a conversion of the
property. He stated that the horses had been an annoyance
to the ladies on board the steamer, and that it was merely
to prevent that annoyance that the defendant proceeded to
take them on shore. Mr. Cresswell admitted that there
might be grounds for an action of trespass, but not for one
in trover.

His LORDSHIP, in charging the jury, gave it as his opinion
that there was nothing in the first part of the case, in turn-
ing the horses out of the boat, or in the subsequent facts as
proved, to show a conversion. _

The jury, without leaving the box, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff for £3O damages.

KENT V. LEA AND LAWTON

In this case Frederick Kent was plaintiff, and Fabius Lea
and William Lawton were the defendants. The action was
brought for the recovery of the value of certain fixtures and
property which were detained and sold at a sacrifice to setisfy
a landlord's demand for rent. _

It appeared from the statement of the case that the plaintiff
was a licensed victualler in Crosshall-street. The defendant,
Lea, was the owner of a certain house in that street, which he
let to a person of the name of Wm. Brown. Brown re-let it
to the plaintiff. It was held on an old lease. The plaintiff
became the tenant of the place in July last year, when he
purchased fixtures, fitted up the interior, and continued
in possession until the March following. An execution was
then laid on for six months' rent which was owing by Browne,
and in consequence of that execution, the plaintiff was at,
present in great distress. The plaintiff had nothing whatever
to do with Lea, and only owed a quarter's rent to Browne,
at the time of the execution. On the 18th of March the
other defendant, Lawton, who was a sergeant of mace, made
the distress for half a year's rent, and it was for what then
took place that the present action had been brought. Ac-
cording to the statute, it appeared that although a landlord
was authorised to sell whatever goods might be found on the
premises to satisfy himself for the rent due, yet that, if he
seized more than the rent amounted to, he was liable to an
action. A considerable portion of what had been seized con-
sisted of the fixtures. and as to fixtures, the law laid it down
that the party had no right to make distress at all. The
property detained amounted in value altogether to about
£lOO, while the half year's rent did not exceed £2B.
After a number of witnesses had been examined on both
sides to prove value, &c., the jury decided as follows :—We
do not consider that there was any misconduct at the sale,
or that any damages should be allowed for the irregularity of
the appraisement ; but we find a verdict for the plaintiff for
£2O, loss sustained by the sale of the fixtures.

The court adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock

CROWN COURT.-YESTERDAY

FORGING AN INDORSEMENT TO A BILL OF EXCHANGE,
AND UTTERING THE SAME WITH. INTENT TO DEFRAUD.

Thomas Brown, 30, and Christopher• Robinson Bell, 33.
were inicted for having, at Manchester, feloniously forged
and uttered a bill of exchange in writing, for the payment of
£194 155., and with having uttered the same to one Samuel
Appleyard, with intent to defraud him, they well knowing
the same to be forged.
The prisoners were both fine-looking men, and were repre-
sented (more particularly Brown) as having, until recently,
each borne good characters, and having carried on business,
though not conjointly, in a manner that was considered highly
creditable to themselves, for a succession of years. Brown
is stout, inclining to corpulency : Bell of slender and smaller
build, and both bearing an undoubted air of gentility. The
case, as affecting the commercial community, excited very
general interest in the court ; but as the evidence was volu-
minous—occupied the greater part of the day—and [moreover

from the requirements of the law, somewhat tedious and in-
volving much of the tortology of corroboration, we deem it
advisable, in the previously crowded state of our columns, to
condense (though necessarily imperfectly) the whole into
a narrative of the leading points.
Mr. Armstrong, and Mr. Green conducted the prosecution,
and Mr. Baines appeared for the prisoner Brown, and Mr.
Adolphus for Bell.

It appeared from the evidence that the prisoners, though
not ostensibly connected in business, had for some months
past aided and abetted each other in the preparation and ut-
tering of two bills, one of which,—the last that was uttered—
formed the subject of the present indictment. Two bills had
been uttered by the prisoners, both purporting to bear the
indorsement amongst others, of Messrs. York and Sheep-
shanks, of Leeds. The first bill, purporting to be drawn in
April last, in York, was for the sum of £156, and apparently
by one Atkinson and one Hall. Amongst the indorsers were
the names of York and Sheepshanks. The prisoner Brown
took this bill to the Manchester Alliance Bank, and presented
it to Mr. Farrar, the manager, who enquired of him who Mr.
Hall was. The reply was that he wa a respectable manufac-
turer of Leeds. The jury was not however, called upon to
decide on that fact, but whether York and Sheepshanks 's
signature was genuine, as attached to the subsequent bill,
and whether the prisoners had uttered it with intent to
defraud. The first bill was dishonoured and advice was
given of the same. it further appeared that the parties
finding themselves involved, drew out the bill noticed in the
indictment ; also containing the assumed signatures of York
and Sheepshanks, as endorsed. With this, a purchas of
goods was made from the prosecutor Appleyard, which were
sold at a sacrifice, and the dishonoured bill for the £156 was
taken up by Brown, with the proceeds. Brown appeared
to be surprised when he learned that there was a forgery
on the face of the bill. An application was made for
the bill to be returned by the bank, but this was re-
fused, until the bank wes satisfied that the transaction
was a fair one. The goods selected by Brown from
Appleyard, amounted to £259, and the former told the latter
to make out the invoice to Brown, Bray, and Co. Bray, as
it afterwards appeared, being a person with whom Brown had
entered into some sort of partnership through the negocia-
tion of Bell, in the interim between the drawing of the two
bills. Brown stated that the bill was got from a person
named Greenwood—naming his residence. It appeared, how-
ever, that Bray was a person lodging in a small cottage in the
outskirts of Leeds, and that the Greenwood alluded to had re-
sided where it was stated, but had been dead two years. Brown
himself indorsed the second bill, and it was proved that the fill-
ing up of it was Bell's writing, and the signature of York and
Sheepshanks (his former employers) also in his writing,
somewhat disguised. The prisoners were apprehended in
Leeds, and on their persons were found two copies or drafts,
of attempts to draw the bill, one of which was on a stamp;
but, as it contained a mistake, it had evidently been aban-
doned. The evidence on the whole did not appear so strong
against Browne as against Bell, as related to a general know-
ledge of the fraud.
The prisoners were ably defended, but no witnesses were
called.
The judge summed up very perspicuously. and left it to
the jury to consider first, whether the bill was forged, of
which he thought no doubt could be entertained ; and second-
ly, whether the prisoners uttered it, knowing it to be forged,
which was sufficient to sustain the indictment, whether they
themselves forged it or not. There were some collateral
points in the evidence, but they were of minor Importance,
with the exception of the fact that it did not appear distinctly
that Brown had received the written notice from the bank
of the first bill being dishonoured, before he aided in the
uttering of the other.
The jury retired, and after being absent for 35 minutes,
returned, on re-entering the box, a verdict of Guilty against
both prisoners.
Sentence was deferred, with a view to the hearing, previ-
ously, of witnesses, as to the former character of the
prisoners.
- -

MANSLAUGHTER CASES.
Edward Stanton, aged 74, stood charged with having, at
Bolton, killed and slain Betty Stanton, his wife.
Ann Thompson knew the deceased. She was in the habit
of getting drunk, and she and the prisoner then quarrelled.
On the 14th of July witness saw her on the floor, and the
prisoner was leaving her. She assisted to put her on a chair.
He then kicked her, and struck her over the eye. She
groaned, and made a deal of noise. She was assisted up
stairs, and complained of pain in her side. She could not
draw her breath. A doctor was sent for, and bled her. It
happened on a Wednesday. On Saturday she appeared bet-
ter, but died on Sunday.
Cross-examined by Mr. WlLKlNs.—Deceased had not
been out on the Wednesday. She got drunk in witness's
presence, at home. Her husband said, in her presence, that
she was subject to fits. Leeches were also applied to her

side.
soitrriddgreatwSthotihs airitansdawatttmr, qounatrirwellidan,
yginagnud sawestiont pi
.he
sarw-
c Su
hl tey
still i dingdrawingi nhe
de r
.
breath.he r as s tSe adw uhpe rs ot ani rSs n dSahye mhoardn idnigffi.
The prisoner seemed much distressed.
Cross-examined.—l have seen her in fits. They generally
came on after drinking. They were " stir-up fits."
Deceased's sister saw her before her death, and she was
very ill.
Mr. Heap, surgeon, opened the body on the Monday after
her death. There were internal injuries that caused mortifi-
cation, and corresponding marks exteriorly, as of blows.
Cross-examined.—The marks might have been caused by
falling in a fit.
The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. The prisoner
was discharged.
Frederick Wainwright was charged with having, at Li-
verpool, killed and slain Thomas Ball the younger, in a fair
stand-up fight. He withdrew his first plea of not guilty, and
pleaded guilty. Sentence deferred, in order to hear witnesses
as to character.
Daniel Shields was indicted for killing and slaying George
Myers, at Liverpool. The deceased, it was stated, came to
his death by a blow from a brick, thrown from a house on
the day of the last election.
George Chesworth, a shipwright, of this town, said, I
knew the deceased who was engaged as a flag bearer. At
about eight o'clock on the night of the election, I received a
blow from a stone on the arm, in Fisher-street. I saw the
prisoner go on the roof of his mother's house. He and
others commenced throwing stones from the roof. I saw a
stone pass by me, and deceased immediately fell. He was
carried away. Stones were thrown at us from the roof till
we got out of the street. The blood was running down the
deceased's face. 1 saw him afterwards with his head on the
table, and afterwards saw him when he was dead. I did not
see the stone strike the deceased.
Wood, a ropemaker, saw the deceased after he had re-
ceived the wound. He died some days after.
Edwards, a shipwright, said, I saw the prisoner on the
top of the house with a brick in his hand.
(Mr. Murphy here voluntarily defended the prisoner.)
Cross-examined.—Stones might have fallen easily from the
houses further off, from which other parties were throwing.
Ann Myers, widow of the deceased, said he was brought
home much wounded. He died on the Sunday but one
afterwards.
Mr. Pennington, surgeon, said, I was called in to see the
deceased on the 4th of July. I attended him until he died.
His death was caused by the violence of the injury. He was
trepanned and died soon afterwards.
James Patterson, police-officer, apprehended the prisoner.
He said Myers and his gang threw stones into his mother's
house first, and they were obliged to throw for self-pro-
tection. His brother, who had gone to sea, was, he said,
present at the time.
Cross-examined.—There were violent assaults made upon
houses, and many parties were injured. Several cases
showing this were tried at the last sessions.
Mr. MURPHY ably addressed the jury in behalf of the
prisoner. He contended that there was no proof that the
prisoner committed the violence that caused the death of the

• .••••• ,•• VS.., •
deceased.
The jury found the prisoner Not Guilty.
Edward Nickson was indicted for killing and slaying Mar-
garet Robinson. The case was pretty fully reported in our
police intelligence shortly after the occurrence.
John Nickson a boy, said, he lived at the time in Norris-
street. The prisoner was his father. On the 31st of Ma} last his
father came home tipsy, and lay down on the bed. His mo-
ther came home with some muscles. She asked him to get
up and have some. A quarrel ensued, and he got up and
kicked her. She tried to get out of the cellar. He pulled
her down, and struck her in the side with a knife. She
called witness to go for the police, and prisoner said, if he
did he would serve him the same way. She again got up the
steps, and he pulled her back and she fell on her side. She
got 'ap, and he caught her by the breast and threw her on the
floor on her back. She cried, " Don't lick me !" She sat
down on one of the steps. She then endeavoured to get out
again, and he pulled her back and she fell with her head on
the lower step. She was afterwards put on the bed. She
never spoke afterwards.
Cross-examined.—She was not tipsy when she came home
that he knew of. His father kicked her about four times.
The knife bent when he struck her on the waist. There was
a procession that day. His father carried a colour, and his
mother went to see it ; • she was not drunk that he knew of.
A female, named Musker, said she saw the deceased lying
not appear to be sensible. on the floor of the cellar. She did