The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-04-12 00:00:00

LANCASHIRE SPRING ASSIZES.

CROWN COURT.
[Before Mr. Justice CRESSWELL.]
TUESDAY, APRIL 5.
MuRDER AT LIVERPOOL.— Charles Williams (aged 20),
indicted upon the coroner's inquisition for the wilful
murder of John 'gasket!, at Liverpool, on the 23rd of
March, was found guilty, and sentenced to the capital
punishment. The prisons r, who went by the name of
" Taff," in consequence of a mistaken idea that Masked!,
who was a sailor, had insulted him in Ford's singing-
room, went to Stewart's public-house in Denison-street,
between the hours of eleven and twelve on the following
night, and, after sharpening his knife upon a gutter-stone
in the entry, said to a boy who was standing close at hand,
" You'll see some fun just now." The boy asked, " What
sort of fun ?" and the prisoner answered, " Why, I'm
going to knife a Dutchman inside." The prisoner, and a
person who was with him, then called out the deceased,
and the man who was with the prisoner said to the de-
ceased, " What did you insult me in that concert-room
last night for ?" The deceased answered, " I did not in-
sult you." The man then struck him between the eyes,
and in the fight which ensued, Williams deliberately un-
sheated his knife, and stabbed him in the thigh, saying,
" Take that for a lick." The prisoner ran off, but was
apprehended by Mrs. Elizabeth Miller, a washerwoman.
The unfortunate 'gasket' was conveyed to the Northern
hospital, where he died. While the Judge was passing
sentence upon Williams, the latter wept bitterly, admit-
ting that he did not know who was the person against
whom his vengeance was to be directed.
STABBING IN LIVERPOOL.—WiIIiam Redsnayne,
negro, was charged with having stabbed Margaret Smith,
at Liverpool. It appeared that the prisoner was intoxi-
cated, and had struck the woman with a sword cane ; the
cane breaking with the blow, and the point of the sword
being exposed, the woman was slightly wounded with the
second blow.—Guilty. To be imprisoned until the rising
of the court.—This was the last case on the calendar.
SENTENCES. —Jonathan Barber, for the manslaughter
of his wife, at Chorlton-on-Medlock : six months' im-
prisonment, with hard labour.—William Christy, for
manslaughter : 18 months' imprisonment, with hard la-
bour.—James Illyerscough, for the manslaughter of his
father-in-law : 18 months' imprisonment.—Lawrence
111 Kennah, for wounding with intent to do bodily harm :
15 years' transportation.—Edward Riley and James Riley,
for a street robbery : ten years' transportation each.—
Simeon Lord, for forging a cheque : 15 years' transporta-
tion.—James Ward, for forging a request for the delivery
of goods: 12 months' imprisonment.---John Willcock,
for larceny : three months' imprisonment.--George
Hampson, for perjury : 12 months' imprisonment, with
hard labour.

Mr. Justice Cresswell rose shortly after twelve o'clock.
♦
NISI PRIUS COURT.
[Before Mr. Baron MARTIN.]
TUESDAY, APRIL 5.
ELPIIINSTONE v. LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE
RAILWAY COMPANY.—The plaintiff, Mr. James Ander-
son Elphinstone, was a native of Scotland, and was born
about 1811. In 1836 he met with an accident occasioning
the loss of his left arm ; but with the exception of the
suffering immediately consequent, he had throughout his
life enjoyed uninterrupted good health. On the 18th
October, he became a passenger in one of the defendant's
trains from Hull, and left Leeds by the evening mail
train, and in consequence of a collision he was rendered
insensible. In a week paralysis set in. He was now an
enfeebled and shattered man ; he was deprived of the use
of his right arm and leg, his speech was impaired, ar,d his
memory affected. The plaintiff's father was a respectable
banker in Inverness, and the plaintiff was intended for
the law. At the death of his father, in 1838, he succeeded
to a small paternal estate of a few hundreds a year; but
the creditors of the bank made claims upon the estate,
and the plaintiff gave it up rather than have litigation.
He was thus thrown entirely upon his own resources;
but his education was such that he obtained different
situations, and realised a respectable income. At the'
time of the accident he was in expectation of a situation
under government, in order to enable him to carry out
certain surveys connected with the junction of the
Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, his information with regard
to which was such that he would have been enabled to
earn a competence. He was now, however, left almost
wholly destitute.—Mr. Sergeant Wilkins said that if the
company could have ascertained who the plaintiff was,
there would never have been any trouble in arranging the
matter. We consent to a verdict of £l,OOO. To this
£2OO was added, expenses to the plaintiff consequent
upon the accident.

QUINN t'. BIBBY.—The plaintiff in this case was a
poor girl, who had been injured very much by the firing
of a gun on board a screw steamer, belonging to the de-
fendant, when leaving dock at Liverpool. It was arranged
to pay the girl £2oo.—His Lordship thought some
arrangement should be made to prevent such accidents ;.
if guns must be fired, care should be taken that the vessel
was at a sufficient distance in the river to ensure safety.
MUCK LOW V. WHITEHEAD.— The plaintiff, Mr. Ed-
ward Mucklow, is a manufacturing chemist and drug
grinder, and the defendant, Mr. John Whitehead, is a
bleacher and dyer, his works being about three miles from
Bury. The action was to recover compensation for
damage to the plaintiff's works, caused by the bursting of
the embankment of a reservoir, known as the " upper
lodge," at the defendant's works. A. verdict was agreed
to for £3,250.

()PENMAN V. WHITRHEAD.—ESpeciaI Jury
case, arising out of the same accident as the preceding, a
verdict was taken for £5OO.
GIBBS, BRIGHT, AND CO. tY. THE llayoß AND Coil-
PORATION OF LIVERPOOL.—The action in this case was
to recover damages for injury sustained by the plaintiffs
through the leakage of a water pipe, whereby injury was
done to some guano stored in certain vaults under the
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, in Key-street. The
vaults were three or four feet below the level of the street,
and on the 2nd of April the plaintiffs' workmen discovered
that the guano was wet. They therefore called upon Mr.
Jones, the superintendent, of the Railway Company, to
into the matter, and he employed a mason named
Martin to trace the source of the water, which he did ;
and it was discov( red that the water came from the main
in the street belonging to the corporation. Mr. Attorney-
General Knowles, for the defendants, contended that as
in 1850 the railway company, for purposes of their own,
made a communication with the sewer, and excavated
underneath the pipes laid down by the corporation, taking
away the substantial clayey foundation upon which they
had been laid, and causing them so to decline as to weaken
the joints, the damage was to be attributed to that cause.
The learned counsel, however, relied mainly upon argu-
ment—that the corporation were not responsible if they
had employed competent persons. The jury returned
a verdict for the defendants, believing that the pipes were
properly laid.

—ln this

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6.
FRASER AND OTHERS V. ALCOCK.—This action was in-
stituted in consequence of an alleged fraudulent preference
made after an act of bankruptcy. The plaintiffs in the
case were the assignees and trustees of a bankrupt named
Robert Johnson, carrying on business es a silk dyer and
draper, in Macclesfield, and the question at issue was a
fraudulent preference. The jury brought in a verdict for
the plaintiff. Damages, £B5O.
SANDERSON V. HOLLINS.—This case, understood to
be an action for false imprisonment, was arranged.
STEELE V. PEARSON AND OTHERS.—The plaintiff was
James Steele, and the defendants John Pearson, Edwd.
Jones, and John Rowlands, engineers in Liverpool. The
action was brought to recover compensation for an injury
which plaintiff alleged he had sustained by certain ma-
chinery used in the defendants' works, which accident
had arisen from a deficiency in the outer drum of a pulley,
of which the defendants were alleged to have been per-
fectlya2stooor:rrmscna.shouldeneo yaieneraepmtweesew nseee attknsta present
transactionsdetcognisant.very
er
trei
hyupn
peplgcall
oarti
neani
defendant.
ndlt wlaiti
tart
rase
ba
wsae
ogi
tanr
her: ebe da.l e
st
ult
oamut r
ost
fh eaxt7 ds eui foce
shn. dwaaonnr t
cds
that he should be retained in their employ at the rate of
f
as he was able to perform. His lordship considered the
WHITELEY v. RoniNsoy.—William 'Whiteley, clued',
,b ln
od f HenryeTxheeii
a actionn Rg exchange.
Robinson, nlastroonas
appeared'
that por.
enua
traeot
that the plaintiff drew a bill on a person named Rush-
worth which was endorsed by three persons, one of whom
was the plaintiff. The amount of the bill was £35 3s. sq.
When the bill became due, £l9 was paid on account of it
by two of the endorsers, but plaintiff did not contribute-
his share, and defendant, the holder of the bill, com-
menced an action for the recovery of the whole of the
amount. Plaintiff allowed judgment to go by default,
and in consequence was sent to Lancaster Castle. It was
alleged that, as the defendant had entered judgment for
the whole amount of the bill when only £l6 was actually
due, the plaintiff had been improperly imprisoned. His-
lordship gave it as his opinion that the defendant had a
right to do what he did in reference to the bill. The
plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited.
ARCHIBALD V. MABON.—Charles D. Archibald was
the plaintiff, and Walter Mabon the defendant. The
plaintiff is a gentleman residing at Rutland-ball, near
oir, to be employed at the undertaking in ques-
tion. The amount charged for the work was £172 14s.
fo
Milnthorpe, arid largely interested in an undertaking for
rovaScotia.
engineer atln the
tnj,
Manchester,
orenyce
ha ater
sLlt
esorsn,ld
too hnedeorrrdy N
ordered the defendant,
, supply a
set of rollers for
rolling
procuring
partiro
n
When the machinery was put up at the works in Nova
Scotia it was found to be defective, and unfit for the re-
quired purpose. It was therefore alleged that the de-
fendant had been guilty of a breach of contract, and this
formed the ground of the present action. After the
plaintiff had been examined at great length, the court
adjourned. THURSDAY, APRIL 7.
In Archibald v. Mahon, a verdict was given for the
plaintiff; damages, £2oo.—The case South Yorkshire
Railway and River Company v. the Great Northern
Railway Company was an action arising out of a claim
made by the plaintiffs on the defendants for tolls. It was
agreed that the damages he assessed by consent at £3551
16s. 2d., without prejudice to another action thing
brought.—The case Smith v. the London and North-
western Railway Company, a patent case, was only part
heard when the court rose.
FRIDAY, APRIL 8.
DAY V. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN

WAY COMPANY.—The nominal plaintiff in this action is
a millwright in London, but the real plaintiffs are the
assessors of the late firm of Messrs. Smith and Willey,
engineers, of Liverpool, and the action was brought to
recover compensation for the infringement of a patent
right for the manufacture of wrought-iron wheels for
railway engines and tenders. Mr. Day had sold his patent
for the unexpired term of four years, and his rights under
the patent, to Messrs. Smith and Willey, of the Windsor
foundry, Liverpool, for £250. In May, 1852, the firm of
Smith and Willey being in insolvent circumstanees, thew
assignees commenced the present action.—Mr. Baron
Martin having summed up, the jury returned a verdict for
the plaintiff, damages £1,250.
This case concluded the business of the assizes, and tb?4,
learned Baron congratulated the jury upon the lesseno.
inconvenience to which special and other jurors were 01'
by the new Law Procedure Act.

A HUNDRED MILL GIRLS selected by an Atneri
speculator in Glasgow have sailed from the Clyde to cc
tnence a new cotton mill at New York. The party so
in the Mary Morris from Greenock.