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.
ed 20),
o
MURDER AT LIVERPOOL.—CharIes Williams (ag
indicted upon the coroner's inquisition for the wtifoui
murder of John Maskell, at Liverpool, on the 23rdf1
March, was found guilty, and sentenced to the caP;;Por
punishment. The prisoner, who went by the rool
" Taff," in consequence of a mistaken idea that Mask
who was a sailor, had insulted him in Ford's 5i0511?4,
room, went to Stewart's public-house in Denison-sty
between the hours of eleven and twelve on the folio
night, and, after sharpening his knife upon a gutter-stTIA
in the entry, said to a boy who was standing close at 11%;
" You'll see some fun just now." The boy asked, AD
sort of fun ?" and the prisoner answered, "
going to knife a Dutchman inside." The prisoner, at,
person who was with him, then called out the deceast;',
and the man who was with the prisoner said to the to
ceased, " What did you insult me in that concert- 1150;
last night for ?" The deceased answered, " I did not les,
suit you." The man then struck him between the of
a,
and in the fight which ensued, Williams deliberatell4
sheeted his knife, and stabbed him in the thigh, 50'0
4, Take that for a lick." The prisoner ran off, but 51,0,
apprehended by Mrs. Elizabeth Miller, a washervrosl,g
The unfortunate Maskell was conveyed to the North
hospital, where he died. While the Judge was 109
sentence upon Williams, the latter wept bitterly, ss/pt
";01
ting that he did not know who was the person 555'
whom his vengeance was to be directed.
STABBING IN LIVERPOOL.—WiIIiam Reehaari`till,
neero, was charged with having stabbed Margaret 5,51/i.
at Liverpool. It appeared that the prisoner was ant is
cated, and had struck the woman with a sword cane;o4
cane breaking with the blow, and the point of the silty
being exposed, the woman was slightly wounded with
second blow.—Guilty. To be imprisoned until the Clsl
of the court.—This was the last case on the calendar. td
SENTENCES.—Jonathan Barber, for the manslauc,
of his wife, at Chorlton-on-Medlock : six months
prisonment, with hard labour.—William ChristP,o.
manslaughter : 18 months' imprisonment, with hard
bour.—James Myerscokoh, for the manslaughter 0,41
father-in-law : 18 months' imprisonment.—Later',
M 'Kennah, for wounding with intent to do bodily 41,
15 years' transportation.—Edward Riley and James At,
for a street robbery : ten years' transportation earP'
Simeon Lord, for forging a cheque : 15 years' transPl
tion.—James Ward, for forging a request for the deli
of goods: 12 months' imprisonment. —John Willer,"
for larceny : three months' imprisonment.--Gel
Hampson, for perjury : 12 months' imprisonment, 51
hard labour.
lod"
Mr. Justice Cresswell rose shortly after twelve o'c•

NISI PRIUS COURT.
[Before Mr. Baron MARTIN.]

TUESDAY, APRIL 5.
ELPHINSTONE V. LANCASHIRE AND YORIC'', Ir
RAILWAY COMPANY.—The plaintiff, Mr. James Ae
son Elphinstone, was a native of Scotland, and was ii
about 1811. In 1836 he met with an accident occasion'e
the loss of his left arm ; but with the exception Of
suffering immediately consequent, he bad throughouto
life enjoyed uninterrupted good health. On the I
it
October, he became a passenger in one of the defendsnii
trains from Hull, and left Leeds by the evening °red
train, and in consequence of a collision he was retitle so
insensible. In a week paralysis set in. He was noite
enfeebled and shattered man ; he was deprived of the, bir
of his right arm and leg, his speech was impaired, and be
memory affected. The plaintiff's father was a respeet.eg
banker in Inverness, and the plaintiff was intended
the law. At the death of his father, in 1838, he ucceeu
s bot
to a small paternal estate of a few hundreds a year;
the creditors of the bank made claims upon the esti;
and the plaintiff gave it up rather than have litigsttc°o,
He was thus thrown entirely upon his own resour et
but his education was such that he obtained diffelly
situations, and realised a respectable income. M ,0
time of the accident he was in expectation of a situatto
under government, in order to enable him to carry be
certain surveys connected with the junction oft 0,,j
Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, his information with rei
to which was such that he would have been enable 01l
earn a competence. He was now, however, left ait'of
wholly destitute.—Mr. Sergeant Wilkins said that h 0, ,
company could have ascertained who the plaintiff etty
there would never have been any trouble in arrangiogoil ;
matter. We consent to a verdict of £l,OOO. To
ept
£2OO was added, expenses to the plaintiff conser •
upon the accident. • , 1
QUINN r. BIBBY.—The plaintiff in this case Nt•-1
poor girl, who had been injured very much by the 01,1-e.
of a gun on board a screw steamer, belonging to the "01
fendant, when leavinz dock at Liverpool. It was arras‘ 00
to pay the girl £2oo.—His Lordship thought Ow
arrangement should be made to prevent such accide°ol
if guns must be fired, care should be taken that the te!
was at a sufficient distance in the river to ensure saf,
Attlee :Love V. WHITEHEAD.— The plaintiff, lit. vie
ward Mucklow, is a manufacturing chemist and ".g
grinder, and the defendant, Mr. John Whiteheacir,loo
bleacher and dyer, his works being about three miles Jefor
Bury. The action was to recover compensation of
damage to the plaintiff's works, caused by the burstil'nepef
the embankment of a reservoir, known as the " rea
lodge," at the defendant's works. A verdict was OP
to for £3,250. bit
10
OPEN SHAW V. WHITEHEAD.— [Special Jury "i
a
-
case, arising out of the same accident as the precewe'
verdict was taken for £5OO.
OS
GIBBS, BRIGHT, AND CO. V. THE MAYOR Ali' C'
wit
FORATION OF LIVERPOOL.—The action In this care 'gl
to recover damages for injury sustained by the plainto:,
through the leakage of a water pipe, whereby injur!' fbre
done to some guano stored in certain vaults undet„the
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, in Key-street. ler
vaults were three or four feet below the level of the stre.ej
and on the 2nd of April the plaintiffs' workmen discoce,:fr,
that the guano was wet. They therefore called upon no,
Jones, the superintendent, of the Railway Company' el
examine into the matter, and he employed a mason na'aij;;
Martin to trace the source of the water, which he oje
and it was discovered that the water, came from the ril,e
in the street belonging to the corporation. Mr. Attoes`lo
General Knowles, for the defendants, contended that pr
in 1850 the railway company, for purposes of their 004
made a communication with the sewer, and excattio
underneath the pipes laid down by the corporation, tnef
away the substantial clayey foundation upon which to)
had been laid, and causing them so to decline as to wes fee
the joints, the damage was to be attributed to that csso,
The learned counsel, however, relied mainly upon sitef
ment—that the corporation were not responsible if tod
had employed competent persons. The jury retuLre
a verdict for the defendants, believing that the pipes "
properly laid.
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6.
FRASER AND OTHERS V. ALCOCK.—This action Wes To
stituted in consequence of an alleged fraudulent prefelio
made after an act of bankruptcy. The plaintiffs in ed
case were the assignees and trustees of a bankrupt osloil
Robert Johnson, carrving on business es a silk dyer et
draper, in Macclesfield, and the question at issue °sot
fraudulent preference. The jury brought in a verdict
the plainff. Dames, £B5O. to
SANDEtiRSON V. H agOLLINS.—This case, understood
be an action for felse imprisonment, was arranged. ,oei
STEELE V. PEARSON AND OTHERS.—The plaints
James Steele, and the defendants John Pearson, Vol
Jones, and John Rowlands, engineers in Liverpool. .01
action was brought to recover compensation for an iotio.
which plaintiff alleged he had sustained be certain reel
chinery used in the defendants' works, which aceiuef,
had arisen from a deficiency in the outer drum of a pull
et,
of which the defendants were alleged to have been
fectly coenisant. It was agreed that the defendtoti
should present the plaintiff with a sum of £7 105,0(
that he should be retained in their employ at the relvde
275. per week during all reasonable hours, at such fiee
as he was able to perform. His lordship considered
arrangement a very creditable one.
WHITELEY V. ROBlNSON.—Williarn Whiteley, cloggiv
of Colne, was the plaintiff, and Henry Robinson. eljt-of
torney at Settle, the defendant. The action arose oil rej
some transactions upon a bill of exchange. It LlPP„,,,eaeb'
"
that the plaintiff drew a bill on a person named 'eye
worth which was endorsed by three persons, one of "6e,
was the plaintiff. The amount of the bill was £35 35.„f it
When the bill became due, £l9 was paid on account.," titer
by two of the endorsers, but plaintiff did not contriui/00,
his share, and defendant, the holder of the bill, °of
menced an action for the recovery of the whole off
alb
amount. Plaintiff allowed judgment to go cileawft
and in consequence was sent to Lancaster Castle.
alleged that, as the defendant had entered judgment I,°;
the whole amount of the bill when only £l6 was actuty,
due, the plaintiff had been improperly imprisoned. YI
lordship gave it as his opinion that the defendant 108
right to do what he did in reference to the bill,
plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited.
0111°
ARCHIBALD V. MerioN.—Charles D. Archibald he
the plaintiff, and Walter Mabon the defendant:
deP,
plaintiff is a gentleman residing at Rutland-hap, "for
Milnthorpe, and largely interested in an undertakTOttie
procuring iron ore at Londonderry, Nova Scotia. It: 09
early part of the year 1851 he ordered the defendant' for
engineer at Manchester, to supply a set of roller' g•
rolling iron, to be employed at the undertaking in Yreo'
tion. The amount charged for the work was £17e,,...01,
When the machinery was put up at the works in -0 re,
Scotia it was found to be defective, and unfit for thede,
quired purpose. It was therefore alleged that thietbio
fendant had been guilty of a breach of contract. and tile,
formed the ground of the present action. After 000
plaintiff had been examined at great length, the c
adjourned. THURSDAY, APRIL 7. r the
In Archibald v. Mahon, a verdict was given .i°,hife
plaintiff; damages, £2oo.—The case South T'sti',6.fiefe'
Railway and River Company v. the Great Nor' joios
Railway Company was an action arising out of ofV
c, oss,
made by the plaintiffs on the defendants for tolls. I*
agreed that the damages be assessed by consent at t'ejet
16s. 2d., without prejudice to another action .1A:
brought.—The case Smith v. the London and i."7.„
,30P1
western Railway Company, a patent case, was only
heard when the court rose.

FRIDAY, APRIL 8. IotAW4
DAY 1.7. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN -.00 1-
WAY COMPANY.—The nominal plaintiff in this act', the
a millwright in London, but the real plaintiffg,V;lielf
assessors of the late firm of Messrs. Smith and "1,4 to
engineers, of Liverpool, and the action was broeg:tettt.,
recover compensation for the infringement of ale
right for the manufacture of wrought-iron %ghee tell"
railway engines and tenders. Mr. Day had sold big Under
for the unexpired term of four years. and his riehr%clgtl
,i
the patent, to Messrs. Smith and Willey, of the "kip tie
foundry, Liverpool, for £250. In May, 1852, the " tbe"
Smith and Willey being in insolvent circumstanees:ooo
assignees commenced the present action.—Mr• •ct let
Martin having summed up, the jury returned a verdi
the plaintiff, damages £1,250. d
This case concluded the business of the assize`, an
learned Baron congratulated the jury upon the leSfe
inconvenience to which special and other jurors we'
by the new Law Procedure Act.
AWE
on
r!cge
A HUNDRED MILL GIRLS selected by to C°er
speculator in Glasgow have sailed from the Cly stole
mence a new cotton mill at New York. The Par"
in the Mary Morris from Greenock.