The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1849-03-27 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

nation by Mr. Martini with...
ns said handtßrownrigg was
' Aims was c man
concerned in Birkenhead WM.,
nu.:nedican account with
of the Finance Committee.
the bank in August, 1846. He (ticket,
ra sa_c-
a7tlte Millertn was
at that time a partner; he was tot known lb.
tion. Subsequently had an interview with 311,1er,,,,„wh0
wished to draw on the account to the extent of £.5,:u or
£lOO, but the directors declined to allosii him to do so,
because they held the £4OOO against certain advances
made to the Commissioners. Miller made no objection
to the right of the bank to act on the agreement,
Mr. MARTIN contended that Brownrigg had a right
over his own estate, and it was against an express agr,N-..
ment, made in his own handwriting, that the sum of
£5OOO was now attempted to be got out of the bank.
Brownrigg was the manager of the firm in Liverpool, and
no other person had a right to interfere as regarded any
agreement he chose to enter into, no other person being
known. The account was duly entered in the bank book,
in the name of the firm. In January, 1816, there was a
large sun of money to be paid by the Commissioners, for
interest on bonds falling due, and, at that time, the bank
was in advance to them to the extent of £56,000. An
application was made to the bank to advance the sum of
£5090, to enable them to pay their interest on bonds,
and Mr. Brownrigg agreed to pledge his own balance to
the extent of £5OOO to cover such advance. An agree-
ment was, accordingly, drawn up to that effect, and
signed. The only question would be whether the Direc-
tors of the bank had a right to act on that agreement, and
he (Mr. Martin) contended that, in point of law, they
had.

Some evidence was then produced as to the general
affairs of the bank and the mode in which the money had
been advanced. It was also proved that a bill for
£2157 4s. 4d. was in the hands of the bank, which had
been endorsed by the plaintiffs, but dishonoured. Pay-
ment had also been demanded without effect.

It was ultimately agreed to take a special verdict for
the plaintiffs for £2982, 7s. 7d.,—the amount of the bill
being allowed as a set off,—subject to a case in the Court
of Exchequer.
OWEN V. GARNER.—The plaintiff, Edward Owen, is a
corn merchant in Liverpool, and the defendant, a car
proprietor at the same place. The action was brought to
recover the sum of £47 14s. Bd., for corn and beans sup-
plied to the defendant, during the years 1847 and 1848.
The defence was, that the debt had been contracted by
the defendant's father, who was the person liable for the
amount claimed. Verdict for the defendant.

CROWN COURT.-FRIDAY

THE CHARGE OF MURDER AT WIGAN.—The greater
part of the day was occupied with the trial of Bernard
Kaye (33), charged with having, on the Ist of January
last, murdered his wife, by strangling her with a rope.—
The case was one wholly of circumstantial evidence, and
the principal witness against the prisoner was a fellow-
prisoner, named Monsell, who stated that the prisoner
told him that he had pushed his wife down the cellar
steps, and had then strangled her.—But it appeared, on
cross-examination, that Monsell was a man of very bad
character, being in prison for throwing vitriol on a girl.—
The prisoner had called up a lodger in the night, and told
him that he had found his wife hanging in the cellar, and
had cut her down. Mr. J. T. Wynnard, surgeon, being
called in, found the body still warm ; but quite dead.—
There was, he said, the mark of a rope round the neck,
which, in front, had crossed the cartilage called Adam's
apple; but on each side the indention extended upwards,
as if the body had been suspended. If the deceased had
been strangled by another, the mark round the neck
would have been more circular, and the skin would have
been abraded.—The JUDGE said he thought this put an
end to the case, if the jury were of the same opinion as
himself.—Mr. Pou.ocx, for the prosecution, said that,
under all the circumstances, he thought he ought not to
press the charge any further.—The JUDGE : Oh, no ; I
think tia case has come to an end.-- Under his Lordship's
direction. the jury immediately acquitted the prisoner,
who was discharged.

RETURVING FROM TRANSPORTATION.—Edward Iliron
Finney (35), was convicted of this offence, being found
at large in Manchester, in February last, before his sen-
tence of 14 years' transportation had expired.—Mr. PoL-
LOCK took the objection that the sentence was for a
longer period than was legal for his offence (larceny).
The JUDGE said it appeared to be a wrong sentence, but
still it was in force, till voided by a writ of error. The
prisoner was found guilty, and the point was reserved for
the consideration of the judges. The prisoner said he
had served eleven years, and understood he was at liberty.
The judge said if that were so, he thought the case a
proper one for pardon. Sentence deferred.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-FRIDAY

KELLOCK v. PHILLIPS.—This action was brought by
Mr. Henry Gray Kellock, a lieutenant in the navy, who
is an agent for Lloyd's, and the receiver of droits of the
admiralty, and resides at Waterloo, near this town.—lt
appeared from the statement of the case by Mr. Sergeant
WILKINS, that the defendant, who is a butcher residing at
Crosby, had for some time been in the habit of making
use of the most vindictive and malicious observations
towards the plaintiff for some unknown reason, and the
present action was brought in consequence of the defen-
dant having stated, at the Bath Hotel at Waterloo, that
the plaintiff was a d—d thief, and that the shoes which
the plaintiff's son then had on (the plaintiff's son was at
the Bath Hotel on that occasion) had been stolen by his
father and given to him to wear. Defendant also stated
that he knew that the plaintiff had stolen a boat off the
shore. After stating that the plaintiff did not seek
damages, but was only desirous of vindicating his charac-
ter, the learned sergeant called several witnesses to prove
the case.—Mr. Sergeant MURPHY then replied, and the
jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages 40s.
CLARKE V. Mulß.—The plaintiff in this case was Mr.
Muir, land agent to Mr. Naylor, residing at Walton. The
action was brought to recover the sum of £45 3s. 6d., for
commission due to the plaintiff by virtue of an agreement
the defendant made with him to negociate the sale of a
hundred head of cattle. After the plaintiff had found a
purchaser, the defendant refused to follow up the contract.
The plaintiff was to have received 21 per cent. on the
transaction, and the sum now claimed was calculated upon
that per tentage.—After the case had proceeded for some
time, the plaintiff was nonsuited ; and on the crier of the
court calling out, " John Clarke, come forth, or you will
lose your nisi prius," the plaintiff excited much laughter
in the court, by saying to Mr. Grocott, his attorney, in an
audible tone, " Does he want me ?"
HYDE V. DAVIES.—This was an action brought by Mr.
James Hyde, a horse-dealer in this town, to recover from
the defendant, a horse-dealer, residing at Stanton-on-
Harrow, in Hertfordshire, the sum of £62, which plaintiff
had paid to the defendant, on purchasing a horse from
him, and which defendant warranted sound at the time.—
From the statement of the case by Mr. Sergeant WILKINS,
it appeared that the purchase was made on the 23rd of
August last, and soon after the horse was taken ill, and
died on the 22nd of September. Several witnesses having
been called in support of the plaintiff's case, Mr. MARTIN
addressed the jury for the defendant, and contended that
the horse was well at the time the defendant sold him to
the plaintiff, and that the disease of which the horse died
had been brought on by its taking cold during the time it
was being conveyed from Ludlow to Liverpool, and that
the disease which proved fatal to it could not be of more
than ten or twelve days' standing.—Witnesses having
been called for the defence, one of whom was Professor
Dick, Mr. Sergeant WILKINS replied, and his Lordship
having carefully summed up the evidence, the jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount
claimed.

CROWN COURT.

,-SATURDAY

SENTENCES

Robert Riley, William Bramall, Joseph Ellis, and
William Carroll, for burglary—the three first to fifteen
years' transportation, and the latter (who had turned ap-
prover) to eighteen months' imprisonment. John Keller
and William Ockleshaw, for burglary, to fifteen years'
transportation ; Samuel Clarke, for the same offence, to
fifteen years' transportation; Thomas Quin, to the same
punishment, for a like offence; Robert Blackburn, for a
burglary, without violence, to two years' imprisonment
and hard labour ; Patrick Cavannah,:for a similar offence,
received a like sentence ; John Twist and George Mea-
dows, for an assault and highway robbery, were sentenced
—Twist to two years imprisonment, and Meadows (who
had been previously convicted) to ten years' transporta-
tion ; Joseph Ratcliffe, for stealing a watch from a canal
boat, was ordered to be imprisoned and kept to hard la-
bour for six months ; Joseph 31.` Carey, for arson, was
sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour;
Edward Chapman, a boy 16 years of age, for forgery,
was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment, with
hard labour ; John Hanley and Richard Hickson, for
maliciously wounding, were sentenced to eighteen months'
imprisonment, and John Gaffney, for bigamy, was sen-
tenced to six months' imprisonment, with hard labour.