The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-03-30 00:00:00

Learned Judge r

ox, and

tation for ten

John Collins was sentenced to ten years' transportation

David Cavannah, William Keane, and William Clemmett
were sentenced to one year's impfisontnent. The latter pri-

Thomas Barlow and Cornelius T.

for were sentenced to

)rmer pri-

ho had conducted himself most impudently on hear-

ing the sentence, address
" You'll be in hell before I

e judge
rved that

in they

Owen 'Cooney, so, ',lemma puny w an nin-La.... a-
ing him with feloniously uttering a counterfeit shilling, and
with having eight other false shillings in his possession. He
'as sentenced to 9 months imprisonment and hard labour.
John Rozelle, who had been before convicted „of stabbing
_ _

nd cutt

at Todmorden, was again placed at the bar, on a
charge of stealing at Todmorden and Walsden—a silk gown,
the property of William Bock.
It appeared that the prisoner lodg. irties a
Todmorden who had removed into another house he dre
'as then lost (according to the principal witness , but
'qsed for twelve days afterwards, when box was

ed with the parties at
<!.. The dress
s), but it

was not r

found broken open.
The prisoner cross-questioned the witness at considerable
length. He excited some amusement in the court, and elicited
the admission that many other perscas were in the house when
the box was said to be broken open, and that one of them was
a man of very loose and bad character.
Another witness swore to tt•-
rown at Roe/wale ""'

prisoner having

pledged the

On cr

S said that when he ple

very blac,; eye, and was disfigured in the face, yet she knew
him again when she saw him before the magistrates. She
admitted that the prisoner earned a good deal of money in
his trade as a shoemaker, and that the distance from Tod-

The prisoner said in his defence. that the party of bad cha-
racters who had been with him, bore a strong resemblance to
himself in every point, and been mistaken for him on several
occasions. This was not denied.

learned JUDGE summed up, and the jury f
.r—Not Guilty.

round the

learned JUDGE then proce
James Law

Both the
led party were in liquor at the time, and tu,
--Rs pulled out under irritation. The prisoner

Jed to pass sentence on the
isoner and
e knife,

,ner for st

__wards struck and kicked most grievously. This
be considered : but the prisoner should never again
carry a knife. The sentence of the Court was that he be
imprisoned for eight calendar months, and kept to hard

labour.
The Court rose at five minutes past six o'clock

NISI PRIUS COURT.—MONDAY.
Mr. Baron Rolfe took his seat at half-past nine o'clock

HUTTON V. CLIFF

By this action, which was undefended, James Hutton, an
iron merchant, of Manchester, sought to recover from Joseph
Cliff, an ironfounder, of Huddersfield, the sum of £66 6s 6d,
on a bill of exchange, for goods sold and delivered. Verdict
for the plaintiff.

MIDDLETON V. SHERBURNE

Baron ROLFE asked if any arrangement had been made
respecting the above case.
Mr. CRESWELL replied, that his client had, since the
subject was last alluded to, received a notice to inspect 581
documents. He had previously received notice to inspect
126 documents, and now this order had come suddenly to
him. It was extremely painful to his (Mr. Crcsswell's) feel-
ings to interfere when it was desired to fix a day for this or
any other trial, and after the observations which had been
made upon the subject be found that it would be most satis-
factory to his feelings not to interfere in the question.
Mr. DUNDAS was about to address the Court, when

Baron ROLFE said, he felt the full force of what Mr.
Cresswell had said. In this case there was evidently a strong
reason for not forcing on the trial.

DUNDAS said; from communication which had been
made with Sir W. Follett, he found that he (Sir W. Follett)
could come on the 12th of April, if neither the sth nor the
Bth would suit Mr. Cresswell.

STATHAM AND ANOTHER,ASSIGNEES, V. YATES

Mr. Alexander and Mr. Tomlinson appeared for the plain-
tiffs, and Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Hoggins for the defence.
The action was brought by the ass►gnees of Messrs. John
and Joseph Moss, dyers and bleachers, near Manchester, to
recover from the defendant, Mr. Joseph Yates, the sum of
£lB lls Bd, for dying a quantity of yarns, in the months of
September and October, 1839. It was alleged, on the part
of the plaintiff, that in the month of September, in the above
year, a quantity of yarns were sent by the defendant to
to the plaintiff's to be dyed brown. The process which
the goods underwent to fix the required tint was described,
and the yarns, when finished, were tested by competent per-
sons, in order to prove if the colours would stand. The yarn
was sent home, and an invoice with it, at the bottom of which
appeared a notification that all yarns sent to be dyed at
Messrs. Moss' would be considered as general liens for mo-
ney owing to them, and that all claims for damage, unless
.made within one month, would not be allowed. The charge
made for this parcel was £lO ss. A second parcel was sent
on the 4th of October, part of which was dyed brown by the
same operation, and similarly tested by bleaching, and was
found to have been properly dyed. On the 3d of November
following Messrs. Most became bankrupts; the accounts
were gone into, and the defendant, amongst other persons,
was found indebted to them. Application was made to him
for payment of the sum in dispute. The defendant objected
_ .

r .
to pay, on the ground that some of the brown yarn in the
second parcel was not properly done. This parcel, as alleged
by the plaintiffs, was charged fifteen shillings. The defen-
dant said that all the fabric of the brown yarn dyed had been
spoiled ; therefore he would not pay, and the plaintiffs might
go to law. An action was accordingly brought, which was
to have been triei before the sheriff : but that was prevented
by a demurrer, and the case was therefore brought for trial
at the assizes. The pleadings on the part of the defendant
were, first, that he was not indebted ; second, that he admit-
ted the work, but it was a custom amongst dyers that they
should deduct the amount of any damage done to goods in
the process of dying ; and, third, that one thousand pounds
of the yarn sent in the second parcel had been so ill done
that it was of no use ; that damage to the amount of £2O had
been done, which, as that was more than the £lB lls. Bd.
claimed, the defendant was not indebted.
The witnesses for the plaintiffs were principally the work-
men who had superintended the process of dying the yarns
in question. It was stated that the first part of the process
was to put the yarn in lime-water, then into a solution of
bronze liquor, again into lime-water, again into bronze li-
quor and, to use the words of the witness, " you carry on
in this manner, according to the mode required, till your
stuff is done brown :" it is then put into a solution of chlo-
ride of lime, then into a solution of hot alkali (called soap),
and then into a stove and dried. The testing process was to
put the stuff into boiling hot alkali, then into cold chloride
of lime, and to wash thoroughly with cold water. It was
then put into a weak solution of sulphuric acid. and after-
wards into the hot alkali again. This process was repeated ;
and it was stated that udyed yarns subjected to the same
Process (or " punishment," as the witness termed it) were

. -
thoroughly bleached.
Depositions were read which chewed that acts of bank-
ruptcy had been committed by Messrs. Moss, both ante-
cedent arid subsequent to the transaction in question.
Mr. CRESSWELL contended that the action was not pro-
perly brought, and that the plaintiffs must be nonsuited.
This was not a contract between the Messrs. Moss and the
defendant, as alleged, the work having been done by the
Messrs. Moss as agents for the assignees, because the for-

le it was done
ssignees were

bound to look to any prior acts of bankrupscy. An act of
bankruptcy had been committed subsequently to the trans-
action, and they became assignees at a particular date, when
the parties were really made bankrupt. However, he would
make a note of the point, and give Mr. Cresswell liberty to

move for a nonsuit.
Mr. CREsswEta. said, he apprehended his friend must be
nonsuited on another ground. The yarns were accompanied
by written instructions, which had not been produced.
Mr. ALEXANDER said the bankrupts' papers had got into
coulubion, and those papers he had shown could not be found.
The learned counsel had stated this in bis opening, but he
had not proved it. His lordship allowed a witness to be
called for the purpose of furnishing this proof. The witness
could not give the required testimony, but be was prepared
to show what the letters of instruction contained. This se-
condary evidence was not admitted. His lordship refused to
receive the objection on a ground of nonsuit, but he reserved
he point with the other.

In this case Mr. James Bamford sought to recover from
Mr. Joseph Radcliffe a sum of £95, as balance of money
which he had held in his hands for the plaintiff's use.
Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Brandt appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Alexander and Mr. Tomlinson for the defence.
It appeared by the witnesses called for the plaintiff, that
Mr. Bamford was formerly in partnership with two persons
named Parsons and Greenwood. Owing to a fire in their
mill the affairs of this firm went into confusion, soon after
which a dissolution of the partnership occurred, when it was
agreed that the defendant should collect in the money due to
the concern, pay out Parsons and Greenwood, pay the debts
due by the firm, and hand over the residue to the plaintiff.
Mr. Radcliffe drew in account of the firm £IS7G, and certain
smaller sums from others. When all was settled, there re-
mained a balance of £95 due to the plaintiff. The defendant
made a charge fbr his trouble which was objected to by Mr.
Bamford, who allbged that it was contrary to the agreement.
When Mr. Radcliffe showed the account of his proceedings,
it was disputed by the plaintiff. The defendant afterwards
refused to pay the money unless an acknowledgement were
given to him that the sum of £95 was all that was due to
him from the plaintiff. This was declined, and as the de-
fendant maintained his resolution not to pay without it, the
present action was brought for the recovery of the money.
The case for the plaintiff was proceeding, when Mr. Cress-
well having ascertained that the nature of the defence would
render it necessary to examine many accounts, proposed a
reference. This was acceded to. A nominal verdict was,
therefore, taken for the plaintiff, subject to a reference to
Mr. Jonathan Peel.