The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-09-05 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD

money by the sister and mother, and there was no reason
to expect that anything like a partnership would have
been attempted to be proved.
His LORDSHIP, in summing up, said that a person
might render himself liable as a partner in two days—
first by being actually a partner, or else by allowing her-
self to be held out as a partner, provided credit be given
to a concern on the faith of her being a partner, but then
it devolved on the plaintiff to make out his case, and for
himself (the Judge) he could not help saying, in this case,
that he was travelling rather in the dark. However, he
and the jury could not help that ; they were compelled to
do the best they could, and to decide according to the
best of their judgment. With respect to the defendant
being held out to the world as a partner, he thought there
was no evidence, and she would not be liable unless she
actually was a partner.
The jury immediately found for the defendant.
NEGLIGENT WORKING OF A COAL MINE.
ECKERSLEY AND OTHERS V. GREENHOUGH.

In this case, William Eckersley and his sisters, Ann
and Esther, sought to recover compensation from their
uncle, Joseph Greenhough, for damage done to their
premises, in consequence of the negligent working of the
defendant's mine, near their premises, whereby their
mine was injured, and also to recover damages for certain
coals taken under their premises.
After Mr. STARKIE had begun to detail the facts for
the plaintiff, the case was referred.

MANSLAUGHTER.-COLLISION.

Samuel Lloyd, 43, was indicted for killing and slaying
William Johnson.

Mr. Blair was for the prosecution, and Mr. Harden for
the defence.

Mr. BLAIR stated that the prisoner was the captain of
the Cheshire Witch steamboat, which plies between St.
George's pier and the Rock Ferry. On Friday evening,
the 4th of August last, she left the pierhead on one of her
usual trips, and after she had been away from her moor-
ings about a quarter of an hour, was off Coburg Dock
entrance. The tide was about half ebb, and running
down rapidly. It was the practice for the steamers to
keep in shore to get the slack tide, but along that shore
were a number of small slips, by which small boats were
in the habit of lying, and whence they issued forth to
proceed on their voyage. The steamer passed near to the
sea wall, by Clarke's Hole and the entrance to the Coburg
Dock, steering inwards and then outwards; she followed
the bend of the wall, when a boat called the Rc:olator,
which is a four-oared gig, carrying sails and plying on the
river, came out from the Cockle Hole, with ten men in
her, belonging to a vessel called the Sussex, lying off the
Magazines, and two other persons. Her head was to the
wind, which was W. by N.W.; they were getting up her
sails, and an oar was at her stern as a rudder and for
sculling, and she was drifting down the river. The steamer
was seen by the parties on board approaching at a distance
of 140 yards—though there was some difference in their
statements on this point as to the precise distance—and
excited great alarm as she did not alter her course. They
hailed the vessel, and she was also hailed by some persons
on the pierhead. The prisoner, it would be proved, who
was steering the steamer, must have seen the boat, as
other persons on board the steamer did. He called to
them to get out their oars, and waved his hand to them
to get out of the way, but the bow of the steamer struck
the boat, and the latter sunk. The vessel was immedi-
ately stopped, and boats put off from the shore. It was
supposed that all the people were saved, but on calling
over their names it was found that the deceased was
missing. His body was found drowned on the shore a
few days afterwards. The learned counsel then stated
the law applicable to the case, which was that if a party,
in the pursuit of his business, did not use due caution
that homicide should not ensue, he was liable to be con-
victed of manslaughter. Here he had a knowledge that
these small boats were constantly coming out, and as he
was at the wheel himself, he could not, therefore, get rid
of the responsibility which might have been thrown by
the captain on the steersman. He was very active in
saving life after the collision, but if he had been guilty of
recklessness or negligence he was not the less amenable.
If the collision was accidental, the jury would give him
the benefit of it ; but if he had been guilty of recklessness
or carelessness, then their verdict must be against him.
Witnesses were then examined, who, on cross-exami-
nation, stated that the people in the boat might have got
out of the way if they had not all been in confusion ; that
the prisoner was obliged to steer towards the shore to
avoid the boat, and then to steer outwards to avoid run-
ning against the pier; that there was an error in his judg-
ment in doing this; that he did all he could to avoid the
collision, and called out to stop the engines three times,
and that in fact he was not at all to blame.
The Learned JUDGE inquired if the case could
be carried any further after this had been admitted
by two witnesses. His Lordship said it was an
accident. If he was at the helm himself and could not
leave, and called out to stop the engine and it was not
stopped, as had been proved, he was clearly not to blame.
The jury said it was an accident, and acquitted the pri-
soner, under his Lordship's direction.
BURGLARY.
James Heyes, 34, John Jones, sen., and John Jones,
jun., were indicted for burglary and stealing hams, &c.,
in the house of William M'Kee, grocer, Vauxhall-road,
Liverpool, on the night of the 24th June.
Mr. Wilkins was for the prosecution, and Mr. Overend
for the prisoners.

Mr. NVILKINs proved that the shop was broken open,
the hams stolen, and the prisoners found in possession of
them.

Mr. OVEREND ably addressed the jury, submitting that
at all events the case was one of mere larceny, and that
the proof even of this was insufficient. He called wit-
nesses to the character of John Jones, jun.
The JUDGE charged the jury, who found all the prison-
ers guilty. A previous conviction was proved against
Heyes. His Lordship sentenced Heyes to be transported
for ten years, and the other prisoners each to twelve
months hard labour.
MANSLAUGHTER AT LIVERPOOL.
Thomas Reece, 19, Thomas Foster, 29, and Robert
Frost, 18, were indicted for manslaughter.
Mr. Arnold was for the prosecution, Mr. Townsend for
Foster, Mr. Wilkins for Reece, and Frost was unde-
fended.

Mr. ARNOLD stated, that the death of the deceased
Nicholas Harrison, aged 32, arose out of a fair stand-up
fight, on Monday, the 26th of June, in consequence of a
previous quarrel in which the deceased was to blame.
Foster was second to Reece, the principal, and Frost pre-
sent as a spectator, aiding and abetting.
It was elicited that the deceased was a tall athletic man,
and had the best of the fight to the close, when a blow
from Reece stretched him on the ground, and he soon
afterwards died. There was a fracture of the temple and
extravasation of blood on the brain, which caused death,
and the former was most likely caused by a fall on a hard
substance. The prisoners admitted the facts, after caution
before the coroner, and their statement, which was taken
down in writing, was now put in in evidence.
Mr. TOWNSEND addressed the jury for Fnrster, and
Mr. WILKINS on behalf of Reece.
Several witnesses gave the prisoners a good character.
The jury found Foster and Reece guilty, and acquitted
Frost.

The JUDGE sentenced Foster and Reece to three days'
solitary confinement each.

STABBING.

. _____..,...
William Williams was charged with stabbing another
person of the same name, with intent to do him some
grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Pugh appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Wil-
kins for the defence.

It appeared that on Sunday evening, the 13th August,
as the prosecutor was passing along St. James's•street, in
this town, the prisoner came up to him, and after saying
" You're one of the gang"' stabbed him in no less than
six places.

The jury found the prisoner guilty. Sentence deferred.
Several prisoners were discharged at the close of the
court by proclamation, including Taylor Jennings.
The court adjourned at a quarter-past seven o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.--FRIDAY.

Mr. Justice Cresswell took his seat at nine o'clock.

SUMNER V. BAKER.
This was an action of Crim. Con., brought by the
plaintiff, Thos. Sumner, against the defendant, Thomas
Baker, for the recovery of damages for the seduction of
the plaintiff's wife, the defendant pleaded a denial. From
the statement of Mr. Wilkins, the counsel for the plain-
tiff, it appeared that the plaintiff was a farming servant,
living at Churchtown, two miles from Southport, and
that the defendant was a wealthy farmer of the same
neighbourhood, and a man of some possessions and in-
fluence. It was alleged that the offence had been com-
mitted on many occasions, during the absence of the
plaintiff, that it was witnessed by a person of the name
of Rimmer, on the 29th of last March, and that a sepa-
ration followed.
There being neither attorney nor witnesses in court at
the close of the statement, a juror was withdrawn, Mr.
Wilkins having first declared, upon the part of the de-
fendant, that he was innocent of the charge.

WALKER AND ANOTHER V. WRIGHT.
In this action the plaintiffs, John and William Walker,
sought to recover a sum of £703 from the defendant,
being the balance alleged to have been due for the erec-
tion of premises in South Castle-street. A verdict was
taken for the plaintiff, subject to a reference.
ARMITAGE AND OTHERS V. WATERHOUSE.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, George
Armitage and eighteen other persons, against the defend-
ants, for the recovery of £266 under an award made be-
tween the parties. A verdict was taken for the defend-
ants, with liberty to move on the issues.

SEYMOUR AND OTHERS V. CARR.
This was a special jury case, in which the plaintiffs,
William and Henry Seymour, sought to recover from the
defendant, John Thomas Carr, the value of work done,
money lent and pa'd, on an account stated and a bill ac-
cepted. The defendant pleaded that he was not liable,
and that he had not accepted the bill.

Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton appeared for the
plaintiffs; and Mr. Watson and Mr. Atherton for the
defendant.

Mr. KNOWLES stated the case. The plaintiffs were
ship and commission agents at the Cove of Cork ; the
defendant was a merchant and shipowner at Newcastle ;
and the sum in dispute between the parties was £lB2.
It appeared that in the month of November, 1841, a ship
called the Corrib, on her return from Africa to the port
of Liverpool, was found near Cork, in a state of the most
lamentable distress, with her sails split, and her crew ex-
hausted and sick. The plaintiffs succeeded in getting her
into Cove, and took the trouble of entirely supplying her,
fitting her anew, providing her with a crew, and equipping
her in such a manner as enabled her to prosecute her
voyage to Liverpool. It was for the recovery of this
outlay that the action had been brought.
Witnesses having been examined to prove the case,
Mr. WATSON addressed the jury on the part of the de-
fendant. He commenced by stating that his client was
merely the mortgagee of the vessel, and that it was clearly
laid down in law that mortgagees out of possession were
not liable for the repairs of vessels. The party, to be
liable, must have appointed the captain, and the captain
must have been authorised to make the repairs. The cap-
tain, in the present case, died at Sierra Leone. He had
been the owner and charterer. After his decease, ano-
ther was appointed by Messrs. Watson and Co., of Sierra
Leone, and between them and the defendant there was no
connexion, while the newly appointed captain had not
been authorised to make the repairs.
No witnesses having been called for the defendant,
His LORDSHIP charged the jury.
A verdict was returned for the plaintiffs for the amount
claimed.
CRIM. CON.
REES v. FLITCROFT.—This was an action brought by
the plaintiff, Richard Rees, against the defendant, Seth
Flitcroft. The declaration was in trespass for criminal
conversation with the plaintiff's wife. The defendant
pleaded not guilty.
Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant
Murphy for the defendant.
Mr. JAMES stated the case. He said that in this case
he had the honour to appear as advocate of a man in an
bumble sphere of life in this town, who was,
he believed,
a machine-maker and mechanic in the employ of Messrs.
Humble and Milchrist, and bad been with them for a
number of years. It would appear that the plaintiff had

resided for some time as a lodger in the honer of !II•i
who was the widow of a Captain Harley, and that in the
mmar-
ried January,Tind
hsatdatiboenenin
lair
went, a highly respectable manufacturer of grates, anal
defendant nt dh the
was,esent as }ear,fa I al es
his place of business was in Castle-street, Liverpool.
Some short time after the marriage of the plaintiff with
his wife, the defendant was seen on various occasions,
during the absence of the plaintiff at his work, to go to
his house, no doubt for the purpose of seeing the plaintiff's
wife. Upon one of these occasions, the sister of the
plaintiff, a respectable married lady of the name of Davis,
went to the plaintiff's house to take tea, when an elderly
gentleman, and the defendant was elderly, came there, the
plaintiff being then absent, whereupon the plaintiff's wife
represented him as her landlord by way of throwing dust
into the eyes of the parties then assembled. There whs
no pretence, however, for saying that he was the landlord.
They left the room in which they were, went up stairs to-
e..ether to a room, and, after being locked up for half an
hour, they came down again, arid the defendant left by a
different way from that by which he had entered. It was
not for him (Mr. James) to say what had taken place on
that occasion: but in some short time after, the wife took
it into bar head to leave the house, and to go and live with
the defendant. At the time of her leaving, she said and
seemed to hold out some prospect, that, if her husband
would only submit for a certain time to the indignity of-
fered, he would get the means of living a more comforta-
ble life thereafter; and she accordingly went away, and
continued to live at the house of the defendant, at Wa-
vertree, cohabiting with him up to the time of the action
having been brought. It was for the jury to say, under
those circumstances, what damages the plaintiff had sus-
tained for the grievous wrong inflicted upon him by the
defendant.

Evidence having been given to prove the case,
Mr. Sergeant MoaPHY addressed the jury on the pait
of the defendant, contending that the case had been sup-
ported by gross perjury and contradiction. Ile thought
the age of the defendant (about 70 years) would predicate
anything but intrigue, and said that the gentleman had
simply visited at the house of the plaintiff, in the middle
of the day, for the purpose of engaging Mrs. Rees as his
housekeeper.
A verdict was unhesitatingly returned for the defendant.

DINGHAM V. HAMILTON AND OTHERS.—This was
an action brought for the recovery of £l6OO, being the
amount of commission alleged to be owing on cargoes of
oil, &c., brought home from Africa in vessels called the
Didulus and Garrow. The plaintiff was Henry Lingham,
and the defendants were John Hamilton and William
Jackson. The defendants pleaded that they had not pro-
mised.
Mr. Knowles, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Cowling appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Babes and Mr. Crompton for
the defendants.
The defence was, that the plaintiff had violated his in-
structions in respect to the Garrow ;. that he had trusted
persons when there was no necessity for trusting ; and
that he had taken a worthless bill from King Pepel, at
Bonny, the value of which the defendants had never ob-
tained.

A verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the sum
claimed.

PLATT AND OTHERS v. YOUNG AND OTHERS.—This
was an action brought by Messrs. Platt, Son, and Casson,
tar and turpentine distillers and resin manufacturers, of
Liverpool, for the recovery of the amount of a policy of
insurance for £2OOO from the directors of the London
and York Insurance Company. The defendants pleaded
to the whole declaration payment of £1265 into court.
Mr. Watson and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plain-
tiffs ; and Mr. Knowles and Mr. Pashley for the defend-
ants.

It appeared that the policy had been effected on the
distillery and yard of the plaintiff, situated between
Greenland-street and Parliament-street, in the south
end of the town, and that that policy had been made on
the 10th of November, 1842, for six months. On the
22d of December there was a fire on the premises, which
destroyed all the property in the yard, and also in a ware-
house called " Guyton's." The defendants alleged that
they were only liable for £1265, the Value of the property
in the warehouse in question ; and it was not disputed
that that was about the value of the said property. The
action was, therefore, brought for the recovery of the
value of the property in the yard, which amounted to
about £735.

After the examination of witnesses, the court adjourned
at twenty minutes after seven o'clock.

CROWN COURT.-SATURDAY.
ASSAULT, WITH INTENT TO COMMIT A RAPE.

William Gibbon, 30, stood charged with assaulting
Ann Lythgoe, at Pennington, in July last.
Mr. Trafford conducted the prosecution. Mr. Wilkins
the defence.

It appeared, by the evidence of the prosecutrix, that on
the 25th July the prisoner went into the weaving shop
where the former was at work, and made inquiry respect-
ing a hen which he said had been lost; and, finding her
alone, threw her down and attempted to commit the act
with which he stood charged.
Mr. WiLiciNs addressed the jury for the prisoner.
The jury retired, and, after an absence of two hours,
returned, finding the prisoner guilty. He was sentenced
to four months' imprisonment.