The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-08-21 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STAN VA

, . .
that the woman liadford was a well-known infatoi.uscharacter
at Manchester, and that she had given' him drink, and might
thee have put the marked coin into his pocket. It wits the first
time he had ever been brought before a court of jw,tice, and he
hoped his sentence might be lenient. The jut:), fotind the pri-
soner guilty, but. recommended hint to Mercy. The learned
judge told the prisoner that the court was inclined, iii couse-
qoenee of his'own appal and-the "Merciful recominendation of
the jury, to give him an, opportunity of ' amendixtent. The
learned judge then sentenced the prisoner to be nnprisoned in
Lancaster'Castle for twelve calm:Air Months.

NISI PRIUS.-WEDNFSDAY,
MORRIS "r. kAVEt4SCROFT.

The plaintiff in this case was Mr. Valentine Morris, a wine
" and spirit merchant at London; the defendant, an innkeeper
at Manchester, and the action was brought to recover the sum
of £tl3 17-4.8 d. for goods furnished.
Mr. with whom was Mr. J. ADDISON, stated the
case the to jury, and called the 'following witnesses :
• Charles Simpson was traveller to the plaintiff, and was in the
habit of visiting tbis part of .the country, twice a-year,-viz, in
April and Detober. In Ocidber, 1832, the defendant gave him
an, order for half a bogsh'eid of port wine, half a 'hogshead of'
sherry, and half a puncheon of brandy. He immediately.sent
the order to London, and the wine and brandy Were despatched
by the canal in one of Pickford's boats, On his next visit in
April, 1833, the defendant paid for the brandy, but. refused ;to
take the wine, which irithe meantime bad been lying at Pick-
ford's wharf. Defendant; on the 9th of April, signed an'agree-
ment engaging to take the wines on the following conditions: ,
—That a respectable merchant should be called on to fix the
value ;• that if payment were not convenient, it should not be
demanded till the next journey, and that the wine should be
sent to Mr. Ravenscroft at once. (The agreement was here
,put in and read.) Gave a copy of the agreement to defendant.
Defendant then gave him an order in writing for a puncheon
'of rum then lying in bond in the London Docki, at 3s. Bdh per
The defendant then agreed to remit the money for the
duty (9s per gallon) in the customary manner, but did not do
so. The runs still remained in the hands of the plaintiff. The
contract for the rum was in writing; that for the wine and
brandy was not. The value of the wine was £l9 per cask. In
October, 1833, he called on defendant again, and expressed
his surprise that defendant had not fulfilled his agreement
either as to the wine or rum. Defendant said that lie had no
objection 'to the wine himself, but his wife had, and would not
allow him to take it into his stock. He wished some respec-
table person to be appointed to value the wine, but defendant
objected. Made no agreement that a person named Patchett
'should decide the dispute.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLY. Was paid by
salary, not by commission, or the amount of sales effected.
'Two or three days after the sale of wine in October, 1832, the
defendant came to Min and wished to countermand the order.
'fold him it was too late, as the order had gone off, and the wine
was probably on the road from London. Did not write to
countermand it. in April following the defendant said he had
not ordered the wine, but had countermanded it. Wished to
persuade Ravenscroft to take the Wine, in order to prevent its
being seized. Might have told defendant's wife that if she
would persuade her husband to take the wine, she might go up
to town and buy the handsomest dress she could find, and lie
(witness) would pay for it. Might have Made_ such an offer,
but did not remember the words.' Made it, because he knew
the wife was manager of the house. Did not believe that he
:had had any conversation with Mr. Patchett as referee, but
would not swear that he bad not. The last he heard of the
wine was, that it was still at Pickford's. The ruin was still at
the bonded warehouse in London. In April, 1833, •the wine
samples were sent back to his warehouse by defendants Did
not sea them himself, but was told so by•the servant.
•By the Junus.—The defendant had himself tasted the samples
at the time when he signed the agreement to take the iamb.
Did not know whether the wife tasted them also.
Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLY, for the defendant, contended that
his client had never ordered the goods, and was not bound to
Pay for them. He called Mr. George Patchett, a wine and
spirit dealer at Manchester, who stated that he had examined
samples of the wine, which were sent to him by the defendant,
and found it to be such stuff that he could not fix any value
upon it. It. appeared, however, that this was in 1834, atter the
wine had been lying at Pickford's for two years, and that Mr.
Patchett very well knew that they were samples of the wine
sent by. plaintiff, because the defendant's -wife told him so.
The jury found for the plaintiff.—Damages £54105.

THOMAS BARKER SMITU V. WIO,HAWKINS AND ANOTHER.

This was an action to recover a balance of 4 or 5 years salary
alleged to be due to the plaintiff, Mr. Thomas Barker Smith,
formerly a schoolniaster' io Cheshire, but now a bookkeeper,
in Liverpool, from the defendants, Messrs. 'Wm. and Robert
Hawkins; as executors of the late Mr. Hunter, Cabinet-maker,
furniture broker, and dealer in rushes, who formerly carried on
business in Stanley-street, in this town. The evidence princi-
pally relied on for the plaintiff, was a letter to him from the de-
ceased, dated 1829; of which the following is a copy :—" Cousin
Smith,—come down to-morrow to assist me, and • I will give
you £26 a-year." The plaintiff come to Liverpool in consequence,
and was described by several persons as having remained in the
service of Mr. Hunter, from that time, till Mr. Hunter's death,
which happened towards the close of last year. It appeared
that he attended at the shop' occasionally, sometimes for three
or four days in 'the Week, at others, not for a month together,
and 'was employed in. keeping the books, making out accounts
add attending at the docks foy the purpose of landing rushes be-
longing to the deceased. The reason alleged for his not having
drawn his salary regularly, was, that his wife was cousin to Mr.
Hunter, and had some expectations from him, and that he . did
not press for payment, lest those expectations should be disaitp
pointed. Several witnesses were called to prove that the letter
in question was in the hand-writing of the deceased. For the
delence, other witnesses, who professed to be acquainted with
his writing, deposed to their belief that it was not his. One of
them, a banker's clerk, with w'hom Mr. Hunter had done busi-
ness; said that the writing was very like Mr.' Hunter's, whilst
another swore that there was not the least resemblance.
Lord As INGE R, in summing up the evidence, said that if the
jury considered the letter from Mr. 'Hunter as having really
been written by him, and believed the testimony of the witnesses,
their verdict must be for the plaintiff, as no evidence had been
adduced to show that any part of the salary* promised to the
plaintiff had been paid to him, whilst they could only find for
he defendant on the belief the letter in question had been for-
ged by the plaintiff.
The jury retired to consider of their verdict. After being ab
sent about half an hour, they returned with a verdict for the
plaintiff.—Damages £loo,—being the amount of four years' ea_
lary' at the rate agreed on.
Messrs. Crompton and Henderson were counsel foe the plain-
tiff :—Mr. Blackburn for the defendant.

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.—WARING V. WALT.EY. •
This was an action to recover damages for a breach of pro-
mise of marriage on the part of the defendant, a young lady .re-
cently married to • Mr. \Valley, a respectable wine and spirit
merchant, of H ultne, near Manchester. The plaintiff is a book-
keeper in a merchant's counting-house in this town. The
damages were laid at £I,OOO.
Mr. VENABLES opened the pleadings, and Mr. ALEXANDER
stagd the case. The learned counsel said that he did not won-
der at all at seeing an involuntary smile on the countenance of
Mr. Venabies, when he mentioned that the present action was
not brought by a lady, but by a gentleman; but he was not
aware that any law existed which would deprive a person from
seeking reparation for injuries sustained by a lady. This action
was brought by the gentleman against the lady.
The Jones—ls the action undefended by the lady?
Mr. ALExaNnca.---Yes, my lord. (A laugh.)
3,1 r. ALEXANDER continued—lt might be aware occurrence to
see an action for breach of promise of marriage hronght by the
man, but he supposed that the fact was, that the softersex gene-
rally kept their words in such matters so well that it was seldom
necessary. He should in this case be enabled to show that the
defendant, after plighting her cows to the plaintiff, had so tar
outraged his feelings that, about the time preparations were
making far their marriage, she threw herself into the arms of
another, and married him. The plaintiff was a mcst respectable
Ton ng man, and bad been for some time acquainted with the de-
teudant in Preston, where her father followed the business of
an innkeeper. It was in .that town in 1.833 they first engaged
each others affections. In the hope of amending their mutual
condition, the plaintiff left Preston, and obtained a situation as
bookkeeper in a merchant's counting-house in Liverpool, which
he was urged to do by Mrs. Walley. He had ever since re-
mained in that capacity, and Mrs. 'Walley, (then Miss Town-
send,) the defendant, had frequently been over to. Liverpool to
see him, when the nuptials were spoken of to the mutual friends
of both parties, and a house was about being taken for. them.
As, however, the poet'said, " the course of true los'e ;ever did
run smooth," Miss Townsend became enamoured of another °h-
ied in the person of -Mr. \Valley. He was .a much richer man
than the plaintiff, and made his appearance about the close of
December last year, when his client was sent to the right about,
leaving him to seek a remedy the best,way he equld. •Iti Sep-
tember last his client was about taking a house with a view to
marriage. A conjugal correspondence was carried on between
the plaintiff and the female defendant from the mouth of March,
183-1, to the 3,1 of January, 1835, when she becaMe aequainted
with her present hushand; who, in the very short space of one
month, changed her affections so much that they were married
on the 17th of February, 135, with a full knowledge of all her
engagetnents with the. plaintiff The female defendant had a
small expectancy on her father's death, which was probably the
cause of the male defendant's marrying her to the diiadvantage
of the plaintiff'. lie hid Mrs. \Valley's letters;. written wheal
she was Miss Townsend, to the lilaintiff,.whieb would show uu
what affectionate terms the parties were: The learned c(itiesel
then reed :the ft?l,Latti lig letters, which excited confide rab
laughter:—

"Preston, Septarn her 27, 1834.
"My ti,mrrEdiard,l received yours of the 22d, and would
have writt.n much sooner if T had had an opportunity. I left
Manchester on the Thursday; the same day you left •Ormskirk;
you stayed longer there than you 'talked Of to me; 'I suppose if
you had met me there_ your stay would have been very short to
what it. was. Miss Walley and my cousin Ann, sister to her
'that wai with me at Liverpool, came home with me; Mr.
Walley- brought us as far as Bolton. Mr. W. took me to the
theatre and a many places more while I was at
Manchester,
and we have been three times since. I came home one night
with a cousin of mine, the second night with J. Hall, and the
third with Mr. Gardner, and I offended him as ill as I once did
Mr. Oldfield-1 left hint anti came home with Archer, corn
dealer. I told my father as soon as I got home thall had been
at Liverpool; they were surprised, but did not say a word;
they were not at all vexed. I assure you I was very thankful,
and I hope they will never hear that I saw you, and for my
sake do not say anything to Mr. or Mrs. Sutton; yet, however,
for if you and them were to quarrel, they might say some thing
about me seeing you there. I am very sorry that I ever went
to Liverpool at all ; but, as I think at present, they will be a
long time before they see me there again; and I am sorry on
your account that I ever came, for you spent many an hour
both with Sophia and Mrs. S. that now you will not do; but I
hope you wilt be friends again, for there
is nothing so disagree-
able to me as being at vartance with any one. 'I hope your cold
is quite well; do take more care of yourielf; for you have run
nearly through your health witii your carelessness. Yon make
me very unhappy when I think you are so much altered to what
you were when I saw you before, for if anything was to happen
you, I do not know what would beconie of me. I think it would
break my heart. I am not like you were that Saturday at Mrs.
S.'s, telling me to be off, yon could do without me; for I am
sure / cookd not do without you. Now, if y-ou 'were to come and
spend two Sundays at Preston, would I take off and reave you;
and I'll tell you what, whenever meet any of those girls we
saw in the square, shut your eyes, and do nit' look at them, for
if you once begin With them, I shall 'very soon lose you. My
cousin Sarah is quite in love with
,you; she am you 'Were the
best man she saw in Liverpool, and it ipit WERE NOT ENGAGED'
she would set her cap at you. She heard you mention a bit of
paper when yon left us, and wondered what you could mean.
• I expect the next letter you send will be long'er than the last
was. I Ain little batter than I was; 'I have had a very had cold
since.' came hoine.—Yours ever, BETSY TOWNSEND."
"Preston, October 27, 1831.
•
My dear Edward,—.7 received yours of the With on Monday
evening', and Most' certainly perceive that you have began it in
the same way that I did; •but did you mean it iron. your heart,
that's the principle thing. anti I almost fancy that you did not;
itut you men are so deceitful. You are very much mistaken in
regard to what I told you I had heard, in thinking it was a
voting man that told use. I do not think any young niao would
have said as much about you to men; but this I know, if he

had once he would not have a chance a second time; it was a
Married man that told,me. However, I will take your Word,
for 1 would much rather, and would Much sooner believe yob
than him that told me; but if you have no better an opinion of
me when I am writing to you and receiving your letters, than
to think I shall keep company with other young men, do not write
to me again, for it you tell no more to young women than I
either do or have done to men, since I began with you, 1 shall
feel very easy.on that point. You were the first I ever went
with, and I calculate you will be the last, if it is not your own
fitult ; but if there is any one that you love better than me, you
certainly are perfectly cit liberty to have them; for. I should not
like to have any one that had only a divided cipcticri for me,
You tell me to'haye patience; I must asstireilly do not think I
am at all impatient; but if it will be .any :satisfaction to you to
know that to see you looking with a happy countenance, and
comfortably settled, I would wait patiently as Laban did for
Rachael, THREE seven years only, and I certainly would rather
not, for I think we should both get so very old that you would for-
get there was such a person as myself in existence. I have
wrote this at Miss H.'s, for really the nights get so very cold,
that unless 1 was on Mrs. Suttota's •sofa, and you beside me to
keep me warm, I durst not sit up to write, though if I had only
been behind ysiu'when you were finishing yours, •I would have
given you such a squeeze that would have inade you conclude
pout letter in a very different manner. I would have put, you
are my own dear little girl, and I hive you dearly; but hang it,
if you did not mean it; it was a deal better not to put it. Ido
not know what you mean by alluding to Mr A., far I am'sure
not all the money in the world would make me write indiffe-
rently to you. I am writing to Sophia this week; I have had
twoletters' from her since I came home, and some veal pies;
but I 'havirgrot wrote till now. lam very llappy to hear that
Mr. S..and.you are friends; I assure you it is as disagreeable
to be at variance, or tale telling, as it is to you. I think it just
time to conclude. I dare say if I was near ybu when you get
this, I should hear you say, what a heap of bother—will thiS
tiresome girl never have dune.—Yours sincerely,
"B. TOWNSEND.
" P.S,—Miss Hall will bring this, and I have seut.you a few
oat cakes, if you will have them. 'Yda will, perhaps, have heard
that your old friend,. H. Barnes, has got'a Mill at Heaton. and
likely to do well. We have had a wedding here of Miss Platt,
confectioner, to young Whitehead. They set off for Liverpool
as soon 'as the ceremony was over. He has got a situation
there:"

. ' " Preston, Norember 26, 1831.
"My dear Edward,—Yours of the 10th I received with plea-
sure, arid am happy to hear you are well. lam afraid the oat
cakes would not be very good, as you did not get them till'Wed-
nesday, and I told Miss Hall where you lodged at; hut she had
forgot, anal. -had neglected putting a direction on the bait. . I
have such kdeal-of news for you. I had a letter last week from
Miss Walley, and she believes her brother thought of coming to
Preston a reek or two. • Poor fellow,' he has been, and 'gone
back this afternoon. - 1 really feel very sorry for him; his father
has put him iu an inn, and his sister is with him; but he is
going to be married in a fortnight; he brought a ring and
license with him. I thiuk I had best have him, don't you?- for
he was not like somebody that I know when I was at Man-
chester, he did not run away on the Sundays I was there. Poor
old Schofield has,been taken; but they made a subscription for
him, and he soon got liberated.. You, were for betting me some-
thing when I was at Liverpool that my tattier would shoot this
season; but he has never been-yet ;- he has not taken a certi-,
fieate out. By the by, I hail very near forgot, you said yeu
have never been a shooting; do you newer remember calling at
a house somewhere between Liverpool and Preston to borrow a
gun? Mind you do not verify the old saying. First, I hope
you do not forget to shut your eyes where I told you. I often
wish I had not come to Liverpool; I think that I thought a
deal less about you before I came than I du now since I came
back. ' I often think when I 'am going out, or on a Sunday,
now, if Edward was but here, I should have'some compaity,
and wonder what you are doing, and how you spend your time,
and if ever you go to a place of worship. You say. you. hope I
understand your intentions; I think we have been acquainted
long enough for both to know each others intention's. God&
ness knows you have mine long enough, and time only will tell
what yours are. Mr. and Mrs. Sutton have been at Preston;
but no doubt you know they have. Mrs. Sutton and I have
had a good deal of talk; but there will a day came when' we
shall have a deal more. Mr. Sutton told me you were as'good
friends as ever; hut I shall not forget their friendship wheal
was there. Sophia and Mrs. S..wtil have had a good quarrel
before this; she ha,: behaved very ill to Sophia in many-re-
spects. Mr. Sutton told me be thought you were likely to get
a better situation soon. God knows I sincerely hope you will.
It is time for me to conclude, whilst I remain, dear Edward,
yours ever, "B. TOWNSEND.
" P.S.—Excuse all blunders, and what you cannot make out
Fivill tell you when I see you. I am afraid it will be a long
time before I do; for what with some brandy that I have had,
and N. Hall plaguing me, I hardly know what I am doing or
writing."
" Preston, Dec. 29th, 1831.
"My dear Edward, Yours of the 9th 1 received after two or
three dissappointment ; you do not always spend your Sundays
iby yoUrSelt, I think, o you would-have sent nay last letter at the
Usual time, I- went twice 011- Monday night, then on Tuesday,
well, thought I, he itoily, and if there had not been one the
night after I think 1 s (mid- have been ill myself, so mind you send
the next on the Monday, but when you meet with anofler situa-
tion, write directly and let me know, but direct for me to Miss
Walley's. - You say you scarcely understand my last news—
perhaps you will thla, and if I had been beside you when you
wrote that I had green Mr. T 3 alley some liberties, I would have
told you whether I had or net.. I think it was very good to under-
stand he wants a wife, and.rriost likely thinks he could like me
for one as well as ant body else, and as to his bringing the ring
with him, every ope'riasf hi's own way you know, and as to which
way his heart beats is of no consequence to me, it is your's, as
the old song says, that's all the world to me. 1 received a letter
and a bit of cake from Mr. Walley the night after I got your
last, he was here again on Christmas-day, his sister was married
in the morning, they immediately set off to spend a fortnight in
Liverpool. Mr. Walley saw them to their lodgings and then
took the first coach to Preston, he cause for me 'to spend the
fortnight with 'them, he brought his brother-in-law with him (a
Mr. Brown).—Yours ever. "B. TOWNSEND."

" Preston, January 29, 1835.
" Edward,—The reason of my addressing von is, in conse-
quence of what so lately occurred at home, as I see there would
be no chance of happiness either for them or myself, for if I
keep on a correspondence with you—if I had you—you would
not like to be overlooked by them, so that I think it better for
us to part at once. If yoti will please to send my letters by Miss
Hodgkinson, she is sending a parcel to Preston either on
Tuesday or,Wednesday, so that she will forward them to me:
may*God bless you, and may you meet with some one that will
make you happier than I could is the sincere prayer of
"B. TOWNSEND."

" Friday, 3Uth.
" Edward,—l received your letter this afternoon; you say
you have had many diiappoirrtinents the last fortnight; God
knows how sincerelyThope they may be the last you may ever
meet with in this world, for there is nothing but trouble in it;
if you knew-my heart, Edward, you would pity me; but never
mind, live are parted in this world, in a few short years I hope
we shall meet iti-a happier and better, where no one can ever
separate us. lam very sorry that you have not got another si-
tuation as yet, but I hope you soon will, and may God in heaven
bless you, and may you be happy in it, and may you meet with
some one that will-make you happy, as I would have strove to
have done had it been my lot to Dave had you, but, God's will
be done; send my letters to Sophia, and she will forward them
to me, as this is the last yon will ever receive from me; and
may health', happiness and prosperity, and every other blessing
this world can afford be yours, is the fervent_prayer of
" BETSEY TOWNSEND."

Having finished reading the letters, the learned counsel said
that he had no doubt, after the jury hearing the evidence, that
a verdict fur the plaintiff, with considerable damages, would be
given.
Mr. \TEMA BLES then called Mr. Ambrose utton.--I am clerk
in a merchant's counting-house with Mr. Sutton. In 181..3 the
plaintiff came to Liverpool. The defendant, Elizabeth Waller,
came down to see him about that time. -I recollect the plaintiff
looking out for a house for the purpose of getting married. , The
parties appeared on excellent terms with each ether, and I have
heard her say she would have nobody but him. I have heard
the plaintiff and defendant speak together on the subject of
marriage. Ile had not money enough for the purpose of taking
the house, and
.I offered to-advance them some. Ido not recol-
lect Mrs. Walley going to look at the house.
Margaret Booth examined.---I ani the wife of Mr. Booth, of
Preston, innkeeper. lam acquainted with the plaintiff and de-
fendant. 1 have heard the defendant, Mrs. Walley, speak on
:he subject of the marriage. - I have heard her say that she
would never have any one but him. I have heard him say that
he would have nobody but her. The defendant was staying
near. Preston, and her father, hearing she was going to be mar
ried, took her awiiv. Within six months of the defendant's
marriage with Watley I have heard her speak of Marrying the
plaintiff. • The defendant is rather more than twenty-three years
old. Her father is a publican residing in Preston.
BV'the Junes.—Defendant's father sent-defendant and her
mother to Manchester; whilst plaintiff was in Presten, in, order
to prevent a marriage between her and plaintiff.
. Edward Cray:ton, clerk of the parish church of Preston,
proved the marriage of the male defendant with defendant
at Preston churcht on the 27th of Febraary.
This wria the plaintiff's case, and no defence was offered.
In -summing .up the evidence, Lord ABlNGfilt said that he
knew no distinction which the law made betweera. men and
wctrinilai betilirig-tßeit'Vittsrit.for injiirierintlicted by incon-
,steitev in love, hat, without a doubt, there was a very great die.
tinction to be observed by a jury in assessing damages in the
one case and the other. It•was true that the law gave a power of
action to a man as well as to a %vermin, tint the amount of
damage was a very different thing, A woman whose affections
had been gained by a man who at some subsequent time bioke
from her, received a much greater inkier than when a similar
case happened to a man. Marriage and the passion oflo.ve, as the
poet expreseedlt formed the object of a woman'slife, but in the case
of a nein it Was merely an incidental matter. The jolly iniabi,
judge from their experience in life that a man suffered a deal
less than a woman on a disappointment of the kind; he had
opportunities of going into the world and forgetting- his loss,.
his character was less affected by it, he was only laughed at for
the day as having been jilted by a woman, and the affair was
-forgotten; but when-a woman .was abandoned by her lover it
was frequently supposed that there was some cause for the sepa-
ration affecting her character. For his (the judge's) part he
never would advise a friend of his to bring an action against a
woman, but, perhaps, he might he prompted to such preference
by,his regard to the fair sex, to whom he would give every oppor-
tunity of changing their minds. He •could not at all admit that
Mr. Walley ought to pay a large amount of damages because he
had married this woman ; be had violated no pledge, nor did it
even appear that be was aware of the' existence of one. It would
appear that women were ,something like racehorses, the more
they ran away the more they required following, and had the
plaintiff ran after the female defendant as close as the mate de-
fendant did, be might. have won the race.. • (Laughter,) The
learned Judge concluded by statinc, it as his opinion that the
smallest amount of damages would meet the jirstice of the ease.
The jury retired, and •after a few moment's deliberation re-
turned a verdict for the defendant. Damages one shilling.

COURT.-YESTERDAY.
w The court Caist6oe\c‘trtpiell the whole of this day in trying two
Cases of aggravated assault upon two females. The prisoners
in both eases were found GUILTY. The Lard Chief Justice
'Tyndall, in passing the sentence of death upon the culprits,
Abraham Ogden, 21. and James Walton, 21, the men con.
nected with the first, and John Tarbuck, with the second case,
•gave them no hope of mercy, and entreated them all to prepare
'to meet that, doom which would be speedily executed upon
them. .
NISI' PRIUS COURT.—YESTERDAY.
• • • , (Before Chief Baron ABINGES.)
CUNINGHAM V. AINS‘%ORTHA.ND OTHEISS.

This was au action against Ainsworth, the younger, one of
'the borough police officers, Flockhart, another of the police
ferce, And Mr. Jeffreys, a wine merchant, for false imprison-
ment.
Mi.' CROMPTON opened the pleadings, and Mr. WEIG IiTMA N
-stattd the case. • -
The learned counsel said that the plaintiff in the present
case was a respectable bricklayer in this town, and having been
-annoyed by a nuisance arising from a smoky are-place, al-

joining his' premises, he was indured to take down a wall fer
`the purpose of ascertaining from whence the smoke arose: This
wall adjoined the house of a Mr. Jeffreys, one of the defendants,
'and.when the plaintiff had made some progress in taking down
the wall, Mr. Jeffreys came to hum and told hint to desist. The
plaintiff refused to do this, on the grouuds that the wall was. hid
otvn, when Mr. Jeffrevs said that he should send for a constable.
Some altercation ensued betn'een them, and Jeffreys went away.
Shortly afterwards, Ainsworth, the, constable, came, and being
then apparently satisfied that the wall belonged to Mr. Cunning.
ham, left the premises. 'Sitbiegirently, while the defendant was
in his own house, the third defendant, Flockhart, made his ap-
pearances again with AinsWorth, and they handcuffed the plain-
' tiff, and took him before a magistrate, when a charge was brought
against him and dismissed. . The plaintiff was working with a
hammer at the time the defendant Jeffreys threatened to send
for a constable; and the defendant did then say that if any per-
son came•upon his premises he would knock them. down. Here
was a respectable man working on his owl' premises, suddenly
dragged Bert re a magistrate harulcuffed, and he would leave it
to the feelings of the jury to say if he proved the trespass, what
compensation he ought to receive for such an mitt age. It would
probably be endeavoured to show that the plaintiff assaulted the
defendant with a hammer; but were that preyed, the officers
would not have been warranted in apprehending the plaintiff,
unless it could be shown he was committing an itlegaract.
Joseph Cunningham examined by Mr. GROMPTON.--1 am
son of the plaintiff, who is a bricklayer, in Torbock-street. On
the' east side of my father's dwelling-house there is a wall of
seven or eight feet high. A part of the wall abuts on the gable-
' end of a house occupied by a Mr. Jeffreys. In the month of
July, last year, my father had occasion to take down the wall,
for theiturpose of fintliug out a nuisance. I helped my father'
to take it down. When we had taken a portion down, we ob-
servet a hole which formed the back df a fire place. On taking
down this wall we did not remove anvbricks:belonging to Mr.
'Jeffreys' premises. It appeared as a Mr. Jeffreys had taken
the bricks nut of their wall and had built the fire-Place against
'our wall. This was to make more. room for the grate, The de-
fendant Jeffreys came up and asked what we were doing ; we
told hire, and he said-we must not do it, asrd my' father told him
to mind his own business. Jeffreys then said he ,Would,knock •
my father's d—d head off. My father became rather warm, and
presently Ainsworth, the policeofficer, Caine;
By the JUDGE.--Jeffreys had previously told my father that
he had sent for a police officer.
By Mr. Ceostevota.-1111v father said if he would hold
his tongue he would build the wall up again, and that he had
not made the hole. When Ainsworth came up he asked my
father what •he was doing, and he toldhim, acid asked Ains-
worth to crime into tite,yard. My father then askeid Ainsworth
to whom, the wall h:lopged, :and he said to my. father. Ains-
worth asked whethei he was pilling down the wall to take the
bri'cks My father then told Ainsworth, that as he had got his
opinion about the wall he had better retire, and Ainsworth did
So. Shortly afterwards a knock came to my father's door, arid
Ainsworth and Flockhart came in. 'Flockhart asking for my
father, said—" 'Where is this fellow ?" They then entered a
room where my 'father was, and told him to come out. Mv
father went out, and Flock hart said, what are you pulling down
this wall for ? and my father said it was his own wall. Flock-
hart said, that be d-d, and put his fist in my father's face. liethen laid hold of my father's hands and handcuffed him. Mv'
father desired them, when handcuffing him, to mind what they
were about ; he would go with them quietly. Flockhart then
said, you ordered Chis Man out, " did you ?"—(pointing te
Ainsworth.) My father said he would order hini out. 'they
then dragged my rather out lido the street'without his hat, and
I ran and fetched it and gave it to him.

By Mr. ALEXANnun, for the defence.—They dragged my fa-
ther along, but on his feet. My father Jaid down the hammer
by the side of the wall where he had worked, and then went' to
wash his hands.

By the JUDGE.—He did not take hold of the hammer when
he went out: •

By Mr. ALtxa N DER.-Mr. Jeffreys, I believe, is a wine-and
spirit merchant.—lle might have been knocking at the wall for
abort' half an hour before Mr. Jeffreys cave —I cannot sat
whyther Mr..Jeffrays cuuiplained of the housc.,--My father dill
net threaten to throw a brick at Mr. Jeffreys' head.— When
?}r. Jetfre}s popped-his heud through the sole I did not see
him suddenly withdraw it. Mr. Jeffreys did not threaten to
throw a brick at' myfather, but said be would knock his head
Off. •

By Mr. WEIGHTMAN.—The bricks of Jeffreys' premises touch
my father'i
Mr. Longworth, a surveyor, examined by Mr. WEIGIITM&N.
—I examined the wall this morning. From my examination of
the premises I should-think that the wall belonged to-the house
of the plaintiff. The wall forms no part of the honse, it is
merely a' fence wall. I produced au accurate plan of the wall,
and the model produced is correct.
William Tomkinson examined be Mr. CROMPTON.—I was
employed to build up the hole, and I have no doubt but the wall
belonged to Mr. Cunningham the plaintiff.
John Jones examined by Mr. WHEIGTXIANe--I met Mr... Cu-
nningham in the custody of the police-officers, and kneW him;
but they were taking him along-so quitykly that I could not
speak to him. I met him about. a quarter of a mile from his
own house. The constables were taking him to the coalbole.
(A laugh.)
Mr Jones, clerk to his brother, plaintiff's attorney.—l served
notices on the defendants, which I produce.
Mr. William Jones.--I am attoruey; for the plaintiff. I was
present wbeu the plaintiff was brought before the magistrates.
I was sent for by the 'defendant.,, on his behalf. When I ar-
rived, defendant was in Bridewell. When I first saw him he
was brought up in the dock, and charge was made against him,
and dismissed by Mr. Case, the sitting magistrate.
By the Jution.—The charge was made.by Jeffreys.
By Mr. WEIGHTMAN.—I have seen the defendant Flockhart
since the action was brought. I called upon Mr. Flockhart
and on Mr. Parlour, the superintendent of police, and said that
if the constables would make an apology the plaintiff would be
satisfied. Mr. Parlour said that he would not allow his officers
to make an apology, as it would be a bad precedent. If they
cad done wrong they must suffer for it. Flockhart saw me sub-
sequently and said that be would lose his heart's blood sooner
than apologise, and that we should get nothing out of him.
By Mr. ALEXANDER.—FIockhart said ho had been to the
mayor to know whether he should apologise or not. The
mayor said that if they had done anything wrong the matter
had better be inquired into. He declined advising an apology.
Mr. Case dismissed the charge' by saving that the matter must
be decided by civil action between the parties.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. ALEXANDER then addressed the jury for the defendants.
Ile considered the case one of very great importance, as he
looked upon it as one brought either to extract money, or to
prove that the police officers had grossly abused that power
which the law had confided to them. He should, however, be
enabled to show that. the latter was not the case, and he consi-
dered that, under the circumstances; the mayor and Mr. Par-
lour had acted exceedingly proper in •advising the defendants
to make no apology. Could the jury for a moment suppose
that if these men had acted illegally, and so grossly exceeded
their duty, as the evidence given would attribute to them, that
they would not have been glad to escape an action by an apo-
logy ? If the jury were to believe the evidence given by the
plaintiff's son, as to his father's peaceable demeanour on the
occasion, they must also believe that the defendants were
ill-
- There they found a peaceable man on his own premises,
working in taking down a building which he had every right to
take down, and in walk two police officers, who handcuffed
him, and dragged him before a magistrate. If such was the case,
which they would find was not, before he had finished, the con-
duct of the defendants could argue nothing but insanity. His
learned friend had made an admission something about tt ham-
mer, which the plaintiff had used against the defendants. His
learned friend, 141 r. Weightman, whose skill and ingenuity
was well known, he was sure would never have alluded to the
hammer in the least had he not been aware that the facts
would come out. It appeared that early in the morning, Mr.
Jeffreys was alarmed by a continued knocking at the wall ad-
joining his house, he came out, and found the plaintiff at
work, and desired him to desist; the plaintiff refused, and
M. Jeffreys threatened to send fur a police officer. The
knocking \vas continued, and he did send for a police officer,
and Ainsworth a young man who had been but a short time
in the police, arrived when he was ordered off the premises
by the plaintiff. Being rather young in his profession he was
probably afraid to act upon his own responsibility, and he leaves
the place, and brings with him Flockhart, a snore experienced
hand. The plaintiff, being still at work, was again desired to
desist, when the plaintiff threatened to knock the officers down
with the hammer he held in his hand if they did no go. He
Made all the resistance he could to the rolice-ofticers, who were
acting under the orders of Mr. -Jeffreys,,and it .was: With great
difficulty they succeeded in placing the, handcuffs upon him.
According to boy's evidende there was no more cause to
handcuff the plaintiff than there was do the same for him (the
learned counsel.) But would the jury believe that? Could
they consistently suppose that a police-officer would voluntarily
expose himself to an action when there was no reason for if.
The charge preferred against the plaintiff,, upon which the de-
fendants apprehended him, was under thenialicions trespass act,
which set forth "that if any person should wilfully damage any
public or private property, every such person should be -taken
before a magistrate, and fined, in any reasonable suns not ex-
ceeding to." This was a much more satisfactory mode of pro-
ceeding than bringing an action; but as the magistrate found
that there was a dispute as to the ownership of the wall the case
was taken out. of his hands, as the only remedy was an action.
According to section 23 in this act, any person found damaging
property might be immediately apprehended by a police-officer,
without a warrant, and dealt. with by a magistrate according to
law. Thessi two sections justified the *Seers its taking-the
"plaintiff ride ciislisdy, even taking it for granted that Jeffreys
had done wrong. he would now state to them a fact connected
with the rase which the plaintiff's attorney had kept even from
his counsel. Would the jury believe that he (Mr. A.) held in his
hand a receipt for £2O, signed by the plaintiff's attorney, from
Jeffrey's, in discharge of the debt and costs of this very action,.
" Jeffreys v. Cunningham and others," and the money had been
received 7 days since, during the progress of the action. Now the
jury would see why the plaintiff went to the police-officers for
an apology, and he would leave it to the learned judge whether
that bit of paper, being a receipt for £2O, drawn from Jeffereys,
probably through his weakness, did not put an end to the case
against the two police-officers.
Mr. WF.IGHTII AN, the plaintiff's counsel, said that after what
he had heard he could only expect nominal damages.
The learned JUDGE thought that under the circumstances a
juror bad better be withdrawn, a bieh was done, and the plain-
tiff was consequently deprived of the nominal damages and the
coats of •the action.
DOE IN DEMISE OF HIEGINSON v. FIDLER. , •
This was an action of ejectment brought to recover possession
of some stabling in the town of St. Helens. The facts of the
ease were; that Fidler, the landlord of the Fleece Inn, in St.
Helen's, holds some stabling- attached to this building. The Inn
410 stabling was taken from a per Son named Higginson., de-
ceased, who held the prmnises as tenant under Mr. Greenhall,
the owner. On taking possession of the in fitim Higginson,
and paying to Greenh all £3llO for the stock; an agreement was'
said to be entered into between Higginson and the defendant,
that the latter should quit the stables at Iligginson's notice, as
sub-tenant under Greenhall.- • •
The agreement was net signed, and therefore was not read, but
witnesses were called to prove that suds agreement was made.
The defence set up was, that the only person competent to glee
the defendant notice was the owner of the premises, who was It
party to letting them to the defendant.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. WEIGHTMAN were heard
for the defendant, and contended that Greenhall alone had the.
power of ejecting.
Mr. ALEXANDER appeared for the plaintiff, and the jury, af-
ter some consideration, returned a verdict for the defendant.

DAN'S LlEurENartr.—The health of the Lord Lieutenant
was proposed as the second toast yesterday 'at the ordinary of
the British Association, by the chairman, Sir Thomasßrisbline,
awl was received by the company and treated with the most
solemn silence. There was not a hand or glass within our view
raised to honor it. Tne -circumstance was rendered very re-
markable by the manner in whic'a the next toasty--•`'the health
Of Doctor Lloyd, president of Ow association"—was received
a"d drunk. 'I he company to a man ruse am:l.:cheered our ex-
cellent provost for- several minutes. A member of the press sat
during a part of the cheering, and another member of the fourth
estate celled fur one cheer mote. -We are thus particular in
noticing the circumstances apart frosts the usual report of the
proceedings, because we find the morning piti.ers all silent on
the subject.—Dublin Packet.