The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-04-11 00:00:00

MAN'SLA IJG lITER,

Moses Doyle, a boy, was indicted for having at Liverpool,
on the 18th of February, wounded one John Wilkinson with
a gimblet in the eye, by which the brain was so injured, that
he lingered until the 23d of the same month, when he died.
The case was fully detailed in our publication at the time, as
the facts came out at the coroner's inquest. The following
are the principal facts :--The deceased, a blacksmith, went
into a smithy in Marlborough-street, next door to l• is own,
and asked the prisoner, whom be sometimes employed, for
the key of his own smithy. Prisoner said he bad not got it.
The deceased then took hold of the boy by the collar, and
struck him on the face. The prisoner then lifted a nail
hammer and threw it at the deceased, and struck him on the
arm. • Deceased again got hold of him, and threw him down
across the smithy fire on the floor, and again struck him with
violence. The boy got up, and a man seeing the affray
ran between them, more to save the boy than the man.
As soon as he had lone so, the prisoner struck deceased over
witness's shoulder with something which inflicted the wound
in the eye and brain, of which deceased afterwards died.
The witness afterwards found a gimblet, which was partly
stained with blood.
The prisoner said, in his defence, that when he lay on his
back on the fire, the deceased struck him on the face, and
gave him a black eye, so that he could not see by it ; and
that it was then that he got hold of the gicublet, not knowing
what it was.
The learned JUDGE, explained the law as it relates to cul-
pable manslaughter and justifiable homicide.
o The jury found the prisoner guilty of manslaughter.
The JUDGE said the
jury could not do otherwise from the
evidence. Great and unjustifiable violence had, however, been
used towards the prisoner by the deceased 7 and he trusted the
unfortunate position in which the prisoner stood—he baying,
by resorting to too violent means, deprived a fellow-creature
of life,—would prevent him from so dangerous a resort in
future—which was only to be justified in one who was in danger
of his life. Under all the circumstances of the case, the sell-

t n 6 *4 tho:t tiie tkbttia.bi•ltiiti.totied InknCo.

louse Correcti6u for one fortnight

.Ralph Bennett was indicted tor having, at Liverpool,
stahhed, cut, and wounded in the neck one George Riley, a
porter, with intent to murder him, to maim or disable him,
to do him grievous bodily harm, &c. &c. This case, too,
has recently been Lefore the public_ The cut, inflicted with
an open clasp-knife, was proved, but was not of a dangerous
character. The prisoner said he had previously been robbed
in the house, and had been knocked down and abused by the
prosecutor. When apprehended in the street by the police,
he was found to be bleeding. The prosecutor admitted,
though reluctantly, that he had struck the prisoner. The
probability was that the prisoner was severely struck.
The Juno!: laid down the law as related to the several
counts of the indictment, throwing out of the question the
first and most penal one, and rather inclining to that for the
assault.

The jury returned a verdict of not guilty. The prisoner
was accordingly discharged.

M 4. Met' Tbitot Votteit *hi tbeh sworn, tina titithtbm
at Conaidetabic length, lir taiti he had no authority to write
the letter in question; that he had never accepted bills for
the defendants ; and that he had no authority to do so.

Cross-examined.—The Messrs. Schroeder now owed the
defendants a general balance of £899; but had still some
corn in hand. They had refused to accept the composition.
Mr. KNOWLES said this was the case for the p:aintiffs.
Mr. WORTLEY contended that no case had been made out

to go before the jury.
Mr. KNOWLES replied that he had proved sufficient to go
to the jury on the question—whether Schroeder had not gone
to the bank, and got the bills renewed and discounted as the
agent of the defendants.
Mr. Grant was recalled on this point, and he said he
thought he should not have renewed the bills or discounted
any if Schroeder was only the agent of the defendants; but
the question did nut come before him in that shape.
After some discussion upon this point, and an ineffectual
effort to turn the question into a special case,
The JUDGE said he should hold that an acceptance of the
bill before the bill was drawn was not law; and the questions
under the second count, whether Schroeders' were agents of
the defendants in procuring this bill to be discounted by the
Bank of Ireland, must be left to the jury.
Mr. WORTLEY then addressed the jury upon the part of
the defendants. He said he was exceedingly glad to have the
opportunity of saying a word upon the case, because he should
be extremely sorry if the apparently candid but bitter and
pointed observations of his learned friend should have any
impression upon their minds without an opportunity on his
part of removing them. He had the honour to appear for
the defendants, who were merchants of high standing ; and
upon their behalf he was undoubtedly jealous of their
mercantile reputation. He should be sorry if, while they
were standing upon the strict letter of the law of the country
in vindicating their rights, they were neglectful of the claims
of honour and good faith. It would be a woeful day for this
country if it should ever happen that the merchants of Eng-
land, or any considerable body of them, should become men
of the description which his learned friend had been instructed
to give of the defendants ; but in the present case there was
not the slightest pretence for the charge; and the imputation
was as uncalled for as it was unfounded. After some further
observations vindicatory of the character of the defendants,
in which he stated he could, if permitted, shew that honour
and good faith had been really on their side, the learned
counsel addressed himself to the allegation on the part of the
plaintiffs, that Schroeder was the agent of the defendants for
the purpose of obtaining the discount of the bill from the Bank
of Ireland. He contended that all the circumstances, and par-
ticularly the reply of Mr. Grant, when he was recalled,
chewed that this could not have been the case; and that it
was only after the composition of Messrs. Schroeder for
ls. in the pound, that the bank thought of this expedient to
save themselves.

The JUDGE told the jury the only question for their deci-
sio❑ was whether Schroeder had promised the bank with the
authority of the defendants; and he pointed out the evidence
on this part of the case.

The jtiry immediately returned a verdict for the defendants,

LIABILITY OF AN ASSIGNEE

FLEMING AND OTHERS V. DAVIDSON.-ThiS (a special
lury case) was an action to recover the sum of £271 16s. 3d.

for goods sold and delivered, and on an account stated. Mr.
Martin and Mr. Watson conducted the case for the plain-
tiffs ; Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton that of the defendant.
On the part of the plaintiffs it was shown, through the me-
dium of admissions arid witnesses, that the plaintiffs are car-
pet manufacturers at Glasgow, trading under the name of the
Port Eglington Spinning Company, and the defendant is the
registered officer of the Commercial Bank of Manchester, a
concern which is now only being carried on for the purpose
of winding up its affairs. The defendant is also the assignee
of the estate of Alfred Webb, who carried on business in Li-
verpool as a carpet dealer. In December, 1811, Mr. Webb
gave an order to Mr. Taplin, the agent to, and traveller for,
the plaintiffs, for four bales of carpets, to be manufactured
according to a specified pattern, to be taken into stock on the
Ist of February following, and paid for by a four months'
bill, or if he paid in cash, there was to be a deduction of two
arid a half per cent. The carpets were put in course of manu-
facture, and Mr. Webb was believed to be perfectly solvent ;
but, at that time, namely, at the end of November, or the
beginning of December, Mr. Webb, who bad been largely
connected with the bank, had contracted a debt with them to
the amount of upwards of £13,000. This was unknown to
the agent of the plaintiffs. On the 13th of December
notice was given to Mr. Webb by the bank to pay the
money ; but as he did not, twenty-one days after-
wards, on the 18th of January, a fiat was issued against him
by the defendant, on behalf of the bank. No step, however,
was taken under the fiat till ti', 'lst of January, on which day
the adjudication took place ; but in the inter val between the
Bth and 21st, natneiy, on the. the four bales of carpets
were sent off by the plaintiffs by sea from Glasgow. On the
21st, before the adjudication had taken place, the carpets
were taken from the dock quay to the bankrupt's premises,
and delivered to his shopman, a person named Taylor. Tay-
lor had them conveyed to the stables of Mr. 13retherton,
and, upon the day following, the bankrupt had them con-
veyed to Blackburn, where they were not found till the
month of August. The plaintiffs had received no notice of
the fiat, and, therefore, it was contended, that the defendant
should either return the goods or pay for them.
Mr. KNOWLES contended that no case had been proved.
This was really one of the most extraordinary cases he had
ever heard of. The goods had been sent in pursuance of a
contract before the bankruptcy; they were delivered before
bankruptcy; and, consequently, the assignee seized them.
It was an every day case.

The JUDGE' did' not think it was an every day case. It
seemed to him, under the circumstances which had been
proved, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover ; but, at
the same time, he would give leave to move.
The plaintiff was then nonsuited, his Lordship certifying
that the case was a proper one for a special jury.
FEMING AND OTHERS V. DAVIDSON.—This was the last
case only in a different shape, the declaration being here in
trover. The result was the same.