The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-04-07 00:00:00

NISI PRIUS COURT.-TUESDAY.

THORNTON AND OTHERS V. THORNTON AND ANOTHER.
This was an actio❑ to recover £67, the amount of a bill of
exchange, and also £lOO for goods sold and delivered. It was
undefended. The plaintiffs were John Abraham, William
Thomas, and Joshua Thornton, machine-makers, Laken,
Yorkshire ; and the defendants were William Carr Thornton
and Joshua Williamson, patentees for a peculiar mode of
card setting. Proof was exhibited that the two of the de-
fendants had admitted one of the items, and as they did not
appear to dispute the other, his Lordship directed a verdict
for the plaintiffs.—Damages £167.

KINLOCK V. TYRRELL.

In this action the defendant sought to recover a sum not
specified, as the value of certain goods which had been left at
the house of the defendant, an innkeeper in this town. Mr.
Wortley stated the case to the jury. He said the plaintiff,
Colonel Kinlock, had been in the army, and had been resid-
ing with his lady in Scotland. The defendant was Mrs.
Mary Tyrrell, keeper of the Grand Junction Railway Inn,
Lime-street, and the amount sought to be recovered was the
value of certain luggage deposited at the inn, and lost by the
negligence of defendant or her servants. Plaintiff arrived
' from Glasgow by one of the steamers, and being anxious to
stop fur the night at an inn in the neighbourhood of the
railway station, he made inquiry, and was directed to the
hotel in question. Ile accordingly procured a cart and a
porter, saw his luggage loaded, and sent it to the hotel.
There were amongst the packages two carriage imperials (ot
boxes,) and a cap-box—larger than a hat-box. These con-
tained nearly the whole of the wardrobe of Mrs. Kinlock,
who was going with plaintiff to pass the season at Leaming-
ton. On reaching the inn, plaintiff and his lady were shown
into apartments. Shortly after, as the night was coming on,
plaintiff expressed a wish that his luggage should be sent to
the railway station, so as to be in readiness in the morning
when lie purposed to start for the south. The waiter, how-
ever, interfered, urging that the goods would not he so safe
at the station, as the parties there would not be responsible
for them, as they would be at the inn, and he (plaintiff) was
accordingly prevailed upon to leave them at the inn, where
they were left in the passage or lobby. Next morning one of
the imperials and the cap-box, to the great mortification of
plaintiff and his wife, were missing, and from that day to this
they had not recovered a single article which they contained.
Mrs. Kinlock's lady's maid would depose to the value of the
articles, which were worth, at least, £3OO. On the same
morning, one of the imperials was found at two o'clock in
Peover-street, near the Police Station, at the north part of
the town. It was found at the end of an entry, reared on
end, broken open, and completely ransacked of its contents.
He (Mr. Wortley) could not, in this case, go for damages,
for the great inconvenience and mortification to which the
defendant and his lady were put by the loss, particularly
under the circumstances ; but he thought the jury would not
hesitate to return a verdict for such amount as he should
prove as the value of the goods. The defendant pleaded,
first, that she was not guilty ; and, second, that the plaintiff
did not bring the goods into the house.
Witnesses were called who proved the depositing of twelve
packages at the notel, the conversation with the waiter, the
missing of the two boxes, and the fact that one of them was
found, as stated, empty in the street, and taken to the police-
office. Mrs. Kinlock's lady's maid produced a list of the
articles missing, and had made an estimate of their value
separately, which, however, was not gone into. The gross
amount, as estimated by her, (most of the items being taken
from the tradesmen's bills, they being recently purchased,)
was £213 ; and she stated her belief that they could not be
replaced under about £3OO. They consisted of valuable silk
dresses, chiefly new, caps, jewellery, laces, &c. Mr. Wat-
son, for the defendant, cross-examined the witnesses.
Mr. 'WATSON, in addressing the jury, contended that,
though innkeepers were generally in the position of insurers
of the luggage of their guests ; that they were not so
with regard to articles of great value in comparatively small
packages, unless instructions were given to them of such
value, so that more than ordinary care might be taken of
them. The goods were deposited in the passage with the
knowledge and sanction of the defendant. That they had
been carried away he had no doubt, by some person who
probably represented himself as a guest ; but he did not con-
ceive his client was liable, as the negligence was on the part
of the plaintiff. He instanced a case, which he considered
analagous, of a robbery of a package of bank notes from a
coach. The value not having, been stated to the coach pro-
prietor, it was held that he was not liable. His client knew
nothing of the:articles, or their value.
His LORDSHIP, in summing up, said that the defendant
was clearly liable in law, though the case was to her a hard-
ship. They had
.heard the value, as stated by the servant
maid, to the best of her belief, and must estimate the damages
on her statement to the best of their judgment.
The Jury, after consulting for some time, retired, and were
absent about an hour. On their return, they gave a verdict
for the plaintiff—damages £l5O.

CROWN COURT.—WEDNESDAY.
His Lordship took his seat shortly after nine o'clock

THE GREAT SILK ROBBERY.
EdwinLucas,aged 34, and Nathaniel Lucas,32, (brothers)
were indicted for having at Leigh, feloniously stolen a large
quantity of silk and manufactured goods of that material, in-
eluding a number of pieces of Gros-de-Naples, some pattern
tabs, 6:Albs. weight of dyed silk warp, and 1101bs. silk weft,
the property of John Barton, of Alanchester. The property
taken, as it will afterwards appear, was of the value of
nearly £l,OOO.

Mr. Baines and Mr. Hutton conducterl the prosecution,
and Mr. Wilkins defended the prisoners.
Mr. BAINEs, in stating the case, observed that the pri-
soners at the bar had maintained, up to the time of the
transaction at which they had now to inquire, a most re-
spectable station in life. The prosecutor, Mr. John Barton,
carried on business in Manchester on a large scale as a silk
cloth manufacturer. On the night between Whit-Monday
and Tuesday, last year (the 16th and 17th of May) the pre-
mises of Mr. Barton was entered by some parties who had
got into the cellar by means of a skeleton key, and thence
into the counting-house above, in which the goods were de-
posited. The place had been left secure on the preceding
night. On examining the place next morning, it was found that
the silks had been carried off, to the amount of £l,OOO. The
articles were 25 pieces of Gros-de-Naples, a quantity of pattern
tabs, 6501b5. weight of undyed silk warp, called organzine,
1101bs. of silk weft, the two last being all the stock of that
kind which the prosecutor had on the premises. The parties
who had committed the robbery had evidently been well ac-
quainted with the nature of articles of that description, as
they had taken the most valuable, those of an inferior de-
scription being left behind. From some circumstances that
transpired, suspicion attached to the prisoners soon after the
rubbery; and on Thursday, the 19th of May, an oflicer was
sent to the place where they carried on their business, at
Leigh, near Manchester. The prisoners were, at that time,
doing little or no business, having discharged their foreman,
they not having employment to give him. The officer was
admitted, and told the prisoners of the robbery. They said
they knew nothing about it, and would take him over those
parts of the house where they kept their articles of trade.
They showed him into two rooms, which he examined, but
found nothing ; and he, thinking all was right, went away,
without examining any other parts of the premises. On his
leaving, they told him if any such silk came to their neigh-
bourhood they would send word to Manchester. On the 18th
of June, the prisoner Edwin Lucas went to the shop of Mr.
Lewis, in Manchester, arid between that time and the 12th of
July he went several times to that gentleman and sold him
some gros de Naples, which was part of the stolen property,
but which lie said was his own manufacture. About the
same time he also went to Mr. Lord, in Alatichester, (a silk
mercer,) and sold him a number of pieces of coloured silk,
which were also Mr. Barton's property, and which that gen-
tleman was also led to believe were also
ture. The invoices were made out, but of his own manufac-
some of the silk was
therein noted down as black, probably to evade suspicion,
that which he sold to Mr. Ford being chiefly coloured. Two
employed
or three weeks after a person named Walmsley
to dye some goods for the prisoners, at their
ilk, about
premises at
Leigh, and he there saw a bundle of organzine _
saw
401bs. weight, and, from time to time, he occasionall)com.
pieces of silk, but he could not tell where they came from.
Hewould
He saw, altogether, about 3 cwt. of that kind whi-, it
be shown, had been taken from the prosecutor's premises.
He saw no manufactured coloured silk there while he remained.

In consequence of suspicions that subsequently arose, a
police-officer went to the house of the prisoner at Abraham,
near Leigh, on the 7th of March last, at an early hour in
the morning. The officer was admitted by Edwin Lucas,
and found in a writing desk quantity of tail-ends of silk
cloth. Mr. .13,1rtott, the prost,,:mt or, was with him, and said,
in prisoner's hearing, that the', were his property. Prisoner
said some of them had been there for some time—some as
long ;is two years. Mr. Barton asked if they chose to say
where they got them from, and the younger brother said he
did not think that a proper question,—he'd answer it at
another time. The officer afterwards went to another house,
a quarter of a mile off, which was held by the prisoners, and
there found seven pieces of black silk handkerchiefs. A
female was in the house. As one officer was leaving with
them in a parcel, another, having in charge the two prisoners
came up and, on seeing him carrying something, said to the
woman, " Did you tell them where you had them from."
She said, " I told them from you," and he replied, " that's
right.—[Our subsequent account of the case is condensed
from such part of the statement of the learned counsel as
was proved, and the evidence subsequently adduced, and un-
contradicted.]-0n the Ist of March, a police-officer went
to Mr. Lewis's warehouse, Church-street, Manchester, and
received seven pieces of silk, which were produced. On the
2d of the sam6' month, another received three pieces, also

produced

A dyer named \Valmsley went in April last yea

to the prisoners' at Abraham. and was employed by them to
rectify some silk that was unfinished. He being out of work
was asked to stay with them, and then dyed 30 or 401 b weight
of silk, warp and weft—all black. Between and the October
following, he dyed 6001 b weight of silk weft—black. He saw
a quantity of other silk—black orgazine. There were several
lots of the same shade, and he remarked that it was well
dyed to hit it. He saw no manufactured-coloured silk, nor
did the prisoners tell him while he was there that they had
taken another house. He left them in January.
The witness, on cross-examination, said that he slept in the
house with Nathan, the younger prisoner; that he was there
during the whole of Whitsun week ; that they generally went
to bed together about 10 o'clock, and that on no occasion
during that week did he miss the prisoner when he awoke,
or in the morning.
A good deal of evidence was gone into in order to prove
that on the night of the robbery the prisoner Nathaniel was
(with a companion) at a public-house at Barton-on-Irwell--
was there with a spring cart, and something in it ; also that
he had been at Tilsley on the following morning, on the way
(though circuitous) from Manchester to Leigh with some

sort of cart—but this was by no means distinctly proved.
Mr. Barton then proved, by corresponding patterns,
tabs and otherwise, that the goods produced were his pro-
perty. His warehouse-keeper corroborated him ; spoke
solely to the warp of the manufactured goods and the sel-
vages. The silk handkerchiefs they could not swear to.
Ocher weft had, it appeared, been used in making them into
cloth.

It was admitted by the prosecutor that a great number o
pieces of silk similar to that produced had been sold by him,
but the pattern and style were uncommon.
Mr. WILKINS addressed the jury in behalf of the priso-
ners in a most able manner, availing himself of every point
he could possibly seize in behalf of his clients, and urging
that there was no proof against either as to the robbery, and
that at the most the evidence could only bear out a charge of