The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-09-01 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

false declaration, and pledged it elsewhere for 7s. 6d.
more than the sum advanced on it. Jones gave informs•
tion to the police, and, on examination, it was found that
the false declaration had been made before Christopher
Rawdon, one of the magistrates of the borough. Guilty.
To be imprisoned four calendar months with hard labour.

MANSLAUGHTER IN LIVERPOOL

Edward Martin, aged 36, was charged with having
killed Catherine, his wife. It appeared from the state-
ment of Mr. DRINKWATER, who conducted the prosecu-
tion, and that of the witnesses, that the prisoner was a
publican in Greenland•street, and that on the 7th of May
his wife, according to her usual habit since the death of
her only child, was drunk. A lad had been for change,
and she could not tell whether or not he had given the
shilling, for which he had received copper change. The
prisoner ordered her to go into the back room, and a child
being heard to cry, he followed her, upon which she went
into the yard and laid hold oc the door, as if going out in-
to Back Bird-street. He laid hold of her to prevent her,
and she fell down on the flags. A witness stopped to pick
her up, and on the husband threatening to strike her if
she did not go to bed, she said, " If you do, I'll strike
you;" upon which he rejoined, " Will you ?" and gave
her a kick on the lower part of the belly. The wi'iress
could not say whether the blow was intended for him or
the deceased. The unfortunate woman was carried into
the house, and died the next morning. The surgical evi-
dence showed that the cause of death was a rupture of one
of the small intestines, but whether the result of a kick
or a fall it was impossible to decide. Mr. ATKINSON,
for the prisoner, contended that the rupture was the result
of the fall, and that was accidental. A number of wit-
nesses gave the prisoner a very high character for for-
bearance in the treatment of his unfortunate wife.—The
jury, after a few moment's consideration, acquitted the
prisoner.

each square foot, but at the bottom it was represen ed to
be no less than 1,187 lbs. About this hour of the day the
sides of the tank gave way, and the water escaped; and,
independently of occasioning very considerable damage to
the neighbou, ing property, very seriously injured certain
parties. and caused the death of more than one individual.
It was therefore contended by the plaintiffs, that the de-
fendant had not supplied a cistern capable of containing so
vast a body of water, and that the bursting of the vessel
was owing to the impe, feet design and malconstruction of
the tank•. They therefore held the defendant responsible
for the injuries to property and persons which had been
caused by the accident. 'I he present action was conse-
quently brought to recover a total amount of £2.455 19s.
Gd. for which the plaintiffs ware liable ; and which, it was
agreed between the parties, would be required to compen-
sate the different claimants for the loss of furniture and
damage done to houses and machinery, independently of
remuneration to individuals who were injured by the cala-
mity. They also claimed the cost of the erection of the
foundation, which they had prepared in compliance with
the terms of the contract, and which was now rendered
useless by the bursting of the tank ; but it was left to his
lordship to direct the jury as to this point. The wit-
nesses for the plaintiffs clearly proved that the servant of
the Hawarden Iron Company had reportrd the cistern to
have been completed before orders were given to have it
filled with water; and they also proved that the founda-
tion which they had erected was not only firm and sub-
stantial, and fully adequate to maintain the weight it was
intended to support, but remained perfectly sound up to
the present period. notwith-tanding the tffect which the
bursting of the tank and the escape of so large a body of
water might have been supposed to have upon it. Several
scien'ific witnesses were also called, and they agreed in
the opinion that a tank constructed as the one furnished
by the defendant, was not capable of resisting the great
pressure of water which it would have to sustain, and that
it was most likely it would gice way as the one in question
had done, when it was filled with water.—Mr. W ATsoN,
for the defence, urged that it was the duty of the plain-
tiffs to have given notice to the defendant, or his respon-
sible agent at Hawarden, before they ventured to test the
capabilities of a cistern so unusually great as the one in
question.—His Lordship did not consider that there was
any defence to the action ; and a verdict was returned for
the plaintiff, damages £2,455 l9g. Gd.

IMPUTED NEGLIGENCE IN THE SALE OF SHARES

BENJAMIN RANKIN V. DANIEL NEILSON AND JOHN

BLACKBURN NEILSON

The plaintiff IS a sharebroker rebiding in London, and
the defendants are engaged in the same trade at Liverpool.
The action was brought to recover compensation in da-
mages for loss sustained by the plaintiff. in consequence,
as it was averred, of the defendants not having used due
diligence in disposing of a quantity of shares which he had
ordered them to sell at whatever price the market might
be. It appeared that in the month of October, 1845, the
plaintiff purchased through the defendants, for a third
party, 100 York and Carlisle railway shares, and that he
subsequently gave directions for their re-sale, at the same
time requesting to be advised of the result by return of
post. The defendants alleged that they had used every
exertion to get rid of the shares, but were unable to meet
with a purchaser; and it was further stated by their clerk,
that it was their usual course of business to reply to all
letters received, but from the pressure of business at that
period copies of all were not entered in the books of the
firm. In this instance no copy had been preserved, but
the clerk of' the defendants expressed his belief that it had
been duly replied to. It was given in evidence that at
this time similar shares were sold at £5 per share. The
plaintiff brought his action' to recover compensation, in
consequence of not having been informed in reasonable
time that the defendants had not sold the shares, by which
he had sustained great pecuniary loss.—Verdict for the
defendants.
The, court adjourned at seven o'clock.

IN THE CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Wightman.)
THE GUANO CASE.-HENRY TOULMIN AND CALVERT

TOULMIN V. THIMAS HEDLEY

This action had been twice before tried at these assizes,
and it now came on, for the third time. before a special
jury. It was brought to recover a sum of £3,086, with
interest, the value of a cargo of 411 tons of guano, de i-
vered under a warranty by the plaintiffs, merchants and
shipowners, of London, to the defendant, a retired barris-
ter, residine at Durham. The pleadings having been
opened by Mr. Robinson, the case was partially stated to
the jury by Mr. Watson. After a short consultation, it
was agreed to refer this long litigated cause to arbitrati-
on, the arbitrator to have all the usual powers, and to
settle all matters in difference between the parties.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT.-WILLIAM ELLISON, JUN