The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-04-18 00:00:00

POACHING

John Cu!sham, (before tried this day and acquitted on a
charge of poaching) was again placed at the bar, charged
with an assault on two gamekeepers of Lord Derby, and also
with being armed and in search of game with a net in the
night, in a field at Burscough, the property of Squire Scar-
isbrick, on the 30th of July last. The case rested upon the
indentity of the prisoner, and the Jury brought in a verdict
of not guilty. The prisoner was discharged.
One of the witnesses, a young man, named James Orrid,
gave his evidence in a manner quite contradictory to that
which he had given before the magistrates. His Lordship
frequently cautioned him, but he persisted in his statement
that the prisoner had not told him anything relative to the
assault in question which tended to implicate himself. At
the conclusion of the trial, his Lordship said the witness had
twice that day been guilty of perjury : first, in the previous
case, in which his brother was a witness, and now in this.
His Lordship then ordered that he should be taken into
custody, (which was done,) and that an indictment should
be framed against him for wilful and corrupt perjury-.

RIOT AND CONSPIRACY

John Guest was charged with conspiracy, and with being
present at an unlawful assembly at Broughton, near Man-
chester, on the 11th August last. The case was connected
with the riots about that period in the manufacturing dis-
tricts, and involved no particulars of novelty or peculiar in-
terest. The prisoner, a dyer, was spoken to as being present
in a mob of four hundred persons, who assaulted the gates
of a dye-works, and broke some windows. The prisoner
used a plank as a battering-ram. The works belonged to
Messrs. Dewhurst and Sagar. It was found necessary to let
the hands out for the day. The cry set up by the mob was,
" Turn the hands out !" and it was sworn by one witness,
that the prisoner said, with reference to the works, " It is
the worst hole in all England."

Thomas Gerard and Joseph Clarke were indicted for a
similar offence. One of them, Gerard, pleaded guilty to one
of the counts, and was set at liberty on giving sureties for his
future good behaviour, his own in £2OO, and two in £5O each
for two years. Clarke was then tried for attending an illegal
meeting in Wigan, on the 15th August, and afterwards pro-
ceeding towards Leigh, on the way to which they stopped
some collieries and other works, by showing an overawing
force. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of a riot, but
there were palliatory circumstances in the prisoner's case.
William Guest and Clarke were then brought up for sen-
tence for rioting, &c. After a suitable admonition, his lord-
ship sentenced Williams (who had been long imprisoned,) to
he further imprisoned for three months, with hard labour,
and then to enter into recognizances. Clarke was sentenced
to six calendar months, and Guest to three months, with
hard labour, and afterwards sureties.

Neville Bancroft, an attorney, of Manchester, was charged
with perjury, committed on his being examined on an arbi-
tration. The defendant had been out on bail, and sat within
the bar. The case arose out of two cross-actions, Allen, un
attorney, against Lowe, and Lowe against Allen, which had
been brought before the Court of Common Pleas, and refer-
red to arbitration, before Mr. Segar, the barrister. The ac-
cusation against the plaintiff was, that, when examined before
the arbitrator, three questions were put to him, as follows :
First, whether he (defendant) had not, previously, said, with
reference to some damage done to Mr. Lowe, through the
negligence of Mr. Allen, an attorney employed by him, (and
for whom defendant acted) he, Mr. Lowe, had not always
said to him (defendant) that he should hold Mr. Allen him-
self responsible. This the defendant denied, saying that
Lowe had not said so from the first, but only at the last.
Second, whether he (defendant) had not Lou! him (Lowe)
£2.5 would be paid to him (the latter) in consideration of the
damage done through the negl:uence of Allen, and that he
(defendant) would procure him the money from Allen ; this
the defendant had also denied havirh, said so. Third, whe-
ther he (defendant) had not been told by Lowe that it was of
no use to go on with one of the actions, as the parties sued
were not within the jurisdiction of the Court, and whether
he (defendant) had not replied, that if he had known that,
he would not have proceeded with the action. He also de-
nied having so replied to that question. These denials, it
was contended, amounted to the act of perjury, which it was
brought to prove.
Several witnesses were called, but the case completely
broke down, there being no proof whatever of perjury having
been committed in the case. His Lordship said, there was
no ground whatever for the charge, and directed the jury to
return a verdict of acquittal. _ _

iiilliarn Greenteaorl was charged with perjury, in sonic
Evidence given before the ►magistrates, on an information laid
under the Stage Coach Act ; but as it appeared that no
offence under the act had been committed of which the ma-
gistrates could take cognizance, the indictment was stated by
his Lordship to be grounded in error, and no perjury would,
therefore, be committed. The jury were accordingly directed
to give a verdict of not guilty.

CONSPIRACY.

William hardy was charged with a conspiracy at Roch-
dale, in order to prefer a charge of larceny against a person
named Hopwood, since deceased. The case, however, broke
down on the first witness being called, and a verdict of not
guilty was recorded.

This closed the criminal business of the Assizes, and the
court rose at a quarter to eight o'clock.

NISI PRIUS C OURT-SATURDAY

DEMURRER : ANDREWS V. OWENS.—This was an action
on promises, to the pleas in which, on the part of the de-
fendant, the plaintiff demurred. The demurrer was argued
this morning, by Mr. Crompton and Mr. Ramshay, who ap-
peared for the respective parties. It was entirely of a techni-
cal character; and, in the end, the learned Judge took time
to consider his decision.

BUSINESS or THE Assize.—The JUDGE asked the gen-
tlemen of the bar who were present what cases could go over
to Mr. Baron Parke, in the other court, who would be able to
try them in the course of the day. Ile mentioned this so
early in order that some arrangement might be made.
Mr. KNOWLES said he was afraid that no satisfactory ar-
rangement could be made with respect to the cases remaining
to be tried.

The JUDGE replied that he must then make arrangement.
The fact was that term had begun, and here they were sitting
on the first day in Liverpool. It was true that the opening
of term had been postponed ; but, at the same time, the
paper must be got through as soon as possible. A line
would be drawn upon the cause list, all the cases below which
would be tried before Mr. Baron Parke.

Thr subject then dropped, without any definite arrange-
ment being either suggested or made.
REPLEVIN : WIGAN V. BOND.—The declaration in this
case was in replevin, in which the plaintiff, William Wigan,
complained of the defendant, John Bond, for having wrong-
fully taken certain goods and materials from premises in his
occupation. The case for the plaintiff was conducted by Mr.
James and Mr. Drinkwater ; Mr. Watson and Mr. Cardwell
appeared for the defendant.
Owing to the form of the action, the defendant had the right
ofcommencing , and itappeared, that the plaintiff is a becrseller,
at Wigan, and the defendant a tinplate-worker, in the same
place. The defendant caused a distraint to be made upon
plaintiff's effects for a year and half's rent, amounting to £2l.
The plaintiff denied that he was the defendant's tenant in
the manner and form set forth, and a long and uninteresting
trial of that question followed.
The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

CROSS ACTIONS ON DISPUTED CLAIMS

hens v. LA FFER.—The plaintiff in this case is Alexander
Kerr, and the defendant Henry Laffer. The declaration was
for wages for work and labour done, for commission money,
and on au account stated. The defendant pleaded that he
was never liable to certain payments, and a set off for money
alleged to be due to him from the plaintiff. Mr. Baines,
with whom was Mr. Cowling, appeared for the plaintiff;
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton for the defendant. The
plaintiff, it appeared, went out to the coast of Africa in a
vessel belonging to the defendant, called the Mary, on board
of which he acted as captain and supercargo, to bring back
palm oil. He was to receive 4:5 per month, and £4 per cent.
commission on the returns of palm oil which he brought
home ; and the action was brought to recover the balance of
the account. After the case had been partly opened by Mr.
Baines,

Mr. KNOWLES, on the part of the defendant, proposed
that this and the following case of Laffer v. Kerr should be
referred.

After some private discussion, it was agreed that all the
matters in difference should be referred.

ASSAULT

FItOSTE v. CIIALONER.—This was an action to recover
damages for an assault. The parties belong to Liverpool,
and are well known on 'Change. Mr. Wortley appeared for
the plaintiff; and Mr. Knowles for the defendant.
After some consultation between the parties,
Mr. WORTLEY said he had the honour to appear on behalf
of Mr. Froste, the plaintiff, who had brought this action
against the defendant for an assault committed upon him by
the defendant, an indignity to which Mr. Froste could not
submit. His first impulse was to take the course which was
very ordinary, hut, perhaps, blameable, in the class of society
to which he belonged. He was, however, persuaded by his
friends to abandon that course, and appeal to the laws of the
country. He had brought this action merely.for the purpose
of vindicating his own character; and he (Mr. Wortley) now
understood, from an intimation that he had received, that
his learned friend, Mr. Knowles, was willing, on the part of
the defendant, to offer an apology for the indignity offered to
Mr. Froste. if that apology on the part of his learned friend
was satisfactory to him, the learned Judge and the Jury
would he spared the trouble of proceeding with the case.
Mr. KNOWLES said he had the honour to appear for the
defendant, Mr. Chaloner, who, like the plaintiff, was a highly
respectable gentleman in this town, and who was now ready
to do all which a gentleman ought to do who had acted an
insult to another. Mr. Chaloner, therefore, authorised him
(Mr. Knowles) to apologise to Mr. Froste for the blow he
h e
seat he had,,t t
igei,v;de n worihad struck under circumstances of provocation. He (Mr. K.)
to
the t o
,tihaien feelingstiffto thatmalce
the most unqualified apology. flaying thefir
though it right on behalf of Mr. Chaloner to say this
that
ltledt ‘o . e rt
yh
eassaul t,
moment
after
done what the
feelings of a gentleman prompted, of course heiad no objec-
tion to do that now which be had done then, and, therefore,
he had authorised him (Mr. Knowles) t
Froste for the injury which he had done too hisapologise to Mr.
Mr. WouTLEr said, that under these ' feel.na'• i could only add that the plaintiff, after the indignity
he
suffered, considered a private apology i
•nsuinclidiguity he had
public apology offered by his learned friend, hent. After the
willing to consent to a verdict for the plaintiffofwoever, he was
A verdict was then entered for the plaintiff, Damages 40s.
BIRD AND OTHERS, ASSIGNEES, v. Baer
AND
OTHERS.
—The plaintiffs are the assignees of the estate and effects of
David Robertson, of this town, and they brought
th
against the defendants to recover the sum of
thelBo.e action
pro-
ceeds of certain .property belonging to the
bankrupt which
they seized in execution on the 26th January lagt.

Mr. Martin and Mr. Watson appeared for the plaintifis ;
Mr. Wortley and Mr. Crompton for the defendants.
On the part of the plaintiffs it appeared, that Mr. Lobert-
soh had been for some in insolvent circumstances, and, it
being expected that an execution would issue against his
effects at the suit of the defendants, it was considered pru-
dent by the plaintiffs and other creditors that a fiat in bank-
ruptcy should be issued. Mr. Watson,. attorney, was in-
structed to take this step. Ott Saturday, the 21st January,
he proceeded to London for this purpose, nud, on the fol-
lowing Monday, the 93d the fiat was struck. The act of
bankruptcy was a notice by Robertson, under the act of last
session, dated on the 21st: On the evening of the 23d Mr.
Watson wrote from London to the solicitors of the defend-
ants, Messrs. Stockley and Thompson, giving them notice
that the fiat had been issued, and requiring them not to pro-
ceed with the execution and levy on the effects in the defend-
ant's house, No. 3, Northumberland-terrace, Everton.
Messrs. Stockley and Thompson have a box in the Postoffice,
into which the letter was put at the usual period after the
at rival of the London mail. It was fetched from thence, by
whom did not appear, and taken to their office, iu Castle-
street, and it was contended that this was sufficient notice
of the existence of the fiat. In the meantime, time having
been previously granted to Mr. Robertson, the execution pro-
ceeded. In support of this part of the case it was shown that
Dry, the officer, and an assistant went to the house for the
purpose of making the seizure. The assistant remained on
the premises, and the servant girl who admitted him said that
this took place at twenty minutes past ten. On the morning
in question it was shown that Mr. Stockley arrived at the
office before his partner ; that he lived at Rock Ferry, which
he left by the boat leaving there at half-past nine ; and the
plaintiffs insisted that the boat wouid arrive at George's Pier
at a quarter before ten, and that he would
.arrive at the office
and read the letter before ten o'clock, in tune to prevent the
execution proceeding. It would take twenty-three minutes
to walk from their office to No. 3, Northumberland-terrace.
Evidence was produced to this effect.
Mr. WORTLEY then replied, contending, from the facts
adduced by the plaintiffs themselves, that it was clear the ex-
ecution was in the house for some period before it was possi-
ble that Mr. Stockley could have read the letter.
The jury, after an hour's consideration, returned a verdict
for the defendants.