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

POACHING AND ASSAULT

Samuel Cowburn, 39. convicted last week of poaching
with others, and violently assaulting a gamekeeper, was
brought up, and after a severe address from his lordship, was
sentenced to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for 18
months.

The court rose at a quarter past six o'clock. There re-
mained about 80 cases to be disposed off in this court.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-WEDNESDAY.

HOYLE V. HOWARD.

This was an action to recover damages for injury done to
the plaintiff's property in Cheetharu-street, Rochdale, by a
nuisance from the works of the defendant. Mr. Dundas and
Mr. Cowling appeared for the plaintiff, who is a corn-dealer;
Mr. Knowles, Mr. Wortley, and Mr. Hogging for the de-
fendant. After the case had been opened, and the first
witness, who was the tenant of the plaintiff, had been ex-
amined, it was agreed between the parties that the defendant
should buy the plaintiff's premises at a valuation to be fixed
by a party to be named by the plaintiff. A nominal verdict
was consequently entered in favour of the plaintiff.

ACTION AGAINST THE SIIERIFF.-RICIINIOND V. FRANCE

This was an action in trover against the late high Sheriff
of this county. Mr. Rotel and Mr. Hardern appeared for
the plaintiff, Mr. Robert Richmond ; and defendant was re-
presented by Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton.
The plaintiff is a spirit dealer in this town, and the assignee
of William Halliday a bankrupt. It appeared that 1841 the
bankrupt took the Commercial Hotel in Dale-street, in this
town, from the previous tenant, whose name was Leicester.
Not aving sufficient to purchase the whole stock, the bank-
rupt gave Mr. Leicester a warrant of attorney for the amount
which he was unable to pay. About six months afterwards,
Mr. Leicester put in an execution, under the warrant of
attorney, under which the Sheriff sold the goods to Mr.
Adam Eccles, a tanner, who was, in fact, the real defendant.
Mr. Eccles, willing to he a friend to Mr. Halliday, allowed
him to retain the property in his possession as reputed
owner, taking an assignment, and to carry on the business
as usual. Mr. Halliday continued the business a few months
longer; when Mr. Eccles becoming uneasy about his money
wished Mr. Halliday to give him a warrant of attorney upon
the goods. Mr. Halliday, by the advice of his attorneys,
gave Mr. Eccles a cognovit for £lOO, on Wednesday, the 30th
of March; but on the following Friday Mr. Halliday found,
instead of being relieved from the pressure of his difficulties,
his goods seized under a warrant from the Sheriff. The
general creditors interfered, and ou the 7th of April a fiat in
bankruptcy was issued; on the Bth, the provisional assignee
was appointed, and notices were served upon all parties con-
cerned that Mr. Ilalliday was a bankrupt. Notwithstanding
all this, the Sheriff sold all the goods ; to recover the value
of which the.assignees brought the present action.

Fen the defendant it was contende.d that the sale was made
under the assignment to Mr. Eccles, to which a bill of sale
was attached, and not under the warrant of the sheriff. Pos-
session was taken under the assisgnment, before the warrant
was issued. The sale realized 4112 55.. of which
£256 3s. 11d. was paid to the landlord, Mr. Rigby Wason,
for rent ; and the difference, it was contended, was the pro-
perty of the plaintiff for the general benefit of the creditors
of the bankrupt.
The jury, after retiring, returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages £156 Is. Id. ; costs, 40s.