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

POACHING

John Culshatv, (before tried this day and acqnitted on a
charge of poaching) was agai❑ 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 conspiraoy, 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 I:200, and two in:Bso 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 bad been long imprisoned,) to
be fluffier 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 told him (Lowe)
£25 would he paid to him (the latter) in consideration of the
damage done through the negligence of Allen, and that he
(defendant) would procure him the money from Allen; this
the defendant had also denied having 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 ~,e 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.
William Greenwood was charged with perjury, in some
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.