The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-09-05 00:00:00

ALLEGED MURDER-AT MANCHESTER.

Jane Oliver, alias Jane Morris, 45, (could read and
write imperfectly,) was charged wtih the wilful murder of
Robert Travis, at Manchester.
Mr. MoN tc stated the case. It appeared that the pri-
soner and the deceased Robert Travis lived together at
Salford, and were not married. They were both in the
habit of indulging in liquor, and on the day in question
were in that state. About two or three o'clock in the
morning of the 14th April, the watchman who was o❑
duty in Rusaman-street heard a person calling out, appa-
rently in great distress, and soon after saw the prisoner
standing on the steps of the Manor Inn, in Salford; and
on inquiring what was the matter, she said " I cannot tell
you; but if you will go with me I will tell you." He then
went with her to a house in Brunswick-street, and there,
in a back room, found a man lying on the floor, with a
deep cut in his
,belly, from which a portion of the intes-
tines protruded. The prisoner said they had had a row,
and Travis was going to cut her throat, but she took a
knife and stabbed him. The watchman said he would go
for a surgeon, on hearing which Travis opened his eyes,
and said there was no occasion, as nothing was the matter
with him. He was then placed in a chair, and afterwards
put to bed, but died the next day. The prisoner was ap-
prehended, and a knife marked with blood was found on
a table up stairs in the bed-room. When the officer was
taking her away, the prisoner said, " Robert, must they
take me?" and he said, " No ; no one shall take you,
there is nothing wrong with me." The surgeon who exa-
mined the body was of opinion that the deceased's death
was caused by the wound which he received.
Mr. WILKINS made an eloquent appeal to the jury in
behalf of the prisoner ; and, after a short consultation, a
verdict of manslaughter was returned, with a recommen-
dation to mercy.
Sentence, two months' imprisonment.
STABBING.

Thomas Franklin, 31, (could neither read nor write,)
was charged, with stabbing Henry Schultz, at Liverpool.
It appeared that on the 24th July last a disturbance took
place on board a vessel, called the John Bibby, which was
lying at this port on the day in question, on account of
the sailors having applied to the prisoner, who was the
cook, for a supply of fresh meat. The prisoner had a
knife in his band, and was quarrelling with a person of the
name of Bowden, when, from some supposed interference
on the part of Schultz, who was standing close by, but
did not interfere, he stabbed him in the hip. The prisoner
was then given into custody.
Mr. WILKINS contended that the prisoner, according
to his own account, had pulled the knife out of Bowden's
hand, by which he cut his fingers severely, and in tilt ow-
ing it away it stuck in Schultz's hip, and that he never
intended to commit the offence charged against him.
_ .

The jury acquitted the prisoner.
The court adjourned at twenty minutes to seven.

NISI PRIUS.—THURSDAY.
His LORDSHIP took his seat at nine o,clock.
HOLLAND V. JOSEPH.

In this case Joseph Holland, a plasterer, sought to re-
cover from the Rev. Henry Samuel Joseph, the sum of
£175 money lent. The defendant pleaded not liable, a
discharge under the Insolvent Debtor's Court, and the
statute of limitations. Mr. Sergeant MURPHY opened
the case. He said an intimacy arose between the parties
as early as 1832, and advances continued to be made up
to 1833-4. With regard to the discharge under the Insol-
vent Debtor's Court, the schedule did not contain any
correct account of the debt to the plaintiff. With regard
to the statute of limitations, he could prove that the de-
fendant in 1836 acknowledged that the debt was correct,
and promised to pay it. He apprehended, therefore, that
that plea would fail. In support of this view the learned
counsel cited a case. His LORDSHIP looked at it, and
raid there must be some mistake in it, and under the cir-
cumstances, thought the plaintiff had better be nonsuited.

PARTNERSHIP OR NO PARTNERSHIP.
MOLYNEUX V. WELSBY.

In this case Joseph Molyneux, for whom Mr. Martin
and Mr. Unthank appeared as counsel, was the plaintiff.
Sarah Welsby, for whom Mr. Wortley and Mr. Crompton
appeared, was the defendant. Mr. Ward, of Prescot, was
the plaintiff's attorney, and Mr. Galloway, of the same
place,attorney for the defendant. The declaration stated the
defendant was indebted to the plaintiff for work done and
wages due. The defendant pleaded never indebted.
Mr. MARTIN stated the case. The plaintiff was en-
gineer to a colliery, and he was a very skilful workman.
The defendant lived in the neighbourhood of Prescot, and
this action was brought against him to recover the sum of
five guineas. Although the sum in question was small,
and might have been settled in a court where the expen-
ses would have been less, still the parties wished it to be
tried here, as the real question at assue was whether Mrs.
Welsby was partner in a coal mine carried on in the
neighbourhood of Prescot, and the case was of impor-
tance, as it would depend upon the result of this action
whether other claims would be set up. Mrs. Welsby was
the sister of a person named George Burrows, who in the
year 1840 was in partnership with a person named James
Birch, in the Huston Hey Colliery. In Sept., 1840, they
got into disputes, and determined to dissove partnership.
The accounts were accordingly put into the hands of
Messrs. Spencer and Higginson. Higginson was the
brother-in-law of Mrs. Welsby. and in September the
accounts were made out. It appeared that the sum of
£360 had been spent beyond what the colliery had pro-
duced. It was at first agreed that either party should be
at liberty to take the colliery on paying the sum due to
the other, but Burrows being anxious to take the colliery,
Birch agreed that he should have it. After this arrange-
ment Burrows said he was unable to pay the money, but
his sister-in-law, Mrs. Welsby, and his brother-in-law
were prepared to come in Birch's place. Accordingly, all
the parties met at the office of Mr. A. Kaye, an attorney,
in this town, and there Mrs. Welsby came and bargained
for her share of the colliery, and ultimately Birch agreed
to take £155 for his share. The money was paid, and
Birch got a receipt for it. This being done, the colliery
was commenced, under the management of Mr. Burrows
and Mrs. Welsby, a person named Higginson, another
interests
of being appointed to look after the
of Mrs. Welsby. The colliery was continued up to 1812,
when it was stopped, and the workmen left unpaid, and
it was for this balance of wages due that the plaintiff
brought this action. The learned counsel proceeded then
to state that before the sale, the colliery was carried on
under the firm of " Burrows and Birch," and after that
the name was changed to " Burrows and Co.
After witnesses had been called to prove this statement,
Mr. WORTLEY, for the defendant, said the action was,
to all intents and purposes, George Burrows's, who had
carried on the colliery on his own account, but having a
kind sister and mother-in-law, who advanced him money
to enable him to carry on, he now turned round and tried
to fix his creditors upon them. It was a mere advance of

iney be the sister and mother, and there was no ,spa
to ettoeet that anything like a partnership would ha., •
been attempted to be proved.
His Loansuir, in summing up, said that a t•er4
might render hims If liable as a partner in tw days
by being actitaily a partner, or else by all
self to be hell oat ;13 a p titner, provided credit h.; 4:veta
to a concern on the fait of her being a partn-•r, lov. Cie
it devolved on tune plaintiff to make out his c ;1 as fnr
himsar (tht: Jadge) he could not help saying. in this
that he was travei:iit:4 rather in the dark. However,
and the jury conid not help that ; tltro
do the best they could, and to decide according to tu•
best of their judgment. With respect to the defer Lau
being held nut to the world as a partner, he thbaght then'
was no evidence, and she would not be liable unless she
actually was a partner.
The jury immediately found for the defendant.
NEGLIGENT WORKING OF A COAL MINE.
ECKERSLEY AND OTHERS V. GREENHOUGH.

In this case, Eckersley and his sisters, Ann
and Esther, sought to recover compensation from their
uncle, Joseph Grenhough, for damage done to their
premiswin consequence of the negligent working of the
defendant's mine, near their premises, whereby their
mine was injured, and also to recover damages for certain
coals taken under their premises.
After Mr. STARKIE had begun to detail the facts for
the plaintiff, the case was referred.

EJECTMENT.-DOE DEM. HUGHES V. BRADSHAW.

Mr. COWLING said this was an action of ejectment
brought by Ellen Hughes, a lady of considerable property
in Sutton and elsewhere, against Thos. Bradshaw, tenant
of one of her farms, called the Willow Tree Farm. There
was no doubt that the farm belonged to the plaintiff;
there was no doubt also that the defendant was her tenant,
and that he had been so for two years ; and the only ques-
tion, he apprehended, would be, whether or not a proper
notice to quit had been given. There was no doubt that
notice was given on the Ist day of August, but it unfor-
tunately happened that it was drawn up, not by a profes-
sional man, but by the coachman of Mrs. Hughes, who,
no doubt, flattered himself that he was as clever in draw-
ing out legal notices as he was ou the coach-bos. The
usual time of giving up possession of the land was on the
2d of February, and the house was given un on the Ist of
May. In this form, he believed, the notice had been given.
Howard, the plaintiff's coachman, was called, and
proved the delivery of the notice to quit to the defendant's
wife.

Mr. RAMSHAY, for the defendant, said Mrs. Hughes
was in the habit of giving notice to all her tenants every
year much as a matter of course, although she did not
avail herself of such notice. She gave notice in the usual
way to his client, and he, thinking it was the usual affair,
took no notice of it, but it appeared she had intended to
turn him out. However, he (the learned counsel) should
be able to prove that the plaintiff had, on the Ist August,
distressed upon the goods of the defendant for rent due
up to that date. It was a rule of law, that if a party who
had given another notice to quit afterwards treated him
as a tenant, he could not recover.
Meredith, the officer, who levied the distress, was then
called, and said the levy was made for rent due up to the
2d February.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL.—Is that your case?
Mr. RA NISHAY.—Yes.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL.—GentIemen of the jury, you
must find a verdict fur the plaintiff.
DISPUTED AGENCY.—RAMSAY V. KELSO AND ANOTHER.
In this case the declaration was in assumpsit for goods
sold and delivered. The defendants pleaded non assum-
psit.
Mr. Wortley and Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff;
Mr. Martin and Mr. Cowling for the defendants.

In this case, Robert Ramsay, block maker, of this town,
sought is recover the sum of £149 from the defendants
Joseph Kelso and Robert Lyons, of Londonderry, for,
blocks alleged to have been supplied to them. For the
plaintiff it was set up that the defendants were the owners
of a large vessel, called the Great Northern, which was
built by them in Londonderry, and that the blocks were
ordered for them by Capt. Coffin, as their agent. The
defendants' case was, that Captain Coffin, as a shipbuilder,
contracted to build the vessel for £16,300, and that the
blocks were ordered by him on his own account.—Verdict
for the plaintiff ; damages, £149 19s sd.

CLAIM BY ASSIGNEES.
MILLER AND OTHERS V. FISHER AND OTHERS.

This was an issue out of the Court of Clianceri,.and
Mr. Martin and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiffs.
John Miller and others. Mr. Watson and Mr. Cowling
appeared as counsel for the defendants, James Fisher and
others.

The plaintiffs were assignees of Messrs. Copeland and
Duncan, who carried on business in this town as com-
mission agents in the year 1836, and the defendants were
assignees of the firm of Baisley and Handsbrough, lately
carrying on business at Manchester, and the action was
brought to decide whether the assignees of Copeland& Dun-
can were entitled to receive the proceeds of certain goods sent
out to India in the year 1836, to pay advances made by
them to Baisley and Handsbrough. It appeared that
Copeland and Duncan received, in their course of busi-
ness, goods from merchants in Manchester, transmitted
these goods to the house in India, and then two-thirds of
the invoice price was advanced upon the goods, and a
further sum was advanced by Copeland and Duncan,
making the total sum advanced 85 per cent. The course
of business was this, when Bailey and Handsbrough had
goods to send to Calcutta, they communicated with Craw-
ford and Duncan, who again communicated with the firm
of Crawford, Colvin, and Co., the correspondents of the
Indian house. As soon as the shipping note of the goods
was read by Crawford, Colvin, and Co., they remitted
two-thirds of the invoice price on behalf of the India-
house, and they also received the remittances from the
India-house when it was sent to this country, kept
their advances, and sent down the remainder to Copeland
and Duncan, who took their advances, and then remitted
the balance to the house in Manchester.

The evidence in this case consisted of letters, showing
the course of business, and after these had been read,
Mr. WATSON said he considered it more as a question
for his Lordship than the jury, and he would take his
opinion upon it, either as a matter of fact, or a matter
of law.

Mr. Justice CRESSWELL said he had not the least
doubt that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, which
was entered accordingly.

EJECTMENT.-DOE DEM, HARDMAN, V. GORE.
In this case the plaintiff sought to recover possession
of a farm-house and farm in Allerton, in the parish of
Childwall, but after the case had been stated by Mr.
Martin, his Lordship said there was no ground for the
action—with respect to one term it had long since expired,
and another term had not arrived. He could not, how-
ever, hold out any hope to the party, as a hundred things
might have happened to prevent his claim from being a
correct one, and he, therefore, advised him not to waste
any more money. The plaintiff was non-suited, and the
court rose at twenty-five minutes to six o'clock.

CROWN COURT—FRIDAY.
Mr. Justice "WIGHTMAN took his seat at nine o'clock.

THE. MANCHESTER BRICKMAKERS' RIOTS.

Peter Burgess, Charles Lee, George Walker, Joseph
Harrison, William Roberts, Thomas Hough, Nicholas
Rigby, Michael Baguley, and Matthew Kehoe, were in-
dicted for riot and assault at the brickfield of Mr. Pauling,
at Salford. Kehoe pleaded guilty, and all the others not
guilty. The evidence adduced was similar to that brought
forward against them at the trial on Wednesday.
The Learned JUDGE, in charging the jury, said that
two persons spoke directly to Han ison, but both of them,
on the next night, said they did not know him. After-
words, however, they said that they did; but the impres-
sion of Beswick, the constable, was that they did not.
Two other witnesses heard a voice which they believed
was his. Five witnesses also gave him a character, which
should have weight with the jury if they entertained any
doubt. Only one person spoke to Roberts; a witness
also gave bins a good character. The case against Bur-
gess and Lee rested entirely on the correspondence of the
boots, his having been found with Kehoe, who had a
gun shot wound, and having a blue mark on his breast
which one of the witnesses believed he had inflicted.
Walker was found to have some gun-shot wounds, and
was spoken to by Frost and Connell. They also spoke
to Hough, but Connell had previously identified his bro-
ther, who had been apprehended. The only witness who
recognised Rigby was Connell, but this was some time
after the occurrence. If the jury entertained any doubts
as to the identity of the prisoners, they would give them
the benefit of such doubts, but especially those who had
received a good character.
The jury retired, and were absent about twenty minutes,
when they returned a verdict of guilty against all the pri-
soners.

Kehoe was also placed at the bar, and his Lordship
addressed the prisoners, stating that they had been found
guilty, after a most careful consideration of their case of
riot and assault, and there were circumstances which
gave to the charge an importance far beyond that attend-
ing many others that could be brought into a court of
justice. He should inflict, therefore, the highest punish-
ment legally appropriated to the offence, and sentenced
each of the prisoners to twelve months' imprisonment.