The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-08-22 00:00:00

morrr. discovered that some articles had been taken from
the shop v.lntiow by the removal of a pane of glass; they
consisted of of butter, 8 lbs. bread, &c. Suspicion
having been eschew inquiry took place at the barracks,
the 65th regiment of tos,t being stationed thete at the
time. The 'limo er had bt.mit on duty in the sentry box
on the night in question ; his baud was cut and bloody,
and it was also discovered that had not been on duty,
as was the usual practice, the whet, 9f the night, having
been seen at a public house in the nelgt.hourbood. Some
of the property was found in the barrack,.
and marks of
blood were traceable from the shop window
the sentry
box.

The nrisoner called several witnesses to prove thm. he
had injured his thumb while cutting some tobacco.
His LORDSHIP then summed up the evidence, and the
Jury, after a few minutes' consultation, found the prisoner
guilty, and he was sentenced to ten tears' transportation.
The Court rose at a quarter to seven.

CASE OF JOHN ANDERSON.

Trne bills were found against Anderson for being in
possession of notes stolen in London from Mr. Black-
more, and also at tbe.Preston Guild.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-MONDAY.

Mr. Justice CRESSWELL took his seat at nine o'clock,
shortly after which

' A Juryman said, he wished to apply to his lordship to
allow the names of the parties interested in each case to
be called over before the jury were sworn, because in a
case which was tried on Saturday, he understood that it
was intended to apply for a new trial in consequence of
his (the juryman) being one of the shareholders in the
Bank of Manchester which was interested in the case. He
begged to say the attorney for the defendant knew that
he was a shareholder; and lie only made these remarks
in order to set himself right with the court. Be (the
juryman) would have °Ejected after he had been sworn
had it not been for a decision of his lordship in a case
previously, that after the jury had been sworn they must
decide the case,

Mr. Justice CRESSWELL said, it was quite right; if a
solicitor meant to of jest to any of the jury he must look
out beforehand.
The Juryman said, he would on no account, have re-
mained on the j•fry if he had been aware.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL.-1 have no doubt, for J dO
not know any place where juries are more scrupulous
than in this county, and I have had a great deal of ex-
perience in it. You shall hear the names of the parties
when the case is called on ; but it is frequently impossible
to know who are the parties interested.

RIGHT TO A WATER POND.-SCHOLER V. CHADWICK

In this case Th►imas Scholes was the plaintiff, and
James Chadwick the defendant. The declaration stated
that the plaintiff was possessed of a certain close of land,
and the delidatit of another close adjoining to that of the
plaintiff; that there was a pond in the close of the de-
fendant, and that the plaintiff had a right to water his
cattle in that pond; that the defendant made a drain and
drew off the water, so that the descent •of the water was
dangerous and d►flicult, and a mare of tl_e plaintiffs was
drowned in consequence. The defendant pleaded not
guilty, and tlet.ied all ►he allegations.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Pickering appeared for the
plaint ff, and Mr. Sergeant Murphy for the defendant.
Mr. M AItTIN said the plaintiff was a farmer residing at
Chatterton, near Oldham, and the defendant was a farmer
adjoining, and the action was brought for the purpose of
determining first, the right of the plaintiff to use the
pond which was on the land of the defendant, for the
purpose of watering his cattle, and secondly, whether the
plaintiff was entitled to recover from the defendant the
value of a mare, which in consequence of the alterations
made in the pond was destroyed by falling into it iu at-
tempting to drink.
The case had proceeded about an hour, when
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL asked if these neighbours
could not make some arrangement about the use of the
pond. . _ _

• Mr. Sergeant MURPHY said his client would be willing
to do any thing of that kind.
After some conversation, it was agreed that the matter
should he referred to a Mr. Reyne, a farmer.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL.—And what is to become of
the present cause

Mr. Sergeant MURPHY.—Enter a verdict for the de-
fendant.

Mr. MARTIN objected.
Mr. Justice CREssweLL.—Withdraw a juror.
Mr. MARTIN assented.

• Mr. Sergeant MURPHY objected; but preferred to leave
it to a genileman of the bar to say for whom the verdict
should be entered.

To this Mr. MARTIN objected, and said the case must
be proceeded with.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL said he hoped the gentlemen
had considered well the course they were adupting ; t -at
they were not doing it hastily ; because the interests of the
parties were concerned in it.
Several other witnesses were then called, and after a
discussion on the legal points in the case,
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY addressed the jury. He con-
tended there was no proof of an easement, by user, to
water on the defendant's land ; but that the plaintiff had
made out that the pond was as much, though not to the
same extent, in the laud of the plaintiff as in the land of
the defendant.

Mr. Justice CRESSWELL, in summing up, regretted
that the parties had agreed to conclude—not to conclude,
but rather to carry on their litigation before him and the
jury. However, they could not help that; they must de-
cide the case, and leave them to fight it out elsewhere, at
great expense and inconvenience, when it could have been
much better settled if they had adopted another course.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
DISPUTED ACCOUNT.

PLANT AND ANOTHER, ASSIGNEES V. JONES.—The
declaration in this case was for goods sold and delivered,
and the defendant pleaded a payment and set-off.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Lawrie were for the plaintiff; Mr.
Whigham for the defendant.
Mr. MARTIN stated the case. The plaintiffs were Jas.
Plant and Charles H ill, assignees of the estate of Samuel,
James, and John Chadwick, father and sons; and the de-
fendant was John Jot-es. The bankrupts formerly car-
ried on business, near Bury, as cotton spinners and wea-
vers. under the firm of " Chadwick and Sons," and the
defendant carried on business as a commission agent, at
Manchester; he also bought goods to a great extent on
his own account, and fora great number of years had done
business with the bankrupts, and for some time back his
business with them was exclusively confined to buying
goods from them. The Chadwicks were very illiterate
men; they were originally workmen, but commenced
business on their own account, and ultimately became
bankrupts. Their books were kept in a very disorderly
manner, and when they came to be examined, it was found
that the defendant was stated to be indebted to them to
the amount of £193. This Mr. Jones denied, and the
commissioners instituted an examination before an ac-
countant. From this it appeared, after deducting certain
sums of which Mr. Jones had no vouchers, that he wits
still indebted, on his own showing, to the bankrupts in
the sum of £57 35., for which sum, at least, he (Mr.
Martin) contended he was entitled to recover.
Mr. Wurawasi, for the defendant, contended that
them had been a mistake made in the accounts of .Z 37 4s.
.91., in consequence of a similarity of names, and that, in-
stead of the defendant owing the estate of the bankrupt
anything, there was abalance owing to him of £24 3s. 3d.

In substantiation of his case he called a witness, named
Al'wood, who had been in the employ of the defendant.
Mr. MARTIN. in reply, contended that the whole case
of the defendant bad been got up to deceive the jury ;
that it was a clumsy anti stupid attempt at fraud ;
that the documents produced were not honest documents ;
and that the books submitted as evidence had been altered
for the purposes of the case.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL, in referring to the cult-book
of the defendant, found' that the sums mentioned in the
memoranda were all entered in their proper dates. The
only question, therefore, was whether £57 3s. was still
owing to the estate.
The Jury immediately found for the plaintiff. Damages
£57 3s.

RIGHTS OF THE LORD OF THE MANOR.
MOSLEY V. BARDSLEY.
This was an undefended action. The plaintiff was Sir
Oswald Mosley, Bart., Lord of the Manor of Manchester,
and the defendant was James Bardsley. The action arose
in consequence of the defendant selling butcher's meat
otherwise than in the markets provided by the Lord of the
Manor, on market days. The Jury found for the plain-
tiff. Damages, 40s.
HEAP AND ANOTHER, EXECUTORS, V. LIVINGSTON AND