The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-08-28 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

manorial rights could exist or he created, and defendants (the
learned counsel contended) could not found any claim to these
alluvial fortna.tions upon the supposed privileges of a lord of the
manor. Neither could it be said that the disputed lands had
nut formed part of the bed of the river, because trees or remnants
of trees bad been dug up (on which it was to be argued that
they were parts of a large forest, and not of the river's bed),
since it was well known that alluvial accumulatiOus did consist
of trees and various other ingredients, which, if they had grown
there, as parts of the forest, must some of them have grown
horizontally, some with the rdots upwards; and others in a
square and flat form, balks and planks of timber having also
been found there.

The ATTORNEY•GENERA r, then showed, that the crown hav-
ing taken up possession of it for two years, and that the posses-
sion having been conceded to its prerogative, the succession
was broken.

Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLEY said that ibis possession was
proved, inasmuch as the crown bad never laid or even imagined
any claim to the land in question since the days of Noah.
Evidence was then adduced on both sides, and a verdict
taken for the crown. Subject to the court above.
WEDNESDAY.

Lord AIIINGF.It took his seat on the bench at nine o'clock. The
court, during the day, was occupied principally with trials in
the second or Salford list, which were generally of but trifling
interest.

PULMAN V. TONGUE AN!) ANOTHER.

This was an action brought to recover damages for an assault,
Mr. Alexander and Mr. Seager on behalf of the plaintiff, and
Mr. Sergeant Atcherley and Mr. Addison for the defendants.
The parties lived at Charlton, in this county. The plaintiff
was a cabinet-maker, and rented a house of the elder defendant,
(the defendants being father and son.) It appeared that the
latter accused the plaintiff of lending a persona hainmer to force
open the door of the adjoining shop, and on the day when the
assault was committed, the 28th of May last, they went into
plaintiff's shop to remonstrate with him about it. 'the plaintiff
said he knew nothing of it—he had work to finish which it was
necessary to send home, and he desired them, therefore, to leave
his premises. He repeated this request two or three times, and
then placed a piece of wood which he had in his hand against
the elder Tongue's breast, and pushed him with it towards the
',door to get him out. The plaintiff's witnesses denied that any
other species of violence had been used. The elder defendant
then immediately struck at the plaintiff. The son rushed in to
his father's assisiance, the plaintiff was knocked down, and, it
appeared by the evidence on both sides, was very roughly used
--41aving been violently beaten and kicked. In the scuffle a
table, -a bookcase, and cheffonier, were broken, the damage of
which ',vas estimated at £5. .

The defence'was, that unnecessary violence was used by the
Rlaintiff in. tempting to put the elder dvfeadant out of the shop..
Verdict for the planatiff.--Datuages 'Ws.

BENT V. WOOD.

ThiS was .n action fol. an alleged assault upon the plaintiff,
while he was doing his duty in the character of a special con-
stable: Mr. Alexander and Mr. Wighttnau for the plaintiff; and
',Sr. Brandt for the defendant.
This case presented a very trumpery character. It appeared
that in April last an election of churchwardens took .place in the
town of Rochdale, wherein the parishioners were much divided
respecting the merits of the several candidates. Considerable
excitement prevailed; and one of the magistrates, who happened
tote one of the losing party, appointed several special consta-
bles, as they were called, at one or two o'clock in the day. These
constables were•not sworn in. The magistrate said that he had
merely laid his hand on the shoulder of the person required to
act. and "ordered him in the name of his sovereign to do his
duty." The plaintiff and defendant were of the rival parties—
the former being a shoemaker and the latter a corn-dealer, both
respectable men. At four o'clock the pole closed, and the de-
fendant was endeavouring to force his way into the church by
the door at which the. plaintiff was stationed, when a scuffle en-
sued, and, according to the witnesses for the plaintiff, he was
thrown down and his coat torn off his back. After the examina-
tion of several witnesses,
Mr. BRANDT addressed the jury for the defence, and sub-
mitted that it was a most trumpery case to bring into a court.
The simple fact was, that the defendant wanted to go into the
church to ascertain the result of the poll. The losing party,
that of the plaintiff, felt irritated at their defeat, and hence the
affray, and the consequent action which had been raised here
to-day.
Verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages one farthing.
THURSDAY.
HARPER v. BURROWS AND OTHERS.

This was an action for assault and false imprisonment. Mr.
Cresswell and Mr. Hoggins for the plaintiffs, and Dr. Brown
for the defence.

Mr. CausswELL stated the case to the following effect :
That the present action was brOught by Henry Harper, the
plaintiff, for a very gross outrage committed upon him
by two attorneys, named tlodg►son and Hibbert, and two police-
officers, called Burrows and Rawlinson, who took h to into
custody and.threatened to send him to the dungeon at Bolton,
unless he paid £2O on a bill, an indorsement on which they
alleged be had forged. The first of these, Mr. Hodgson, had
pleaded guilty, and thereby suffered judgment to go by de-
fault; the others said they were not guilty, and upon this plea
the issue would be tried. The learned counsel then called his
witnesses.

Matthew Butcher, examined by Mr. HOGG INS.--1 know the
plaintiff, Henry Harper. On the 30th of May, 1831, I was at
the plaintiff's house. On that day I saw Hodgson and Rawlin-
son, at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, with Mr. Hibbert, an
attorney. Rawlinson, Hibbert, and Harper hada conversation
together lathe yard, and went away. Hodgson and Rawlinsou
returned at three o'clock in the afternoou, and went into a
sitting-roam occupied by Harper, and I heard Hodgson charge
Harper with forgery, and say that if he did not pay £2O he
must go with them to Bolton on a charge of forgery. Harper
asked if they had a warrant. They said they did not need one,
and Harper refused to go without, when Hodgson told Rawlin-
son to do his duty. My father then came in, and, on hearing
the circumstances, said that they had no right to take Harper.
My father advised Harper to send for a respectable attorney,
and Hodgson ordered him out of the house. Rawlinson then
took Harper away to Bolton, and I went afterwards and saw
Harper, Hodgson, and Rawlinson at the Three Arrows.
Hodgson said he must pa the £2O, and Harper said he had not
ts6Money to pay it, and Hodgson said be must ga-tcuthe.Dem-
geun. My father advised a settlement, and asked Harper if he
had forged the bill, and Harper said that he had not. My
father said he would bail Harper for £5O, and he bailed him to
appear next morning. Burrows subsequently came in and
said that Harper must go to the Dungeon. r went with
Harper out, and returned to the Three Arrows and saw Hib-
bert there, who said they ought not to have let Harper go.
This was addressed to the company, and Mr. Greenhalgh were
present. The money was subsequently,paid,,in consequence of
their threatening to take him again. rhe money was paid by
Mr. Twiss. •
Cross-examined by Dr. BROwri.—llibbert was present at the
Three Arrows. Greenwood also. I heard it was Greenwood's
name that had been forged. I fetched Greenwood to meet Har-
per at the Three Arrows. I did not hear Greenwood tell Harper
that the bill was a forgery.
• By Mr. CHESSWELL.—WhiIst I was at the Three Arrows.
Burrows, the deputy-constable, came, and then it was that they
consented to let Harper go ou my father's bail. Burrows at-
terwards came to my father's house and said, that as it was not
likely that the matter would be settled, he must go with him.
The matter was afterwards settled.
Peter Twiss examined by Mr. CitessweLL.—l live at Bol-
ton. On the 30th of May I was sent for to am Three Arrows,
and found Rawlinson, Harper, Hodgson, and Mr. Botcher. I
asked Harper what he wasdoing there, and he said he was taken
into custody on a charge of forgery. Hodgson then handed
me a £2O bill, and I said that I knew something of the names
at the back of the bill ; Haslam was one, and I fetched him to
the public-house, and fouud the same parties still there. Hasla.m
told the company that he had endorsed bills for Greenwood.
Mr. Butcher and myself asked him to draw a bill then, so that
they might see his handwriting; he did so, and Mr. Butcaer and
myself thought the handwriting was similar to that at the back
of the £2O bill. Haslatn said to Hibbert tbat he never recol-
lected drawing a bill like the £2O bill, and the name at the back
was not his. Hodgson went out of the room, saying be was
going to Manchester • and I then offered to Rawlinson and
Burrows £5OO bail to let Harper go, which they did. Hodgson
went to Mr. Butcher's, where Harper went to, and Burrows
then said that Harper must go with him. I subsequently pro-
cured the money and took up the, bill. I paid the money to
Mr. llibbert.
• By the JuDGß.—Hibbert was not present when Harper was
ordered into custody; but I heard Hibbert say to the officers,
that, if the money was not paid, Harper must go to the dungeon.
By Dr. BitowN.—When Hibbert said this, Harper was gone
from the Three Arrows. Ido not know that Mr. Hibbert was
brought in as a friend of Mr. Butcher's to see what. could be
done. Hasid:ll was asked if the name of George Greenwood
eras his handwriting, and he denied it. lam uncle to Harper.
Dr Baows; addressed the jury for the defendants, Rawlin-
son, Hibbert, and Burrows, and en ieavoured to show that the
plaintiff never was in custody, but had gone to the Three Arrows,
of his own free will in order to settle the dispute about the bill.
The plaintiff had not shown that he had been imprisoned;
therefore in his opinion the action couldnot be sustained. He
then called _ _ . _ _

. John Mosscrop.—l am overseer of Little Bolton. I know
the defendant Burrows; be is deputy constable of Bolton.
Rawlinson is his assistant. Mr. Ilibbert is an attorney residing
at Bolton. Mr. Butcher resides at Brightmet Hall, and I met
Mr. Harper and Mr. Butcher walking on the day in question
with Mr. Butcher and Mr. Rawlinson. I took them to be a
friendly party. I walked with them about a mile, and nothing
occurred to lead me to sue.pose that Harper was in custody.
'Thomas Haslam examined by Dr. Bitowri.—l ant landlord'
of the Three Arrows in Bolton. On the 39th of May I recollect
Mi. Butcher, Mr. Harper, and two or three other gentlemen
came to my house. Harper came in with Butcher. Rawlinson
did not come until a quarter of an hour afterwards; he joined
Mr. Butcher's party.
Mt. Matthew Butcher, sen.—Harper was at my house. when
Rativlinson came and said that he wished to see Mr. Harper on
the subject of a forged bill. Harper went away with us to
Bolton, and I desired Rawlinson to walk a little distance from
us to avoid suspicion. I called upon Mr. Hibbert to go with us
to give us' his advice, and Mr. Hibbert said it was a dirty piece
of business, and had better be settled.
CREiSWELL, for the plaintiff, contended that the false
inaprionnient had been proved. The plaintiff was kept in cus-
tody at the Tbree.Arrows from noon to seven o'clock at night,
and refused his liberty until hail was given. The fact was, that
the bill was not a forgery, but an overdue one, and the defend-
ants had taken the illegal course they did to insure payment;
and this, was admitted by Hodgson, the principal, pleading
guilty.
The learned JUDGE having summed up the evidence, the jury
returned a verdict of Guilty against the three defendants—
damages £so—and acquitted Burrows.

SIR OSWALD MOSLEY, BART, V. ROBINSON.
This was an action brought by Sir Oswald Mosley, Bart,
Lord of the Manor of Manchester, against a butcher named
Robinson, in that town, for selling and exposing meat for sale
out of the public market.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (with whom was Mr. WIGHT-
MAN) stated the case, and proved the honourable baronet's
rights and privileges in the public markets of Manchester,
which had existed in his family for four generations.
'Fhe defendant admitted the offence, and a verdict for the
plaintiff was taken by consent.

THE SAME V. HALL.
This was an action for a similar offence committed by ano-
ther butcher named Hall, who it was alledged had sold meat at
his shop in Ashton-street, London-road, Manchester, instead
of the public market place, to the prejudice of the Lord of the
Manor.
The A rTairgEr-GEriariAL, having stated the case, produced
Mr. Samuel Kay, the steward to Sir Oswald, iu Manchester,
who produced records of the usaget of the markets, and privi-
leges of the Lords of the Manor of Manchester from 1396 to
the present time, and stated that no person was allowed to sell
meat in his own shop,' unless that meat had been previously ex-
posed in the market.
Witnesses wereealled to shoW they had purchased meat from
the defendant on market days, and the Learned JUDGE said
• that the record's produced by Mr. Kay had previously been re-
ceived in evidence by the Court of King's Bench.
The ATTORNEY-GENEE4 having stated that, Sir Oswald
Mobley merely wished to establish, his right, and not to seek for
damages, the Jury returned a verdict fur the plaiutiff.—Da-
mages, Is.

GERARD AND ANOTHER, ASSIGNEES V. NIGHTINGALE.
This was an action brought by the assignees of a haukruPt
named Seagrave, late of this town, to recover from. the defend-
ant. a carrier, the amount of certain goods consigned to him by
Mr. Frost. a manufacturer in Sheffield, as it was alleged, to the
bankrupt's credit, which the defendant had returned to Mr.
Frost. •

Mr, ALEXANDER appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. WIG Hr
MAN for the defence. •

•
It appeared from the evidence, that Mr.[Seagrave was in the
habit of purchasing goods from manufacturers in different parts
of the country fur the purpose of sending abroad, and having no
Warehouse, he usually had them consigned to the carriers'
wharf. On the 9th of November last a quantity of Sheffield
goods were sent to Mr. Seagrave by Mr. Vrost, and left at the
wharf of Mr. Nightingale, the defendant, the latter sending a
carriage note to Mr. Seagrave, announcing, in the usual way,
the arrival of the goods. While the goods so remained upon
the wharf, Mr. Seagrave suddenly disappeared from the town,
and never returned. He was made a-bankrupt, and the plain-
tiffs (assignees) hearing of the goods, sent to the defendant,
claiming them. Mr. Frost also made a claim, and received the
goods back on indemnifying the defendant. These were the
facts of the case, the assignees considering that Mr. Nightin-
gale, the carrier, was liable to the estate of. Seagrave for the
value of the goods, amounting to £4l. The question was one
of law, whether or not the goods were in course of transit; if so,
the paintas had no claim upon the carriers, but if they had ar-
rived at their destination, and in the possession of the defend-
ant as agent for Seagrave, then they were liable.
The learned JUDGE was of opinion that the transit was not at
an end, and therefore the plaintiffs ought to be nonsuited.

After some conversation amongst the counsel, IT.;;.s-sagreed
that a verdict of £4l for the plaintiff should be taken, subject to
a, special case for the court above.

-
SMITH V. LEYLAND.-A TI:OTTING MATCH.
The plaintiff in this case is a butcher at Leigh in this county,
and the defendant an ironmonger in the saute place. The catise
of action arose out of a trotting match between the plaintiff's
famous mare Jenny-go-lightly and a Mr. Aldred's trotting phe-
nomenon Billy-go-quickly.
Mr. Alexander appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Green for
the defence.

The horses, it appears, were matched to trot against each
other one mile. on the turnpike road for £2O aside, and the de-
fendant Leyland was stake-holder. A dispute arose between
the parties, and the stake-holder offered Smith, the plaintiff, his
£'..!.0 back again, wishing, on the part of his friend, Mr. Aldred,
for the wager.to be off Smith refused to take it, insisting upon
haying the whole of-the money, or that the race should be run.
It was run, and Aldred's horse won; but, having broken trot
contrary to the articles, the plaintiff alleged that he had
1113d.zpt Aldred, and demanded the £4O. The de,fendarkt—Letti -
to deliver, and for the recovery of this amount; at least ale:
stake, the action was brought.
After hearing the evidence, the, Junon was of opinion di:J.
as the £`2o had been' tendered and refused; the plaintiff µus i.ot
entitled to a verdict. Verdict for the defendant.

• WISDOM U. CRAIG AND OtHURS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, the keeper of a
beer-shop in Ilanover-street, Alanchester, against Craig. Bar-
rows, Booth, and Sarner, defendants, fur trespass and excess of
distraint.

The Attornev.General and Mr. Watson appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Wightman and Mr. Wilkins for the de-
fendants.

It appeared from the evidence that Craig formerly kept the
beer-shop occupied• by the plaintiff, and had let it to the latter.
A sum or money was owing to Craig by the plaintiff, and he,
having procured an execution from the Court of Requests, ac-
companied the other defendants, who are constables, on the II th
of July to make a seizure, when they were assaulted by the
plaintiff, his wife,-and servant. The latter were subsequently
imprisoned by the Manchester magistrates for the assault. The
goods of the plaintiff were taken in execution, and it was alleged
that more property than was necessary to cover the debt and
costs had been seized, and that. uncalled-for violence had been
used.

The case was altogether an uninteresting one, and Messrs.
Wightman and Wilkins having addressed the jury for the de-
fendants, a verdict for the plaintiff, dainages 10s., was returned.
The JUDGE said be would consider whether pr not he should'
certify fur the costa.