The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-04-02 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

son, was inspector and examiner of weights and measures.
On the 3rd of January, the son of the plaintiff met the
defendants, who said they would go down and examine
his father's weights. Young Kershaw informed them that
his father had retired from business, and, consequently,
there were no weights to examine. Notwithstanding this,
the defendants proceeded to the house of the plaintiff,
went through various rooms, opened a clothes chest, and
otherwise acted in an outrageous and unwarrantable man-
ner. They at lass discovered a 601 b. weight, which had
been used to keep back a door, and Charles Johnson, on
taking possession of it, said, " There is £5 for you,"
meaning that the plaintiff would he fined that amount by
the magistrates. The son of plaintiff interfered, upon
which the elder defendant struck him over the face, and
furnished a strong walking-stick to his son, with which he
severely beat young Kershaw. This assault, however,
would form the subject of the next action to be tried. The
plaintiff was sum►aoned before the magistrates at Roch-
dale, respecting the 601 b. weight, but the case was dis-
missed. The ground upon which the learned counsel
sought damages was, that the house of plaintiff was not
used as a place of business, but as a private dwelling, and,
therefore, the defendants had no right whatever to have
entered.

The plaintiff's son was submitted to a long examination
by Mr. Martin, with the view of showing that the plain-
tiff's house had been used as a place of sale, but the wit-
ness would not admit that any sales had been transacted
within nine months preceding.
Mr. MARTIN addressed the jury for the defendants.
He admitted that one part of the transaction—the carry-
ing away of the weight without previously testing it on
the premises—was illegal ; with this exception, be con-
tended the whole proceedings of the defendants were jus-
tifiable. It was sufficient for his client to show that be
was under the belief that goods were kept for sale in the
house, and if it should turn out that he bad been acting
under a false impression, on this point, it was not a case
to call for damages, as it had not been shown that any in-
jury had been done to the property, nor had it been at-
tempted to suggest that the defendants were actuated by
any vindictive feeling towards the plaintiff.
Mr. Martin was about to call evidence, when his Lord-
ship adjourned the court.
His Lordship fixed Tuesday morning for the special
jury cases on the first list.
The court rose at seven o'clock.

CROWN COURT.-THURSDAY.
ARSON NEAR WIGAN. _ _

Peter Halewood, 43, was indicted for wilfully setting
fire to a barn, stable, and a stack of hay, at Upholland,
near Wigan, on the night of the 22d December last, with
intent to injure Mr. James Dickinson. Other counts
charged him with having committed the said offence with
intent to injure the owner of the premises, the Rev.
Richard Ramshaw Rothwell. Mr. Armstrong and Mr.
Hulton appeared for the prosecution ; and Messrs. Wil-
kins and Pollock for the prisoner. It appeared that the
prosecutor went to bed about eight o'clock on the night
in question. About half-past ten he was awoke by the
cracking of the slates. He called up his servants, and
succeeded in getting the horses and cows out of the stable
and shippon. Two of his servants were up when he went
to bed ; one of them smoked. The prosecutor smoked,
but had not done so that day, as he was without tobacco.
The prisoner, who lived at the adjoining farm, did not as-
sist his neighbour, the prosecutor, alleging as his reason
for not doing so that his wife was in fits the same night,
and that he could not leave her. It was proved that the
prisoner had been served with notice to quit before the
fire took place, and that he had been heard to say there
should be a blaze at Dickinson's before Christmas, and
that after the fire, he said there should be another blaze
before long. Mr. Wilkins then addressed the jury at
considerable length, and in most eloquent terms. He
contended that the probability of the case was, that the
fire was the result of accident only, and not design.
The Jury acquitted the prisoner.
BIG AMY.

John Bacon, 33, was indicted for having married one '
Sarah Edwards, at Liverpool, during the lifetime of his
former wife. It appeared that, in the year 1826, the pri-
soner was married at Bridgewater, to Hannah Rawles,'
with whom he lived some time, and had a daughter ; sub-,
sequently he left Bridgewater, came to Liverpool, and
joined the police force. About two years ago he paid his
addresses to Sarah Edwards, whom he persuaded his wife
was dead, and induced her to marry him. The jury found
the prisoner guilty, and his lordship sentenced him to
twelve months imprisonment in Kirkdale gaol.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-THURSDAY.
TRESPASS AT ROCHDALE-KERSHAW V. JOHNSON
AND ANOTHER.

Mr. Martin proceeded to call witnesses on the part of
the defendants in this case. Four were called, whose tes-
timony went to prove that the plaintiff had sold soap,
potatoes, bacon, and other articles in the house entered
by the defendants; and that it was, in point of fact, re-
gularly used as a shop. The Judge, in summing up. told
the jury that the only question for their consideration was,
whether the sum of 40s. paid into court was a sufficient
compensation for the injury done to the plaintiff by the
entering of his house by the defendants. The jury, after
retiring, returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages,
beyond the 40s. paid into court, £2 10s.
ASSAULT-J. KERSHAW V. JOHNSON AND ANOTHER.
This was an action to recover damages from the defend-
ant in the last case, for an assault upon Joseph Andrew
Kershaw, son of the former plaintiff. After the exanai-
nhtion of the witnesses, the parties came to an arrange-
ment, and a verdict was returned for the plaintiff for
£2 10s., beyond the sum paid into court.

CLAIM AGAINST AN ADMINISTRATOR-POTT AND

OTHERS V. BEVAN.

This was an action on promises, brought by the plain-
tiffs, as assignees of the estate and effects of Weatherby
and Co., bankrupts, who had been bankers at Holywell,
in Flintshire, against the defendant, Edward Bevan.
The declaration was for money lent, money paid and re'•
ceived, and upon an account stated as between the bank-
rupts and John Douglas, and Jos. Sedgwick, deceased.
The defendant denied his liability, and issue was joined.
The jury returned a verdict for £392, and the Judge gave
leave to move to reduce the amount by taking off the in.
terest.

ACTION FOR RENT—PAULDON V. SNAWDON.
The action was for the recovery of £65, one half-year's
rent of a brewery, in Salford, belonging to the plaintlf,
which was due in September, 1843. The defendant
Pleaded first that he was not indebted ; and next a set off,
for instructing the plaintiff's son in the art of brewing and
certain repairs, amounting to a sum equal to the present
claim. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff.
ALLEGED FRAUDULENT PREFERENCE—HOBSON AND
OTHERS V. THOMPSON.
John The plaintiffs,
the,Johenstaßtuetalenrd,
and
assigneestlbs oo° of
effects of Thomas Manley, the younger, a bankrupt, who
Norbury, Richardare t Phoew drell
formerly carried on business as a patent nail manufacturer,
at Chowbent, in this county ; and the defendant was John
Thompson, surviving partner of James Thompson, iron
merchants, of Wigan. In March, 1840, a fiat in bank-
ruptcy was issued against Thomas Manley, and the pre-
sent action was brought to recover the proceeds of four
bills of exchange, amounting to £127 18s. 10d., which, it
was alleged, were sent by him to Messrs. Thompson under
circumstances which constituted the transaction a fraudu-
lent preference. fhe defence was, that the transaction
was a mere exchange of bills, made in the regular course
of trade. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
The court rose at ten minutes before six o'clock.

CROWN COURT.-FRIDAY.
RAPE AT BREIGHTMEL.

Robert Waslam, aged 25, was indicted for having com-
mitted a rape on the body of Margaret Walker, at Breight-
mel. The jury without hearing the reply of counsel for
the prismer, found a verdict of " not guilty." Mr. Wil-
kins said that all the persons who had been of the party
were in attendance, and would have contradicted all the
evidence given for the prosecution. The prisoner was
discharged.