The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1851-08-19 00:00:00

C5O, £2,

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD, TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1851.

He thought the mother somewhat to blame. She was
aware of these meetings from time to time, and if she had
acted properly she ought to have prevented them meeting
except at the church door, when the marriage was to take
place. Looking at all the circumstances, the jury would
have to say what damages the plaintiff was entitled to
recover, leaving out the circumstances of the birth of the
child, which was not an ingredient in the present case.
The JUDGE observed that, however the jury might think
the defendant had brought disgrace on the plaintiff's
family, or degradation on herself, they could not give
damages on that ground. They must compensate the
plaintiff for what she had suffered in her feelings by the
young man not having married her—her loss of health,
and the difference in her worldly position, between being
the wife of a man well off, having an ironmonger's shop,
and in the condition he left her when the breach of pro-
mise took place.

• --
The jury, after consulting for a few minutes, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, £350.
DOE DEM. MILNE v. BlRCH.—Verdict taken by con-
sent for the plaintiff, subject to a reference.
BURY AND ANOTHER (ASSIGNEES) v. PETRIE.—The
plaintiffs were assignees of the estate of J. L. Horrocks, a
bankrupt, and the defendant a merchant in Liverpool.
The action was to recover a sum of £270 155., which the
plaintiffs alleged was received by the defendant under
such circumstances as to entitle the plaintiffs to recover
it for their use as representatives of the estate of the
bankrupt. Mr. Atherton for the plaintiffs, and Mr.
Knowles for the defence. Several witnesses were called,
and the main qnestion, which was one of law, was argued
by the opposing counsel. Verdict for the plaintiffs for
the amount claimed, and leave given to the defendant to
move the court above.

The court adjourned shortly before six o'clock.

FRIDAY

Mr. Justice Williams took his seat at nine o'clock.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins moved for immediate execution
in the case tried on Thursday, wherein £350 damages
were recovered for a breach of promise of marriage. Order
granted.

ARTHUR V. PEDDER.—A HORSE CASE.
This was an action brought by Colonel Arthur, of the
3rd Dragoons, to recover the sum of £2BO from the defen-
dant, Mr. Charles Pedder, formerly a cornet in that regi-
ment, but now a lieutenant in the 39th. From the
statement of Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, on the part of the
plaintiff, it appeared that early in May last the defendant
mentioned to Mrs. Arthur his desire to purchase a pair of
very handsome carriage horses from the colonel, which
the latter, after much hesitation, agreed to, for the sum
claimed in the action. No sooner, however, had the
bargain been concluded, than the colonel offered £5 to
rescind it. At the time of sale it was proposed that the
horses, which were called respectively Governor and
Gaoler, should be examined by a veterinary surgeon, and
the defendant at first named a Mr. Lawson, but subse-
quently changed his mind, and took them upon his own
judgment. He then sent them to London, where they
were kept three weeks, and on application being made for
payment, Cornet Pedder stated that they had not yet been
exarninedt but would cause it to be immediately done, and
would forthwith remit the amount. Subsequently, a cor-
respondence took place, and a veterinary surgeon having
certified that the horses were unsound, the defendant
refused payment, and the plaintiff declined to receive them
back, on the ground that he did not warrant them, that
the defendant had adopted them as his own, and that they
had been driven about London bystrangers.
Evidence was adduced for the plaintiff, in which Mr.
Shaw, the veterinary surgeon of the regiment, stated that
in 1848, or 1849, one of the horses, at least, was unsound,
and that some damage existed also at the time of the sale,
though the horse would stand a certain amount of work in
London harness, when relieved of weight.
Mr.WATSON addressed the jury for the defendant, con-
tending that, at the time of sale, the unsoundness of the
horses being known to Mrs. and Col. Arthur, and their
not having communicated it to the defendant, constituted
what the law called fraud in covenant ; and he condemned,
in strong terms, the colonel in taking what he (Mr. Wat-
son) termed an undue advantage of the defendant's youth,
the latter having only been appointed to the regiment in
1848, while the colonel had been in the service for twenty
years. It was the duty of the colonel and Mrs. Arthur,
knowing this fact, to have communicated it to thedefendant.
Henry Johnson, a groom to Mr. Pedder, deposed that
at the time he fetched away the horses, after their purchase
by his master, Mrs. Arthur asked him if he was about to
take the horses to London ; and, on being told that he
was, to her telling him that, into whosoever's charge he
left then, to request them to have the horses shod pre-
cisely in the same way as they were then shod, their shoes
being on leather, otherwise they would knock their legs
and feet all to pieces, as their action was very high.
Mr. William Field and Mr. Cherry, two London vete-
rinary surgeons, deposed that they had examined the
horses, and that one of them was labouring under a chronic
lameness, which might have existed for many weeks.
Mr. Sergeant WiLiculs replied on the part of the plain-
tiff, eliciting much merriment by the following couplet, in
relation to the defendant :

" Pity the sorrows of a poor young man, who's suffered heavy
losses,

By pleasui•ing about the town, and buying showy haws."
The colonel did not want to sell the horses, and it was
only at the defendant's entreaty that he was induced to
part with them at all. Lieut. Pedder had seen them at
work for years ! he had 'seen them on the tan, with their
legs blistered, and had made inquiries of the veterinary
surgeon • and, well knowing what they were, had agreed
to give die price now sought to be recovered, before the
expiry of the month of May ; yet, although told a day or
two after tht, horses arrived in London, that they were
lame. he did not call Mr. Field in until the 9th June.
The jury returned a verdict for the amount claimed.
BABY V. NICHOLSON.

Undefended cause on a bill of exchange for £360.
Verdict for plaintiff.

SCLIOLEFIF:LD V. DROWN

This was an action of ejectment, brought to recover pos-
session, from the defendant, of a public-house in Oldham.
Verdict for the plaintiff.

HINCHLIFFE, JUN., V. REID

The plaintiff is a cotton-spinner, at Hollinwood, near
Manchester ; the defendant carries on business as a dyer.
in Manchester; and the present action had been brought
to recover the sum of £127 10s., the price of 240 bales of
cotton yarn delivered by the plaintiff. It appeared that
the plaintiff employed an agent named Hardy, who, in the
month of April last, was in negotiation with Mr. Joseph
Stelfox for the sale of some 40's double yarn ; and Hardy,
after declining to deal with Stelfox on his (Stelfox's) own
account, agreed to sell and deliver to the defendant the
goods referred to in the declaration. On the 19th of
April 130 bundles were delivered at the defendant's pre-
mises, and a delivery note given for them ; the remaining
110 bundles being sent in on the 3d of May, when the
defendant's bookkeeper wrote on the delivery book, " On
account of Joseph Stelfox, completing the order of 240
bundles."—The plaintiff denied that he had sold the goods
to Stelfox on his (Stelfox's) own account, and Mr. Hardy
immediately made out an invoice in Mr. Reid's name, and
took the same to his office. The defendant's bookkeeper
then said they had never ordered any yarn from Hinchliffe,
but that they had bought 240 bundles from Stelfox, for
which they had settled by a contrary account, and that
Mr. Stelfox still owed Mr. Reid about £2oo.—His Lord-
ship said there was no doubt that Stelfox sold on his own
account, but the question was, did he do so with the con-
sent of the plaintiff.—The jury stopped the case, and
found a verdict for the plaintiff.

TONGS V. NELSON AND ANOTHER.
This was an action arising out of the disputed validity
of a will.—Verdict for the defendant.

The court rose at a little before eight o'clock.

SATURDAY.
DONALDSON V. MACKENZIE

Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Monk were for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Hugh Hill, Q.C., and another learned
gentleman for the defendant.

This was an action brought against the defendant, an
official assignee of the Manchester District Court of
Bankruptcy, for the recovery of a sum of £74, under the
following singular circumstances :—The plaintiff was a
hawker of tea and drapery, and one of that class
known as " travelling Scotchmen." A few months
since, one David Douglas, pursuing a similar vocation, was
found by the police in a state of intoxication, and con-
%eyed to a station-hou3e in Manchester, where he
was searched, and a parcel containing the sum of
£74 was found upon him. Inspector Sawley, , having
heard of this circumstance, and knowing that
Douglas had, a short time since, been a bankrupt,
and was still uncertificated, immediately communicated
tbo fact to Dr. Mackenzie, the defendant, who therefore
sent and took pun.t.ooion of the parcel containing the
money. Douglas asserted at the times that the money
belonged to a friend of his, who had entrusted Mtn to
deposit it in the bank, and by whom the present action
was brought for its restoration, as it not being the bank-
rupt's own money, it was not therefore liable to be seized
on behalf of his creditors, under the fiat.

Douglas was' called, and stated that the money had
been handed to him by the plaintiff, whom he had known
for many years, to invest in the bank for safety, in con-
sequence of a robbery and murder having been committed
in the neighbourhood in which the plaintiff was staying,
which had impressed him with fear. He underwent a
lengthened cross-examination by Mr. Hill, and prevari-
cated in so great a degree, as to induce the learned Judge
to threaten, on several occasions, to commit him, if he
persisted.

Witnesses were called for the defendant, whose evi-
dence, on one or two points, contradicted that of
Douglas.

Mr. Sergeant WILKINS, in reply, implored the jury to
pause before they imputed fraud to one man and perjury
to another, and send them forth into the world so branded.
The learned JUDGE having summed up in a minute and
impartial manner, the jury retired, and after an absence
of three hours returned a verdict for the defendant.

THE EAST LANCASHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY V. ETTEN

FIELD

This was an action brought by the East Lancashire
Railway Company against the defendant, a land agent, to
recover the sum of £lOO, being the deposit money paid
by the company's agent to the defendant in the treaty for
the purchase of some cottage property in Coronation-
street, Salford.

Mr: Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Segar appeared for the
Company, and Mr. Atherton, Q.C., and Mr. Monk for
the defendant.

It appeared frcm the statement of the learned counsel,
and the evidence adduced, that the defendant had been on
various occasions, in January last, in treaty with a Mr.
Turtill for the purchase of some houses belonging to the
latter. These negociations were represented by the de•
fendant to be carried: on oa behalf of a Mr. George Brad-
shaw (the compiler of the Railway Guide), but in reality
they ware on behalf of the. Railway Company. Mr. Ads-

head, the agent for the company, agreed to purchase this
property at a sum of £2,500. At this time the defendant
stated that he had authority to sell the property
for £2,000, when, in fact, at that time he had no
such authority, as Mr. Turtill had stated he would not
take less than £2,600. On the 9th of January the de-
fendant agreed with Mr. Adshead for the sale of the
property to the company for £2600. The defendant met
Mr. Turtill at a sale-room in Manchester, and they went
out together, accompanied by Mr. Turtill's nephews, to
the Gibraltar Tavern. The defendant produced some
papers, and after having agreed to give £2600, he said,
" Turtill you must come down in your price ;" you talked
the other day about 8 per cent., which amounted to £2400;
cottage property is a drug in the market, and I understand
you are going to America, therefore you had better con.
sent to take £2400." He at length prevailed upon
Turtill to take £2200, having received authority from the
Company to give £2600. The defendant said he did not
wish to charge him commission, but would be satisfied
with all he could obtain beyond the £2200. These terms
were at length agreed to. Upon the 9th January, having
previously agreed with Mr. Adshead for £2600 the
defendant produced a written agreement for the, sale
at £2200, or such other sum as he should
agree upon, for Mr. Turtill's execution. A short
period after this agreement had been signed, Mr.
Turtill heard th ,t the defendant had been making in-
quiries respecting some property belonging to a Mr.
Royle, and, therefore, suspected that he had been treat-
ing for the railway company; and upon questioning the
defendant, he admitted it ; and that Mr. Bradshaw had
only lent his name to the company. On the Bth January,
an agreement had been entered into with Mr. Adsheal
and the defendant for the purchase of this property for
£2,600. This agreement was not executed until some
days afterwards, as the solicitor of the company required
him to produce proof of his agency to carry out the offer,
whereupon he produced a written authority from Mr.
Turtill, in which the price was not mentioned. The
agreement having been signed, Adshead paid the defendant
£lOO. which was the subject of the present action. The
defendant subsequently went to Mr. Turtill and requested
him to deliver up the title deeds of the property. Mr.
Turtill refused to comply, because the defendant had
represented to him that he was about to purchase the
property for Mr. Bradshaw, when, in fact, he was doing
so on behalf of the railway company In consequence of
this refusal, on the part of Mr. Turtill, the solicitor to
the Company called upon him, and ultimately drew up
an agreement, which was executed on the 14th January.
Upon Mr.Turtill perusing this agreement, he saw that the
property had been sold to the Company for £2,600, and
this, as he alleged, after the defendant had told him that
he could get for it no more than £2,200. Mr. Turtill
then repudiated the negociation with the-defendant, stat-
ing that he should deal with the Company himself. The
Company finally agreed to give the sum of £2,400;
Turtill relinquishing his claim to the £lOO. On the part
of the plaintiffs it was contended that the transaction
was fraudulent, and such as they were not bound to carry
out, and therefore they demanded from the defendant the
deposit money of £lOO, which the defendant had received
from their agent, and which they maintained the defendant
had received for their use.

Mr. ATHERTON and Mr. MONK contended that there
was no privity between the parties to the agreements;
that the privity of contract lay between the defendant
and Mr. Turtill, by whom the action ought to have been
brought. A long and technical discussion ensued on this
point, after which the learned Judge put it to the jury
whether the agreements were obtained by fraud. The
jury appeared to think they were, and immediately re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.

YESTERDAY.

WHITWORTH V. THE MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, AND

LANCASHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. Hugh hill, Q.C., and Mr. Bernie appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Watson, Q.C., and Mr. Monk for the
defendants. This was an action which had been originally
brought for the recovery of £652 3s. Id., being a balance
of an account for goods sold and delivered, and also for
the recovery of £261 15e 3d. for interest to the present
time. The sum of £626 6s. 9d. had been paid into court,
leaving a balance of £25 16s. 4d. upon the goods account.
The defendants denied their liability, and also for the pay-
ment of interest. The plaintiff was a manufacturer of
engineers' tools, carrying on business in Manchester, and
had on various occasions supplied the defendants with
goods. On one occasion the Company were not ready
to receive them on account of the incomplete state
of thrtir works, and they allowed them to remain on
the premises of the plaintiff. Notice was served on the
Company, requesting them to take them away, and some
time afterwards the Company sent for the tools. During
the time the tools were so lying in the plaintiff's ware-
house another order was sent and goods supplied, and no
complaint was made. In the course of the correspond-
ence which had taken place, no objections had been made
to the payment of interest, which had been mentioned.
The defendants now refused to pay interest, and it was
contended, on:the part of the plaintiff,that interest accrued
subsequently to the commencement of the action.
Mr. WATSON contended that there was no proof of Mr.
Peacock's authority to give the orders for the tools : that
in order to bind the Company the contract should have
been under their common seal, and that there was no act
done on the part of the company rendering themselves
legally liable for the payment of the interest, which was
the main point of dispute, and that by virtue of the statute
interest did not accrue subsequent to the action.
The Learned JUDGE asked the jury whether they
thought the plaintiff was entitled to interest by virtue of
the terms of the correspondence, to which they replied in
the affirmative, and found a verdict for the amount
claimed, leave being given to the defendants tD move the
court above on any point• that tliey might thick expedient.

OGDEN V. HILTON AND OTHERS.—TRESPASS.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL stated the plaintiff's case,
and Mr. Serjcant Wilkins defended. The plaintiff had
resided some years in Ciiatterton, in a tenement belong-
ing to Abraham Hilton, and having married his daughter
became entitled in her right to a share of the property.
A short time since, the plaintiff was forcibly ejected
from the house by the defendants, which trespass was the
cause of the present action. After some discussion,
during which it appeared that there was no actual dispute
as to the title, both sides consented to withdraw a juror.
HAYES V. WILLIAMS.—THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS-
-TiliS was an action to recover payment of a promissory
note for £lOO, made as far back as the year 1839. In order
to prevent the operation of the statute of limitations, the
plaintiff sought to establish the payment of interest within
the six years. Witnesses on both sides were examined ;
and the jury, after a few minutes' consultation, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff.

GARLYSTIGSRY V. ALEXANDER.
Mr. Hoggins, Q.C., and Mr. Jones were for the plain-
tiff; and Mr. Temple for the defendant. This action was
brought to recover the sum of £126 155., being the ba-
lance of a debt of £244 155., for goods supplied by the
plaintiff, a merchant of Liverpool, to the defendant,
a shipowner, of Cumberland. It appeared that defendant
ordered a large quantity of hardware of the plaintiff, to be
exported in his vessel, the Ann Falknen, to South
America, and it was contended, on the part of the
plaintiff, that he was to be paid at the time of deli-
very, partly in cash, and partly by an acceptance at
four months' date. The defendant contended that the
"acceptance" was not to be a negotiable intruments
but only by way of security, that the plaintiff had agreed
to await the result of the voyage for payment for the goods,
and which, if unsold, were to be exchanged for others.
Evidence of a contradictory nature was gone into at great
length, and the learned counsel having addressed the jury
they retired, and had not delivered their verdict when the
court rose.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

FRIDAY

- .
SHOP ROBBERY.-A lad, named Lawrence Johnson, was
committed for trial for having stolen two pairs of trouseis
from the shop of Mr. Morris, in Scotland-road.
A BRUTAL HUSBAND.—John Kennedy, who keeps a marine
store in the neighbourhood of Sefton-street, was charged with
a brutal assault upon his wife. A police-officer, in conse-
quence of information he had received on the preceding even-
ing, went into the prisoner's house, where he found the wife
insensible and bleeding. Kennedy, on the appearance of the
officer, left his wife and attacked him. Fined or two
months' imprisonment.

THE FRACAS IN LACE-STREET.-401111 Savage and his wife
applied to Mr. Mansfield for a summons against the Rev.
Charles Cooke, one of the clergymen attached to the Chapel of
the Holy Cross, for an assault committed by the priest on the
complainant. The magistrate, having heard the statement
made by Savage, granted, the summons gratis. It appears
that Savage—who is an artizan, on "tramp," and who has
recently come from London—took up his lodging, with his
wife, at a house in Lace-street, on Tuesday night. On the
following morning, about eleven o'clock, the Rev. Mr. Cooke
came to the house (which is occupied by Roman Catholics),
in the course of his ministrations; and, as alleged by the
complainant, struck him on learning that he was not a Roman
Catholic. A row ensued; and Wright, the keeper of
the Rose-bill station, WHO twn other officers, had the greatest
difficulty in protecting the complainant from the violence of
the mob. From Lace-street to Marybone the people had
assembled in thousands. A cry arose that the priest had been
stabbed; upon this a rush was made upon the police, and an
attempt to drag Savage away, who was struck two or three
times. The mob continued to shout and yell, threatening to
tear the complainant to pieces ; but be was ultimately securely
lodged in bridewell, under the protection of the police. The
mob, in the meantime, returned to the house in Lace-street,
and destroyed everything there belonging to Savage.
STOLEN WATCHES.—PaImer, one of the Birmingham detec-
tive officers, stated that on Monday, the 4th instant, he saw a
man known to hint as one of a notorious gang called the
" Thompson-street gang," in New-street, Birmingham. He
followed the man, and saw him receive a small parcel at the
Post office. Palmern at once apprehended him, and found that
lie had just received a small box containing a gold watch,
directed to James Turner;' but Palmer stated that the man's
name was Carrol. On inquiry, Palmer found that the watch
had been sent from Liverpool, and, with the assistance of the
police here, the owner was traced, and be came down from
London to give evidence in the case. The gentleman, whose
name is Hughes, stated that he was in Liverpool on the night
of the Ist instant, and went to the Amphitheatre ; on his return
to his hotel, the George, he discovered that he had been
robbed—his watch guard had been cut, and the watch stolen.
Mr. Mansfield told Palmer that the Birmingham police ought
to take care of their own thieves, and directed him to return
to Birmingham with the case. .

AN INGENIOUS THIEF.—Hugh Owens was charged with
stealing a coat and a satin neck-tie, under the following sin-
gular circumstances :—On the night of Saturday, the2d instant,
a woman and a girl went into the shop of Mrs. Jones, woollen-
draper, Dale-street, inquired the price of some barragan, and
left the shop. Soon after, the prisoner Owens came in; he
feigned to be a foreigner, and with apparent difficulty made
the person in the shop comprehend that he wanted a neck-
handkerchief. A box, containing six neck-ties was placed
before him, but they were not of a right pattern; and, being
unable to describe the peculiar style of neck•tie suited to his
looks, the foreigner, by this time enraged at the obtuseness of
the English, took off his jacket, which he opened upon a new
coat which was lying on the counter,- and with great impatience
pointed to the lining of hisjacket as the identical patterwbe
wanted the handkerchief of, land then indignantly walked out
of the shop, hastily snatching up his jacket from the counter.
The man had not left thee, shop long before it was found that, in

carried Off tbe
the heat of his passion most -probably, lie had .3.
_..he
new coat with his jacket, and what wai most surprt_iall!_
rejected necktie had vanished as well. Owens must h_rsltitif
covered his mistake on his arrival home, for he intor„joa.
sent his daughter out to pledge his coat at Hayman 'rroaCe
broker's shop, Whitechapel. Owens, who professes topdoctcb
the very opposite vocations of boiler maker and quack
was committed to prison for two months.
Ortel
EXTENSIVE ROBBERY OF PAFER.—Joseph
in the employ of Mr. Wade, paper-dealer, Canning-Plauopot
charged with stealing upwards of 30 reams of paper, two:4o
bags, a quantity of canvas, &c., valued at £l6 or di-Idt de,
his employer. Mr. Wade did not miss the propertY
tective Police-officer Marks called upon him, and askeof
he had missed any paper from his warehouse, when, oPFend the
astmreineta,tilovnh,ohies dinisctoivieerehd,ibtiltmot
fhperihnatdin,gand accompanied
officer to Mr. Heath's, the Colosseum music-saloon, Pat the
premises, and there found 23 reams of papleiris,
fled as his propel ty. Air. Heath stated that the?til.ineed
him some samples of paper (about the 16th ot 0.
and he (Mr. Heath) then gave him an order for several Tale
which were delivered and paid for. From that timelv,
present he gave the prisoner various orders, which were,,
wise delivered and paid for. The receipts were alwaysZeil
in the name of Warburton. S. Kiernan em loved bY `, psi
witness as a printer and money-taker at the Colosse°_"'sbtea
known the prisoner a number of years, who lately repTl:s ep).
to him that he received the paper in lieu of wages from 004
plover; and if he (Kiernan) could assist him in disposin,.srokr
lie would allow him a commission. Witness accord
to Mr. Heath on the subject, and was told to infortniT,Ati
soner to leave samples. Witness afterwards left 31r. ,71iiel
employ, and gave the prisoner an order for a ream of 0.1;40
double-crown paper for his own use, for which he ProLnjaieid
pay 12s. 6d.; only used five quires of it, and sold the rel", jotor
portion of it (15 quires) to Mr. Taylor, printer, of Nort,_,"„atlll
street, for Bs. 6d. Witness has since returned to Mr, r.`,
whichown bills
e ilude"erlt
be
establishment. The prisoner was committed for trial a n•
sessions.
h
RaEllll,YelsOlFunAan7wßisioE.B—poJkoeseEp::.g%li'sichkseorsbasvdal
Wm. Jones, a seaman, was committed to prison torsi/tl,
for stealing a pair of boots from a vessel in one of the dot7it)
charM,eg
stealing a purse, containing .61 4s , from the person of j;:
ter'
Jones,R'B
preter was found necessary. The prisoner's employer, Ito;
and patten-maker, gave him a good character, and the° sod
•ty. trate stated that, as there was a doubt as to his identi est!ti
none of the missing money found upon him, although "I'd Id die'
at the moment the alleged robbery took place, he WO
charge him. that an cog

TU. be.
John Dawkins, late SA
tax-colßDAYlector at Tranmere, bae 030.,nt
arrested at at the suit of the Crown, as defaulter to the •
of .t'l66 7s. Bd. He has been lodged in Chester Castle.
STABBING BY A WOMAN.—A woman of bad charaeter,n a gin
Hannah Lind, was charged with a savage assault urthe
named Mary Toole. It appeared that on the Ist insi-gerser
women quarrelled at Mr. Hudson's public-house' and street; the prisoner followed the girl into Park-lane l'llB
bed her with a penknife in the face, shoulders and hen,ub•
asle,er
girl has been in the Southern Hospital ever since, and or VP'
the sight of one of her eyes. Prisoner was committed ,
at the assizes. $
„, STREET FRAUDS.—A man of sailor-like appears
rt
short stiff beard, named Daniel Tobin, was brought uP
with obtaining money by false pretences. The comPlooo.
were three rustic boys, who had arrived in a cheat' etey lOC train from Preston. In passing along Dale-stree they
accosted by the prisoner, who induced them to accoraP:„dzer
to a public-house to bargain for a real "China silk niZiotai
chief." The man said the price of the article was four L.ill,
but the boys could not muster tliht much moue)! a"otbvi
them. The fellow, who it appears was accompanied ilt.
not
man, then asked the boys to see how much they had Poo
of them emptied all the money he had, fourteenPence' bo cap, and it was immediately seized by the prisoner, n',.bief
Io
seated the lad with a highly glazed cotton handkeruto pan_
exchange. The other boys could not be prevailed ullo°„ce tbr
with their money. Complaint being made to the PZellt.:
prisoner was taken into custody and conveyed belror
Mansfield. Mr. Dowling said there was a gang °f tom
fifty fellows of this description, who
prowled about tLeagiel,
and stood at the corner of streets in order to defraud s.,.';':doels
out of their money, under pretence of selling silk handau`
and foreign cigars. The prisoner was remanded.

CHESHIRE AND NORTH WALES.
21
ej
On Tuesday morning, Harriet Lawningtou,
years, residing in Oliver-street, Birkenhead, died suu",,-00e0
morning
aomBvriennrvi.gen
cutting their corn early last week, the late fine we---0111'
The grand jury of the Cheshire Assizes, in acco
with a commendable custom in this county, °roe'
jrgrailynGrfdaareriynrmeedrderrioinstd
I,irsnoetfat. hdßleyijrafkoreryn:he Hundredsi
sickle
if e Wirralsooner
for an improvement in the misawcCah
past eight on Tuesday morning last. tett
dlf
ecdlialerebtayhnd
motion from steam-engines or other motive powers --
ki
Lathom,rNNCko: sivae William
et
situatetta
cAn
o' rd
ut oep
nNioadn. n—o
dwsT,
the construction of rudders for
richvesses.
dihn,uehrrcayhs ,ftoark
:on m Chester,omtt at
• t Jani
consecrated by the Bishop of Chester this day (Fie" shot
the
eoi
constable
aC,sttiheantbE l
taehrroofoff
parishuDSoe ari
ythl,
so.
a:,
ib
himself through the head last week, with an air e4st°„„edill
died in about an hour. He had been greatly dePre'.
consequence of pecuniary embarrassments.
forth
CHESTER AND HOLYHEAD RAlLWAY.—Tra....c:jive,
week ended 10th instant :—Passengers, C. & H. re,8:130159
£2954 18s. 7d. ; Mold, £47 ss. 4d. ; steam.boaio!
ls. sd. ; total, £3661 ss. 4d.—Parcels, C. & math Zd';
£Bl 3s. 6d.; Mold, £1 7s. 3d. ; steam-boats, £25,1' oils
total, £lOB 3s. lid.—Goods, cattle, &c., C. 84 .V. 9176.
line, £486 18s. 4d. ; Mold, £B2 19s. sd. ; total, X.'`'
9d. -Mails, £s7s.—Total receipts, £4914 7s. .t.thabl'
ANOTHERDEFAULTINGTAX-COLLEcTOR%TheI 4.00
tants of Tratunere appear to be particularly unfort „Jo
in their selection of tax-collectors no loss than 1:01s,
having been declared defaulters within the last s.ix,Yd the
Last week Thomas Dawkins, who had scarcely rie;f tb,te
situation twelve months, was arrested at the Id- orl"
Crown, as defaulter to the amount of £166 7s.
lodged in Chester Castle.
oingao
HOLYHEAD HARBOUR.—The works fcr the ad "-
and formation of the new breakwater at HoIYV west'
steadily progressing. The wharf commenced on °eat the
ern side of the harbour, for the accommodationlir
to terse cs
Irish cattle traffic, has been abandoned, ocving,,. pa
practicability of making a deep channel from tn-a
of the inner harbour up to the proposed wher"jt-cre
quenco of the hard and rocky ground. The ea' f,
of the harbour is now spoken of. Ole
(AS 10
AN OLD OFFENDER.—James Fulton, a no,ort
toe
who was apprehended in Birkenhead about three wbefeo
ego, on a charge of escaping from Knutsford gaol, OSA,
he was undergoing a sentence of imprisonment °'
• d o 0 leaded
months, for a robbery in Birkenhead, was tried les
nesday at the Chester assizes. The prisoner Ptiofoti
guilty to stealing an officer's uniform from I‘Booo.
gaol and to other charges of robbery, and was 3fien
to ten years' transportation.—An Irishman named oe_
Holywood, committed to the Knutsford sessilidoK
charge of robbing Stanley Youds, a farmer at.„l„stres
of some money and other articles, in BeckwiL"Ofr
Birkenhead, was convicted at the Chester assizes °goo f
nesday, and sentenced to seven years' transportt 11,10
PROPOSED MEETING IN CHESHIRE.—We r for P-0
to learn that a nucleus is forming in the county ttica ,e
for the holding of a meeting to take into considerned tei,
depressed state of British industry generally, 800 ad,
well .hod
especially the agricultural interest, for the WO tbe01.,4,
cussing the propriety of a combined resistance ti?_o;
sure of free trade as the cause of such depresslyegal
consequently, the necessity of obtaining, by alto our Pcisa
constitutional means, an effective modification o 0000
sent fiscal and commercial policy. It is further p opojr
to consider whether a uniform expression of t"-ab csiar
of the county should be made to support only to
pro
dates at the next general election as will advoca eofiess
tion and security for British industry.—Chester eaur's6
--h
THE STEPHENSON BANQUET ATBANGOR.
per ~f
of this festival in honour of the eminent eng°3:' Tab
Chester and Holyhead Railway and the Britanniant,iseos
Bridge, advertised to take place on the 27th itlans et,fhe
beyond all question, and to obtain good nes`.fiy- str
tables, parties should apply for their tickets e",. efertiolt
fete will be the greatest affair of the kind tha._ 00'4
cursed in the Principality. It is expected that t.n,r atteily
gentry of Wales and the railway celebrities wilotoo-re
A splendid pavilion has been erected for the accocottatt
tion of five hundred persons, and all the arrange reoo;st
on the most liberal scale. The Hon. Colonel„„ptily.,
M.P., the president, has subscribed £5O to the
expenses fund, and William Bulkeley Hughes,
one of the vice-presidents, £lO. 11084'
00, ,g
GRAND ORDER OF MODERN DRUIDS.-- "as, f
evening last, the Loyal Pride of Birkenhead -Torsek,
300 of this order. celebrated their sixth anntbo P.,nt
Host Coglan's, Hamlet Tavern, Woodside, ot,
.11401,
st
and brethren sitting down to a sumptuous rePoithuaasifo
by the worthy host in his best style. After therosii,eed
of the cloth, P.A. Joseph Downham was uccaPi beef
called to the chair. P.A. Alexander Scott ° 0
vice-chair. After the usual loyal toateroapert4st
disposed of, the chairman gave " The -% its b` eretr
the Lodge," and, in a neat speech, reviewed progPolef;
and congratulated the brethren upon 0° recto the
position. P.A. Luke Duff, of Seacom°B'apea OA"
About nine o'clock the rooms were throw°Da ocie'
oil
wives and sweethearts of the members. was ,0
commenced, and was continued to a late houilifit
rst 70
EISTEDDFOD IN FLINT.—The town Of the fi,,;11/
Thursday last enlivened by an Eisteddfod k piscep", patei
believe, ever held there. The meeting °cid Int t 00'1
Old Castle Green, under a large tent crectebly Jobe
pose, and was most numerously and respect titers,
by a large sprinkling of Cambria's fair deut.d the form
Prys Eyton, Esq., of Llanerchymore, oelelve ustiabLiaterio'
and the Eisteddfod having been opened " actrY..o%
the various prizes were contended for in P
and the useful arts. At intervals the 4 flariVettaive
addressed in English by Sir John Han and effel/01i
Hume, Richard Gardner, Esq., the maY°v.,; rbil°Ble
by strains from the Holywell Band al.iru_ on 01'1404
Society, as well as by some exquisite to 2 I.
." 0",10,
harp, by Ellis Roberts, harpist to „one°
Wales. The contest for the best li.en°baing tow
Welsh harp was very spirited—the Prize odes 81, bay
by Mr. Jones, of Liverpool. Several
.0,1 iverpoo,o,
were exhibited, Mr. W. C, Miller, t
MALICIOUS ARREST.—At the Chesten a:'r tarrostr.-po 0
day, an action to recover conspensnatti aord
been the judge. In the evening a coneerr....V,h°l3..tee..,t.
arrest was brought by Mr. Hernia, "oasts, Crlpf
by birth, but descended of Englissn ~.ad au
prop's
plaintiff v" dents bad be
attorneys,as
Northwich. The feadan se
of saltworlcs at Winsford, and the oe ,80, whosatlldi
resident in Liverpool, against Messrll-I°,7the Piria'or
attorneys for him him up to March, soften
..taierbi.
n settleeleafter It°
owing them £305 15s. 9d., which Igso, the Fet r°dir
duced to £122 13s. 7d. In May, .
brother tendered £lOO to Mr. Greeuntliff
shartlfoofie f,
bill, but this was refused. The Plal_nd was reffcei
posed of his business at Winsford, ea_ order the;;li
one 0. Pad
Baron 0' "10 disc
fendants Platt, obtained on the abroad Is disc ide,
fendants that the plaintiff was golngrafterwarudaats,l
meat of his debts. The order wasfthe ate" &Or) 4
by Mr. Baron Parke. The bill 0
re r the d—ehen -
taxed, only amounted to £BB. - nag for OIL
Liverpool, when he was arrested on u
the plaintiff was about leaving the mope
found a verdict for the plaintiff,
urged that they had reasonable g!!! otiatrY'rartr*.