The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-08-20 00:00:00

BURGLARY AT MANCHESTER.

John While (not in the calendar) was indicted for hav-
ing, at Manchester, burglariously entered the premises of
Joseph Harden, and stolen thereout a quantity of leath:r
and currying materials.
Mr. Wilkins conducted the prosecution; the prisoner
was undefended.

It appeared that on the morning of the 15th of the pre-
sent month the prisoner was apprehended in the streets of
Manchester with a large quantity of leather and currying
materials in his possession. He dropped the property im-
mediately, said it was his second offence, and that he
should be transported: and subsequently it turned out
that the robbery had bean committed at Mr. Harden's,
and that an entrance had been effected there by the re-
moval of the coal grid.
The prisoner was convicted and sentenced to transport-
ation for seven years.

BURGLARY AT WALMERSLEY.
Jame: Howorth, (19,) was indicted for having, at Wal-
mersley-cum-Shuttleworth, burglariously entered the
house of his relative, James Howorth, and stolen there-
out a considerable amount of money, about £76, and a
gold ring.
Mr. Brandt prosecuted; the prisoner was undefended.
It appeared that the prosecutor was an innkeeper, and
that on the night of the 7th of July a window was opened
and the property abstracted. Suspicion fell upon the
prisoner, and he was taken into custody ; and he then
made disclosures to the constable, and a confession before
the magistrates, and pointed out the place where a portion
of the property was found.
The prisoner was found guilty and sentenced to 12
calendar months imprisonment and hard labour.
The court adjourned at a quarter past 5 o'clock to 8
o'clock this morning.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—YESTERDAY.
(Before Mr. Justice Cresswell.)
His Lordship took his seat at nine o'clock.
Mr. Baines mentioned that the case of Frazer and
others v. Caldecott the elder, a long case, which would
have come on first, had been settled out of court.
sroain,eratcytiionnAosfhetjoenct-muleidnetrt.oLoybnteairroi
rptOiSle-
EJECTMENT.
bankrupt. Mr. Martin and, Mr. Addison
DoE DEM OULTON AND OTHERS V. OULTON AND
Os session
assignees S
07 -0: ref
rhtai:inw

appeared for the plaintiffs; Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cow-
ling for the defendants.
Mr. MARTIN said that the lessors were the surviving
assignees of John Oulton, who became a bankrupt in
1827 ; and the defendants were Mr. John Oulton himself
and some other persons who were in possession of the
property at the time of the bankruptcy. The property
consisted of a farm called Proutwood Farm, together with
two cottages. The question would be one of law, turning
on the construction of the will of Mr. Newton, who died
in 1826. It appeared that in 1825, Mr. Newton, who was
a gentleman living at Ashton-under-Lyne, made a will,
bequeathing a life estate to one of his daughters. This
daughter married Mr. Oulton, and on the death of Mr.
Newton, they entered into possession. In 1827, Mr.
Oulton became a bankrupt ; his assignees were appointed ;
he appeared and surrendered- and he stated this as part
of the property to which the assignees were entitled.
They were friendly to him, and he was allowed to remain
in possession of it, collecting the rents, and paying them
over to the assignees, and having £3 a week for his trou-
ble. At length the creditors pressed that something
should be done ; steps were then taken in order to get
possession of the property, and on this the bankrupt set
up that his wife was entitled to the possession of this pro-
perty, and that he was not, and that his possession was
as a trustee for her, under the will of her father, and she
claimed to hold against the assignees the possession of this
property. This will was dated Sept. 8, 1825, and Mr.
Newton, after devising a portion of his property to his
daughter Sally, went on to devise to his daughter Mar-
garet, the wife of John Oulton, all his estate consisting
of the Chamber's-hill and Proutwood farms, "to hold
all and every the said estate unto and to the use of my
daughter Margaret, and her assigns, for and during the
term of her natural life," and from and immediately after
her death giving, bequeathing, and devising the same to
the use of the lawful children of his daughter Margaret,
who should be living at the time. On that be (the learned
counsel) contended that she had a legal estate in that pro-
perty, that her husband was entitled to an interest in it,
and that consequently his assignees were entitled to pos-
session.

The will having been put in, the bankruptcy proved,
and the other facts alluded to established,
His LORDSHIP decided that that would do, and directed
a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to a motion to enter a
nonsuit, on the ground that Margaret Oulton had an
equitable title in the property.

NUISANCE.
JONES V. HIGGINSON AND ANOTHER.—Mr. Martin
and Mr. Segar were for the plaintiff; Mr Knowles and
Mr. Cowling for the defendants. The plaintiff, Mr.
John Jones, is a publican, in Turner-street, Manchester;
the defendants, Messrs. Higginson and Lambert, carry
on business as veterinary surgeons, in premises adjacent
to two cottages in Barlow-court belonging to the plain-
tiff; and the question to be tried was whether the de-
fendants were entitled by law to convert certain cottages,
as they had done, into a hospital for horses, which the
plaintiff alleged made such a nuisance that his two cot-
tages, of the yearly value of £9, could no longer be in-
habited. After the case had been partially beard, the
parties agreed to withdraw a juror.