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

BURGLARY.

Thomas Unsworth, 35, (could read and write imper-
fectly) was indicted for entering the dwelling-house of
James Broadhurst, at Culcheth, on the 17th of Septem-
ber last, and stealing therefrom one pair of boots and a
cheese. The prisoner had been seen in the neighbour-
hood of the prosecutor's house on the night in question,
and a pair of boots, which had been left behind by the
party who had committed the burglary were identified as
belonging the prisoner, which caused him to be appre-
hended. The prisoner was found guilty of the felony,
but acquitted on the charge of burglary, and sentenced
to two years' imprisonment.

STABBING.
Jonathan Thompson; 24, (could read,) stood charged
with stabbing Josiah Stott, at Bedford, near Leigh. The
prosecutor keeps a public house at Bedford ; and on the
29th of February last, the prisoner, with others, was
drinking at his house, when some dispute arose between
the landlord and some parties present, and the prisoner
interfered, and, after using some threatening language,
took out a clasp-knife, and struck at the prosecutor in
the face, wounding him severely. Information was
afterwards given to the police, which led to the prisoner's
apprehension. The prisoner was found guilty.
John Stack, convicted of stealing a colt, was brought
up, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
The Court rose at half-past five.

NISI PRIUS COURT.--WEDNESDAY.

LLEGAL DISTRAINT : ALMARK V. DIXON AND ANOTHER

The declaration in this case charged the defendants,
John Dixon and John Martin Newton, with illegally con-
verting certain property belonging to the plaintiff, Thos.
Almark. The defendants pleaded that the property did
not belong to the plaintiff.
Mr. Baines and Mr. Atherton appeared for the plain-
tiff ; Mr. Watson and Mr. Cole for the defendant.
Mr. BAINES stated the case for the plaintiff. This was
an action against the gentleman who lately filled the office
of sheriff of the county of Chester, and one of his officers,
for seizing, under an execution against a person named
Job Almack, property belonging to the plaintiff, who re-
sides at Lindow. The simple plea was, as to the ques-
tion of property, and therefore the inquiry was merely
whether the goods seized under the execution were the
property of Job Almark. The plaintiff was Thos. Almark,
who, for a number of years, had been employed by a gen-
tleman of the name of Formby, as farm servant, at Wig--
thington. He was able to save a considerable sum of
money ; and, some years ago, he became a coal c'ea'er, in
the town of Manchester, and collector of manure, for the
purpose of selling it to the farmers: At the same time
Job Almark, his brother, down to the year 1842, had been
in the occupation of two several farms—one belonging to
some ladies of the name of Norcliffe, and the other to a
person named Frankland. In the early part of the year
18-12 Job gave up possession of the farm belonging to the
Norcliffes, but retained the other. Thomas then left
Manchester, and came to live on the farm left by his bro-
ther. He was accepted as tenant, and he had paid the
rent for the said farm from that day to this. The seizure
complained of took place on these premises; and what
was to be contended by the Sheriff, or rather by the per-
son who indemnified him, was, that the goods which bad
been seized in the house of Thomas Almark were really
the property of Job, but he (the learned counsel) would
show that Job left the premises on which the seizure took
place in the year 1842, and lived at Manchester. He re-
sided in the house of a person named Gibbs, who was the
executor, creditor, and the person putting the same in
motion. After Job had lived on the premises at Man-
chester some time, Mr. Gibbs had a claim, or thought he
had a claim for rent, and brought an action for it. Job
allowed judgment to go by default, an execution was taken
out in November, 1842, and the Sheriff and his officer,
acting on some erroneous information given to them by
Gibbs, seized the goods, which were the subject of the
present action.
Evidence was called to substantiate these statements.
Mr. WATSON addressed the court for the defendants.
He said the simple question for the consideration of the
jury was, whether the goods seized were the property of
Thomas or of Job Almark ; and where, he would ask,.
had Thomas Almark any money to buy the property ? To
surmount this difficulty, which, doubtless, had presented
itself, it had been stated that he was possessed of money
in the Savings' Bank. If this were the case, how easily
would it have been to have produced the bank book. If,
as bad been stated, the property had been transferred,
this could easily have been slown. He should prove in
evidence that up to November, 1843, Job was assessed
for, arid paid in his own name, poor rates, land tax, and
other rates • that after the goods had been seized, both
Job and Thomas went to the collector to get the rates
altered to the name of Thomas, and that at the time of
the seizure of the property Thomas had asked permission
of the officers to take away that portion of the property
which belonged to him (Thomas,) and Job said that if he
could get the property turned over to Thomas, he would
go to law and obtain damages.
Witnesses were called to substantiate these statements.
Mr. BAINES, in reply to the defendants case, conten-
ded that the property had been in possession of the plain-
tiff for years, and that he bad brought it with him from
Manchester at the time his brother Job left his house at
Lindow.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages
£3O.

TRESPASS.
KERSHAW V. JOHNSON AND ANOTHER.
The declaration in this case charged the defendants,
Charles and Peter Johnson, with a trespass in the house
of the plaintiff, James Kershaw. The defendant pleaded
that he had paid £2 into court, and that sum covered all
damages.
Mr. Watson and Mr. Tomlinson appeared for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Martin for the defendant.
Mr. WATSON, in stating the case, said it was for an
unjustifiable trespass, and that done under the colour of
the law, and by a person who, being a servant of the law,
ought to have observed it. The plaintiff is a retired
tradesman, living near Rochdale, and became possessed
of several cottages at a place called Castle-hill Pinfold,
near to Rochdale. The elder defendant, Charles John-