The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-04-04 00:00:00

Evidence having been given in support of the facts of the
case,

Mr. DUNDAS, on the part of the defendants, submitted
that there was no case proved. There was no proof at all of
the knowledge of the defendants that the bales were not the
same as the samples; and he submitted to his lordship that
his friend's law was wrong.
The JUDGE.—There is no proof of knowledge. I am afraid
it is a necessary ingredient in this case, and I see no evidence
at all of it.

Mr. WORTLEY submitted, that it was their duty to have
known, and that they ought to have known. Here were
merchants at Liverpool importing cotton falsely packed, and
then, when they came to sell that cotton in the market here,
they gave no opportunity for examining the bales, and what
he submitted to the court was this, that they were bound to
know, and, if they put it in that way, they should show that
they did not know.

The JUDGE.--I should tell the jury, that you must make
out on your part, that the defendants knew that there was a
fraud committed, or otherwise they are not liable.
Mr. WORTLEY.—Perhaps you will give me leave to move
-to enter a verdict.

Mr. DuNDAs.I-You were to make out a case against
those gentlemen of fraud. You have made out no case.
The JUDGE.—You must either submit to be non-suited,
,or I must tell the jury that your case is not made out.
Mr. WORTLEY.—Your lordship will not give me leave
to move to enter a verdict, and I shall tender a bill of excep-
tions.

The Junnx.—No ; because it is not made out.
The jury, under the direction of his lordship, then returned
a verdict for the defendants.

CROWN COURT.-SATURDAY.

MANSLAUGHTER.
Thomas Bathels, aged 40, was charged with having, at
West Houghton, killed a boy, named William Woodward.
On the 2nd of January last the prisoner had charge of a cart,
in which he, the deceased, and a boy were riding. The horse
ran off at a gallop, the cart was upset on the top of the three,
and the deceased was killed on the spot. There was no dis-
tinct evidence of carelessness on the part of the prisoner, and
the jury, without requiring the evidence to be summed up,
found a verdict of acquittal.

STABBING.
Richard Smith, aged 45, was charged with feloniously
cutting and stabbing Richard Hendley, at Bradshawgate,
near Bedford, in this county. The jury acquitted the pri-
soner.

ASSAULT.
Henry Winram, aged 24, was indicted for having, at Orr/ff.:-
kirk, in September last, maliciously cut and wounded Henry
Worthington, the younger, with intent to do him grievous
bodily harm ; also with having cut and wounded Henry Wor-
thington, the elder. It appeared, that some words had taken
place between the prosecutor and the prisoner's wife, and,
afterwards, with the prisoner himself, who fenihed a small
poker and struck the parties named on the head. The judge,
on seeing the weapon, said this could be nothing more than
an assault, at the most ; and, as the prisoner had already suf-
fered six months' imprisonment. the jury might find a verdict
of acquittal, which they did, and the prisoner was discharged.
CARELESS DRIVING.
A decent-looking and remarkably stout man, named Shaw,
and a boy, named loner, were charged with having, at Man-
chester, killed and slain a little boy, eight years old, by
running over him with a spring cart. It appeared that the
child had been attempting to reach an omnibus which was
going in the opposite direction, and that he was run over by
mere accident. His Lordship stopped the case, after hearing
some of the evidence, and directed an acquittal.' His Lord-
ship remarked, that coroners ought to be more cautious
in taking evidence in such cases, as it was grievous that par-
ties should suffer imprisonment on a charge so untenable.

MANSLAUGHTER.
Joseph Andrews (who had been out on bail) was charged
with killing and slaying one Brian Larney. It appeared that
there had been a general brawl amongst the deceased and his
companions, at the pUblic-house kept by the prisoner, near
Eccles, and that the whole party were fighting with sticks
and other weapons. The case was stopped, and his Lord-
ship discharged the prisoner.

SHOOTING.
George Caley, aged 24, was charged with being, on the 19th
January, with others, in certain enclosed land in Crouton,
for the purpose of taking or destroying game, he being armed
with a gun ; and Joseph Sim, 25, was charged, along with
him, with having there and then feloniously shot at and
wounded Robert Wareing, with intent to resist and prevent
the apprehension of the said prisoner, and to do him bodily
harm. The prosecutors failed to make out the case against
either party, and both prisoners were acquitted.

BIGAMY.

William Radcliffe, a young man, pleaded guilty to a charge
of bigamy. It appeared that the second wife was aware that
he was previously married. The injury done to her was,
therefore, in his Lordship's opinion, not so great, and he
should, therefore, deal with him more leniently. The pri-
s oner was sentenced to four months' imprisoument and bard
labour in Kirkdaie Gaol.

MANSLAUGHTER.
Joseph Hall was indicted for killing and slaiting, at Bolton,
a child, two years old, named Charles Fords, EY carelessness
in driving a cart of which he had charge. It appeared, on
the showing of Mr. Wilkins, who was for the defence, that
the deceased was, in the indictment, called Charles Forts.
This was a flaw fatal to the case, and a verdict of not guilty
was recorded. His Lordship, on discharging the prisoner,
stated, that it was reprehensible in him, under the circum-
stances, to leave the horses' heads.

POACHING.
Two men, John Kulshaw and Richard Johnson, were in-
dicted for having been in a preserve in Bickersteth, on the
29th December, and with having cut and wounded James
Pinnington and Edward Wainwright, with intent to do them
some grievous bodily harm. It appeared that the affray had
been commenced by the prosecutors, who behaved with great
brutality to the prisoners. His Lordship said, that the
affray had commenced illegally on the part of the prosecutors,
and the case resolved itself, as regarded the prisoners, into a
matter of self-defence.. He; accordingly, directed an acquit-
tal. The prisoners, who were defended by Mr. Wilkins,
were detained to be tried on a future day, on another indict-
ment, for being armed with.intent to destroy game.
Samuel Cowburn, aged 30, was charged with having, at
West Houghton, t ntered a close of William Hulton, Esq.,
armed with a bludgeon, for the purpose of taking and de-
stroying game. The prisoner was, it was stated, one of seven
poachers, and had a dog with him, at which one of the
keepers fired. The poachers then set upon the keepers with
large sticks, and beat them, cutting one of them on the head.
The last witness said he was severely cut on the forehead,
which he showed, but there did not appear to be any marks.
The Jury returned a verdict of guilty of assault only, and
sentence was deferred.

ARRAIGNMENTS.
A number, of prisoners were then brought up to the bar to
plead to the charges against them, chiefly burglaries. They
nearly all pleaded not guilty. Amongst them were the two
Lucases, charged with having received a large quantity of
silks, knowing them to have been stolen.

SENTENCES.
Thomas Monaghan and Mary, his wife, (who had previ-
ously been tried on a Mint case, when the male prisoner was
found guilty,) were now charged with stealing, at Salford, a
quantity a woollen cloth. No evidence was brought against
them.

Thomas Monaghan, for the offence against the Mint, was
sentenced to be imprisoned at Kirkdale and kept to hard
labour for five months.

James Daniels, convicted of burglary, was sentenced to be
imptisoned for eight months and hard labour.
Margaret Bibby and Thomas Howard had pleaded guilty
to a burglary at North Meols. Bibby had before been con-
victed, and was sentenced to. be transported for ten years.
She filled the court with her screams. Howard, whose
offence Was not very aggravated, was sentenced to be im-
prisoned for five months.

- Edward Knight, a respectably-dressed man, pleaded guilty
to three charges of robbing his master. Seven years' trans-
portation.

George Wood, a well-dressed young man, pleaded guilty
to two charges of forging bills of exchange. He had also
before obtained money under false pretences. He was sen-
tenced to be transported for fifteen years.

Edward Burns, aged sixteen, pleaded guilty to having
forged an order for money. To be imprisoned and kept to
hard labour two years.

James Boardman, for stealing a young calf in the neigh-
bourhood of this town, pleaded guilty. He had already
suffered six months' imprisonment, and was sentenced to be
further imprisoned six months.
William Johnson pleaded guilty to committing a burglary.
He had before been convicted of burglary. The sentence
was, that he be transported for ten years.
The court rose at a quarter past six o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.--SATURDAY.
MATHER v. ALLEN.—In this action the plaintiff sought
to recover damages from the defendant, for criminal conver-
sation with the plaintiff's wife, at Clieetharn-bill, Manches-
ter, about midsummer last. Mr. Dundas, with two other
learned gentlemen, appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Wortley
and Mr. Watson for the defendant.
A jury having been sworn,
Mr. DUNDAS said, in this case it had been agreed that a
verdict
the sums
of £250.e hould b entered, by consent, for the plaintiff, for
A verdict was then formally returned for the plaintiff for
£250; costs, 40s.
TsmvLizTori v. HAYWARD.—This was an action brought
to recover the sum of £l9O, money had and received by the
defendant for the use of they la
The defendant put in
two pleas, on both of which issue was joined, first, that be
was not indebted, and second, that the money had been paid
before the action was brought.
The case for the plaintiff, as it appeared in evidence, was
as follows :—The plaintiff is Peter Buchanan Templeton, a
shorthand-writer, in which capacity, it was stated, he had

action, they charged the defentimits, Messre, huth and Co.
with having represented that this was good Orleans cotton•
The samples were of good Orleans cotton ; the bulk of the
cotton turned out decidedly not to be of that character.
There was no warranty given to the purchaser of cotton : and
he could only resort to such an action as this to recover the
loss he had sustained by It fraudulent representation of this
kind. And when he said " fraudulent representation," do
not let it be understood that he meant a real moral fraud.
'Whether Messrs. Huth and Co. were aware of this at the
time it was committed, or not, he did not know; but it was
not necessary that there should be a real moral fraud ; all
that they had to establish was, that there was such a legal
fraud as made them liable to compensate the plaintiff for the
toss he had sustained. It was perfectly clear that Mr. Orin-
rod could recover it from nobody else.' Whether Messrs.
Huth and Co. imported the cotton from America or anywhere
else was immaterial ; they were the parties to whom the
plaintiff had to look for compensation. The only person
against whom Mr. Ormrod could proceed, was against the
merchant of Liverpool, who had imported the cotton ; and
who, standing in the market in Liverpool, was in the same
position as the grower. If Messrs. Huth and Company had
been deceived by the American cotton planter, they could
bring an action against him ; and thus each party could be
compensated, and justice would be done. The learned coun-
sel then quoted the case of Polhill v. Walter, in which it was
laid down that even where there was no moral fraud on
the part of the defendant, yet he was liable to compensate in
such a case. He should show distinctly that the sample was
good Orleans cotton, that there was no opportunity of
examining the bales, that there was no warranty given, and
therefore the plaintiff had no remedy except by bringing this
action. Be understood one part of the defence would be,
that there was a custom in Liverpool to this effect : that let
a man make a representation, however false, respecting the
quality of cotton, if the bales were not unpacked, and the
truth discovered within 12 months, the remedy was gone. if
such a custom were in existence, it must be proved. He be-
lieved there was no such custom, and he should submit to his
lordship that such a custom would be invalid and unreason-
able. He could understand a custom such as this, to give a
warranty which should last only for twelve months, and that,
within twelve months, a purchaser might return the cotton,
Such a custom might be reasonable in law. Even if it were
proved that a custom existed, that, after twelve months, the
right of action was gone, he should submit to his lordship
that it was a custom which' was unreasonable in the eye of
the law. He had endeavoured to explain to the jury the
right of action in this case. He believed it to be a more im-
portant question than the £136 which arose in this case ; and
all that he could say was, that, unless they could succeed in
this action, it was quite clear there must be a fundamental
change in the mode of transacting business on the Liverpool
Exchange; and it would be necessary to clog the business
with written contracts and written warranties, which never
yet existed, for the purpose of rendering merchants liable to
make good the losses which might hereafter be dis-
covered.