The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-08-29 00:00:00

STABBING.

Antonio Conti, 28, an Italian, was indicted for stabbing
James Langshaw, with intent to do him some grievous
bodily harm, on the 24th of April last, at Liverpool.
It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutor, that
on the night in question the prisoner attacked a lady in
Hanover-street, in Liverpool. He remonstrated with
him, when the prisoner stabbed him. He also attacked a
horse in the street, but was afterwards secured and taken
to prison.
Mr. WuxiNs called three witnesses to prove that the
prisoner was insane at times.
The jury acquitted the prisoner on the ground of in-
sanity, and the learned Judge ordered him to be kept i❑
safe custody during her Majesty's pleasure.
The Court adjourned at half-past six o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY.
Mr. Justice Cresswell took his at nine o'clock.

BENTLEY V. WITTON.

An action for the recovery of £lOO, the value of certain
tolls.—Verdict for the plaintiff.

RUTHERFORD AND UX. V. CHAUNDY.
An action for the recovery of £3OO on a bond.—
Verdict for the plaintiff.

RHODES AND OTHERS V. WILSON.
In this action Joseph Armitage Rhodes was the plain-
tiff, and Thomas Wilson was the defendant; and it was
brought for the recovery of the sum of £9O for goods
sold and delivered. The defendant pleaded that he was
not liable.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—£66
dam ages.

TURNER V. MILNER.
This was an undefended action for the recovery of £2O.
—Verdict for the plaintiff.

RENT.--BEARD AND OTHERS V. DAVIDSON.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, Ellen
Beard and George B. Lightfoot, the executor and exe-
cutrix of John Beard, against the defendant, Alexander
Davidson, for the recovery of £57, being the amount of
a year and a half's rent of a cellar. The defendant
pleaded generally that the plaintiffs were not the executor
and executrix, and that they were not seized of the cellar.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Cowling appeared for the plain-
tiff's ; and Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton for the
defendant.

Mr. MARTIN stated the case. He said the plaintiffs
were the executor and executrix of a gentleman named
Beard, who, up to the time of his death, carried on a
cooperage in Seel-street, Liverpool. There was a cellar
underneath the premises, which he did not require for
the purposes of his trade, and which, is the year 1826, he
let to a Mr. Hebblewhite to carry on the business of a
wine and spirit dealer there. The tenantcy was from year
to year, at £3l per annum, payable half-yearly. Mr.
Hebble white continued in the occupation until 1840. He
had been one of the directors at Liverpool for the Cora-

me,cial Bank of Manchester, and, in consequetve of his
connection with that unfortunate establishment, he be-
came a bankrupt, and having been largely indebted to the
bank, Mr. Davidson, public officer, was appointed his
assignee. Mr. Hebblewhite had a considerable stock of
wine, ale, and beer on the premises at the time, and the
gentleman who managed the affairs on behalf of the de-
fendant took possession of those premises, opened them
and continued them open until the following July, when
the stock was disposed of. The question was, whether
Mr. Davidson, by thus dealing with the property, took
possession of it as tenant and made himself liable for the
rent. _ _

A verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the full
amount.

DOE DEM. ROCKLIFFE V. AMBROSE.
Verdict, by consent, for the plaintiff.
FRAZER AND OTHERS V. MATLEY. _

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, John rra-
zer and George Brooks, against the defendant William
Matley, for the recovery of a sum of £460, the value of
goods sold and delivered. The defendant pleaded non
assumpsit, except as to £390.
Verdict for the plaintiff for £125.
DIXON V. WING.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, John Dixon,
against the defendant, John Wing, for the recovery of a
sum of £3O, money had and received, and on an account
stated. The defendant pleaded the general issue and a
set-off.
The jury found for the plaintiff for £3O 155., with leave
for the defendant to move for a nonsuit.

ROBERTS AND OTHERS V. MORRIS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, Elizabeth
Roberts, Elizabeth Unwin, and John Hughes, against the
defendant, Edward Morris, for the recovery of the value
of a certain quantity of limestone.
Verdict for the plaintiffs for the amount sought.
The court rose at five o'clock.

CROWN COURT.-SATURDAY.
MURDER AT BURY.

James Haworth, 20, was indicted for the wilful murder
of James Heywood, at Bury, by striking him divers blows
on the face, neck and head.
Mr. Brandt, Mr. Green, and Mr. Whigham conducted
the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins defended
the prisoner.
Mr. BRANDT stated the case. He commenced by say-
ing that the facts were wholly of a circumstantial nature,
which would require the particular attention of the court
thea wofhomaliyveldasta,thea
lepfltacheonicaellfeodr
BLuitrtyle,
and jury. The deceased was a hale, stout man, about
sixtyH
eat years a r sono f
which was only about three or four miles distant. He
was seen at a public-house soon after nine o'clock the
same night, and the last time he was seen alive was about
half an hour after that time, when he left another public-
house for the purpose, as he said, of going home. When
he left home in the morning, his relations distinctly ob-
served that he had a watch in his pocket. On the morn-
ing of the following day he was found dead on the out-
skirts of the town of Bury, at a place called the gravel
pits. He was lying by the side of a hedge ; and, from the
appearance of the body and the place, he had evidently
suffered great violence. His watch was gone, and the
suspicion was that he bad been attacked, robbed, and
murdered. On his way home from the public-house, at
which he was last seen alive, he would have to pass the
New Market in Bury, and then, turning to his left, to go
on in the direction of Unsworth. One of the witnesses
would state that he was near the New Market on the
night in question, and that lie saw the deceased going
along in the company of two young men, who seemed to
be taking him in an opposite direction, leading to the
place where the body was afterwards found. He would
further state that, in his belief, the prisoner was one of
those young men, but he could not speak positively to
him ; and he (Mr. Brandt) thought it but justice to state,
with respect to this witness, that he was not such a per-
son as the jury could place implicit reliance upon. There
was no doubt, however, that, soon after ten o'clock on
the night of the occurrence, the prisoner entered a beer-
house kept by a person of? the name of Jenkinson, in
Bury ; that his beer-house was no great distance from the
new market-place; that he was out of breath at the time,
and appeared to have been running • and that there were
marks of blood on his face. He asked a young woman at
the shop to wash off the marks; and she having dipped a
rag in some beer and complied with his request, he was
asked how they came there? He gave two replies ; first,
he said that he had been in a row in the street, and then
he stated that the blood had oozed from a pimple on Lys
cheek ; but no pimple was visible. The parties in whose
company he then was were of a very degraded character,
and, after they had all remained together for some time,
they proceeded to a house kept by a man of the name of
Benjamin Cooke, where they gambled for about an hour.
They then went to the house of one of their party (Win-
terbottorn's) ; and, while there, the prisoner produced a
watch, and, from his behaviour and conduct at the time,
there could be little doubt that it had very recently come
into his possession. In reply to the questions of the party,
he stated that a man named Meadowcroft had told him
that the watch was lying in a vacant place near the New
Market, and that he went there and found it.
Meadowcroft denied that he had ever told him anything
of the kind. It was rather unfortunate that the watch had
been disposed of; but it could riot, therefore, be now pro-
duced ; and that it would rest on the description given of
it by the witnesses as to whether it was the one which be-
longed to the deceased. Mr. Brandt concluded by saying
that the watch would be described by the son of the de-
ceased, and that upon this evidence would rest the guilt
or innocency of the accused.
James Clough and Charles Sheil deposed to the finding
of the body.
John Heywood, a son of the deceased, described his
watch, as did also Ann Heywood, his daughter, the latter
stating it had only one seal, when
Mr. BRANDT said that he would not press the case any
further, as the other witnesses would describe the watch
as having two seals attached.
His LORDSHIP thought it would be unsafe for the Jury
to convict under the circumstances.
A verdict of acquittal was accordingly returned, and the
prisoner was discharged.

ROBBERY AT WAVERTREF,-LANE.
William Smith, 26, and Thomas Hughes, 17, were in-
dicted for having broken and entered the dwelling-house
of Jane Lowndes, and stolen thereout twenty bottles of
whisky and ten bottles of brandy, the property of Thomas
John Lowndes.
Mr. Cardwell conducted the case for the prosecution,
and Mr. Wilkins defended the prisoner.
It appeared that, about four o'clock on the morning of
the 17th May last, the house of the prosecutor was en-
tered and the property extracted : and that, shortly after,
three persons, one of whom was the prisoner H ughes,
were seen coming in a direction from Wavertree-lane,
with a heavy basket. Subsequently, Mr. Lowndes suc-
ceeded in arresting Hughes, whereupon Smith came to
his assistance, and, in endeavouring to rescue him, took
out of his pocket a bottle of whisky to defend him, which
bottle turned out to be one of those stolen on the night in
question. The prisoners alleged that they had found the
bottle in an adjoining pond, while they were in the act of
bathing. They were acquitted.