The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-03-31 00:00:00

The female prisoner was indicted for the misdemeanour, in
having possession of the counterfeit sixpences. _ _

The jury found the prisoner guilty, and recommended her
She was sentenced to one month's imprisonment

to mercy

and hard labour in Kirktlale Gaol

AVING rosst:ss►ov OF A MOULD FOIL COINING:
.fohn Darrel!, aged 17, and CharlesJackAun, aged 17, were
charged with having, in this town, in August last, had in
their possession a ►nould, on which was impressed the reverse

side of a shilling.
The jury found the prisoners guilty, recommending .Tark-
son to mercy, as it appeared likely that he had been led away
by his companion. Dareey was sentenced to seven years'
transportation, and Jack son to six months' imprisonment
and hard labour:,
Jahn. Matthews, aged 30, was charged with having, at
'Manchester, in January last, had possession of a mould for

coining.
The Jury found the prisoner guilty. He was sentenced to
seven years' transportation.
Jane Watson, aged 34, was charged with Navin; counter-
feited 23 sixpences, with having uttered a counterfeit six-
pence to Mary Nelson, at West Derby, and with having had
a mould for counterfeiting sixpences in her possession. In
her basket was found 23 counterfeit sixpences, and a mould
for counterfeiting sixpences.
The prisoner was found guilty of having the mould in her
possession. She was sentenced to twelve months' imprison-
ment and hard labour at Kirkdale Gaol.
John Taylor, aged 30, was charged with having, on the
19th instant at West Derby, had in his possession nine coun-
terfeit sixpences. lie was found guilty, and sentenced to
twelve months' imprisonment and hard labour at Kirkdale
Gaol.
Mary Price was charged with having unlawfully possessed
seven counterfeit half-crowns with intent to utter the same.
She was found guilty, and sentenced to be imprisoned one
year.

John Hill, Joseph Bolton, John Clarke, and Peter Rey-
nolds, were charged with offences against the Mint, and
pleaded guilty. Hill, whose real name is Lynch, was charged
with coining. He had been previously convicted. He was
sentenced to seven years' transportation. 13olton, who was
charged with uttering, had also been previously convicted.
He was sentenced to sentenced to seven years' transports.
tion. John Clarke, charged with possessing base coin, was
sentenced to eight months' imprisonment and hard labour.
Reynolds was also sentenced to eight months' imprisonment
and hard labour.
The Court adjourned at six o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—TUESDAY.
The court was opened at nine o'clock.
PLATT AND ANOTHER, EXECUTORS, V. STANLEY AND
ANOTHER.—The action was undefended, and the jury re-
turned a verdiet for the amount sought.
BAMFORD V. HlLL.—This was an undefended action to
recover the sum of £33 upon a promissory note, with interest
thereon, from the 31st December, 183ti.—Verdict for the
plaintiff; damages, L 44 13s. The parties reside at Rochdale.
HUNT V. WHITEHAD.—The jury returned a verdict for
the plaintij; ; damages £l5 3s. 10d.
DEFLINNE AND ANOTIIER V. PIVER..---VerdiCt for the
plaintiff for the. amount of the bill, together with £1 3s. 3d.
interest.

CRIPPIN v. WALMSLEY.-Mr. Dundas (with whom were
Mr. Brandt and Mr. Cowling), appeared for the plaintiff.
Mr. Wm. Crippin, a butter factor, in Manchester, and the
endorsee of two bills of exchange, one for £3OO and the other
for £250; and he had brought this action against the defen-
dant, Mr. George Walmsley, a gentleman who resided at
Naburu, near York, as the acceptor of those two bills of
exchange. The bill for £3OO was dated August Ist, 1838;
and the bill for £250 was dated February Bth, 1840. John
Brettargh, who was the drawer of the bill, was the father-
in-law of the plaintiff, and held a colliery, near Rochdale, as
tenant to Mr. Walmsley.—The defendant pleaded that
Brettargh did not draw the bills, that he himself did not
receipt them, and that Brettargh (lid not endorse them.
These were the issues which it rested with the plaintiff to
prove.—Witnesses having been called in support of the
plaintiff's case, Mr. Babies (with whom was Mr. Crompton)
addressed the jury for the defendant. The case, on the part
of the plaintiff, he said, was simply this,—that twp bills of
exchange, one for £3OO, and the other' for £250, had been
drawn by John Brettargh upon Mr.Walmsley, the defendant ;
and had been endorsed by Brettargh to his son-in-law,
Crippin, the plaintiff; and the action was founded as en-
dorsee against Mr. George Walmsley, as the acceptor.
The substance of the matter was this,—that those bills were,
in the first instance, purely accommodation bills, no value
having been given for them to Mr. Walmsley, the acceptor;
that those bills were entirely for the accommodation of
Brettargh, the drawer ; that they were endorsed by Bret-
targh to his son-in-law, the plaintiff, when they had become
due ; and that, consequently, the son-in-law would be affected
by all the equities with which Brettargh himself was affected.
The question for the jury to consider would be, whether or
not this father-in-law and son-in-law had, since those bills
were retired by Brettargh, actually put on those endorse-
ments which now appeared upon them. On the part of the
defendant, he contended that a gross fraud was attempted to
be practised by those parties, who were in collusion together
to bring this action ; because it was perfectly well known,
that those bills were endorsed after they became due,
.not-
withstanding the statement made in the Court of Chancery,
that they were previously endorsed. The jury would find,
that, when the two bills became due, they were retired by
Brettargb, and not one single syllable of notice was given to
Mr. Walmsley until three years after the first bill had be-
come due and was paid ; and not until a year and eight
months after the second bill had become due arid was paid,
was the slightest claim made upon his client. This showed
that they were originally accommodation bills. He now
came to the motives for this collusive attempt to charge Mr.
Walmsley with the payment of bills for which he never was
liable. Mr. Walmsley had made considerable advances to
Brettargh down to 1841, when the balance in his favour had
increased to such au amount that he found it necessary to
take most prompt and decisive measures. In 1840, he had
instructed Mr. Pratt, his solicitor, to press for some reduc-
tion of the debt. The result was, that Brettargh, Crippin,
and another person, gave two joint promissory notes for £5OO
each, to Mr. Walmsley, in liquidation of the claim ; and they
were deposited by him in the hands of his banker at York.
In November, 1841, when those bankers made application to
Crippiu for the payment of one of those promissory notes,
Crippin n
steed a threat that he would make Mr. Walmsley
suffer for what he had- done; and when Mr. Walmsley issued
a distress warrant against lirettargh, then it was that he first
heard of those two bills of exchange lying in the hands of
Brettargb's son-in-law. He (Mr. Baines) submitted that
those bills were accommodation bills in their origin ; that
they were handed over, after being retired by Brettargh to
his son-in-law ; that those endorsements were put upon them
then, and that this was done entirely to gratify a spirit of
revenge. The defendant,' therefore, was entitled to a ver-
dict.—Mr. Dundas replied. He admitted that the ease for
the plaintiff had failed with regard to the bill for £3OO, but
contended that there was no proof that the bill for £250 had
been endorsed after it became due; and it would be unfair to
assume, that, because the first bill had been so endorsed, the
second must necessarily be in the same situation.—His lord-
ship in addressing the jury said, as it was admitted by the
counsel for the plaintiff that the case had failed with regard
to the bill of £3OO, they would be relieved from any co-aside-
ration of the circumstances with respect to that bill, excepting
so far as they tended to throw light upon the second bill, viz.
that for £250; because, if the conduct of the plaintiff was
marked with fraud with regard to the first bill, they would
be warranted in entertaining that degree of suspicion which
the circumstances would allow with regard to the second bill.
As to the bill for £250, the most material part of the evidence
was the memorandum book, which the jury would probably
think it right to look at ; and if they were of opinion that the
bill was endorsed to Crippin before it became due, then the
plaintiff was entitled to a verdict for the amount of that £250,
and the interest upon it. If, on the other hand, they could
see any ground to satisfy them that it was not endorsed until
after it was payable, then the defendant would be entitled to
a verdict; or if they found that the bill was an accommoda-
tion bill between Brettargh and Walmsley, and if they found
also that Brettargh endorsed without consideration to Crip-
pin, in that case also the defendant would be entitled to their
verdict ; but if they were of opinion, that before it was en-
dorsed the value was received by Brettargh, then it would be
a genuine document.—The jury retired for about three-quar-
ters of an hour, and on their return into court gave a verdict
for the defendant, on the ground that there was no conside-
ration for the endorsement

BIRLEY AND ANOTHER V. THE INHABITANTS OF THE
HUNDRED OF SALFORD.—Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cardwell
were for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Wortley and Mr. Hulton for the
defendants. The declaration stated that, in the month of
August last, a mob of rioters assembled and began
to demolish two mills and two houses in the hundred of
Salford. Mr. Knowles, in stating the case, said the
plaintiffs were Messrs. Birley, the extensive cotton-
spinners at Chorlton-upon-Medlock, in the borough of
Manchester; and the object of this action was to recover
from the hundred of Salford. in which the borough was si-
tuated, a compensation for damage to which their property
was subjected during the disturbances in Manchester, in the
month. of August last. The act of parliament upon which
the plaintiffs were proceeding was passed in the reign of
George the 4th ; but that act did not introduce any new prin-
ciple into the law, as it had previously existed, but only con-
solidated other acts, and extended their provisions to cases
to which they were not applicable before. The act provided
that if any church or chapel, or any house, warehouse, shop,
mill, and so on, or any erection used for the purpose of car-
rying on any trade or manufacture, or any machinery, fixed
or moveable, should be damaged, pulled down, or destroyed
in the whole or in part, by any persons riotously and tumul-
tuously assembled, in any such case the inhabitants of the
hundred, or part of the hundred, in which such property was
situated, woulfl be liable to yield full compensation to the
persons damnified by the offence. After detailing the riotous
occurrences which took place in Manchester in August last,
particularly in reference to the attack upon the property of
the plaintiffs, the learned counsel said, the question for the
jury to consider would be whether the mob did attack the
mill, and did begin to demolish it, according to the meaning
of the act of parliament; because, if they did begin to demo-
lish it, then it would be within the act; and then the hun-
dred, or some other body, would have to make good the
damage. If it could be proved that the mob did demolish,
and that they threatened to pull down or burn down the mill,
if the hands did not turn out, then he apprehended that there
could be no doubt that this was a beginning to demolish with
a felonious intent; and, when the jury heard the expressions
of the mob, they could not have any doubt that, had not the
military arrived at the time, the mob would have pulled down
the mill, or would have done other serious damage, if they
had not succeeded in inducing the hands to turn out. The
defendants had put a plea upon the record, which gave rise
to this question, whether, as the mill was within the borough
of Manchester, the borough of Manchester was not the party
to apply to, and not the hundred ; but upon this point his
lordship would give his opinion, when his attention was cal-
led to it. There would be certain facts in the case which
would be undisputed, and one of them would be, that the
borough of Manchester was legally situated within the hun-
dred of Salford, and that, before it became incorporated, it
paid contributions to the county rate. It was alleged in the
plea, that it had not done so since; and the question raised
upon a special traverse was, whether the borough was still
liable to contribute to the county rate, as part of the hundred
of Salford. The learned counsel then referred to the 12th
section of the 7th and Bth George IV. and to the 112th, 113th,
111th, and 117th sections of the Municipal Corporations
Act ; and contended that, for all purposes, except for the
prosecution of felons, municipal boroughs were liable to con-
tribute to the county rate, in the same way as before. There
was nothing, in his opinion, which prevented the borough of
Manchester from being rated to the general purposes of the
county rate. Then, if that was so, Manchester was not lia-
ble to pay for this damage, but the hundred. If Manchester
was still liable to pay for injuries to property sustained with-
out the borough, why was Manchester alone to pay compen-
sation for injuries to property within the property ?—The
Judge : I don't, think we can make a case of it after all.—
Mr. Wortley : The issue of the plea depends entirely upon the
construction of the statute.—The Judge :It appears to me, the statute is expressly M Knowles.
against r. I think
municipal boroughs are exempted
te expenses of pi osecutions.--
from all county rates,
ex-
cept that they are to pa
Mr. Knowles : If that is his lordship's
opinion, of course. I
have nothing more to say here.—Mr. W.ortley:—l.aeincavvtisileliwnge
to put it in any way, in order to have it decided,l,e_b
The udge • The
are anxious to get a decision upon
hes t
there
ew owualsd
ab e
beginning
Tai
ien tgh et
n demolish,opinion it
f
ndrtnesses
the jury d
afteras to
t.hat whe-
thertoafter an
make a case of it for the Court. oinftiEfixt
case, and,
were then called ,to prove the Ina . • •
aadppdereasresdfrtoorohAimlrtWhaotrttili
would be
tennatintyledcaseit
it was desirable to prevent the necessity m case.
ulti-
mately to the judgment of the court ;"h.ouut, at the satmhee
etinmuret,
ceY'dchfiesndLaonrtdsship
above should think differently from him on the point of law,