The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-05-09 00:00:00

W INTF,LT,IGRNCE

RT OF EXCHEQUER-THURSDAY

gs in Banco.)

Y AND OTHERS V. THE INHABITANTS OF SALFORD

ght by certain persons whose pro- 1

riots at

Manchester to re-

e hundred, u

ei the statute 7

riotous

e
ed at L.

)01, and a verdict
sintiffs on all the issues. save one, and on
ict was taken for the defendants. The plea
issue was raised was that found for the de-

ect that the borough of Manchester was a
dent of the hundred of Salford, and that

icipal Corporations Act (5 and 6 Wm. IV.,
gh was exclusively liable to pay for any dam-

:ie by riot.

N ONV

LES on a former day having obtained a rule to
by a verdict found for the defendant on the
)uld not be set aside, and the verdict returned

the plaintiff on that issue also.
Mr. WORTLEY was now heard in opposition to the rule.
a admitted that the liability of the hundred' depended
tinly on the provisions of the statute 7 and 8 George IV.,
31. The 12th section of that statute enacted, that where
e damage is committed i❑ any county of a city or town, or
ace, the inhabitants whereof do not contribute to any
unty rate, or who contribute thereto, but not as being part
any hundred or other like district, such place shall be lia-
e like the hundred. He contended that since the passiog
the Municipal Corporation Act the borough of Manchester
11 within the description contemplated by this section. He
luld not deny that the borough contributed to the county
le, but he insisted that such contribution was not made as
!ing part 'of the hundred, but was made by the borough, as
borough, out of the borough fund. if this view of the case
as correct, the action should have been brought, not against
le borough of Salford, but against the borough of blanches-
'r. which, under the statute 7 and 8 George IV., was liable,

like the hundred."
The COULIT, without hearing counsel in support of the
ule, determined that the hundred of Salford was liable. The
-habitants cf the borough of Manchester certainly contri-
ited to the county rate, as being part of the hundred of
rd, and therefore did not come under the stipultaion
ned in the 7th and Sth Geo. IV., c. 31, s. 12. It was
he county rate was paid by the borough, and other
he" hundred in different proportions. A separate
s kept against the borough, for the expenses of
, and the maintenance and transport of
The borough continued in common,
„arts of the hundred, to certain general
senses, such as the repairs of bridges and roads within the
ldred, the salaries of the gaoler and chaplain, and some
iers. To Obese expenses the inhabitants of Manchester
re liable to contribute, as part of the hundred of Salford,
I the hundred of Salford was liable to the damages in-
•red in consequence of the riotous proceedings within the
igh. The court was of opinion, therefore, that the •er-
iad been wrongly entered for the defendant at the trial,
hat the rule must be absolute to enter it for the plaintiff
e third as well as the other issues.

cutiond

boroug

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.--TnuaznAY

Sittings in Banco.)

THE QUEEN V. FEARGUS O'CONNOR AND OTHERS

A certain degree of excitement had been created by the
announcement that these defendants were to be brought up
• judgment. and on the opening of the doors all the avail-
le seats of this inconvenient court were at once filled.
The Attorney-General prayed judgment against the defen-
ho had been convicted of unlawfully aiding and abet-
ers in doing certain acts charged as unlawful.
Denman said, that the officer of the court had in-
judges that some of the parties convicted at the
That made no difference with respect
The court could proceed to pass

ssizes were not here

e present proceedings

that were present, and they would have a
right, notwithstanding the absence of their fellows, to say
anything they might think fit in arrest of judgment.
The following defendants answered to their names :
us O'Connor, Richard Otley, G. J. Harney, William
John Arran, William Aitkin, S. Challenger, Samuel
s, D. Railton, William Woodruff, (all of whom were
oted on the fifth count ouly,) and J. Leach, C. Doyle,
han Bairstow, J. Arthur, T. Cooper, R. Brooke, John
am, James Fenton, James Mooney, and Frederick
stus Taylor
Mr. Dundas

on those

who appeared for R. Brooke, moved an
nt on the fifth count, on the ground that
e was no venue stated in it ; and on the fourth count,
he ground that the statement of the offence was insuffi-

cleat. -Counsel for the other prisoners having been heard in
support of the same objections, a rule was granted to show
use why the judgment should not be arrested.—The At-
-y-General having asked when the court would hear the
-,onversation took place on the subject, and it
vas finally settled that the rule should be argued on the se-
cond day of next term.—The Attorney-General said, that he
did not think it would be necessary for the defendants to
..lome up again in person.—The court assented to this, and
he defendants entered into their own recognizances to appear
hen called upon, and left the court.

case again, a