The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-04-18 00:00:00

CONSPIRACY.

William Hardy was charged with a conspiracy at Roch-
dale, in order to prefer a charge of larceny against a person
named Hopwood, since deceased. The case, however, broke
down on the first witness being called, and a verdict of not
guilty was recorded.

'rliis closed the criminal business of the Assizes, and the
court rose at a quarter to eight o'clock.

NISI PREIS C OURT-SATURDAY,

DEMURRER : ANDREWS v. OWENS.—This was an action
on promises, to the pleas in which, on the part of the de-
fendant, the plaintiff demurred. The demurrer was argued
this morning, by Mr. Crompton and Mr. Ramshay, who ap-
peared for the respective parties. It was entirely of a techni-
cal character; and, in the end, the learned Judge took time
to consider his decision.

BUSINESS OF THE ASSIZE.—The JUDGE asked the gen-
tlemen of the bar who were present what cases could go over
to Mr. Baron Parke, in the other court, who would be able to
try them in the course of the day. lle mentioned this so
early in order that some arrangement might be made.

Mr. KNOWLES said he was afraid that no satisfactory ar-
rangement could be made with respect to the cases remaining
to be tried.

The JUDGE replied that he must then make arrangement.
The fact was that term had begun, and here they were sitting
on the first day in Liverpool. It was true that the opening
of term had been postponed ; but, at the same time, the
paper must be got through as soon as possible. A line
would be drawn upon the cause list, all the cases below which
would be tried before Mr. Barow Parke.

Thr subject then dropped, without any definite arrange-
ment being either suggested or made.

REPLEVIN : WIGAN U. BOND.—The declaration in this
case was in replevin, in which the plaintiff, William Wigan,
complained of the defendant, John Bond, for having wrong-
fully taken certain goods and materials from premises in his
occupation. The case for the plaintiff was conducted by Mr.
James and Mr. Drinkwater ; Mr. Watson and Mr. Cardwell
appeared for the defendant.
Owing to the form of the action, the defendant had the right
of commencing, and it appeared, that the plaintiff is a beerseller,
at Wigan, and the defendant a tinplate-worker, in the same
place. The defendant caused a distraint to be made upon
plaintiff's effects for a year and half's rent, amounting to X2l.
The plaintiff denied that he was the defendant's tenant in
the manner and form set forth, and a long and uninteresting
trial of that question followed.
The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
CROSS ACTIONS ON DISPUTED CLAIMS.

KERR v. LAFFER.—The plaintiff in this case is Alexander
Kerr, and the defendant Henry Laffer. The declaration was
for wages for work and labour done, for commission money,
and on an account stated. The defendant pleaded that he
was never liable to certain payments, and a set off for money
alleged to be due to him irom the plaintiff. Mr. Baines,
with whom was Mr. Cowling, appeared for the plaintiff;
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton for the defendant. The
plaintiff, it appeared, went out to the coast of Africa in a
vessel belonging to the defendant, called the Mary, on board
of which he acted as captain and supercargo, to bring back
palm oil. He was to receive £5 per month, and £4 per cent.
commission on the returns of palm oil which be brought
home ; and the action was brought to recover the balance of
the account. After the case had been partly opened by Mr.
Baines,
Mr. KNOWLES, on the part of the defendant, proposed.
that this and the following case of Latter v. Kerr should be
referred.

After some private discussion, it was agreed that all the
matters in difference should be referred.

ASS AULT

FROSTY: v. CIIALONFR.—This was an action to recover
damages for an assault. The parties belong to Liverpool,
and are well known on 'Change. Mr. Wortley appeared for
the plaintiff; and Mr. Knowles for the defendant.
After some consultation between the parties,
Mr. WORTLEY said he had the honour to appear on behalf
of Mr. Froste, the plaintiff, who had brought this action
against the defendant for an assault committed upon him by
the defendant, an indignity to which Mr. Froste could not
submit. His first impulse was to take the course which was
very ordinary, but, perhaps, blameable, in the class of society
to which he belonged. He was, however, persuaded by his
friends to abandon that course, and appeal to the laws of the
country. He had brought this action merely for the purpose
of vindicating his own character; and he (Mr. Wortley) now
understood, from an intimation that he had received, that
his learned friend, Mr. Knowles, was willing, on the part of
the defendant, to offer an apology for the indignity offered to
Mr. Froste. If that apology on the part of his learned friend
was satisfactory to him, the learned Judge and the Jury
would be spared the trouble of proceeding with the case.
Mr. KNOWLES said he had the honour to appear for the
defendant, Mr. Chaloner, who, like the plaintiff, was a highly
respectable gentleman in this town, and who was now ready
to do all which a gentleman ought to do who had offered an
i,teldl.aov
insult to another. Mr. Chaloner, therefore, authorised him
(Mr. Knowles) to apologise to Mr. Froste for the blow he
had struck under circumstances of provocation. He (Mr. K.)
fi Having
course though it right on behalf of Mr. Chaloner to say this, that
done then,
the very moment after he had given way to the feelings that
led to the assault, he sent a friend to the plaintiff to make
nheadonenh da
~i
therefore,
whatn 0
objec-
tionthe
it(ciN)haltrhetiKini id?deorwdloteinisee)tsiteioc
circumstances, his feelite
feelingsthe nios to
of
a unqualifiedgentleman
to apologise to Mr
insufficient
to do that now which lie had
friend,
indignity s-s.
h e
iie
FrosteNhiar d.
f\nokni:ottlill,nTerLiisiztei injury rsyhaii‘lndv h,
could only add that the plaintiff, after
he had .
. however, he was
suffered,pul
public apology
considered
offered a privatelearned
dy After the
willing to consent to a verdict for the plaintiff for.l
A verdict was then entered for the plaintiff. o'.
Damages
40s.
BIRD AND OTIIERS, ASSIGNEES, V. BASS A•• OTHERS.
—The plaintiffs are the assignees of the estate ZDid
David Robertson, of this town, and they brought effects
of
the
action
against the defendants to recover the sum of £lBO, the
CCeds of certain property belonging to the bank pro-
rupt which
they seized in execution on the 26th January last.

Me, Waits and Mr, NVhtotin appeitred tor tho plAtAtiffa I
Mr. Wortley anti Mr, Compton for the flefiinjanta.
Ou the part el the plaintiffs it appeared, that Mr. LobErt-
son had been for some in insolvent circumstances, and, it
being expected that an execution would issue against his
effects at the suit of the defendants, it was considered pru-
dent by the plaintiffs and other creditors that a fiat in bank-
ruptcy should be issued. JrA. Watson, attorney, was in-
structed to take this step. On Saturday. the 21st January,
he proceeded to London for this purpose, and, on the fol-
lowing Monday, the 23d, the fiat was struck. The act of
bankruptcy was a notice by llobertson, under the act of last
session, dated on the 21st. On the evening of the 23d Mr.
Watson wrote from London to the solicitors of the defend-
ants, Messrs. Stockley and Thompson, giving them notice
that the fiat had been issued, and requiring them not to pro-
ceed with the execution and levy on the effects in the defend-
ant's house, No. 3, Northumberland-terrace, Everton.
Messrs. Stockley and Thompson have a box in the Postoffice,
into which the letter was put at the usual period after the
arrival of the London mail. It was fetched from thence, by
whom did not appear, and taken to their office, in Castle-
street, and it was contended that this was sufficient notice
of the existence of the tiat. In the meantime, time having
been previously granted to Mr. Robertson, the execution pro-
ceeded. In support of this part of the case it was shown that
Dry, the officer, and an assistant went to the house for the
purpose of making the seizure. The assistant remained on
the premises, and the servant girl who admitted him said that
this took place at twenty minutes past ten. On time morning
in question it was shown that Mr. Stockley arrived at the
office before his partner ; that he lived at Rock Ferry, which
he left by the boat leaving there at half-past nine ; and the
plaintiffs insisted that the boat would arrive at. George's Pier
at a quarter before ten, and that he would arrive at the office
and read the letter before ten o'clock, in time to prevent the
execution proceeding. It would take twenty-three minutes
to walk from their office to No. 3, Northumberland-terrace.
Evidence was produced to this effect.
Mr. WORTLEY then replied, contending, from the facts
adduced by the plaintiffs themselves, that it was clear the ex-
ecution was in the house for some period before it was possi-
ble that Mr. Stockley_ could have read the letter.
The jury, after an hour's consideration, returned a verdict
for the defendants.

ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT

ATKINSON AND OTTIER:;;;: BLAKE AND OTTIERS•—It
was alleged in the declaration of this case, that the defend-
ants had contracted with the plaintiffs to turnish them, at a
certain price, with 12,000 boxes of soap of a quality which
should be fit for the Jamaica market ; but they had, instead
of sending soap of that quality, sent an inferior article,
whereby the plaintiffs had been damaged.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cowling represented the plaintiffs;
Mr. Baines and Mr. Drinkwater the defendants.
The plaintiffs were merchants in the island of Jamaica, and
and in May, 1810, they made the contract retell cd to, through
their agents in Liverpool, Messrs. Baring Brothers. The
defendants are soap manufacturers in this town. The evi-
dence, which was particularly uninteresting, related to the
quality of the soap shipped, from which it appeared that a
large portion of the boxes forwarded were unlit for the market.
The damage sustained by this part of the shipment was stated
to be between £3OO and 1:400. The plaintiffs had cancelled
the other part of the contract.
For the defendant a number of persons were called, who
stated, generally, that they were the parties who had made
the soap, and that the samples produced, which were said to
have been brought from Jamaica, were not the same which
had been sent out. The soap sent was fit for the Jamaica
market.

Mr. KNOWLES, in his reply, made some strong comments
on the effort to prove fraud against the plaintiffs, who, he re-
peated, were highly respectable men.
The trial lasted several hours, and it terminated by the
jury returning a verdict for the plaintiffs. Damages 4100,
costs 40s.
The Court rose at ten o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT—MoNDAY,

COLLISION

DAWBER v. SHAND.—The plaintiff in this case is Mr.
James Dawber and the defendant Mr. Wm. Shand. The
declaration stated that the plaintiff was possessed of a gig,
and the defendant of a coach or carriage; and that the de-
fendant's servant had driven the carriage so negligently that
the plaintiff's gig was thereby injured. The defendant merely
pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Martin conducted the plaintiff's
case; Mr. Baines appeared for the defendant.
Mr. KNOWLES, in stating the case to the jury, said the
plaintiff was a veterinary surgeon, residing in Liverpool, and
the defendant was a merchant in this town, of great respect-
ability, whose private residence was at Allerton. The action
arose out of a collision, on the 27th of June last, between a
gig which the plaintiff was driving, and Mr. Shand's carriage,
which .was proceeding in a contrary direction. The plaintiff
was on his way from Liverpool to Allerton, on professional
business, and on the road there was a sharp turn which re-
quired care in passing. The person who was driving was
proceeding at an ordinary pace, a trot, and just before he ar-
rived at the corner he was met by the defendant's carriage,
which was going towards Liverpool. At that moment the
plaintiff was driving on the left hand side, and almost close to
the parapet; the carriage was being driven at a brisk rate,
and, instead of being on the other side of the road, as it
ought, it was very near the right. The two vehicles, conse-
quently, were very nearly opposite to each other. The de-
fendant's coachman, seeing the approaching danger, endea-
voured, as much as possible, to avoid a collision, and he par-
tially succeeded, but the hind wheel of the carriage caught
the gig, which was thereby upset, the shaft broken, and the
plaintiff's servant thrown out. Two ladies were in the de-
fendant's carriage, who apologised to the plaintiff for the ac-
cident, hoped he was not hurt, and drove on. As soon as
the plaintiff found out to whom the carriage belonged, he
wrote the following letter to him:—

" June 29

" presume you heard of the serious damage done
to my gig and harness, through the negligence of your coach-
man ; and I should feel obliged by your coming to my sta-
bles in Basnett-street to see the same, when I am sure you
will at once give directions to have them repaired."
To this letter the defendant sent the following reply

" SIR,--I have received your note of the 29th instant, and
am glad to find you consider yourself responsible for the da-
mage done to my carriage by the gross negligence of the
person whom you have entrusted. You may see the damage
by calling at my stables, and you may give the necessary di-
rections to have them repaired as soon as you please."
(Great laughter.) He (Mr. Knowles) did not know whether
Mr. Shand was generally in a facetious humour, but he hoped
he would pay for the damage, which, by the negligence of
his servant, the plaintiff had sustained ; and then he might
enjoy his jokes as long as he pleased. The—suin claimed for
the damage to the'gig was £5 19s. fid•
Witnesses, who observed the
accident from a field adjoin-
ing the road, were then called, and their evidence supported
the statement of the learned counsel. One of them stated,
that the mare in the plaintiff's gig was as quiet as a lamb,
and might have been held by a thread.
Mr. BAINES then addressed the jury for the defendant,
and said he should prove that the mare in the plaintiff's gig
was wholly unfit to be driven, she never having been broken
and her mouth being unformed • that shortly before the ac-
cident he was driving in a furious and careless manner, with
a loose rein, and that at the time the vehicles met, the plain-
tiff, perhaps unwittingly, pulled the wrong rein, and thereby
the accident took place. He contended that it bad been
clearly proved, by the plaintiff's own witnesses, that the
horses had passed each other, without coming into contact,
and that it was the vehicles' which had struck each other ;
whereas if the carriage had been on the wrong side, the
horses must have first been in collision.
Witnesses were then called; at the end of which the jury
said they would not trouble Mr. Knowles to reply, as they
were prepared to give their verdict for the plaintiff. A ver-
dict was then returned for the plaintiff, damages £5 19s 6d.

ANSDELL V. 2.I4CORMICK.
. The plaintiff is an attorney in Liverpool, and the action,
which was undefended, was brought to recover £39 1-Is 11d,
the amount of a bill of costs. Verdict for the plaintiff for the
amount claimed.

ACTION AGAINST A TRUSTEE.
OGDEN AND OTHER. ASSIGNEES v. STONE.—This was an
action llrought by Wm. H. Ogden, and Henry Wood, assig-
nees of William Robinson, an insolvent, against George
Stone. The declaration stated that the defendant was in-
debted to the plaintiffs for money lent, and upon an account
stated. The defendant pleaded that he was not liable.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cowling were counsel for the plain-
tiffs ; Mr. Baines and Mr. Martin for the defendant.
Mr. KNOWLES said the defendant was an attorney in this
town, and he had to allege against him that he had received
a sum of upwards of £BOO, which under the circumstances he
was not entitled to keep. The action was brought by the
assignees of the estate of Robinson ; and the sum in question
was the whole property of the man, so that if Mr. Stone was
entitled to retain it, there would not be a farthing left for the
general body of creditors. The question for the jury would be
whether the mode in which the £BOO in dispute had been
paid to the defendant was not a fraudulent preference. Mr.
Robinson was a shipwright, in Norfolk-street, near the
Queen's Dock, and, apparently, he did a good business, for
he employed, sometimes as many as twenty men and boys.
Between March, 1841, when he commenced business, and
the time when he ceased, about the end of the year, he got
into debt to the amount of £llOO, an amount quite independ-
ent of the debt, or the pretended debt, which it was said he
owed to Mr. Stone. In November he took the benefit of
the Insolvent Act ; and it was about then discovered that,
on the 25th of October, he had paid a sum of £872 to Mr.
Stone. It was said that Mr. Stone had lent hint this money,
which was settled upon his wife, and he (Robinson) had paid
this money back to him ; now he (Mr. Knowles) should be
able to establish that this payment was voluntarily paid by
Robinson, and under circumstances which rendered it in-
valid according to the provisions of the Insolvent Act; in
otherwords, that it was a fraudulent preference. The learned
counsel then detailed the circumstances which appear in evi-
dence ; and called the following witnesses :
William Eden was the first called. He said I am an an-
chor-smith, and was formerly in the employ of Robinson,
whose works were near the docks. He commenced business
in March, 1841. He had a smithy there. I was his manager
and bookkeeper. 1 know the defendant Mr. Stone : lie is a
solicitor. In September, 1841, Mr. Furness's clerk called
two or three times to demand payment of a bill of from £lOO
to £l2O. There were many creditors, Mr. Gregson, Messrs.
Ashton and Naylor, and others who called often, some of
them two or three times a day. They continued calling till
the latter end of October. After the Bth of October Robin-
son wholly absented himself from the place, and I had to
meet him at different public-houses. About that time I
went many times to Mr. Stone's office, where I saw Robin-
son and Mr. Stone's brother. There were messages left
there for me where to meet Robinson. I remember a
Dutch vessel wanting a chain-cable. I went to Mr.
Wood's for it, and Mr. Wood objected to send it until
they 'sad seen Robinson, as the midsummer account was
not settled. I went to Robinson about the promised
payment on the 9th October; this was on the 7th. Robin-
son wished Me to ask the captain for the money the day
after, but I did not like to ask him for the money so soon,
and I raised the money myself. The captain paid me the
money the week following. On the evening of the Bth I went
to the Earl Grey, public-house, to meet Robinson, to take
the money, along with other monies, to him. I had £3O or
£4O. The Earl Grey is nearly two miles from the works.
Mr. Robinson seemed much pleased with what I had brought
him, and he told me he wanted to realize a sum of money as
quickly as possible to pay Mr. Stone, who was one of the
trustees under a deed of settlement for £BOO, which he had
made to his wife; he said the creditors had began to be so
infernally bothersome that lie should not come much more
nothing
ally ; I will give
near the place, for one of them, Mr. Keeler, had waited at
his house the night before till eleven o'clock to see him, and
he would take care not to be so caught again. This was all that
passed on this occasion. Previous to this, about the latter
end of September, I asked Robinson to allow the blockma-
kers to make a little stock forh
a sale, as the foreman had com-
plained
to do ; he said,
,
you a reason for that bye and, bye." The next meeting I
, No
o ; never t o
mind of them
tthe
had with him was on the stock, n
Litn I v
don t
of October, when he seat for
inog v
me to dine with him at an eating-house in Cable-street.
After dinner we went into a public-house adjoining, kept
by one Andrews, and he said to me there, " I want to have a
little serious conversation with you ; I wish
you to be secret. '
I told him if it was of consequence I would rather not hear
it. He considered a few moments, and then said, " You may
as well hear it now, as you must ultiamtely hear it : I have
given a bill for £lOO to Messrs. Mather and Co., which will
fall due in a few days, but I do not intend to take it up, for
it will be as much as I can do to realize the amount wanted
for Stone." I then asked him what he intended to do ? I
told him there was a large amount owing by Messrs. Grote
and Hatchett, and Hemingway ; lie said, " I have got them
to accept bills for that amount, and they are now in my

P6alot,i' 7 ravaatliaa tra 1.114 a, that with tta pataoroll clotvaa.
ho had tri Liierpuoli it would bu r» great pity for Wu, to
go to the wall without corm, effort or other; if he did not
like to do it personally, would he allow me to call on some
of the principal creditors, and make them an offer of 10s. or
12s. in the pound. He said " No, for what with the
amount owing. and what I can realize, I Filial' have very
very little more than what will pay the trustees. I have been
advised what to do ; I shall pay the trustees and no one else.
I shall then keep the shop open till some creditor conies in
with an execution, and then I shall get them to sign a release,
taking what is left." A day or two after that be asked me if
I could make room for him to lodge with me, and his wife
and child would stay with her father, as he was afraid of some
of the creditors serving him with a writ and making him a
bankrupt, as the creditors:would cause him great annoyance,
and it would insure the payment to the trustees. This was
on the 18th of October. He said, if Messrs. Mather and Co.
came to inquire whether their bill was all right, 1 was to tell
them lie was busy collecting money to take it up. He said,
that if the creditors would not sign a release, taking what
stock was left, he would take the benefit of the insolvent act.
On the 21st October I saw him again at Guest's public-
, house, near St. Michael's Church. I had no money with
me then. About £3OO had then been collected, which I
had handed over to him. He remarked that I was low-
spirited, and he said, " Man, keep your spirits up, it's all
right." I told him I was placed in an unpleasant situation,
and I was tired of it. tie replied, " Oh, it's all right, I have
paid the greater part of the money to Stone, and I have ar-
ranged with Stone to send me a note pressing for payment."
Tliat note he said, by 'hewing it to the creditors, would set
him all right with them if they made any bother. He had
been absent from the works all the time. In his absence
either myself or my son received the letters. I met Robin-
son many times in Mr. Stone's office about this time. On
the Ist or 2d of November, Mr. Robinson desired me to go
to Shand's public-house in Wapping, and inquire the price
of the good-will and fixtures of it, as he had some inten-
tion of taking it : he said he would take the place if we
could get it moderate, and put his sister's name over
the door. He wished me also to write concerning a
smithy and buildings which were to be let in Norfolk-street,
and he would commence business in his father-in-law's name,
(Win. Henderson,) or in my name, if I thought proper, and
give me half the business; he would get £2OO or £3OO from
the trustees to stock the place; and he thought between the
two he should make a very comfortable living. On the 19th
December Mr. Southern fetched me to meet Robinson at a
public-house in Gradwell-street. Mr. Southern was an ac-
quaintance of both of us. Robinson then told me he wished
me to ask advice from some solicitor as to arresting him, for
he was afraid of some of the creditors making him bankrupt.
He said, I wish to take care of the stock, if possible, and if
you think proper you need not be particular about the
amount of your debt, for lie expected Mr. Furness in with
an execution the following week. Mr. Southern remarked
that we should want some money, to pay the attorney for the
advice. Mr. Robinson then gave me seven shillings iu silver.
Sir. Southern advised me to go to Mr. Thompson, solicitor,
in Newington Bridge, and I went there; when I returned
from Mr. Thompson's I told Mr. Robinson that Mr. Thomp-
son could serve him with a writ by 2 o'clock. but could get
judgment out the following Thursday week. He remarked that
would b- too late, for Furness would go in before and seize
the stock; but it would be time enough to save the sheds
and bu lilings, which would be a tine start to begin business
again. I declined having mote to do with it. 1 believe that
Mr. Southern is now dead. There was a meeting of credi-
tors on the 21st December. Before that a great many arti-
cles had been taken out of the place and sold for less than
their value in order to realize money. Very heavy discounts
were allowed by Mr. Robinson in order to realize money.
Some carronades and their carriages were sent to Messrs.
Fawcett and Preston's, with a message saying that the cap-
tain would call to look at two more to match. This was he said
to satisfy a debt due to Messrs. Fawcett, for they were the only
creditors be cared about if he commenced business again.
He told me to enter them in the day-book as if they had
been sent some weeks previous. Those carronades were re-
turned by Messrs. Fawcett to Mr. Ogden, one of the as-
signees. A meeting of the creditors was held on the 21st
December, at his office ; he came down there, and Mr.
Stone's brother with him. Mr. Stone's brother got a sheet
of writing-paper, and began making out a stock list. Pre-
vious to the creditors coming, Mr. Stone had left. I re-
marked to him, " Where is your cash-book ? " and he re-
plied, " D—n it, man ! have you no sense ? It will never
do to let them see that book, for poor Stone and me have
been hard at work all Sunday and Sunday night, making
up another for them." 1 then remarked about Mr. Stone
making out a stock list. Mr. Robinson said that I (witness)
had had enough of annoyance with the creditors, and it was
better for Stone to make it out. When the creditors came,
and found what little was left, they refused to have anything
to do with him. On the Friday before, namely the 17th of
December, Robinson came down, unlocked his drawers in
the office, took down the files of invoices, examined them,
and, as he did so, kept tearing them up till the floor was
completely strewed with papers, and then he directed them
to be taken into the smithy and burnt. They were burnt.
On the Thursday following Mr. Furness put in an execution
and sold the whole of the stock; arid Mr. Robinson gave
instructions to the auctioneer, in my presence, to sell the
furniture and hand the balance over to him. The whole sale
produced from £l5O to Xl6O, of which Robinson got a balance
of £5B. The furniture was not sold there, but sent to the
auction rooms. Messrs. Trotter and Hodgkins were the
auctioneers. In the beginning of January, 1842, I had ano-
ther interview with Robinson at M'Kenzie's, in Duke-street.
He desired me to go to Mr. Stone's, and I did so the next
day. I saw the defendant, who said to me, "We want to
make a confidant of you ; but it will not do for me to be seen
in this matter, for Robinson wishes you to arrest him, that
he may take the benefit of the Insolvent Act ;" and if I
thought proper he would send me to an attorney. I then
left him, saying that I would ; and I advised with Mr. Ogden,
one of the assignees. Mr. Stone said all the expenses would
be paid. I was at this time a creditor for £26 wages, and £5
more for commission and money lent. I entered Robinson's
service in the beginning of August, and from that time up
to the Bth December lie bad paid none of his creditors except
small ones for £l, or so : sometimes he paid them £l, or so,
in order to keep them quiet. His debts at this time were
about £l,lOO. I went to Mr. Yates, solicitor, and gave bins
instructions to proceed against Robinson, who was ultimately
arrested, and sent to Lancaster in May, 1842. He was re-
manded for nine months. I was present at Lancaster
when Mr. Stone, the defendant, was examined before Mr.
Commissioner Bowen. This was in July. Mr. Stone then
stated lie had received the money on the 21st and on the 25th
October, 1841—in the whole, £872 ; that he had received it
in two payments from Robinson. He said he had received
it in money and bills. I do not recollect any thing further
that he said on that occasion.

Cross-examined by Mr.Es.—The defendant said to
the Insolvent Commissioner he was a trustee under Robin-
son's marriage settlement, and he produced the deed. He
mentioned that Mr. Henderson and his late partner, Mr.
Kenyon, were the trustees. lie stated that the trustees
had lent £BOO to Robinson on his warrant of attorney ;
and that he found that that warrant had not been duly
filed. I will not swear that he said he considered that
if he did not obtain the money the trustees would be
liable. He said he had sent one or two notes to Robin-
son pressing for payment of the money, but I do not recol-
lect whether he said it was for the security of himself and
his brother trustees. I recollect him saying he had incurred
some responsibility, but 1 do not know why. I considered
Robinson's proposals in the last three months of 1841 very
dishonest; and I communicated them to Mr. Ogden in
January or February following. I was not examined upon
them at Lancaster ; I was examined there only about the
sale and its proceeds. I cannot swear whether I stated to
the commissioner that the insolvent had told me be wanted
to realize a sum of money as quickly as possible, in order to
pay it to the trustees. I caunot swear whether I told the
commissioner what he said about the stock, or Mather's
bill. \Vas not asked the question. To the best of my re-
collection I told the commissioner that he said he would pay
trustees and no one else; but I cannot positively swear whe-
ther 1 did or did not, 1 believe, but am not positive. I told
the commissioner that he said he was afraid of the creditors
making him a bankrupt. I did not tell the commissioner
that he had said if the creditors would not give him a release
lie would take the benefit of the act ; nor did I tell him about
the note from Mr. Stone, which the insolvent said would set
him all right with his creditors. I did not tell the commis-
sioner that he said Mr. Stone would advance him £2OO or
£3OO to set up business again. I did not tell the commis-
sioner that the insolvent told me I need not be particular
about the amount of my debts ; or that I was to blind the
men. I did not tell the commissioner that the insolvent said
to me that he and Stone had been up all Sunday night making
another cash-book, or that the defendant said, " we want to
make a confidant of you." I have never sent to borrow £l5
from Mr. Henderson, the insolvent's father-in-law. I sent
for it in the light of borrowing, as I was advised to do. I
did not get the money, nor did I expect to get it.
The witness was then cross-examined with the view of
testing the accuracy of his recollection of the dates to which
he had spoken. No one was present with witness at those
conversations with the insolvent, except Mr. Southeran, who
is dead.
Re-examined.—Mr. Robinson is present in court now. I
was examined at Lancaster by Mr. Venables, the barrister,
and I answered every question which he put to rue. The
book produced is that which was made up by Mr. Robinson.
About £l6 or £l7 have been realized for the estate of Mr.
Robinson, and probably there will be 30s. more. I question
whether it will make so much as £lB 10s. . . .

Edwin Eden, son of the last witness, and also a clerk in
Mr. Robinson's service, proved that a great number of cre-
ditors were in the habit of calling there for money. but they
did not get it. Recollected the defendant's brother being
there. In October, witness took up some carronades to
Messrs. Fawcett with a message, that some captain would
call in a day or two to look out some more to match. Mr.
Robinson tore up the invoices, and told witness to burn them,
which he did. Letters used to be brought by the defendant's
clerk, witness's father, but witness did not know of any from
him to Robinson.

William Manifold, foreman of the blockmakers in Mr.
Robinson's service, also proved that creditors frequently
called ; and that he had prevented witness from adding to the
stock. This was in October. After that all their men were
turned away, except three. Mr. Robinson came to the works
very seldom afterwards.

Several witnesses who had called for debts, proved
that after the Bth of October, Robinson was not to be found
at the place; and that they had never been able to obtain
their money.
A clerk to the auctioneers proved that after selling under
the execution which had been put in upon the stock, the
household furniture of Robinson was sold by his directions
for £4O, which was paid over to him.
Cross-examined.—The furniture was not sold under the
execution. The sale took place on the 23d December, and
the money was paid over a few days afterwards.
A clerk to Mr. Furniss proved that his claim on Robinson
was for £l2O, for which the execution referred to was issued.

Mr. Thompson, the solicitor, was called, but he did no'
answer.

This was the case for the plaintiffs.
Mr. BAINES then addressed the jury for the defendant.
The action, he said, had been brought against a respectable
attorney in this town to recover a large amount of money re-
ceived by him in his character of trustee; and an attempt
had, in the progress of the case, been made to mix bitn up
with Mr. Robinson, upon whom also it had been sought to
throw all kinds of obloquy. This was a very serious question
to Mr. Stone, and one at which it behoved the jury to look
with calmness, especially as by means of that unprincipled
witness Eden they were asked to believe that Mr. Stone had
acted improperly. He (Mr. Baines) hoped, however, before
the case closed, to show the jury that Mr. Stone had done
just as any other man would in the same situation. The
jury had not, as yet, by any means heard all the matters
which it was necessary for them to know in order to make the
case intelligible ; and, therefore, it would be his duty to fill
up the meagre outline which the learned counsel and the
witnesses for the plaintiff had sketched. Mr. Joseph Wilfred
Robinson, it seemed, was about to be married in the year
1810. Before the marriage took place a settlement was ex-
pected, of which three persons were appointed trustees—viz.
his father-in-law, Mr. Henderson, Mr. Kenyon, an attorney,
now deceased, and Mr. Stone, the defendant, who was Mr.
Kenyon's partner. Mr. Stone was in no way connected
with Mr. Robinson, and he accepted the office of trustee
merely as an act of friendship, having been recommended to
it by his partner, Mr. Kenyon. According to the trust o:
the settlement a sum of £BOO, then lying in the Royal Bat!
of Liverpool, was to be paid to trustees for the benefit,
in
the first instance, of his wife ;—she was to receive
death
i
in-
terest to her sole and separate use ; in case of her
was to be received by 111 r. Robinson, and if Mr. Robinson
became bankrupt or insolvent, the interest was to accumulate,
have
both in case both parents were dead, the children were to
both the principal and the accumulations of interest. The
.CB9O, then, was paid to the account of the trustees. There
was, he ought to mention, a proviso in the marriage bottle-

to rat OM, in MN 44 Wild rh4UI4 glia a Wrlttoo 6,UtUiity
to the tritatt)24, shay hoi-siLl he at liberty the mini of i`..?00,
or any part of it, to the husband, he giving such security
as they should think right to take. The marriage took place
on the 30th of November, 1810. On the 27th of March,
1841, the trustees were applied to by Mrs. Robinson to ad-
vance £BOO to her husband, partly for the purpose of his
buying the goodwill of a public-house, which it was intended
that Mrs. Robinson should manage, and partly for the pur-
pose of helping Rubinson in his own business of a shipwright.
The learned counsel here read the letter of Mrs. Robin-
son, and contended that it was an authority to them to ad-
vance the money strictly within the provisions of the trust.
The security, which it occurred to Mr. Stone to take, was a
warrant of attorney, which was executed by Robinson in
March, 1841. A warrant of attorney no doubt would have
been sufficient if a most inadvertent omission had not oc-
curred. Where a warrant of attorney was given as against
a person who was a trader, and lie became bankrupt or in-
solvent, it was unavailing, arid mere waste paper, unless it
was filed within a certain time, and in a particular manner.
About six or seven months after this instrument had been
taken, it was discovered that, by the merest inadvertence, it
bad not been filed in the regular manner; and when Mr.
Stone found out that, it occurred to him that he was placed in
a situation of the greatest possible danger, having in fact been
advancing trust money upon security which was perfectly
valueless in case of insolvency or bankruptcy. As soon as
he made this discovery, he applied to Mr. Robinson, first
by word of mouth and afterwards by letter, in the most ur-
gent terms, to pay the money with the least possible delay.
What, indeed, could have been more natural than to apply
to the husband, seeing that the security which he thought
good turned out invalid? Mr. Stone wrote two letters to
Mr. Robinson. The first was dated on the 16th October,
[the learned counsel read the letter,] in which Mr. Stone
informed him that the trustees considered the security in-
sufficient. Mr. Robinson promised to make a payment upon
the following Monday, but he failed, and the defendant's
anxiety, therefore, became very great. On the 19th Mr.
Stone again wrote to Robinson as follows :-
1
_ " 58, Castle-street, 1841.

" DEAR SIR,—As you have broken your promise by not
making any payment upon account of the £BOO and interest
secured by the warrant of attorney, we are under the neces-
sity of informing you, that unless we receive payment of the
whole or greater part in the course of to-morrow, we shall be
compelled to proceed, under the warrant of attorney, to a sale.
This we trust you will see the necessity of preventing.—Yours.
respectfully,—KENYON and STONE."

A letter more distinctly pressing for payment than this could
not have been written. Before he (Mr. Baines) proceeded
further, he would observe, that the money paid to Mr. Stone
was a boncifide payment, and in order to make it invalid, the
jury must be satisfied that the payment by Robinson was a
voluntary payment, and not the result of pressure by Mr.
Stone. If it was the result of pressure, there could not
be the least question that Mr. Stone was entitled to re-
tain this money for the purposes of the trust. After
these letters Several interviews took place between Mr.
Stone and Robinson, and £672 were paid in cash and
bills in consequence of these letters. At that time
Robinson was indebted to the firm of Messrs. Kenyon
and Stone between £lO and £5O for law business, which
they had done for him ; and, when this money was brought
to them, Mr. Stone reminded him of it, and it was agreed
that £-14 should be appropriated in its liquidation. In reality
£629 were paid on account of the loan of £BOO and interest.
Still there were £2OO not forthcoming. Mr. Stone and his co-
trustee were liable for that; and it would be found that
Robinson raised this £2OO by a sale of the stock and good-
will of the public-house. It was at length agreed that Mr.
Henderson, the co-trustee of Mr. Stone, who had sold it to
Robinson for £3OO, of which £2OO had been paid and £lOO
had been secured by a promissory note, should buy the
public-house from him again. This was done ; Mr. Hen-
derson paid the £2OO, which went to make up the trust-
money of £BOO, and gave up the note for the £lOO which had
not been paid to him in the first instance. In that way the
whole suni was accounted for ; and he contended that, if this
account was true, and be should be able to prove it, there
could not be a doubt of the defendant being entitled to a ver-
dict. After this statement the learned gentleman examined
at considerable length the evidence given for the plaintiffs,
contending that the testimony of Eden was altogether impro-
bable.

Joseph Wilfred Robinson was then sworn, and he said, I
commenced business as a shipwright in Liverpool, in March,
1841. I married o❑ the 30th of November before, on which
occasion there was a marriage settlement, dated the 28th of
November, 1840. [The marriage settlement was here put in,
and the power read to lend the money.] On the 27th March,
1841, my wife applied to the trustees to lend me the money.
[The application was here read.] About that time I took
the Cumberland House Tavern, in Norfolk-street, from Mr.
Henderson, my father-in-law, and one of the trustees of the
marriage settlement. I paid him £2OO in cash, and gave
him a promissory note for £lOO. My place of business as a
shipwright was in the same street. I took the house on the
6th April. .1:200 of the £BOO was invested in the public-house,
and the remainder was used to carry on my business of a ship-
wright. My wife was to carry on the public-house. I gave
the warrant of attorney produced as security for the £BOO.
[Produced and read.] Mr. Stone applied to me about the be-
ginning of September, for the £BOO ; he had previously applied
for his own bill, which was £44. He said be was not satis-
fied with the security for the £BOO, and he should be obliged
to call it in immediately. The application was made to me
by Mr. Stone in his own office. Ile made several applica-
tions for it subsequently, and I told him that, as soon as I
could get money in, I perhaps should be able to pay him a
part. The witness here produced the defendant's letter to
him of the 16th October : it stated that the trustees had
determined to place the money on mortgage, and not on a
warrant of attorney, and requested him to pay the whole, or
a part, in the course of a few days. On the 19th of October

he received another letter, in consequence of which witness
called on the defendant on the 23d October and paid him
£672, composed of two bills, one of Mr. Grote's for £l4O
145., and the other of Mr. Hemingway for £258, and the
rest in cash. The defendant, when witness took him this
money, asked, for his own debt. I paid this money in this
way, £6OO towards the principal, and the rest went for in-
terest upon the £BOO. Mr. Stone wished the remaining
£2OO to be paid immediately. I told him I could not
give it him there and then, but if I sold the public-house
I might manage it. An agreement was entered into in a few
days, between Mr. Henderson and myself, that Mr. Hender-
son should take the house for £2OO, and return the promis-
sory note which I had given him for £lOO, which made up
the terms upon which I had taken it. I had been carrying
on a good business in 1841, and at the time when this trans-
action took place 1 was not insolvent, nor had I ever thought
of applying to the Court. I called a meeting of my creditors
in December, 1841, and exhibited to them a statement of
affairs, which was prepared by Mr. Rober; Stonc, with my
assistance. I put down the stock at the cost price. The
plaintiffs were present at that meeting. I requested that the
statement might not be taken away, but it was, and produced
at Lancaster. [The statement was here produced.] The
value of the stock therein described was £9OO. The stock
was put down at its cost price, and it sheaved 20s. in the
pound, but the creditors declined to come in. Two execu-
t►ons were issued out ; I apprehended one from Mr. Furness,
and under that the stock was sold. Messrs. Mather had a
writ out at the same time. I was not arrested till May fol-
lowing. I went to live at Woolton because my wife had bad
health, but I came frequently to Liverpool, and was openly
to be seen. The witness Eden came into my employment
about August.—The witness then contradicted, seriatim, all
the statements which Eden had given in his evidence as to
the topics of their conversation at the various times and
places which will be found in his testimony. Nothing, in-
deed, could be more distinct and positive than his contradic-
tions. There was no arrangement, continued the witness,
between myself and Mr. Stone to pay the money ; and it
was very inconvenient for me to pay it. Ido not think that
the man Southern is dead. I never in Southern's presence
asked Eden to enquire the price of the fixtures and good-will
of the public-house. I never mentioned my sister's name at
all to them. I never gave is. to pay an attorney. I never
came to an arrangement with Messrs. Fawcett and Preston
to give them a preference, nor did I ever destroy any letters
or invoices. It was at my request that Mr. Stone's brother
made out an account of the stock. My property sold under
the execution was sold at a very great sacrifice. I never
sent Eden to Mr. Stone to ask him to arrest me. Eden
appeared at Lancaster, and he did not mention there a single
word of what be has said here to-day. I was remanded for
nine months unless the £2OO paid by my father-in-law was
given up to the assignee. I remained in prison nine months.
On the enquiry there, Mr. Stone said the reason why he
pressed for payment was, that he had neglected filing the
warrant of attorney. I never said to Eden, that if 1 could
only get the trustees paid I did not care a d—n for the rest
of the creditors.

Cross-examined by Mr. KNowLEs.-4 came out of prisou
on the 13th March last ; and I have not begun business again.
I never gave any mortgage of my furniture and good-will of
the public-house. My debts in six months after I com-
menced bueiness were £1,059. There is no book to show
how that amount was contracted ; nor can I tell what amount
I paid to all my creditors together in that time. I paid
Furness himself between £4O and £5O, besides what he get
by the execution. I do not recollect whether Eden used to
meet me at different public-houses for the purpose of giving
me the money which he had collected. I never took Ma-
ther's bill up, but I intended to do so, no doubt.—The wit-
ness was further cross-examined at great length.
William Henderson, father-in-law of the last witness, and
co-trustee of the defendant, said, he concurred with the
defendant in his pressure upon Robinson for payment of the
motley lent him. This witness went on to describe the ar-
rangement with regird to the public-house, as already stated.
In cross-examination the witness stated, that whilst Ro-
..

binson was in Lancaster Castle, his wife lived in witness's
house. 'Witness is now carrying on the public-house for his
own benefit.

Lawrence Driscoll proved the signature of the parties to
the marriage settlement.

Robert Stone, Superintendent of the Liverpool Corpora-
tion Schools, and brother of the defendant, said that up to
March, 1812, from the March preceding, he was assisting his
brother. Saw Mrs. Robinson sign the authority to the trus-
tees to advance the £BOO. The witness also proved several
personal applications from the defendant to Robinson for the
£lOO. Referring to the evidence of Eden, he said that the
insolvent had asked him to assist him in making out a state-
ment of his affairs ; and witness suggested what he should
enter in it from the receipts and memoranda which he pro-
duced. Robinson entered them himself in the book from the
rough vouchers that he produced. 'Witness did not do this
on a Sunday as represented ; and he had formerly been with
Mr. Crook, the accountant, 4 years.
Mr. Blackett, clerk to Mr. Rogerson, attorney, at Lan-
caster, proved that at the hearing of the insolvent the defen-
dant stated to the court his position with regard to the war-
rant of attorney.

Cross-examined.—Could not tell whether the insolvent
was remanded for diminishing his property, or for fraudu-
lently making away with it.
This was the defendant's case; and on Mr. KNOWLES
rising to reply,
The FOREMAN of the JURY said they were prepared to
give their opinion without troubling the learned counsel, if
that course were not irregular.
The JUDGE told the jury they must be perfectly satisfied
that they understood the real question. The question was
whether Robinson had been pressed for payment; if they
believed that Stone had pressed and urged him, then Mr.
Stone had made out a sufficient case.
Mr. KNOWLES.—My lord, and would not the question
also be whether he had paid in consequence of that pressure ?
The JUDGE.—Yes, certainly.
Mr. KNowtms said so great was his respect for the opinion
of a jury that, if he distinctly understood they had made up
their minds, lie would not trouble them ; but, not knowing
what their opinion was, he would go through the evidence to
show them, from it, that the payment had not been made
from pressure. The learned counsel then contested this
point at considerable length, and with great ingenuity, con-
tending that Eden's testimony was perfectly credible, and
that the marriage settlement was drawn up so as to enable the
insolvent to cheat his creditors.
The JUDGE, in summing up, told the jury there were three
questions for their consideration—whether Robinson bad
made the payment, and if he had, whether he had made it
with the intent of taking the benefit of the insolvent act, and
next, whether it was a voluntary payment.
The jury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff
for £782 ; damages 40s.

MOTION TOR A NEW TRIAL

Doc DEM. TIBDETS AND I)TIIERS C. Low.—This is an
action in ejectment, in the first or Salford list. It was tried
early in the assizes. and a verdict returned for the plaintiff.
Mr. MARTIN now moved for a new trial, on the ground
that the verdict was against evidence.
The JUDGE, on bearing an affidavit, granted a rule nisi.
RECORD WITHDRAWN. _

SonNsrowE V called on at nquar-
ter-past seven; when it appearing that the principal witness

was rat in Alto/ Am*, Mr. Czototout for Ow p101414T, Rich,
eat,/ Mu mu, (I,

A.O CION PCR WO

D LADGUR

RANIPLIN AND ANOTHLII.V. CASE AND ANOTHRII.--Thig
was an action for work and labour done, in which Mr.
Knowles and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiffs, and
Mr. Baines, with whom was Mr. Martin, for the defendants.
The plaintiffs are architects in this town, and the defendants
are Mr. John Deane Case and Mr. William Pritchard, of
Birkenhead.

It apdeared, from the opening of Mr. Knowles, that the
defendants, with several other gentlemen, formed themselves
into a committee in the year 1837-8, for the purpose of
erecting a new church at Woodside, where there existed a
great want of church accommodation.. Plans were adver-
tised for, and the plaintiffs among other competitors sent in
theirs, which, as they alleged, were accepted; but, at a sub-
sequent period, the desqn was altogether changed, the re-
sult of which was the present handsome structure of the
Holy Trinity Church at Woodside, by Messrs. Cunningham
and Holme. The plaintiffs, not being able to obtain any
satisfaction, were compelled to bring the present action.
They claimed to recover £73 3s.
Three witnesses were called, at the end of whose testimony
Mr. Knowles said he could not carry the case any farther,
and he would consent to a nonsuit.
The Court rose at half-past eight o'clock.
Seven cases remained to be disposed of, several of which
are expected to be of considerable length ; and as the learned
Judge must leave Liverpool to-night (Tuesday), for the
opening of the Term to-morrow, it is not unlikely that there
will be several remands.

At the Warwick assizes, la3t week, a Captain Lampet re-
covered a verdict, with £5O damages, from a Captain Sea-
raucke, for an assault in the public parade at Leamington
Spa. The £5O has been handed over to a public charity.
The trial of Montague Clarke, for shooting at his stepfather.
the Rev. H. P. Bennett, took place at the Gloucester assizes
on Thursday, when the Jury returned a verdict of " Not
guilty."
A BLACKING MAKER'S WILL.-021 Tuesday week Lord
Langdale gave judgment in the great will cause of Day e.
Croft. It referred to the extensive estate devised by Mr.
Day, late of the opulent firm of Messrs. Day and Martin,
the well-known blacking manufacturers. There are 75 parties
to the suit, and about 30 counsel have been engaged in it.
It has been frequently before the Court. His lordship, after
recapitulating the facts of the case, stated that the parties
having agreed, he had confirmed the decision of the parties,
and the numerous annuitants under the will of the testator
might now come in and claim the beneficial interest created
for them, whilst at the same time the interest of Mrs. Day,
the testator's widow, of his daughter, Mrs. C. Claggett, and
of the Blind Men's Charity Fund, to which the testator be-
queathed the sum of £lOO,OOO, were all efficiently provided
for and protected. The question of costs was deferred.
THE SPECIAL COMMISSION.—From a parliamentary re-
turn just published, we learn, that the total sum already
expended during the late special commission amounts to
£17,533 12s. 9d.: viz., £7,103 ISs. Id. at Chester and Li-
verpool, ateipiocolhT,ehste r eeach of which places the judges sat four days ;
juunddge..o,sl9 14s. Bd. at Stafford, where the judges sat 13
di
and Liverpool,
variousi tenis
of this
judges'es een.dpietnusreeswere a2s
Os followid
of2c. e74r 87, x:160 17s.
dl. 7s; .d;itfteoe,s
Cheshire,t to counsel clerks,733
2 s9d
Lan-
cashire,
fees to solicitors and expenses of witnesses, £2,000..
Stafford,.. the judges' expenses were £329 10s. ; judges' offi-
cers, .4,!86 2s. ; fees to counsel and clerks, £1,091 14s. ; fees
to solicitors, £2,718 12s. 9d. ; expenses of witnesses, £1,979
17s. 9d. ; travelling and hotel expenses of counsel, solicitors.
&c., previously to and at the late special commission, 4138
Is. 2d. ; sheriff, under-sheriff, and gaoler, £475 17s.