The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-08-29 00:00:00

Taylor was also
the fl

flags, &c.) Mr. JOhi

witness

One from John Cree, to the prisoner, dated London,

enclosing

letter from tt

for wages, anti other payments made to the iirisoner. Also a
-
variety of details of family matters, and advice to go and lec-
ture in towns that invited him and would pay him, and not to
be seeking to get up meetings up and down. The " Song of
the Soil" was then put in, and the Attorney-General was called
upon by his lordship to argue the question, which he did. "The
Song of the Soil" was put in against the prisoner, but both
counsel objected to either document, as they contained nothing
but abstract opinions, which it was not shown the defendant
entertained. His lordship decided that the song might be
eceived in evid,-- 's it would e-ninin some of the language

used by the •prisoner. A copy.oll a small printed paper, a
number of " The Truth Telier, ' was next put in, and was also
objected to. Ilis Lordship deemed it admissible, and it was
read. It promised the charter to the people, and stated that
the paper would followup the principles involved. It also offered
its exertions to bring about a repeal of thc Union. The paper
wtis_published in Staleybridge.

This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. WILKINS then addressed the jury in an eloquent and
vehement manner, going over the whole of the evidence, taking

make on behalf of his client. He dwelt very forcibly and ener-
getically on the political rights, liberties, and immunities of
Englishmen, and closed a speech of upwards of an hour's du-
ration by a powerful appeal to the jury to acquit the prisoner;
first, because the language imputed to him was reported by
ignorant policemen, in snatches,--only portions of the speech,
—which might have borne a different meaning; and, secondly,
that there was no proof of alarm or of riot.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then replied at great len
therance of the prosecution.

gth in fur

His LORDSHIP summed up with great perspicuity, pointing
out and defining the meaning of unlawful asgeni _ling, and other
points, as he proceeded. He admitted that it was remarkable
that three of the witnesses, who put in their notes of the words
imputed to the prisoner, should all have hit upon nearly the pre-
cise same words. It was for the jury to say whetherthey thought
they had conversed together so as to arrive at thissimilarity, or
whetl, • tv

passages were so remarkable that they impreisied
themselves upon the minds of all of them with equal force.
After reading over the passages seriatim, he thought the latter
case probable. He then referred to the letters as showing that
the prisoner had been hired to itinerate the country, and he
also referred to the Truth Teller, of which or.e hundred copies
were found upon the prisoner.
The jury, after retiring a few minutes, returned a verdict of
guilty on all the three counts of the indictment.
Hie Lo R nsiiiP said the prisoner had been convicted, on the
clearest evidence, of an act of sedition of great magnitude—cal-
culated to strike at the comfort and safety of society. It was
the second time he had been convicted of sedition ; and,l after
advising him, on kis release, to hire himself out in some useful
vocation, as he had abilities, and not to seek to stir up the peo-
ple to disaffection, discontent, and riot, his Lordship sentenced
him to be imprisoned in the gaol of the county two years.

being presen

A was the Brian BOI'llU flag

several persons in the processia

1.11 Uaell ptse:
n S. Henry said he and Mr
able), were together. nnri

SeflC t the
Manchester, for assistance. ,Nome of the wen lett
the procession anti threw stones at him. He was also struck
on the lip. People on the walks tin...,

aim, and

others assailed him with sticks. He received 9 wounds t an
His horse slipped, having been severely r 01i)
sharp instrument. A Mr. Clarke saw Mr. Henry riu Joy
the road from the toll-bar, and saw Gunn throw „me
him. There were three others with him, two of them carry
pikes. He saw Gunn afterwnr‘i.

vounderl by some

-.6 down
V a stone at

1 a flag., and hadli
A, female witm

Another female corroborated the last.
Mr. JAMES, who had defended three of the prisoners, then
addressed the jury in their behalf, at considerable length and
with great ingenuity, takiiv, advantage of every available
portion of the evidence. He argued that it did not, he
thought, follow, that one or two parties having, in a
procession, thrown stones at Mr. Henry, would
implicate
other parties who happened to be present. He thought
that the only_ two witnesses against Birch Anjett, be

did not see that the same count could involve another charB,
He contended that there was nothing illegal in a quiet proces-
sion, even if they carried pikes or other weapons. He knew of
no law to prevent this, and argued that there was nothing
riotous or tumultuous in the procession. He should call one

Mr. Fry appeared for Flinn and Mooney, and spoke ably in
their behalf, with regard to the assault. Flinn was not present
when the assault took place. (This his learned friend on the
other side just intimated to him.) The police were armed, (a
new custom,) and the defendants thought they had as good a
right to carry arms.

Joshua Vunwoodie was called by Mr. JAMES, but said
nothing that could make in behalf of Gunn, as he had lost
sight of him for a few minutes, at about the time Mr. Henry
was attacked. About 12 o'clock Flyn passed him and witness
spoke to him. He immediately saw a gentleman mounted,
whose face was cut. He saw no stones thrown, and Flynn was
not then with the procession.

Thomas Flynn, brother of the prisoner, said he saw his
brother in Oldham-road, but the latter was speaking to a
person on the rout. He afterwards saw a gentleman riding
with his face bloody.

Mr. PoLLocit addressed the jury for the prosecution. It was
enough tikshow an intimidating spirit on the part of an assem-
bly, witll7ut any act of violence. Twenty or thirty pikes were
helu up and waved over their heads, and they proceeded to
other acts which alarmed the neighbourhood, so that the shops
were closed, and all was terror and alarm. Some of the in-
habitants had locked up their houses and gone away,
The Learned JUDGE summed up, explaining the law on the
two charges in the indictment—first, the riotous assembling;
and, second, an assault on a special constable. His Lordship
very succinctly summed up the evidence.

The jury found Flinn, Lowny; ;,;a-Rooney guilty of riot;
Gunn and Birch guilty of both tin riot and the assault.

Sentence was deferred until to-da

, vast number of swords, pikes, sticks, guns, bludgeons,
were brought into court in this case, taken from the riot
some of them very formidable weapons.]

This terminated the criminal trials of these assizes, and the
court rose at half-past seven o'clock. His Lordship, after dis-
posing of some applications for bail, will this morning take
some civil cases.

NISI PRIUS COURT—YESTERDAY.
His Lordship took his seat on the bench at nine o'clock, and
proceeded with the special jury cases.

BANKERS' ACCOUNT.
HALIFAX AND OTHERS v. BROWNIUGG AND OTHERS.—This
was an action to recover the balance due upon a promissory
note endorsed by the defendants to the plaintiffs.

air. martin ana Crompton were counsel for the plain
tiffs, and Mr. Watson and Mr. Hill for the defendants.• ldr. MARTIN stated the case to the jury. The plaintiffs pr, __ __.

j•-.• . inaini 111 S were
Messrs. Glyn, Halifax, Mills, and Co.,J
andlc the defendants
Messrs. Cockerell and Co., formerly East India merchants, the
firm consisting of Mr. Cockerell, Sir George Larpent, and Mr.
John S. Brownrigg. The defendants, Mr. Cockerell and Sir G.
Larpent, had suffered judgment by default, and the simple

question for the consiiieraion of the jury was whether Mr
Biownrigg was discharged from his liability upon a certain pro
_ ,

missory note for £55,00a, a balance upon which was still due: H.
believed that Mr. Bron•nrigg was acting under some misappre
llancinn rpersontincr tha nne.

nopea woma oe removea wnen he explained the whole of the
circumstances, which he would shortly do. The house of
Cockerell and Co. was one of the largest East India houses in
the country. In 1843 they borrowed from the plaintiff.
A'lo,ooo, which wag redueqd: in

10 VI, y,..11./14 11 Hell
ent was made for its liquidation by three instalments.

icson, Wno was a parner in Pricer; Pa-
teit—Candle Company,n owed to the firm oft Cockerell and Co.
the sum of £19,500, and he gave to Cockerell and Co. two pro-
had then
missory notes for .10,000 each. The Patent Candle Company
been tray red to a joint-stock company, and Mr.
Wilson bad 1300 shares allotted toehim as his share of the con-
cern. The defendant had also a number of shares allotted to
"4
On the 10th July, Mr. Wilson being indebted to Cock-
erell tyla in the amount of £19,500, he gave to them two
nno each, and, as collateral security,
_
denosited. In order to
Mr. Wel-

the 1300 shares in the Compa..,
negotiate these notes, the shares were transferreu
lington, one of the clerks to Messrs. Glyn and Co., in trust for
the benefit of the plaintiffs. On the 20th July the promissory
note for .t 50,000 being two or three months over due, a settle-
ment was required. when it was arranged to place certain secu-
rities in the hands of the bankers, and amongst others 1828
shares in the Candle Company belonging to Mr. Brownrigg.
Sir George Larpent, however, by some mistake, agreed to trans-
fer to Mr. Wellington, on behalf of the plaintiffs, 3123 shares,
which included the shares belonging to Mr. Wilson. The
question therefore now was, whether the shares belonging to
Mr. Wilson should be applied in payment of the debt due by
Mr. Brownrigg, or to the payment of Wilson's own.
[The agreement between the plaintiffs and Cockerell and Cc.
was then put in and read.]
Sir George Larpent was then called, and he stated that he
was a partner in the firm of Cockerell and Co., of which Mr.
John Studham Brownrigg was a partner. He retired at the
end of 1846. At that time Mr. Win. Wilson owed the firm
.."19,500, which he and his partners wished to realize, and in
accordance with which an agreement was entered into.

(The agreement was put in, which secured 1,300 shares in
Price 'e Patent Candle Co., and along with which, two promis-
sory notes of .10,000 each were given by Mr. Wilson to Cock-

The witness continued.—On this arrangement being made
and the 1,300 shares transferred to Mr. We'Hutton, clerk to
Messrs. Glynn, the two notes were discounted. The firm of
Cockerel! and Co. were also indebted to their bankers, Messrs.
Glynn and Co., to the extent of .W 50,000, and an arrangement
was made in July, 1846, to pay this by instalments of W 15,000
in October, W 15,000 in November, and W 20,000 in December ;
in addition to which, a box containing valuable securities was
deposited, amongst which was a debt of William Wilson, a
partner of Price and Co. Price and Co. afterwards sold the
concern to a joint-stock company, each of the members to
have shares to the amount of interest in the concern. His
(witness's) impression was that the shares of Mr. Brownrigg;
the patent candle company, amounting to 1823, were to be de-
posited as security for the debt of £50,000 due by Cockerell and
Co. to Glynn, Hallifax, Mills, and Co.
Cross-examined.—Mr. Brownrigg did not take any active part
in the concern after the end of 1845, but he did not go out of
the concern until the end of 1846, and he was to have W3OOO as
his shre of the profits for that year. The Patent Candle Com-
pany was a very profitable concern. When the box of secus
ties was last deposited with Messrs. Glynn and Co. they were
estimated at considerably more than £250,000. The bill for
.4-50,000 became due in May, 1847, and was held over by
Glynn
and Co. On the ],oth July that year security was given for

-100,000, on condition that about 430,n00 above the'.:eso,6oo
then due should be advanced, and, in addition to which, the
box contained securities to the extent of about .4'340,000.
Mr. 'WATSON, on behalfof the defendant, stated that the case
that he had to make out in behalf of Mr. Brownrigg, for whom
alone he appeared, was that there had been a payment of
4'46,543 2s. 7d., leaving a balance due upon the promissory
note of .W 6270 Its. Pd., which was due to the plaintiffs on the
14th August, 1848. That there was no doubt about it, forit was
admitted by the plaintiffs. Then he contended that the pro-
ceeds of the 1300 shares belonging to Mr. Wilson more than
—.is at London, covered the balance due by Mr. Brownrigg, and he contended
same, contained items that was, question for the Court to decide upor

froe evi-
dence adduCed, and was not a question for the jury.m Hethwas in
a condition to prove that the plaintiffs had already realized
6100 on the shares belonging to Wilson.
His LORDSHIP ruled that as the 1300 shares belonging to
Wilson had not been appropriated by. him to the payment of
the particular debt of .e 50,000, it was in the option of the plait -
tiffs to appropriate the proceeds of these shares as they thougl t

Mr. WATSON wished it to appear upon his Lordship's notes
that he contended that the question was one for the considera-
tion rtf Lie I e55..1.3..4... _ • .

ami nut ior me jury, anti that, tnereiore,
he declined to address the jury on the subject.
A verdict was then entered for the plaintiff for 46270.
Mr. MARTIN applied to his Lordship for speedy execution.
Mr. WATSON said the application was a most oppressive pro-
ceeding, more especially as it was in evidence that the:plaintiffs
held a considerable amount of security already.
This led to some discussion, and eventually it was agreed
that speedy judgment should be signed, but that execution
should not issue without an order from the judges.
BELL (P. 0.) V. LORD I NOESTRE.—This was a special jury

ponement, on the ground That a witness, who had come from
London to prove some material facts, had gone into Cheshire
to see his friends.

His LORDSHIP said it was his duty to be present, and the
case ought to go on, and if the witness did not appear, he
should be called upon his subpoena.
Mr. WATSON sa►d he could not do that. If his learned
friend persisted, there was no other course for him to pursue
except to withdraw the record.
M. MARTIN said his clients were fully prepared to try the
case, and all their witnesses were in attendance. He, hose.
ever, would not object to the case being postponed for the day,
if the Counsel would undertake that the witness in question
should be called. _ _

- kr. WATSON said he would not undertake that, as the at-
torney who instructed him, was not present.
His LORDSHIP said the attorney acted very imoronerly in

The case was then. withdrawn

BROKERS COMMISSION.
FORSYTH AND OTHERS V. GROVES.—This was an action
brought to recover '1?-103, being the amount due to the plair,
tiffs, as their commission on business transacted by the plain-
tiffs for the defendant. The plaintiffs were share-brokers in
Liverpool, and the defendant a merchant in this town also.
He was formerly one of the provisional committee of the Liver-
pool, Ormskirk and Preston Railway, now amalgamated wi h
the East Lancashire Company, the latter being in reality the
defendants. The defendant paid .273 into court. and as to the
residue, pleaded not indebted. The claim of the plaintiffs wns
for a per centage of 28. 6d. per share on those shares which had
been applied for through the plaintiffs, who were brokers in the
company, and Is. 3d. per share upon other shares which the
(Concluded in the Eighth Page.)