The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-03-28 00:00:00

BURGLARY IN MANCHESTER

John Chorlton, 32 James Riley, 18, and Caroline Win-
ton, 29, were charged with having, in Swan-street, Man-
chester, early on the morning of the 15th February, bur-
glariously broken and entered the dwelling-house of John
Faulkner, and having stolen four boots, and a pair of
slippers, The jury found the prisoners Chorlton and
Caroline Winton guilty, and Riley not guilty. The
female had before been convicted of felony.—The Judge
said Winton had been fourteen times convicted, and
sentenced her to be transported for 10 years. Chorlton,
who had not before been committed, was sentenced, tQ
1 year's imprisoument. - Riley was discharged.
vise—at a eri,,rter ra.4 six,

NISI PRIUS COURT.—YESTERDAY.
(Before Mr. Baron ROLgE.)
WALTER V. PRESTON.—ThiS was an action to recover a
balance of amount due upon two promissory notes.
The plaintiff was a maltster, residing at Mirfield,
shire. The defendant was a shoe manufacturer in SV._
ford, and had giYen a promissory note and acceptance Pt
amounts due from his brother, a brewer in Manchester, to
the plaintiff. The question was whether certain pol'
ments made by the brothers were in liquidation of thesa
securities.

The Jury found for the defendant.
ELLIOT v. HEGlNBorrom.—An action to recover -v-s--4°
for goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff was a 11°11
merchant in Manchester, and the defendant a shop
keeper at Gatley, near that town.—The plaintiff wag 110°.
suited.

QUEgTIONABLE NOTICE OF DISHOTCOUR.—ALLS-
EDMONMON.—This was an action to recover the sure °I
£126 Ss. 3d., the balance of an amount for goods so"
and delivered. Both the plaintiff and defendants ar.
silk merchants in Manchester, and had dealings tege".„,fer
to a considerable extent. When the account was balan
between theta there was a balance of £167 Bs. 3d., uP"-
which the defendant paid in cash £3l, and a bill dill',
by a person named Canning, and accepted by a Pers°_
named Murgatroyd. The bill became due on the2ndvu", ''
last in London, which was on a Saturday. On the Tub
,:
day following, the' plaintiff would receive notice of t",
dishonour of the Mlle which was protested. On that..cw
he sent a clerk to the office of the defendant, to give
notice of the bill being dishonoured, but could not flut
him at home. He called again every day the same fly
with the like success, and it was not until the week
lowing that he was able to. obtain an interview with 111
The defendant, on hearing this state of things,' pleat°
that he had not had due notice of the dishonour of tile"
bill, and paid £26 12s. 3d: into court, to balance Ow
amount, contending that the acceptance was a valid PO'

ment.
Mr. ATHERTON cited a judgment of Lord Ellenborougli,"
to show that the first call at the office of the defendant
was sufficient notice in law of .the dishonour.
Mr. MARTIN contended that it was not. • to
The learned JUDGE said, as its was necessary for biro
decide one way or the other, he-should decide in favour o'
the plaintiff.
Mr. MARTIN thereupon addressed a few observationl,
to-the jury, and called the son of the defendant, a Y°ll__",,,
16 years of age, who stated that he had kept his father
books for the past three years, and was at the Al
the whole of the week the clerk of the Plaillwa
called;- that he saw him on the morning of the fith,
told him that his father had gone to,Lendon the previeug
evening,.and would not return for a -few days.
His LORDSHIP then ruled that the notice was
ent, observing that had it not been- for the author",
quoted by Mr. Atherton, he should have ruled differently"
A verdict was then entered by the direction of the Cow
for the plaintiff, with liberty to the defendant to mo/e.' b„
enter a nonsuit if the court above should be of °pit%
that the first call at the office of the defendant was not
notice of dishonour.
One or two other uninteresting cases were tried dnrina
the day.