The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-04-04 00:00:00

who was a cotton merchant, had sold on credit consider-
able quantities of cotton to Mr. Mylne. holding a mort-
gage security for his advances. In the beginning of 1842
Mr. Mylne, wishing to have the credit extended, proposed
the guarantee of the defendant for £3OO ; and on the 12th
of January the defendant accordingly executed the gua-
rantee in question. Mr. Galley died in the June follow-
ing, and Mr. Mylne in the September following. He
proved to be insolvent, and there was then owing to Mr.
Galley, on account of cotton sold, a sum of upwards of
£1,300, besides several hundred pounds for money lent.
Mrs. Galley administered the effects of her husband under
the Court of Chancery, and in the course of these pro-
ceedings the estate mortgaged by Mylne was sold ; but
even with other sums obtained from Mylne's represen-
tatives and other persons whose guarantees Mr. Galley
held a large balance still remained due. The payment
was now resisted on the ground stated in the pleas, that it
was sought to put the guarantee in force contrary to good
faith, inasmuch as when Mr. Taylor signed it he did it
under the representation that Galley wanted it only for
the purpose of showing it his bankers to induce them to
suppose he had a security to that extent, but he never in-
tended to put it in force against Taylor as a security to
himself. Mr. Galley's brother was present, and was now
called as a witness to prove the execution of the guarantee.
He stated, nothing of the kind alleged in the plea took
place ; that Mr. Taylor was certainly unwilling at first to
execute it. saying that he was an old man, and did not like
to have anything to do with such things ; but that there
was no such statement as that suggested made by Mr.
Galley.
On the other hand, Mrs. Mylne, who was also present
when the guarantee was executed, was called for the de-
fence, and her statement certainly on the point was to-
tally inconsistent with that of Mr. Galley, the witness.
It appeared, however, from the evidence of Mr. Wood-
fall, called for the plaintiff, that after the death of Mr.
Mylne and Mr. Galley, he had acted for the widow, Mrs.
Galley, in conducting her affairs as administratrix, and
that in applying to Mr. Taylor respecting this guarantee,
he promised to pay it, and only proposed some reduction
in the interest.
His LORDSHIP summed up to the jury, leaving it to
them to say to which side they would give credit, but in-
timating that where a person puts his name to a written
document of this kind, bearing no such condition on the
face of it, he ought, to get rid of his liability, make out his
case by very cogent evidence.
Verdict for the plaintiff.

As
CROWN COURT.--THIIRSDAY

John Greenhalg, 26, and David Kay, 50, were charged
with having, at Tottington, burglariously broken and
entered the dwelling-house of Samuel Coop, and stolen
therefrom two yards of flannel, two pounds of cheese,
and two pounds of bread, his property. The case for the
prosecution having been partly proceeded with, the learned
judge and jury were of opinion that the matter was more
a " lark" than a burglary, the prisoners were acquitted.
Charles Foley, 21, was charged with having, at Man-
chester, feloniously broken and entered the dwelling-house
of James Jones, Lower Mosley-street, with intent to steal
the goods and chattels therein. The prisoner effected his
entrance by the coal grid.—Guilty. To be imprisoned
for a year.

John Markey, 17, was charged with having feloniously
broken and entered the dwelling-house of William Imrie,
at Bootle-cum-Linacre, on the 28th of February, and
stolen therein twelve silver tea spoons, seven dinner forks,
eight dessert forks, five dessert spoons, a salt stand, two
salt spoons, six egg cups, and a bible.—Guilty. There
was another charge of burglary against the prisoner, but
it was not gone into.—To be transported for seven years.
James Cropper, 32, and William Darby, 22, were
charged with having, on the 4th of March, at Bury, bur-
glariously broken and entered the dwelling-house of John
Horror, with intent to steal the goods and chattels therein.
The jury found Cropper guilty, and Darby was acquitted.
Cropper was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment and
hard labour.

William Nelson, 27, was charged with having, on the
25th of February, at Goosnargh-with-Newsham, feloni-
ously broken and entered the dwelling-house of James
Cottam, and stolen therefrom one gun, one silver watch,
and one handkerchief, the property of James Cottam.—
Mr. Segar was for the prosecution ; the prisoner was un-
defended.—The prisoner was acquitted, his identity not
having been made out to the satisfaction of the jury.
Joseph Sampson, 45, was indicted for having, at Ash-
ton-under Lyne, feloniously put off to Ralph Ogden a
forged request for the delivery of goods, with intent to de-
fraud him. It appeared the prisoner was a labourer on
the Hudderfield and Manchester Railway at Ashton-
under-Lyne. The jury found the prisoner guilty, but re-
commended him to mercy, and strongly reproved the sys-
tem pursued towards the men. His Lordship said he
perfectly agreed with the jury as to the loose manner in
which the tickets were made out. He sentenced the pri-
soner to imprisonment for three months, and hard labour.
John Weston, a little lad, was indicted for having
stabbed two other lads on the 4th of February, at Man-
chester. Mr. Sowler prosecuted. The lads all worked at
the same mill, and a qutrrel ensued, which resulted in
the prisoner being turned out of the room ; on going
home at night, he came behind the two boys and stalabed
them. His lordship said that they could not find so
young a lad guilty with any intent ; and on his grand-
father, who was present, promising to give the gaoler
orders that he should be whipped, he would discharge
him in the morning.

BOILER EXPLOSION AT ARDWICK, MANCHESTER.
_ _ _

Thomas Riley (out on bail) pleaded guilty to a charge
of manslaughter. In
r.r.nnq, by the explosion of a boiler belonging to him,
which he kept in bad repair_—Mr_. Sergeant Wilkins ap-
peared for the prosecution, and Mr. Baines and Mr. Monk
for the defence.—Mr. Sergeant WILKINS said that, con-
sidering all things, the prisoner had acted most prudently
by pleading guilty ; he had risked his own life, and the
prosecutors were willing not to press the charge, but deal
leniently with him, seeing he had always borne a good
character.—Mr. BAINES said that he had read over the
depositions, and thought his client had acted in a proper
manner by pleading guilty. The cause of the explosion
had arisen entirely through ignorance, and when the court
took into consideration that his own life and that of all
his family had been risked, that he had lost his all, and
had always borne an excellent character, they would be
inclined to deal leniently with him.—Numerous witnesses
were then examined, who bore high testimony as to the
character of the prisoner.—His lordship took time to
consider the sentence.

NISI PRIUS COURT-THURSDAY

MADAM V. SMITH AND WIFE.—An action to recover
the sum of £lOO, upon an I 0 U which had been borrowed
from the plaintiff byMrs. Smith before her marriage to the
defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff.

AND ANOTHER V. BRADLEY.—An action
brought by the Rev. Mr. Formby and his sister against
John Bradley, of Crosby, to recover the sum of
£lOO 14s. 6d., due under the covenants of a lease. Ver-
dict for the plaintiffs.
LEIGH V. HESKETH.—An action for slander, the defen-
dant having called the plaintiff a " d—d thief," that he
had " robbed his father," and that he was a hangman.
The plaintiff was the son of a respectable farmer at Ley-
land, and was courting the sister of the defendant. Some
time ago the plaintiff was at a public-house, and the de-
fendant went in and commenced abusing him, and used
the language attributed to him. Verdict for the plaintiff,
damages 40s.
WHEATLEY V. RICHARDSON.—An action to recover
the sum of £5OO, due on a promissory note. Verdict for
the plaintiff, with interest. Immediate execution was
granted.
JACKSON AND ANOTHER V. RIDGWAY.—An action
brought by the plaintiffs. Messrs. Jackson and Sparks,
who are provision merchants of this town, against the de-
fendant, who is the owner of a ship called the Orleans, to
recover £2OO for provisions supplied by the defendant's
order. Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £2lB 4s.
MAautorr v. CorroN.—The plaintiff is a solicitor in
London, and trustee for a lady, who has advanced money
on mortgage of a cotton mill in Queen-street, Salford,
which was burnt down a short time ago, to recover the
sum of £675, the amount necessary to re-build the mill,
which was burnt during the tenancy of the defendant, and
also £l6 for rent due. The question turned npon the
meaning of an agreement for a lease of the premises to
the defendant, and which contained a clause to the effect,
that the defendant should, if required, pay an additional
sum for the insurance of the building against fire. One
point raised by the defendant's counsel was, that there
was no damage to the landlord beyond the loss of his rent,
inasmuch as the tenancy, under the agreement, (at which
time only the plaintiff could re-enter the premises,) :was
not terminated. His lordship having intimated that he
should reserve the point, the jury returned a verdict for
£l6 for rent due, and one shilling damages, expressing

their opinion that the fire was the result of accident

HAY DOCK v. TROTTER.—This was an action brought by
Mr. Haydock, formerly a publican in Liverpool, but now
occupier of the Liver Inn, at Kirkdale, against the defen-
dant, who is a seafaring man, and lodged in the plaintiff's
house during the year 1843-4. He was charged 16s. per
week for his board, and (Mr. Atherton said) inasmuch as
he was fond of something " stronger" than, board at 16s.
per week, he was in the habit of borrowing money from
the plaintiff's wife. In 1845 he left the plaintiff's house,
and sailed for Africa. At this time his bill for board and
lodging amounted to about £45, besides which the money
amounted to £3B odd. From that time nothing was heard
of him until last November. An account was sent to him,
and a friend of the plaintiff spoke to him on the subject,
when be made some demur as to the amount, but said he
would pay .£55. This offer was, however, declined by the
plaintiff. An action was then commenced, and the defen-
dant paid £45 16s. on account of his board and lodging,
and as to the remainder he pleaded " never indebted."
Witnesses were called, who stated generally that they had
seen the plaintiff lend money to the defendant. Ulti-
mately, a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, damages £2O.
HASSALL AND ANOTHER v. COLE.—The plaintiffs in
this case, Messrs. Hassall and Foulkes, formerly carried
on business as wine-merchants at Chester ; and the de-
fendant, Mr. William Cole, is an engineer living at Bir-
kenhead. The action was brought to recover £325 on a
guarantee made by the defendant for a person of the name
of Wilkinson, who kept an inn at Birkenhead, and whom
the plaintiffs supplied with wine. The jury found a ver-
dict for the plaintiffs, damages £325. Leave was given
to the counsel for the defendant to move the court above
to enter a nonsuit, on certain points in dispute.—ln the
case of King v. Cole, a similar verdict was returned.