The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1850-08-20 00:00:00

NISI PRIUS COURT.-FRIDAY

CONTEMPT OF COURT.--Previously to the commence-
ment of the ordinary business, his lordship ordered that
the man Robertson, whom he had committed to custody
on the previous night for flippancy and prevarication,
should be brought before him. His Lordship, address-
ing Robertson, said " You arc now discharged, and I hope
that what took place yesterday will be a warning to you
and others that a court of justice is not to be insulted with
impunity."
HORNER V. PALMER AND OTHERS.—This was an ac-
tion for libel, in which Mr. Knowles, Q.C., was for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins for the defendants.
The defendants were trustees of a building society in
Manchester, and they admitted, through their counsel,
that the charges in the libel complained of could not be
substantiated. Those charges they withdrew totally and
entirely• The apology or denial was accepted by the
plaintiff, who, Mr. Knowles said, came there to vindicate,
and not to coin out of, his character, and a verdict of 40s.
which carried costs, was agreed to. Considerable inter-
est was excited in the case it being expected that the
" Doctor" Nolan, of Manchester, who figured at the last
assizes, would appear as a witness. The amicable adjust-
ment disappointed not a few of the curious, who indulged
the hope that they would have an opportunity of seeing
the gentleman who has attained such unenviable notoriety.
ACTION ON A POLICY OF INSURANCE.—ELLIS V. THE
WEST OF ENGLAND INSURANCE COMPANY.—This was
brought on behalf of the estate of a draper in Manches-
ter, to recover the value of a policy of insurance effected
with the defendants. Mr. Watson, Q.C., and Mr. Asp-
land, appeared for the plaintiff, and Martin, Q.C., Mr.
Cowling, and Mr. Hugh Hill for the defendants. Mr.
Watson, at considerable length, stated the case on behalf
of the plaintiff. It appeared that the plaintiff was until
recent'v in busipess as a draper in Hulme, near Manches-
ter. During the time he was in business he effected an
insurance on his stock-in-trade with the defendants for
the sum of £5OO, and the action was now brought for
assignees of the plaintiff, who had, since the insurance
was effected, become bankrupt, to recover that amount,
the plaintiff's premises, before he so became bankrupt,
having been burnt and his stock consumed. The defend-
ants put in eight pleas.. One of the pleas was that the

premium upon the policy had not been paid 4 i second
that the plaintiff was not interested ; the third, th-.St the
fire took place in consequence of carelessness on the part
of the plaintiff. Another plea was that the plaintiff had
fraudulently violated the conditions of the policy. Mr.
Watson having explained the circumstances connected
with the fire, proceeded to call witnesses. The evidence
on the part of the plaintiff, which occupied the court from
eleven o'clock until half-past two, was to the effect, that
at the time of the fire he had goods on his premises to the
full amount claimed. The witnesses, examined severally,
deposed to the different purchases having been made from
wholesale dealers, and to there being large quantities of
silks and other fine goods in the shop when the fire took
place. Invoices were also handed in to the same effect.
Mr. Martin, for the defendant, contended that there was
nothing like the value of the goods claimed for, on the pre-
mises at the time of the fire—that the plaintiff was in diffi-
culties sometime before the fire took place, and had only
a very small stock on his premises, as the landlord would
prove, and the whole claim was an attempt at fraud.
Witnesses were then called to prove the facts, among
whom were the agent of the company in Manchester, and
other parties. Mr. Rose, superintendent of the fire police
in Manchester, was also called to prove the small quantity
of salvage which remained after the fire. At six o'clock
the court rose, before the case was concluded.

CROWN COURT.-SATURDAY

Joseph Wheeler, an elderly respectable-looking man,
a relieving officer of the Manchester Poor-law Union, was
charged with manslaughter, in having caused the death of
a pauper through inattention. No evidence was produced
in support of the charge, and the prisoner was acquitted.
Edward Jones was sentenced to ten days imprisonment
for being concerned in the death of a man named Lilly
at a prize fight, near Manchester, in September, 1849.
The prisoner acted as bottle-holder.
Joseph Smith, a youth, only sixteen years of age, was
indicted for having cut and wounded nannah Knight,
with intent to disable her. The r riioner was a shop-boy
with the prosecutor's husband, who keeps a shop in But-
ler-street, Manchester, and had been found fault with for
taking some money out of the till. One evening afterwards,
when prisoner and prosecutor were alone in the house,
he seized hold of her, and she felt something like a knife
pass across her throat. She struggled, and had her hands
severely cut with the knife, but her throat was merely
scratched. The prisoner alleged that the offence was
committed by a strange man, who suddenly burst into
the house: The prisoner was found guilty of an assault.

• J
James Pimlow was sentenced to twelve months impri-
sonment for a burglary in the dwelling-house of Benjamin
Williamson, Rochdale-road, near Manchester, in July last.
William Taylor, John Pearce, Thomas Toolal, and
James Unsworth were sentenced to transportation for a
very daring burglary at the house of an aged gentleman
named Kenyon, at Haydock, on the Bth January last,
and stealing therefrom three watches, a sovereign, and
other articles. The prisoners could not be identified by
the prosecutor, as they entered the house with their faces
masked. Their guilt was, however, established by two
accomplices, who are prisoners under conviction for bur-
glary in Leicester gaol. These men gave a most minute
account of the robbery, proving that, whoever were their
accomplices they themselves were concerned in the rob-
bery. Mr. Pollock, for the prisoners, contended that the
evidence of these men could not be believed, but the jury
nevertheless found them guilty.