The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-09-05 00:00:00

CRIM. CON.

REES v. FI,ITCROFT.—This was an action brought by
the plaintiff, Richard Rees, against the defendant, Seth
Flitcroft. The declaration was in trespass for criminal
conversation with the plaintiff's wife. The defendant
pleaded not guilty.
Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant
Murph—
y for the defendant.
Mr. JAMES stated the case. He said that in this case
i
he had the honour to appear as advocate of a man n an
humble sphere of life in this town, who was, he believed,
a machine-maker and mechanic in the employ of Messrs.
Humble and Milchrist, and had been with them for a
number of years. It would appear that the plaintiff had

resided for some time, as a I,al;er in Cie. is ms- of his wife,
who was the widow of a Captain Harley, and that in the
month of Jan-a try, in the present year. he had been mar-
ried to her. Tie tkfend int was, as far as station in
went, a highly resreeable mannfacturer of grates, and
his place of basiness vets in Castle-street, Livernaol.
Some short time after the marriage of the plaintiff with
his wife, the defendant was seen on various occasions,
during the absence of the plaintiff at his work, to go to
his house, no doubt for the purpose of seeing the plaintiff's
wife. Upon one of these occasions, the sister of the
plaintiff, a respectable married lady of the name of Davis,
went to the plaintiff's house to take tea, when an elderly
gentleman, and the defendant was elderly, came there, the
plaintiff 'ueing then absent, whereupon the plaintiff's wife
represented him as-her landlord by way of throwing dust
into the eyes of the parties then assembled. There was
no pretence, however, for saying that he was the landlord.
They left the room in which they were, went up stairs to-
gether to a room, and, after being locked up for half an
hour, they came down again, and the defendant left by a
different way from that by which he had entered. It was
not for him (Mr. James) to say what had taken place on
that occasion; but in some short time after, the wife took
it into her head to leave the house., and to go and live with
the defendant. At the time of her leaving, she said and
seemed to hold out some prospect, that, if her husband
would only submit for a certain time to the indignity of-
fered, he would get the means of living a more co►nforta-
ble life thereafter; and she accordingly went away, and
continued to live at the house "of the defendant, at Wa-
vertree, cohabiting with him up to the time of the action
having been brought. It was for the jury to say, under
those circumstances, what damages the plaintiff had sus-
tained for the grievous wrong inflicted upon him by the
defendant.

Evidence having bee❑ given to prove the case,
Mr. Sergeant MURPIIY addressed the jury on the part
of the defendant, contending that the case had been sup-
ported by gross perjury and contradiction. He thought
the age of the defendant (about 70 years) would predicate
anything but intrigue, and said that the gentleman had
simply visited at the house of the plaintiff, in the middle
of the day, for the purpose oflengaging Mrs. Rees as his
housekeeper.
A. verdict was unhesitatingly returned for the defendant.

LINGHAM v. HAMILTON AND OTHERS.—This was
an action brought for the recovery of £l6OO, being the
amount of commission alleged to be owing on cargoes of
oil, &c., brought home from Africa in vessels called the
Didulus and Garrow. The plaintiff was Henry Lingham,
and the defendants were John Hamilton and William
Jackson. The defendants pleaded that thcy had not pro-
mised.
Mr. Knowles, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Cowling appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Baines and Mr. Crompton for
the defendants.
The defence was, that the plaintiff had violated his in-
structions in respect to the Garrow ; that he had trusted
persons when there was no necessity for trusting; and
that he had taken a worthless bill from King Pepel, at
Bonny, the value of which the defendants had never ob-
tained.
A verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the sum
claimed.

PLATT AND OTHERS V. YOUNG AND OTHERS.—This
was an action brought by Messrs. Platt, Son, and Casson,
tar and turpentine distillers and resin manufacturers, of
Liverpool, for the recovery of the amount of a policy of
insurance for £2OOO from the directors of the London
and York Insurance Company.. The defendants pleaded
to the whole declaration payment of £1265 into court.
Mr. Watson and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plain-
tiffs ; and Mr. Knowles and Mr. Pashley for the defend-
ants.

It appeared that the policy had been effected on the
distillery and yard of the plaintiff, situated between
Greenland-street and Parliament-street, in the south
end of the town, and that that policy had been made on
the 10th of November, 1842, for six months. On the
22d of December there was a fire on the premises, which
destroyed all the property in the yard, and also in a ware-
house called " Guyton's." The defendants alleged that
they were only liable for £1265, the value of the property
in the warehouse in question ; and it was not disputed
that that was about the value of the said property. The
action was, therefore, brought for the recovery of the
value of the property in the yard, which amounted to
about £735.

After the examination of witnesses, the court adjourned
at twenty minutes after seven o'clock.

CROWN COURT.-SATURDAY.
ASSAULT, WITH INTENT TO COMMIT A RAPE.

William Gibbon, 30, stood charged with assaulting
Ann Lythgoe, at Pennington, in July last.
Mr. Trafford conducted the prosecution. Mr. Wilkins
the defence.

It appeared, by the evidence of the prosecutrix, that on
the 25th July the prisoner went into the weaving shop
where the former was at work, and made inquiry respect-
ing a hen which he said had been lost; and, finding her
alone, threw her down and attempted to commit the act
with which he stood charged.

Mr. WILKINS addressed the jury for the prisoner.
The jury retired, and, after an absence of two hours,
returned, finding the prisoner guilty. He was sentenced
to four months' imprisonment.