The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-08-20 00:00:00

CROWN COURT.-SATURDAY.

Joseph Walton, aged 19, charged with having wounded William
Lees, at Ashton-under-Lyne, in June last, with intent to do him
some grievous bodily harm, was found guilty of a common assault
only.
Joseph Farrell, 54, was found guilty of having caused the death
of his wife, at Manchester. The prisoner and deceased had quar-
relled on the 21st of July, when some things were thrown by both
parties, after which, the prisoner struck deceased a blow on the
head, which caused her to fall on the floor, in which state she was
found by the neighbours. She died on the Ist of August in conse-
quence of the injuries. A daughter of the prisoner witnessed the
occurrence, and said that the prisoner received great provocation.
Sentence deferred..

Edward illaylett,2s, charged with having caused the death of a
boy, named Thomas O'Donnell, by pushing him into the canal at
Manchester, on the 23d July last, was acquitted. It appeared that
the prisoner gave deceased a push, but that his fall into the canal
was the result of mere accident.

In the case of George Branscombe. charged, under three indict-
ments, with having caused the death of James M`Donald and
Bridget Hart, at Bolton, from want of due care in the management
of a steam-engine, by which the boiler unfortunately burst, the
Grand Jury cut the bill.

Thomas 'Butterworth, 33, charged with having entered the house
of Mr. Robinson, at Manchester, and stolen five dresses, some
jewellery, and other articles, in April last. The charge of burglary
was not made out, and a verdict of larceny against the prisoner
was returned.

William Riley, 22, and Catharine Carter, 20, were charged, the
former with having stolen certain property from the dwelling-house
of Elizabeth Dicken, of Manchester, and the latter with having re-
ceived the goods, knowing 'them to have been stolen. The prisoners
were found guilty Riley had been previously convicted of felony.

NISI PR/lIS COURT--SATURDAY.
ANDERTON V. ORUNDY.
This was an undefended action, brought by the plaintiff, a dealer
in woollen waste, at Rochdale, against the defendant, who resides
near the same place, to recover the sum of .£l3B for a quantity of
blue-fly.—Verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount.
FOTHERGILL AND ANOTHER V. 514CARTN EY.
Both the plaintiffs and defendant reside at Manchester. The
action was undefended, and a verdict was returned for the plaintiffs
for X3O ss. 43.

FISHER V. HOWARTH, JUN.
The defendant is an attorney at Bury, and was employed by the
plaintiff to recover a sum of £5O from a person of the name of
Elton, which lie received, but neglected to hand over to the plaintiff.
A verdict of £5O was returned for the plaintiff.

DOE. DEM. BATEMAN AND OTHERS V. LEVER AND ANOTHER.
This was an action of ejectment, brought by Thomas Bateman
and James Holt Heron, the surviving trustees of Arthur Clegg, to
recover possession of a warehouse in Banks-street, Manchester.
The defendants pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Cowling appeared for the plaintiffs; the
defendants conducted their own case.
Mr. MARTIN stated the case. The plaintiffs, he said, were the
surviving trustees under the will of Mr. Clegg, a gentleman who
carried on the timber trade in Manchester, and died possessed of
property to a large amount. The defendants were a Mrs. Lever
and a Mrs. Nelson; but who those were it was impossible to say.
The action was brought to recover possession of a warehouse,
which, in April last, had been unoccupied for a year, because of
some intended improvements in the town, which, it was thought,
would render it necessary to have the building taken down. At
that time the two females, Mrs. Lever and Mrs. Nelson, broke the
locks, took possession, and barricaded themselves inside, and there
they remained ever since. Under those circumstances, the sur-
viving trustees deemed it necessary to bring an ejectment to turn
them out. It appeared that Mrs. Lever asserted, that, about seventy
years ago, a person, named Hamilton. lived in Manchester, and
that, at his death, either herself or her husband became his heir;
and, while there was no doubt that such a person had lived and
died in Manchester, it was denied that the warehouse in question
had ever belonged to him, or that the Levers and Nelsons had the
slightest legal right to the possession of the same. The learned
counsel proceeded to show how the property had fallen into the
hands of Mr. Clegg, and to prove a continuation of possession in
him and his trustees from a very early period to the present time.
Some laughter was excited, at the close of the case for the plain-
tiffs, by Mr. Lever, a young man, apparently a mechanic, express-
ing a wish that his wife might be permitted to address the jury.
He said his "better half" was fully acquainted with the whole of
the circumstances, and that she wbuld be able to make out her case
in a manner satisfactory to the court.
Mrs. Lever, a thick-set little Woman, here stepped forward and
assured his lordship, that, if he allowed her to deliver the speech
for the defence, she should establish her claim to the property be-
yond all reasonable doubt.
His lordship said she could not be heard, as her husband was in
court, to which she replied that her husband could not read, but she
could. His lordship, however, declined to hear her, and said she
should have instructed her husband before they came into court,
and a verdict was returned for the plaintiffs.