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

t by certain persons whose pro-
Manchester to re-

nensation from the hundred, under the statute 7
o. IV., c. 31, for the damage done by the riotous
y. The case was tried at Liverpool, and a verdict
or the plaintiffs on all the issues save one, and on
ssue a verdict was taken for the defendants. The plea
issue was raised was that found for the de-
le effect that the borough of Manchester was a
idependent of the hundred of Salford, and that
Municipal Corporations Act (5 and 6 Wm. IV.,
0) the borough was exclusively liable to pay for any dam-
e done by rioters.

cover corn
and 8 Ge

which tb

borough in
under the

-Mr. KNOWLES on a former day having obtained a rule to
show cause why a verdict found for the defendant on the
third issue should not be set aside, and the verdict returned
for the plaintiff en that issue also.
Mr. WORTLEY was now heard in opposition to the rule.
He admitted that the liability of the hundred depended
mainly on the provisions of the statute 7 and 8 George IV.,
c. 31. The 12th section of that statute enacted, that where
the damage is committed in any county of a city or town, or
place, the inhabitants whereof do not contribute to any
county rate, or who contribute thereto, but not as being part
of any hundred or other like district, such place shall be lia-
ble like the hundred. He contended that since the passiug
of the Municipal Corporation Act the borough of Manchester
fell within the description contemplated by this section. He
could not deny that the borough contributed to the county
rate, but he insisted that such contribution was not made as
being part of the hundred, but was made by the borough, as
a borough, out of the borough fund. If this view of the case
was correct, the action should have been brought, not against
the borough o: Salford, but against the borough of Manches-
ter' which, under the statute 7 and 8 George IV., was liable,
"like the hundred."

The COURT, without hearing counsel in support of the
rule, determined that the hundred of Salford was liable. The
inhabitants of the borough of Manchester certainly contri-
buted to the county rate as being part of the hundred of
Salford, and therefore did not come under the stipultaion
contained in the 7th and Bth Geo. IV., c. 31, s. 12. It was
true the county rate was paid by the borough, and other
parts of the hundred in different proportions. A separate
account was kept against the borough, for the expenses of
criminal prosecutions, and the maintenance and transport of
borough offenders. The borough continued in common,
however, with other parts of the hundred, to certain general
expenses, such as the repairs of bridges and roads within the
hundred, the salaries of the gaoler and chaplain, and some
others. To these expenses the inhabitants of Manchester
were liable to contribute, as part of the hundred of Salford,

and the hundred of Salford was liable to the damages in-
curred in consequence of the riotous proceedings within the
borough. The court was of opinion, therefore, that the ver-
dict had been wrongly entered for the defendant at the trial,
and that the rule must be absolute to enter it for the plaintiff
on the third as well as the other issues.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—THURSDAY.
(Sittings in Banco.)

THE QUEEN V. FEARGUS O'CONNOR AND OTHERS

A certain degree of excitement had been created by the
announcement that these defendants were to be brought up
for judgment. and on the opening of the doois all the avail-
able seats of this inconvenient court were at once filled.
The Attorney-General prayed judgment against the defen-
dants, who had been convicted of unlawfully aiding and abet-
ting others in doing certain acts charged as unlawful.
Lord Denman said, that the officer of the court had in-
formed the judges that some of the parties convicted at the
assizes were not here. That made no difference with respect
to the present proceedings. The court could proceed to pass
sentence on those that were present, and they would have a
right, notwithstanding the absence of their fellows, to say
anything they might think fit in arrest of judgment.
The following defendants answered to their names :
Feargus O'Connor, Richard Otley, G. J. Harney, William
Hill, John Arran, William Aitkin, S. Challenger, Samuel
Parkes, D. Railton, William Woodruff, (all of whom were
convicted on the fifth count only,) and J. Leach, C. Doyle,
Jonathan Bairstow, J. Arthur, T. Cooper, R. Brooke, John
Durham, James Fenton, James Mooney, and Frederick
Augustus Taylor.
Mr. Dundas, who appeared for R. Brooke, moved an
arrest of judgment on the fifth count, on the ground that
there was no venue stated in it ; and on the fourth count,
on the ground that the statement of the offence was insuffi-
cient. Counsel for the other prisoners having been heard in
support of the same objections, a rule was granted to show
cause why the judgment should not be arrested.—The At-
torney-General having asked when the court would hear the
,case again, a conversation took place on the subject, and it
'was finally settled that the rule should be argued on the se-
cond day of next term.—The Attorney-General said, that he
did not think it would be necessary for the defendants to
come up again in person.—The court assented to this, and
the defendants entered into their own recognizances to appear
when called upon, and left the court.