The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-08-29 00:00:00

*hie)) th------------_____________
!o th q Proceeded to a house called the ... ,
' en" to Th .• S II '• a relative or the Pin-
,.. Et ‘v,., oMas , !11/ ey s, L.", whi Lune there, drceased ofF,Ted the prisoner some
Natpend el, he refused
, upon which she said she was as
ttl'etur„et? a 4. he was, and struck him a Wow, but he did
-weciirC st• She then ot np to strike him a second
Nilow _1 en the prisoner, in trying to -
.!. her neck, which' at first seen
%1110.74 began to Swell, and she dies
ed.._ '4" who was called gave it as his opinion tine "'
114 eath had been caused by the bursting of a blood
.4.11101 t. t,,,,he throat, which might have been produced by
liit, Vhe Prisoner was apprehended tiresome evening.
iiinalittletluxs, the prisoner's counsel, thought there
IllAtia..eNtY to address the jury, to which his Lord-
If4dreCti, and the prisoner was acquitted.
Atilt rt', Pairdough was charged with the manslaughter
irilft. Qthnee O'Brien, at Huy ton. It appeared t,iat on
jaytoetober last the prisoner was driving a gig along
*ithriNad, When he ran over the deceased, who was
The deceased
red se::,?la pigs in the same direction.
i'lllkqhortlY asfetevrewrea ridnsiuriTesh,lefroimsottileier effects of which
was acquitted,
°IN rose at half past six.pr

net, a

The plaintiff, John Power, was a corn-merchant, Hying
at Manchester, and the defendant, Joseph Scott, resided
in this town. The action was hrought to recover the sum
of £7O. for money lent. Verdict for the autnunt claimed.

lier, inflicted a

BREACH OF CONTRACT -SMITH V. PEARSALL.
In this case, William Adam Smith, George Hugh Smith,
James M`Donnell, Sir Henry Webb, and Sir Henry Ma-
nesty were the plaintiffs, and Charles Pearsall the de-
fendant.

aedslight, but shortly

soon afterward

Mr. Watson and Mr. Unthink were counsel for the
plaintiffs ; Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton for the
defendant.
Mr. WATSON stated the case. The plaintiffs were
directors of the National Patent Salt Company, whose
works were at Wharton, in Cheshire. The defendant was
an ironsmith, living at Ariderton, in Cheshire. In the
latter part of last year, the plaintiffs were des;rous of ex-
tending the quantity of salt made by them. They wished
to get five new pans made, and it being a matter of great
importance that these pans should be furnished as soon as
possible, they entered into an agreement with the defend-
ant to make and have them fitted up by a certain time.
On the 20th of January another contract was made to
have eight front ends of salt pans finished in fourteen days
after the 25th of February, but they were not finished till
the 21st of April. The learned counsel then proceeded to
state, that in consequence of the pans not being finished
according to contract, the plaintiffs lost the sale of as
much salt as could have been made from the pans, and
called upon the jury to give damages to the extent of 2s.
per ton, the amount of profit which would have been made
upon the salt if it could have been got ready and sold.
Mr. Hogarth, the manager of the company, was called,
and proved the contract. In his cross-examination, how-
ever, he could not tell of any orders which the company
had been unable to fulfil, and allowed that some altera-
tions had been made in the construction of two of the
pans.

NISI
I PRILIS COURT.—THURSDAY.
4 th• ADAms
Ate IS eas r ADMINISTRATOR. V. STICH.
consent of the parties, a verdict was
hug Plaintiff, damages £169 3s.
(41
14tk. olittnb,V.MlSE OF THE EARL OF DERBY AND
kt, .ils tE,„ 4‘. v. BIRCHALL AND OTHERS. .
'ted for .I.e. by consent of the parties, a verdict was
the Plaintiff, the lessor, damazes Is-

t.lll ti,iibtivrni..
...yin . eas, j:-**
.r V• BANKS AND OTHERS.
.740 ti.t tank 44,es Dewhurst was the plaintiff, and 14.14 Bani.a the elder, Charlotte Banks the younger,
,ratn,..Athert'o'sr the defendants.
.14:1°11 for e? appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
sderePlaintiffiwoae defendants.
:11.34elianjants ke B,a butcher, residing at Southport. and
s...tece;lleti in thl3l, an establishment for the education of
toetvt the „"e same town, and the action was brought
.‘itiltll duerot. },°"' of £2B 16s. Id.. the balance of an
tinn e room, utcher's meat supplied to the defendants
ifairdtrin thu °f February, 1842 up to the mouth of
let f e Present - ' '
or the . Year.
k0l'il; /4 Plaintiff for the amount claimed. . HIGGINSON v. KEARSLEY.
. 'IIDBON
4 ,i_ sari .. . v. GREEN AND ANOTHER. Jonathan Higginson, merchant, of this town, was the
:lyell, attion to recover the value of a quantity of plaintiff, and Thomas Kearsley was the defendant. The
ee Nol,, NM° have been improper', sold by the de_ action, which was undefended, was to recover the sum of
004444_ 4, andlirtin and Mr. Crompton appeared for £36 16s. 6d., the value of nine tons of ebony, sold to the
. Mr. Wortley and Mr. Cowling for the defendant.—Verdict for the amount claimed.
111(0 &al_
Tire court adjourned at twenty minutes after five.
N-4,,,,,,,,,,,5tated the case. The plaintiff, Mr. A
-4.
ketngie„°,e Present manager of the Commercial
._ the 1 "1, lately carried on in Manchester, and CROWN CO U RT.—FitinAY.
'ear*, last two years had been continued for the (Before Mr. Justice VVIonTsfAN.)
V ; "Nil-,
444 e
tand he !up its affairs, and paying off the share- His Lordship took his seat this morning exactly at nine
lisiii of' 'to of Thom the plaintiff in this action as assignee o'clock.
pk.rt ensi...,s Nock, who carried on the busi- TRIAL OF NEWTON FOR BIGAMY. th:Tilleh Cr!;eal near Birmingham, and who, at the Joseph Newton surrendered to take his trial on an in-
ibffp,, iodebteot, the bank was carried on in Birmingham, dictment charg•tig him with having married one Mary
la'eqs wer:lP the bank in the sum of £3,201). The Bolger, at Dublin, in the kingdom of Ireland, on the 2d
they: viarri "seoh Green and Silas Ensor, trustees of May. 1820, and that afterwards, to wit, on the 30th of
lie 1414'4 1829 age settlement of Mrs. Nock, entered into July, 1832, he intermarried at Liverpool one Martha
)414,180f R.,371, and the action was brought to recover Robinson, his former wife being then alive.
1411.4
ternt(lialti,_ Which reached the hands of these gen- Mr. li triton appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Wil-
Cried ln the month of October 1841. It ap. kins and Mr. Atkinson defended tile prisoner.
14141 et awnrn,tie Year 1829, the bankrupt, Nock, was Mr. HuLTON, in stating the case to the jury, observed
41' tied biTsin a° named Tar lor. He then carried on that a question would ari-e in the present case whether
klea„, tlOontsa as when he became bankrupt, and his under the circumstances the prisoner was liable to the
bate Inlot, -"prea‘t the time of her marriage. According penalties affixed by the law to the crime of bigamy, as the
fettle wife: tice. this £lOOO was vested in two per- statute under which he was indicted contained a provision
thiciad eraent 8 trust
, ees, but, by a clause in the mar- which stated that, if a' the time of a second marriage a
444,144 his l, tuel' were allowed to lend £5OO to the man and his wife should be continually absent from each
on ,
kettas on th d, Mon the wife giving authority to other for the space of seven years last past, and that the
tql,lhei,aetitle t back of the marriage settlement. By party marrying did not know during that time that his
lot:'4 It,' and i, Ili'
_husband would get the wife's fortune former wife was living, he was not guilty of the crime im-
IV, Tir:„the trn::rie event of his becoming insolvent, in puted to him. The point was a new one, for as far as. he
Iti'lliter'bot,d _"ees. and sweep all away from the cre- could ascertain no case had been decided on the point.
kaiktittelt at ,was dated in 1830, and was made payable However, he should call a witness before the jury who
tasheterie to Ver cent., but from the year 1830, when would prove that she bad received letters from the former
St 74,,, !ii se,7eYear 1841, not one farthing of interest wife of the prisoner in 1829 and 1841, and delivered them
still en
ly 'a d for or paid. He kept and used the to the prisoner, one of which he read at d then put it in
tlitt ''/) °clt brg,..tf it were his own. In the latter end his pocket, and then it would be for the jury to say whe-
at Overe ...I'ae up. His debts were £lO,OOO, and ther the prisoner at the time he was married a second
Patedie27th"tlained by the creditors. It appeared time knew his former wife was living—if so, he appre-
IttN2!the ,:enteMber, a warrant of attorney was hended his Lordship would tell them he was guilty of the
lithl .1)021e nkrupt to the defendants, at the office present charge.
0ty117.E.1, it r and Co., of Birmingham. By a law Elizabeth Waldron was then called, and she said she
SZttit4tnt orlwa, essential that there should be an at- was the sister of Mary Bolger. The prisoner was mar-
tikt4p.litu attest Part of the person giving a warrant tied when in the vestry of Townsend-street chapel, in
‘4I,N on ttrrim" t, and the gentleman who attested this Dublin, by Father Pierce Walsh, on the 2d May, 1820.
li ki of the' wbo was also the attorney for Mr. That was a Roman catholic chapel, and the witness, her llk tilde ei)t defendants. The warrant was dated sister, and the whole family were Roman catholic:4. All
sheett4 .Payahflober. and by the terms of it the money the family of the prisoner were also Roman catholics.
li.,htiltltr,ev on the following day, the 28th. On The prisoner was, at the time of his marriage, an ap-
kle4:l• ~°41,,:! was entered up; on the 13th October prentice with his step-father, and for twelve months after
Itl4.li,Teer .' issued, and placed in the hands of the his marriage lived with him. He afterwards lived with
thrtpa'ater'i:tld. from a letter written on behalf of his wife for about six months, and then left her and went
Vtik,tatl:ltood,,Sl Mr. Price, it appeared that the bank- away to Liverpool. Witness saw the prisoner.in Dublin
NOlnti give l'.werp to be seized, was the person re- about five years ago, and spoke to him. Her sister IS still
ItaNii to actions as to the manner in which the living. She saw her about a fortnight ago.
rtateteae4lrtia.a°ll,l,evied. On the 13th of October. the Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—The
. prisoner
.
Sl4l, tos it!spee`;.!le (Mr. Martin) need not tell the jury courted my sister four or five months previous to his mar-
;lts‘raii It w„ 'Mg, when an execution was an honest riage, and I saw him generally once a week. I was thea
i,ttillaa 44! a matter of great distress, and to an living with my father and sister at bome. My father was
tli"!tee/ri_tig th7,...ctiuld scarcely be conceived anything a builder and tailor, and kept a second-hand clothes shop.
t:. 1:e hut 'Ult. tits property being seized by
.the she-
.I don't know that the prisoner
. was in the habit of attend-
,' ot; ree ''' • Nock had none of these distressed ing a Baptist chapel previous to his marriage to my sister.
r fro th el7ed the officers with great pleasure, I saw him on two occasions with my sister at a Roman
171 k, Net tort,: cart load of articles which had been catholic chapel. When I saw the prisoner in Dublin,
t,ttel. epa,„ the v,' r county for the purpose of being four or five years ago, I said to him "Joe,'' and he turned
Ok: anti', as huicers he was glad his goods had been round and said "Joe, your grandmother." (Laughter.)
zi,s,,,.tre,t„e, would now, perhaps, get out of hot lam more than fifty years old but cannot say how much.
f:tr‘tt'aok %," them with' a bottle' of champagne, My sister it younger than I am. She has been supported
1.4,,. etc_ with them 1,..1p.,;%D.,.e of • The sum of £371 was rea- by my brother since her husband left her.
Iter,ca,lo.l4 br thee goods, and the balance of that, lie-examined.—The brother of the prisoner was at
qo, ~,N,P. Th fto Mr. Green, who paid it Clongerswood College at the time of the marriage, educe-
Letlie NI thate3retence under which this execution ling for a priest.
ct bettirentn the trustees wereapprehensive, having Christopher Fox stated that he was an apprentice with
tietitillif sknaii„stauces of the bankrupt, that they would the prisoner, with his step-father. Was present at his
kN, 0, • 7 re 5..... .
tit Itt klt a3_,Punsible by his wife for the money marriage with Mary Bolgar,. at Townsend-street chapel,
' tt/lt ,t,ali:eeri deurd have been thought that the money Dublin, by the Rev. Mr. Pierce Walsh, on the 2d May,
It at
h 4htled P°Bited in a safe place ; but instead of 1820. Saw the prisoner and his wife living together after
titaaterrother over in six or eight sums to Edwin that. He was a Roman Catholic.
ettillt4 lecktherars°f the bankrupt, who, after receiving Cross-examinekl.—Have frequently gone to Roman
4, totes'l4l it a:aeY, gave his promissory note for it. Catholic Chapels with him. Never knew he went to tiis-
e,,, h,kgpe„ rkayed, lived with his brother, bought senting chapels.
lig sfalen't'onle Vrtion of the furniture, which was still Edward Lovat, clerk of St. Nicholas.'s parochial chapel,
0ftt101,4114% to 116: his brother, and at the time the mo- Liverpool, produced the marriage certificate between the
VII, vl• lih!8 ap- 11 Renshaw was not aware that he prisoner and Martha Robinson, on the 30th July, 1832.
lit tiattkibet. ieh
wPa:ared from the examination of Mr. Martha Robinson proved that she was married to the
itelaitanty
~Ik.lr,il made under the fiat. On the 22nd prisoner, in St. Nicholas's church, rather more than ten
401) he ~.41t1 ii„, arrison issued out a fiat against Nock, years ago, but cannot say the exact year. The prisoner
1't711414111118 the take an active part as attorney'
for the was married in the name of Newton, and had gone by that
41 thlii tr) etc), Person who made an affidavit for an name ever since. Knew him about five.months before
tt, 0, whiel
2tatilire, a The ' was a very unusual thing for an
'40.011.4"5te terioit;nt came down, and, if Mr. Hard-
`stNt r. Veer, ens to have the management of it,
Ntrnat avidsm.ralght, hut the other creditors ap-
thektitto ariwa, p,.... Mr. Martin then contended that
theta;'atie„.et 0f.17 to the execution ; and if so, he
ktyty I,ltted to ankruptcy at the time, and the
tlo,i'lii; °Bold a verdict—to recover the value of
41' l' girt ' for the benefit of the whole of the
16tt'et411 lenl'Ey, f
441 tht11,11511t),; 14 the the defendants, contended that the
"itN 'hi 'l. to e first •
10, of I,rees (liable-, . instance, for the convenience
iVey4.4th ack,',llovir,,,, rmn to set up in business, and '
ktikpl ,t,,, YournougCt heard reports as to the cireum-
‘ott lit ere
Iv ger ehii_proper, for the protection of the
iNe4,le4rged as uothrett, to take the warrant of at-
t4;,ltp:e4; by mat ere rig irregular in the contract at
1.111)t thst ,ir• Mqi.". length that many of the state-
abgii'ei) end 'ae e tin bad not been roved by tire
174 l thingldleal that lecuti P
It tt - ve - the, ()a was not a scheme of the
tklit,e ?r* of Ith the ? was no proof of his being in
4N Werasteestie gneue.fendants on the subject. Ta•
I. 'tot tha Sues st'on, the learned counsel argued
Iteli.l 'eltedl'ard, t.nodaolYkacte.d in a proper manner, and
sh.ti,,elti their att_uY virtue of their office, after
kriNpla ce tn,. 'rneY, who advised them so to
t'si,(l44lle444WELL •
4,14 litii 'let or n, ana ,In addressing the jury, said,
hLl,\.,ktie„' siz; rt from all considerations, was
Ov in The',. 6re eaTne within the meaning the
4N.h.e%ec:!f an..; IV., chap. 16, sec. 3,gwhich
4 _ 1,,,.em1a1,h0,, 'lv! adrr shall procure his goods to
litlittltq' ' 'be a uh i tent to defeat or delay his
1 hi °ir
tie "toed n
ttit titr ere (mew to have committed an act of
Ltt..144 tapt; ken i, 'oo, therefore, was, whether
t4hatitelll:teelvshethel; ejleecution by the procurement
pwr?tc.eed.ing on the.part of
\l:lK;il4Ptisittl nhfitat°lri‘eigitnrautsetde
es i h his suggestion ; or
/1,1" , °l'tlPett to
give the
m a
warrantdemanding
o attorney,
securityttorne
INAa.ltta Ather,as entered up and execution ley:.
ende o!ativ : Proceeded to comment upon the ktkler 41 tl7 °° ooticed
rktl4tt l', , e ens_ such parts as he thought
for arts
th tqf as opened in behalf of the
lPr•der new nlioute '
t‘,o4tt, trOo:,,dauts. s consideration, returned
ti,}7,lill"Li t5",,,,u Ayx,o,
4,t11414,1,41414j, 421 t AND . D AND ANOTHER V.
It'
qtt ti liillse D ANOTHER.
t,:0;:k, 1411 erki 1?e, told
the,w; James Aykro d and Geo
De htitilted „tang th„ action was `iron ht for the.
trtneti heelist chal;l3oht of the plaintiff to a patch
tt ;kiln h: to, )13enedivt, ss, in this county. After
t4jls4ittlllltatit,tlecidhe, defeL Ajr. Sergeant MURPHY,
, trrre'rttetii, the e.O. wes-"oa21„t, said, the material
ilk ere :.e,..". th‘tuestion was of identity, and after
l'i 'Oe„geld eto a! referred.
10..blitt• '' di% ed, and 1 InrY causes in the Sal-
\tt.Ntli_ies in pit_Pseri
0,
.nthe following undefended
ttrliatN, ~sthia'e'rta.
t,'.,_ the 'West Derby list :
Pkta 11.1., vothe ,case wern•OETER,
h, er4:o hVend,,tit'wdarnes and William Proc.
LI„, , illtS: 4 IN" worked was a master plasterer, and
ikq4 '4O it'll " t..onlipieryhirn as journeyman,
11141011 -aintiff.' and „„ us. Bd. from defendant
paid on his account.
44, 410°4. •
t 1, 44 JAN b ,
Aki ttd•the araes .sBI‘.II.THIES.
I let, actie„ Mithies we h ' •
eit, 'or th" was 0„ a bill re. t e suitors In
\okiiii-J, lie strii,' Plaintiff."
vt.tt
Mt, Pnett 4 e• et.
14 Zti, ruing'A mith "GuL
4 \ wt- oiii da v aS. public officer of a Bir-
\
1r . Sley e.exehaenrdict for £3O 35., principal
N. Ills„Otiv,.!°ugh, " accepted by the defend-
I ki lill'lrn.it,ritt v.
wi_
tr\t
Vit i',4 had ab"ght byNrr','ALL. .
\ii 01 N h °Tint of George Finch, to recover
)litt aNiffee4 ace a bill of exchange, with
0t liki int, Iv R • ePted hY John Winnall.
, 916 slips, v
Ii;NN qlii's retartl Wr.i 7Rorr.
otoo tort, -Ilt of a gc't obtained a verdict for
'arta occupied by the de-
'l4 ii) ,Ann tOO
qt le " b
. 0 ti, ooke • c 0.,.
, De ell h I,B°aßlit t 'recover £5OO, on a
IttatettlY,
szlerithilr heb;ototh_e:_r, John Cooke, as her
.=ner. Verdict for the

Mr. KNOWLES, for the defendant, contended that not
one shilling worth of damaee had been proved.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages Is.

MARSH V. HARBRIDGE

In this ease Richard Marsh was the pl iintiff, and Wm.
Harbridge the, defendant. The action was on a promissory
note for £]oo. Damages £lO2 25., including interest.

the marriage.
Cross-examined.—Since our marriage, the prisoner has
always attended the Church of England, and a better or
kinder husband could not be.
By the Court.—l do not carry on the prosecution, nor
do any of my friends.
Mary Ann Jones said—ln December, 1829, was in
Dublin, and saw Mary Nugent. Slip gave me a letter
which I took to Liverpool, and gave it to a girl who
handed it to Mr. Nugent. The latter opened it and read
it. A dark woman was present, who asked the prisoner
what that was. He said nothing, and put the letter into
his pocket. The letter was delivered to me open, and 1
read it. I was again in Dublin at the beginning of the
summer, 1831, and received another letter from Mary
Nugent, which I took to Liverpool, and delivered it to
Mr. Nugent. He went in behind the screen in his shop,
opened it, and appeared to read it.
Cross-examined.—l was not before the magistrate
when the prisoner was committed. 1 went to Dublin
about my business, but it is nothing to you, and I won't
tell you. I went with my husband, who is a silver-
plater. He was present when I received the lettets from
Mary Nugent. I brought three letters altogether.
Mrs. Waldron re-called, and examined by Mr. WU-
KINS.—Mary Nugent has not lived in the same place in
Dublin since the prisoner left her. She removed about
six months to my mother and father's house until they
died, eleven years ago, and my brother has supported her
ever since in lodgings. For about six months after Nugent
left her she lived in her own shop, and then removed to
her father and mother.

Martha Robinson was re-called, and swore that the
witness, Jones, never delivered a letter in her presence to
the prisoner.

George Greaves, one of the Liverpool police, appre-
hended the prisoner on t: e 17th of July last. Told him
that he was taking him on Mr. Bo!gar's charge of bigamy.
I cautioned him, and he said all they could do was to
make him pay half a-crown a week.
Cross-examined.—Heard the brother of the first wife
wife say he had been over in Liverpool before then.
By the COURT.—The prosecutor is present.
Mr. Wir,turrs then proceeded to address the jury in
le.half of the prisoner. He was extremely obliged to his
lordship for asking the last question, and also for asking
another question from the witness Robinson, as to who
the parties were that carried on the present prosecution,
because it was evident his lordship saw the nature of the
case. There were two questions of fact which the jury
would have to decide. The first was, whether it was
proved to their satisfaction that the prisoner was ever a
Roman Catholic in his life, because, if he was not, the
former marriage was an illegal one and a nullity. The
next question was, whether the jury were satisfied that
the prisoner, for seven years previous to the marriage in
1832, was aware of the existence of the person whom they
chose to call his wife. Would any man believe that, be-
cause a person was seen at a Roman Catholic chapel once
or twice, he was, therefore, a Roman Catholic? Unless
the Roman Catholic church had relaxed in its discipline
to what was known of it from history, it was absolutely
necessary that persons should do more than inertly attend
the chapel to be considered a member of the church. If
he had been a Roman Catholic, it would have been easy
to prove that he had confessed or attended mass, but
where was the proof that be had ever done so in his life ?
How many persons were there who attended Roman Ca-
tholic chapels from mere curiosity ! How many were
there who went to look at the vestments of the priests—
to see the magnificence of the altar, and its candles light-
ed ! How many were there who attended to hear the
splendid music performed there—who in fact went to the
chapel because it was the only theatre open on the Sun-
day ! (Laughter.) And were they therefore Papists ?
He did not mean to ridicule the Roman Catholic religion,
but there were those who considered the splendid page-
antry exhibited as a necessary part of religion, whilst
others thought it mere mummery. As to that part of the
case which went to show that the prisoner bad knowledge
of the person whom they called his former wife being
living, that rested solely on the evidence of the witupss
Mary Ann Jones, and that they could not rely on, espe-
cial'y after it had been contradicted in an essential point
by Mrs. Nugent. He remarked on the improbability of
the prisoner doing as he had, in opening a shop in the
most public market in Liverpool, and carrying on busi-
ness in so public a manner, if he conceived himself liable
to such a charge as the present, on the fact of his being
a good and kind husband, and concluded with observing