The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-04-21 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCI

SOUTH LANCASHIRE SPRING ASSIZES

TUESDAY.—Arare lb.
(Before Mr. Justice Cor.Tmas..
His Lordship took his seat at nine o'clock.
SNRADE V. CARTMELL AND ANOT}LER.—T
action brought by George Sneade, butcher, of th
recover compensation in damages from John Cara
lican, and Thomas :Haddocks, a bailiff's followe
this town, for an alleged trespass. The defendant:
not guilty.
iktynowles and Mr. Martin appeared for the ph
plaintiff, that the defenc
Mir.
t.
wasNi"o rt l
alleged,ey for
ont h e
behalfdefend.
oafnt s
the
ne woet.
~.
th,rkad a.l
lease
n t
hf oer
month
fourteenon t h o
f years,sep t nineeomfbwerhiclahst,sone years g
l
to run, on a certain house and shop in Mill-street,
took place between the parties
taking on the subject of Sneer,
the premises, for thepurpose of
as a butcher. Cartmell held
but,the premises at £4O per annum
, it was alleged, was willing to make a sacrifice of a few,
pounds a year for the sake of
procuring an eligible tenant.
Sneade offered £32 per annum,ii
but Cartmell declared he
must have £35 per annum,
It came out in cross-examination
ni
Cartmell, who kept a
was ultimately agreed to.
public-house, said he would thatmake
purpose of preventing the shop, wlZ.lsacrifice in rent for the
being opened as a tavern. Tlpie, plaintiff received
a corner one, from
the purpose of having the shop fitted received the key for
entered into, and Sneade was to enter on An agreement was
the Ist October. I-le, however, openedon full possession on
30th September. He carried on' businessfor business on the
the meantime the defendant had calledu for
a quarter. In
requested him to accompany himtoanpon the plaintiff and
long lease was shown to him, which, as
he
had not,
where a
to his statement, entered into any agreement, not, according
therein specified, he refused to sign. The ent, such as was
on the Ist January. ()n the 31st December,
rent became due
defendant Maddocks went and said he was however, the
Cartmell to demand £lO for rent. Mr. Sneade
authorised by
friends who had been his witnesses during th sent for the
negotia-
tion, and Maddocks was informed that the renet first
till the following day, and even then the amountwas not due
Xr3. 155., and not £lO. Maddocks insisted, h would be
remaining, knocking his stick violently uponn however, upon
Sneade refused to pay the amount demanded, and soon counter.
after-
wards customers entered the shop, where Maddocks,oon
violently with his stick, declared that not another striking
meat should be sold. The customers were compelled ounce of
out of the shop unserved. Maddocks acted and to go
by orders from Cartmell. The money was ultimatelyrsevered
but the shop was closed and not again opened ; the paid,
of the plaintiff having been ruined by the knowled nsiness
transpired of his having had the bailiffs in his house.
ge that
Witnesses were called to prove the terms of the
original
agreement and the facts above stated. It appeared fromtestimony of a wholesale butcher that, after the bailiffs had
the
visited the shop, be (the butcher) refused to supply Sneade
had
with any more meat ; and an attempt was made to show that
the wholesale butchers generally were equally cautious. This
general evidence, however, was not received.
The defence was, that the agreement understood was,
the plaintiff WBE to pay £35 per annum taken
for the shop were thatken
for the residue of Mr. Cartmell 's lease, and £4O if taken
a
yearly, with £5 for entering in any case. Possession
taken under this agreement, and subsequently Cartmellwas
caused the document above alluded to be drawn up,
Sneade refused to sign, and thereby violated his agreement.
which
The assistant to Maddocks stated that Mr. CartmeAbent„
stated that Mr. Sneade was getting his goods out of bad
house, and that was the reason why he distrained. Proof the
was also tendered that Sneade n
ackenowstraint ledged that his rent
was due on the Saturday whe th di was made
slaughter butcher was brought forward to show that he had
offered Sneade meat a the vr time when he closed,
that, in expressing hist surprie rey
at the shop being shutand
Sneade said he was about to enter an action against his
up
landlord, and the stoppage of business would increase his
damages. ama£3o.
The jury found for the plaintiff—damages
WHITLEY r. asantews.
In this case John B. Whitley was the plaintiff, and win.
Andrews the defendant. The declaration was on a bill of
exchange for £25, dra,vn by a Mr. Heyward, accepted by
Mr. Murton, and indorsed by Andrews to the plaintiff, by
nv
255. and to whom the d f
paid, on account of the bill, , l e end ant
owed an account for dinners and a e to the amount of .-1-.7 7s ,
when the bill passed 30 him. There were several pleas on
record denying the liability. except as to 255.
Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Sergeant Mu•
phv for the dcfcuce.
n s a eating -house -house in Manchester.
The plaintiff keep
in this town, but in consequence of an accusation of felon
of which charge he was, however, acquitted, his licence at
transferred to the name of Mary Ann Hague, his sister-in
law. The defendant, who is a cotton broker, his partner'
Mr. Heyward, the drawer of the,bill, and a Mr. Smith, their
clerk, were in habit of going to the plaintiff's house to dine,
drink,
and smoke till, including as waal sever sm
ow aingll sums borrowe
book was
dross sum of seven g
the g uines . A
which all these sums for dinners, &c., were recorded
kept, in wh
against Andrews, as he undertook to pay for all. In the
rnber last, Andrews took the bill in question
month of Se
pted requested him to discount it, and retain
to the plaintiff, an
The plaintiff gave the defendant 255.'
the amount owing.
hat was all the cash he had about him, and took pos
saving t
eon of the bill, which, when due (on the 25th October`,
was dishonoured. The defendant bad paid 20s. into court.
..
For the defence it was attempted to be proved on the •
that the bill was passed from • evi-
dence of Heward, . him 20s, him (Hey-
ward) to the plaintiff, aho haveitmerely fo ion account, and
Andrews to indorse
damages.r iis satisfaction.
The •jury found for the plaintiff, £7 7s.
SMITH V. TOTE.
The action in this case was brought to recover compensa-
tion, in damages, for slander. The defendant pleaded not
guilty and justification.
'el Hone appeared for
Mr. Baines and ..
r'M
Martin for the the plaintiff, and
Sergeant Murphy aud .r. . defendant.
Mr. Archibald Smith, the plaintiff, keeps the Dolphin
house near St. John's-market ; the defendant,
public- house, f whs. It was stated Tute,
is a dealer in live o d
t who by the plaintiff's
counsel, that the defers Il
a inced a was represented as beim, a
wealthy man, has lie has
e v
sought
m alevolent feeling againbst
Mr' Smith' whirh
and misre frequent opportunities of
evincing by Smith . presentation. On the 18t1
a of
last was in the shop of Mr. Gell'
January ,
is next door to the mg, a hair-
dresser, whose shop
~
How Dolphin. The de
-
dresser, entered and said, came you to tell Mr. Lace
fondant '
that I bad begged your pardon
_Tit likely that I would
pardon, You —f thief ,
rob-
beg your_. ). ou are a common
ber ; I'll prove you one, you* * * I can prove that you
hief. Did'nt you attempt to pick my pocket in the
are a t
assage? I was drunk one Saturday evening, and I caug
p ht
you with your hand in my pocket, in December last." Ti
plaintiff said be could endure the defendant's conduct 'e
-wive, and he called upon the parties present to note In'o
conduct. The defendant boasted of his wealth, and defied
the plaintiff. The defendant went out, but returned in' a
short time and repeated his assertions, using very coarse
language When the plaintiff left the hairdresser's shop the
.
defendant followed him out, specifically repeating the charg
of robbery, till a mob of one hundred people were collect le
The defendant pointed to the plaintiff's house, and e'' . said,
There's the b-s'thief's house, who harbours w •
—s, and
tbieves, and robbers, and gamblers.
Witnesses were called who proved the above
facts, that the
plaintiff conducts his house with great
P respectability, and
that his custom had fallen off since the defendant had slams-
dered him.
Sergeant MURPHY addressed the ' jury at some length for
the defence.
The after a short consultation, found for the plaintiff,
damages 1 ry:4o.
The court rose at half-past four o'clock, the above case
s
terminating the business of the assizes. The case of Dobson
v. Lambert was made a remand:, as '.
it was too long to be en-
tered upon. It stands over to the next assizes.

tmell, pu

-street

The Gloucester grand jury have ignored the bills for con-
spiracy and forgery, preferred by Mr. Newton, the barrister,
of Ripon, against Lady Ricketts, whose examination on the
charges took place sonic time ago at Cheltenham.
At the late Kingston Assizes an action was brought by a
gentleman against the London and South-Western Railway
Company for injuries done to his horse in one of the rail-
way carriages. The company had two sorts of horse boxes,
and the horse in question was placed in one of the inferior
description and was put between the carriages instead of
the end of the train. The defence was that there had been
no negligence, and that the mischief arose from the vicious
temper of the plaintiffs horse. The jury returned a verdict
for the plaintiff of £lO.

Com.-Fir Emostos; —On Friday last an explosion
took place in a coal-pit, 'near Barnsley, when two workmen
were so seriously injured that one died very soon after.
CONSTABULARY (IRELAND•)—The following is a state-
ment of the amount and expenses of the Constabulary force
employed in Ireland on the Ist of January last :-1 inspector-
general, 2 deputy in spectors.general, 2 provincial inspectors,
1 receiver,ll surgeon, 1 veterinary surgeon, 18 paymasters,
mi Lord's These
p lie
s s -
35 county inspectors, 216 sub.iuspectors, 263104hheaodrsecso,nsatTaid
hies, 1419 constables, 7086 sub-constables,
58 magistrates. The total expense of then stablishment for
times
eeas
the year 1842 was £441,605 ss. 110. ; f which amount
£263,73 ss. 2d. was borne by the Consolidated Fund, and
1378,13205. 2id. by the counties, cities, and towns of Ireland.
e can recollect the time when
13 i ass Irio ti aAmong theusralntairiLoh various
brsoeirggoanursdgsili
o,f
uttrhheere progress
present (Passi ‘-)-
iftnelawamt
toahrrletl
iateyrvee:anndy
gtheretionlmtbael:ettte!xt
Nii‘,
scarce a shop was to be seen open in theret:is.swenfsasori
day. Now, Sabbath-breaking, in this respect, has become
almost unbearable. Indeed, it has grown into such a nuisanci
that even a member of the radical town council has felt it hie
oouf't
Sessions.
soßa.
hdauinty
tthoebartirneghtl:es sbuebejnecotpbeenfeodredbuisricnognftrif•e
week, an occurrence, so far from its being usual, that"'
cannot recollect its ever having been done before. I:hetwaail:
of our town have been covered with large placard.;
that a certain establishment in New.street would be ogeesahtil,l,lg,
iclbssyoffoprrotghreesßsowrohuighh
corder,usual, oAr.G;io.dn.Firlidaaly,.has
(Atonds,uittohcisrowo:n tn,ozienzcp-_:::
ing. We do notes k any one hypocritically to
he does not believe, but people might, at least
wet
i r:gnsPaPr°e6en)i alinxi efds trahtai or
profess what
religious scruples of others, and those others ' respect the
Of all the acts we have pointed to, however, the majority.
corder is by far the most unjustifiable. 1. , that of the Re-
invite, be forces people to profane dle does not merely
a ay which
of them might wish to keep holy. And th some, at bast
in the deity of Christ, and the great ough, as a disbel. t
tion, he may think it nonsense to work of human d lever
of that day which witnessed the keep holy the at I:e enlP-
earth or heaven bore witness greatest transact' iniversary
there are others who think h. 5 to, he should ton that ever
has no right to force, as differently to h. recollect that
over which he, after th:ritn""s and juroralms whom he
proper to pretlide.--Bir. example of , into that court
wthwham
AdPontius Pilate, '
verliser. , thinks

the Council

TO CORR