The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-08-27 00:00:00

THE r-iVERi3'O6"I., STANDARD

THE -A
Art CAGES.
Thomas Dutton. 17, (could neither read nor write,)
eight year'. of age.
pleaded guilt! , having i'avibhed Jane Hyde, a girl of
Thiantas Howard watt charged with having feloniously
ravished Ann Clegg) tit Ashton-under-Lyne ; and Thomas
Andrew
nd'."" was cliatgf d with feloniously aiding and abetting
him in committing the felony.
Mr. Br.rx.dt conducted the prosecution, and Mr. MTH-
oPPared for the defence.
Ibe jury acquitted both prisoners.
John Cross, 23, (could neither read nor write,) was
charged with having violated Susan Bamford on the 28th
June.
Mr. Wilkins appeared to prosecute, and Mr. Green to
defend.

The prisoner was discharged.
Robert Knight, (could read and write imperfectly,) was
charged with having, at Reddish, feloniously ravished
Alice Booth.
Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Wil-
kins defended the prisoner.
It appeared in evidence that the mother of the girl
might have had the means of knowing the outrage which
had been committed on her daughter, and that when she
became acquainted with it, she did not for a week after-
wards apply to have the prisoner apprehended.
Under these circumstances, at the suggestion of the
Learned Judge, Mr. Brandt declined to go further with
the case.
The prosecutrix, in giving her evidence, stated as the
reason why she had not reposed confidence in her mo-
ther, and told her of what had happened, that she dreaded
her severity.
James Seal was indicted for a misdemeanour, in having
assaulted Amelia Meanor, with intent to ravish her, on
the 29th July, at Ashton-under-Lyne.
The jury acquitted the prisoner.
WOUNDING, WITH INTENT TO MURDER, tl/4E.
John JoAnson, 32, (could neither read nor write,) was
indicted for having, at North Meols, on the sth instant,
maliciously cut, stabbed, and wounded Mary Johnson,
his wife, with intent to murder, or do her grievous bodily
harm.
Mr. Monk appeared to prosecute. The prisoner was
without counsel.
It appeared that, on the day mentioned in the indict-
ment, the prisoner, whilst under the excitement of liquor,
quarrelled with his wife, and during the altercation took
a knife from his pocket and attempted to stab her. She
escaped from him, and ran into a house, where she re-
mained for some time, and, on coming out, the prisoner
again attacked her, and stabbed her on the lower part of
the right thigh.
The jury found the prisoner guilty of the offence, with
intent to do grievous bodily harm.—Sentence deferred.
John White, who bad been convicted on Tuesday of a
burglary, and sentenced to seven years' transportation,
was placed at the bar, when the learned JUDGE said, that
at the time sentence was passed upon him, some doubt
was expressed whether the term ought not to have been
ten years. Upon consulting with his learned brother
Judge, he was disposed to concur in that doubt. It
would be necessary, therefore, for him to pass a sentence
of ten years' transportation ; but he would make a repre-
sentation with respect to the prisoner's case, and he hoped
the original sentence would not be increased ; and if it
should turn out that the Court had the power of passing
a sentence of seven years, he should have the benefit of it.
The Court rose at a quarter before seven o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—TuuRsDAY.
Mr. Justice Cresswell took his seat on the bench at
nine o'clock.

WALKER V. JACKSON

In this case, which was an action to recover a penalty
under a bond for £B4 175., given on the 4th Feb., 1826,
by the defendant to the plaintiff,
Mr. Baines and Mr. Addison appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Cowling for the defendant.
It appeared that Jeremiah Walker, a farmer, carrying
on business near Tadcaster, in Yorkshire, lent the defen-
dant, William Jackson, the sum named whilst he was a
prisoner in York Castle. The penalty under the bond
was £169, Since the bond was given, the defendant had
come into possession of considerable property, and a let-
ter, promising to discharge the debt, together with the
bond itself was put in in evidence. No defence was of-
fered. The plaintiff bad advanced other sums, for which
no bond was given, and as the defendant bad pleaded the
statute of limitations, that part of the action was
abandoned.

A verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the amount
of the penalty.
ACTION ON A SHIP'S CHARTER SMITH V. BOUTCHER.
The declaration in this case was for wo►k and labour
done, and on an account stated, to which the defendant
pleaded that he was not liable.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton conducted the plain-
tiffs case ; and Mr. Martin, with whom was Mr. Edwards,
appeared for the defendant.
On the part of the plaintiff it was stated, that he is a
ship broker in Liverpool, and he brought the action to
recover the sum of £l5 due to him for procuring a charter
for a ship called the Emanuel Boutcher, after the name of
the defendant, who is a ship owner, carrying on business
in the city of London. In the beginning of 1843, the de-
fendant, under the name of John Blackall and Co., with
which he was identified, wrote a letter to the plaintiff, ad-
dressing it to Messrs. Smith. and Co., stating that a
charter was wanted for a ship called the Princess Royal,
and requesting him to procure one upon the terms which
were stated. A charter was procured and sent to Lon-
don by return of post, and it came down again confirmed
and signed by the defendant ; but before it was received,
Mecgra_ Rlackall sent a letter to the plaintiff, inclosing a
signed charter for the Emanuel Boutcher, in lieu of the
Princess Royal, and requesting him to get it confirmed.
It was confirmed ; but subsequently the defendant thought
fit to make other use of the Emanuel Boutcher. By the
charter, the ship was to proceed to Laguna, from Messrs.
Tayleure and Co., of this town, and there take in cargo ;
but the defendant having an opportunity of taking troops
to Bermuda, he wished the vessel to call there before pro-
ceeding to Laguna. The charterers refused the ship
upon these terms, because as Bermuda was not within the
limits to which the charter was confined, it would have
been impossible to have the ship at Laguna within the time
appointed. The plaintiff contended that with these latter
transactions he had nothing whatever to do ; his duty was
to procure a charter, which he had done, and therefore he
was entitled to his commission.

After some witnesses had been called, and Mr. Martin
addressed the jury for the defendant, a verdict was re-
turned for the plaintiff for £3s.—Costs, 40s.

EJECTMENT.-DOE DEM JARDINE V. HAWORTH AND

OTHERS.

An action of ejectment, in which Mr. Martin and Mr.
Atherton represented the plaintiff; Mr. Cowling the de-
fendant. The defendants pleaded not guilty to the decla-
ration, and issue was joined.
It appeared that Mr. Thomas Jardine, the plaintiff, is
an attorney at Bolton, and he brought the present action
to recover possession of certain premises mortgaged to
him by the defendant Haworth, for £2OO, in the year 1825.
Mr. Haworth was an attorney, carrying on business in
Bolton, and being about to erect some cottages he applied
to the plaintiff for a loan of Sk2oo upon mortgage, to ena-
ble him to complete the ere on. The money was lent,
and in Lecember, 1825, a mortgage deed was executed.
The interest was regularly paid till 1829-30, when Mr.
Haworth became bankrupt, and his assignees proceeded
to sell the property. Mr. Blinkburn agreed to become
the purchaser, but Mr. Haworth refused to give up pos-
session. Attempts were subsequently made by the plain-
tiff to get payment in some friendly way, but without suc-
cess, and at last he resorted to this action. The other de-
fendants besides Mr. Howarth were tenants residing in
the premises, under him.
The action in the point of fact was undefended, and the
jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the Judge di-
rected possession to be given up in a month.

ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE.-JONES V. WILLIAMS.

This was an action to recover a promissory note for
£5OO, given as a consideration for the transfer of the li-
cense, goodwill, furniture, &c. of a public-house in this
town. After the opening by Mr. Sergeant Murphy, (with
whom was Mr. James,) a verdict was taken by consent for
the plaintiff, the proposals being met in a spirit of fairness
by the defendant. Another action between the same par-
ties also went off in the same way.
ACTION FOR USE AND POSSESSION.-ECCLES V.
UNSWORTH.
An undefended action for the recovery of £37 rent for
the use and occupation of a farm at Pemberton, near
Wigan. Mr. Cowling appeared for the plaintiff. Verdict
for the amount claimed.
ASSAULT AND BATTERY.-141‘CLURE V. FRANCE AND

ANOTHER.
The plaintiff in this case is Samuel M'Clure, and the
defendants are William France and Thomas France; and
the declaration stated that the defendants assaulted the
plaintiff and threw him down. The defendant William
France pleaded not guilty ; that the plaintiff committed
the first assault upon him, and that he only acted in self-
defence. The defendant Thomas France pleaded not
guilty ; and, also, that the plaintiff and William France
were fighting, and he interfered between them only to
keep the peace.
Mr. Wortley and Mr. Cowling appeared for the plain-
tiff; Mr. Martin and Mr. Crompton for the defendants.
Mr. W.ORTLEY opened the case. Mr. M'Clure was
formerly in business, but had now retired, and held her
Majesty's commission as a magistrate of Wigan. The
two defendants, Mr. William and Mr. Thomas France,
lived in the adjoining house to the plaintiff, both of them
living in the principal street in the borough. The houses
which they occupied originally belonged to one proprietor ;
the consequence of which was, that the yard and passage
between were used in common by the occupants of both
premises. There had been some misunderstanding, he
believed, between the parties, which might have excited
in the mind of Mr. William France some ill-feeling to-
wards the plaintiff. Mr. M'Clure, in the exercise of his
privileges as a voter for the county of Lancaster, on the
27th of May last had attended at the election, and had
recorded his vote, after which he attended a meeting of
the friends of one of the candidates, where he dined.
About nine o'clock in the evening he went home to his
own house. Having occasion the following morning to
go to Ormskirk, he went into the yard of which he (Mr.
Wortley) had spoken, for the purpose of going to the
stable to order his horse to be ready at an early hour.
The defendant William France was standing in the same
yard, a little distance, further down, and, before Mr.
M'Clure was aware, without any provocation on the part
of Mr. M'Clure whatever, rushed upon him with a heavy
stick in his hand—a walking-stick. Without saying any-
thing, (or if he did it was unintelligible,) he immediately
laid upon the plaintiff, and gave him a most severe beat-
ing. In the course of this beating by William, his bro-
ther Thomas came, and, instead of separating them, he
laid his hands, not upon his brother, who was committing
the outrage. but upon the plaintiff. The defendant Tho-
mas had pleaded, upon the record, that he was endea-
vouring to separate the combatants ; but e (the learned
counsel) should show there were no combatants to F.epa-
rate, the yiolence being all upon the side of Mr. William

France. It would appear, undoubtedly, that the attack
was made by Mr. William France, and, although Mr.
M'Clure had received most extensive injuries, it was not
pretended that, in the scuffle, the slightest injury had
been inflicted upon Mr. France, yet it was pretend that
Thomas was endeavouring to prevent the Vioknee. Severe
blows were given. Mr. M'Clure was knocked down upon
the pavement. He was covered with blood ; and a sur-
geon had to be called in.—The learned counsel proceeded
to dilate upon the assault upon the plaintiff, which had
been committed in the presence of his wife and niece.
Several witnesses were called, who proved the facts.
Mr. MARTIN, for the defendants, said, Mr. M'Clure
had been dining on the day in question with the party
with whom he voted and acted at the election •, he did not
mean to impute that he was drunk, but after having dined
he was coming home through the street, and a little child
of Mr. Wm. France's was also in the street. The child,
by some means, struck against Mr. M'Clure's legs, and
he, having a small stick in his hand, struck the child with
it. He did not mean to impute to Mr. M'Clure that be
hurt the child by the blow, but the child ran crying home,
and told his mother that Mr. M'Clure had struck him.
The mother went into the yard and saw Mr. M'Clure,
and asked him why he had struck her child. He replied
to her, "Go to the devil ! " She ran into her house and
told her husband what had taken place, and he came out.
He (the learned counsel) did not mean to say it was a
proper thing for one man to strike another in the way the
defendant had struck Mr. M'Clure, but he called upon
the jury to take the whole circumstances into tneir con-
sideration, and say whether the assault was so unprovoked
as had been represented. He should call witnesses who
pwaorutli . s
would prove distinctly what he had stated, and also that
Mr. M'Clure gave the fir.l: blew. As to Thos. Frances,
there could not be the slightest doubt, fro the evince
be should produce, that he was there only to separate the
eelf that,nd eriafltlhteby g
the circumstances,
oumamstaganeesesa,t haleht trusted the
ythej
small-
estury
would satisfy the justice of the case.
Two male and two female witnesses swore stoutly to
this version of the transaction.
The JUDGE summed up at considerable length, pointing
out the contradictions in the testimony ; and the jury,
after considering a few minutes, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff against both defendants. Damages £5O.

DEBT AFTER BANKRUPTCY.
KIRKPATRICK AND ANOTHER V. TATTERSALL.

This was an action to recover £76 13s. 4d., in which
Messrs. Martin and Crompton appeared for the plain-
tiffs ; Mr. Knowles, with which was Mr. Cowling, for the
defendant. On the part of the plaintiffs, it was shown
that the plaintiffs are provision merchants in Liverpool,
and the defendant a corn dealer. In 1840, the plaintiffs
sold to the defendant a cargo of oatmeal, at the invoice
price of £321 14s. The defendant paid £lOO on account.
Afterwards, the defendant became a bankrupt, upon
which the usual proceedings were taken. The plaintiffs
never proved their debt, but were anxious to assist the
defendant through his difficulties; the result was, that,
by their exertions with various persons, he obtained his
certificate from his creditors. Some time after that, the
defendant, by a written document, promised to pay the
plaintiffs the balance due by instalments.
Mr. KNOWLES said the question in this case was one
solely for the Court. The certificate was dated on the
20th February, and the promise reviving the debt was
dated on the 17th, and it was clear that the promise could
have no operation, as it was given before the certificate.
He cited the 37th and 121st sections of the Bankruptcy
Act.

Mr. COWLING followed on the same side.
Mr. MARTIN contended that as the debt was valid at
the opening of the fiat, it was valid on the 17th February
afterwards ; consequently there was a good cause of
action.
The JUDGE sustained the objections taken by Mr.
Knowles, but gave the other side leave to move.
A nonsuit was then entered, the plaintiffs having leave
to move to enter a verdict for £75 13s. 4d., if the point of
la,v should be adverse to the defendant.