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

TH E LI VERPOOL STA N DAR D.

THE RAPE CASES.
rhimas Dutton, 17, (could neither read nor write,)
pleaded guilty to having ravished Jane Hyde, a girl of
'eight years of age.
Thomas Howard was charged with having feloniously
ravished Ann Clegg, at Ash ton -under. Lyne ; and Thomas
Andrew was charged with feloniously aiding and abetting
him in committing the felony.
Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Wil-
kins appeared for the defence.

The yriv 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, &C.
John Johnson, 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 excitetnent 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 had 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.—THURSDAY.
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 Yolk 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 had advanced other sums, for which
no bond was given, and as the defendant had 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 SHIPS CHARTER SMITH V. BOUTC HER.

The declaration in this case was for work 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 415 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,
Messrs. Blackall 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 wi'hin 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 attot nay 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 £2OO upon mortgage, to ena-
ble him to complete the erection. 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 plaint,ff, 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.-M'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 hint 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. WORTLEY 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 hid pleaded, upon the record, that he was endea-
vouring to separate the combatants; but I e (the h artied
counsel) should show there were no combatants to sepa-
rate, the violence being all upon the side of Mr. William