The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-04-18 00:00:00

-rtirtit 410 rtAt atiy 40444ii0
of tha won; and dfnie4 inotnEr evever4i4tisdt) t.lit ha wiieed
get tits son to sea for fear he should be traniported,
The ea&hier or agent of the ship proved that he paid the
prisoner two sovereigns, the amount of the shipping note, and
took his receipt for it, which was produeed. Witmess did not
consider the endorsement necessary to day ment, as he would
have paid it without if the man had gone in the ship. The
prisoner, on being apprehended, said he had got the money,
that he had paid 10s. of it to Mr. Trevaskis, and had kept
the 30s. to himself for his own trouble, which had been
agreed.

Mr. Wilkins said that the indictment was nothing but an
attempt of the father of the boy to extort money from the
prisoner, who only acted for Mr. Trevaskis.
The Judge here stopped the case, on the ground that the
indictment could not be sustained. The note itself was ge-
nuine, it' the endorsement was bad ; but, as M'Calmonts, or
their cashkeeper would have paid it, even without the en-
dorsement, on ascertaining that the boy had gone to sea in
the ship, there did not appear to be any fraud, and the par-
ties might, if they liked, apply to the Court of Requests
again.

A verdict of not guilty was then taken, and the prisoner
was discharged.
Mr. Wilkins said Mr. Trevaskis was ready to exonerate the
prisoner from all blame.

UTTERING A FORGED ORDER.
George Anderson, aged 26, was charged with having, at
Liverpool, uttered a forged order for the payment of £2. 15s.
with intent to defraud Samuel Fishbourne. The note was
produced, and his Lordship said the indictment was so laid
that it could not be sustained, insomuch as the offence char-
ged was a felonious forgery, while it was so laid as to be re-
duced to misdemeanour.
Mr. Wilkins said that, if the facts of the case were known
it would be seen that the prisoner, who had never been in
this country before, had been imposed upon by some of those
vagabonds who prowled about the docks for the purpose of
victimizing such ignorant persons. A verdict of not guilty
was then taken, and the prisoner was discharged.

POACHING.
John Culshaw, (before tried this day and acqnitted on a
charge of poaching) was again placed at the bar, charged
with an assault on two gamekeepers of Lord Derby, and also
with being armed and in search of game with a net in the
night, in a field at Burscough, the property of Squire Scar-
isbrick, on the 30th of July last. The case rested upon the
indentity of the prisoner, and the Jury brought in a verdict
of not guilty. The prisoner was discharged.
One of the witnesses, a young man, named James Orrid,
gave his evidence in a manner quite contradictory to that
which he had given before the magistrates. His Lordship
frequently cautioned him, but he persisted in his statement
that the prisoner had not told him anything relative to the
assault in question which tended to implicate himself. At
the conclusion of the trial, his Lordship said the witness bad
twice that day been guilty of perjury : first, in the previous
case, in which his brother was a witness, and now in this.
His Lordship then ordered that he should be taken into
custody, (which was done,) and that an indictment should
be framed against him for wilful and corrupt perjury.

RIOT AND CONSPIRACY.
John Guest was charged with conspiracy, and with being
present at an unlawful assembly at Broughton, near Man-
chester, on the 11th August last. The case was connected
with the riots about that period in the manufacturing dis-
tricts, and involved no particulars of novelty or peculiar in-
terest. The prisoner, a dyer, was spoken to as being present
in a mob of four hundred persons, who assaulted the gates
of a dye-works, and broke some' windoWs. The prisoner
used a plank as a battering-ram. .The works belonged to
Messrs. Dewhurst and Sugar. It was-found necessary to let
the hands out for the day. The cry set up by the mob was,
" Turn the hands out !" and it was sworn by one witness,
that the prisoner said, with reference to the'works, " It is
the worst hole in all England."
Thomas Gerard and Joseph Clarke were indicted for a
similar offence. One of them, Gerard, pleaded guilty to one
of the counts, and was set at liberty nn giving sureties for his
future good behaviour, his own in £2OO, and two in £5O each
for two years. Clarke was then tried for attending an illegal
meeting in Wigan. on the 15th August, and afterwards pro-
ceeding towards Leigh, on the way to which they stooped
some collieries and other works, by showing an overawing
force. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of a riot, but
there were palliatory circumstances in the prisoner's case.
William Guest and Clarke were then brought up for sen-
tence for rioting, &c. After a suitable admonition, his lord-
ship sentenced Williams (who had been long imprisoned,) to
be further imprisoned for three months, with hard labour,
and then to enter into recognizances. Clarke was sentenced
to six calendar months, and Guest to three months, with
hard labour, and afterwards sureties.

Neville Bancroft, an attorney, of Manchester, was charged
with perjury, committed on his being examined on au arbi-
tration. The defendant had been out on bail, and sat within
the bar. The case arose out of two cross-actions, Allen, an
attorney, against Lowe, and Lowe against Allen, which had
been brought before the Court of Common Pleas, and refer-
red to arbitration, before Mr. Segar, the barrister. The ac-
cusation against ie plaintiff was, that, when examined before
the arbitrator, three questions were put to him, as follows :
First, whether he (defendant) had not, previously, said, with
reference to some damage done to Mr. Lowe, through the
negligence of Mr. Allen, an attorney employed by him, (and
for whom defendant acted) he. Mr. Lowe, had not always
said to him (defendant) that he should hold Mr. Allen him-
self responsible. This the defendant denied, saying that
Lowe had not said so from the first, but only at the last.
Second, whether he (defendant) had not told him (Lowe)
£25 would be paid to him (the latter) iu consideration of the
damage done through the negligence of Allen, and that lie
(defendant) would procure him the money from Allen; this
the defendant had also denied having gild so. Third, whe-
ther he (defendant) had not been told by Lowe that it was of
no use to go on with one of the actions, as the parties sued
were not within the jurisdiction of the Court, and whether
he (defendant) had not replied, that if he had known that,
he would not have proceeded with the action. He also de-
nied having so replied to that question. These denials, it
was contended, amounted to the act of perjury, which it was
brought to prove.

Several witnesses were called, but the case completely
broke down, there being no proof whatever of perjury having
been committed in the case. His Lordship said, there was
no ground whatever for the charge, and directed the jury to
return a verdict of acquittal.
William Greenwood was charged with perjury, in some
evidence given before the magistrates, on an information laid
under the Stage Coach Act ; but as it appeared that no
offence under the art had been committed of which the ma.
gistrates could take cognizance, the indictment was stated by
his Lordship to be grounded in error, and no perjury would,
therefore, be committed. The jury were accordingly directed
to give a verdict of not guilty.