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

BURGLARY.

David Whislon, 18, and Daniel Whiston, 18, were con-
victed of burglariously entering the dwelling-house of Sa-
muel Hawley, at Ashton-uuder-Lyne, with intent to steal
his goods and chattels, and were sentenced to be transported
for ten years.

Mr. 'Taylor, Mr. Wainwright, and three other gentlemen
of the jury who were fined in the morning for non-attendance,
appeared in the course of the day, and the fines on them were
remitted.

The Court rose at twenty minutes past seven.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—MONDAY
(Before Mr. Justice Coltman.)
The Learned Judge took his seat at twenty minutes past
nine.
PARTRIDGE V. QUA YLE.—This case stands No. 5 in the
list for the hundred of West Derby. The plaintiff is Cap-
tain Partridge, who was recently tried in the Central Crimi-
nal Court for the murder of two Spaniards, and the defend-
ant is a shipowner in Liverpool. The action is for the reco-
very of an alleged debt. Mr. Watson, for the defendant,
now applied to his lordship to postpone the trial until a com-
mission was issued and returned for the examination of Wm.
Tear, now at Teneriffe, in Spain, on the ground that the tes-
timony of the witness was material for the defence.
Mr. Justice COLTMAN inquired whether a similar applica-
tion had not been made to and refused by Lord Abinger ?
Mr. WATSON said that was certainly so, but on that occa-
sion the grounds of the application were not ,stated. The
learned counsel then read some correspondence between the
parties, which, he contended, had led the defendant to sup-
pose that the plaintiff would not proceed with the action ;
and the defendant would be prejudiced unless he had the bene-
fit of Tear's evidence.
Mr. Justice COLTMAN, under the circumstances, said he
must refuse the application.
Mr. WATSON then requested his lordship to order that the
trial should not come on before to-morrow (Tuesday).
Mr. Justice COLTMAN said he had no objection to that.
WHITE V. APINTYRE.—This case was next called, when
neither the plaintiff nor his attorney appearing, the Judge
ordered it to be struck out.
WHITEHEAD AND EXECUTOR,:ADMINISTATRIX v BUCK-
LEY.—This was an action to recover £27 12s. 4. by James
Whitehead and Sarah Whitehead his wife, the administratrix
of Ashton Winterbottom, from James Buckley. executor to
the estate of Ann Lees, deceased. The parties are from
the neighbourhood of Rochdale. Mr. WATSON appeared
for the plaintiffs : Mr. KNOWLES for the defendant.
It appeared that Ashton Winterbottom died in the year
1827: and on the 2d February, 1842, Mrs. Whitehead who
was his personal representative obtained letters of adminis-
tration of his effects. At the time of Winterbottoms' death,
Mrs. Lees was indebted to him in the amount now sought
to be obtained. In January last, as the money could not be
obtained from the defendant, a witness on behalf of the
plaintiffs waited upon the defendant and said to him " do you
deny the amount ?" He replied " No, it is correct, and I
will pay it." Mr. Watson cited thecase of Smith v. Fortune
in which the late Mr. Baron Vaughan held that a parole ad-
mission, under such circtirristrifices as were here proved, by-
the defendant was evidence of his liability.
Mr. KNOWLES, on the other side, addressed the Court
contending that the, case cited by his learned friend was not
analagous to the present. An attempt was here made to get
rid of the operation of the statute of limitations upon mere
parole evidence, which he trusted the court would prevent.
Mr. Justice COLEMAN said the equity was clearly on the
side of the plaintiff, and he should direct the jury so to find ;
but he would give the defendant leave to move to enter a
nonsuit.—Verdict accordingly.
MOTHER V. SON.
GREY, ADMINISTRATRIX, V. GRAY.--The plaintiff in this
case, Mary Gray, as administratrix of the effects of Thomas
Gray, deceased, alleged she was possessed of certain house-
hold.furniture which came into the possession of the defen-
dant, James Gray, and which he had converted to his own
use. The defendant pleaded he was not guilty in the man-
ner alleged, and further denied the plaintiff's possession, and
that he had converted the goods to his own use by the leave
and licence of the plaintiff. The damages were laid at £2OO.
Mr. Hugh Hill appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Hoggins for
the defendant.
Mr. HILL said, the plaintiff and defendant stood in the
near relationship of mother and son, the plaintiff being the
mother of the defendant; and it was much to be lamented
that the case could not be settled out of court. He had only
to say, it was not the plaintiff's fault that it was brought
before the jury ; and before he opened the circumstances he
would again propose that it should be settled out of court.
The JUDGE.—Yes; why should these family differences go
before the public ?
Mr. HOGGINS assented to the proposition on the condition
that the reference was immediately proceeded with.
Mr. HILL said his client had no motive whatever for delay
A verdict was then entered for the plaintiff for £2OO, sub
ject to a reference.