The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-04-02 00:00:00

SI PRIUS COURT.-TUESDAY.

ty, LordshipIIINTCLIFF V. GARNETT, ESQ. .
atwerhalf. took his seat on the bench this morning
past nine (i'clock, when a number of witnesses
after the irynaatbhteieohnaalf
wofhtinhhe defendant. They spoke to va-
tiolselpsc:. a
iletlietf
re
al
gthaen, took place with the plaintiff,
organ was alleged to be sold, in which
admitted that he had not purchased the or-
chestberut that it had rnerely been sent to his house in Man-
that the' furring
to the auctio:etime of the opening. They also proved
furniture in the house of Mrs. Wright, previous
being commenced by the defendant, Mr.
Yteilnrie was worth at least £3OO, but within a day or two
the
were sold c nsiderably under their real value to
w•n_ce nt parties belonging to the family, with some trifling
U ptions •, and that for the work done at the house of
• the 'Wright, by the plaintiff, he was paid by the day, and
'me materiiils were not found by him-
-O,,Zr. BAINES, in reply, said the only question in the
was! whether the organ was really sold to the plain-
Us_NvPrevious to the issue of theexteocution against Mrs.
the conduct of the
wikht's goods : for with regard
liadlgute, though the jury mi b
the creditorsdefraudwetiegn!that had nothing to do with the. question they
that being. He
then contended, at considerable length,
evidence for the defence was not to be relied on,
?Id ttat the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict for the va-
ne of the organ.
tilitew
TohneLearned Judge summed up, and the Jury, after a
consideration found a verdict for the defendant.
SMITH V. ALSTEAD.
This was an undefended action brought by the plaintiff.
tfro the and spirit merchant, in Manchester, to recover
th.eravatihe defendant, who resides at Stanhill-hall, £2O odd,
,; ue
.. P daln
This was
tv.afe_a quantity of spirits. Verdict for theepelkai.n-
-6 3:025:. Execution to issue in one w
Tiff of replevinthena
YouNGfIusDAND V. DEANE.
the a°,
n to the late High She-
undefended action. brought to recover
bond liven
mageei ls. County, Verdict for the plaintiff, debt £62, da-
This u. DAWSON AND UXOR V. INMAN.
principal -as an action to recover the sum of £241, the
I_, and interest on a promissory note given by the
anderrt:dant to the plaintiff. The cause was undefended,
verdict was returned for the amount sought.

LAVERY V. HALSTEAD.
CeTptheids wasb an undefended action on a bill of exchange ac,
tiff. Y the defendant for £5O. Verdict for the plain.

noR
In tbi /4, HOBSON, AND OTHERS V. MA.UGHALL.
out the trial
8 a se, the plaintiff submitted to a nonsuit with• being entered on.

BREACH OF CONTRACT.

This RICHARDSON V. CARTWRIGHT.
the was an action brought to recover damages from
„,rdefendant for a breach of contract.
il_T • Brandt appeared for the plaintiff, and Messrs.
--I.l!es and Crompton were for the defendant*
ae Plaintiff is cooper and wharfinger, in Manchester,
and the defendantare'd s at Northwich, in Cheshire ; and
ethesi
it aPPeared f
plaintiff, that amperson
evidencee adduced on behalf of the
named Wallworth, a joiner, in the
etaPl°Y of the defendant, entered into a contract ontsvhes
10th of October, 1842, to supply 150,000-Scotch
zfir sat
the
at 0s per thousand, and 50,000 of a largeri size
h ten months
aaale price, th whole to be di wi
fro
,ro the date.e Part of the stavelesvered had been supplied, but
only a small part, and the defendant refused to deliver the
remainder. A witness was
called to prove that the price
Of such staves as were to be delivered by
was 48s. and 565. per thousand.
the end of ten months,
lie admitted, however, in cross-examination by Mr.
Baines, that. the prices be mentioned were the lowest
prices during the last three years.
Mr. BAINES, in addressing the jury, observed that this
was a question of some importance, both to the defendant
and the public, for if a person was to be bound by the
• o,ntract of such an agent as the one in the present case,
lit tradesmen were safe. There ought to be some proof
either of a general or p,sticular authority given to Wall-
. ~'"rtii ; and he contended there was neither, and several
11":t!lesses were called to prove that the defendant had
thr.4 in the presence of the plaintiff, that he had not au-
Varrtisoefai,l'iro to enter into any contract, and to contradict
Ur. ir e/idence given by Wallworth.
Ills Lo-.4,14131' replied.
°Pinion ti,-;s,,RIP, in summing up, said if the jury were of
"ie anage hi- jv'allworth was engaged by the defendant to.
`" enter 's uusiness. they most infer that he had power
contract Int° a contract with the plaintiff, and such
amount
oNvfould be
binding on the defendant. As to the
tence be damages, that must be estimated by the differ-
he tureen the contract price, and the price at which
lion of tknave purchased them at the time of the expira-
The • "e contract.
.449. )4rY returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages,

MARKET RIGHTS AT MANCHESTSR.

MOSLEY, BART, V. PICKUP.
SAME V. BOOTH.
SAME V. GRF.ATREX.
benul in these cases Messrs. Starkie, Wortiey, Brandt, and
fer,detiari. were for the plaintiff. The cases were unde-
,
Mr. sTARKIE,
Sery in stating the first case to the Jury, ob-_
f_ ed that the Plaintiff, Sir Oswald Mosley, was lord of
eetes.anor of Manchester, and the proprietor of the
nlothat town, and the action was brought the ri mt
thear-
ghtsof buher in thatytoswlni,ofor_aens_ inmreinsatgearlialesonttheoyf
plo,„ ~ the plaintiff, b. elg 11 h
b..) ' Luatt the public markets. The market in question
" existed from a very ancient time ; if necessary,
could si
In vs 'ow that it had existed in the time of Edward I.
ue time of Queen Elizabeth it was granted to an an-
eester of Sir Oswald Mosley, in whose family it had re-
ained ever since. This was not the first time the right
the been before the courts ; for, about half a century' ago,
eooymtsatotberoyivea,s tried in the courts below, and argued in the
before Lord Mansfield, when the rights of
thee Mosley family to the manor and privileges of Man-
were fully established. Since that time parties
had frequently intringej on the rights of the plaintiff, and
everal actions had been brought against various parries,
including four or five against the defendant Pickup, at
considerable expense, as the defendants had been unable
to pay the costs.
Proof having been shortly given of the right of Sir Os-
wald Mosley, and that the defendant had sold butcher's
Meat at his own house, under the direction of the learned
judge,—a verdict was returned for the plaintiff ; damages,
one shilling.
Similar verdicts were also returned in the other two
cases.

Tbjs VißSBaMlTUßnefererip ANOTHER V. ROGERS.
change. Verdict led action on three Bills of Ex-
the plaintiff; damages, £lB6 lOs 3d.
Verdict by Cons e surrn
SEATON.
a GAMBLING TRANSACTION.—
ni,;ges, £lO.
This was an action brow ATKINSON V. WEBSTER.
ght by the plaintiff:, a. tobacco-
!list e
acco.
!fi \'‘M
st in Manchester, against t'4e defendant, William
w
ster, who resides in the neighbourhood of Leeds, to
se-
cure the sum of £5O, money lent.
Mr Greene was counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Watson
for the defendant.
It appeared that the defendant and several other parties
were playing at billiards in a room in Market-street Man-
chester duri the whole of the afternoon of the 4th July
last, during whichng the defendant lost considerably, and, at
the conclusion, he borrowed from the plaintiff £5O, for
Which he first gave a bill of Exchange, and then, in con-
terluence of its being informal, an I. O. U The latter
rcoment, however, was not put in, and the whole case
welted upon the evidence of one person named Jackson,
fendat.a
NirwVn the habit of frequenting billiard rooms. _
AT
ON addressed the Jury on behalf of the de-
really was contended, in forcible terms, that if there
His Lo any loan at all it was obtained by fraud.
believed
Damp, in summing up, said if the Jury
let for the
verdict the evidence for the plaintiff they must find a
ff. The Jury founpd for the defendant.
co-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.—HARGREAVES AND
Th. ANOTHER V. WOOD AND ANOTHER.
bond's Was an action to recover the sum of £BO 9s. on a
x/Messrs. Wortley and Higgins were for the plaintiffs, and
"sra- Knowles and Cowling for the defendants.
acrelat,:vas an action brought by the plaintiffs Hartly Har-
ea and William Shore, as Trustees of a Co-operative
Rijopety, in Glossop Vale, to recover r£
the defendants,
and Charles Wood, the sum of £BO 9s. on a bond
Stance bY one of the defendants under the following circum-
for"nrn• It appeared that in the year, 1840, a society was
d in Glossop, called the Glossop Vale Co-operative
to TetY, the object of which, like all similar societies, was
at OPPIY the lower classes with gtoceries and provisions
,_olotle more than the price. The defendant, Charles
Trd, became agent to costthe society at the salary of 21s.
aolweek, in August, 1842, there was a deficien in
taccuunts tamounting to £ll2, and there having been
• aegmees,usPicion excited six months previous to this time,
it bondh- was asked for, and the father, John ood, gave
With his son Charles for the due performance of

his trust in which it was stipulated that he should render
a true account to the trustees of all the moneys and stock
he received. When the deficiency of .EII2 was discovered,
he was remonstrated with, and time was given him to
make up the deficiency on condition of his continuing to
act as agent. However about a month afterwards the
deficiency had increased to £l2B, and Charles Wood gave
up the agency, saying he could not account for the defici-
ency.
The evidence for the plaintiffs, which occupied a consi-
derable time,and was chiefly dry matters of account showed,
after making some allowances for waste and profit to the
defendant Charles Wood, a defalcation of upwards of £BO.
Mr. KNOWLES took several objections to the form of
decl,ration, and the evidence by which it was sustained.
At length, a* the suggestion of the learned Judge a ver-
dict was entered for the plaintiffs for the amount sought.
with liberty to move to enter a verdict for the defendant
on one point and to reduce the damages to £l6 on ano-
ther.
The Court adjourned tt six o'clock.

CROWN COURT.—WEDNESDAY.
The Learned Judge took his seat on the bench at a
quarter-past nine.
James Kay, who pleaded guilty to an indictment charg-
ing him with forging a request for the delivery of goods,
with intent to defraud William Lomas, of Great Bolton,
was brought up and sentenced to two years' imprison-
ment.

-..„
ROBBERY AND ASSAULT.
Nathaniel Bentley and James Gosling stood charged
with assaulting John Woodcock, at Manchester, and rob-
bing him of some money. The prosecutor, it appeared,
was a huckster, and lived at Tarvin, and on the 23rd of
February last had occasion to go to Manchester un busi-
ness. In the evening he was at the Blue Bell public-
house, where he met the prisoner Gosling, and the latter
took him to several other houses, at one of which they
met the other prisoner. Bentley. Soon after this the
prosecutor was induced to go into the street, when the
prisoners set uvon him, and robbed him of four sove-
reigns and a half-sovereign ; he was violently assaulted,
and Gosling had a knife, and said he would cut his throat
if he made any resistance. His fob was then cut off and
the money taken out of it, after which the prisoners made
their escape, but were afterwards apprehended. Several
witnesses were called, who deposed to seeing the prisoners
in company with the prosecutor on the day in question.
Mr Wilkins addressed the jury for Gosling, and called
witnesses as to character. The prisoners were acquitted.
At eleven o'clock the Grand Jury were discharged.

ROBB ERY.
Samuel Marland, 35, (could neither read nor write,)
was indicted for robbing John Horsfield, at Ashton-
under-Lyne ; he was further charged with striking him
violently with a stick. The prosecutor stated that he was
a mechanic, residing at Stayley-bridge, and on the 4th of
February last, about two o'clock in the morning, was
Passing through Ashton, and, on coming near Ashley
Arms, met the prisoner, who belonged to the police-
force, and asked if he could procure anything to drink.
They then went into the house, and had some liquor, when
the prosecutor got change for a sovereign, and on coming
out of the house, set off on the new road intending to go
to Manchester. After going a little way, he beard some
one following him, and on looking round saw the prisoner,
who immediately put his hand into his pocket, and suc-
ceeded in taking his money, consisting of a sovereign and
fifteen shillings in silver. Prisoner then said he would
give him five shillings back again, and the prosecutor said
he would have all, and took hold of him, on which he
received a blow which brought him to the ground. The
prisoner then got away. Prosecutor afterwards went to
the police station, where an investigation took place, when
the prisoner was recognised, and taken into custody. The
prisoner was acquitted, several witnesses being called, who
spoke to the prosecutor's being somewhat in liquor, and
that he had at first given a wrong statement with respect
to the number of the police officer.

FORGING A CHECK.
James Joseph Mooney, 36, (could read and write in a
superior manner,) was charged with forging an order for
the payment of money at Wigan. The prisoner, it ap-
peared, from the statement of Mr. Hulton, was an at-
torney's clerk at Wigan, and son-in-law to Betty Glass-
brook, who had a sum of money in the bank of Messrs.
Woodcock and Sons, of the same place. On the 15th of
January last the prisoner went to the bank of Messrs.
Woodcock, and obtained a blank check, soon after which
he returned, having, in the mean time, got it filled up for
the amount of £25, which sum was paid to him. The
signature was, " Betty Glassbrook," but she had given no
authority to the prisoner to make use of her name, and
the check was supposed to be a forgery. Mr. Gaskell,
, solicitor, of Wigan, gave the prisoner an excellent cha-
racter, though he considered that within the last two
years his mind had been somewhat impaired, and he had
been guilty of some inaccuracies, but he never had occa-
sion to charge him with dishonesty. The prisoner was
acquitted.