The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1845-04-01 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD

BURGLARY

William Haigh, 27, was charged with having entered
the dwelling-house of John Garside, at Ashton-under-
Lyne, and stolen a looking-glass.
Mr. Monk appeared for the prosecution. The prisoner
was defended by Mr. Wilkins.
The prosecutor resides at Haywood, near Manchester,
and the prisoner was a person who went about hawking
oatcakes. About eight o'clock on Tuesday evening, the
18th of FebruFy, the prisoner called, as was his custom,
to know if they wanted any oatcakes. The servant girl
said they did not require any, and also observed, that her
master and mistress were from home. The girl went out
to fetch in the clothes, leaving the prisoner in the kitchen,
warming his hands, Mr. Garsides brother being at that
time in the house. On her return the prisoner was gone.
The servant girl was the only person in the house during
the evening, and she retired to rest about nine o'clock.
During the night she was alarmed by hearing a noise, as
if somebody was in the house, and immediately got up
and examined the doors, both back and front. She after-
wards proceeded down stairs, and found that some things
bad been removed from the fireplace which had been left
there the previous evening. A looking-glass had also
been taken down from the wall, but nothing had been
taken out of the house. A pair of shoes belonging to
some strange party were found in the kitchen. On the
alarm being given, which, it appeared, was about eleven
o'clock, the prisoner was seen by witness to come out
from the back yard and attempt to secrete himself in the
privy. He was immediately followed and taken into cus-
tody. On being asked his business, he said he had been
to see the servant. The witness replied, that it was a
queer way to go and see the servant by breaking through
the window. He said yes, it appeared so ; but he had
done so on that occasion. On being taken to the lock-
up he declined saying anything; but, on the following
morning, observed that it was a bad job, and repeated his
statement that he had been to see the servant.
Mr. WILKINS addressed the jury for the prisoner in a
ludicrous speech, arguing that the prisoner never in-
tended to commit any felony ; such a supposition was
perfectly absurd. He had no doubt, as the prisoner had
himself stated, that he had merely gone to see the servant
girl : such a supposition was quite in character with the
whole proceeding. A witness was called who gave the
prisoner an excellent character.

- The jury, after stating that they did not know with
what intention the prisoner broke into the house, found
him guilty, and his Lordship sentenced him tosix months'
imprisonment and hard labour,

HOUSEBREAKING.
Henry Hartley, 24, was charged with entering the
dwelling-house of John Hebbert, at Ashton-under-Lyne,
i 4 Feb. last.

Mr. Hutton prosecuted. The prisoner was defended
by Mr. Sowler.

Mr. HVLTON stated the case. The prosecutor lived at
Staleybridge, and on the 9th of February last, he and his
wife left home and went to Denton-green. He returned
home a little after one o'clock in the morning, and, on
going into his bedroom, found the drawers had been
opened and various articles lying about. About five sov-
ereigns and some jewellery, and wearing apparel, amongst
which was a handkerchief, were missing. On the 7th
March the prisoner was apprehended in Manchester, and
the handkerchief above-mentioned, which was identified
by the wife of the prosecutor as part of the property
stolen, found upon him. He was seen about eleven o'clock
on the night in question, near the house of the prosecutor.
Mr. SOWLER addressed the jury for the prisoner. He
contended that the prisoner could not be convicted on the
evidence of the breaking and entering, and not safely of
the common larceny.
His Lordship having summed up the evidence, a verdict
of guilty of larceny was returned.

The prisoner was sentenced to twelve months' imprison
ment.

The court rose at twenty minutes to one o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—SATURDAY.
FOSTER V. CLARK.
An action, brought by the plaintiff, James Foster, a
grocer, of Blackburn, to recover a sum of £3O, money
paid to the use of the defendant, William Clark. Mr.
Knowles and Mr. Atherton appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Baines and Mr. James for the defendant. The plain-
tiff was nonsuited.
HENDERSON AND ANOTHER V. ARNOLD.

An action of trover, brought by Robert and Geor.4e
Henderson, merchants, of Liverpool, against the de-
fendant, S muel James Arnold, a warehouse-keeper, also
of Liverpool, for the recovery of £215, the invoice price
of nineteen chests of shell-lac. The defendant had paid
£BO into Court; and the only question in the case was,
whether this sum was a sufficient compens ,tion to the
plaintiffs for the loss they had sustained. They purchased
the shell-lac in the year 1835 from the defendant, at the
price of five guineas per cwt. ; and from that time up to
about the middle of last year the article, which was used
in dying, continued to fall in price. When, however, it
began to rise, the plaintiffs made application for it to the
defendant, at whose warehouse it lay from the time of the
purchase, but found, to their surprise, that it had been
sold. The answer they received was, that, by some error,
a gentleman who had been a partner with Mr. Arnold had
entered it as a part of his partnership's stock, and sold it,
the year before, at the rate of 355. per cwt. The plaintiffs
were nonsuited.

ARNOLD AND ANOTHER V. HENDERSON AND OTHERS.
An action for the recovery of the warehouse rent of the
shell-lac mentioned in the last case. Mr. Knowles, who
said the whole thing had originated in a mistake, and that
defendant was a most respectable man, consented to take
a verdict for the plaintiff for 40s.

MILLER V. SPENCER.
An undefended action for the recovery of a sum of £l3O
on an agreement. Verdict for the plaintiff.

CHANTER V. JOHNSON AND OTHERS.
An action, brought by John Chanter, the patentee of
various inventions, against the defendants, William John-
son and 'William Ainsworth. cotton manufacturers, of
Wigan, to recover a sum of £33 for a license to use a pa-
tent furnace for the consumption of a diminished quantity
of fuel and the entire consumption of smoke. The de•
fendants pleaded, that they had not promised, and that
they were induced to enter into the contract by the fraud
of the plaintiff. Verdict for the plaintiff.

AYRTON V. BOLD.
An action for the recovery of the amount of a promis-
sory note for £7B, with interest. Verdict for the plaintiff.

NOLAN V. DUFFY AND UXOR.
An action brought by Oliver Nolln, a Dublin attorney,
against Bernard Duffy, a surgeon, for the recovery of the
bum of £175, being the amount of his costs for making
out Mn.l Duffy's marriage settlements. When the case
had been partly opened, a verdict was taken for the
plaintiff, subject to a reference.

DENNETT V. LONGSHAW.
This was an action brought by Joseph Dennett, a
farmer, residing near Huyton, against the defendant,
Peter Longshaw, the owner and driver of an omnibus
running between Prescot and Liverpool, to recover
damages for his negligent and careless driving, whereby
the leg of the plaintiff was broken.
After the case for the plaintiff had been partially heard,
the court adjourned.