The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-08-22 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDAM

YESTERDAY'S ASSIZES.

CROWN* COURT.

His Lordship took his seat at the usual hour, and pro-
ceeded to pass sentence upon the following prisoners who
had pleaded guilty :
John Holden, aged 9, and Jane Holden, 14, for uttering
base shillings at Ashton-under-Lyne, were feelingly ad-
dressed by his lordship, who remarked that they were no
doubt instructed to commit the offence by their father.
They would be sent to the House of Industry, where they
would be looked after, and he hoped, as they would not
there be contaminated, they would be led, on their release,
to pursue a better course of life. They were sentenced to
nine calendar months' imprisonment.
Abraham Rigg . for theft, at Bury, four months ; Saml.
Hallsworth, for bigamy, nine months ' • John Stopford,
for burglary, at Oldham, twelve months ; Thomas Cain,
for manslaughter, at Wigan, nine months •, Wm. Hartley,
for highway robbery and assault, at Wardle, seven years'
transportation ; John Taylor, for a burglary, and a sepa-
rate charge of robbery, ten years' transportation.
BURGLARY.—Mary Ann Tinsley, 22, Thos. Sherring-
ton, 26, and Wm. Rigby, 20, were placed at the bar,
charged with having, at Wigan, on the 21st of April,
forcibly entered the house of Zechariah Molyneux, and
stolen therefrom two shawls, two pieces of satin, a coat,
&c., also provisions, and some copper money, tobacco,
&c. The case occupied nearly three hours. The male
prisoners had, it appeared, entered the house by breaking
six panes of glass, in a back lead-light window. In the
course of the examinations, a good-looking and decently
clad girl of apparently 14 to 16 years of age, was cross-
examined by Mr. Pollock, and said she did not know how
many days there were in a week, and had learned that
Tuesday followed Monday, and Wednesday followed Tues-
day. She admitted that she had learned that since she
was before the magistrates in the case ! To other ques-
tions she said she had never been at a school, or at a
church, and shed tears when she stated the fact. Soon
afterwards, an elderly female, on being examined, said she
did not know at what time of year Christmas or Easter
took place : she had never heard of them ! The evidence
as against Rigby was not sufficient in his Lordship's opi-
nion to send the case to the jury as affecting him. His
Lordship also stated in summing up that there was no
evidence of the female being present at the burglary. All
that appeared as affecting her was that she had pledged
some of the articles, and the jury would therefore acquit
her. (immediately on his Lordship stating this, the wo-
man in the dock fell down in a fit, and was removed.)
The evidence'against Sherrington was strong, including a
confession made by him to a police-officer, while he was
in custody. The jury found him guilty, and the other
two not guilty. It was proved that the prisoner had pre-
viously been convicted of two felonies, for the last of
which he was sentenced to be transported for seven
years, but was sent to the hulks. His Lordship,
addressing Sherrington, said, —.You have now been
convicted of a burglary, and you had been found
guilty -of the same offence before. But this is by
no means the history of your whole career in crime. I
find by the record, that you were convicted in November,
1831, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment ; in
November, 1838, again convicted, and imprisoned for
twelve months. In January, 'lB4O, you were again con-
victed, and sentenced to seven years' transportation. In
May, 1848, you were apprehended on the present charge,
and you have also confessed:to another felony. It seldom
happens that we have so succinct a history of the progress
of crime. You have gone on in the commission of grave
Offences over the space of nearly eleven years. The time
for reformation has in your case passed away, for no hope
can be entertained of the amendment of such a person ;
land if you were sent away fora term, you would, on your
return, again begin spoliations upon society. The sen-
tence of the court, therefore, is, that you be transported
beyond the seas for the term of your natural life.
Alexander Worrall„/.20 ; John Street, 21; Isaac Jack-
son, 22; and Catharine Gibson, 19, were indicted for
having, at Salford, on the night of the 25th May, burgle-
riously broken and entered the dwelling-house and gro-
cer's shop of Joseph Crossley, and stolen therefrom
£5 ss. in copper, which was set forth in the indictment as
1260 pennies, and .2620 halfpennies, each making the
amount. The shop was No. 2, Bank-parade, and there
was a projecting part- or front abutting into the street, and
lighted by a skylight. An entrance had been effected by
breaking two squares in the skylight, by which one
or more of the male prisoners entered, using an iron hook
with a rope attached to one end of it, to lower themselves.
The premises were secure when closed on the previous
evening. In the morning the breaking was [discovered
and the money missed. A candle and some lucifer
matches were found within. After the robbery the male
prisoners went to-a public-house. This was a tedious
case, presenting nothing of novelty. A good deal of the
evidence was from•the lips of an approver. The two male
prisoners were ably defended by Mr. Monk and Mr. New.
The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Pollock. His
Lordship summed• up in perspicuity, and the jury found
the two men guilty who had been tried, and the woman
not guilty. There had been a previous conviction against
Jackson, another against Street, and another against
Worrall.—His Lordship said they had been convicted on
the clearest evidence, two of them by a witness, and the
other by his own confession. Jackson had twice before
been convicted ofifelony, and Street four times. He sen-
tenced Worrell and Jackson to be transported for ten
years, and Street for fourteen years.
Mary Ann Tinsley, Thomas Sherrington, and William
, Rigby were again brought up on another indictment, but
as they had previously been tried, and sentence was
passed, the evidence was not taken in this case. •
ASSAULTS ON.POLICE-OFFICERS.—MichaeI Hogan 26.
was charged with ,having feloniously assaulted John Wil-
liamson, a police-officer, in Peter's-street, Manchester,
with an iron instrument, early on the morning of the.2oth
June. The prisoner went up to the officer and addressed
' to him some coarse language, relative to a woman of whom
he was in search. The officer, accordinc, to his own ac-
count, pushed him away and told him to go home,uponwhich
prisoner pulled out-from his trowsers an iron bar or rod—
a kind of crow-bar about a yard in length—and struck the
officer violently with it over the head, and on various parts
of his body. The-prosecutor was so much hurt that he
was confined for a week in the Infirmary. A string was
firmly attached to the bar, apparently to prevent it from
being taken from the possessor.—The officer was strongly
cross-questioned by .Mr. Pollock as to an alleged threat
of the prisoner, uttered-three times, that he would knock
his (the officer's) brains out. He had not mentioned
that before the magistrates.—Robert Hughes, another
officer, corroborated the first part of the prosecutor's
statement as to the threats and the blows, and lie got
hold of the bar of iron. The prosecutor was bleeding
freely.—The surgeon said the wound on the head was
severe.—Mr. Pollock defended the prisoner, and, after a
powerful address, called witnesses at the request of the
prisoner. One witness stated that the prosecutor first
struck the prisoner, and repeated the blow ; both fell in
a struggle. The prisoner received a good character, as
having been foreman to Mr. Miller, lithographic printer,
of this town, for twelve months,.and afterwards with other
masters at Blackburn and Manchester.—The jury found
a verdict against the prisoner for the felony, and he was
put down.
FORGERY.—Benjamia Anderson, .33, was indicted for
having forged and passed off, at Manchester, in June last,
an order for the delivery of goods, with intent to defraud
Messrs. Tomlinson and Leigh. The order purported to
be signed by Messrs. Lilly and Son, of Store-street.
Manchester' and was for two pairs of compasses, and a
slide rule. The jury found the prisoner guilty of uttering.
There was a second case against them, but it was not gone
into. Sentence was deferred, and the Court rose at a
quarter before six o'clock.
In reply to a question from one of the counsel, his
Lordship said lie should take the case of William Adams,
charged with having wilfully murdered his wife at Man-
chester, on Wednesday (to-morrow) morning.

NISI PRIU6 COURT.-YESTERDAY.
A WATER QUESTION.

ROCHDALE CANAL COMPANY V. KING AND OTHEI3.B.
The Attorney-General (Knowles) and Messrs. Tomlinson
and Cowley were for the plaintiffs, and Messrs. Martin
and Atherton for the defendants. The Attorney-General
stated the case to the jury. This was an action brought
by the plaintiffs to recover damages for a trespass in hav-
ing taken water out of the Rochdale Canal, which they
had not returned according to the terms of the act. of
parliament, under which the company were incorporated.
The defendants are Messrs. James King, sen., James
King, jun., and John Houldsworth, cotton spinners and
manufacturers at Rochdale. He did not apprehend that
there would be much dispute about the facts in the cause,
but the question would rather resolve itself into one for
the consideration of the court, namely, as to whether the
defendants had a right to take the quantity of water out
of the canal which they had been in the habit of doing.
The canal was commenced in the year 1794, the company
being incorporated by the 34th Geo. 111. It was to
commence at a place called Sowerby Bridge, in York-
shire, and to be continued to the neighbourhood of
Manchester, where it was to communicate with the Duke
of Bridgewater's canal. At that time it was conceived
that there would be great difficulty to obtain sufficient
waterifor the purposes of the canal, and accordingly five
different reservoirs were formed for the purpose and the
water from the neighbourhood was conveyed into them by
means of culverts and drains. By the 113th section of
the act, the mode in which parties having works in the
neighbourhood were to be supplied was described, and ac-
cording to that clause, they were to have water gratuitously,
for the purpose, and no other, of condensing the steam, and
subject to the inevitable waste in that, all the water was
to be returned into the canal. In the year 1806, another
act of parliament (the 46th George 111., cap. 46) was ob-
tained, increasing the powers of the company. By that
act, authority was given to the agents of the company to
enter the works of any party taking water from the canal,
for the purpose of ascertaining whether more water was
taken out of the canal than was necessary. This act cor-
roborated clause 113 in the former act, and showed his
view of the law to be correct. Soon after the canal was
opened, a great number of factories and other works
were erected adjacent to the canal, and undoubtedly
the company were not very strict as to the quantity
of water used at the different works, for they imagined
that as they were the sole carriers along the line, a con-
siderable return would be obtained from the carriage of
coal and other goods, but a railway had recently been
opened all along the whole line of the canal, which had
interfered to a great extent with the profits of the canal.
The consequence of this was that the plaintiffs were com-.
pelled to look more strictly after their rights in justice to
the proprietors of the canal, and therefore they called
upon all those using more water than was allowed for
condensing the steam used at the engines. Several of
the manufacturers had agreed to pay fir the water they
used, but the defendants declined to do so. They had
been in the habit of taking more water from the canal
than was requisite for condensing the steam. They had
constructed a large reservoir, and after the water bad bean
used it was again conveyed to the steam-engine and used
again when warm, after which some of it was returned to
the canal. The object of this was to save fuel. They

also used the water for the purpose of making the steam,
as well as condensing it, and also for heating the mill.

The first witness was then called, when
Mr. MARTIN said he would admit the statement made
by the Attorney-General—that more water had been taken
out of the canal than was allowed by law, which would
save the time of the Court, and he had no doubt his
learned friend would also admit that the navigation of
the canal had not been injured in corse.quence of the
water taken out of it by the defendant.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, so far as they knew he
would admit that the navigation had not been interrupted.
Mr. MARTIN said before the verdict was entered, he
would say a word or two to the jury. In 1789, the
first steam-engine was erected in Lancashire, and- in 1794
the act of Parliament for the construction of this canal
was obtained. People then knew very little respecting
the requirements of the steam-engine, and therefore the
object of having •a supply of water was not so compre-
hensively provided for as in more recent acts. People
had gone on building mills on the banks of the canal to
an enormous extent ; and until the opening of the Lanca-
shire and Yorkshire railway, no difficulty had been thrown
in the way of their obtaining water. For nearly fifty
years no impediment had been thrown in their way. It
was a principle of•law, that where a party enjoyed the
advantages of a watercourse for upwards of twenty years,
he could not be dispossessed of it, and he thought the
plaintiffs would- have acted more fairly, had they com-
menced proceedings against some one who had enjoyed
the privilege for thirty years or upwards, instead of those
of a more recent date. However, the last allegation in
the declaration was, that in conseqpence of water being
taken out of the canal by. the defendant, the navigation
was obstructed, but as the navigation had not been ob-
structed, he should maintain that there was not a suffi-
cient cause of action:

The learned JUDGE then directed the jury to find a ver-
dict for the plaintiff,—damages ls., and that the naviga-
tion of the canal had not been impeded.
A verdict was entered in accordance with this direction,
and leave given to the defendants' counsel to move to en-
ter a nonsuit in case the court above should be of opinion
that there was not sufficient cause of action.

It was also agreed that the learned Judge should certify,
so as to secure the plaintiffs their costs, if the defendants
did not succeed in their application to the court above.

A BAKER'S BILL.

FORT v. BEATTIE.—This was an action brought by the
plaintiff, Mr. Richard Fort, a flour and provision dealer,
at Middleton, near Manchester, against the defendants,
Thomas and Samuel Beattie, bakers, in London-road,
Manchester. Samuel Beattie suffered judgment by de-
fault, and Thomas Beattie pleaded never indebted. The
action was to recover the sum of £lOB Bs. 6d., the balance
of an account for goods sold and delivered ; and the only
question in the cause was whether the defendant Thomas
Beattie was a partner in the concern at the time the goods
were sold, and a good deal of evidence was adduced on
both sides. The jury found for the plaintiff for £lOB Bs. 6d.
The Attorney-General and Mr. Crompton were counsel
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Monk for the defence.