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

188121 i: rINTPLIAVINCI

SOUTH LANCASHIRE SPRING ASSikS

CROWN COURT—FRIDAY, MAncu 31
(Before Mr. Boron PAID E.)

John Kean, 34, was indicted for stabbing his wife, Ellen
Kean, at Manchester, with intent to do her sone grievous bo-
dily harm. He was sentenced to fifteen years' transporta-
tion.

John Dainteth, 22, was charged with having committed a
similar offence on Thomas Bute, at Curton Wood, on the,lth
of October last. The jury did not think the evidence suffi-
cient to establish a case of felony against the prisoner, but
found him guilty of an aggravated assault, and he was sen-
tenced to one year's imprisonment.
Patrick M` Lachlan and William Butterworth were
brought up for sentence, having been convicted the day pre-
vious of burglary, and his lordship ordered Butterworth,
who had been in gaol several times before, to be transported
for the term of fifteen years, and the other to one year's im-
prisonment.

Patrick Fermi, who was indicted for the manslaughter of
his own child, by improperly administering some rum to him,
and against whom the grand jury had ignored the bill, was
arraigned, acquitted, and discharged.--Prisoner: Thank
you, my lord. The JUDGE : I dont suppose you had the
slightest intention or idea that you were doing wrong.
James Durken, charged with robbery at Manchester, and
John Lloyd, with a burglary at the same place, were both
discharged by proclamation.

THE ARSON CASES.
These cases, which, as our readers are aware, excited con-
siderable interest in this town, were fixed by his lordship to
be tried on Monday the 10th instant.

THE ST. HELEN'S MURDER.
The case of Wilmot 13m:kley, for the murder of his wife,
was, on the application of Dr. Brown, fixed for next Friday.
In the case of Mr. Alexander Mason, charged with forgery,
Mr. Archibald applied to his lordship to postpone the trial
until next assizes, on account of the absence of a material wit-
ness, and also that the recognizances of Hannah Mason
might be entreated. On this his lordship read over the de-
positions, and decided that the trial must be postponed until
the next assizes, and in the mean time, the prisoner must re-
main in custody.

On the grand jury coming into court, is lordship dis
charged them.

NISI PRIUS COURT—FRIDAY.
(Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN.)
RIGG V. THE MANCHESTER AND LEEDS RAILWAY
COMPANY.—This was an action brought by the plaintiff,
Sarah Rigg, against the corporation of the Manchester and
Leeds Railway, for the recovery of wages due, and the value
of work and labour done. The defendants pleaded that they
never were indebted in the manner and form alleged. Mr.
Watson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Baines and Mr.
Thompson for the defendants. Mr. WATSON stated the
case. He said this was the case of a poor widow woman,
who contended that,certain wages were due to her by the
defendants, in consideration of her having watched and taken
care of a gate at Littleborough, near Rochdale, in this
county. The jury were aware that the Manchester and
Leeds Railway was opened originally only so far as Little-
borough, where there was a gate which led upon a road in the
direction of some coal-pits. The gate belonged to a Mr.
Smith, and was let to a Mr. Wilkinson ; and during the
time Mr. Wilkinson occupied the coal mines in the neigh-
bourhood, he had the privilege of going through the gate, for
the opening and shutting of which he employed Mr. Rigg,
the husband of the plaintiff, and, after his death, the plain-
tiff herself. She was then paid some money by Mr. Wilkin-
son for her support ; she was also given some coals from the
pits ; and she was allowed to take money from persons who
passed through the gate, in order to maintain a subsistence.
When the Manchester and Leeds Railway bad been opened,
the gate became the property of the company, and they
erected a cottage at the end of it, and continued to employ
Mrs. Rigg to open and shut it for the persons who brought
articles to the railway and canal; for the company were the
owners, he believed, of the canal as the railway. Mr. Wat-
son proceeded to say that whether the canal belonged to them
the gate
the plaintiff was employed in opening and shutting
the gate for 120 weeks, by night as well as by day, and sh,u
only claimed a shilling a day for her services. Mr. BAINts,
for the defence, said that no contract had been made with the
plaintiff except that she was to have the toll-house rent free;
that the company did not require her services, and that it
was only in compliance with her pressing importunities that
she was at length allowed to continue in the house. The
learned counsel dwelt at some length upon the fact that for
the period of two years the plaintiff had never made any de-
mand for her services, and concluded by asking the jury
whether they thought a respectable company, like the Man-
chester and Leeds, would refuse the claim and come into
court if they did not think they had a good defence ? The
jury, after an absence from court of half an hour, returned
a verdict for the plaintiff for £7 is.

SHAW AND ANOTHER V. LEES AND ANOTHER.--This
was an action brought by the plaintiffs, Robert Kershaw,
James Shaw, and George Lawton, against the defendants,
Samuel Lees and Co., for the recovery of the value of large
quantities of coal belonging to the plaintiffs, which the de-
fendants had converted to their use and benefit. Mr. Brandt
was proceeding to enter into a variety of details explanatory
of the alleged incursions, when his LORDSHIP interposed,
and suggested that it might be advisable to have the case re-
ferred and investigated upon the spot in question, where the
levels could be taken, and all the other necessary informa-
tion easily obtained. Mr. KNOWLES immediately assented
to the suggestion of the court, and. after a short conversation
between counsel on both sides, a verdict was formally taken
for the plaintiff subject to a reference.
SAME V. SAME.—This was an action brought by the same
parties against the defendants for the recovery of the value
of certain coals which had been worked by the latter at col-
lieries of Mount Nebo. Verdict for the plaintiffs, subject to
a reference.

ORMROD V. HUTH AND OTHERS.--In this case the
declaration stated that the defendants had falsely exhibited
certain samples of cotton, whereby the plaintiff was induced
to purchase a quantity of cotton which afterwards turned
out to be greatly inferior to the samples. To this the de-
fendants pleaded not guilty, and denied that the plaintiff was
induced to purchase the cotton as alleged.
Mr. Wortley and Mr. Cowling were for the plaintiff; Mr.
ndas and Mr. Crompton for the defendants.
Mr. WORTLEY stated the case. In this case he had the
honour to appear for Mr. Peter Ormrod, who carried on
business as a cotton spinner, under the firm of Ormrod and
Hardcastle, at Bolton, and he sought to recover from the de-
fendants, Messrs. Huth and Company, merchants, of Liver-
pool, the difference between the price of good Orleans cot-
ton, as it was represented to him to be when ne purchased it,
and the price he was able to sell it at when it was found not
to be Orleans cottons. The action was one of very great im-
portance to persons engaged in the cotton trade in this Nun-
try ; because this case would probably give rise to a question
which would materially effect the transactions in that trade
between the merchants in that town. That trade, he need
not say, was of the utmost importance, not merely to Liver-
pool, but to the country ; and it was with the greatest plea-
sure we were now hearing, and was assuming a state of ac-
tivity whick must be gratifying to every body in this country.
Connected with that case, then, this case assumed an impor-
tance much beyond the actual sum of money in dispute. The
amount of money in dispute was not above £136 ; but the
principle involved, as regarded the mode of dealing between
the cotton merchants and manufacturers in this country, was
of the utmost importance. It appeared that on the 9th April,
1840, Mr. William Bower, who was the buying broker of the
plaintiff to purchase a quantity of cotton, in consequence of
which he went to Messrs. Salisbury, Turner and Earle,
selling brokers for the defendants, in Liverpool, that being
the ordinary course of business on the Exchange. Mr.
Bower asked Mr. Earle if they had a quantity of good Or-
leans cotton. Mr. Earle said they had, and took him to the
place of business to see the samples. The samples were
shown by Mr. Earle to Mr. Bower, who was the broker for
the plaintiff, Mr. Ormrod. He examined the cotton ; they
appeared to be good samples, and accordingly a bargain was
made, and he intimated to dr. Earle that he would take 144
bales of cotton, giving in the name of the plaintiff. The bales
were invoiced at £1646 15s. ; and Mr. Bower afterwards re-
ceived an invoice from Messrs. Salisbury and Co., and trans-
mitted it to Bolton. That was done in the ordinary way of
business in Liverpool; and he understood the usual course
was this; there was no written contract between the parties,
but the buying broker communicated with the selling broker
in Liverpool, in the way he had described Mr. Bower did
with Mr. Earle. When the bargain was concluded, and the
buying broker had intimated to the selling broker that he
would take the cotton, all that was done afterwards was, that
a clerk in the service of the buying broker was sent to the
warehouse where the cotton was stored, for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the samples which had been delivered
to the buying broker,
were samples from those bales which
were stored in the warehouse. Afterwards an invoice was
sent in, which contained no warranty, no statement as to the
quantity and price. Now, that being the ordinary mode of
business, there was no written contract to which a purchaser
could resort in a case like the present. In this case, after a
considerable lapse of time, the cotton remained in the ware-
house where it had been at the time it was purchased of the
defendants ; but it was transferred to the name of Mr. Orm-
rod, and there remained for his benefit. The jury were aware
that there had been a depression in the cotton trade during
the last year or two; and it was not till June, 1842, that
eventually the cotton was unpacked and the fraud discovered,
which formed the ground of this action. Upon Mr. Ormrod
having occasion to take this cotton for the purpose of using
it in his own manufacture, he found that. out of the 142
bales which had been purchased, 45 bales were, according to
what was technically called in the trade " falsely packed."
There were originally 144 bales, but two were rejected when
they were first examined in the warehouse in Liverpool.
Now, in this case, it turned out, with respect to those 45
bales, they had been cased all round for about three inches,
more or less, with good Orleans cotton; but in the inside
was an inferior description of cotton, such as did not suit
Mr. Ormrod, and such as be never knowingly bought. Now,
it was for the difference in the value of that inferior cotton
and good Orleans cotton that this action was brought, and
there was no doubt that the defendants were liable. In this

The trial of two persons named Lucas, charged with stealing
silk at Leigh, was, on the application of Mr. Archibald, fixed
for Weinesday next.
On the application of Mr. Wilkins, the trial of Mary Hun-
ter, for the merder of John Hunter, at Manchester, was
fixed for Thursday next.
Patrick illumford, alias Clark, 19, Thomas Clark, 23,
and Patrick Clark, who were charged, with a number of
other persons, with killing and slaying Bernard Clark, at
Prescot, pleaded guilty to the indictment.
Robert Dean, aged 30, Joseph Auckley, 23, and Benjamin
Whitehead (out on bail) were indicted, the two former for
having feloniously broken and entered the warehouse of the
Manchester and Ashton Canal Company, at Ashton-under-
Lyne, and with having stolen therefrom 3001bs, of malt, and
the latter-named prisoner was charged with receiving the
malt, knowing it to be stolen. The jury found them guilty.
His Lordship deferred passing sentence.
James illycock, 20, was indicted for killing and slaying
_Emanuel Kenyon, at Eccles, in this county. A dispute arose
in a beer-house near Manchester, where the prisoner knocked
the deceased on the head, and kicked him in the belly. He
was found guilty, and sentenced to five months' imprison.-
went.

Joseph Brimelow, 42, was indicted for killing and slaying
his wile, Elizabeth Brimelow, at Bolton-le-Moors. Mr.
Brandt was for the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins the de-
fence. The prisoner, it appeared, struck his wife with a
poker in a beer-house, because she refused to give him three-
pence. The blow produced a rupture, of which she died.—
Sentence, six months' imprisonment.
Edmund Hardman, 42, and Catherine his wife, were
charged with killing a child of tender years, named Peter
Sharpies, by beating and kicking him, but the surgeon attri-
buting the cause of death to an insufficiency of food, they
were acquitted.
Mary Hall, who made a false statement touching the death
of a child to the Registrar of Deaths at Liverpool, was found
guilty, and sentenced to one month's imprisonment. •
William Challinor, 19, Peter JVelsby, 30, Michael Riley,
23, and Timothy Du:fey, 23, were indicted, together with
three other persons, for the killing and slaying of Bernard
Clark, in a prize fight. When the case had proceeded some
length, the learned Judge stopped it, observing that although
the prisoners were engaged in an illegal fight (being the
keepers of the ring), yet, as they had already been in custody
nearly seven months, he thought the public justice would be
satisfied by their being then discharged. A verdict of ac-
quittal was therefore taken, and they were discharged. The
two Clarks and Mumford were then placed at the bar, and
the two former sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment, and
the latter to one week.