The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-08-02 00:00:00

STEALING A CALF,

IVilliam Pennington, ia; Wild, and John Hodkinson,
were placed at the bar to receive sentence for burglary.
Wild said he had been told by Wild the constable, that if
he would confess all he would get off. That was the reason
why he had pleaded guilty. He wept, and said he had a
wife and family, and he hoped his lordship would be mer-
ciful. Wild the constable was called, but he did not answer.
His lordship said that, under these circumstances, it would
be well to try him under another indictment which had been
found against him.

Hodgkinson was then put down, and Pennington and
Wilde were put on their trial for stealing a calf belonging to
Mr. Thomas Lowe, of Chadderton.

•
Mr. BItANDT forbore to offer any evidence against Pen-
nington. The chief testimony was that of Wild, the con-
stable, who, according to Wild the prisoner, had seduced
the latter into making the statement above alluded to. To
him the prisoner had confessed the crime of stealing the
calf, but this did not furnish legal evidence against Penning-
ton. Wild, the constable, denied that he had used any pro-
mises to induce Wild to confess. The latter, however, per-
sisted that his statement was correct.

A verdict of acquittal was taken against William Penning-
ton. The jury found Wild guilty.
Hodkin.son was placed at the bar with the two other pri-
soners. He craved permission to say a few words. He
stated that his father-in-law and his wife were convinced of
his innocence, and that his father-in-law was so overcome
with shame and grief that he hanged himself, three days
after which ,his wife' died. Since then one of his children
had died. He was as innocent as any one in this court.

His LORDSHIP directed that this prisoner should be put
down, and he would make some inquiry into his case. He
then proceeded to pass sentence on the prisoners Pennington
and Wild. After laying before them in a fearful point of
view the horrors of transportation, his lordship sentenced
them to be transported for fifteen years.
The Court adjourned at twenty minutes before six o'clock
to nine this morning.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—MONDAY.
Mr. Justice MAVLE took his seat at 11 o'clock. There
was a large attendance of the bar, and among them we ob-
served Mr. Roebuck, one of the members for Bath, he hav-
ing finished his parliamentary labours in exposing election
compromises. The list for the hundred of Salford was com-
menced with.

DUNDERDALE V. MUSSABIM.—An undefended action on
a bill of exchange to recover £1,680 16s. 3d. Verdict for
the plaintiff. _

OUGHTON V. BUCKLEY
mages £5O. _

,—Verdict for the plaintiff, da-

JOHNSON yr BUCKLEY.—Verdict for the plaintiff, da
wages £6l 6s.

BENTLEY V. ROBINSON.—An undefended action to reco-
ver £44 9s. 6d. for goods sold and delivered. Verdict for
the plaintiff. _ _ .

THE EARL OF DERBY v. LEE
damages £3B.

—Verdict for the plaintiff,

_
HOLMES v. BOTHAM.—Verdict for the plaintiff, damages
£46.

MALLALIEU 17. ODDY.—Verdict for the plaintiff, damages
£25. _ _

CROSS v. WHITEHEAD.—An action for work and labour
done. Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £6B.
HALE v. WRlGLEY.—Verdict for the plaintiff, damages

£24. 8s

SHEPHERD v. BRlGGS.—Struck out

BRIGHT V. ASHWORTH.—Verdict for the plaintiff by con-
sent, subject to a reference.
WILSON V. DAVIES AND OTHERS

—Struck out

HAROREAVES V. DAWSON
damages £55.
ASPINALL V. HOLYLAND.-
BURDEKIN V. BROOK
manes £273 3s. 4d

—Verdict for the plaintiff,

—Struck out.
-Verdict for the plaintiff—da-

HUGHES v. SCRUTON.—An action for an assault of an
uninteresting character. The jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages £7 10s.
ROBINSON v. CARROLL.—An action for goods sold and
delivered. Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £32 7s. Id.
OPENSHAW v. SEnnoNs.—An action on a bill of ex-
change. Verdict for the plaintiff--Damages £762 12s.
OPENSHAW v. CROSS.—Referred.

GREEN v. BURTON.—Verdict for the plaintiff

—Damages

BUTTERWORIH V. MUNN.—Referred
GREEN
V. SHAW.—Damages £2l.

MANGALL V. EAGER

—Struck out

ROTHWELL v. GORTON.—Referred.
FERMSTON fl. RAILTON.—An action on a bill of exchange.
Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £163 Bs.
BROADBENT V. GUNTON.—The witnesses not being in
attendance, and the judge insisting on proceeding, the record
was withdrawn.

HOLLIN V. DEANE.—Struck out.
FIELDING V. FAWCETT.—Struck out.
HIBBERT V. HIGGINSON.—This cause stood No. 48 on
the list ; and the judge insisting that it should be called on,
Mr. MARTIN, who was for the plaintiff, said, his client was
ready but he was not.
The JUDGE.—When was your brief delivered?
Mr. • MARTIN —This morning, my lord.
_ _

The JUDGE.—It does not look very long.
Mr. MARTIN.—It is not very long, my lord, but it is very
complicated.
__

nowt LuattC ►l. out, 1 wire say.- Vrt
will wait a little for you.

Mr. MARTIN accordingly began diligently to study his
brief ; and, after waiting some time, the Judge asked him
the nature of the case. The learned counsel replied, that it
related to the use of a wall. The Judge inquired whether
it was not a case which might properly be referred. Mr.
Martin said it was, and after some discussion, a verdict was
taken for the plaintiff, subject to a reference.
No. 49. BAMFORD V. MATHER was next called on. Mr.
WILKINS stated that he had reason to believe he should be
engaged in this cause, and he trusted his lordship would al-
low it to stand over. On inquiry it appeared that Mr. Hal-
sail the attorney for the plaintiff had gone to Chester. The
Judge said he ought to have been present, and ready to go on
with the case. The case was struck out.

No. 50, NELSON V. THE GREAT NORTH OF ENGLAND
RAILWAY, was next in order, and on its being called on,
Mr. STUART WORTLEY rose and represented to the Judge
the vast inconvenience which would arise from the proceed-
ing of the court. The attornies in the cases must be allowed
to have some discretion. It was never known to get so far
down in the list the first day.

The JUDGE replied that'he could not help it. The court
was open for them, and they ought to be ready the first day.
Mr. WORTLEY feared that a great deal of mischief would

be caused

The JUDGE said that not any would be done. The fault
was not his, but with the attornies who were not ready.
The fact was, that it was absolutely necessary to get on with
business, as Saturday week was commission day at York, so
that there were only eleven working days at Liverpool.
After a long pause,
The JUDGE enquired whether there were any causes ready
in which any body appeared?
No answer being returned, his Lordship consented, at 25
minutes to five, to adjourn the court.