The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-08-09 00:00:00

STABBING

Joseph Pedley was indicted for stabbing Richard Webster,
at Liverpool. On Thursday, the 21st July, the prosecutor
was in Maguire-street, and observed the prisoner holding a
little child with its face down in the hot water which pro-
ceeded from Bullen's brewery, and immediately interfered
and collared him, soon after which the prisoner took out a
knife and stabbed him in the breast, causing a wound to be
produced about two inches in depth. The prisoner was im-
mediately apprehended. •
The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced
to sixteen mouths' imprisonment and hard labour.
Alice Carron was brought up, and sentenced to eighteen
months' imprisonment and bard labour.
The court rose at a quarter-past five.

NISI PRIUS COURT.---FILIDAY
(Special Jury Case.)
Bowker and Another v. Burdekin, public officer.—This
was an action in trover to recover possession of certain
.—aar. Knowles, in stating the
goods, or the value of them
case, said that the plaintiffs, Joseph Bowker and John
Whitelegg, were the assignees of Messrs. Richard, John,
and James Potter, bankrupts, and the defendant, Mr.
Edward Burdekin, was one of the public registered officers
of the Bank of Manchester. For many years Messrs. Potter
carried on business at Manchester, and the plaintiffs, as their
assignees, sought to recover from the bank a sum of between
£20,000 and £30,000, being the value of goods which the
defendants had obtained possession of and which the plaintffs
said the bank was not entitled to retain in opposition to the
claim of the bankrupts' assignees. There would, in fact, be
scarcely any questions for the jury, however, because, after
he had given formal proof, and shown the several ingre-
dients necessary to raise the questions, his learned friend
would then justify under the execution, and it would become
a question for the court, or perhaps for a higher tribunal, as
to which party was entitled to hold under the peculiar cir-
cumstances of the case. The bankrupts carried on business
at Birkacre, near Chorley, where the works were situate,
and at Pollard's Mill, in Ancoats, Manchester. The at-
tendance of Richard, the father, was not so regular as that
of his two sons. James was not altogether employed at the
works, and John attended at the mill, and also on 'change.
In 1841 the Potters were embarrassed ; some of their
creditors were paid by small instalments, but for the
most part not at ull. That would be general evidence
of their insolvency at the time that Mr. Bowker, a cotton
merchant, and a petitioning creditor under the present fiat,
was a large creditor. the bankrupts owing him, when the fiat
was issued, the sum of £2,400. The defendant, in one of
the pleas, disputed the petitioning creditor's debt; but Mr.
Booker held a dishonoured acceptance of the bankrupts quite
sufficient to establish his claim. It was necessary to esta-
blish an act of bankruptcy in the conduct of each of the
three partners at some time previous to the issue of the fiat,
namely, the 13th September, 1841. The learned counsel
then detailed circumstances which amounted to acts of bank-
ruptcy on the part of Richard, James, and John Potter,
which it is unnecessary here to detail. The Bank of Man-
chester had made large advances to the firm on the security
of a warrant of attorney; judgment was entered upon it;
and the bank, availing themselves of their rights, put in an
execution. A question of law would arise for the considera-
tion of the court as to whether, under the circumstances of
the case, the defence as against the assignees of the bank-
rupts could be supported. The goods seized amounted to
between £20,000 and £30,000 ; and if the plaintiffs were en-
titled to recover, the next question would be to what
amount? The learned counsel contended they were entitled
to recover the full value of the goods at the time they were
taken away by the bank. It might be urged on the other
side that what the bank ought .to pay was the amount
which the goods fetched when they were sold ; but, in an-
swer to that, he should say that the sale was grossly mis-
managed. The bank, indeed, had notice that the party.to
whom the sale was entrusted was not a proper person to
manage such a sale; and that the goods did not fetch more
than one-third of their actual value.
Mr. WORTLEY, on the part of the plaintiff, called the
attention of the learned Judge to an order from the court
above under the lnterpleader act requiring the Sheriff to sell
the goods which had been seized, pay the money into court,
and directing the present action to try the right of the par-
ties to the proceeds, the Sheriff in the mean time beingain-
demnified. The money was now in court. Some discussion
on technical points connected with the practice took place,
at the end of which it was understood that the inquiry should
be directed to this point—the suggestion of a reference not
being adopted. Evidence of acts of bankruptcy was then
gone into; the fiat was put in, and the appointment of the
plaintiffs as assignees ; and evidence was also given of the
value of the goods and the mode in which they had been
sold.—Mr. Wortley then addressed the jury, contending
that in order to entitle the plaintiffs to recover the large
amount which they claimed, his learned friend must prove
an act of bankruptcy on the part of all the three Potters. As
to James Potter no proof had been given ; and as to the
other two the evidence was insufficient. The learned coun-
sel examined the facts of the case with the view of establish-
ing this proposition. The assignment relied on as an act of
bankruptcy was invalid because it was a collusive and a con-
certed act. Indeed in so great a hurry was it prepared that
James Potter had not time to sign it till after the fiat had
been issued. As to the valuation of the machinery, he con-
tended that if even the plaintiff had made out in this respect
he was entitled to only nominal damages ; but if the court
should think differently, he would contend upon the evi-
dence that, when the, period at which the sale took place was
considered, the proper value of them had been obtained.
Under all the circumstances, he called upon the jury to give
their verdict for the defendant. —Mr. Justice Maule having
summed up, the jury retired to consider their verdict, and
after a long absence they returned, giving a special verdict
for the plaintiffs, damages £15,000, on the assignment as
respected Richard Potter ; but as respects James and John,
that they had committed separate acts of bankruptcy.
THE COMMERCIAL BANK OF ENGLAND.
Davidson, public officer, v. Heywood.—This was an ac-
tion brought by Alexander Davidson, public registered
officer of the Commercial Bank of England, at Manchester,
against Richard Heywood, of Burslem, to recover £3,390,
alleged to be due from him to the bank. Mr. Knowles, Mr.
Crompton, and Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff, and
for the defendant, Mr. Dandas and Mr. Warren.
Mr. KNOWLES said the object of this action was to recover
£3,390, which he alleged the plaintiff was entitled to recover,
eithe ras the price of certain shares sold to the defendant, or
for money lent to him to pay for those shares. On one or
other of these grounds the plaintiff would be entitled to a
verdict. The bank was established in 1834. It appeared to
be originally set on foot by a gentleman named Macardie ;
and a provisional committee, composed of the defendant,
and Messrs. Bower, Turner, Slater, and Patin. These five
gentlemen were afterwards appointed the original directors.
It was intended that the bank should consist of 100,000 shares
of £5 each, and it was the qualification that a director on the
Manchester board should hold 200 shares, and on each of
the local boards 100 shares. The five gentlemen just named,
who had been appointed provisional directors, were consti-
tuted directors, and it was resolved that their proceed-
ings should be under the supervision of the general board
of directors, which general board should be composed of
the Manchester directors, and of one man from each of
the local branches. Branches were established in Liverpool,
Burslem, and a number of other places. There was a re-
serve made, however, the particulars of which he could not
establish, by which the directors reserved 13,000 shares for
distribution among themselves. Bower, Ashton, Slater, and
the directors had 1500 each, and Macardie had 2000, which
gave 9500 shares to the Manchester board and Macardie.
Then the local directors had 2300 to distribute among them-
selves. Among others, it would be found that the defendant,
who resided at Burslem, had 800; and he became one of the
members of the general board, in conjunction with the Man-
chester directors. He should, hereafter, show fee dates
when Mr. Heywood treated these shares as his own : the
exact date of their appropriation be perhaps should not be
able to prove. Soon after the bank had been in operation,
it began to do an exceedingly profitable business. On the
3d February, 1836, there was a general board of the direc-
tors, at which Mr. Heywood was present, and at that meet-
ing a report was presented to the shareholders which said
" the grand negative characteristic of this bank is the total
rejection of nominal capital." The jury would hereafter find
that the shares he was about to speak of were nominal capital
altogether. At the end of the report a dividend of 8 per cent.
was declared upon the appropriated shares of the company.
The general body of the proprietors accordingly voted thanks
to the directors, arid consented to the report, which recom-
mended a dividend of 8 per cent. Iu that year, 1836,
these 800 shares were entered in the books, and Mr. Hey-
wood having another 100 shares, by virtue of which he was
entitled to, be a director, received the dividend of &per cent.
upon his 900 shares. But it was Part of the plan of these
gentlemen that they should borrow from the funds of the
bank the shareholders' money to pay for the shares they had
thus appropriated to themselves, and they agreed to pay the
bank interest upon the sums borrowed at the rate of 4 per
cent. On his 800 shares be received £320 as his divdend,
and then he was debited with interest on the shares from the
2d June to the 31st December, 1836, £252 18s. Bd., so that
he would be entitled to put in his pocket £67 ls. 4d., the
difference between those sums. This £67 ls. 4d. was car-
ried to the Burstein branch to the account of a firm of which
Mr. Heywood was a member, and thus he put into his
pocket, the difference between the interest he owed and tine
dividend of 8 per cent. From this time the jury would find
that these shares were treated as Mr. Heywood 's shares, and
at every subsequent meeting they would find that whenever
a dividend was declared of more than £5 per cent., Mr.
Heywood always got the amount of dividend after having
paid the 4 per cent., and he bad to pay for the purchase of
the shares. After the first meeting, Mr. Heywood convened
a meeting of the Burslem proprietors, and communicated to
them what had been done in Manchester, and a vote of thanks
was voted to them in a letter from Mr. Heywood to Mr.
Bower. The next meeting was held on the 9th February,
1837, and the report of the directors was then sanctioned by
Mr. Heywood, in which the directors stated that they laid a
statement of the finances of the bank before the shareholders,
the result of which was that there had been a profit of £27,098
10s. 11d., which amounted to 10i percent. upon the paid up ca-
pital, of which £19,000 was available for the purpose of a
dividend. A dividend of 5 per cent. per annum upon the
paid up capital was declared. mr. Heywood took that divi-
dend, and, like the former, it was carried to his credit in the
bank. The next meeting was held in February, 1838, being
the third annual meeting; and, the directors then stated that!
their paid up capital was £260,935, which included the 800
shares of Mr. Heywood, and they recommended a dividend
of 5 per cent. upon it. This dividend Mr. Heywood did not
receive upon his 800 shares. Why? Because a few days
before he hatrsold 200 of them to Mr. Holt; he completed
the transfer of those shares a few days afterwards; he re-
ceived the money for those shares through the agent of the
bank ; and directed the agent how it was to be applied. He
sold those 200 shares at a profit of 12s. 6d. a share, making
£ll3B ls. 4d., which was paid in money by Mr. Bolt, and
carried by the direction of Mr. Heywood to.his credit in the
bank books. The meetings were afterwards altered to half-
yearly meetings, and when the directors made the report in
the August following, Mr. Heywood was there again. The
directors declared the amount of paid up capital, which ineluded the shares of the defendant, and they recommended a
dividend of 7 per cent. per annum, which Mr. Heywood re-
ceived on his shares. . At the following half-yearly meeting a
similar statement and dividend were declared and made. At
this time some suspicions had crept into the minds of the local

directors that the 'Manchester directors were in arrears to
the bank, and consequently it was moved and seconded, that
at.the next general board meeting the current accounts
the head. branch should he submitted to inspection. Th
were laid before the next board meeting, which was held
the Ist Jan. 1840: amlitors wet

appointed, and it was then
apparent that great irregularity bad crept into the affairs of
the bank,—that the directors had borrowed large sums, and
were then largely indebted to the bank. Another half-yearly
meeting was held, at which a dividend of 2 per cent. was
•lared, which Mr. Haywood put into his pocket. Soon

after this, namely, on the 27th of June, 1840, the bank
stopped payment, so far as public business was concerned,
although it was kept open even now for the purpose of wind-
ing up its own affairs or other transactions. Mr. Haywood
was then called upon to pay what he owed to the bank, and
then he declared that he had never accepted the 800 shares.
That was the question the jury would have to decide; and
he trusted that the facts he should be able to prove would
justify them in finding a verdict for the plaintiff.
__ _

Mi. Thomas Hebbiewhite was the first witness. He said
he was one of the local directors appointed to the general
board. He proved the presence of the defendant at the
board meetings referred to, and his testimony generally con-
firmed the statements of the learned counsel. Mr. Hay-
wood was a brickmaker, and reputed to be rich, but witness
did not know whether he dealt in shales for other people.—
Thomas Jones, a clerk in the bank, produced the account
current, which it was his duty to make up from the ledger.—
Mr. Dundas objected to the production of this book, on the
ground that it had not been brought specifically under the
notice of the defendant at the general board meetings.—
The Judge allowed the objection, but took a note of the
tender of the'book, and on the same ground which he had
previously refused to allow the book containing the state-
ment of the directors' accounts with the bank.—Mr. Swin-
dells proved the transfer of 200 shares from Mr. Haywood
to Mr. John Holt, for £11,251 4s.
Several formal proofs were then put, and some witnesses
examined in support of the other statements in Mr.
Knowles's address. A great variety of documentary testi-
mony was produced, which gave rise to many objections
from Mr. Dundas. The plaintiff closed his case at a quarter
to seven o'clock, at which time the court adjourned till nine
o'cloCk this morning.
In the course of the day the Learned Judge, in reply to
an application from Mr. Wortley, announced that after he
had concluded the first list he should proceed with the cases
in the second list, whether special or common, in their
order.

4Z,

CROWN COURT.-

-SATUILDAY

CHARGE OF RAVISHMENT

Thomas Bowker, aged 32, was charged with having com-
mitted a rape on Sarah Schofield.

Mr. Cross conducted the prosecution ; Mr. Wilkins de-
fended the prisoner.
It appeared, from the evidence, the details of which are
unfit. for publication, that the prosecutrix was a servant. On
the 9nd of May she left her place in the country, near Bol-
ton, to go to *Spindle-point, close to that town, where her
parents lived. As she went on it began to rain, and she cal-
led at Lever Hall, a friend's house, where she remained until
seven o'clock in the evening, when she again set out on her
journey. Soon after, as she proceeded, she met the prisoner
and another man. She had known the prisoner before ; and
he said he had occasion to go in the direction of her home,
and would accompany her, which he did, the other man
leaving them. He made her an offer of marriage. After
proceeding about a mile and a-half on the road, when they
got near a place called Stone Cleugh, he took hold of her by
the waist, and carried her, through a gateway, into a field—
distance of forty yards—where he threw her down on a bank,
and in a short time (according to the prosecutrix's account)
forcibly effected his purpose, she continuing to scream. This
was about nine o'clock at night.
Mr. WILKINS addressed the Jury in behalf the prisoner.
The learned JUDGE summed up with great minuteness, re-
marking as he proceeded on every point on which doubts
might arise or facts be inferred.
The Jury retired to consider their verdict. After an
absence of thirty-five minutes they came into court, and re-
turned a verdict of Guilty. His Lordship after alluding to
the peculiaratrocity of the prisoners offence, sentenced him
to transportation for life.

RAPE.
Samuel Peacock, aged, apparently, about 30, was indicted
for committing a rape on Mary Owen, at Cuerdley.
Mr. Wightman conducted the prosecution.
It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutrix, that she
is the wife of the master of a flat, plying between St. Helens
and Fiddler's Ferry. On Sunday last the flat was lying on
a bank, opposite Cuerdley Marsh. Her husband had gone
somewhere on shore, and, about twelve o'clock on that day,
she left the vessel to•endeavour to find him. She thought
she could most likely find him at the public house, and pro-
ceeded towards it across the Marsh by a foot-walk, which
extends about a mile. When she got about half way across,
she met the prisoner, who asked her whether she had been
mushrooming, and whether she had come from on board.
She gave him no answer and went on. She went on a little,
and, looking back saw him walking fast after her and, finally,
running. She ran on a short distance, he pursuing her till
she readied a railway, which she got over, and reached the
canal bank. The prisoner then got hold of her, and, taking
her by the shoulders, rolled her down on the bank. She
offered him her watch, or 55., or both, not to abuse her ; but
he persisted, and effected his purpose.
The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to be trans-
ported for fifteen years.

MANSLAUGHTER.
Wm. Cringle, sen., 52, and Wm. Cringle, jun.,
19, were
charged, the former With having, at Liverpool, killed and
slain Peter Carlin, and the latter with aiding and assisting in
the act.

Mr. Hutton appeared for the prosecution, Mr. Wilkins
for the prisoners.

The elder prisoner kept a cart, as did the deceased, who
was 21 years of age. On the 6th of May, at six in the even-
ing, a quarrel and tight took place between the prisoners and
the deceased. Carlin, before the disturbance, came from on
board a vessel in the Victoria Dock, carrying a chest, which
he put into his cart. Cringle the elder was then standing
near the vessel, and said something. Carlin said, " What
are you jawing about ?," and the other struck him with a
piece of wood on the cheek, and they then began to fight.
While they were fighting, the younger prisoner was throw-
ing stones at Carlin, who ceased fighting with the father.
whom he struck very severely, and ran after the son, and
caught him. They fought some minutes. Carlin let go the
younger man, and turned to fight the elder. While the
younger men were fighting, old Cringle took up a stone, or a
piece of copper dross, the size of a man's hand, and threw
it at Carlo. It struck him on the back of the head. It did
not appear to be thrown with great force. Blood flowed from.
Carlin's head while the fight went on. He had no hat on
at the time. After the fighting was over, Carlin got his
head tied up, and went to the policeman's hut at the gates
and lay down on a form. It appeared, from further evi-
dence given, that the quarrel had arisen out of the rivalship
between the respective parties, both of whom were getting
chests out of the vessel. One witness spoke to deceased
being struck three times on the head with pieces of copper
dross, thrown by the younger prisoner. The whole three fell
down several times on the pavement, and the deceased, at
one time, knocked the younger prisoner down with his fist.
There was a good deal of mystery about the origin and pre-
cise manner of the fight. Carlin was afterwards taken to
the Northern Hospital, where it was found that he was
wounded in the back part of the head, the bone being ex-
posed. A small piece of the bone, about the size of a pea,
bad been chipped off, as if by an angular substance. He was
attended to, but died on the 22d of May. The immediate
cause of death was erysipelas. On the 9th of May be was
suffered to go out to attend the police-court. He bad orders
to return to the hospital on leaving the court, but did not re-
turn for three days ; and the surgeon was of opinion that he,
probably, overheated himself when going about the town,
which predisposed him to erysipelas, and that he might have
recovered had he attended to the orders of the hospital. He
was not in danger on the 9th, but was so on the 12th when
he returned.

Mr. WILKINS spoke at considerable length for the pri-

soners

The jury retired to consider their verdict, and, after a short
absence returned a verdict of not guilty in favour of both
prisoners. They were immediately discharged.

SENTENCES

The following prisoners were up for sentence:
Charles Grace, for forging a check for £4O, a second
offence, was sentenced to be transported for fifteen years.
Thomas Turk and Charles Sweet, convicted of horsesteal-
ing at Liverpool, were put at the bar. The former was sen-
tenced to be imprisoned and put to hard labour for twelve
months, and the latter for eight months.
Edward Mercer, for burglary at Liverpool, not under
aggravated circumstances, was sentenced to be imprisoned
for eighteen months, with hard labour, and the first and last
weeks of each six months in solitary confinement.

MANSLAUGHTER,

James Riley stood indicted for the manslaughter of Mary
Woods, near Southport. The coroner's jury, on the inquest
on the body, had returned a verdict of accidental death.
The prisoner was the owner and driver of an omnibus run-
ning between Manchester and Southport. The deceased
took her passage by the coach at Scarisbrick to proceed to
the latter place. The omnibus broke down, and the deceased
was so much injured that she afterwards died, and hence the
charge against the prisoner, from furious driving of the
machine, the insufficiency of the coach in strength and con-
struction to withstand the effect of driving on a rough and
broken road, and the machine being thereby upset.
A police-officer stated, that the horses, after leaving
,Scarishrick, were driven as fast as they could go. There
were ten grown-up persons and two children passengers.
lie described the state of the coach after the break-down,
from which it aPpeared that the wheels were not secured to
the axle-trees in the usual manner.

It appeared, however, that the prisoner did his utmost to
restrain the horses, and, in doing so, was dragged along the
road himself, with part of the carriage which was detached
by the shock, and that be was much bruised and
,injured.
There being, moreover, no distinct proof that the carriage
was peculiarly insecure, it was not considered necessary to
proceed further with the case, and the prisoner, being thus
virtually acquitted, was discharged.
Thos. Golding, a surgeon of Heaton Norris, was charged
with the manslaughter of Ruth Barnett, by unskilful treat-
ment, or neglect of attendance during her confinement. The
case was, however, scarcely opened by Mr. Brandt, when it
was found that the evidence would by no means bear out the
charge, and, under the direction of his lordship, the prisoner
was pronounced not guilty, and was discharged.
Thomas Riley was charged with the manslaughter, at Man-
chester, of John Ormerod. He had pleaded not guilty, but
now withdrew his plea and pleaded guilty. The case was
one in which stabbing was resorted to. The prosecutor was
his son-in-law. He was sentenced to be imprisoned for 12
calendar months, the first and last weeks in solitary confine-
ment.
The court rose at a quarter before five o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—SATURDAY.
Mr. Justice Maule took his seat a few minutes past nine
o'clock.

DAVIDSON V. HAYWOOD

This case, which was partly heard yesterday, was resumed
this morning, with Mr. Dundas's opening, on the part of the
defendant.

Mr. D.UNDAS commenced with some general observations
on the importance of the case to the defendant, and ex-
plained that his client was not responsible for the pleas which
had been put on the record, as insinuated by his learned
friend ; they were the offspring of the special pleader, in
London, and the defendant had no knowledge of them. The
plaintiff had endeavoured to prove, that the plaintiff had
received the dividends on the eight hundred shares ; but the
evidence on that point was altogether defective, for only
£67 Is. 4d. had been paid to the defendant, and that not to
his private account, but to his partnership account. As to
the other dividends, the plaintiff had furnished no proof
whatever that they had been paid to the defendant. With
regard to the sale of the two hundred shares to Mr. Holt,
the explanation was easy. - They were sold for the benefit of
the bank ; the bank received the money, and not the defen-
dant. That was established beyond all doubt by the books
which had been produced. The defendant had received no
benefit whatever from the transaction with regard to the
shares appropriated to him ; and it was his great misfortune,
like that of many other honourable men, to be involved in
this concern without having any control over its management.
He was at the Burslem branch, whilst the busy people who
were directing the whole business were at Manchester, and,
therefore, he could have no cognizance of their transactions.
In conclusion, the learned connsel strongly pressed upon,
the attention of the jury the circumstance, that £67 Is. 4d..
was the only dividend (and that it was a dividend he denied)
which the defendant had been proved to have received, and