The Liverpool Standard, and General Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-08-22 00:00:00

He was sent ip afte

aten by the mate

Between four and fiv

o'clock he was at the wheel, and in consequence, no doubt
of some defect in Paraiso's steering of the vessel, the mizen
"jibed." _ The captain, who was below, came immediately

neon deck, went io the deseased, and struck him wiiiiids
fist several times in the face. Paraisdseemed so weak that

Ihe could hardly hold the wheel, and after the captain's
blows blows his face was covered with blood ; he was thrown down

upon the deck, and kicked by the captain several tin
He was then told to go forward, and he did so with a st

gering gait, evidently suffering very much. The mate was
told by the captain to bring him back, and he did bring him
to the foot of the ladder leading to the quarter-deck. Ile

was holding by the sail, and the captain, who
heavy shoes on, kicked Paraiso in the face se
and then Paaiso fell heavily upon the deck.
thin still requested him to be brought upon the quarter-
deck, and the mate accordingly supported him there, and
he was thrown down before the wheel. The captain in-

veral times
. The cap.

sisted upon his going to the wheel. He did so, and en-
deavoured to steer, but being unable to hold himself up,
he fell against the grating. His face was bleeding
very much ; and the captain told them to wipe him with a
sailcloth, which they did, and then to take him forward

pis hem

[e mate took

the cat and beat

Pedro severely with it, and endeavoured to make him go
forward. The deceased endeavoured to do so, but fell
down again and again. The mate struck him several

times, anti he te.. times on the deck. 'l.
result was that Paraiso was assisted to the forecastle by
two sailors, and_ there he remained.nntil the following

DWII several

morning.

After he had b,

n to the fo:

persons engaged in this violence became somewhat
alarmed at the apparrent results of their conduct, and the
mate brought Paraiso some tea, which he endeavoured to
take, but could not. He remained nearly insensible until
the following morning, and then he died. In the course
of the day the body was thrown into the sea. The body
was buried on the 30th March, and in the course of that
night the ship sighted Tusear Light, and arrived in Liver-
pool on the 4th April. The day before the vessel arrived
in Liverpool the cat, which was hanging in the companion
way, where it was generally kept, was thrown overboan
by the captain
A v

icy lengthened course of evidence was gone into
tnesses being Daniel Gilman Lowe, an American

wno acted as carpenter on board the hfangerstein
Phillips, the cook ; Robert Gonsalvez, a Port-
man ; John Goodridge, another seaman ;
the steward; and one or two coloured seamen
thew.

guese sea-
..obert Evans,

Most of

witnesses were examined and cross-examined at
great length ; and, from their testimony, it was elicited
that the deceased had been treated with much severity,
and had been, in numerous instances, beaten by both the
prisoners; by the mate at the instance of the captain. It
was also evident that the deceased, in common with the
other Manillamen, were very imperfectly clothed, and
suffered much from the coldness of the weather. It like-
wise appeared that the whole crew were short of provi-
sions, including biscuit, beef, and water, most part of the
• and that, from the combined operation of all
-ese causes, the deceased became so weak as to be unable
to do his duty in the ship. To ensure the performance of
that duty, he was frequently and severely beaten, and died
almost at the time of undergoing the severe treatment to
which he was subjected.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS: My lord, it sr,,
this case has been over hours ago.
His LORDSHIP inquired if the prosecution had any sur-
geon who could give an opinion, founded upon the evidence,
with regard to the cause of death ?

voyage
+I

ms to me that

! Mr. Drain replied that they had not; and that, as an I Mr. John Yates, jun., solicitor, deposed to the prisoner's
actual examination was impossible, the body having been signature to the document of the 3rd of October. He
put into the sea, it was rather a case for the jury them- stated, in cross-examination, that the creditors had nothing
selves. to do with the present prosecution, but that he was in-
Baron PLATT : They are not medical men ; they cannot structed by the official assignees, who received directions
tell what kind of blows are likely to produce death; it from the Court of Bankruptcy to prosecute. The pri-
requires scientific and medical knowledge. I cannot see soner's debts were £2,000, and his assets about £l,lOO.
that you have a case without it. You have no evidence Some of the creditors were paid Bs. in the pound, and
that any reasonable man could apply to show that these £4OO had been received from Mr. Pemberton, who had
men have caused the death of Paraiso. acted as the prisoner's solicitor.
Mr. Thomas Rowlands, surgeon of the North Dispen- Louis Peverelle, of Birmingham, the prisoner's uncle,
sary, was then requested to come forward as a witness by was then examined at great length as to his several
t
Mr. Blair. He did so ; but, as he confessed that from the transactions with the latter. He spoke to receiving vari-
ons letters from the prisoner, some written in English and
position he had been placed in court, as well as from the
fact that he had been frequently out of court altogether, some in Italian, and copies of which were read in court,
the greater portion of the ca, fi had been lost upon him, he requesting him to augment his debt, which in reality was
was informed that his testimony would not be of the only £BB, to £3OO or Z4OO, and announcing that the pri-
slightest value. soner was passing through the Bankruptcy Court, and
His LORDSHIP remarked, with some warmth, that a would pay Os. in the pound to each of his creditors. The
witness admitted that he complied with the request, on
more chuneily got up case than the present he had never
before met with. There was certainly a difficulty in a case the prisoner persuading him that his dividend would then
of this kind, where au inspection of the body was impos- repay him for his former losses. In answer to his Lord-
sible, but not an insuperable one ; for if scientific men had ship, he stated that he had divulged the frauds on being
been in attendance to hear the evidence, they might have asked the question before the Bankruptcy Court. He had
given their opinion as to the probable effect of the treat- often told the prisoner that if questioned upon oath he
ment which had been described. should tell the truth, for he would not take a false oath
Mr. BLAIR.—The course I adopted seemed to me the for any man in England.
proper one. Mr. Charles Pemberton, formerly solicitor to the

• Pr'-
A.
aron PLATT.—I am not addressing you personally ; I goner, was also examined, but his evidence elicited nothing
am speaking of the case itself. It has been most clumsily material.
got up. It is a most important case ; because, if these Mr. Jaums, before proceeding to address the jury, put it
men have been guilty of producing death by their cruelty, to his Lordship whether there was any case against the
they ought to be brought to justice in order to preserve prisoner on the charge of falsifying the books, grounding
subordination on board ships hereafter ; because, if sea- his objection on what he alleged to be an informal process
men are not protected from the excess of that rough treat- in the making of the prisoner a bankrupt, which was
ment, which is necessary more or less on board ship, you overruled by his Lordship. The legal argument occupied
have nothing but insubordination, because their rights upwards of an hour and a half. Mr. James then ad-
will never be respected. On the other hand, by deciding dressed himself to the jury on the charge of perjury on
a case of this kind without proper scientific assistance, the part of the prisoner in stating his debt to Louis Peve-
you would do equal mischief, and just as much increase relle to be about £4OO. The learned gentleman urged that
insubordination; inasmuch as an insubordinate crew could the prisoner had not wilfully made that false statement,
bring a charge of this kind in this loose manner before a relying on the evidence of Louis Peverelle, from which it
court of justice, without having any medical witnesses in appeared that at the time the prisoner left Bristol he was
order to assist the jury to find a verdict, and what a dread. indebted to his uncle from £l5O )o £2OO. The prisoner
ful thing would it be to give a victory to such men as these. was unable to obtain an account from his uncle, yet,
Mr. B.Lais..—lt seemed, my lord, to me to be one of
after coming to Liverpool, he got further indebted to him
those cases in which medical evidence could not assist us;
over £lOO, so that the jury would see there was nearly
and that it would not be proper to get an opinion from a £3OO of debt, if they considered that the prisoner's com-
medical man in the first place, but to leave him to form position with his creditors was not a release. Besides,
his opinion, unbiassed, upon the evidence merely. With youcould not convict a manfor perjury upon his own state-
that view the medical gentlemen were here for the pui- ment alone, and the only other evidence against him was
pose of being examined if the court thought proper. Mr.
that of Louis Peverelle, who did not come into the court
Blair then informed his lordship that there was another with a fair and unblemished character.
gentleman of the medical profession in court who had His Lonnsinr, in summing up, told the jury that there
heard most, if not the whole, of the case. never was a clearer case ; and a verdict of guilty on both
His LORDSHIP having desired that he should be called, charges was at once returned.
Mr. P. W. Mumma was then placed.in the box. He Sentence was deferred.
was a surgeon, and had paid great attention to the evidence The prisoner was then arraigned on a charge of felony
adduced. The opinion he had formed as to the cause of for not giving himself up into the custody of the Court of
death was that, if the evidence was to be depended upon, Bankruptcy, when called upon ; but, as no evidence was
the man had died from the ill-treatment which he had offered, he was acquitted upon that charge.
received. The ill-treatment would operate to produce Frank Williamson was indicted for perjury at Oldham,
death from exhaustion. He attributed the exhaustion to and William Taylor for suborning Williamson to commit
the repetition of beating and insufficiency of food. the perjury. Taylor pleaded not guilty. Williamson
To a JUROR.—I have been in court during the greatest acknowledged the offence. Mr. Monk informed the court
portion of the day. that the prosecution against Taylor had been abandoned,
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS said he was ready to address and that he (Mr. Monk) had been instructed to recom-
the jury if they desired to hear him; but he himself mend Williamson to his lordship's mercy. Taylor, the
thoughtit would be highly improper and unfair to jeopardize landlord of a public-house at Oldham, had been charged
the lives of two of his fellow-creatures by entering further before the magistrates with allowing Williamson and a
into the case. Each of the witnesses had contradicted the person named Hutchinson to play dominoes at his house,
other as to the time, the place, and the instrument of the and the perjury consisted in the two latter persons deny-
violence which had been used. ing that they had been so permitted. His Lordship
... . ..

The learned JUDGE.—I cannot say there is not some
evidence.
The FOREMA.N.—We all agree not to call upon the
learned counsel for the defence.
Baron PLATT.—Then you
guilty P

therefore, directed Taylor to be acquitted and discharged,
bat the sentence on Williamson was deferred. Mr. ➢lonk
said that the ground upon which the latter was recom-
mended to mercy was, that he had himself admitted the
perjury before leaving the presence of the magistrates,
expressed his contrition, and desired to be allowed to tell
the truth, but the magistrates had at once committed
him for trial.

- The FoßEasAN.—Yes, my lord.
His LORDSHIP, in rather an indistinct tone, then
made some observations as to the danger to commerce if
the captain of a merchant vessel were to go to sea every
voyage with a halter about his neck. In the hands
.•
)e safe.

THE MURDER BY A SWISS EMIGRANT

man wou

Antonio Tobacchi, 25, a native of Tessin, in Switzer
land, was indicted for the murder of John Kelly,
man, in Preston-street, in this town. A mixed jury of
Englishmen and foreigners were empanelled to try the
prisoner. Tobacchi, who is a tall, powerful man, intended,
with several others of his countrymen, to emigrate to
Australia, and actually sailed in the steamer Great Britain
the first time she started on her last voyage. As will be
remembered, however, that vessel put back, and it was
shortly after her return to port that the fatality happened.
Mr. Aspinall prosecuted, and Mr. Overend appeared for
the prisoner.

Mr. Sergeant WILKINS remarked ihat in the other
cases against the prisoners the witnesses were precisely
the same, and intimated that it was now unnecessary to
go ou with them.

Baron PLATT replied that it was not for him (the
learned judge) to withdraw any prosecution. He had read
the depositions in the three cases, (about a hundred-
weight of papers,) and each had produced upon him
precisely the same impression.
Mr. BLAIR : if your lordship expresses any opinion in
the matter, I have no wish to press it against your lord-
ship's opinion. _

The first witness called was Wm. Bowman, a publican
in Preston-street, who stated that, on the night of Thurs-
day, the 11th of May, the prisoner was in his publ:
in company with another foreigner and a female
deceased came iu shortly afterwards, and (according
evidence of this witness) placed himself in a
attitude before the prisoner. Witness, however, I
him out before any blows were struck. Some time after,
he heard what had occurred.

Baron PLAY', : You have a right to prosecute : all I can
say is, that these three cases have made upon my mind
precisely the same impression.

:house,
The

Ultititately, the le'arned Judge having expressed his
readiness to go through the papers again in the interval
between the rising of the court and Monday morning, in
order to see if a re-examination of the documents might
change his opinion of the case, Mr. Blair consented to
leave the matter in his lordship's hands.
The court rose on Saturday about six o'clock, the trial
of Horner and Chadderton having occupied the entire day.

fighting

turned

Henry Moss, a militiaman, deposed that, a few minutes
before twelve o'clock, he was standing near one of the
doors of Bowman's house, when there were a great number
of persons coming out together. The prisoner was atliong
them, and made a stab at him (witness) with his dagger,
but he made his escape to the other door, and immediately
heard a female cry out for a policeman, and on turning
round saw the deceased lying on the ground bleeding.
The witness was cross-examined at some length, but
nothing material was elicited.

YESTERDAY.
The Court sat at ten o'clock.
THE FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY OF PEVERELLE

Joseph Peverelle, 25, dealer in cutlery, was indicted on
several counts, the two first of which charged him that
he, being a bankrupt, did, upon a certain examination
upon oath, at Liverpool, on the 3d day of October last,
wilfully and corruptly give false evidence. On the other
counts he was further charged with inducing a person to
make certain false entries in a certain book of account,
with intent to defraud his creditors. Mr. Bliss, Q.C.,
and Mr. Aspinall, instructed by Mr. John Yates, jun.
prosecuted; and Mr. James, Q.C., instructed by Messrs.
Neal and Martin, defended the prisoner.
Mr. Mass stated that there were two charges made
against the prisoner : the first of perjury committed by
him at the court of bankruptcy; the second of an attempt
to commit fraud by inducing a person to misrepresent the
amount of his debt. The two offences were so mixed up
and joined together, that it was necessary to state them
both at the same time. The prisoner was proceeded
a.gainst on the charge of perjury, under the 254th section
of the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, and under the
252 d section of the same act on the charge of fraud. The
perjury was this : on the 3d of October, 1853, when the
prisoner was examined in the court of bankruptcy, he
stated that he owed his uncle, Louis Peverelle, a debt of
£4Ol, when the fact was he only owed him £BB odd. The
fraud consisted in inducing his uncle, Louis Peverelle, to
alter his books so as to make the debt appear the larger
sum. In pursuance of this fraud, the prisoner stated his
uncle's debt to be the sum stated. This was a summary
and outline of the whole case, but it would be necessary
to point out certain minor circumstances to show bow
the perjury and _fraud were committed and concealed.
Previous to 1852 the prisoner was in business in Bristol, '
in connexion with his uncle, Louis Peverelle, a hardware
and toy dealer in Birmingham. In the early part of that
year he came to Liverpool, and formed a connexion with
Mary Poncia, who kept a shop in the same line in
Paradise-street. In April, 1852, he married Mary Poncia,
but that raarriage was kept a secret, After taking pos.

Mari Ann Baker, a single woman, deposed that she
was passing Mr. Bowman's publichouse when she saw the
deceased come out alone, and shortly after the prisoner,
accompanied by two women. The prisoner pursued the
deceased, and, leaning over another person, stabbed him
in the breast with a dagger. The deceased fell, and the
prisoner came back to him, pulled it.out of his breast, and
returned towards the publichouse. Witness screamed out
and ran for a policeman. Saw the prisoner arrested, and
the dagger drawn from his sleeve, where it had been
concealed.

Elizabeth Ridgway, a female who lived in Preston-
street, also deposed that she saw the deceased stabbed by
the prisoner. Police-officer 221 (Fielding), who appre-
hended the prisoner, and Mr. Henry Wall, surgeon at the
Northern Hospital, were also examined.
Mr. OVIMEND, on behalf of the prisoner, made a most
eloquent address to the jury, urging that, when they took
into consideration the provocation given by the deceased
to the prisoner, they would, no doubt, feel called upon to
find him guilty of manslaughter only. His lordship, in
summing up, told the jury it would be the safer course to
find the prisoner guilty of the lesser offence only.—Ver.
diet, guilty of manslaughter. Sentenced to six months'
imprisonment, with hard labour.

MURDER BY A PAUPER LUNATIC AT HINDLEY.
John Grundy, 67, described as a wheelwright, was
indicted for the wilful murder of James Underwood, a boy
eleven years of age, at Hindley, on the 4th of July. Mr.
Monk prosecuted ; the prisoner was undefended. Both
parties were inmates of the workhouse, at Hindley, and,
according to the evidence of several witnesses, early on
the morning in question, the little fellow commenced
playing with the prisoner, and stroked down the side of
his jecket. The prisoner made some remark to the effect
that it was "Sweep," (the nickname of another of the
boys,) rot:bing him, asd laying hold of the deceased by
the, right arS4 and leg, dashed him men or eight times

and he then laid the deceased's body down
An alarm was raised, and the prisoner at
but the little boy died on the Sunday evenir
soner, on being asked why he had done the

the bOy had

tempted to pick

was in a very wild state, ind appeared to be out of his
mind. He walked about humming tunes, and apparent)•
pleased at what he had done. He had only

.turned

to the house on the previous night,- after an absence o
seven days._
_He had been a peaceable quiet man pre

viously, and bore a good chara‘eter ; but it appeared tha'
on the 24th of Ju1y,1852, the surgeon of the Wigan Poor
law Union had pronounced him insane, and he had beet
confined for some short time in an asylum. Under these
circumstances, the jury found the prisoner not guilty, upoi
the ground of insanity, and he was ordered to be confuiec
during Her Majesty's pleasure.
ALLEGED MANSLAUGHTER IN LIVERPOOL.
John M'Donough, 22, labourer, was indicted for killing
George Hickey. Mr. Simon prosecuted, and Mr. Aspinal
defended the prisoner. The prisoner, who was connectec
with the deceased by marriage, went to the house of the
latter, on the evening of the 30th of May, and pushed hi:
foot through a picture. This led to a quarrel, and th(
deceased and prisoner went into the yard to fight. Prisoner
got the worst of the battle, and went away, but came back
with a poker. The deceased's wife chased him, as did als
the deceased and his step-daughter, and as he was runnin
up stairs they all laid hold of him and pulled at the pok
which struck the deceased a backward blow on the het.
The deceased subsequently had his wound dressed at t
dispensary, went out, got drunk twice, took to his b(
and died eleven days afterwards. In. the sours
evidence for the prosecution the case broke down

prisoner, at his lordship's direction, was acquitted_
Wallace Eaton, 21, carpenter, indicted on the char
of causing the death of his sister, Mary Ann Eat,
Hatfield-street, in this town, by beating her on the
of February last. From the evidence it appeared that on
the day in question the deceased asked the prisoner for

sixpence for a noggin of rum in return for some hand
kerchiefs which she had hemmed for him, w

he et]

n before her

her. A deposition of the deceased, take,
death, was read in court, which stated that the prison,
had knocked her down, kicked her three times, and
otherwise abused her. One of the witnesses, Ann Kelly,
a girl nearly fifteen years of age, who had deposed before
the coroner that she had seen the prisoner kick the deceased
three times while she was on the floor, to-day stated that
she had told a lie then, at the instig,ation of Mrs. Eaton,
the mother of the deceased and prisoner. She added, that
both mother and daughter were intoxicated at the time

of the alleged ill-usage, and that three days previously
the deceased had shown her (witness) some blows on the
breast, stating that her mother had inflicted them with a
poker. Witness had before heard the mother threaten
to beat the deceased with a poker unless she would get
up to fetch a pint of ale. The deceased was afterwards
playing in the street, and did not die for several weeks.
Mr. Leather, surgeon at the Workhouse, stated that
the immediate cause of deceased's death was rupture of the
spleen, the result of a fall from the bed ; and that her
liver was in such a diseased state that she could not have
lived long.

On this evidence, the prisoner, at his Lordship's
direction, was acquitted.
The court rose at twenty minutes to eight o'clock.

This morning at nine o'clock the charge against Capta
'Horner, of the ship Mangerstein, will be proceeded wit
after which the case against Captain Joseph Breck will 1
taken. Captain Breck is charged with shooting one of h
_ _

seamen on beard his vessel in the Canning Dock basin

NISI PRIUS COURT.—TUESDAY.
[Before Mr. Justice Crowder.]
In LOMAS V. HIGGINS, a disputed joiner's claim, a verdict
was returned for the defendant.
ACTION FOR TRESPASS.—In Worthington v. Wright,
brought by the tenant of a cottage and garden, at Swin-
ton, to recover damages for trespass, a verdict was re-
turned for the plaintiff. Amount, £l5, and 40s. costs.
QUESTION OF CREDlT.—Meadows and another v.
Brown.—The plaintiffs, Messrs. Meadows and Bibby,
dealers in lime, flags, and building materials, in Manches-
ter,brought this action against Mr. William Duncan Brown,
a builder, to recover £137, the amount alleged to be due
to them for building materials, lime, &c., supplied for some
buildings erected by the defendant between May and De-
cember of last year, in Waterloo-road, Strangeways. A
person named Tebbutt owned the land upon which the
buildings were erected, and the question for the jury was,
whether, admitting Mr. Tebbutt's responsibility in some
measure as to Brown's character and proceedings, the de-
fendant had not incurred the whole responsibility for pay-
ment of the amount due for the goods supplied as above.
The invoices and receipts which had been made out during
the period over which the transactions between the plain-
tiffs and the defendant extended were produced. Evidence
was adduced, and from this it appeared that double entries
were made by the plaintiffs, and that, though they had
debited Mr. Tebbutt for the purposes of guarantee, they
had debited the defendant directly in all cases with the
goods. Verdict for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed.
• VIOLENT EJECTMENT AND ASSAULT.—TayIor v. Myers-
cough and others.—This was an action brought by Mr.
John Taylor, a cotton-spinner, at Tentercroft, near Roch-
dale, against a cotton-waste dealer and a number of other
persons, who, on the 21st of April, took possession, by
violence, of pertain premises in Rochdale, used previously
by the plaintiffs brother for manufacturing purposes, but
which had been forfeited to the plaintiff by the brothers
failing to pay certain liabilities. The defendants not only
took possession of the premises, but assaulted the plaintiff,
andended the transaction by selling the machinery, &c. in
the rooms. The plaintiff had brought his action for com-
pensation. The defence was, that Myerscough had a prie
claim upon the goods and premises of Edward Taw'
(plaintiff's brother) by reason of a deed of mortgr
ted in February last ; and by which, in consideration of
various sums lent to Taylor, the latter conveyed the whole
of his interest in the two rooms, and the goods and ma-
chinery which they contained. An offer on the part of the
plaintiffs to withdraw a juror was accepted.
LlBEL.—Rogers v. Bedale.—Mr. Atherton, Q.C., and
Mr. Manesty were for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Sowler for
defendant. The plaintiff; who was stated to be a gentle-
man, and the owner of considerable property in Manches-
ter, sued for damages in consequence of a libel which the
defendant, who described himself as " the celebrated" Dr.
Bedale, had published, to the injury of the plaintiff's
character in the eyes of his tenants, and the public generally.
The plaintiffs case was that, at the time of the libel com-
plained of, on the 29th of last December, he was the land-
lord of the defendant, who occupied a house under him in
Hanover-street, in Manchester. The holding commenced
from the Midsummer of 1836, and the tenancy was to ex-
pire in June 1853. Mr. Rogers, however, allowed the de-
fendant to remain in the house until June last, giving him
notice to quit at Christmas. The defendant at Christmas
was in arrear with his rent, and when applied to, refused
to pay it. Mr. Rogers then put in a distress warrant,
which seemed to have irritated the defendant to put up in
his window a placard, bearing the following words :
"Caution to all Mr. Rogers' tenants—Mr. Thomas Rogers,
the owner of this property, has sent his bailiffs to one of
his tenants, because the quarter's rent was not paid with-
in four days after it was due. It is supposed that his
poverty has compelled him to the above fiendish act, as this
and the adjoining houses were mortgaged for £1,000."
This was, no doubt, calculated to annoy Mr. Rogers ex-
ceedingly, and through defendant having thought proper
to issue this libel, and au opportunity having beer
to retract it, which he had refused to do, the plaintiff w&
compelled to come there and ask for such a moderate
amount of damages as would relieve him of the expenses of
that litigation, which had been caused by the malicious
act of the defendant. After a very short deliberation, the
jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages one
farthing.

.ge, exec

WEDNESDAY.

ILLEGAL DISTRAINT.— Fletcher v. Hurst.—'

was an

action on an alleged illegal distraint,
_ _

to be decided was the validity of a deed of assignment
made by a publican named .M‘Donald, at Oldham, for the
benefit of his creditors. The jury, under direction, gave a
verdict for the plaintiff, leave being given to make a motion
in a higher court.
MILLS v. LEES.—In this case it was anno,...
arrangement had been come to by the parties to take a
verdict for the plaintiff for one hundred guineas .
ACTION ON A BILL ,OP EXCHA.NGE:BIythe
ming.—The plaintiff in this case was Mr. James Cr,
Blythe, of Manchester, and the defendant Mr. Frederic
Shand Hemming, iron-house manufacturer, in Birkenhead
It was an action brought by the indorser of a bill of ex•
change against the indorsee. The bill was for four months,
drawn by William Bryant on Daniel Routledge, for £284,
and dated 27th February, 1854. The bill had been paid
by the defendant to a Mr. Gideon Gould, of Birmingham
and it subsequently came into the hands of the plaintiff; ly
whom it was cashed. The bill became due t'

:ed that an

30th of June. On the Ist July it was forwarded Li
Masterman, bankers in London, to Heywood, bankers in
Manchester. It was returned to the plaintiff dishonoured,
on the Monday. The real plaintiff in the case was Mr.
Gould. The defence was, that due notice of dishonour
had not been given to Mr. Hemming by Mr. Gould. The
jury found for the plaintiff for £286 69., including interest.
UNDEFENDED CASES.—The undefended cases in the
West Derby list were then proceeded with.—Dearie v.
Lamb.—An action on a bill of exchange for £5OO. Verdict
for the plaintiff : execution to issue in four days.—Trafal-
gar Life Assurance Company v. Ellis and another.—An
action on a covenant, by which the two defendants engaged
to pay £lOO on the Bth of July. The interest amounted
to £5 9s. 3d. Verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount.
—Rash v. Hare.—Action against the acceptor of a bill of
exchange for £l,lOO. Verdict for the plaintiff, including
£6 interest. Execution to issue in four days.—Evans and
another v. Gedrych.—Actiou upon a covenant on two deeds
of mortgage for £1,533 6d. 6d. Vqrdict for the plaintiff.
—Bent v. Layker.—An action on a bill of exchange, John
Bent being plaintiff, and John Layker, of Maidstone, in
Kent, defendant. The bill had been paid to a person
named Marchand, who was the real plaintiff in the case.
Verdict for the plaintiff for £215 10s.

DISPUTED WlLL.—Wilding and -another v. Herbert and
Wife.—This was a case from the Vice-Chancellor's Court,
to decide whether a certain document, dated December,
1842, was the last will and statement of Christopher
Rogerson, a surgeon, residing in Blackburn, and who,
when a youth, had been apprenticed to the father of the
plaintiffs, and had resided with him subsequently for a
number of years. The document having been read, the
learned counsel for the defence announced their satisfaction
of its validity, and the case closed with a verdict for the
plaintiff.
ALLEGED BREACH OP CONTRACT.— Langensee
v.
Storer.—An action to recover £6B, the amount of loss in-
curred by the defendant refusing to receive a quantity of
raisins, which he had ordered from plaintiff; a merchant
at Naples, through Messrs. Baruchson and Makin, of this
town. The case was heard at the last assizes, when a
verdict was given for the plaintiff. A new trial had been
granted on the ground that it was not shown that Messrs.
Baruchson and Makin were the agents of the defendants.
No additional evidence was given, and the plaintiff was
nonsnited.

ACTION FOR gLANDER.—Rhodes v. Milner.—An action
brought by the manager of a cloth-mill, at Leeds, against
a butcher in the same town, who, on one occasion, when
the plaintiff's wife passed his shop, made use of some
offensive expressions, such as calling plaintiff's wife a
thief, and calliug out " thief " in a loud One ay hie paned