The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-05 00:00:00

was, beyead

to pay their calls; and, if
would have been paid
Mr. BAINES, on th

lereprese

of themselves jute a

;fendant
debt to

volve others in it also. He contended, that the drafts drawn
by Thomas for the Mining Company had been honoured by
the bank, after the authority which Thomas had for drawing
them had been withdrawn by the mining shareholders ; and
that, as there had been gross ignorance on the part lof the
bank in the management of the'account with the Mining
Company, (which ignorance had led the plaintiffs into the
present predicament,) they had no right to recover. As tc
Mr. Cooper, a greater part of the debt due to the bank bete
been incurred before he had anything to do with the company
the account began in 1837, and he did not join the company
till November, 1838, or even later. He, therefore, was no,

liable for the debts incurred before he beCame a shareholder
and, as to those which were incurred when he was one, fah

respresentations- having been held out by the Directors of
the amount of capital subscribed for and the number of shares,
he could not be considered liable for them. So, with respect
to the other shareholders whom he represented : certainly
some of them had acted as directors, but they had nothing
whatever to do with incurring the liability of the debt to the
bank. In conclusion, he contended, that, if all the improper
items in the account were struck out, nothing would be found
due to the bank; but, that, if any thing were found due at
all, Mr. Crosbie, and the other directors of the Mining Com-
pany who acted with him, were liable.
Mr. WoRTLEv then addressed the jury on the part of those
defendants who were called the Liverpool shareholders. He
said that admitting his clients, for the sake of argument, to
be liable, he should endeavour to show that they had paid a
very considerable sum to the bank, which the bank had not
had the honesty to acknowledge. The pass-hook between the
bank and the Mining Company showed that in May, 1837, an
even balance was struck between them, and, if the bank had
not charged the .company with seven sums of 1500 each,
which had been settled for before, the Mining Company
would have had a, balance in the favour. The bank also
charged his clients with Xl6OO which they themselves had

improperly paid. to Ti
were clearly not liable.

As to t

for whic:•,, • therfore, they
abilities of the defendants;

no evidence bad been given to show that any one of them
became a partner till the end of 1838, whilst the whole of
these claims accrued in 1837, and in the eleven months of
1838. He contended, however, that the evidence of the
partnership was insufficient and unsatisfaCtory. The bank,
too, were cognisant of the frauds upon the public by the Mi-
ning Company, because their own manager, 'Walsh, was ac-
tually one of the directors.

The learned Juno E then summed up the case at consider-
able length and with much perspicuity.
The jury retired to consider the verdict, and, after an ab-
sence of forty minutes, they delivered a verdict for the plain-
tiff. Damages £6958 6s. 4d., as against all the defendants,
except those.named above.

Tile JUDGE granted leave to Mr. Wortley to move to re-
duce the damages to the balance due in 1839, which was
rather more than £3,000.
The trial of this case commenced at three o'clock on Fri-
day, and concluded at half-past three this afternoon, exclusive
of the time the jury took to consider their verdict.

KILL V. BELL

'I his was an action, on promise, brought by James Brun-
skill, a glazier and painter, against Elizabeth Bell, both of
St. Helen's; to recover £22. 19s. 2d., for work and labour
done, for materials supplied, and on an account stated. The
defendant denied that she had promiseil.
From the statement of Mr. WORTLEY, (with whom was-
Mr. Atherton,) it appeared that, in September, 1840, the
defendant, who is a widow lady, had, among other property,
a house in the New Market, in which the work was done for
the recovery of which the present action was brought. In
May last, the house being then in an unfinished state, Mrs.
Bell, thinking that she hall been fortunate enough to se-
cure a good tenant in the person of a Mr. M'Keen, went
to the plaintiff's shop, and gave him directions for the
necessary work to be done, but, as no one was present at
that time, no evidence could be given that she had actu-
ally given the order. The effect, however, was, that the
plaintiff, by her desire, did the work at the house in question.
M'Keen intended to make the house into a shop, and he put
into it a counter and the usual fixtures. • but the plaintiff was
employed, not by him but by Mrs. Bell, to paint and pa-
per the house, and partially to glaze it. He should prove on

these occasions, by means of some workmen of Mr. Latham's,
who were employed by M`Keen, that the defendant had su-
perintended and interested herself in the work of the plaintiff.
As the work was nearly concluded, M`Keen, who had run in
debt, absconded and left all parties in the lurch. Some of
those persons who had been employed by M`Keen followed
and brought him back to St. Helens, but, being a very slip-
try subject, be again slipped through their fingers, and bad
e been heard of. Now, although Mrs. Bell, as the
had the benefit of the plaintiff's labour, she was
eeking to have it without paying for it, for her defence was,
_hat M'Keen had employed the plaintiff. The jury, how-
ever, would hear from the witnesses, that Mrs. Bell not only
interfered in the course of the work being done, but she ac-
tually used the remnants of the paper with .which the plain-

not sin

tiff ha

•ed the walls; and ih4 afterwards, in higgling

with a person who offered to take the house about the rent,
she told him she could not take what he offer.d, as she had
been at so much expense in paper and painting.
Witnesses were .then called, who proved the statement of
the learned counsel.

Mr. BAINES, for the defendant, said he should have no
difficulty in convincing the jury, that the work had been done.
for M'Keen, who, having absconded, the plaintiff now
brought his action to recover the demand from Mrs. Bell.
M'Keen was the person who engaged the plaintiff, who gave
the orders, and who superintended the work. There was not
a particle of evidence to show that Mrs. Bell had engaged
the plaintiff. Among the persons who followed M'Keen was
the present plaintiff, and, all that time, he much lamented
that he was not fortunate as the former, who bad been

employed by M 'keen, as he could take away the counter and
fixtures. The plaintiff also succeeded i❑ obtaining from
M`Keen the key of the premises, and he actually held pos-
session of them for some time; indeed, when Mrs. Bell com-
plained of this, he told her he should keep possession of the
house until his bill had been run out in rent. Other conver-
sations would be deposed to, which, combined with those he
had just stated, would convince the jury that the plaintiff
was engaged by M`Keen, and not by Mrs. Bell.
Witnesses having been called, whose testimony confirmed
these statements, the jury returned a verdict for the de-
fendant.

CROWN COURT.—MONDAY.
Baron PARKE took his seat at nine o'clock.
CHARGE OF MURDER.—THE WARRINGTON CASE
_ . . .

John Gill, aged 24, was charged with the wilful murder of
Jarah Mould, at Warrington. One count in the indictment
charged the prisoner with having pressed his body against
her and his hands over her mouth, and so suffocated her;
another count charged that he had suffocated her while at-
tempting to violate her person. The prisoner presented him-
self at the bar with a cool and steady. demeanour, and pleaded
not guilty with a firm voice. As it was certain that some of
would be indelicate, ladies were ordered

the disclosures
out of court.

Mr. BRANDT and Mr. HuLToN prosecuted ; Mr. WIL-
KINS and Mr. MONK defended.

Mr. BRANDT gave an outline of the case, and then pro-
ceeded to call the evidence.

Mr. WILKINS requested that one witness, (Clough) who
was a most important one against the prisoner, should be
kept apart from the other witnesses. He was called into
court, the other witnesses being out.
William Savage, jun., son of the sexton of Warrington
Church. On Monday morning, the 14th November last, I
was sweeping the flags by the big gate when I saw a man.
He was darkish complexioned, with a light coloured round
jacket on, and no hat. He was a tall man. He came through
the entrance gate by Mr. Harrison's, the clerk. He went
past the rectory back entrance. Peter Ford was at that time
making a grave. I heard of a body being found. I went
from the churchyard for a minute cr so, but I quickly re-
turned. The man did not return the same way: if he had I
-hould Slave seen him. The prisoner is about the size of the
man.

CroQs-examined by Mr. MONK.—When I left the church-
yard 1 had heard that there was a body found, and I ran to
see it, but I was back in a minute.

'William Savage, sen.—l am sexton at the parish church of
Warrington. On Sunday morning, the 14tn of November,
I was employed in the churchyard. Peter Ford pointed my
attention towards something at the east gate. I went to the
place indicated, and I saw a basket and a human body. The
basket was eight or ten feet from the body, and the body was

about a yard from a ditch or brook, with the feet towards the
ditch, and the head towards me. The ditch was nearly at
right angles to the fence of the churchyard. The body was
that of a female, and it lay upon its face. The hands were
under the body ; 'her feet were about a yard from the ditch.
I turned the face towards me. I observed some soil upon
the face and nose. She lay upon the grass sod. I found the
face close to the earth. The mouth was full of dirt. She
was lying on the grass, and there was no dirt upon the place
where her face was lying sufficient to account for that ap-
pearance about her mouth and nostrils. I did not perceive
any soil near the place. ' I replaced the head in the same po-
sition, or as near as possible. I sent for the deputy-consta-
ble, Mr. Jones. lie came with me, and we saw the body as
it lay. it was in -the-same-- position, There was a shawl
.thrown over her ,htiod: I did not remove that shawl in
raising her head, butit would be displaced a little perhaps. I
did not remark whether she had a bonnet on. Her clothes
from the middle of the back-downwards were saturated with
wet. I did not notice whether they were wet in front. One
stocking was down to her angle ; I think it was the right leg.
The knee of that leg was red. The body was removed to the
Ring of Bells public-house. Jones the constable examined
the basket, which was perfectly dry. I saw when she was
taken to the public-house that she had a bonnet and cap on.
I did not notice whether they were wet or dry, but the crown
part of the bonnet was broken.
Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—I was somewhat
agitated at the discovery. There had been a little wet that
morning. The field was a meadow, and there was a foot-
path through it. The rest of the face was somewhat dirty,
as well as the nose and mouth. I could see dirt against the
teeth. The brook is perhaps a yard and a half wide, and
three or four feet deep. I cannot say whether the ditch be
often cleaned out ; there is a strongish current there.
Peter Ford.—On the 14th November last I was in the
churchyard at Warrington. I was near Howley Pit. I saw
a man looking over the fence towards the river. It was
about five minutes before seven. Ile was looking towards
the place where the body was afterwards found. I was near
enough to see that he had a light coloured round jacket, and
no hat on. He was a tallish man. I did not see what be-
came of him. I afterwards saw a basket in the field, and I
tt oh ra that.
to Savage and told him.
By Mr. Wilkins.—A jacket was shown to me at Warring-
n
at
J.
on Thee s,
. The jacket that the prisoner wore appeared rather lighter
one shown to me they said was John Gibb's.
James'
iunda
of y morning in
deputy-constable of Warrington. 1 went on
tie S
question, about eight o'clock, to the
churchyard
Warrirwtoil,,l
and there I saw the body lying on
Tthheefsahcea.wl Taphpeeraer we•dasasa' sifha( i over the hack of the bonnet.
been pulled op a little higher
than it should have been. It it h.4N”iliie quite saturated with wat.r.•
the
ee
crownhad a bonnetou tanodf
cap on.
obno.nnet were perfectly dry, and
hanging i nogf
herby oneleft
le piecegw
was
plat. The hair was dry. The stocking down to the foot. The other was right. The knee of the
petti-
cleotaltlsewg,ewraesomeaurclyh inflamedashi
gh as dtohvev nk
oteoe tohfet
been ef
t.
legiirbut not
so high on the right. The whole of her clothes were
tu
rated with wet, except her bonnet and cap. Iler basketscon-
tained tea, coffee, sugar, &c., and the pocketbook was the
topmost article, a little open. I observed the impression of
a man's foot on the opposite bank, opposite where the body
had'apparently come out of the ditch. The grass was off the
mare-in of the ditch, as if a person had either crawled out or

:Mfg •
been dragged out. I did not observe any footmarks near the
body.' I- hid it removed afterwards to the Ring of Bells. I
went afterwards to starch the ground for footmarks. I found
some in the footpath leading from Rowley warehouse to where