The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-12-09 00:00:00

COURTS OF LAW.

The proceedings of the Courts of Law and St. George's
Hall Committee, embodying a report from the architect,
were read and confirmed.

DISMISSAL OF MARKET OFFICERS.

The proceedings of the Markets Committee were read.
Mr. BLACKBURN said he perceived in the report an allu-
sion to the dismissal of two persons connected with St.
John's Market—lsaac Needham, collector of tolls, and John
Woods. He had heard that those parties had been dealt
with somewhat harshly, but he would ask the chairman to
explain the circumstances before he made any further ob-
servations.

Mr. JAMES LAWRENCE said the matter was discussed in
a very full committee, and the case appeared one of such
great aggravation that they could not come to any conclusion
but to dismiss the offenders. A complaint was made against
Isaac Needham, the toll-collector, for having taken the goods
of a poor woman for nonpayment of toll. It was a late hour
at night, and when the woman had borrowed the money and
made a tender of it, he refused to give up her property. She
went to him a second time, but he still refused, and she was
ultimately sent to bridewell, where she lay from Saturday
night till Monday morning. When dismissed, she went
again and tendered her money, but Needham still refused to
give up the goods. A complaint was laid before the super-
intendent, who called Needham into his office, and advised
him to give up the property, as the articles were of a perish-
able nature, when he replied that rather than give them up
he would lose his situation, as the officers were not properly
supported. As to Woods, he took the woman to bridewell
without any cause. The conduct of both parties was so
harsh, that it appeared to the committee, in justice to the
public, that they must dismiss them.
Mr. ISAAC HOLMES said he was on the committee, and
was in a very small minority. His opinion was that Needham
had been very hardly used. The woman in question never
could be found till past ten o'clock at night, and she scarcely
e!er.would pay her toll.' At half-past ten o'clock, on the
night in question, she made ber appearance, and as no toll
was forthcoming, Needham took her baskets. She went to
him afterwards, when he was very busy making up his ac-
counts, and he ordered her out of his office, and there he, no
doubt, did wrong, but not to an extent that demanded so se-
vere a punishment. When she went out of the office, her
language was such that she created great disorder; upon
which Woods, who had been an officer in the market 13
years, took her to Bridewell. She was booked not in the
charge of Needham but of Woods.
Mr. BLACKBURN said Needham, whom he had known for
many years, called upon him to ask him for a recommenda-
tion to a situation at Birkenhead, when, upon questioning
him, he became acquainted with the circumstances of his dis-
missal. Mr. Blackburn proceeded to give Needham's account
of the transaction, and after showing that though not en-
tirely free from blame, in not giving up the woman's goods
when the tender was made, which he now acknowledged, yet,
as he had been an excellent, honest, faithful and industrious
officer, the punishment of summary dismissal was too se-
vere. He respectfully moved that the proceedings of the
Watch Committee should be confirmed, with the exception
of these dismissals, which he referred back to the committee
for consideration.
Mr. HENRY HOLMES seconded the motion.

Mr. EVANS admitted that the woman was a very disor-
derly character, but that was no reason why the laws of the
country should be violated in her person. He admitted that
Needham was an excellent officer ; but this was such an
outrage on justice and humanity as called for a special ex-
ample, and no punishment less than dismissal would have
satisfied the case.

Mr. PARKER, Mr. HODGSON, and Mr. COOPER supported
the act of the committee.

Mr. LACE expressed his disapproval of such matters as
these being brought before the council, unless in very gross
instances.

The council divided, when there appeared,—For the
amendment,—Messrs. Isaac Holmes, Blackburn, H. Holmes,
Hornby, J. Holmes, Aikin, Priestley, Barclay, Bailey,
Freme, and Holt. Against the amendment, Messrs. Shand,
Shaw, Hodgson, Thornhill, Preston, Copeland, Thompson,
Edwards, North, Sands, Holme, Rae, Aspinall, Toulmin.
Boyden, J. Lawrence, Cooper, Wood, H. Lawrence, Bush-
ell, Procter, Rigby, Lloyd, Kilshaw, Parker, Brassey,
Plimpton, Leigh, G. H. Lawrence, Lace, Trotman, Platt,
Seppard, Smith, Harbord, Houghton (alderman), Turner,
Crook, Nicol, Bramley-Moore, Molyneus, Moon, Evans,
Chilton, Sir Thomas Brancker, and the Mayor.
For the amendment, 12 ; against it, 47 ; majority, 35.
The proceedings of the committee were confirmed.

A discussion ensued as to whether the consideration of the
proceedings of the Daily Courts' Committee should follow the
proceedings of the Courts of Law and St. George's Hall
Committee as arranged at the last council, the two subjects
having been separated in the paper by an error of the printer.
Mr. Earle, Mr. Henry Lawrence, and Mr. Bushell con-
tended that the business should proceed as arranged. Mr.
Hodgson, Mr. Parker, and Mr. Birkett were strongly in
favour of the proceedings of the Education Committee being
first considered, as they stood next in order. At length Mr.
Hodgson withdrew his opposition, and the council proceeded
to consider the report of the committee on