The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-03-29 00:00:00

NISI PRiUS COURT.—FamAr.

Mr. Baron ROLFE took his seat on the bench at twenty
minutes to two o'clock. The counsel within the bar are Mr.
Sergeant Atcherley, attorney-general of the county palatine;
• Mr. Sergeant Murphy, Mr. Starkie, Mr. Dundas, the lion.
J. Stuart Wortley, Sir Gregory Lewin, Mr. Baines, Mr.
Armstrong, and Mr. Knowles. Mr. Alexander is not suffi-
ciently recovered to resume. his duties ; nor were all we have
named present to-day.
On the evening of Thursday an application was made to
their lordships, to order the sheriff to return a writ, which
bad been issued for the purpose of summoning four knights
to appear in court on the first day of the assizes, to try a
writ of right to the possession of some property in Chorlton-
on-Medlock. The writ was produced, and the following
names called over :—Sir Thomas Potter, of Manchester ;
Sir Thomas 13rancker, Sir Joshua Walmaley, and Sir George
Drinkwater, of Liverpool. Three of the gentlemen an-
swereci to their names; but 4oshita Walmsley did not
appear ; and, after some time spent in endeavouring to ascer-
tain whether he had been regularly summoned, it was at
length agreed, by the consent of both parties, that the mat-
ter should stand over till the following day, and should be
treated as if done on the first day of the assizes. Mr.
Justice Parke intimated, that Sir Joshua Walmsley ought to
be informed, that he would be required to attend in court
next day.
This morning the preliminary steps in this now almost
obsolete legal proceeding were taken shortly after the sitting
of the court. The four knights, Sir Thomas Potter, Sir
Joshua 'Walmsley, Sir Thomas Brancker, and Sir Thomas
Drinkwater, were sworn to summon and impannel twenty
good men and true, to try a writ of right. They then chose
from the jury list twenty names, which were read by the
crier.—Mr. Archbold, counsel for Mr. Charles Rishton, the
demandant, stated that the trial could not take place at the
present assizes, as the act required the jury process to issue
and bear teste, before the first day of the assizes, which had
not been doue.—Mr. Starkie, Q.C., counsel for the tenant,
Anthony Nesbit, tendered demi-marque it it were necessary
to do so.—Mr. Archbold said, it was not necessary till the
time of the trial. We understand that this case is one of
considerable importance, involving, indeed, it is said, the
freehold of perhaps one-half of the township of Chorlton-on-
Medlock. The demandant claims an-interest as the surviving
representative of Barbara Aytoun, and the case will turn very
much on pedigrees and genealogy. It is somewhat remark-
able that an inquiry of this nature should come into the
courts sonic eight or ten years after the passing of a statute
which took away the right of having this peculiar form of
action. We understand that, in fact, this writ was issued
only a few days before the passing of that act. The last
cases of writs of right, of which we have any information,
were Angell v. Angell, tried at York in the year 1816, and
Hardman v. Clegg, tried at Lancaster in 1817 ; and we be-
lieve that the- case now under notice. Rishton v. Nesbit, is
the last writ of right that ever can be tried in this country,
being the very last writ issued, and the only one outstanding.
The causes taken during the afternoon were of no general
interest.

CROWN COURT—SATURDAY.
Mr. Justice Park took his seat on the bench at nine
o'clock.

BIGAMY

Thomas Lloyd, aged 43, was indicted fur having feloniously
married, at Liverpool, in January last, one Margaret Lea-
therbarrow, his former wife, Elizabeth Walworth, being then
alive. The prisoner having pleaded not guilty, Mr. MONK
proceeded to address the jury for the prosecution, but had
scarcely entered upon the facts before the prisoner withdrew
bis plea, and pleaded guilty. The prisoner said that he had
allowed his first wife 10s. a week, and that he had maintained
both wives. It appeared that he had made the allowance
stated ; but the JUDGE did not consider this fact any pallia-
tion. His lordship called the second wife, a young woman
of 22 years of age, and she stated, in reply to a question whe-
ther the prisoner had informed het' that he was previously
married to another person then alive, that he had made no
such statement, but had represen.tied himself as a widower.
His LORDSHIP said that the prisoner had gained nothing
by withdrawing his plea, for the evidence would have clearly
proved the offence. He had inflicted a grievous injury on
Margaret Leatherbarroiy, by placing her in a position as his
legitiMate wife. For this offence he must be imprisoned for
twelve calendar months, and, during that time, to be kept to
hard labour.