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

BURGLARY

Two men, Arrowsmith and Horrocks, were indicted for
breaking into the dwelling-house of John Taylor, at Little
Bolton, and taking therefrom, on the 12th December, seve-
ral articles of wearing apparel, &c., the property of the said
John Taylor.
John Taylor said, that he lived in Little Bolton, where be
was a housekeeper. On Sunday, the 12th of December, be
went out, and left to go to church, and on his return, a little
before nine, he found the door open, and missed a wearing
jacket, two waistcoats, a counterpane, and a pair of trowsers.
He saw the articles on Saturday.
James Grime, police-officer, said the prisoners were in the
lock-up, at Little Bolton, on the 15th December. Horrocks
called him to the separate cell where he was confined, and
said he had something to say. Witness told him he must
tell the magistrates. Prisoner said he did not care : they
had done their worst to him, and he should do his worst at
them. He acknowledged that he and the other prisoner and
a man, named Yates, had taken the articles from the house.
He produced the waistcoats. He said he had pledged them,
and gave witness the ticket.
A witness stated that Arrowsmith pledged the waistcoats
for a shilling. Prisoner said his name was William Smith.
That was on the 15th December.
Harris, a constable, took a pair of trowsers from Arrow-
smith. _ _ . .

The prosecutor identified the articles last mentioned. The
lock of the house was either picked or the door was forced.
Arrowsmith said he bought the trowsers and waistcoats
from a man, and did not know they were stolen.
Horrocks said he was not at the prosecutor's house at all.
The other prisoner gave him the ticket.
A man, named Yates, said he saw Arrowsmith with a men
who had some old clothes to sell, and he came from him with
two waistcoats and a pair of trousers. 'Witness was a pri-
soner on a Mint charge.
His LORDSHIP summed up, and the Jury found both the
prisoners Guilty. As there was another indictment to be
preferred against them, they were put down.
The Court then rose for the day, it being ten minutes to
five o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—SATURDAY.
The learned Baron took his seat a little after nine o'clock
ALLAN V. LOWE.

Mr. WATsoN, for the defendant in this case, applied for
the postponement of the trial till a late day in the Assizes,
on the ground that his attorney, who was named Wood, had
recently died. The death took place on the 7th instant, but
the defendant had no notice of it till the 14th, and, there-
fore, he had not yet bad sufficient time to instruct another
gentleman.
The learned BARON granted a rule to show cause why the

trial should not be postponed till Monday week.
MOSLEY V. BIRD.

This was an action brought by Sir Oswald Mosley, Bart.,
Lord of the Manor of Manchester, to recover damages from
the defendant, James Bird, a butcher, for an infringement of
his manorial rights, by selling butcher's meat in his private
house.

Mr. Starkey and Mr. Brandt appeared for the plaintiff;
the defendant was not represented by counsel. _

The declaration stated, that, on'the Ist day of January,
1839, the plaintiff was possessed of the right to hold markets,
within the town of Manchester, upon every Tuesday, Thurs-
day, and Saturday, except on Christmas and New Year's
Days, and that all persons selling meat in Manchester were
bound to do so in the plaintiff's market. The defendant sold
meat in his private house to the injury of the plaintiff. The
defendant, i❑ his replication, said, that the plaintiff was not
lawfully possessed of such market, and that he had no right
to compel butchers to sell in that market ; and upon this
issue was joined.
Mr. STARKEY then stated the case, and called Mr. Samuel
Kaye, steward of the manor, who proved the rights of the
plaintiff as stated in the declaration; and Mr. Noton, clerk
of the markets, who proved that thedefendant had sold meat
in his private house for four years, and that the rent of a
stall in the market would have been £8 per annum.
The Jury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages £32, being the amount of four years rent.