The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-08-09 00:00:00

HIGHWAY ROBBERY

Williatn Doyle, who had been convicted of taking part in
the assault and robbery of James Rim:3er, in conjunction
with five others, including a brother, and whose sentence had
humanely been deferred to give him an opportunity of bring-
ing up witnesses to character, was then placed at the bar.
Several witnesses were called in his behalf, relations and others
in apparently humble life. One of them stated that he
believed he had been led astray by the brother, and that his
character had previously been unexceptionable. It appeared,
however, from the evidence of a clerk of Mr. Parkinson, of
the Bridewell, that be had been several times convicted and
imprisoned for felony. and, in the last instance, recently.
His Lordship said, that under these circumstances he could
not exempt him from the punishment of his associates. He
had been found guilty of a highway robbery of great violence,
and in the commission of which great artifice had been em-
ployed. He had no hope of the prisoner's amendment by
his being left at large in this country, and the sentence was,
that he should be transported beyond the seas for fifteen
years.

- This closed the business of the Crown Court for the pre-
sent session, with the exception of Miss Crellin's case. The
court rose at five o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-YESTERDAF

POLLUTION OF A WATER COURSE.-STONER EWER V,
FARRAR.
_ _

This was an action to try the right to a water course,
which it was alleged the defendant had polluted, to the in-
jury of the plaintiff.

Mr. Wortley, Mr. Seager, and Mr. Watson conducted
the plaintiff's case; and Mr. Baines, Mr. Crompton, and
Mr. Brandt that of the defendant.

Mr. WORTLEY stated the case on the part of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff was Miss Martha Stonehewer. and the defen-
dant was Mr. James Farrar, and both carried on the busi-
ness of dyers and bleachers at Calder Clough, in the town-
ship of Pilkington. Their works were on the same stream,
the plaintiff's being lower down, and the defendant's higher
up the stream. The plaintiff's works were established in
1801, and she succeeded to them upon the death of her fa-
ther in the year 1840; consequently they had been esta-
blished for more than forty years, during which time busi-
ness had been done to a considerable extent. The stream,
though a small one, was very important ; and the complaint
of the plaintiff was, that by the working of the defendant's
dye and bleach works, he had thrown down a great quantity
of refuse and filth, which filled up her reservoirs, making
them less valuable to her works, and sent down a quantity
of chemical ingredients in solution with the water, which
had a most injurious effect upon the plaintiff's bleaching.
'l'he yarn, instead of coming out a pure white, was streaked,
so that it was not of the same value as it would other-
wise be. When the plaintiff's works were originally esta-
blished, there was nothing where the defendant's works
were ; but about the year 1809 a Mr. Kay put up a tub,
where he used to wash cotton wool, but that lasted
only a short time, when it was discontinued. Nothing was
done afterwards from that time till about the year 1822, when
the defendant and his brother begun the business of dying,
at first to a small extent, employing only one man, then
three, and then increasing their works to their present extent,
which was very considerable. Now, Mrs. Stonehewer had a
right to have the water of the stream to come to her in the
same quantity and in the same state and condition as it would
at that point before the defendant's works were established,
unless it could be shown by the defendant that he had made
use of the water for twenty years, as he did now, without
interruption, and with the acquiescence of the plaintiff.
But, so far from this, in the year 1834 Mr. Stonehewer, the
plaintiff's father, complained to Mr. Woodcock, the agent
of Lord Derby, to whom the land belonged, that the de-
fendant's works made the water impure. Mr. Woodcock
remonstrated with Mr. Farrar, and requested that something
might be done to abate the nuisance. Mr. Farrar, in a spirit
of candour and good sense which did him credit, said, " I
am aware of it ; it must be a nuisance ; and I think I can
remedy it if you will procure me leave to make some filtering
pits upon some adjoining land belonging to Lord Derby."
Mr. Woodcock applied to the tenant, leave was granted, and
a small plot of land was marked out upon which the defendant
was allowed to make some filters. To a certain extent
this was successful. Here, then, there was a distinct re-
cognition of the rights of the plaintiff—that the defendant
had no right to send down the water in the state com-
plained of. Subsequently, these filters, it was found, from
not having been kept in proper order, and from some other
cause, did not serve the purpose for which they were
originally set up. Above all, it was found that the particles
which were retained by the filters, were not the particles
which did the injury ; but, that those ingredients which did
the injury were held in solutions in the water. The most in-
lurious of them was iron. In the course of dying a large
quantity of copperas was used, in which a large proportion
of iron was found, and this was the iron which was held in
solution in the water, and it was so mixed with the water
that no filter could cure it. The effect of this was, that when
the plaintiff came to scour the yarn in the the water, instead
of coming out white, as it ought to do, it Caine out streaked.
As to the bleaching, the defendant had only carried it on since
1840; so there was no pretence to set up an older right than
the plaintiff's with respect to them. He (the learned counsel)
did not know what defence would be set up, but he rather
thought that his learned friends would rely on proving that
they were not the parties who did the injury, but that it was
a gentleman named Buckley, from whose works there was a
sough which emptied itself into the stream a little above the
defendant's works. In the first place, however, he (Mr.
Wortley) should prove that this sough was very seldom used ;
and, besides, that experiments had been tried with the water
in several places, and that it was found pure above the
sough, and below the sough, and next below the filters, where
it was found impregnated with the particles which the plain-
tiff complained of as doing her this injury. The learned
counsel said these were the principal facts which he should
prove. The question was not one of damages, but one of
right, and he
.felt assured that the jury would decide it in a
proper and just way.

A. great mass of evindnce from bleachers, dyers, and che-
mists, was then given in support of the plaintiff's case.
Mr. BAINEs then opened the case for the defendant, and
after occupying about an hour with his statement, he con-
chided by proposing a reference. _

Mr. WORTLEY acquiesced, and at half-past two o'clock
the cause was referred to a legnl arbitrator.

LOCK, ASSIGNEE, V. PARKER

In this case a verdict for the plaintiff was entered by con-
sent for £2,080 subject to a special case.

VALIDITY OF A WILL.-NOWLAND V. BANKS AND ANOTHER,

This was an action of replevin. Mr. Baines and Mr. Paget
appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton
for the defendant. According to the rule in such cases, the
right to commence lay in the defendant; and
Mr. KNowLEs proceeded to state the circumstances. The
question was, whether the plaintiff held certain premises as
the tenant of Sarah Banks. The premises were situated in
Joseph-court, Ray-street, and though there was some other
property involved in the case, they were composed only of a
very small dwelling-house, which had been for some time let
to the plaintiff, as a monthly tenant. She occupied them for
some time under the owner, James Green, who died in Ja-
nuary last, and devised them, by his will, dated 1829, to the
defendant, Mrs. Banks, with whom he had lived for several
years. The plaintiff, urged it was said by two persons,
named Norbury and Slowman, thought proper to deny the
title of Mrs. Banks; Mrs. Banks distrained, and the result
was that the present action was instituted, in order to try the
validity of the will.

A considerable number of witnesses were then called in
support of the will. It appeared to have been made in 1829
by Mr. Crewe, an attorney, since dead, and was witnessed
by the late Dr. Christian. Mr. Crewe's son, Mr. Thomas
Parkinson, clerk at St. Mark's Church, Mr. Thomas Cross,
innkeeper, Mr. Joseph Nodin, druggist, and several other
witnesses, deposed that they knew the testator, who lived
for several years with Mrs. Banks, and that they had fre-
quently heard him declare that he would bequeath all
his property to her. She had been so kind to him,
and leave none to his sisters as they had kidnapped
him, and endeavoured to keep him in their own hands
The witnesses stated that they had each conversed with
him many times. Being deformed and a cripple, he was
somewhat repulsive at first in his manners, but after-
wards, on bitter acquaintance, he could converse in a ra-
tional manner. He talked most frequently on religious sub-
jects. He was, at all events, competent to make a will.
Mr. BAINES, on the other side, in a powerful speech, said
that so far from the testator being competent to decide his
property, he should show by the most unquestionable tes-
timony directly the reverse. Mrs, Hannah Farren proved
his imbilcile state, _ _

Another witness, named Mary Waln, was called, when his
lordship inquired whether there was a prospect of the cause
occupying long ?
Mr, BAINES replied, that he had many more witnesses to
call, and the case would certainly occupy considerable time.
_ Mr, Justice MALTLE said, that under these circumstances
he would proceed no further to-night,
The Court adjourned at a quarter to six o'clock.