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

THE MANCHESTER COACH ROBBERY

o'clock

James Thelwell, James Skerrett, and William Mooby,
stood indicted for having, at Manchester, on the 18th of Fe-
bruary last, feloniously stolen fifteen hundred sovereigns and
one hundred £5 notes, the property of Messrs. James Cun-
liffe and others ; and James King and Bridget Jones were
indicted for having received the same, knowing them to be
stolen. _ _

Mr. Baines and Mr. Hulton appeared for the prosecution;
Mr. Wighain defended the prisoners Thelwell and Jones;
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Overend the prisoner Skerrett ; Mr.
Greene the prisoner Mooby ; and Dr. Brown the prisoner

King.
All the witnesses having been ordered out of court,
Mr. BAINES proceeded to state the case to the jury. He
said, after explaining the charge against the prisoners, that
it would he his duty in the present case to call before them a
very considerable number of witnesses, whose evidence would
run a good deal into detail, and that the best way in which
he could render assistance to the jury, would be to give them
an outline of the evidence, in order to render more easy their
task of following the witnesses. The prosecutors were Messrs.
Cunliffe, Brooks and Co., bankers of the first respectability
at Manchester and Blackburn, and who had been in the ha-
bit, for several years past, of sending parcels of cash and notes
from their establishment at. Manchester to their other esta-
blishment at Blackburn. Those parcels were usually sent on
Tuesday and Friday every week, and the conveyance selected
for this purpose was the coach called the Perseverance coach,
which left Manchester at half-past four o'clock in the after-
noon, starting at the Old Boar's Head coach-office, Hyde's-
cross. It would appear from the evidence, that on Friday,
the 18th of February, the cashier of Messrs. Cunliffe and Co.
made up a parcel, consisting of 1500 sovereigns and £5OO in
£5 notes ; that he enclosed it in a small leather box or port-
manteau, which was locked and fastened with a strap • and
that it was delivered to the porter of the bank to be taken to
the coach. The porter accordingly took it to the coach, and
placed it, as usual, in the front boot. This occurred about
four o'clock in the afternoon. Two of the prisoners, Sker-
rett and Thelwell, about the time that the porter had been
carrying the parcel, were seen coming towards the coach in
company, Skerrett having in his possession an old carpet bag,
of a drab colour, which was a good deal torn at one side.
Thelwell mounted the coach-box. Mooby was on the seat
immediately behind the coach-box ; and when Thelwell and
Mooby had been in this position, the porter of the bank came
and deposited the box or portmanteau in the boot. Immedi-
ately after, Skerrett, who had been approaching the coach
shortly before with the carpet bag, came to the coach, mounted
the fore-wheel, began putting the carpet bag in the fore boot;
and he was observed, by persons about, to have his head and
shoulders in the boot, " rooting about," as the witnesses ex-
pressed it, and this he was doing for some time. While he
was in this position,-the probability was that he had been
engaged in putting the box into the carpet bag.; at all
events, he certainly had the opportunity for so doing. He
was so long abqut this, that the persons who stood by had
their attention directed to the circumstance ; so much so,
that the individual who was holding the horses looked and
was about to approach him when he came down, and no
further observation was made. The coach started from
Manchester with thirteen persons, nine of whom were known
to the coachman, and the others were not so. When the
coach had reached within a mile of Bury, Mooby got down.
The coach then proceeded to Bury, and there the prisoner
Thelwell, who up to that time had been sitting on the box
seat, got down from the box and took out of the boot a
carpet-bag, which lied then theappearance of being extremely
heavy, so heavy that when the man swung it out he fell off
the wheel with it. He went into an public-house with the
bag, which was a light drab coloured one, corresponding in
appearance with the one which was very light and apparently
empty, and which had been put into the boot by Skerrett.
Some conversation then took place between Thelwell and
the landlady of the house and her daughter. The coach
went on to Blackburn, and when it reached there the clerk
of the bank was waiting for the parcel, but the coach was
searched and no such parcel was to be found. What had
been charged in the present case was this—that the three
prisoners, Skerrett, Thelwell, and Mooby, had taken part in
the stealing of the parcel, and before he (the learned counsel)
described the evidence as it affected each, he apprehended
it would be quite clear, in point of law, that the jury should
be satisfied that Skerrett, at Manchester, was removing the
parcel but an inch from the place where it was left by the
owner, or the agent of the owner, with a felonious intent,
that that constituted a stealing of the property by him. If
they should be further of opinion that Thelwell and Mooby
were joined with him at the time so to steal the property,
and near enough, by giving alarm or otherwise rendering
assistance, they would be equally guilty. If they believed
that Skerret had, at Manchester pat the box into the port-
manteau, he apprehended that that would constitute a com-
plete act of stealing by him and the others, although the
property was not actually removed from the coach until
Thelwell arrived at Bury. This being so, he would take
the evidence as it affected each. And, in the first place,
with respect to Skerrett. Skerrett was a person who some
years had been horsekeeper to the " Perseverance" coach.
He left the employment in the month of May previous to the
present transaction. He, therefore, had an opportunity of
knowing what the practice at the bank was, and the days on
which the parcels might be expected to go. It had already
been stated that he was seen with Thelwell going with a car-
pet bag towards the coach—that he was seen on the wheel of
the coach putting a carpet-bag, which had the appearance of
being light and empty, into the boot—that the bag had a
rept in the side, and that that opening would afford him an
opportunity for introducing the box. The jury had more-
over been told of the circumstances under which he was
standing on the wheel, and how he had had his head and
shoulders in the boot. After this, en the next day, Skerrett
who, up to this time, had been under the necessity of bor-
rowing money, had his stall better furnished than usual, and
seemed to be no longer in want of money. In consequence
of suspicion having been attached to him, the superintendent
of police went and took him into custody on the charge ; and
it would be material for the jury to attend to what passed on
that occasion. The superintendent asked him about the
carpet bag, and the statements he made about it were ex-
tremely contradictory in themselves. In the first place he
stated that the bag was for a gentleman he could not see ;
next, that it was for a gentleman on the box ; then, after-
wards, that it was for a gentleman sitting behind the box ;
and, finally, that it was for a stranger whom he had seen
about half-a-dozen times, but whom he did not know. He
also denied that his head and shoulders were ever near the
boot whereas it would be satisfactorily shown they were.
This would be the case as regarded Skerrett ; and now as re-
garded Thelwell. Thelwell and Mooby had for some time
been porters with a Mr. Thelwell brother of Thelwell the pri-
soner, who kept a silversmith's shop, at Manchester. The
jury had been informed that Thelwell had been coming along
with Skerrett—that the former took his seat on the box be-
fore the porter put the parcel in the boot—that he got down at
Bury and took the carpet bag out of the boot, and went with
it into a public-house, and that he had a material conversa-
tion with the landlady. This transaction occurred on Fri.
day, the 18th of February, and it would appear that on the
Monday after Thelwell and Mrs. Jones, who was living with
him, were in possession of very considerable sums of money,
and that on Thursday, the day before the robbery, they left
their lodgings, alleging that they were unable to pay the rent.
A person named Wild would be called as a 'witness, and he
would depose that he had been for some time in a society
called the Odd Fellows, with Thelwell, and that be had been
desired by Thelwell to pay his contribution for him, he being
unable to do so himself. On the Monday after the robbery
Wild was sent for by Thelwell, and was desired to meet the
latter at a public-house. He accordingly did so ; and the
jury would find that the four pounds which Thelwell owed
him was paid on that occasion, and that he had told Wild if
he would meet him next day, that be should not want for
£2O or £3O, or £4O, if he wanted it. A bargain was then
made by him for a horse, and the jury would find that Jones
was seen with her hands full of sovereigns, arid that she said
something important. On the day after this occurrence,
Thelwell was taken into custody by a police-officer. When
the police-officer came, he said to him, " I have come to
charge you with having had a hand in stealing a parcel from
the Old Boar's Head, in Hyde's-cross, in Manchester,"
upon which Thelwell remarked, " I have not been at Bury
for the last six months." The officer asked who had men-
tioned Bury ; some further conversation passed ; and this
was the case against Thelwell. With regard to Mooby, the
jury had already been informed that he was the brother por-
ter of Thelwell—that he was sitting in the coachbehind Thel-
well at the time it started, and that he bad got down about a
mile from Bury, so as to be able to join Thelwell very spee-
dily. They would further find that on Wednesday. 23d Feb-
ruary,' the two prisoners, Mooby and King—King being a
hawker in Leeds—came to a lodging kept by a person living
at Southend, near London. They seemed to be on terms of
intimacy with each other, remained in the house that day,
and had very considerable sums of money about them. Among
other lodgers in the house there was a person of the name of
Collins and his wife, who left the house suddenly on Thurs-
day morning. The landlord accordingly said to Mooby and
King the same morning, " I hope you haven't lost anything
by Collins." They said not. The same evening, however,
King said that Mooby had lost £l7O in bank notes, and he
added, I have been more fortunate: for I have £7OO in gold
here, and that I have kept safe." The jury would find that
both those parties had gone to tradesmen in Southend—that
Mooby passed two £5 notes, one to a tradesman from whom
he purchased a pair of boots, and the other to a trunkmaker
—that he changed those two £5 notes, although he had only
to pay a sum of 12s to the shoemaker from whom he made
the purchase in the first instance—that the shoemaker asked
him his name, and that he gave the name James Belmore—
that the shoemaker gave an invoice, and that that invoice
was subsequently found in the possession of King. Mooby
and King were afterwards taken into custody in London ;
they effected their escape ; they were taken into custody again :
they were then brought down to Manchester, and there all
the prisoners were committed for trial.
A great number of witnesses were examined, who proved
the facts stated in the opening, when Mr. Greene addressed
the jury on behalf of Mooby, and Mr. Wilkins for Skerrett.
The jury consulted for ten minutes, and then found all the
prisoners guilty.—His lordship said that they must return
King guilty or not guilty.—The jury then acquitted King.—
His lordship then sentenced the prisoners to seven years'
transportation.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY.
The \Vest Derby list was opened to-day.
WOOD AND OTHERS V. LLOYD AND ANOTHER

Mr. CROMPTON stated the case, which was undefended.
The plaintiffs are ironmongers in Liverpool, and the defen-
dants were, the one the traveller to the firm, and the other
the guarantee for his integrity. After he had quitted their
employment, the next traveller in Wales found that his
accounts were falsified, and the action was brought to recover
the defalcation. A verdict was then taken for £37 155.,
being the whole sum claimed, minus £B, which had been
made a present of to defendant, the younger Lloyd, on his
leaving plaintiff's service without notice.

!ADDLE AND WIFE V. NIXON.

After an ineffectual attempt to Obtain a postponement of
.his case, Mr. Wortley withdrew the record.

TODD V. BOCIIERBY.
Mr. WATSON opened the pleadings. The defendants,
Bocherby, Alison, and Brown, are workers of the Hunwich
Colliery, in the county of Durham. Alison and Brown bad
suffered judgment to go by default, but the defendant pleaded
he was not liable. The action was on a bill of exchange for
£.127, accepted by Alison, and for goods sold and delivered.
All that would be necessary was to prove the partnership.
Verdict for the plaintiff, £132, being the full amount claimed,
with interest.

THE SAME V. THE SAME.
The verdict was taken in another similar action for £360,
and £9 interest.
DAVIES AND OTHERS, ASSIGNEES V. BAKER.
Mr. HOGGINS appeared for the plaintiff in this case,
which was undefended. The defendant is a publican in War.
rington, and the plaintiffs are assignees of a brewer named
Robinson: The account was £69, on which there had been
payments received. Verdict for the plaintiff for the balance,
£33. It being stated that an assignment had been made to
defeat creditors, immediate execution was granted.

ORRELLy. FENHEAD

Mr. C ROM PTON stated the case, which was undefended.
Mr. Orrell who resides near St. Helens, had lent the defen-
dant £240 in cash, for which security was promised, but
never given. Some payments had been made, but the ba-
lance, with interest, was £223, for which a verdict was
taken.

BROWN V. BRADFORD.
Mr. WATSON opened the case. It was an action for debt,
for the proceeds of a policy of insurance, and the defendant
pleaded that he was not Indebted ; be also pleaded a set of
for work and labour done, and also pleaded a special lien or
all which issue WAS taken.

DUKDAS said that he appeared as counsel for the
plaintiff, Mr. Robert Brown, a merchant at Brigus, is NeW.
foundland. The defendant was an insurance broker in Lon-
don, and the question for the jury was, whether he, as an in.
surane broker, having effected an insurance on avessel for
the Liverpool agent of the owner, was entitled to retain the
policy as a general lien for a balance due to him by the agent.
He says that he knew no party in the matter but the agent,
but he would show that defendant knew very well that it was
not for the house in Liverpool that he was insuring the ship,.
but for the house in Brigus, in Newfoundland. In 1838
there was a mercantile house in Liverpool doing business
under the firm of Ferris, Butler and Co., of whom Mr. Fer-
ris was a resident at Bristol, two Messrs. Butlers were resi-
dent in Liverpool, and the fourth partner, Mr. Bulley, was
resident in Newfoundland. At the same time there was a
house in St. John's, Newfoundland, styled Bul!ev, Butler
and Co., consisting of the same partners precisely. In New-
foundland, in the town of Brigus, there was also a third
firm, styled Robert Brown and Co., consisting of the same
partners, with the addition of Mr. Brown, the present plain-
tiff, who resided out there. In March, 1838, the house at
Brigus became part owners of a vessel called the Mary Anne,
the firm being registered owners of one-half the vessel, and
Mr. Hobert Brown of the other half. The house in Liver-
pool, being agents for the house in Brigus, effected an insu-
rance on this ship, through the defendant, a broker in Lon-
don. The letter written to him on March 23, 1839, stated what
be must have known, that the insurance was not effected on
their own account, but as agents for the house at Brigus, and
that Ferris, Butler and Co. in Liverpool, were doing business
as agents for Robert Brown and Co., at Brigus. If he knew
that, then he had no right to retain the policy as a lien. The
firm under which defendant did business, Messrs. Robert
Bradford and Co., was a most respectable one—he had no in-
structions to say anything against it ; this was simply a ques-
tion of law. They insured £741 on the vessel, £1,240 on
her cargo of fish, and £460 on her freight to Oporto, and
this action was brought by the plaintiff for one half of what
was recovered on the body of the vessel of which he was one-
half owner. The letter to the defendant stated " Remember,
this is a vessel purchased by us last fall for our house at
Brigus." It proceeded to enter into particulars as to the
quality of the ship. On March 27, 1839, the defendant writes
a letter to the Liverpool house. According to the practice
of insurance brokers, he retains the policy and sends a copy
to his principals, with a debit note. The letter stated that
the policy had been effected, and he debited Ferris, Butler,
and Co., for Robert Brown and Co., with £ll2 15s. 6d., the
premium and commission. This vessel subsequently became
liable to a general average loss to the extent of iohl, which
the broker would receive on the vessel as well as on her
freight and cargo, but the plaintiff was only suing for his
moiety of what was due to the body of the vessel which was
calculated and admitted to amount to £ll6 3s. sd. In the
course of the year 1810, the house in Liverpool became em-
barrassed and subsequently bankrupt. And about that time
a gentleman named Turner, residing at Truro, being involved
in the partnership's concerns, wrote to defendant, inquiring
about policies, and seeking to. obtain possession of them to
indemnify himself. Defendant's answer to EdwardTurnej,
• Esq., M. stated the nature of the insurance, in which poli-
cies it did not appear that a claim could be established for
more than he had already obtained, and went on to recount
the expenses which had reduced to so low a sum the recovery
on a general average loss. Mr. Brown also heard what had
happened, and felt anxious to know what had been received
under the policies. To him the defendant wrote sufficient to
show the receipt of the £561, and also that he knew it was
received on account of the Brigus house. It was addressed
to Mr. Robert Brown, which showed that he knew Mr.
Brown was a partner in the Brigus house. He told Mr.
Brown that he had put the £561 to the account of the Liver-
pool house. In his last letter to Mr. Turner, he said not one-
syllable about anything due to himself; but, subsequently,
he claimed a lien upon the insurance, and its proceeds for
the balance due to him by Ferris, Butler, and Co., refusing
to give Brown anything. The question, therefore, was, whe-
ther at the time of the insurance being effected he was aware
of the existence of the Brigus house, and that Mr. Brown
was partner, in which case he could not retain the policy on
a general lien for a balance due from the agents.

The ship's register was then admitted, showing Brown to
be half owner of the vessel. The letters were also put in
and read.

Mr. James Henry Butler proved the nature of the partner-
ship in Liverpool, and its failure, and also the other partner-
ship as stated by counsel. Defendant personally knew the
partners in the Liverpool house:
By Mr. IiNOWL'ES.—In the Brigus firm Robert Brown had
one half of the house, and the other partners had half—in
the same proportion in the ship and in the firm. The Mary
Anne belonged to the firm at Brigus.
Mr. DUNDAS—That will appear in the register.
There were several other vessels held the same way—the
Jane, Comet, and lanthe. Defendant insured those vessels
also. In 1840 the Liverpool house was considerably in-
debted to defendant, to more than the money received on the
insurance of this ship and cargo. I am not aware that we
were indebted in insurances on the Jane, Comet, and lanthe.
I cannot tell without consulting the books. I have an im-
pression that Mr. Turner is the party proceeding in this
action. Ido not know whether Mr. Brown has anything to
do with it. The Mary Anne was partnership property—pur-
chased with partnership funds, and treated as partnership
property up to the date of the failure. I am not •ware of
any settlement of accounts between the Liverpool and Brigus
houses since the failure. The Brigus house was largely in-
debted to the house here.
Mr. KNOWLES.—Don't you know that the house of Brigus
has been credited with this insurance?

Mr. DUNDAS objected to the question
Mr. KNOWLES appeared for the defendant, and addressed
the court on the point of law. The ground of his defence, he
believed, must have been obvious. It was quite clear that
Mr. R. Brown was jointly interested with other parties in
the ship, which was treated as partnership property. 11 is
objection was, that Brown could not sue alone. On no other
principle could he sue but as a partner, and in partnership all
the partners must sue, except for something which one has
done alone. The plaintiff would probably say that the inte-
rest was not a partnership but•a part-ownership. The learned
gentleman referred to the case of Drake a. Douglas, in a note
to the case Seward a. Welsh. His opponents might rely on
it to prove that one owner might sue separately for his share
in any interest in a vessel. But if ever that was law, it was
not law now. It had lost the support of Mr. Baron Parke,
who had expressly s ated that he did not concur in it. In the
case of Halsall ts •Griffiths, where the plaintiff was part
owner,—to allow, for argument sake, that the plaintiff in
this case was part owner,—the plaintiff bringing his action on
his third share, Baron Burney nonsuited the plaintiff. And
on motion, Sir J. Parke ruled in favour of the nonsuit, on
the gronud that all such actions_should be joint, and that a
broker should have his remedy, not against one owner, but
all. Lord Teuterden concurred. But this was a still weaker
case than that. The parties here were not part owners hut
partners ; and the parnership being established, all the inci-
dents of the partnership must attach. This plaintiff must be
nonsuited, as Brown alone cannot sue.
Mr. TOMLINSON followed on the same side. Brown, the
plaintiff, as partner, was more indebted to defendant, than he
claimed from defendant as part owner ; so that there was no
equity in this action. The instructions from Messrs. Ferris,
Butler, and Co. described the insurance " for us," and said,
" remember it is purchased by us for our house." It was
doubtful to bins that any one could maintain an action but
Ferris, Butler, and Co.
The COURT suggested a nonsuit subject to a motion.
Mr. KNOWLES wished to take the opinion of the jury on
the question of fact, whether defendant had sufficient notice
of the ownership of the vessel.
Mr. DUNDAS contended that " to ass" only meant to our
order, and that " our house at Brigus" pointed out for whom
the insurance was, and that the defendant knew that the two
houses were different. The learned gentleman then pro-
ceeded to contend that the parties had distinct, not joint,
interests, the plaintiff having one-half the whole interest in
the vessel, and entitled to recover separately.
Mr. WATSON followed on the same side. The insurance
follows the interest. It is not a joint insurance by the whole,
the parties not being entitled to the whole to divide among
them, but to the insurance, with reference to the interest, as
was well known to brokers. At law and equity there was no
title to the ship, or anything arising out of her, beyond the
register.
The COURT suggested a non-suit, but Mr. DUNDAS re-
fused to accept it, and Mr. KNOWLES proceeded to address
the jury on the third issue, and called on them to relieve the
defendant from a vexatious action brought by a Mr. Turner,
of whom nobody knew anything.
Mr. DUNDAS.—IIe is member of parliament for Truro.
Mr. KNOWLES did not think a hit the better of him for
being member of parliament for Truro or any of the adjacent
boroughs. The learned gentleman then proceeded to con-
tend that he was entitled to their verdict—which would set
the whole question at rest—to the effect that defendant had
no reason to think that Messrs. Ferris and Co. were acting
any otherwise than as principals.
The COURT charged the jury. It was his lordship's opinion,
on the point of law, that it was a joint insurance of the
whole five ; and that not Brown alone, but to and all the
other partners should have sued. On the first issue, there-
fore, they must give their verdict for the defendant; on the
second, the set off, on which no evidence was given, and
which was only material as regarded costs, they must find for
the plaintiff; on the third issue they must sax whether, on
the evidence, the defendant did or did not know whether the
plaintiff was a party interested.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant on the first and
last issues, which terminates the action.
MOUNTFIELD v. MOLYNEUX.
An action on a promissory note. Undefended. Verdict
for £212 ss. Od.
NICKELS V. MASON AND ARNISON AND ANOTHER.
This was an action for work and labour done. The plain-
tiff was Mr. Joseph Nickels, a sailmaker in this town, and
the defendants were Messrs. Mason and Arnison.
Mr. i/LNDAS, with whom was Mr. Martin, appeared for
the plaintiff, and stated that the plaintiff had supplied new
and repaired old sails for the ship Abbotsford. There was
no dispute as to the bill, which amounted to £56 16s 7d ;
but the defendants' reply was, that they were not on the
ship's register at the time the work was done. The question
was, whether they were really and actually owners ; and if
so, they were liable. The only person, they asserted, who
was in the register, was Mr. Jonathan Laidman, and this
was true ; but the defendants were beneficially interested.
Mr. Laidman had since become bankrupt.
Witnesses were called, who proved the work done to the
Abbotsford.
James Nickels, son and clerk to the plaintiff, in his cross-
examination by Mr. BAIN Es, admitted that the only person
they knew when the work was done was Mr. Laidman. The
work was done before November 7, 1839. The bill of sale
which transferred the property of the vessel from Laidman
to the defendants was not produced to the Collector of the
Customs of Liverpool until November 18, 1839.
Mr. Jonathan Laidman stated that he was managing
owner of the Abbotsford; she was bought in 1835 by Mr.
Bousfield and himself, and paid for by them and other par-
ties, Dixon, R. Laidman, Arnison, and Mason. Mason and
Arnison, for a sixteenth each, paid £338; and afterwards a
further sum of £96 7s 10d each. Her first voyage was to
New Orleans, and the first voyage was a losing one. The
next was a beneficial one, and £1,200 was distributed in the
proportion of £75 the sixteenth. The same in subsequent
voyages, up to March, 1838. [A book was put in, with an
agreement to divide £lOO on each sixteenth of the Abbots..
ford, signed by the owners, including the defendants.] In
March, 1840, the freight was distributed in the same propor-
tion. This was for a voyage ending in September, 1839. The
account for the next freight was never made up, as I became
a bankrupt.
A letter was read from Mr. Arnison, dated December,
1839, to plaintiff, acknowledging the receipt of the bill, and
stating that the owners would take the affairs of the ship into
consideration, and in the mean time referring the plaintiff to
Messrs. Lowndes and Robinson.
By Mr. BAINES.—Mr. Arnison is a draper at Penrith, and
Mr. Mason is a bleacher at Eamont Bridge, in estmore-
land. Neither of them ever took any share in the manage-
ment of the vessel. No one appeared but myself. It was
the same with the Inglewood and some other vessels I was
manager of. I became bankrupt in November, 1840. In
November, 1839, I owed the vessel about £BOO. I now owe
her £4220. Nickel's credit was six months ; but he some-
times gave me twelve or fifteen months' credit. Had had
general accounts sent in to him for that and other vessels,
but could not find them. Had searched for them with Mr.
Banner, accountant to the assignee.
Mr. Dos nits contended that secondary evidence could not
be taken of the contents of such documents, until better
proof was shown that they could not be found.
The COURT ruled that the papers of the
ealbankruptie
d being
in custody of the assignee, the assignee meither eg
iD
to produce those documents or prove they, eooltcld notcoubled
notfoundb
and that, failing' such proof, parole ond ene b
e
taken of their contents.
The next document produced was a bill bad of the ship,
dated Nov: 18, 1839, which witnego swore been executed

only two or three dayp befOre that date, in his brother's
office. The freight due in September, 1839, was accounted
for in August, 1840.
Mr. BAINE6, for the defendant, contended that the only
question was, whether the articles were supplied on the credit
of the defendants or of Laidman. The defendants were
never held out as owners to the present plaintiffs. TO make
them responsible, they must be proved to be legally owners ;
to make them this there must he a conveyance. It was
specially enacted that no bill of sale passed the property of
a ship, until produced to the collector or controller of the
port where registered. No such production took place until
November 18, after this work was done. The bill of sale
bore date in 1828, but it was not executed until 1839, and up
to that time the title of defendants was inchoate; and it was
in Laidman and Bousfield, who originally purchased the
vessel, or rather in Laidman, who was sole registered owner.
Here neither were the defendants legal owners of the vessel,
nor was their credit held out to the plaintiffs, so that there
was no proof of their liability.
Mr. CrtorkirroN followed on the same side. There was
here no personal credit—defendants were not legal owners ;
and he cited a case to show that agreements under inchoate
interests to divide profits or convey shares had not any ha-
bility, so long as they were incomplete,
Mr. DUNDAS contended that this was a case for the jury.
What was done was on the credit of the ship's owners, and
the bills were made out to them. There was no pretence for
saying that they were supplied on the credit of the ship's
husband, whether called Jonathan Laidman or Jonathan
Laidman and Co. The defendants had the beneficial inte-
rest. They were the real and substantial owners for whom
the work was done, and who got the benefit of it.
The COURT asked if Mr. Dundas would be content with
liberty to move?
Mr. Dundas refused.

Mr. MARTIN followed on the same side. Laidman first
acted as owner, then as ship's husband, and the credit was
given to the owners of the ship—to those benetitted by the
contract. The object of the registry was not to give, but to
distinguish British property ; and was it to be tolerated that
those who violated the law should take the advantage of the
violatio❑ to avoid the responsibility for repairs made to the
vessel ?

They ave not

The COURT.—There is no law violated
compelled to register the transfer.
Mr. MARTIN continued.—But if they omitted what the
law enabled them to do, they could not take advantage of
their own omission. The case rested entirely on whose cre-
dit the contract was made ; and the learned gentleman went
on to contend that the cases cited went to prove that, prima
facie, the parties liable were those who were beneficially in-
terested, who in this case, were certainly those who paid their
money for the ship, and were dividing the profits year after
year—and to cite others to show that the legal owners must
be held to be, not those whose names are in the register, but
who have the beneficial interest in the property.
Mr. BAINES was about to continue the argument, when
The COURT suggested that it was useless, as they must go
to the jury on the question whether the goods were supplied
to the credit of the owners or of Laidman.
Mr. BAINES then addressed the jury, and contended that
Laidman was the only owner the plaintiff knew, it would
be a monstrous thing to make the defendants liable. Laid-
man, it appeared, owed the vessel 21000, and from their ne-
glecting the registry they could recover nothing ; so that they
would be compelled to pay for what they could not receive.
Besides, the plaintiff had no business to give Laidman these
long credits ; to let him set deeper into insolvency ; and then
send in the bills to the owners too late for the owners to learn
the true state of the affairs of the ship to any good purpose.
The COURT charged the jury. It was always a question
when a party came into court with a fair claim, whether he,
was claiming from the party who ought to pay him. The law
said there should be no interest in a ship unless the name
was upon the register. The true test was—on whose credit
were the goods supplied ? The first question was, had Laid-
man any authirity from the defendants to purchase those
sails ? The evidence went strongly to show that he had ; for,
though not owners, they were receiving profits, and employ-
ing him as ship's husband to manage the ship, and to do what
was necessary for the management. if they thought so, they
must find for the plaintiffs. There was another feature in the
case, that Laidman managed other ships, and their bills were
sent in together, made out to the owners. The question was,
whether this was not an inartificial way of saying that they
furnished them to Laidman on the credit of the ship.
The jury found for the defendants.

FLETCHER, PUBLIC OFFICER, V. CROSBIE AND OTHERS

Mr. CROMPTON opened the proceedings, which were ex-
tremely complicated, almost every defendant having a differ-
ent set of pleas.
Mr. KNOWLES expressed his fears that the case would be
an extremely long one, there being fifty-three defendants, of
whom twenty-three pleaded. The plaintiffs were the Phoenix
Bank, which originated in the failure of the Northern and
Central Bank, of which the Liverpool branch was found to be
profitable, and was continued under the name of the Plicenix
Bank. The defendants were styled the " British Lead,
Silver, and Copper Mining Company."
Mr. Baines appeared for Mr. James Cooper, of the Isle of
Wight, and six other defendants.
Mr. Wortley appeared fo:• 'rhos. Wilson, Thos. Brancker
the younger, and several others.
Mr. Seager appeared for two of the defendants.
Mr. Roebuck appeared for one of the defendants.
Mr. Watson appeared for the first defendant in the record,
Mr. Crosbie, who had suffered judgment to go by default,
and who, by statute, was at liberty to cut down the demand
for costs, and to fix the other defendants.
For two of the defendants no counsel appeared.
Mr. Crompton, for the plaintiffs, put in the register of the
Phoenix Bank, and of its public officer, John Fletcher.
Mr. Robert Sheraton, secretary of the British Silver,
Lead, and Copper Mining Company, was examined.
His cross-examination lasted three hours and a half, after
which the court adjourned, one or two of the learned gen-
tlemen declaring that they were " all at sea" in the compli-
cation of dates, parties, and documents, of which no report
can give any idea.

CROWN COURT.-SATURDAY

MURDER

Thomas Hetherington was arraigned for the wilful mur-
der of Peter Jackson, at Manchester, by striking him down
and kicking him. He pleaded not guilty.
Dr. BROWN proceeded to open the case, when his LORD-
slur inquired whether the prisoner had counsel. Dr. B.
said he had not, and that he believed the case would turn on
the question whether the prisoner were sane at the time of
the assault.
His LORDSHIP appointed counsel for the prisoner, and
postponed the case, so that he (the counsel) might have time
to look into the depositions.

MANSLAUGHTER CASES,

William Shaw, aged 27, was charged with having, at Ash-
ton-under-Lyne, killed and slain a child, named Martha Og-
den. The prisoner was a carter, and, while his cart, which
was loaded with clover, was passing along the street, one of
the wheels knocked the deceased down, and she was so much
injured that, after sobbing once, she expired. The deceased
was a year and nine months old, and was.the daughter of
Mr. William Ogden, a butcher. She had been in company
with her sister, who was four years of age, and who had left
her and gone across the street. The prisoner had been talk-
ing to another man, and the cart went on a little way, he
moving towards it backward while he talked. He ran after
it, and immediately after a scream of some women was heard,
just as the cart was turning a corner of the street. The wheel,
however, passed over the deceased, who got into the way, be-
fore he reached the horse's head. The prisoner, on being
apprehended, explained to the bead constable, Mr. Newton,
the whole of the circumstances as they appeared in evidence,
and expressed great sorrow for the unfortunate catastrophe.
The prisoner had borne a good character for carefulness and
humanity.
He was ably defended by Mr. Brandt.
The jury, after sitting some time, were allowed to retire,
as they could not come to a decision.
John Davies,23, stood indicted with having, at Manches-
ter, killed and slain Joseph Lawson.
Mr. Chapman conducted the prosecution.
Patrick Starkie said he lodged at the time at Dooley's
house, Cornwallis-street. 'Witness, on the 21st Nov., went
to bed, and Lawson was also in the room. Davies came up
into the room in a quarrelsome temper, and he challenged
the deceased, and they had a struggle together. The land-
lord came up and separated them. The prisoner, however.
attacked the deceased again, and in the struggle the deceased
fell upon a peculiar kind of candlestick, used by shoemakers,
on which the socket for the candle moved up and down to
any required height, on an iron rod, about two feet long, and
fixed in a stand formed of a block of wood. The point of the
rod stood perpendicular, and the deceased's head, when he
fell, struck the point of it, and it entered his temple, and pe-
netrated the brain. The deceased died soon afterwards Irons
this injury. The prisoner was drunk at the time, and was
the friend of the deceased.

The jury immediately returned a verdict of guilty, with a
recommendation to mercy.
The learned JUDGE said that the prisoner did not, cer-
tainly, intend to take away the life of the deceased, but was
culpable, inasmuch as he had got drunk. Considering that
he had been in custody since the 23d November, be should
only remand him to gaol for one week, at the end of which
he should be discharged.

MURDER.
John Taylor, a respectable looking young man, was charg-
ed with the wilful murder, at Warrington, of James Taylor,
(his own brother,) by stabbing him with a knife.
Mr. WILKINS stated the case to the jury, and with him
was Mr. Monk.
Jane Taylor, widow of the deceased, said, on the 17th of
February she went to an inn in Warrington, called the Lower
Angel, to look for her husband, and he said he would go with
her at eight o'clock to receive some money. I went back at
eight o'clock to the Lower Angel, and we went together with
Mr. Carter and his wife, the deceased, and another, to the
White Hart. We all went from there to the Bear's Paw. We
had a glass of ale a piece. No words took place there. I do
not think the prisoner had any drink before that. They staid
about an hour and then went to the Lower Angel, where
they had two glasses of ale each. My husband and John
Taylor had some words about the cutting shop. My husband
was a fustian cutter, and the prisoner is a printer. My hus-
band was very tipsy. The prisoner was not drunk. All the
party left the Lower Angel at the same time. John Taylor,
(the prisoner) had hold of one of his arms and I held the
other to assist the deceased, he was so tipsy. Carter and his
wife then left us. Near the Infant School my husband said
to prisoner, " Jack, I'll tell you what, I'll take another shop
to-morrow. I'll neither be bothered with thee nor thy set
any longer." The prisoner said, ." Thou may go to hell and
take another shop. I couil have set the shop and the premi-
sesn. six months ago for £2O a-year." They were quarrenninj
till they got nearly home, and were going to tight.
say which begun ; they were both standing before
and squaring. They were not stripped. I pulled miyi._, saw
away. I had not then seen either of them strike., then
with his open
ealbhocasobtahnedr
prisoner strike deceased on the side of his face,first blow I
hand or fist, I can't say which. That
saw. My husband went on a little furthe7sl
ht strike him, but
husband strike the prisoner at all. He n'ig was a gas-lamp
did not see tny
I did not see him. It was dark, but there
little further he
not far off. When my husbandh weepsenit aynaife?" He spoke
stopped. John then said,
d his knife out
this up. He then either un"b‘uVtt-oenred hi.s coat or lifted it up.
knife wad
He then put his band in his when the .
He had
and opened it. Deceasedaid
he
would rip him open.
pulled out. Prisoner s salid"nkoetthianngd "lie
. .. here'sW my kidi,fe,.,h"
said so once before when he said,
he held uphis han y,lt
his knife, before
to take
When he said so the secoo_nhclimumnoei
13.etw.een the prisoner and
the knife begged f
in that position, pri-
he pulled it out.
le I was stan
the deceased.
'W
hi Tral times, but the blows did not reach
_1 was standingdmg
soner struck at himsod,
.' What are you going to do?"
him. My besirr,',, kill you, by God." I then got from be-
Prisoner said,
Ina‘ minute or tw,o, after my husband said,
tween them•
mmeyin the belly. They then both fell on
husband to go away when he was get-
" He has stabbeclad'
the floor. I .
km et out and afterwards when he took it out. I
Francis Stockton came up with a light, but
ling the
screamed out.
went out. Another candle was brought. My husband
said,lay stretched in my bed, " I am dying," and I
as he
then saw him spit blood. He was carried into. his father's
house. Prisoner went in and expressed great sorrow, and
his thumb was cut, as if the knife had closed upon it. I
fetched a surgeon. A police-officer was sent for, and pri-
soner remained till he came. Constable Fain came, and I
went with him to the spot where my husband said he was
stabbed, and saw the knife, and the officer picked it up. It
was closed, and there was blood on the blade. It was found
less than a yard from where my husband stood when he was
stabbed. My husband died on the 14th February. no
could not stir himself after the wound.
Cross-examined by Mr. BIIANDT.-1 have been married
three years last July. 1 did not live with him, as we had no
means of furnishing a house. My husband used to drink,
and was quarelt/omo when drunk. He was about six feet

140, and slender. lie was older than the Weimar. who ti
2/. I had a glass of ale at the White Hart. My husband
quarelled with some men at the Bear's Paw that night, and
wanted to tight. I had a gill of porter there. I had tea be-
tween six and seven, We were about an hour at the Bear's
Paw. We then went to the Lower Angel, and I bad two
gills of porter there. We were about two hours there. Wm.
Carter and Frances Stockton are here. I never said that if
the prisoner had paid to me what he (prisoner) was paying to
a counsel or attorney for his defence, and had given me up
the working frames, I would not have appeared against him.
I did not say to Frances Stockton I would say all she had to
say. They (the prisoner's friends) were persuading Frances
Stockton not to tell what she had seen. I said I could bring
witnesses to state what she had said. The prisoner cried out
in a loud tone, "Where's my knife?" and told him to go.
but be stood still. The prisoner and my husband were both
on the ground. but I did not see them fall. They were stand-
ing close together a minute or two before, but I did not notice
what they were doing just then. I don't remember seeing
blood on the prisoner's cheek, but it might be so. The pri-
soner, when he went into the house, put his hand round the
deceased's neck, and said he was very sorry. I never said
that I was uneasy at what I said before the coroner. I said
I was vexed at the prisoner's mother. That was for her
treatment of me and my mother.
Mr. Hunt, surgeon.—l was called, on the Bth February,to
see the deceased. I found inflammation of the bowels, also a
wound, of small extent, through which part of the bowels
had protruded. The instrument had not wounded the bowels.
I continued to attend him till his death on the following
Monday. The deceased had had a rupture; and, if he bad
not had a rupture, I do not think the wound would have been
mortal. He was also in bad health, approaching to delirium
tremens. The wound produced inflammation, and that
death.

By the COURT
duced death.

1 have no doubt that the wound pro-

Joseph Paine, police-officer, went to deceased's father's
house that night, and saw the prisoner sitting near the bed.
The deceased said, "I am stabbed." I asked him who did
it; and he said, his brother John. The prisoner stood up
and kissed him, and said he loved him dearly, and did not
intend him any harm. Prisoner 'described the knife, as a
buckthorn knife with two blades, and described the place
where it would be likely to be found. When I took him into
custody, be said to witness, " Come up in the morning and
let me know how my brother is, for if he dies I wish I may
die too."
This closed the case for the prosecution.

Mr. BRANDT addressed the jury for the prisoner, and se-
veral persons gave him an excellent character. The jury
found him guilty of manslaughter, and his Lordship de-
ferred the sentence.

MANSLA GIITF:R

James Dean, aged 32, who had been out on bail, was charg-
ed with the manslaughter, at Manchester, of James Ward,
a child of -14 years of age, on the 23d August. This was
another case of death caused Ky a cart passing over the de-
ceased. The deceased had left the footpath and gone to-
wards the middle of the street, Hanover-street. The prison-
er's cart, loaded with sand, was passing, and deceased was
knocked down by one of the horses, which made a rush for-
ward, and one of the wheels passed over his head, the prison-
er being then a very short way from the cart. The prisoner
admitted to the police-officer, that he saw the child before it
left the footpath, and ran up towards the horse's head. Hs
expressed great sorrow, said that he could not help it, and
that such a thing had never happened to him before. The
prisoner had always borne a good character for steadiness
and attention in arising his cart. The question was whether
he had shown gross negligence.
The Jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty, and the prison-
er was discharged.

MAN SLAUGHTER

The Jury that had been locked up to consider their verdict
in the case of William Shaw, a carter, whose cart had run
over a child, named Ward, were here called back into the
Jury-box, and, not having yet agreed, his Lordship said he
should discharge them from giving a verdiet. The case, he
added, was one on which he should not have passed any great
punishment. The prisoner will, therefore, we presume, be
discharged.