The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-08 00:00:00

--.M1.-

CROWN COURT.—WEDNEsDAy.
(Before Mr. Baron PAuxE.)
shootingH Hardman,
nan
with
convictedpt eh n i
intent
tge no ft thetoo
nkSciEltelhlcu,
eTtr
otEr
previous
avEni
JUDGESENTENCES.
On the
transportation
r t dayt seio sentenced
fe
forn
burglary
el df
e.
A lalne
Allend
and Kennier, convicted of poaching, were sentenced to ten
months imprisonment and hard labour.
THE ASHTON ELECTION RIOTS.
John Onsey and Henry Mason were indicted for a riot at
Ashton, on the 30th of June and Ist of July last.
Dr. Brown and Dr. Brandt was for the prosecution. Mr.
Sergeant Murphy and Mr. Green for the defence.
Dr. BROWN stated that the prosecution arose .out of some
riots which occurred at the late election. An armed mob
assembled in the market-place on the day of nomination, and
s taken one
int ofo theucs
-
made an attack upon the police, some of whom were so seri-
ously injured that their lives were for some time in danger.
The military
ed to be Navigators,
apNpveearreaftcrwardscalledowuat ,and
,t.rai
hod
et
ye
:drsebf whout subsequently released through fear of the mob.
The defendant Ousey was observed to be very active in the
crowd, and apyarently acted as leader. On the day of poll-
ing the riot was renewed, Ousey s party having been de-
feated. The police-office was then forced open. Ouse would
be shown to have treated the parties engaged in the riot, and
directed their operations, but the evidence was net so strong
against Mason as against him, though he would be proved to
nave been there and to have taken an active part in the
affray.
Abraham Driver, Superintcndant of County Police—Went
to the
of fiftyemarke men. round market-place at Ashton,
a great ton, on the n
uttb 30th of
ofl une,witha
force navigators
there, armed with bludgeons. They were not voters, and did
they attacked his men, who resisted,
not belong to the town. He remonwsterranteidniuwrietdh,
athnedmat,
lastbut
driven off the ground' and compelled to take refuge in the
Police-office. The mob threatened to murder them, and
broke the windows and doors. The military having been
called out, one of the rioters was taken into custody, and
subsequently released through fear of the mob.
A number of witnesses were then examined, who gave full
particulars of the riots and identified the prisoners as con-
cerned in them, though the evidence was very contradictory.
Mr. GREEN addressed the jury for the defence, and im-

putect perjury to several Or the witnesses for the prosecution.
He called several witnesses who disproved several state-
ments given in evhlence against the prisoners.
The learned J un GE said, the question for the jury to con-
sider was, whether the defendants or either of them was guilty
of aiding and inciting the riot, or of being present at its com-
mission. The cafe againit Mason bad been abandoned,
from the contradictory nature of the evidence as to his hav-
ing taken part in the riot, and the balance of evidence on
that point was in favour alio of Ousey, it believed the jury ;
but in fact the counsel for the prosecution had so little reli-
ance upon it for the support of this part of the charge that
they had laid but little stress upon it. He certainly had also
used very great ex.ertion to remoie.the men from the town
on the day of polling, but if the jury should be of opinion
that he was a party to induce them to enter the town on the
day of nomination, with a view to the destruction of the po-
lice-office, the Town-hall, oa Taylor's house, and not merely
to secure fair play at the election, or to make a show at the
.

nomination, he night be convicted. His lordshp went care-
fully through the evidence, summing up strongly in favour of
the defendants.

The jury, after a few minutes consultation, acquitted the

defend;nt;

The JUDGE remarked that the conduct of some of the wit-
nesses had been most scandalous.

In another case of the same description, the Queen v. Mel-
lor, the prosecution wss abandoned.

ALLEGED

Giles Bradley and Jehn Smith, late of Winwick, two re-
spectable-looking men, were indicted for stealing a number of
railway chairs, and a quantity of other iron, stone, blocks,
and wood-sleepers, the property of the North Union Railway
Company.
Mr. Brandt and Mr. Cardwell were for the prosecution;
and Mr. Sergeant Murphy and Mr. James for the prisoners.
The case was only interesting to the parties concerned.
Smith bad, been a contractor to the company, and Bradley
was his servant. The charge arose out of the appropriation
by the former of some chairs and other materials to which
he had no claim, but which the company contended was their
property. The prisoners who had been out on bail, were ac-
quitted, and Bradley was tried on a second indictment.
Mr. MURPHY, who was for the defence, considered it un-
necessary to address the jury, as he thought they must be
convinced from the nature of the evidence which had been
produced on the part of the prosecution, that there was no
case against the prisoner.
He was accordingly diScharged.
The court rose at half-past six.

NISI PRIUS.—WEDNESDAY.
(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.)
'BUCKLEY AND ANOTHER V. LACY.
This was an action brought by Thomas Buckley and Tho-
mas Jones against Henry Charles Lacy, for the recovery of
the amount of goods sold and delivered, and for work and
labour done, and an account stated.. The defendant pleaded
that he was not indebted beyond the sum of £l6 17s. Gd., and
he also pleaded a set-off.
The Hon. Mr. Wortley and Mr. Cowling appeared for the
plaintiffs, and Mr. Martin for the defendant.
The Hon. Mr. WORTLEY stated the case. He said the
plaintiffs were the trustees of a gentleman, who carried on
the business of an iron-founder, at Eccleston, near St. He-
len's, and the action was brought to recover the value of cer-
tain materials and work done by them for a plate-glass corn.
pany, of which the defendant was one of the directors.
Originally the action bad been brought to recover the whole
of the amount of various articles furnished, 'but the dispute
on the present occasion would be confined to one item—
namely, whether a certain roller, which had been made by
the plaintiffs for the company, was made according to order,
delivered and accepted, and whether, if not made according
to order, the parties were liable. It was well known that
until lately the manufacture of plate-glass had been con-
fined to one company in this country—that it was made a se-
cret of—that it was only of late years other companies had
risen up, and, accordingly, that few of those establishments
would be acquainted with the mode in which plate-glass was
manufactured. It appeared that in the year 1840, the present
company were anxious to manufacture a particular kind of
glass, a sort of ribbed glass, which might be seen in the doors
and windows of offices, the effect of which was, that it was
impervious to the sight, although pervious to the light. This
was made in a peculiar way, sometimes by passing a grooved
roller over the glass metal in its heated state. The plaintiffs,
being ironfounders, were unacquainted with the best mode
of manufacturing such a sort of glass, and the mode by which
it was done, but the order was given by the glass company
through a gentleman named West, who had formerly been
emploNed in a plate glass establishment, and who was at that
time in the service of the company. Mr. West, without
taking the precaution of sending specific orders in writing,
addressed a verbal message to the plaintiffs, desiring them to
make a fluted roller of certain dimensions ; and he furnished
the messenger with a piece of glass, to represent the plan,
and this was given at the time to the person by whom the
order was received. The plaintiffs were, therefore, left to
make a fluted roller, sevenleet in length, without any further
directions ; and they accordingly made a roller, which was
delivered to the parties. Had the' company wished to have
it grooved instead of fluted, the natural course for them to
pursue would be to have said so at once ; but, instead of
this, they put it into their machinery, tried it, and finding
that it did not answer their purpose, then it was, and not till
then, that they communicated to the plaintiffs that the roller
was not what they wished it to be.
After the examination of several witnesses on the part of
the plaintiffs,
Mr. MARTIN addressed the jury for the defendant. He
said they had two questions to decide—first, whether the ar-
ticle supplied was an article for which the plaintiffs ought to
be paid at all, and secondly, whether, supposing it was, the
company had ever accepted it. The objection to the roller
was, that the plates were so uneven as to render it utterly
worthless, and that it was found to he'd uneven thickness.
He contended that when an order bad been given to a manu-
facturer it was the duty of the latter to supply an article fit
for the purposes for which it was intended, and that, if he did
not so, he had no right to expect payment ; and he stated that
such had been the case in the present instance. He con-
cluded by calling witnesses to show that the roller was not
made in such a way as to render it of any service to the corn-
pany.
The jury found for the plaintiffs for £47 damages, and 6d
costs

WARD V. NORTH UNION RAILWAY COMPANY.
Verdict, by consent, for the plaintiff, for £lOO damages
and 40s. costs. •

DUNIBELL D. PYE• -
Verdict for plaintiff, by consent, for £220. '
BAILEY AND OTHERS V. OLDFIELD.
Verdict for plaintiffs, £23. The action was undefended.
WAVELL V. APPLEYARD AND OTHERS.
Verdict for plaintiff for £5O. This action also was unde-
fended.

BLACKBURN V. TURNER.
This was an action brought by Edwin Blackburn against
Thomas Turner, for the recovery of the amount of goods sold
and delivered. The defendant pleaded that he was never
• indebted.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Crompton for the defendant.
Mr. KNowLEs stated the case. The plaintiff was a
wine-merchant. living in London, and the defendant was
an innkeeper at Woolton, near Liverpool ; and the ac-
tion was brought for the recovery of a sum of £4O for wine
sold to him. The wine, the subject of the action, had
been originally sold to a Mr. Davies, the brother-in-law of
the defendant. This took place in the early part of the
year 1839, the wine consisting of two quarter-casks, one of
port, the of sherry. Davis kept them for some time,
but not being able to pay fot them, he made application to
the brother of the plaintiff, and expressed his wish that the
plaintiff should take them back. The brother of the plain-
tiff mentioned the matter to the plaintiff himself, who agreed
to take them, and accordingly they were removed from the
house of Davies to that of the defendant, who had become
in possession of them. The wine was removed in the year
1840, and, in the following April, the plaintiff called on the
defendant, when the latter agreed to the purchase, and when
it was arranged that the price should only amount to £4O.
The defendant, notwithstanding the terms then made,
pleaded now that Davies and not himself was the party
liable for the amount.

After the examination of witnesses, a verdict was returned
for the plaintiff for the sum claimed.

CREACH V. FOSTER

Verdict for the plaintiff, by consent, subject to a referent .
ILITSON V. TUNSTALL.
Verdict for the plaintiff, by consent, subject to a reference.

DAVIS AND OTHERS, ASSIGNEES, V. BAILEY
This action was withdrawn.
BRUNSKILL V. WOODS, ADMINISTRATRIX.

This was an action brought by James Brunskill against
Alice Woods, the widow and adminlstrati ix of Joseph Woods
who was indebted to the plaintiff for work and labour done,
and an account stated. The defendant pleaded that her
hushand had never been indebted, and then that she had
fully administered in the goods and chattels left by him.
The Hon. Mr. Wortley and Mr. Crompton appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Baines and Mr. Segar for the defendant.
The Hon. Mr. WORTLEY stated the case. He appeared
for the plaintiff', who was a painter and plumber, living at
St. Helen's, who had brought the action against Alice Woods,
the widow and administratrix of Joseph Woods, for the re-
covery of the amount of an account for !painting, plumbing,
and glaizing done to some tottages which the late Mr. Woods
hus been engaged in building. Mr. moods had been a colliery
and having made some money, entered on the speculation of
building seven cottages, and contracted with several trades-
men to exeeute the work. He made a contract with Mr.
Fawber, among others, for the stone masonry and brickwork,
and Mr. Fawber employed a man of the name of Banks to do
the joiner's work ; but the plaintiff had been employed by
Mr. Woods to do the plumbing, painting and glazing. That
work was executed, and the only difficulty that arose in the
case was occaioned by the practice of the trade, work of the
kind having varied at different seasons. The workmen of
Mr. Fawber and Mr. Banks would be calleddwho would
prove that they were present wl,en Woods contracted with
the plaintiff, and that they were also present when the plain-
tiff applied for payment of the ,account. What the defence
would be, he (the learned counsel was not) aware, but it had
been suggested to him that the defendant meant to show
that the plaintiff had a right to look to Fawber for payment.
Such an attempt would however, fad, as the contract had
been made, not by Fawber, but by Woods.
Witnesses for the plaintiff having been examined.
Mr. BAINES addressed the jury for the defendant, con-
tending that Woods had agreed with Fawber to erect the
whole of the cottages and to complete them for £450, and
that it was, therefore, against Fawber that the action ought
to have been brought.
After the examination of witnesses, the jury returned a
verdict for the plaintiff for £29 12s. 9d.

LEA V. FAIRCLOUGII.
As the jury were about to retire 'for the purpose of con-
sidering their verdict in the last case,
Mr. DUNDAS asked if his Lordship would allow a verdict
to be taken by consent in a special jury case.
The CLERK of the COURT was of opinion, that a verdict in
the case could only be returned by the special jury summoned
to try the case.
His LORDSHIP, however, directed the jury to be sworn.
Mr. DUNDAS then said, that in this case, which was an
action for breach of promise of marriage brought by Miss
Lea, of Northwich, against Mr. Fairclough, of this town, an
arrangement had been made, to which he desired and was
authorised to give as much effect as possible. He had a let-
ter under the hand of the defendant, in which he stated une-
quivocally and sincerely, that he had not at any time said
anything to affect the character of Miss Lea. The defend-
anti further stated in his letter that he had been to blame in
his conduct, and he expressed his regret that his youth and
impetuosity should have led him into such an error. This
was so far satisfactory, he (Mr. Dundas) had to express his
hope that the young lady would feel satisfied.
The Hon. Mr. WORTLEY, counsel for the plaintiff, said
her only object in bringing the action was to protect herself
from having any reflections cast upon her, and to show that
she had not been to blame in the matter. She was now
willing to express her regret at all that had passed, the de-
fendant having made the apology which she required. Her
object in bringing the action had not been damages, and she
now retired trom the court, satified at what had taken place,
and willing to take a verdict by consent and damages for 40s.
The court adjourned at half-past six.

CROWN COURT.— YESTERDAY.
Mr. Justice PARK took his seat on the bench at 9 o'clock,
and the criminal cases having been previously disposed of,
proceeded to the trial of civil causes.

SMITH V. JONES.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, George Smith,
a leather-dealer in this town, to recover the sum of 4:4 17s 3d,
for leather sold to the plaintiff, Wm. Jones, leather-cutter,
of Carnarvon. It was proved that the goods were sent to
Jones by the brig Mars, on the 7th February, 1810, and were
delivered to him. The case was undefended, and the jury,

under the direction of his lottiship, gave a verdict to the
plaintiff to the full amount stated, with costs.

MAWDSLEY V. JOHNSON

The plaintiff is a plumber, glazier, and at the time also
an ironmonger, in Southport, and sought to recover from the
defendant, a bookseller there, the sum of £7 10s. 6d.,
being the balance of an account originally of £36 10s. 6d.,
for a new shop window, in Southport, certain articles of
hardware, tin, glazing, painting, &c. &c. Two witnesses,
sons of the plaintiff, spoke to the items in the bill—many of
them amounting to only a few coppers.
Mr. Martin and another appearing for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Oatson for the defendant, who is
.a bookseller in South-
port. The principal question that arose was the quantity of
glass supplied, and the price, and on this point there were
some discrepancies in the evidence. The defendant had paid
£9 into court. The weight of the lead was also disputed.
After a tedious and uninteresting- trial, which occupied the
court about five hours, the jury returned a verdict for the

plaintiff,—debt £l5 lls. 7d., reduced by the £9 paid into
court to £6 lls. 7d..—items to the amount of £1 ss. 11d.
being taken off.

BATES V. O'CONNOR

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Joseph
Bates, of the firm of Bates, Son, and Co., merchants, in this
town, to recover from the plaintiff, Mr. J. W. O'Connor. a
wine merchant, residing in Duke-street, the sum of £2O Os. 7d.
It appeared that the defendant had, on several occasions
within the last few years, consigned certain quantities of
wine to the plaintiff, to sell in Calcutta and Bombay, and
on which he bad, from time to time, received considerable
sums of money in advance. The plaintiff had also consider-
able dealings with Messrs. Parkin and Co., glass and bottle
manufacturers, of St. Helen's, who also did business with
the defendant, to whom they had become indebted by over-
drawing in the sum of £49 15s. 3d. In order to a settle-
ment of this last account, the defendaßt and Mr. Parkins,
(who did not now carry on the business in which he had
been engaged, he having been proceeded against for a
considerable sum claimed by the excise,) went to the plaintiff's
office, and there Parkin gave an order to the head clerk for
the amount stated, to be placed to the debit of Parkin, and
to the credit of the defendant. At this time the defendant
was indebted to the plaintiff, in the sum of £25 Os. 7d., be-
ing the shipping charges in his last consignment of wines for
a foreign market; and he was subsequently, and repeatedly
asked for this amount, but expressed his astonishment that
he should be required to pay it after having given the order,
which he seemed to consider as an off-set. The clerk, how-
ever, stated at the time that he was uncertain as to how Par-
kin's account would turn out ; and it appeared that Messrs.
Bates had heard some rumours relative to his solvency. He
stated that he would receive the order contingently, and that
if there was a final surplus on Parkin's account, he would
consider it (the order) as good and valid. In the result, how-
ever, Parkin was left considerably in Bates's debt. The de-
fendant had previously tendered, in payment of the shipping
charges which were past due, a bill of exchange for £2O, and
a £5 Bank of England note. Mr. Bates accepted of the
£5 note, but refused the bill, es being worthless. This
payment of £5 reduced Messrs. Bates's claim to the sum
sought, £2O Os. 7d. A balance afterwards became due to
the defendant of about £BO on his last consignment, when
the account sales was received from India; and the question
arose whether it was customary for Messrs. Bates to settle
up or balance the amount on each separate consignment with
the party consigning goods to their care ; and it was con-
tended for the defendant, that the £49 13s. 3d. (the amount
of the order) should have gone to his credit as regarded the
last consignment, and that the order was so worded. It ap-
peared, however, that the wording of the order referred to
shipments generally—not to any particular or individual
shipment—and that it had been placed to the credit of his
general account, contingently, it was understood, on the pro-
ceeds of Parkin's account. The case lasted for some hours,
but no points of interest, beyond those stated, were elicited.
Mr. WATSON ably supported the case of the plaintiff, and
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY that of the defendant. The JUDGE
eventually brought the case to a close by stating his opinion
that all further defence. after what had been sworn to, was
fruitless on the part of Mr. Murphy, who, of course, gave in,
and the jury, after expressing themselves to be unanimously
of his lordship's opinion, gave a verdict for the plaintiff to
the full amount--damages £2O Os. 7d.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-TAVRSDAY
LAWTON V. BRADLEY.

This was an action to recover a certain sum of money, for
goods sold and delivered, money paid, and on an account
stated. The defendant pleaded that he had paid all the money,
with the exception of £1 55., which was paid into court.
Mr. KNOWLES (with whom was Mr. Crompton) stated the
plaintiff's case. lie said the plaintiff, Mr. Walker, was an
auctioneer in this town, and the defendant was a publican
living at Waterloo. In the month of October last, au execu-
tion was issued against a person of the name of Rothwell,
and levied by a person of the name of Dry, who employed
the plaintiff to sell the goods. At the sale, defendant. bought
goods to the amount of £47s 35., and for this sum the action
was brought.
Mr. DUNDAS (with whom was Mr. Whigham) contended
that at the time of the sale an agreement had been made be-
tween the plaintiff and defendant, the latter of whom was the
landlord of Rothwell's house, that the rent due, £4O, should
be paid out of the proceeds of the sale, landlords, in all cases,
having a prior claim for any sum not exceeding a year's rent.
All but £4O had been paid to plaintiff.
The jury found for the defendant.

ACTION TO RECOVER DEPOSIT MONEY

SMITH AND ANOTHER V. DAYLEY

This was an action—to the sum of £3B, the, deposit
money which ought to have been paid by defendant, in con-
sequence of being the highest bidder at the sale of some
messuages in Warrington.
Mr. Wurtlerand Mr. Hoggins were counsel for the plain-
tiffs. Mr. Duudas and Mr. Cowling appeared for the de-
fendant.

The plaintiffs, Joseph Smith and Dutton, were trustees
for the sale of some property which was put up for auction
in the town of Warrington on the 14th April, 1841, and the
defendant, James Bayley, was a solicitor. The plaintiffs
employed Measrs. Nicholson and Son, solicitors, to conduct
the sale. The premises were to be sold for a lease of 999
years, and one of the conditions of sale was, that the highest
bidder should be the purchaser, that a deposit of £lO per
cent. should be paid on the purchase money, and a contract
signed for the completion of the sale by the Ist of July. At
the sale the defendant bid £385, and the lot was knocked
down to him. He signed the contract, but had never paid
the deposit money for which the action was now brought.
. ,

Mr:Peter. Nicholson, the solicitor for the plaintiffs, was
examined, and spoke to the terms of the contract which de-
fendant signed for the payment of XlO per cent. He under-
went a long examination from Mr. Dundas, who endeavoured
to elicit that the title held by the plaintiffs was not a valid

Upon this a legal discussion arose. The plaintiffs'
counsel maintained that, as the defendant only pleaded that
he ❑ever entered into the contract, the defendant was not at
liberty to cross-examine for the purpose of proving fraud.
If he had intended to do so, he should have put a plea on
the record. His Lordship, however, permitted the exami-
nation to go on ; and it appeared that Mr. Peter Weedell was
the mortgagee, a Mr. Leftwich the mortgagor, for whom the
present plaintiffs were trustees. Before the sale Mr. Wee-
dell consented to it, but afterwards objected, and now some
difficulty arose in getting the title, but the witness said he
had no doubt they would he enabled to compel the mort-
gagee to give up the title. Had the defendant paid the de-
posit money, he believed there would have been no difficulty
in getting the title.
Mr. DUNDAS submitted that the action was ill-brought,
on the ground that there was no promise of payment to the
plaintiffs, and that the action should have been brought by
Mr. Nicholson.

HIS LORDSHIP overruled the objection, and a verdict was
immediately entered for the plaintiffs.—Damages £3B.

ACTION AGAINST THE LIVERPOOL. SERJEANT-AT-MACE.-

CUFF V. ROSCOE

The plaintiff in this case was Mr. Thomas Cuff, pork but-
cher, Byrom-street, and the defendant Mr. William Stanley
Roscoe, who was sergeant-at-mace for the borough.
Mr. KNOWLES (with whom was Mr. Crompton) stated
the plaintiff's case to the jury. He said the defendant in
this case was but the nominal defendant. He was the
serjeant-at-mace for the borough, who stood in the po-
sition of the sheriff of the county ; yet the real defendant
would be the officer who acted in the execution of the
writ. He believed that the plaintiff recovered a debt in
the Borough Court of this town, against a person of the
name of John Tompkins, and on the 28th day of April
last year sued out a judgment and issued an execution against
him. The execution was £305 9s. Bd., including expellees,

.......
and the writ was indorsed to give authority to levy certain
charges, which were usual on such occasions. The writ was
delivered to the defendant, who had the execution of all writs
issuing out of the BoroUgh Court, and the defendant made
out the writ to an officer of the name of Kirby. Tomkins
was a printer in this town, and at the time when the officer
Kirby seized his goods, he (the learned council) was told
there were on the premises goods to the value of £5OO or
£6OO, and the execution being only for £305, there was an
opportunity to levy for the whole of the debt. It sometimes
happened that parties where goods were seized, contrived to
cheat the officer who had seized, and he was afraid
that something of that sort had been done in this case.
He believed that some of Tomkin's friends, and amongst
them was Mr. Ashton, contrived to elude the vigilance
of the officer, and took from the premises a considerable part
of the property, and it was for the value of this that the pre-
sent action was brought. When the goods of a patty against
whom an execution was issued were once in possession of the
officer, he was bound to keep them ; if: he did not keep a
sufficient watch over them he was answerable to the party
who issued out the writ. In this case he believed that be-
tween 80 and 100 reams of paper were on the.prernises at the
time the officer took possession, but that when the sale took
place not one ream of paper was left. The greater part of
the type also was removed. The property seized only rea-
. lised £176, exclusive:of chat ges, and it was for the difference
between that sum and £305 that the action was brought.
The issuing of the writ having been proved, although
Kirby, the officer, did not answer, and was called on his
subpoena.
William Watson, a journeyman printer, late in the employ
of Tomkins, deposed to going round the office with the ap-
praiser, and seeing seven reams of paper. A few days
before the sale, an officer of the name of Hall being in pos-
session, Mr. Ashton, with Mr. Bates and Mr. Donaldson,
came into the office and sent fora great quantity of drink.
Hall partook of it, and became stupidly drunk. Whilst he
was in that state, Mr. Ashton and parties whom he employed
removed the reams of paper, and several founts of type ;
the type was so removed as to render what was left useless
when the sale came on. Ashton purchased, for £6 4s, the
part of a fount which was left, and which fount originally
cost £4O. Bundles of stamps and pressing-boards were also
removed. None of the paper was sold at the sale which
he had seen counted at the sale.
Cross-examined by Mr. DUNDAS.—Ashton was formerly
a partner with Mr. H. Tomkins, and was also a painter in
Newington.
James M'Avoy, who was a turn-over apprentice in the
office, stated that, by Mr. Ashton's directions, he had taken
some of the materials to his office, Lawton-street.
Mr. DUNDAS then addressed the jury on the part of the
defendant, who, he said, was one of the most respectable
men in Liverpool; and he should be able to convince them
that the action was brought upon grounds which could not be
supported, either by law or justice. The sheriff, so far from
having done anythinc, irregular, either by himself or his offi-
cers, had acted perfectly legally, and any loss which had
arisen was imputable to those persons who had conspired
with Ashton to defraud the executors, by taking away the
property. The plaintiff, Mr. Cuff, was himself the cause of
all the mischief; to him the conduct of Ashton and the others
who had been concerned in conveying away the goods was
attributable. Ile had intercepted the office of the sheriff in
bringing the execution, and therefore he was himself answer-
able for any loss that had arisen. If he had left well alone,
all would be right enough, but he went and gave instruction
that Ashton should be obeyed, and it was in consequence of
those orders that the property had been taken. He should
prove that Cuff was cognizant of the goods being taken
away ; that he had said he knew of it ; that he knew where
they were taken, and what they were taken for. If that were
so, what right had Cuff to claim damages from Roscoe? The
learned counsel then detailed at length the evidence he should
produce, and proceeded to call his witnesses.
The two bailiffs, Carter and Richard Hall, were then
called, and they proved the entry into the premises to make
the execution. The latter was the man who had been made
drunk whilst the goods were being taken away. The morn-
ing after that Cuff came in and asked witness whether they
could follow the property which had been taken, if they
knew where it was. Witness told him they could.—ln
cross-examination the witness persisted in saying that he was
not drunk when the things were taken, and that he had no
knowledge of the transaction.
Joseph Kinsley, book-keeper to Tompkins, said that Cuff
came in when the officers were in, and asked what the office
was worth. Witness told him £3OO a year, and he then said