The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-01 00:00:00

THE MURDER AT WARRINGTON

On the application of Mr. Wilkins, counsel for the prose-
cution, the trial of John Gill, charged with the wilful murder
of Sarah Mould, at Warrington, was fixed for Saturday.

DISCHARGE OF PRISONERS.
The Grand Jury having been dismissed from further at-
tendance, all the prisoners against whom no bills had been
found, were discharged at the rising of the court, by pro-
clamation.

The court adjourned at half-past six o'clock, to nine on
Wednesday morning.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—TVESDAY.
Mr. Baron ROLFE, on taking his seat this morning, called
Mr. Ellis, recorder of Leeds, within the bar.

The declaration
V. ROTHWELL.
charged the defendant with the conversion
of several pleaded,iecedefendant pf flannel, the property of the plaintiff. The
first, not guilty; and, second, that the
plaintiff
was
not possessed of the flannel in the manner and
form alleged.
Mr. Du N
recover the value of
DAs, for the plaintiff, said this was an action to
61 pieces offlannel, £lOB 13s. 6d., which
the defendant
idetained from him. The plaintiff, Mr. Robert
Butterworth,
the defendant, .;ilar. woollen manufacturer at Rochdale; and
Higher Shore, about . William Rothwell, is a fain.. miller at
August loaf the olut four miles from Rochdale. On the 13th
forth Broadbent, flannelaintiti purchased of Mr. Benjamin Rush-
, manufacturer, of Spotland Bridge,
50 pieces of flannel, the grease (i. e., not fulled, dressed,
or cleansed, but as the
purchased this flannel,Yietatne from the weavers). When he
dering to whom he should send not made ; and he was consi-
dering it to be fulled, when the de-
fendant came into the countinghouse
applied to the plaintiff to let him of Mr. Broadbent, and
full the goods; to which he
agreed, and told the defendant%)esend in his bill when the
pieces were done, and be would
onnWaPaid. The defendant re-
marked that he wished every ,
the defendant
the plaintiff. About
and, defendant sent to Mr.
the latter end of the same month
the same day, 21
Broadbent to hasten the pieces •
pieces were sent from Mr. toßroti'dbent'sl6 wore
fulling mill of
pieces were
the defendant. A few days afterwards
sent, and afterwards 21 pieces, making Gi . In'te
' the pla •
intiff a
ing, in the meantime, purchased 11 snore -
Claimingagainst a
the
plaintiff, but against Mr. Broadbent. The plaintiffatennsade.red
seven guineas and a half for the fulling, &c., 2s. 6d.
being a fair price for fulling ; but tie defendant refused to
receive it, and still detained the goods, and the plaintiff con-
sequently brought this action.
Mr. KNOWLES would then submit that the evidence as to
the purchase of pieces by the plairtiff, and his order to the
defendant, only applied to the first 50 pieces, and hot to the
remaining 11.
After some legal discussion, in the course of which Mr.
KNOWLES cited the case of Pickard and Sears, reading Lord
Denman's judgment therein, 1(1r. Durlows said that, rather
than have any points reserved for future motions, he was con-
tent to take a verdict for the value of the 50 pieces only.
Mr. KNOWLES said he felt he could not dispute the evi-
dence as to the plaintiff's ownership of the 50
a". 10

and the jn:

accordingly found for the plaintiff, damage
of the 50 pieces, after fulling.

DURDEKIN AND ANOTHER V. WOOD AND OTHERS.
In this case, the plaintiffs, Mr. Edmund Burdekin and
another (assignees of the estate and effects of Messrs. Dou-
glas, Smalley, and Co., bankers, cotton-spinners, and iron-
founders, bankrupts) were the plaintiffs ; and the defendants,
Thomas Wood, William Chapello, John Davies, George
Taylor, and Thomas Handiside, were five of the shareholders
in a joint .stock coal and iron mining company, called the-
Talacre Mining Company, working" the Talacre mine in
North Wales. The action was brought for supplying tools,
implements, and machinery for working the mine ; and two
of the defendants, Wood [who was said to be Mr. Alderman
Wood] and Davies, suffered judgment by default; and the
others pleaded that they did not promise to pay for the goods
as alleged in the declaration. Mr. Knowles, in stating the
plaintiffs' case, said that the bankrupts, Douglas, Smalley,
and Co., were at one time bankers at Holy well, but became
bankrupts in 1840 ; but it was in their business as founders,
that the subject matter of this action arose. The Talacril

no high premium. Under these circumstances, the plain-
tiffs brought their action against the individual shareholders
who had ordered the goods of them.
The evidence showing that goods to the amount of only
about £8 had been ordered after the defendants had
become partneri, the jury found for the plaintiffs, damages
£8 3s. 6d., costs 40s. ; his lordship observing, that it was
absurd to suppose, that the defendants could be held to be
liable as partners before the time when they executed the deed,
and one of them had only signed the deed in April 1840.

The plaintiff in this case, Thomas Joseph Birch, had been
formerly a smith and farrier, but, being unfortunate in busi-
ness, he became a cab-driver on the stand at All Saints'
Church, Chorlton-on-Medlock. Te defendant, Mr. Edward
Glassbrook, is a coachmaker in that township
_; and the action

ntiff by the defendant, on the 13th January last, at

the coach stand

The Jury found for the plaintiff, damages 405., costs 40s

DAVIDSON, PUBLIC OFFICER, V. COOPER

The plaintiff in this action was Mr. Alexander Davidson,
ered public officer of the Commercial Bank of England,
who sought to recover from the defendants, William Cooper
and Ileury Brassington, the sum of £1,500, being the
amount to which, by a written agreement, they had guaran-
teed the account of Messrs. Mayor and Co., earthenware
dealers, of Burstem, Staffordshire, with the branch of the
bank in that town.—Mr. Knowles stated the plaintiff's case,
which he said was one chiefly of points of law. The guaran-

•
tee given to the bank by the defendants (one of whom was a
relation of Mr. Mayor) was dated the lith May, 1839. After
reciting that Mayor and Co. had opened an account with the
Commercial Bank, and would from time to time have occa-
sion for advances, the defendants, Wm. Cooper and Henry
Brassington, declared and agreed to guarantee and be ac-
countable to the banking company for the due payment of
all and every sum or sums of money then due or which might
thereafter become due ; and, in a subsequent part of the
agreement, limited their responsibility to 4:1,500, which sum
was now sought to be recovered. After this guarantee, the
bank made large advances to Mayor and Co. ; and, when
their bankruptcy took place, they were indebted to the bank
between £2,000 and £3,000. Various defences were set up
by the defendants, but the sixth and seventh pleas constituted
the important defence to the action. The sixth plea was
that, after the agreement had been delivered, the guarantee
was altered, by some person to the defendants unknown, by
affixing two seals at the side of the guarantee, neither the
signatures of the two defendants ; thereby causing the said
guarantee to purport and be a deed of the defendants ; by

reason of which-they said it was void. There had been a
former trial—[at Guild Hall, London]—arising out of this
very document. When it was produced, it would be seen
that there were upon it two wafers, not, in the usual
place of seals, after, but before, the signatures of the two de-
fendants. Thomas Cooper, the attesting witness to this in-
strument on the former trial, stated, that these wafers were
not upon the instrument at the time it was executed, and
when he signed it as attesting witness of the signatures of the
defendants. How these wafers came upon the instrument
afterwards, the banking company did not know. Certainl,
the plaintiffs did not put them there ; nor, as far -
knew, did any one in their service. Upon the agreement
was written " Witness to the signatures of William Cooper
and Henry Brassington. Thomas Cooper." There could be
no possible object for the plaintiffs to turn the agreemen t into
a deed ; for it was a perfect and legal instrument as an agree-

as they

meat. Somebody unknown had, however, affixed these wa-
fers, and made it purport to be a deed. He believed his lord-
ship would tell them (if this matter were left to the jury at
all), that a stranger putting the wafers on after the instru-
ment bad been
would not alt

the charact

er of tt

tnessed as an agreement,
instrument in the slight-
gree, or make it purport to be any other than a written
agreement ; for in order to make a valid deed, there must
not only be a seal, but also a delivery, and without a delivery
it was not a deed. The seventh and last plea was, that by a
deed dated 7th March, 1840, made between Mayor ats.d Co.
e first part, certain other persons named of the second
in creditors of Mayor and Co. of the third part,

part, anti
AA

r and Co. conveyed certain

remises to trustees

that Richard Howard Heywood, then a member of the bank-
ing copartnership, being authorized by the copartnership,
released Mayor and Co. from all claims made upon them by
the bank, and that such release was given without the privity
of the defendant Cooper; and that, therefore, he was dis-
charged from all further liability. No doubt if a • creditor,
having the guarantee of a surety, released the principal, with-
out the consent of the surety, he has released the surety ; but
there were various reasons why this did not operate as any
release. He believed the defendant's counsel could not show
any deed by which any member of the copartnership ever
released Mayor and Co. from any debt to the copartnership.—
Thomas Cooper, the attesting witness, stated that he did not
see William Cooper write his signature to the agreement.
The wafers were not then on the instrument. Witness af-
terwards went to the hank, and wrote the memorandum of
his havim: witnessed the signatures there.—The witness was
cross-examined by Mr. Dundas (with whom was Mr. Wat-
son) for the defem!ant Cooper ; and by Mr. Warren for the
defendant Brassio...,;'c,n. In answer to a question by the lat-
ter gentleman, he stated that Brassington was a gentleman
about 25 years of age, and he had heard something of his
being non compOs mentis; but he had seen him execute
deeds iu the office in which witness ‘. as a clerk.—lt appeared
by other evidence, that Mayor and Co. became bankrupts in
May, 1840, at which time they were in advance £2,500,
which sum had, since the bankruptcy, been reduced to
£2,060 19s. 2d. The Commercial Bank of England sus-
pended payment on the 27th June, 1840.—1 n cross-exami-
nation, some of the clerks in the back stated, that, since
June, 1840, they had not discounted ; the•shareholders paid
up, and non-proprietors paid up the amount of their accounts
owing. Deposits were received from others than proprietors,
and they would pay cheques on those deposits the day after
they were made, just as before the stopping ; but they would
not open a new account.—Mr. Dundas called the attention
of the court to the circumstance, that the instrument had
since been stamped with a £1 15s. stamp, for the purpose of
what he would term the deed-action.—For, the defendant

Cooper, Mr. Dundas called the attention of the court to the
act of the 7th Geo. IV. cap. 36 (the bankruptcy act), and
submitted, that there was no evidence that the bank was
carrying on the business of bankers, within the pro-
visions of the act.—The Judge : They were winding up
the affairs of the bank.—Mr. Dundas thought that could
not be carrying on the business of bankers.—The Judge
said, that that proposition would lead to the conse-
quence that by no possibility could a bank ever stop.
By the fair construction of the act, they must carry on
business till they closed the concern. The judge overruled
the objection, and took a note of it. Mr. Dundas said, the
issue upon the amount was referred out of court ; and he
then took an objection on the Gth issue, that the guarantee
was materially altered. Where the seal was, whether before

or after the signature, was immaterial. The instrument had
been all the time in the hands of Mr. Taylor, the Burslem
manager, or the persons belonging to the bank. There had
been no account as to how the alteration came; and, if the
alteration were really to make it a deed, the instrument was
void, unless explained. It had been sued upon the bank as
a deed, because a better thing for them than a mere gua-
rantee. It was not delivered as a deed ; and now it proved
to be a deed, and, in point of law, it was void, and of none
effect. The Judge said, that the best way would be to take
a verdict for £1,500, subject to motions on all the points,
viz. Ist, as to the right of the plaintiffs to sue ; 2nd, as to
the effect of the seals or wafers; and, 3rd, as to the effect of
the release ; and subject a:so to leave to enter a nonsuit or a
verdict for the defendant, as_the case might be. Both sides

agreed, that the court should be at liberty to draw any infer-
ence as to the wafers which a jury might draw. The £1,500
to be reduced subject to the finding of the state of account
by the accountant. A verdict was accordingly taken for the
plaintiffs, subject to these limitations.
ALLEGED CONVERSION OF A BANKRUPT'S GOODS.

LORD AND ANOTHER, ASSIGNEES, V. RAWDOM

In this case Simeon Lord and Joseph Marshall were the
plaintiffs, as assignees of John M'lntyre, a bankrupt, and
brought the action to recover for his creditors a quantity of
property which, it was alleged, came wrongfully into the
possession of the defendant. The declaration contained two
counts; the first alleging the conversion of the goods, while
in possession of the bankrupt before the bankruptcy ; and
the second laid the goods as in the possession of the plaintiffs,
as assignees of the bankrupt. The defendant, by his plea,
denied that the goods were so converted by him either while
in the possession of the bankrupt or of the plaintiffs, as
assignees, and alleged a sale of the goods to himself by the
bankrupt before his bankruptcy.— Mr. WORTLEY (with

.
whom was Mr. Atherton) stated the plaintiff's case. The
bankrupt, in 1841, was an oil cloth manufacturer in this
town ; and the defendant, Daniel Rawdon, a furniture broker
here. In May, 1841, the bankrupt became embarrassed, and
the defendant, as was alleged, advanced him £67, and that
for that advance these goods were delivered to him as security
on the' 4th May. On the 2d June a fiat of bankruptcy issued
against M'lntyre; and from that time, whatever the bank-
rupt was in possession of, was the property of his assignees.
He bad a warehouse in Manchester, and a house at the cor-
ner of Grove and Tipping Streets, Ardwick, which he was
furnishing, but had not occupied; and on the 2d June, one
portion of the goods and furniture, the value of which was
now sought to be recovered, was at the warehouse, and ano-
ther portion at the house. With the knowledge and conser
of the bankrupt, the portion at the warehouse -.-
to the unfinished house about the Bth or 9th of June ; and on
the 10th of June, that and all the rest of the property in
the house was swept away by the defendant, and taken to his
own premises. The defendant had pleaded that these goods
were sold to him for £67, but it would be shown that they
were worth £lBO ' • and when first applied to, the defendant
never pretended he had bought the goods, but said they bad
sal)elfiznr
etoont
the
teh returnepml,i
nhtei
been lodged with him as security for his debt, which debt
was satisfied. He had sold a portion of the goods, and re-
fusedlordship said he would .
any.fr hsa
dlefvnei
doveenn c rightiet hwaatdso tboe be alleged alleged that he had
sell.—Atgon e half-past
through,
his
adjourn to the following morning.

as removed

CROWN COURT—WEDNESDAY.
His lordship took his seat at nine o'clock. Several of the
mint cases remained for trial.

:VIINT CASES.
John Jackson, 26, was indicted for having, at Hindley, ut-
tered two counterfeit sixpences. The prisoner had, on the
23th June, gone from house to house getting glasses of ale,
for each of which he tendereda counterfeit sixpence. He had,
when apprhended, two other counterfeit sixpences in his pos-
session, and fifty-five in an unfinished st '

jury found the prisoner guilty, ;;File was sentenced
to two years imprisonment and hard labour, the last fort-
night in solitary confinement.

•tnglttered, on the
shilling,s
saensds i withrt.i
ary Yates, 28, was charged with having "11
sth February, at Manchester, a coanterfel
having had five other counte;feit shillings in ht•epno
The charze was not substantiated by the evidence,
lordship said there was no case against the prisonecre.,Sall'eLw-la.ss
therefore discharged.
Ralph Buckley, 43, who was committed with the above-
named prisoner, was placed at the bar, charged with having
at Manchester, uttered, toEnuna Jones, a counterfeit shil-
ling, and with having; in his possession five other counterfeit
pieces of coin, made to resemble shillings. His lodgings
were examined, and five counterfeit shillings, all cast from
the same mould, and several materials for coining, were dis-

covered.
The jury found the prisonfr.guil

ley's house.
The other witnesses examined were Jonathan Crompton
and James Harris, police-officers, and Mr. Powell, the mint
inspector. Only one of the shillings could be identified, it
had been offered by Bayley to Bragshaw, who bit and bent it
and returned it to the prisoner, who when pursued threw it
from her. The case was here abandoned, from legal diffi-
culty, against Gregory. Bayley was convicted of single ut-
tering, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and hard
labour ; the last fortnight solitary.
John Clement, who had pleaded guilty on the previous
day of the wholesale utterance of counterfeit coin, was sen-
tenced to ten years' transportation.