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

AN IMPRACTICABLE CASE

Peter Spencer, aged 56, was indicted for manslaughter, in
having killed Mary Owen by the negligent driving of a cart.
Mr. HULTON appeared for the prosecution, but the pri-
soner proved to be so deaf that it was found impossible to
charge the jury with him, or to get him to plead.
The JUDGE directed that he should be kept in custody, till
the termination of the assizes, and then discharged.
One of the jury observed, that he was a very unfit person
to have charge of a cart, to which remarks his lordship as-
sented

SrIgTENCES

William Hoyle, 14, who had been convicted of arson, was
sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment in the House
of Correction.
The JUDGE remarked, that it was only owing to his tender
years he did not pass a severer sentence ; but it was necessary
that other boys should have an example to deter them from
the perpetration of similar acts of wickedness.
Dennis Towers, 25, convicted of stealing from the person
—One year's imprisonment, and hard labour ; the last fort-
night solitary.
William Arrowsmith, 21, and Henry Horrocks, 28,. con-
victed of burglary—PO transported ten years.
William Wild, 26, convicted of highway robbery—Ten
years' transportation.
The court rose at a quarter to six o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—WEDNESDAY
Mr". Baron ROLFE took his seat on the bench at nine
o'clock, and shortly after asked whether any arrangement
could be made for sending some of the cases in the West
Derby Hundred list for trial before Mr. Justice Parke, who
would have fi nisbed the criminal business about Tuesday
next, and would then be ready to assist in the despatch of the
Nisi Prins eases. The baron observed that the special jury
cases would all be taken in that (the Nisi Prins) court. It
was therefore necessary that they should fix on the cases to
be sent before Mr. Justice Parke. After some deliberation,
it was understood that from the case, No. 60, in the second
' list—that of " Mawdesly v. Johnson"—to the end would be
sent for trial before Mr. Justice Parke, but that nothing de-
finitive on the subject would be resolved upon until after the
undefended cases had been disposed of on Friday morning.
LORD AND ANOTHER V. RAWDON.
In this case, which was partly tried yesterday, the jury
returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages £2O.
RUSSELL V. COCKCROFT AND ANOTHER.
In this case William Russell was plaintiff, and Messrs.
John and William Cockcroft were the defendants. The
action was brought for the recovery of the amount of goods
sold and delivered, and the defendant pleaded that he was
never indebted. The plaintiff was a cotton doubler, carrying
on business at Manchester, and the defendants were manu-
facturers at Addingham, in Yorkshire, to whom two separ-
ate lots of warps, of the value of £79 15s. Bd., had been
;abutol
by the plaintiff. The delivery of the goods was proved
the defendants alleged that they had never bought any goods
at all of the plaintiff.
Mr. WATSON conducted the case for the plaintiff ; and the
Hon. Mr. WURTLEY and Mr. MARTIN appeared for the de-
fendants.
The main ground of the defence was, that the sale had not
been made to the defendants, but to a third party—namely,
Chippendale and Co., of Manchester, with whom the de-
fendants carried on business, and who were the parties liable
in the transaction.
The jury found for the defendants.
citowntErt LOCWKOO.
Verdict for the plaintiff, by consent. for D £BB 13s. 6d.
BUTTERWORTH V. ASHTON.
An undefended action to recover £36 Iss. The parties
reside in Manchester. Verdict for the plaintiff.

_
lI.IIODES V. MILK.
This was an action to recover damages for the breach of
an agreement which had been drawn up between them. The
parties reside at Rochdale, and had been in partnership in
carrying'on a stone quarry. It was f
indemnify the plaintiff,
adjust the debts, and pay the plaintiff the money he had
advanbed ; but this pal tof the agreement he violated. A
verdict was returned for the plaintiff for £249 15s. 2d., with
liberty to the defendant to mope the court above to reduce
the damages

RAWLINS V. STOTT AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought by Susannah Rawlins against
the defendants, Messrs. Stott, Cappa, and Ashworth, for the
recovery of £2O damages for having seized and carried away
certain goods. The defendants had pleaded that they were
not the goods of the plaintiff.
Mr. WATSON stated the case. The plaintiff sought to re-
cover damages at the hands of the jury against the defend-
ants for having illegally. seized and taken away certain goods,
her property. The plaintiff was a widow, who had resided
at Manchester for a period of twenty years up to April, 1840.
She had resided there with a person named Ackers, and had
educated and brought up a niece of her's—a Mrs. Mary
Ann Angel. At all tunes, during the residence of the plain-
tiff at Manchester, Mrs. Angel lived with her, and.was much
attached to her. In'April,-1840, Mrs. Angel obtained the
situation of school-mistress at the charity school of Bacup,
and when she went from Manchester to take possession of
the appointment, she took lodgings in her own name,
and immediately after her aunt, the plaintiff, removed to the
place, and they lived together. At the expiration of 12 months;
Mrs Angel ceased to be schoolmistress at Bacup whereupon
the plaintiff and herself removed to a Mr. Newman's where
they lived together for a period of two months. The lodgings
at Mr. Newman's had been taken by the plaintiff, to whom
the furniture solely belonged. Subsequently, the plaintiff,
and Mrs Angel removed to Manchester, and left the furni-
ture after them at Newman's. Shortly after, the furniture
was packed and directed to be sent to the plaintiff, at Man-
chester. While the cart with the furniture was proceeding
along the road, two of the defendants, Capper and Ashworth,
who were officers of the manor court at Rochdale, seized the
goods in question as being the goods of Mrs. Angel. They
removed them ; sold some of them ; and the remainder they
had refused to restore.
After the examination of witnesses,
Mr. BRANDT addressed the jury for the defendant. He
contended that the goods belonged not to the plaintiff, but to
Mrs. Angel, and stated that they had been seized for debts
contracted by the latter in Bacup.
The jury found for the plaintiff—damages £2O, and costs,
40s. The court adjourned at five minutes to seven o'clock.

CROWN COURT—THURSDAY.
The learned judge took his seat at nine o'clock

RAPE CASES.
Alexander Hewitt, 45, (could read and write imperfectly,)
was indicted fora rape committed on his own daughter, Jane
Hewitt, a girl fourteen years of age, at Castleton, in August
last. The facts of the case were sworn to by the prosecutrix.
After the commission of the crime the prisoner left his home,
and it was some time before he could be found. He was ap-
prehended about three weeks afterwards, and said that if he
had committed the crime with which he stood charged he
had done it when he was drunk.
The JUDGE summed up the evidence, and said the offence
was one of the most aggravated that had ever been brought
before a court.
The Jury, after a short consultation, found the prisoner
guilty of an assault. Sentence—Two years' imprisonment
and hard labour, in the House of Correction.
John Cleave, (could read and write well,) was charged
with having committed a rape on Mary Ann 1-tuady, at Man-
chester, on the 17th instant.
It appeared that the prosecutrix, on the day in question,
I went into a public-house, called the Mosley Arms, in Man-
chester, with a friend, to get some refreshment, whets the
prisoner, who appeared to act in the capacity of waiter,
.brought them a pint of beer. Some conversation took place,
and the prisoner, hearing that prosecutrix was out of situa-
tion, said he knew a person who wanted a servant, and he
would do what he could to obtain it for her, and requested
her to come down in the evening ; she did so, and prisoner
thon took her to a house in Manchester, where he endea-
voured to accomplish his purpose. Prosecutrix then went
to the house of a friend, and detailed the circumstances of the
case, when information was given to the police, and the pri-
soner apprehended.
The jury, after a short consultation, found the prisoner
Not Guilty.—The trial lasted nearly five hours.
Aaron lesson, 31, (could neither read nor write,) was
indicted for a rape on Mary Ann Fitzgerald, at Manchester,
on the 29th November last. The prosecutrix, a young girl
seventeen years of age, lived as servant with the prisoner,
and had occasion to go up stairs to call her master, as soon
as any one wanted him in the shop, when, she stated,
he threci her down, and committed-the offence for which be
stood charged. A warrant was soon after obtained, and the
prisoner apprehended at his own house.
Mr. WILKINS addressed the jury, contending that the
evidence was of a most unsatisfactory character, and they
immediately returned a verdict of not guilty.
John Edwards was indicted for a rape committed on the
person of Mary Thomason, a little girl thirteen years of age,
on the 19th of August last, near Warrington. The prisoner
was a coachman, and lived near the prosecutrix, and on the
day in question he followed her to a plantation in the neigh-
bourhood, where he endeavoured to effect his purpose.—Mr.
Wilkins. addressed the jury in very eloquent and argumenta-
tive defence, and called several witnesses to speak to the
character of the prisoner.—The prisoner was acquitted.
The case of Timothy Hetherington, for the murder at
Manchester, is fixed for Saturday.
The court rose at a quarter past seven.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—THURSDAY.
ACTION FOR ASSAULT.-HABY V. MOORE.
The plaintiff, Richard Henry Baby, is a fruit dealer in
Manchester, and the defendant, James Moore, is a waste
dealer in Manchester. On the 29th of January Frederick
Sicre, a publican in this town, had a quantity of apples,
which he disposed of in plainliff's shop, Shude-hill, Man-.
chester. Defendant came into the shop and wished Mr.
Sicre to go to a public-house, saying, that he wanted to
make it known to him that die plaintiff wished to swindle
him out of a lot of apples. Plaintiff said it was a lie, upon
which defendant struck him, knocked him down, and chal-
lenged him out to fight. He also took an apple from the
tub; threw it at plaintiff, and caused a great crowd to gather
round the shop.
The Jury found a verdict for the plantiff, damages one
farthing.
COMMISSION AGENT'S GUARANTEE.-COOPER V.

GRIMSHAW.
This was an action to recover the sum of £5B 125., the
balance of an account due on certain goods alleged to have
been sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff is
Mr. Leonard Cooper, a print manufacturer, and the de-
fendant is Mr. James Griroshaw, a commission agent, at
Manchester.
Mr. MARTIN and Mr. H. Hitt appeared for the plaintiff;
Mr. WATSON and Mr. AnfErcroN for the defendant.
It appeared that in the month of February, 1841, the plain-
tiff called at the warehouse of the defendant, and Mr. Watt,
his salesman, purchased from him 1,000 pieces of mouseline
de laine for Messrs. Middleton and Finlay, of Glasgow, the
cost of which amounted to £430. Mr. Watt, in entering the
sale, made the Glasgow firm the purchasers. Some days af-
terwards, and. before the goods had been delivered, Mr.
Cooper called again at the defendant's warehouse, and in,