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

1838 and the five defend

Mining Company eras formed
ants were early, if not original, shareholders and pitpridors,
rola. therefor, re,nnngihip fnr its dehts. The working of the

; and the bankrupts ss.,
..um the 2d August, 1839, to the 10th April,
, amounting only to £l6B, being articles generally of a
small description. The defendants (said the learned counsel)
did not mean to dispute the fairness of the charges, but, he
believed, meant to put him to strong proof of their partner-
ship in this mining company. He believed they did not
mean to rely on the second plea,—that the partnership was got
'legal purpose, and under pretext of acting as a
, whereas they did not intend to get a
charter or act of parliament,—and that the plaintiffs had no-
tice of the company being such an illegal partnership. lie
believed the deed would show there was no such illegal in-
tention ; at any rate, it such intention did exist, the plain-
tiffs had no notice of it. But he believed this plea would not
be relied upon, and he should have to confine himself to that
of non assumpsit. All the defendants executed the deed, which
was dated 3d October, 1839, and thus. unquestionably, be-
came partners from the moment of their executing it. The
deed recited the intention of certain parties to form them-
selves into a company from the 21st June, 1839; which
clause would make them all liable from that date, inasmuch
as it gave them all an interest in the profits of the concern
from that day. Most, if not all the defendants were share-
holders, and, therefore, partners from that period, much ear-
lier than the 3d October, 1839. The Talacre Coal and Iron
Company was now• one of the numerous projects of past
years in bad odour in the market; the shareholders were
quarreling with each other, and the shares were certainly at
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 partners, the jury found for the plaintiffs, damages
£8 3s. 6d., costs 405.; 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.
BIRCH V. GLASSBROOK.
The plaintiff in this case, Thomas Joseph Birch, bad 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
was brought to recover damages for an assault committed on
the plaintiff 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,
registered public officer of the Commercial Bank of England,
who sought to recover from the defendants, William Cooper
and Henry 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 Burslem, 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 17th 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, Win. 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 £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 unkown, 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 he 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. Certainly
the plaintiffsf did not put them there ; nor, as far as they
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 agreement into
a deed ; for it was a perfect and legal instrument as an agree-
ment. 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 had been given, signed, and witnessed as an agreement,
would not alter the character of the instrument in the slight-
est degree, 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 and Co.
of the first part, certain other persons named of the second
part, and certain creditors of Mayor and Co. of the third part,
Mayor and Co. conveyed certain premises to trustees ; and
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 bank, and wrote the memorandum of
his having witnessed the signatures there.—The witness was
cross-examined by Mr. Dundas (with whom was Mr. Wat-
son) for the defern;ant Cooper ; and by Mr. Warren for the
defendant Brassington. 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 mends; but he had seen him execute
deeds in the office in which witness was a clerk.—lt appeared
by other evidence, that Mayor and Co. became bankrupts in
May, 1840, at whichl 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 bank 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 caled the attention of the court to the
act of the 7th Geo. IV. l
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 6th 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 plaintifis to sue ; 2nd, as to
the effect of the seals or wafers ; and, 3rd, as to the effect of
the release ; and subject also 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 13,500
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.

up for an i

corporat

LORD AND ANOTHER, ASSIGNEES, V. RAWDOM.
In this case Simeon Lord and Joseph Marshall were the
plaintiffs, as assignees of John Wlntyre, 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 18-11, was an oil cloth manufacturer in this
town; and the defendant, Daniel Rawdon, a furniture broker
here. In May, Ig4l, 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 had a warehouse in Mhe
ancster 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 consent
of the bankrupt, the portion at the warehouse was removed
to the unfinished house about the Sth 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 had
been lodged with him as security for his debt, which debt
was satisfied. He had sold a portion of the goods, and re-
fused to return any. If even it was to be alleged that be had
a lien on them, he had no right to sell.—At half-past six,
lerfore the plaintiff's evidence had been gone through, his
iro dship said he would adjourn to the following morning.

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

MINT CASES,

.Tohn Jackson, 26, was indicted for having, at Hindley, ut-
tered two counterfeit sixpences. prisoner had, on the
for each of which he tendered
to house
ouse getting glasses of ale,
counterfeit sixpence. He had,
when apprhended, two other counterfeitstate.
asixpences in his pos-
session, and fifty-five in an unfinisheds
The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he '
was sentenced
to two years imprisonment and hard labour, the last fort-
night in solitary confinement.
Mary Yates, 28, was charged with having uttered,
sth February, at Manchester, a coanterfeit shitting,
on the
and with
having had five other counterfeit shillings in herpossession.
The charze was not substantiated by the evidence,and
lordship said there was no case against the prisoner.
shhis
She was
therefore discharged.
Ralph Buckley, 43, who was committed with the• above-
named prisoner, was placed at the bar, charged with having,
at Manchester, uttered, to Emma Jones, a counterfeit shil-
ling, and with having, in his possession five other counterfeit
nieces 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 prisoner guilty.

His Lot.toArttr, passed sentence of two years' imprison-
with hard labour ; the last fortnight in solitary con-

tintment.
James Hodson, 29, and Richard Lord, 60, were charged
with having, in December last, at Bolton, uttered a piece of
false and counterfeit coin called a sovereign, and with having
in their possession two other pieces of false and counterfeit
coin, made to resemble the current coin, called half sove-
reigns. Mr. Powell, of the mint, proved that the coins had
been struck with a die. They were exceedingly ill-executed and
very light. Mr. Powell observed that if persons would test
their money by weight, they could never be deceived, as the
counterfeits weigh only halt the legal weight of good gold

The jury found the prisoners Guilty.
James Hodson was sentenced to be imprisoned two years,
with hard labour; the last fortnight in solitary confinement.
Richard Lord was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment
and hard labour; the last fortnight in solitary confinement.
Alice Bayley, 38, and Jane Gregory, 17, were indicted for
having uttered certain counterfeit shillings, at Bolton-le-
Moors. Bayley, according to the evidence of Jane Brag-
shaw, shopkeeper to Mr. Hetchin. of Bolton' had paid her
three bad shillings on one evening, the 12th of February, and
Gregory two.
Mr. Hetchin stated that nine were found in the till, and
three were thrown away by Bayley. A handkerchief which
had been bought at his shop, and some materials for coining
were discovered at the house of Bayley's husband, and all
the other goods on the person of Gregory. The latter said
she had been employed to pass the money by a man in Bay-

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.

FORGERY.
Edmund Howarth, 46, indicted for having, at Manchester,
forged and uttered an acceptance to a bill of exchange, with
an intent to defraud Richard Lord, pleaded guilty.
Mr. IVIvitPHY intimated that the prosecutor wished to re-
commend the prisoner to mercy, -in consideration of his wife
and family.
Mr. IN ILKIN s, for the prisoner, stated that his client had
manifested the deepest contrition, and declared that it was
his intention to pay the bill, whenever it should have arrived
at maturity. He had been a manufacturer himself, and his
character had always been highly respectable until this tran-
saction. He had not behaved like a regular forger, but had
gone about it very clumsily.
His Lot-Insult. would consider the sentence.
Air. WILKINs subsequently stated that the forgery was in-
duced by the prisoner's,bankruptcy, and Mr. Townend, one
of his principal creditors, begged to recommend him to
mercy, on account of his contrition for the-offence.
CUTTING AND MAIMING.

Robert Pilling, 28, was indicted for having, at Ashton-in-
Mackerfield. feloniously cut and stabbed Richard Whittle.
The prisoner had been out on bail;
Mr. BRANDT, for the prosecution, stated that the prisoner
and Whittle were members of a friendly society, but, at their
meeting, on the 9th of January, they got drunk, a fight took
place in the street, and the prosecutor, seeing the prisoner
active in the affray laying about him with a stick, went up to
' him, got into the .mele-e, and received three or four severe
cuts or stabs from him with a knife. When the prisoner was
apprehended, a knife was found at the house of his mother-
in-law, which he admitted was his, and which had marks
of blood upon it.
From the evidence of the surgeon, Mr. Pennington, who
attended the prosecutor, the injuries inflicted appeared to be
very severe. Mr. Pennington gave the prisoner a good
character, and John Oakes, a police-officer, examined for
the prosecution, said he had the best character he ever knew.
Richard Whittle, the prosecutor, in his cross-examination,
said his brother was reckoned a biter, and himself too, in the
neighbourhood, but he was never in such a scrawl in his life,
nor had he ever bitten off a man's ear. He had fought
standing up, and up and down—both roads—many a time.
Henry Latham, another witness, in cross-examination,
admitted that he had seen a man, named Hodkinson,
" purring" the prisoner, find jumping upon his hack.
Mr. WILKINS was about to address the jury for the de-
fence, when the JUDGE stopped the case, observing that it
was but a blind affair, and for aught the jury knew, though
the use of the knife could not be excused, unless under the
most urgent necessity, the prisoner might have inflicted the
wound in self. defence, believing his own life to be in danger.
A verdict of acquittal was taken.

MANSLAUGHTER.
Joseph Boothroyd, 29, was indicted for having killed and
slain one William Riding.
The prisoner was undefended.
Mr. WILKINS, for the prosecution, stated that the de-.
ceased formerly lodged in the same house as the prisoner and
his father, and, in fact, the prisoner was his brother-in-law.
He was sitting in the house with his father on the night of
the sth of January, when the deceased came in with a com-
panion, named Thomas Allen. The prisoner was drunk, and
asked insultingly what he had brought that fellow Allen for.
Allen replied, and a squabble ensued, but the parties were se-
parated by the deceased's mother. The next morning • the
prisoner and deceased went out in a field to fight. The
mother having heard of it, went there; and found her son
dying and the prisoner standinc, over him, both being in their
shirt sleeves. Mr. Hodson, the surgeon, who made a post
mortem examination of the body, stated that he found two of
the vital vertebra of the upper part of the spine more move-
able than usual, and there was an effusion of blood, which
might have been caused by a blow upon the nose. Death
was no doubt produced by the injury to the spine, and the
injury might have been occasioned by the man falling upon
his back after a blow upon the nose. The other witnesses ex-
amined were Thomas Allen, Henry Riding, Ann Riding, and
a person named Robinson. •
The jury found him Guilty, with a strong recommendation
to mercy.
The JUDGE observed that in common parlance the death
might almost be said to be accidental. Fighting was illegal,
but it did not appear that he bad contemplated the death of
the deceased, or that there had been any unfair advantage
taken. As he had already suffered some imprisonment, the
[ justice of the case would be further satisfied by his imprison-
meet in the House of Correction fur a fortnight.
HORRIBLE ASSAULT AT 'WIGAN.
Henry Ward, 30, an Irishman, was indicted for having,
at Wigan, feloniously cut and wounded Catharine Ward.
The prisoner was undefended.
Mr. JAMES, for the prosecution, stated that the prisoner
was a huckster, dealing in fish and fruit at Wigan. He had
two stalls, one attended by his wife, and one by himself. On
the night of the 18th December, his wife returninc, home
about 11 o'clock, found him sitting by the fire. He asked
her where his watch was ? She replied, that she did not
know. He said she must know, as he bad it in the after-
noon. Some more words passed between them, and he
seized her by the throat, threw her down twice, and kicked
her with his heavy clogs on the head, arms, and body, so as
to reduce her to a state of complete insensibility, from which
she did not recover until a doctor commenced cutting off her
hair. Mrs. Jane Bonny, a neighbour, heard her moans, and
on going into the house to see what was the matter, found
her lying insensible at the bottom of the stairs, with a deep
cut on her forehead, her husband being at the time in the
yard. Mrs. Bonny spoke to her, but got no answer, and
tried to raise her, but could not. She went back to her own
house, and was followed by the prisoner, who got a light and
returned, shutting the door after him. She and her brother
listened, and heard hitn,again beating her, and his wife crying
"Oh dear." He said, after every blow he struck, " Where
is my watch ?" He came to the door once or twice, as if to
look whether any one was near, and then she heard the blows
repeated. There was no one in the house at the time but
the prisoner and his wife. They heard him tell her to go up
stairs, still beating her, and she crying, " Oh dear, don't. '
A woman named Sarah Heaney went into the house some-
time afterwards, and found him counting copper on thetable.
On inquiring for Mrs. Ward, Patrick Miller, her son, by
a former marriage, a boy of twelve years of age, pluckedl
at her cloak, and then made signs that his mother was
up stairs. Mrs. Heaney went up and found Mrs.
Ward lying partly under the bed. She and the child
helped her on the bed, and she got some water and washed
her, as she was covered with blood, and very badly hurt. Mr.
Alexander Shaw, a surgeon, was called in, arid, after cutting
her hair off, found on the left side of her head, near the fron-
tal bone, one wound of two and a half inches, another from
half an inch to an inch long, about an inch from that, and a
third an inch long, which bled freely, as a branch of the tem-
poral artery was divided. There was another cut close under
the left eye ; the upper part of the ear, to the extent of three
quarters of an inch, was separa'ed, and hanging to the other
part. There were several other wounds, like leech bites, on
the forehead. There was a mark as of the pressure of fingers
on the throat. A great extravasation of blood had taken
place on the leg, the swelling extending seven or eight inches.
The large wounds on the head were nearly of the shape of a
horse shoe. She could not swallow until three or four days
afterwards, when she parted with a great deal of blood from
that quarter, and after that became easier. Her life was in,
danger from ten days to a fortnight, and she was confined to
the house for a month. The prisoner observed to a police-
man, who came to see what was the matter, " I don't care
if I've killed her : I should not mind if I was hanged for
her." He also said, in answer to an inquiry, " She was
drunk, and had fallen against the door, and he had carried
her up stairs." The boots with which the injuries were in-
' flicted were produced in court. - They were such as are usually
worn by ploughmen, and had iron heels and 6: great number
of nails. There was blood upon the toe of one of them when
the prisoner was apprehcndtd, the same night. The watch
in question had been taken from. the prisoner the same day,
by a police officer, for safety, the prisoner having been found
by him drunk at a public-house. Witnesses were called to
prove the facts as stated.
The JUDGE left it to the jury to say whether, at the time
the injuries were inflicted, the prisoner intended to commit
murder, or do some grievous bodily harm.
The jury returned-a verdict on the last count, alleging the
intent to do some grievous bodily harm.
The JUDGE animadverted very strongly on the brutality of
of the prisoner's conduct, observing that drunkenness very
often only assisted to develope a man's natural disposition,
and, as a warning to others, sentenced him to be transported
beyond the seas for the term of his natural life. The learned
judge further intimated that he should cause such a repre-
sentation of the circumstances to be laid before the secre-
tary of state as should secure his pasing the term in a chain-
gang, on the public works.
The prisoner's wife was taken out of court in hysterics.
CUTTING AND MAIMING AT WARRINGTON.

James Lightfoot, 23, was indicted for having, at Warring-
ton, feloniously cut and stabbed Thomas Oakley.
Mr. -W ilkins defended the prisoner.
Mr. ASPINALL, for the prosecution, stated that on the
evening of the 13th of November, the prosecutor and pri-
soner met at the Brown Cow public-house. A quarrel en-
sued, and the prosecutor, with two other persons, left the
house. In the Market-place, the prisoner challenged him
to fight. Some blows were struck, the prosecutor was
knocked down, and the prisoner ran away. The prosecutor
overtook him, and another scuffle ensued, during which the
prosecutor received a stab in the back, near the shoulder.
The prisoner was immediately taken into custody, and at
once surrendered a knife, which was found in his posses-
sion. The wound was of trivial consequence, according to
the evidence of Mr. Steele, the surgeon, and did not pre-
vent the prosecutor—who appeared, from Mr. Wilkins's
cross-examination, to be a person of indifferent character,
having been once convicted, and imprisoned three months,
for felony, held to bail for assaulting his step-father—from
following his occupation.
Mr. WILKINS urged that Oakley was undeserving of
credit, and told the jury it was quite competent to them, if
they thought proper, to find a verdict for common assault.
lie called a witness to character,
The jury found the prisoner guilty of a common assault.
Then Judge sentenced the prisonei to six months' imprison-
me

SHOOTING AT BOLD.
Ralph Roseau', 24, was chargc.d with having, at Bold, felo-
niously fired at James Halliwell with a certain gun. There
were five counts in the indictment, the two first charging the
prisoner with an intent to maim or disfigure, the third to do
some grievous bodily harm, and the two last to prevent the
apprehension of the prisoner whilst engaged in an unlawful
act, or a companion of his, named Woods.
Dr. Brown was for the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins for
the defence.
Considerable merriment was excited in the court by the ex-
amination of the prosecutor as to whether his name was H el-
liwell or Halliwell. Mr. Wilkins, to invalidate the indictment,
was desirous that it should be the former, and Dr. Brown was