The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-03-29 00:00:00

FOSTER V. CHADWICK.

An undefended action to recover £27 125., for goods sold
and delivered. Verdict for the plaintiff.

EDMONDSON V. lIORSFIELD.
Mr. Wortley and Mr. Watson appeared for the plaintiff;
Mr. Martin for:the defendant.- The plaintiff-is a wine and
spirit merchant: in Manchester; and the defendant is the
landlord of the Swan Inn, Market-street, in the same town,
and the action was brought to recover £73, for goods sold
and delivered. The principal question in the case turned
upon the pleas which had been put in by the defendant, one
of which was, that payments had been made by him, and
another alleged a set-off. The details were uninteresting.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £4B 13s.
"CONVERSION" OF A POODLE—BLAIR V. lIALDRED.
This was an action in trover for the conversion of a dog.
Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wilkins for
the defendant.

' Mr. MARTIN stated, that the plaintiff was Mr. Harrison
Blair, an attorney, of Manchester, residing at Cheetwood,
and the defendant was Peter Haldred, a dealer in rags. The
action was brought to recover the value of a dog which be-
longed to the plaintiff, and which had come into the posses-
sion of the defendant, he (the learned counsel) knew not how.
In July last, Mr. Blair bought a couple of exceedingly pretty
and small poodles; one of them died shortly afterwards, and
this circumstance caused the survivor to become a still
greater favourite. It remained safe in the house for three or
four months, but one morning it was missed, and for some
time nothing could be heard of it. The dog was found by
Mrs. Halliwell, the mother of a boy employed by Mr. Blair.
She had heard a description of the missing animal, and,
being convinced this was it, she secured it till her son came
home in the evening, when he identified it, and it was, con-
sequently, sent home. Haldred, the defendant, applied to
Mrs. Halliwell for the dog : she told him what she had done
with it, and thereupon he went to Mr. Blair's house. There
was nobody in but Mrs. Blair and the servant. He went
into the kitchen, seized the dog, and carried it off, saying,
that if it was Mr. Blair's, he must prove that fact, and be
should have it. The dogs had cost £2 2s. each. It was
quite impossible to suppose that Mr. Blair had brought this
action for the sake of the costs : any one who was unac-
quainted with his character would at once acquit him of that :
indeed, the defendant had nothing to pay with. Mr. Blair
had brought the action, not for any private purpose, but to
show such people as the defendant, that they could not do
these things with impunity, and that property, whatever it
was, must be protected. _

Several witnesses were then called, whose testimony cor-
roborated the statement of the learned counsel.
Mr. WILKINS next addressed the court, on the part of the
defendant, in a speech of considerable pleasantry. In :he
course of his observations he produced the dog, whose ap-
pearance, combined with one or two jocular remarks, pro-
duced much laughter. He should prove this to be the iden-
tical dog which Mr. Blair alleged the defendant had con-
verted, and that the defendant had bought it, long before it
had got into Mr. Blair's possession, from a breeder, at
Stockport. In short, he should clearly establish the owner-
ship of the animal to be in the defendant.
Witnesses were produced, and their evidence established
the facts as alleged by the defendant.
The jury, after consulting in their box for a quarter of an
hour, and, subsequently, being locked up for an hour, re-
turned a verdict for the defendant.
EJECTMENT.—DOE DEM WRIGLEY V. DRANSFIELD AND
OTHERS.
The declaration alleged, that the plaintiff William Wrig-
ley, had had demised to him certain tenements, from which
the defendants had ejected him. The defendants pleaded
not guilty.
Mr. WORTLEY, for the plaintiff, said he sought to recover
possession of a cotton-mill and other property, in the pos-
session of the defendants. The plaintiff was the proprietor
of certain coal mines and other property, in the parish of
Oldham, and he was in the habit of supplying the defendants,
Richard, John, and George Dranstield, with coals. In
1836, the defendants became embarrassed,: and in want of
money. They applied to the plaintiff for assistance, add-he
advanced to them £1,500, taking, b 1), a
of security, a
mortgage on the mill (Hopkins' Mill), and it was under
that deed of mortgage that he sought to recover possession
of the property. Since that time, the mill had been burnt
down ; the defendants became more embarrassed; and great
harm was likely to be done to the property, unless, by this
action, it could be protected front injury. The mortgage
deed contained a power to sell the property.
The deed of mortgage was then put in, and the essential
parts of it were read.
Mr. KNOWLES, who appeared for the defendants, said he
felt he had no legal defence to this action ; and he appealed
to his learned friend to give the defendants time to pay this
money. He trusted he should have his lordship's recom- ^
mendation to that effect.
Mr. Baron ROLFE said he could make no suggestion.
He was there to sift and try the facts of the case, and he
could not interfere. _

Mr. KNOWLES said the interest had never fallen in arrear ;
and the mill was worth twice as much as the plaintiff claimed.
Mr. Baron ROLFE repeated, that he could not interfere.
Mr. WORTLEY said his client had actually sold the pro-
perty to the parties, and it was to protect their title that the
action was brought. Some arrangement, perhaps, might be
come to out of doors, but he could make none in court.
A verdict was then taken for the plaintiff. Damages and
costs 40s.

STEPHENS V. HADFIELD.
This was an action brought by a builder, in Manchester,
to recover from the defendant the sum of ±:302, for work and
labour done in erecting sixteen cottages, ix the township of
Huhne.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff;
and Mr. Dundas and Mr. Cowling for the defendants.
Evidence was produced, on the part of the plaintiff, that
he had erected the buildings at the request of the defendant,
but that there was no written agreement between them, and
also of the value of the labour done.
On the part of the defence, Mr. DUNDAS said he should
show, that, before the houses were completed, Hadfield sold
the laud and the erections upon it to a Mr. Ormerod, from
which time he ceased to take any interest in the property,
and that, in the first instance, the plaintiff sent in his bill:to
to Mr. Ormerod, who alone was liable.
One witness was heard for the defendant, and, at the con-
clusion of his testimony, the further hearing of the case was
adjourned till• Monday morning, at the request of the learned
Judge.
The Court adjourned at half-past five o'clock.

CROWN COURT.-MONDAY.

His lordship took his seat at a few minutes past 9 o'clock.

SENTENCE ON JOHN MARSDEN AND EDWARD CROOK.

John Marsden, aged 14, and Edward Crook, aged 15, con-
victed of manslaughter at Bolton on Saturday last, were
placed at the bar. His lordship, having animadverted in se-
vere terms on the practice of up and down fighting, so com-
mon in this county, sentenced Marsden to one month's im-
prisonment and Crook to two months' imprisonment in Lan-
caster Castle.

FORGERY.

John Shore, aged 41, and Thomas Wilson, aged 51, were
charged with having, at Manchester, feloniously forged and
uttered an acceptance upon a bill of exchange for £36 14s 6d,
knowing the same to be forged.
Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins
defended Shore. Mr. Brandt did not press the case against
Shore, and Mr. Wilkins was relieved.
Thomas Logan stated that he was an innkeeper, in Man-
chester, and he used to deal in mouselines de lain. Some
time since the prisoner at the bar, Wilson, was indebted to
him, and in payment of his account he gave him a bill to the
amount above specified, which purported to have been ac-
cepted by Shore's sister. It was sent to London at maturity
and dishonoured.
It appeared from the cross-examination of Logan by the
prisoner, that the bill was given to Logan to discount it, but
he, to use his own terms, " stuck to it, thinking that three
names were better than one."
The jury found Wilson guilty; Shore was acquitted.
Wilson was sentenced to seven years transportation.
ASSAULT AND HIGHWAY ROBBpRY,
James Brown, aged 25, a respectably-dressed young man,
was charged with having at Manchester, on Monday even-
ing, the 13th December last, feloniously assaulted Benjamin
Johnson, and robbed him of the sum of £230 in bank notes.
Mr. Armstrong conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Whig-
ham the defence.
BenjaMin Johnstone, the prosecutor, stated that he carried
on business in Bridgewater-buildings, Manchester. On the
morning of the 13th December he was at the Talbot Inn. At
a quarter-past five o'clock be went to his warehouse, unlocked
the safe, opened the drawer, and took out a roll of Bank of
England notes. amounting to £230. He pinned the fob in
which he placed the notes with a large pin. He went to the
Talbot, and left it about six o'clock. When within five yards
of Tipping-street he was surrounded by men, not less than
three, who seized him on all sides, by the throat, mouth, and
arms. He was rendered insensible almost instantly, and
when he recovered there were two men taking him up. One
of the men was an old acquaintance, named Foster. He
found that his fob was cut off, and his safe key was lost, and
all his property. Could swear that he neither paid nor re-
ceived any notes from the time that he got £ll5 from Messrs.
Hargreaves and Dugdale. Was certain that he possessed in
that roll of noees two £2O notes, which had been in his pos-
session more than a fortnight. One of them had been cut
in two, and badly joined together.
Cross-examined by Mr. WnfoltAm.—l had received the
£ll5 on the 10th. Had three or four small bottoms of
brandy, tilled as high as the glass would hold with water.
The place where I was knocked down was a darkish place.
I know nothing of the numbers or dates of the notes. 1 can-
not swear to the persons who attacked me.
By Mr. AnmsnuoNo.—Had an impression that the pri-
soner was one of the.parties, but could not swear to it. Could
not say whether it was reality or whether he had dreamed
it afterwards, but it seemed to him that he recollected the
grasp on his throat to have relaxed, he opened his eyes and
saw a face—it was that of the prisoner; the grasp was again
tightened, and he again became insensible. He had great
difficulty in swearing to the prisoner at the police.court. He
described the prisoner exactly to an individual before he was
taken into custody.

Frederick George Green, a boy, apparently about twelve.
Knows Mr. Johnson. Saw him at the top of Tipping4treet
on the morning of the 13th. Saw four men knock him down'
and then run, and one stopped and got upon him. The three

men who ran had their backs to me. I went up, thinking the
man was gbing to kick him. There was a lamp round the
corner. The mark who was upon Mr. Johnson saw me,
turned round, and ran as fast as he could, leaving Mr. John-
son on the ground. The prisoner is the same size as one of
those that ran away. Mr. Foster came up and assisted Mr.
Johnson. He was very much hurt. He could not speak—
he was groaning.

Jame; Foster, a warehouseman, stated, that on the evening
of Monday, the 13th December last, he was proceeding down
Tipping-street. Heard a groaning and found a man. With
another gentleman he lifted him up. The first words he ut-
tered were—" Oh, Foster, is that you?" Did not know him
at first, as his face was bloody, dirty, and disfigured, Ac-
companied him home. I t was the prosecutor, Mr. Johnston.
John Johnston, son of the prosecutor.—ls in the habit of
collecting money for his father. Received the sum of £ll5
alluded to by his father. It consisted of £5 and £lO notes.
They were rolled up and put into the safe.

.
Samuel Sykes, cashier 'to Messrs. Hargreaves and Dug-
dale, of Manchester, proved the payment of £ll5 to Mr.
Johnson's son, in :C5 and £lO notes. Had received the money
from John Topper. Received from Topper £135. Paid
£ll5 to Johnson's son in fives and tens. Paid about three
£5 notes to Johnson. Paid on Saturday, the 11th, to
Grimshaw two £5 notes. On the morning after the robbery,
Johnson's son came and mentioned the robbery. I was
asked if I had any of the notes which I had received from
Topper in my possession. I could not tell him : I thought
I had-not, but I found afterwards that I had one note which
corresponded with the memorandum which Topper had got
from the branch bank.

By Mr. WniGnAm.—l had received £135 from Topper.
I paid young Johnson £ll5 ; I paid two £5 notes on Satur-
day, and had one remaining, which was also paid away. I
must also have paid away one other £5 note to make the
number. I do not make memorandums of the smaller
notes, but Ido of the larger ones. The moment Topper
brought in the £135 from the bank, I paid £ll5 to John-
ston, without mixing them with any others.
John Topper, clerk in the employ of Messrs. Hargreaves
arid Dugdale, proved that they went with a cheque to the
Branch Bank of England. Received nine £lO notes and
nine £5 notes. Delivered the money as he received it from
the bank, to Mr. Sykes.
Alexander Balfour, a teller at the branch Bank of Eng-
land, in Manchester, (produced the cheque presented by the
last witness) paid nine £lO notes, nine £5 notes, and odd
shillings—producing his book. The book contained the
numbers of one bill in each. The first number of the fives
was 5861, and of the tens 85,389. Another clerk made a
memorandum of all the notes.

Cross-examined.—All the notes were in a drawer together.
The notes which are received the day before are put in a
drawer together for re-issue. They are not consecutive.
numbers, but are given out in consecutive order as they are
arranged—the-fives from their heap, and the tens from their
heap.
Re-examined.—Mr. Todd, the clerk, who makes the
entry, has them over in the order in which they have
been received. Has it in his power, by examining with
Todd, to discover the numbers of all the notes paid.
William Winter Todd, a clerk in the Branch Bank of
England, gave evidence as to the mode of entry. He then
gave the numbers of the eight succeeding ten•pound notes,
commencir- 85,389,
and those commencing 5,861 (the five-
pound notes). The latter were 33,422, 19,357, 8,101, 29,737,
'10,479, 84,812, 37,960, 37,959.
On cross-examination, this witness gave much evidence
as to the course of business, displaying an admirable system.
George Grimshaw, a blacksmith, proved the receipt of
two notes—No. 37,960 for £5, and No. 37,959 for £s—from
Mr. Sykes. He afterwards gave them up to Mr. Lomax, a
police-officer, on 'Wednesday the 22d of December. These
were the two notes which Mr. Sykes said he paid away, and
which were not of the parcel paid to the younger Johnson.
Benjamin BODthe, a surveyor, of Manchester.—On Tues-
day night, the 14th December, was in the neighbourhood of
Clarendon-street, about a quarter past ten. I heard a cry
of " Murder ! " behind me. I went to the spot, and found
the prisoner at the bar with several men. He was on the
ground, and the other men were kicking and abusing him.
I went to his assistance, and they ran away. I told him I
thought he was much hurt, and asked him if they had robbed
him. He said No—he had his money in his fob. I asked
him if he would know the men. He said Yes, he knew
them, but would not give any information about them. I
said that was very odd, and he told me it was no matter to
me, upon which I said I would detain him till a police-officer
came. On hearing mention of a police-officer, he burst from
my grasp and ran away. I pursued him, and caught him
calling out " Watch ! Police-officer Rooke came up. I
told him the circumstances, and he took the prisoner into
custody.

William Henry Rooke, a police-officer, of Manchester.—
I was on duty in Clarendon-street, on the night of the 14th
December last. I saw the last witness pursuing the prison-
er, and took the latter into my custody. I searched him. I
found a sovereign in his hand, and £52 10s. in sovereigns
and half-sovereigns in a watch-pocket which was in his
trousers pocket. The fob was used as a purse, and had been
cut from a pair of trousers. I also found £4 18s. 6d. in
silver in his pocket. I asked him where he had got so much
money, and he said he would let me know that to-morrow.
Cornelius Riley, a provision dealer, of Manchester. I
knew the priSoner at the bar. I always knew him by the
name of Michael Miles. I have known him five or six years.
On Monday evening, the 13th December, at eight o'clock,
he called upon me to pay me a small balance of 175., which
he had owed me since 1837. He asked me if he did not owe
me an account. I said yes. I showed it to him. He said
it was correct, and offered me a £5 Bank of England note.
I took it to Mr. William Gibson, provision dealer, and he
gave me five sovereigns for it. 1 gave the prisoner the
money, and he gave me ten shillings. He said lie would not
pay me there, but would go out and pay me. We went to a
public-house, and he showed me a £2O note. It had been
cut in two, and was not put together straight. I had it in
my hand. We went into the street, 'and he there paid me
ten shillings. He said he had a good deal of money on him.
William Gibson, provision dealer, of Manchester, proved
that, on the evening of the 13th, he changed a £5 note for the
last witness. The name itiley was written on it by witness's
daughter. (Note produced and identified.) It was about
half-past eight o'clock.
The note was read by the clerk of the court. It was num-
bered 10,479.

Ellen Hackett, wife of Cornelius Hackett.—On the even-
ing of the 13th December last saw the prisoner at the Wheat
Sheaf with Riley. I saw him produce two notes, which lie
said were £lO notes. He produced a £2O note. I had it in
my hand. He asked me to cash it. It was pieced in the
middle. He wrapped it up in a small compass and put it in
his mouth. He drank a glass of wine with it in his mouth.
He took it out of his mouth and put it in his pocket. He
showed four sovereigns. He changed one to pay for a glass
of wine. He put the other three into his boot. He after-
wards threw them on the floor, and subsequently put them
in his pocket. I have known him by the name of Michael
Miles usually.
Ellett Jones proved that the prisoner went to the shop at
which she serves on the morning after the robbery, and pur-
chased a pair of boots for 145., changing a zes note. He left
his old boots. The £5 note could not be traced. The old
boots were given to Mr. Beswick.
Mr. Beswick, superintendent of the Manchester police.—
I saw the prisoner at the bar at the Manchester police-court,
and applied for him to be remanded. He said he had re-
ceived the money from his father-in-law at Stockport. He
subsequently said he did not know where the house of his
father-in-law was. (A pair of shoes produced.) I received
them from Ellen Jones, the last witness. There were marks
Of blood upon them, and the marks are visible now.
Cross-exatnined.—He did not say his father-in-law was
a hawker, and that he resided at Carlisle.
Mr. WHIGHAM addressed the jury at considerable length.
He did not deny that the Prosecutor was robbed, and that he
suffered considerable violence, but who it was that committed
that offence was still a mystery. He contended that what-
ever suspicions the jury might entertain, they had no evi-
dence on which they could convict the prisoner at the bar.
The jury, after a few minutes' consideration, found the
prisoner guilty.
His LORDSHIP questioned Mr. Beswick as to the previous
character of the prisoner. Mr. Beswick stated that he had
been frequently before the court at Manchester for felony,
but had not been convicted.
HIS LORDSHIP sentenced the prisoner to 20 years trans-
portation.

' It was ordered that the money found on the prisoner should
be retuned to the prosecutor.

SLE.ALING A LETTER.
Henry Edward Wearer, a handsome and respectable-
looking youth, aged 17, convicted on Saturday of having
stolen a post letter, was sentenced to seven years' transpor-
tation.