The Press. — 1857-02-07 (London, England)

THE GREAT WEBTERTON O. LIDDELL CASE Will be finally heard before the Privy Council Judicial Committee, at Downing•atreet, on Monday next, at 10 a.m. AsnEasom AND &WARD were examined on Thursday with respect to the forgery of the Ipool. cheque upon Messrs Kinnard. The document was proved to be a forgery. The prisoners were remanded till Wednesday next.  PETER M`CLEAN, convicted of the murder, on the 15th of November, of one Maxwell, of Bathgate, was executed on Monday at Linlithgow. THE UNPRINCIPLED NATURE OP THE CUSTOM or "Aoivi.o CHARACTER" TO A SERVANT TO GET RID Or Him was singularly illustrated in the trial this week at Westminster of " Parker v. Shadwell." Mr. Latincelot Shadwell, a barrister residing in Nottinghamplace, had in his service as butler from November 6, 1855, to April 1, 1856, one James Parker. When Parker was about to leave his service at the latter date Mr. Shadwell went over the plate with him, and found that articles were wanting to the value of 171. lOs. Mr. Shadwell refused to pay the man the balance of his wages, amounting to 81. lOs. After various discussions, one of which took place at the station-house in the presence of the sergeant, Mr. Shadwell offered to compromise the felony, and not press the criminal charge if l 11. were handed to him. Parker's wife paid to Mr. Shadwellsl. outside the station•house door, and subsequently borrowed 61., which she also gave him. These two sums, together with the balance due on the wages, brought up the amount to 171. lOs., the value of the missing plate. The action was now brought by Parker to recover this money, and compensation for false imprisonment. In the course of his cross-examination Mr. Shadwell was asked when he first believed the man was guilty of felony. His reply was—" On the 2nd of April 1 had consulted the inspector. lam certain he stole the plate now, and I was quite certain when I took the money. I believed him to be a felon. I gave him a character." A verdict was entered for the defendant on both counts, leaving it open for the plaintiff to recover the 111. by law. THE case of " Harrison v. the Marquis of Bath," tried in the Court of Queen's Bench on Wednesday, offers a singular instance of a peculiar species of extortion practised upon noblemen and others in town. Harrison, the plaintiff, belonged to that peculiar class of " touts " usually infesting great towns. In 18:74 he was caught, convicted, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment for kidnapping a young Belgian girl, Alice Leroy. In April, '56, upon coming out of prison, he endeavoured to make a little capital out of his previous experiences, and commencer) a system of extortion by threatening to declare publicly that the gentleman applied to had been in the habit of visiting the little establishments in Pimlico. Success emboldened him, and he resolved upon a soup on the Marquis of Bath, Lord Somerton, Lord .Bateman, and his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge. To each of these distinguised persons he applied for the payment of large sums of money for wines supplied at 8, Denbighterrace. The Marquis of Bath being first on the list, first resisted the claim, and an action was brought. It was tried last Wednesday, and the plaintiff in his crossexamination prevaricated to such an extent with respect to the quality of the distinguished persons charged with having ordered wine from him, and proved himself to be such an intolerable liar, that the counsel for the defence thought it unnecessary to address the court, and the jury without a moment's hesitation returned a verdict for the defendant. Lord Campbell, in a few emphatic words, characterised Harrison as " a most dangerous member of society." His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, Lord Bateman, and Lord Somerton, were on the bench during the triaL  FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE Tuesday, February, 3,