The Northern Daily Times. — 1857-03-27 (Liverpool, Merseyside, England)

CHARGE OT N URDER AT MANCHRSTER.—WiIIiam Collins, aged 57, a weaver, stood charged ;on the coroner's warrant with having killed and murdered another weaver, named John White. In this case it appeared that, on the 31st of January, the deceased and the prisoner, who were well known to each other, were at the house of Michael Morris, when an altercation took place between them about a woman with whom the prisoner lived. They then came to blows, when the prisoner went up stairs, but soon after returned, when he deliberately plunged a knife into the bowels of the deceased man, who was taken to the Infirmary, and died from the effects of the injury. Guilty of manslaughter. Sentence deferred.  of a quantity of oak bark, purchased by the plaintiff from one Isaac Cooper, of Manchester. Mr. Hill, Q. i 7. , was for the plaintiff, with Mr. Ovens, and the Attorney General and Jones appeared for the defence. The case appeared to be one interesting to the societies for the protection of trade. In July last the plaintiff was waited upon by Mr. Cooper, whom he alleged to have never seen before, who asked him to advance a sum of money upon a ' cargo of oak bark which was being shipped to his order from a person named Donaldson, residing in Scotland. Upon the inv Ace of the bark being produced to the plaintiff, be advanced Cooper £2O on the hark, and afterwards £2l, to pay for the freight, and Mr. Buchanan, said to be a commission agent in North John street, Liverpool, was instructed to call upon the New Quay Company, pay the frieght, and receive the cargo. The defendants, as common carriers, forwarded the goods to Manchester, to the order of Cooper, who subsequently gave an order to the plaintiff to receive the goods in the invoice. The plaintiff did not produce the bill of lading, and the defendants refused to givehitn the bark, on the ground that it belonged to Nnalison, of Dnm fries, who had stopped it in transitu, and, further, that Donaldson had been induced to part with the goods by fraud on the part of Cooper and others ; hence the action. From the statement of Mr. Knowles, for the defence, it appeared • that the man Cooper, who is now in Lancaster Castle, having advertised to purchase bark, he was answered by Donaldson, and the result was that Cooper ordered from them 21 tons ; hut, as Cooper was a stranger to them, they requested a reference before the bark was shipped. Cooper referred them to a Mr. Wrigly of 'Mime, near Manchester, but wrote to awe lds )n, saying, that he thought cash was the best reference, and that on the receipt of the bark, prompt payment would be made. Cooper had dat-d his letters to Donaldson, as from " Knott Mill," Bridgewater street, Manchester, which led Doea'dson to suppose that he kept a mill of that name. whereas Knott Mill was a district of Mancht-ster. Upon this, Donaldson shipped the bark, but as Cooper was a perfect stranger to him, he took the precaution to send through a Scotch hank, to a bank in Manchester, the of lading, and a draft for £125 12s. urn Cooper, giving orders that on the payment of the latter the bill of lading could be given up to him. Enquiries were made for Cooper, but no such person could be found in Bridgewater street, or in any part of Knott Mill. Through the postman. however, it was ascertained that Cooper was in the habit of having his letters addressed to him at some public house in Knott Mill. Under these circumstances Donaldson requested the New Quay Company neither to deliver the goods to Cooper nor to Sheridan, the plaintiff, the alleged purchasers. Several points of 1 law were here mooted, as to the legality of the purchase by Sheridan, and whether on the production of the invoice from Mr. Donaldson to Cooper, and the transfer of the property to Sheridan, the defendants should not have given up the bark. After an investigation which lasted upwards of three hours, it was arranged to make a special case for the Court of Common Pleas, in which the action was brought upon the points of law recorded, and to take a verdict for the plaintiff on the facts, the costs to be subject to the decision of the Court of Common Pleas.