Huddersfield Chronicle (25/Jan/1868) - page 6
Magistrates in Petty Sessions
Magistrates in Petty Sessions.
West Riding Court House, Princess Street, Saturday, January 18th, 1868. On the Bench: Bentley Shaw, Esq., and Lieut.-colonel Brooke.
Charge of Embezzlement Against a Coal Agent
Charge of Embezzlement Against a Coal Agent. — John Stott, agent, Newtown, was charged with embezzling various sums of money belonging to William Hepworth, coal merchant, Crosland Moor. The prosecutor stated that, on the 4th October, 1867, he engaged the prisoner as agent to get orders for coal on commission. After Christmas he called upon him to render an account, but he did not render one. He found the prisoner had received from Mr. Haigh 13s. 9d. on December 6th, and from Mr. Hervin 15s. 5d., which he ought to have paid over as soon as he received them. About the 3rd January, he requested the prisoner to attend at his office, and said, if he did not come, there would be further trouble, but he did not attend. On the 4th he received a letter from the prisoner, in which he said " Please not to trouble yourself. We will make all things right, but I cannot at present. I have tried hard for these last two months to get an order for you, but could not. They were all full up. I have had no work for the last two months. Please to wait a little longer." — Joseph Huigh, hosier, Kirkgate, said, on the 6th December, he paid the prisoner, on account of the prosecutor, 13s. 9d. for one ton two cwt. of coal. He produced a receipt settled by John Stott. — Edwin Hervin, shopkeeper, Castlegate, said, about the middle of November last, he paid the prisoner, on account of prosecutor, 15s. 5d. for one ton five cwt. of coal. The receipt, settled by John Stott, was produced. — Inspector White stated that, on the 17th January he received a warrant for the apprehension of the prisoner, and took him into custody in Westgate on Friday last, When the warrant was read to him the prisoner answered " Yes." Stott, after the usual caution, said "I did not intend taking it asa fraud. If he will give me time, I will pay it to him." — Committed for trial.
On the Bench: G. Armitage and J. Beaumont, Esqs.,
Assault. — Joseph Bennett, mechanic, was charged with assaulting Sarah Ann Beaumont. Mr. Learoyd defended. The assault, which was committed on Satur-
day night week, was admitted, but the defendant alleged that it was the result of provocation. A fine of 5s. and costs was imposed.
A Virago. — Margaret Carney, a woman of ill fame, was charged with doing wilful damage, to the amount of 10s., to the windows and door of a house occupied by John Mannion, Back Buxton Road. On Saturday night week, the complainant and his wife exchanged a "few words," and, just after they had fastened the door of the house, the defendant anda man with whom she lived, knocked and desired to enter ; but were refused admission. The defendant then endeavoured to pass through the window, and, failing in the attempt, obtained a poker and deliberately smashed, one after the other, sixteen panes of glass. In defence, Carney said Mannion was thrashing his wife, who was trying to make her escape by the window. She told Mannion not to illuse the woman in that manner, whereupon he stabbed her in the head. A certificate, signed by Mr. Knaggs's assistant, stated that the defendant had been suffering from a wound in the head, caused by a sharp instrument. — The magistrates believed the woman inflicted the wound herself when she was smashing the panes of glass, and imposed a penalty of 2s. 6d., awarded 8s. damage, and costs, amounting altogether to £1 3s, 6d.; or, in default of payment, ten days' imprisonment.
Tempted to Steal a Coat
Tempted to Steal a Coat. — A married man, named James Smith, brickmaker, Moldgreen, was charged with stealing an overcoat, the property of Mr. Holdby Atkinson, clothier, King Street. The prosecutor stated that, on Saturday night, in consequence of information received from a boy, he immediately ran along Queen Street, and found the prisoner standing near the County Court, with a great coat in his hand. He told him he had stolen a coat, and the prisoner said he had taken nothing. In taking him to the Police Station, the prisoner burst from him, tearing his coat. He ran after the prisoner, and caught him again ; and a soldier came to his assistance. The prisoner said to the soldier "I am not the thief, he is the thief" (meaning the prosecutor.) The loop by which the coat was hung up in the shop had been cut. He identified the coat, and it was worth £1. — Arthur James Jordan, Perseverance Street, Primrose Hill, who is employed in a shop next to the prosecutor's, saw the prisoner talking to another man opposite his master's window. The prisoner pointed with his thumb over his shoulder, and the man went down the street. The prisoner then pulled a knife out, and went to the door of the prosecutor's shop, and put his foot on the step and hesitated. He went to the other side of the street, and saw the prisoner cut the coat down, and run along Queen Street. — Police Constable Gledhill charged him with stealing a coat; and the prisoner replied, "I know nothing about it." He was the worse for liquor. — In answer to the usual interrogatory, the accused said, " I cannot tell how it was." — Mr. Armitage: Did you take the coat ? — Prisoner: I must have done, if they say I did. — The prisoner, who appeared to have borne a good character hitherto, was sentenced to one month's imprisonment.
Using a Special Constable's Staff
Using a Special Constable's Staff. — Richard Crowther, a professional "step" dancer, was charged with committing an assault upon William Sugden, greengrocer, on the 19th January. — The complainant said, on the night in question, as he and a friend were going to separate at the bottom of South Parade, the defendant, and about a score more young men, came up and accosted them. One up with his fist, gave him a " welt," and made him a black eye. A young man named Ibberson, said the defendant and his companion took the cap of the complainant, but it was returned to him on the Manchester Road. The complainant was run up some steps, and the defendant brought out a staff and struck him with it twice. — Mr. Armitage: What sort of a staff ? — Witness said it was one of the " specials." (Laughter.) A policeman came up, the staff fell from the back of the defendant, and witness picked it up. — Mr. Armitage: I am very glad. — Prisoner: That's not true. You say I struck him twice with the staff? — Witness: Yes. — Prisoner: You didn't. I will tell you how I got hold of the staff. — Policeconstable Crowther, who saw Crowther and his mates about 20 minutes to one o'clock in the morning, said the defendant struck the complainant with some weapon, but he could not tell what it was; and, as soon as he got hold of him, the staff dropped from under his coat. — Prisoner : It had been under my coat all the time. I never had it in my hand. — Mr. Armitage: What were you doing with the staff? The prisoner proceeded to say that, when the fight was commenced, a man gave him the staff to hold, and he pushed it under the back of his coat so that no one could get hold of it. He could find the man who gave him the staff. — Mx. Armitage: Was hea "snecial ?' — Prisoner : I don't know what he is. — Mr. Superintendent Withers: I know the man from whom he received the staff ; and I shall recommend his name to be struck off the list. — Mr. Armitage: His name must be withdrawn from the list at once. We have nothing to do with the staff. You are charged with striking that man. — Prisoner: I never struck anybody with that staff. If I did, you may give me 20 years. (Laughter.) Fined 5s. and expenses (total 14s. 2d.), and, the defendant stating that he was not prepared to pay, was committed to the House of Correction for 14 days. The man who so injudiciously lent the staff to Crowther is named Cocking, and belongs to Paddock.
On the Bench: G. Armitage, Esq., and Lieut.-colonel Brooke.
An Incorrigible Girl
An Incorrigible Girl. — Martha Manley Mowbray, 16 years of age, was brought up, on remand, charged with using obscene language. — Police Constable Ianson stated that, on Tuesday morning last, he was on duty in Buxtonroad. As he was going down to the Police Office with a prisoner (the defendant's sister), she came to him at the top of Ramsden Street and used obscene language. The defendant had been remanded from Tuesday in order that enquiries might be made respecting her character. He went to see her parents last night, and they said they could not make anything of her atall. She had stolen both articles and money ; and had been going about the streets with married men. — The Bench fined the defendant £1 and expenses (total £1 6s. 4d.), or, in default of payment one month's imprisonment.
A Tempting Ham
A Tempting Ham. — Henry Powell, currier, on tramp, was brought up charged with stealing a ham belonging to Joseph Haigh Cooper, provision dealer, corner of the Market-walk, King Street. On the previous evening Mr. G. H. Wood, architect, saw the prisoner take the ham off the door cheek, and followed him into the Pack Horse-
He raised an alarm, and the prisoner was seized by John Lynch, who came out of the Pack Horse Tap. They took the prisoner back to the shop, and he was given into the custody of Police Constable Whelan, market inspector, about half-past seven o'clock. The ham was identified as the property of Mr. Cooper by the shopman, George Kendall, who also went in pursuit of the thief. — The prisoner pleaded guilty, but the Bench, knowing nothing of his antecedents, committed him for trial at the sessions.
Assault by a Female in a Mill
Assault by a Female in a Mill. — Sarah Hargreaves, a powerful-looking married woman, residing in Castlegate, was summoned for assaulting Willlam Farrar, factoryhand, on the 20th inst. The defendant, it appeared, had been irregular in her attendance at the mill, and the complainant discharged her and employed another female. About nine o'clock on the morning in question the defendant arrived, and he told her she might go back again. The defendant, saying she would give him "go back," seized him by the coat collar, and "brayed" him on the head with her fist. "I tried," said he, "to get out of her way ; but 'my lord' here were after me." Thinking she should not overtake him, he threw a can upon the fioor, and, the defendant falling headlong over it, he was enabled to get beyond herreach. Hargreaves said the complainant systematically called persons to whom he had an antipathy " Fenians," and he called her one, and aggravated her to do what she should not have done. — The Bench told the woman that she should not have taken the law into her own hands, and imposed a penalty of 1s. and costs.
Breach of the Market Byelaws by a Fish Dealer
Breach of the Market Byelaws by a Fish Dealer. — Jokn Wood, fish dealer, King Street, was charged that he, being the occupier of a stall in the market, did keep open after the hour of eleven o'clock, contrary to the byelaws of the Improvemeat Commissioners. Policeconstable Whelan, market inspector, said the offence for which the defendant had been summoned was a breach of the first byelaw, which regulated the hours of opening and closing the markets. The defendant kept his stall open until 12-20 on Sunday morning, the 11th inst., and, on the following Wednesday, he reported the breach to the Markets' Committee, who gave him instructions to caution the defendant. Accordingly he cautioned the defendant, and a promise was made that the offence should not be repeated. Last Saturday night he went to the stall, and told the defendant's daughter if they remained in the market after the hour for closing, they would be summoned. They were selling fish at twelve minutes past twelve o'clock. The highest penalty was 40s., but the Commissioners only wished to show the defendant that he could net infringe the byelaws with impunity. The defendant, who did not appear, was fined 10s., and expenses (total 18s).
The Blows of a Boiler Maker
The Blows of a Boiler Maker. — Joshua Fletcher, boiler maker, Leeds Road, was summoned for assaulting Ann Mitchell, of Thomas Street, on the 20th inst. On Monday night last, the complainant's husband went to a eellar occupied by the defendant and a woman with whom he was cohabiting, in search of his wife. The defendant said the complainant was not there, and, if she entered the place, he would " poise" her until she could not walk up the steps. Afterwards the complainant went to the dwelling civilly to ask the defendant what he meant. The defendant seized her by the hair of the head, tried to strangle her with a handkerchief which was tied on her head, and gave her a black eye. The complainant's husband, who had followed his wife, could not get into the house, and, hearing the defendant beating his wife, he smashed five windows, but paid for them directly atterwards.- — The defendant, in his statement, said he simply asked the complainant to leave the house, and twisted her round towards the door. She got hold of him, gave him a blow, and cut his lip. He then tried to push her out, but both fell, and the complainant's eye was injured in the fall. — The woman with whom the defendant cohabits said she could not tell who struck the first blow. Mr. Laycock: Do you live with this man? Witness: \es. — Mr. Laycock: Are youhis wife? Witness: No. — The Bench fined the defendant 20s, and expenses (total £1 12s.
Mr. Superintendent Withers and the Licensed Victuallers
Mr. Withers and the Licensed Victuallers. — In the case of Mr. Hiram Burley, landlord of the Packhorse Hotel, Kirkgate, wko had been summoned for keeping open his premises during prohibited hours on the 17th instant, Mr. S. Learoyd said the house had been conducted in a highly respectable manner for 18 years. Mr. Burley was willing to pay expenses. — Mr. Superintendent] Withers: That will satisfy me. I wish to prevent not to punish. — Bench : This case, then, is withdrawn on payment of expenses. It was stated that there were other two cases of a similar character to be heard, namely, against Mr. William Hannan, Bull and Mouth Hotel; and Mr. J. S. Stainthorpe, Anglers' Tavern, Bradford Road. — Mr. Superintendent Withers: I don't press for a penalty in these cases. They are the first I have had in the town. — Mr. Armitage: We had better not go into either of the cases. — Mr. Learoyd: Mr. Ha' adjournment, and he is about to defend the case. — Mr. Armitage : Is this the late superintendent ? — Mr. Learoyd: Yes, sir. — Mr. Armitage: What we do to one we must certainly do to the other. — Mr. Withers: It is a painful duty — a very painful duty — and I would it had never occurred, kut 1 stand here to do my duty without fear or favour. — Mr. Armitage: As we have done in the other case, I think we should do in this, You havea similar case ; and I hope it will be a warning to both. — Lieut.Colonel Brooke: Will he consent to that ? — Mr. Learoyd: I don't think he will.-. Mr. Laycock (magistrates' clerk): Do you advise him? — -Mr. Learoyd: Well, I am not advising him. — John Shepherd Stainthorpe, of the Anglers' Arms, was then charged that, on the 18th inst. he kept open his house, for the sale of beer and spirits, between the hours of one and four o'clock in the morning. — Defendant did not appear. — Police-sergeant Moore stated that, last Saturday morning, at twenty minutes to two o'clock, he visited the defendant's house, and found two men in the kitchen. There was a pint pitcher on the table, and a glass containing beer. He asked if it was not time to turn the company out, and the landlord said the men were going away as soon as they had supped the beer. That was at twenty minutes to two o'clock, but the men were there at three o'clock. — Police Constable E. Ford stated that, at twenty minutes past one o'clock, he found twelve men in the house, and on the table a quantity of beer, which appeared to have been newly drawn. He saw two men come out of the house at three in the morning, one being the worse for beer. — The defendant, who did not answer to his name, which was called out several times, was fined 10s. and expenses. — In a short time afterwards Mr. Hannan made his appearance in court, and Mr. Armitage asked him if he wished the case to be gone into. They had had a similar case brought before them, but it had been withdrawn on payment of expenses. — Mr. Hannan: I wish to have this case gone into; but I have te ask your worships to adjourn it in consequence of my witness having gone out of the town. — Mr. Armitage: We shall be glad tc.do that. Till when ? — Mr. Hannan: Tuesday, sir. — The case was adjourned until Tuesday. — Mr. S, Learoyd then came into court, and, addressing the magistrates, suid the defendant Stainthorpe was outside the court waiting to defend his case. The defendant had instructed him to defend ; and he was quite unaware it would be called on in the early part of the day. — Lieut.-Colonel Brooke: His name was called three or four times in open court. — Mr. Armitage: And it was twenty minutes past eleven o'clock ; for I remember looking at my watch. — Mr. Learoyd: He states that he has an answer to the case. — Mr. Laycock: You were present. — Mr. Learoyd: I have only just been instructed. — Mr. Dransfield, interposing, said a short time ago he was instructed by a client; but the case was heard in his (Mr. Dransfield's) absence. The magistrates would not rehear the case ; and the man had put him into court for the retaining fee. — The Bench said they had given their decision and refused to grant a new trial.
Huddersfield County Court
Huddersfield County Court.
Monday, January 20th. Before J. Stansfeld, Esq., Judge.
Application in an Administration Suit
Application in an Administration Suit. — In the case of George Gibson, weaver, Dalton, v. Sarah Gibson, Leicester, Mr. Bottomley said, upon the registrar's certificate, he had to ask for the perent of £140 into court. — Mr. Learoyd stated that the defendant, who was a poor man, had been compelled to take a situation as a domestic servant in Leicester, and would never be able to pay the money. He could not resist the order ; but he should be ecmpelled to lay before his Honour the circumstances of her present position. — Mr. Bottomley: I have quite as pitiable a tale to tell on behalf of the plaintiff. — An order was made for the payment of the money into court by next court day.
Action by a Co-operative Society
Action by a Co-operative Society. — The Houses Hill Industrial Co-operative Society, at Kirkheaton, brought an action against Hannah Tolson, widow of the late Thomas Tolson, farmer, Houses Hill, to recover the sum of £22 14s. 7d. — -Mr. J. I. Freeman on behalf of the society; and Mr. J. Sykes appeared on behalf of the defendant. — There was a dispute as to £1 14s. 5d., and, under the circumstances, the society abandoned that portion of the claim; leaving the amount sued for — £21 Os. 2d. — Mr. Dan Fisher, manager for the society, was put into the box ; and proved the claim. — The defence was that the defendant's husband held a share in the society, and left it to the defendant, who, being a partner, could not, therefore, be sued. — An order for the amount was entered,
Re: John Ashton
Re John Ashton. — Mr. N. Learoyd said, in the bankruptcy of John Ashton, publican, Lockwood, the goods had been seized by a creditor under a bill of sale. They had summoned the bill of sale creditor several times for the purpose of examining him, and each time he had not appeared. On the last occasion a promise was given that he should appear at the last examination ; but a letter had been received from Mr. Craven, solicitor, saying that, notwithstanding the promise, they objected to the jurisdiction of the court, and should not attend in obedience to the summons, the reason assigned being that the debts of the bankrupt exceeded £300. He would ask his Honour to instruct the registrar to communicate with the creditor, and that if he still refused to attend at the next court day, then a warrant be issued. The application was granted.
Application for Costs
Application for Costs. — An action was recently heard in which John Berry, joiner, Huddersfield, as assignee of Wm. Rogers, loan agent, bankrupt, sued Messrs. Seth Senior, brewers, for rent, for the occupation of a warehouse in King Street. Mr. Thomas Styring, spirit merchant, who held a mortgage of the property in question, gave the tenants notice to pay the rents to hin, and proceeded to apply to the Vice-chancellor for an injunction to restrain Berry from receiving the rents. At a previous sitting of his Honour Mr. Learoyd applied for an adjournment of the action; the judge intimated that there should be an adjournment on payment into court of the costs of the present suit before the 20th January. Mr. Clough now asked his Honour to make an order for the payment of costs as against the defendant. The application was opposed by Mr. Learoyd. His Honour owed the plaintiff 3ls., but not attorney's costs.
Administration Suit. — In this suit, the plaintiff was Susannah Armitage, widow of the late Thomas Armitage, slubber, Paddock, and the defendant, George Armitage, Hill Top, one of the executors of the late Thomas Armitage. Mr. C, E. Freeman (Messrs. Brook, Freeman, and Batley) appeared for the plaintiff. The decree in this case was made in May, 1866, when his Honour authorised the registrar to take the accounts, and ordered the defendant to pay the balance into court. The accounts had been taken, and there was no dispute as to them — His Honour: Who appears for the defendant? — Mr. Sykes: I appear for the defendant. — Mr. Clough: I also appear. — Mr. Sykes: We had better have this point settled. I have appeared three times previously, but, if he will pay my costs, I will withdraw. — The question whether the defendant could change his attorney without giving notice, was argued at some length, after which Mr. Freeman said the defendant had not paid the balance into Court as ordered some months ago ; and he applied for an order to compel him, and also the payment of the costs of the suit. — His Honour: Is there any objection why the order should not be made? — Mr. Sykes: No, sir, it has been my advice all along to him to pay the money. — The Judge said the estate was valued at £49 15s.; the defendant had paid £19 4s.; leaving a balance in hand of £30 lls. What objection could there be to the money being paid into Court? — Mr. Sykes: None. When the accounts were taken by the registrar on the 13th September, the man promised to pay the money, and I have ad. vised him all along to do so. His Honour (to Mr. Clough): Do you object to his paying the money ? — Mr. Clough: I scarcely know where I am. (Laughter.) I find this man has two advocates against him. — His Honour: Why has he not paid the costs ? — Mr. Clough : The man has really not the money in his possession. It was probable he would want to investigate the accounts a little more. — His Honour adjourned the case until next court, and said, unless the defendant paid the money into court by that time, there would be an attachment, If the defendant chose, he could then make an application to change his attorney._ Mr. Freeman: Then as to the application for costs ? — His Honour said that question should also be adjourned.
Administration Case. — This was an application, under the Equitable Jurisdiction Act, for an account of the estate to be taken, and administered under a decree of the court. The plaintiffs were Elizabeth Hoyle, spinster, Benjamin Lockwood, delver, Linthwaite, and Alice his wife, Joseph Dyson, weaver, Slaithwaite, and Martha his wife, John Hoyle, weaver, Slaithwaite, Enoch Hoyle, weaver, Golcar, and Levina Hoyle, spinster, Golcar. The defendants were Sarah Hoyle, New Close, Slaithwaite, administratrix of the late Anthony Hoyle, farmer and manufacturer, James Hoyle, weaver, New Close, James Bailey, thrum dealer, Spring House, Golcar, and Sarah his wife, William Hey, joiner, New Close, and Hannah his wife, and Elias Hoyle, weaver, New Close. — Mr. T. W. Clough, who made the application, said the action was against the administratrix of deceased. Letters of administration were taken out in the month of October, 1866, but, from that time to the present, his clients had been unable to get any proper statement of account. A statement issued by the defendants showed that all the assets amounted to £99; and the estate had been sworn at under £100; but the plaintiffs would show that there wasa very largeestate. Theonly fear he (Mr. Clough) entertained was that sufficient might be proved to place the ease beyond the jurisdiction of the court. He then proceeded to enumerate several items, as set down by the defendants, and NPA
nnan is about to apply for an show that some gross attempt had been made to prevent the equitable administration of the estate. The value of the estate, as estimated by the plaintiffs, was, for farm stock, £150 ; cash in the house, £70 ; looms and machinery, £50; household furniture. £45; and then there was the stock-in-trade, book debts, and an interest in some tenant-right property, three cottages held under the Earl of Dartmouth. Without the last named items, the amount of the estate approached very nearly £300. — Mr. N. Learoyd: I don't know who the parties are before the Court. The administratrix Ican understand. — Mr. Clough said two or three of the deceased's children had been lending themselves as tools in the matter. — Mr. Learoyd remarked that, as soon as the application was made for an account, the old lady under the advice of her sons, engaged an accountant to prepare an account, and sold everything by auction. Mr. Hine, the accountant, suggessed that, if the account did not meet with approval, the matters in dispute had better be settled by arbitration, the estate being too small to take into Court. — Mr. Clough said, when his friend had done those 'indignation scenes," he would proceed. The sale took place after the present plaint had been entered. — His Honour: If you resist the application I mest hear some evidence. — Mr. oyd: I cannot resist. — H#is Honour Then I think there must be an account taken in the usual way, — Mr. Learoyd: There is a properly constituted administratrix. I putin a disclaimer on behalf of the defendants. — His Honour said Mr. Learoyd might enter the disclaimer then, and when the accounts had been taken, it would be seen how far they were justified in supporting it. The usual decree was then made for the parties to account to the registrar for anything they might have received.
Yarn Transaction. — In this action, the plaintiff was Joseph Taylor, spinner, Golcar, and the defendant Edwin Hinchliffe, waste dealer, Skelmanthorpe. Mr. J. Bottomley appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sykes.on behalf of the defendant. In his opening statement Mr. Bottomley said this was an action to recover £18 17s. 6d. for 453 Ib. of yarn. The yarn was sold on the 7th December, 1865, on the usual terms of credit — one clear menth. The month expired, and a statement of account sent in, but no notice was taken of it by the defendant until the expiration of six months, on which occasion the parties met at Huddersfield, and, when asked to pay for the yarn, the defendant answered that the material would not suit him, and he should not pay for it, but the plaintiff objected to take back the yarn. e yarn was sold by sample, which the plaintiff produced when he sold the bulk. The sample was shown in a scoured state, and the defendant also had an opportunity of seeing the bulk, which was not scoured. When asked to pay tke defendant said the yarn was not of the right colour. The colour of the bulk of the yarn would, after it had been scoured, have been exactly the same shade as that of the sample. It was above two years ago since the transaction took place, and the goods had never been returned, but the plaintiff had been led to suppose the yarn was in the dyer's hands. Since the transaction took place there had been a fall of 4d. per lb. in the price of yarn — The plaintiff, in his statement, said the defendant offered him 10d. per Ib., and the bargain was concluded at that price. The bulk was sold unscoured, and the goods sent away on the 7th December. — Defendant, in answer to the judge, said he never took the yarn in, but sent the invoice back ten days after receiving it. — In cross-examination, the plaintiff said, after the lapse of twelve months he offered to take $d. per lb. less for the yarn in order to settle the dispute amicably. In May, when the defendant paid him a prior account he did not say he had not received the lot in question, but twelve months afterwards, he did say the yarn was at the dyehouse. — Charles Henry Taylor, bookkeeper for the plaintiff, made out the invoice, and saw the goods delivered to the man who fetched them for the defendant. — In defence Hinchliffe alleged that, when the bulk came, he found it was only fit to be dyed black; and he could have bought some at 2d. or 3d. per Ib. less for that purpose. Ten days after the goods came, he met the plaintiff in the King's Head yard, told him the bulk of the yarn was not equal to sample, and that he had returned it to Mr. Brierley, the scourer. He bought it to be used in a grey state, and the plaintiff had offered to let him have the yarn at 14d. per Ib. less in consequence of its inferior quality. In cross-examination, the defendant said he gave Brierley instructions to send the yarn back to Taylor. John Brierley, dyer and scourer, said he received the parcel of yarn in question about the 7th December. In two or three days afterwards, he took part of the yarn which had been scoured to the defendant's place. The defendant, after taking part of the yarn out of the cart, stopped instantly and said the yarn would not suithim. Within a fortnight, he met the plaintiff and told him Hinchliffe would not have the yarn. He asked what they were to do with it, and the plaintiff said they were to keep it; and they had done so. — In reply to his Honour, the witness said he had not been paid for his labour, and he held the yarn as a lien for the scouring. He had not sent in an account to anybody. — Josephus Senior, manufacturer of fancy skirts, said the quality of the bulk was not as good as the quality of the sample produced. — His Honour said there was a wide difference in the statements of the two parties, and gave a nonsuit, without costs.
Recovery by a Police Officer of a £50 Reward
Recovery by a Police Officer of a £50 Reward. — In this action, the plaintiff, Barnett Bridges, a member of the Huddersfield borough police force, sought to recover from Mr. J. N. Brown, Birmingham, the sum of £50. Mr. J. I. Freeman represented the plaintiff ; and Mr. Atkins, of Birmingham, appeared on behalf of the defendant. — In opening the case Mr. Freeman said this was an action to recover the sum of £50 from the defendant, who resided in Birmingham, under these circumstances : — It appeared that a handbill was issued by the defendant to this effect : —
Absconded, £50 reward — The above reward will be paid to anyone who will give such information to the undersigned as shall lead to the apprehension of John T. Kaye, late coal agent to the Cannock Chase Railway Colliery Company; and notice is hereby given, that all monies due in respect of the coal accounts to the said Colliery Company, must be paid to J. N. Brown, 56, Union Passage, Birmingham. 17th May, 1867.
In consequence of this handbill being extensively circulated, amongst other places being received by the police authorities at Huddersfield, Bridges chanced to meet with Kaye at a beerhouse in this town, and, having known him previously, arrested him. The officer then telegraphed to Mr. Brown as follows : — " I have apprehended John T. Kaye on a charge of embezzlement. Please telegraph whether I shall bring him as early as possible." In reply to that, this telegraph was received by the plaintiff : — " Nov. 12th. J. Bourne, 56, Union Passage, Birmingham. Police Constable Bridges, borough force. Your telegram to hand. Mr. Brown from home. Sent message to him. You will hear,from him to-morrow." Upon that, Kaye was delivered into the custody of the police authorities and remanded to Burton-on-trent by the magistrates at Huddersfield. Before he went, Mr. Atkins, the gentleman who now appeared for the defendant, came over to Huddersfield at the suggestion of Mr. Brown. Mr. Inspector Townend, who was then acting-superintendent, had written a letter to Mr. Brown, dated Nov. 12th, 1867, stating that Kaye had been apprehended that afternoon by one of the officers of the borough force, and asking to be informed by telegraph what was to be done with him. In answer to that came a telegram from Mr. Brown, saying, "I will send over Mr. Atkins by the 7-45 train to-morrow (Thursday)." In pursuance of that Mr. Atkins came, and he and Mr. Booth, Holmfirth, who was the solicitor then acting for Kaye, had an interview with the prisoner in his cell. After the interview, the plaintiff asked what he was to do with the prisoner, and he was told by Mr. Atkins to take him over to Burton-uponTrent. — Mr. Atkins: Keep me out, unless I am to be called. — Mr. Freeman : I wil! prove all this. — Mr. Atkins : I shall contradict that most flatly. — Mr. Freeman, proceeding, said Bridges took the prisoner to Burton-uponTrent, and delivered him to Sergeant William Roden, the officer in charge. Kaye was brought before the magistrates in petty sessions, on the 19th Noven.ber, and, at the request of the prisoner's solicitor, Mr. Wilson, and with the consent of Mr. Atkins and Mr. Brown, there wasa remand until Tuesday, 26th Nov. When the prisoner was again brought up, Mr. Atkins, addressing the Bench, said he was happy to inform the magistrates that the matter had been arranged, and, as he offered no evidence, the prisoner was discharged. He believed the prisoner's mother had entered into some kind of an arrangement to pay a certain sum of money. — Mr. Atkins said the one point in the whole question was this — " The above reward will be paid to any person who will give such information to the undersigned as shall lead to the apprehension," &c. — two distinct things. Instead of giving "such information," this man took Kaye into custody, depriving his client of the option for which the bill was designed. — His Honour: Supposing the policeman had not taken the man into custody ; but telegraphed to Mr. Brown, and, in the meantime, the man had decamped, would he have been entitled to the reward then? Mr. Atkins: Not at all. — His Honour: This man became aware of the whereabouts of Kaye ; what ought he to have done? Mr. Atkins: To communicate with Mr. Brown, and give "such information." His Honour : Supposing he had done, and, in the meantime, the man had decamped? Mr. Atkins said the officer could not have claimed the reward. — His Honour: Would not Mr. Brown have had cause to complain? Mr. Atkins said the plaintiff knew all about the man, having been an intimate friend of his. — His Honour: Do you think better arrangements could have been made here? You made some arrangement satisfactory to your client : they agreed to withdraw the charge; and Kaye was set at liberty. Mr. Atkins: It was an arrangement just on the point of completion. — His Honour: And by this means completed? Mr. Atkins: Not at all. It placed us in this position: the man was apprehended without warrant, and it might have implicated Mr. Brown in an action for false imprisonment. — His Honour: The action would have been against the officer. — Mr. Freeman: You have actually compounded a felony. Mr. Atkins: You have never compounded a felony. (Laughter.) — His Honour: I really don't know what the policeman could have done better. (Laughter.) In other respects you admit the facts? Mr. Atkins said he did. — Mr. Freeman: I think there is an end of the case. — Mr. Atkins said he did not want to take up the time unnecessarily ; and would at once give way if his Honour decided that the plaintiff was entitled. — His Honour, in giving a verdict for the plaintiff, congratulated Mr. Atkins upon the handsome way in which he had acted in the matter.