The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-08-20 00:00:00

Emprriai arifamtitt. HOUSE OF LORDS.----THURSDAY. Lord MELBOURNE (in answer to inquiry from Lord Ellen borough) again stated that the government had not received , any official account of the transactions in China connected with the interruption of the opium trade ; but added, that he had no objection to submit copies of such information as bad arrived on the subject of that trade. His lordship fur ther stated (also in answer to Lord Ellenborough) that the government had not received official accounts of recent war t like proceedings in the east. The report of the Assaults (Ireland) bill was presented and agreed to. Lord Duncannon moved the second reading of the Excise Licenses (Sale of Spirits) bill, intitled " An Act to allow [wholesale] dealers in spirits to Retail Foreign Spirits and Liquors, not to be drunk on the Premises, on taking out an additional license for the purpose; and to give further powers- for granting permits to dealers in the retailing of spirits." The Duke of RICHMOND opposed the bill as most unjust towards the great body of licensed victuallers, and moved that it be read the second time " that day three months," which was carried without a division ; consequently the bill is lost. The " Birmingham Police" bill was read the second time ; and the Rogue Money Assessment (Scotland) bill (after discussion) and some other bills were forwarded a stage. Lord STRANGFORD presented a petition from British mer chants engaged in carrying on a trade in gum at the British port of Portendie, on the western coast of Africa, complain ing of a series• of injuries inflicted on them and their vessels and properly by the French, representing that they preferred claims against the French government for heavy losses — claims that her Majesiy's law officers, " after the most minute examination, admitted to be valid and just ;" and praying for parliamentary 'interference. Lord MELBOURNE admitted the character and extent of the outrages, and, the right of the parties to redress ; but said that the French government did not take the same view of the transaction. His lordship, however, declared that no opportunity to enforce the claims would be lost, and that • he was not without the hope that the French government 1 ,. would be induced to regard the case more justly. Lord AIELBOURNE moved that the Slave Trade Supprers siori bill (authorising her Majesty to issue orders to her I ,: g (; l oruisers to capture Portuguese vessels engaged in the slave Made, Or.e.) be read the second time. b The Duke of WELLINGTON strongly opposed the motion, ylwitlalling on their lordships, from respect for the rights of other ;rll „ patioiwto reject this bill. Ldrd BROUGHAM earnestly besought their lordships not' .bito throw auy obstacle in the way of so righteous a measure .as this bill. r Ds7r- the inainn was eventually divided upon; the number's sltawerreL-contents, 39 ; non-contents, 28'; majority in favour of r .,,,the bill, 11. "On the question that the house resolve into committee on biLi. the Poor Law Commission Continuance Bill, Earl STANHOPE ,moyed, as an amendmnt, tat te contmittee be th da 'l ll- f three Months. There were for h the original motion 10 at , and airtrfor the amendment 2. The bill then went thfough committee. The Poor Rates Collection Bill and the New South Wales Bill, and the remaining business being disposed of, their 10rd .31.0,, ships adjourned. sift • HOUSE OF COMMONS.—THIIRSDAY. 1 0 Er The report of the Consolidation Fund Bill (containing the ... ; ,,clause of "appropriation") was deferred till Monday next, as was also the report of the Exchequer Bills (£12,326,030) Bill. The reports on the Administration of Justice (parts of counties) Bill, the Corporate Property Alienation Prevention . (Ireland) Bill, and the Courts in Counties Bill, were severally received, aureed to, and the bills ordered to be read the third - timeron Friday. b 53 • The'Halifax, Huddersfield, and Bradford Small Debts Bill o f; (No- 3--meaning the third bill introduced this session on that sbject), was read the third time and passed ; and Mr. 2 111 BinN'Ai. soon 'afterwards conveyed them to the Lords. mg The fiirther proceeding on the third reading of the County and District Constables Bill was resumed ; and several amend .s.' Ineuts - tvere proposed, same of which were resisted to divi sions. The bill, however, was eventually passed. The question of going into committee on the Bank of Ire land Bill, averted on Wednesday by the numerous divisions, forced avowedly to cause delay, was again resumed by Mr. O'CONNELL ; and, after various efforts, he succeeded in get ting the horse " counted out" so that again nothing was done " to progress" the bill ! HOUSE OF LORDS.-FRIDAY. The Joint-Stock Banks Acts Continuation Bill was read , a second time. The Assaults (Ireland) Bill (with an amendment), were severally read the third time, and passed. The Militia Pay Bill went through committee, as did the Rogue Money Assessment (Scotland) Bill, the Stage Car riages Bill. and the Poor Rates Collection Bill. The report of the latter bill was presented and agreed to. Earl STANHOPE presented a petition from the Birmingham Working Man's Association, against the Birmingham Po lice Bill. His lordship called attention to the manner in which Dr. Taylor had been arrested. The Constabulary Force (Ireland) Bill was, on the motion of Lord DUNCANNON, read the third time, and passed. .The Metropolitan Police Courts Bill having been read the third time, Lord LYNDHURST moved the expulsion of the ninth clause (relating to the increase of salaries), but it was retained, on a division, by 36 to 11. The bill was then passed. On the motion that the house resolve into a committee on the Slave Trade Suppression Bill, Lord LYNDHURST said that he had a clause to propose, for the purpose of restricting the operation of the bill to vessels bearing the " Portuguese' flag, and to piratical vessels having no national character, but which should be engaged in the slave trade. Lord 'Wiz:To, the house being in committee, said that he entertained no objection to such amendment, ifit were deemed requisite. After •conversation, in which Lord LYNDHURST, Lord Ext.,ENßonovon, &c. took part, the amendment was under ' derstood to b;.: adopted. 'Die bill went through committee. In the committee on the Birmingham Police Bill, Lord BaouunAm moved an amendment, to vest the appointment of the commissioner in the " town council," instead of " her 'MAJESTY ;." but Lord DUNCANNON having opposed the tk, amendment, on the ground that as the government advanced the £lO,OOO, it ought to have this control, his lordship de ' ferret): pres Sing the amendment until after the third reading. The bill went through committee, and the report was ordered , • to be.received on Saturday. r The other bills on the paper were then advanced a stage. 'The Poor Law Commission Continuance Bill, the Dublin Police Bill, the Soap Duties Regulation Bill, and the Me tropolitan Police Courts Bill, were severally read the third Stime and passed. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—FRIDAY. f? The Commons we r e una bl e to ma k e a h ouse , th ere b e i ng only 34 in s tead of 40, members present at four o'clock. - HOUSE OF LORDS.—SATURDAY:, orf• he royal assent was given, by commission, to several l bills ;• among them were the "Election Petitions Bill," " the I:,Kriso,as Bill, ' &c. , Several Bills were brought from the Commons, and other atteady before the house were forwarded a stage. Lord BROUGHAM intimated that he should 'on Monday j! puta.questiou to Lord Melbourne, as the head of her Ma. 933estYs government, relative to the unaccountable mistake _ that seemed to pervade the General Aisembly of the Church jiPf Scotland,- with respect to the important, proceedings that _jwatt iakew place in their lordships' house, relative to the m i:Airchterarder case," and the judgment of their lordships Aiereon. • a u c Their lordships then adjourned. flu • „A I , HOUSE OF COMMONS.—S ATURDAY. o lis4,F. TRENCH gave notice that he should'on Monday call attption , to the remuneration to be made to Mr. Gurney on _account of the Bude light experiments ;—(next session) to •the propriety of having practical and scientific investigation, particularly as regarded the new houses of parliament, res pecting the best means of ventilation ;—and to the advantage of employing persons to inspect public buildings in Europe .where ", parliaments" are held for the purpose of obtaining information that might be useful in the construction of the new houses of parliament. On the motion of Mr. BARING, it was resolved that the house should, on Monday, resolve into committee on " the Funding of Exchequer Bills." The committee on the " Bank of Ireland" was deferred (after a division) till Monday, at twelve o'clock. To inqui ries as to whether the government really intended to proceed with this bill, Mr. F. BAr.ING answered that he could add nothing to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer (who was not in the house during any part of Saturday's sitting,) had stated on that point. Sir RALPH Howarin gave notice, with a view to the full consideration of the Bank of Ireland Bill, that he should, move a " call of the house." The Corporate Property Alienation Prevention (Ireland) Bill was read a third time and passed. The Lords' amendments to the Judges' Lodgings Bill were read the third time and passed. Mr. BARING brought in the Duke of Marlborough's Pen sion Bill, which was read the first time, and ordered to be read the second time on Monday. The house then adjourned. Bolarn has written a letter to his brother at Harbottle, in which he strongly protests his innocence ; and earnestly intreats his brothers and sisters to give him half a promise that they will join him when he shalt.have become settled in Botany Bay. He will be removed to the Hulks, previously to his Nang conveyed out of the country, in about a week or ten days.—Newcastle Journal. Tatar. 11Y JllRY:—After the conviction of a lad yesterday at the Central Criminal Court for a burglary in Whitechapel, a former conviction was proved against the prisoner. The Recorder, in charging the jury, said that a law pa sse d th e legislature that the former conviction of any person should be adduced in evidence, and read against him before the jury returned their verdict in the case before them. This had been found to prejudice a prisoner upon his trial for felony) for it was impossible that a jury should not in some measure be sometimes disposed to look unfavourably and with a pre judiced mind towards a person on his trial, and be disposed in some measure to convict where the circumstantea in evidence did not exactly warrant a conclusioniof a 16rlsoner'4 gUilt. The law was repealed by a former House 'of Com mons, and instead of the conviction being put in before the verdict was returned, it was now put in afterwards; when the jury ht.d to find whether the prisoner had been convicted On a former occasion or not ; and if they found in the affirrnitiVd the court measured the punishment accordingly. The change was a most salutary one, and prisoners now had a fair trial without the minds of juries being prejudiced by former con victions being mentioned before the verdict was returned. He was much surprised that any parliament should have passed such a law as the one he had adverted to, for it was contrary to the principles of British justice, and operated most unfavourably towards unfortunate persons charged with offences. The legislature had wisely repaired their error, and had also passed a.-law giving persons charged with felony the benefit of counsel, who were allowed to address the jury for their clients. Some very strange things were often done in the legislature, and it was, he would repeat, very surprising that such a law as that for producing records of former con viction during a trial should ever have received the sanction of parliament. A more strange thing than that had, how ever, been done by the present House of Commons. They h 0 given their sanction to a measure for. trying prisoners without a jury at all. (The jury looked astonished.) The gesntlemen might well he surprised ; but it was a fact that a bill*. lately passed the H ous e o f C ommons , empower i ng asinklema g i s t ra t e , upon his own judgment to convict pri soners in cases of felony, without any previous inquiry by a grand jury,_or the intimation of a petty jury. Happily the people bad been relieved by the higher branch of the legisla turejtom that invasion of the ancient right of the subject. IleNlinired the caution of a former parliament, in giving prisoners the benefit of counsel, and preventing the minds of a jury from being inflamed by any previous knowledge of the prisimer's character, and he was happy to say the House of Lords had recently interfered, and successfully, to secure to the people the safer and constitutional right of the subject to be tried by a jury, and he trusted the time would never arrive in England when a single magistrate, however high his at tainments, would have the power of convicting a man for fe lony on his own individual judgment. The jury said they tiOped not, and rejoiced that such an objectionable measure had not become law. The observations of the learned re corder were listened to with evident satisfaction, and we heard a great - many persons applying the terms " infam ous ," "'shameful," to the proposition of Mr. H awes and his clique for abolishing trial by jury. —Morning Herald. . THE NATIONAL HOLIDAY. MANCHESTER. We gave in our Wednesday's publication, such full parti culars of the occurrences on Monday and Tuesday last, in this town and its immediate neighbourhood, that we have little to add to the details then published. We are happy to say that.the lawless attempts which were made to force work people from their employment, and thereby add.to the num ber of the rioters„ failed completely in this town, and to so great an extent elsewhere that the agitators did not venture upon any serious attack on persons or property. Since Tues day morning not the slightest attempt has been made to force out the hands employed in the factories ; nor has there been any renewal of those dangerous and illegal meetings which caused so much alarm a week or two ago. In the evening of yesterday, (the anniversary of the memorable 16th of August, 1819,) there were some rather large assemblages of people in the neighbourhood of New Cross and on St. Peter's Field, but no appearance of a regular meeting. We under stand that some mischievous or thoughtless person had posted up a few handbills, printed last year, announcing a procession to St. Peter's Field, in commemoration of the day, which caused the assemblages in question, amounting probably in each place, to something like two thousand peo ple. Those in St. Peter's Field appeared to have assembled for the mere purpose of looking on, and were entirely with out leaders or any point of union. The parties who met at New Cross seemed rather inclined to form a procession, but no leaders appeared to direct them ; and, after remaining assembled about a hour and a half, they quietly dispersed. We understand that a considerable body of them moved, but without any order, about half-way down Oldham-street, where they met Mr. Elijah Dixon, and requested him to put himself at their heid, with the view of forming a procession to, and holding•a meeting upon St. Peter's Field. Dixon, however, had too much sense to accede to this request, and advised the parties to go quietly home, which at length they did. Information of these proceedings . w,as very early con veyed,to the borough police-office, where several magistrates assembled, and. the_iroost effective preparations' *ere made foi putting down any attempts. at disturbance. About 150 policemen' were collected' in the police.:office and the south station in George.street, and the military in Tib-street Bar racks' and BYwater's Repository, were directed to hold therd selves ready, in case their services should be required ; but the magistrates did not think it necessary to disperse • the orovids assembled unless they showed some symptoms of a. misehievous intention, which, fortunately, did not app6r. Indeed,ate, prompt and , effective interference of the police and military on former- occasions during the . week, have suffiCientlY prOved that riots are not now committed with impunity. / , About .nine.o'clnck last' ifivds had dispersed,Tand ivith .them, .;ye. trust, Alisappeared the last symptoms Of the 0 national holiday", ill this town.—Man chester Guardian. , l- ' 0 "; • • 7 i1!:, • • . • ' - .WARRINGTON. But little has been heard of the a sacred month" in War rington, those who have employment having been too glad to avail themselves of the means of earning a subsistence, in stead of wasting their time in riot or idleness. There has not been even a private meeting of the chartist body in the town during the week, and the original leaders appear ex"- ceedingly, anxious to disavow all connection with the chart ists.-7-Manchester Courier. BOLTON. We mentioned in our last the disturbed state Of Bolton, where the chartist spirit appears to have been more prevalent than in any other large town in the neighbourhood ; and, we are sorry to say, that the disorders mentioned in our first edition on Wednesday were not all that occurred. The lowing communication from our Bolton correspondent, dated Wednesday, seven o'clock in the evening, appeared in a se cond edition of that day :—I stated, in my communication yesterday, that at seven o'clock all was peace. At the time I was writing, the mob were breaking the windows' at the Town Hall, Little Bolton, and destroying any furniture they could find. The disturbance then originated in consequence of a man being arrested by one of the special constables ; a rescue being attempted, the constabulary force were driven into the hall by the crowd, and were obliged to defend them selves by preserving the passage into a back room to which they had retreated. The mayor not being aware of the pro ceedings, in consequence of being in another part of the town, no coercive steps were taken to allay the riot ; and the con sequence was, that every pane of glass, and article of furni ture were destroyed, that came within the reach of the mob, which consisted principally of boys, encouraged by the men. An attempt was also made to set fire to the building, but hap pily no conflagration took place. A report was prevalent to day, that the books of the township were destroyed ; but, On inquiry, I find that there is nothing missing of material value. or importance. At eight o'clock the soldiers appearedond two of them fired into the Hall • but no lives were lost. The constables, the mob having fled, were then released from their perilous situation, and a search was made, and several persons taken into custody. The constables then paraded the town, and a number of persons who had been engaged in riots were brought before the borough justices, who sat the greater part of the night to receive evidence. The following persons were brought up, and committed for trial at the as sizes at Liverpool.—Thomas Farrell was charged by George Greenhalgh. About a quarter past six o'clock, the pri soner was one of the mob, near the Wheat Sheaf, and threw stones at the windows. On searching him, a stone was found inhis pocket. —James Pilling was also brought up under a similar charge, and had been caught with a stone in his hand near the same place.—William Willoughby was then brought up, charged with being possessed of arms.. Mr. Baker, the inspector of pollee, stated, that he apprehended the . prisoner in Spring Gardens, a b ou t t we l ve o'clock at noon, and asked him if it were true that he had a pistol about him.. The prisoner said he had, and he had a right to carry it, and would shoot thefirst bloody tory he met with, and would tight for love and liberty like a Turk. Witness then saw him attempt to pull something out of his pocket, upon which he seized him. On searching him, a pistol was found in his pocket, loaded with two bullets, and powder, and primed. Witness saw it unloaded by a soldier. The prisoner had a flask full of powder, and in his waistcoat pocket there were twelve or thirteen bullets. The prisoner endeavoured to excite the mob several tine's to rescue him, but they did not do so. Jonathan Merle, John Gill, and Joseph Wild, were proved to have thrown stones, and been guilty of rioting.—Richard Eastwood, Solomon Greenalgh, Robert Gillibrand, John Pearsail, Isaac Crompton, William Barlow, and William OPenshavr, were all proved to have par ticipated in the riot at the Town Hall.—Henry Parkinson, John Holt, and James Heywood, were proved to have been, throwing stones in Newport-street, and assaulted the consta bles, and broken a number of windows. They were all com mitted, as above stated, and conveyed out of the town to Kirkdale at three o'clock this morning. The police peram bulated the streets during the greater part of the night and to-day. The mayor also, with the yeomanry and military stationed here, went through the town, and partially cleared the streets, and a great number of persons have since been arrested. At this hour all is quiet, and is likely to remain so. The chartists have lost their leaders, and no excitement now prevails except amongst mere rabble or boys, which will be immediately stopped. The chartists of Leigh have met in thousands, I believe, and it was expected here that they would'be brought to assist their fellow rioters in this town, but I am glad to state they have not done so ; otherwise the mischief would have been dreadful, as they (the Leigh chart ists) are pretty generally armed with pikes, and would doubt less have offered resistance to the m ilit ar y. ' WEDNESDAY NIGHT.—The town has since been in a state of peace ; and business is resumed as before throughout the town, except as to a number of the chartists, who arenot permitted to return to their employment, from which they had absented themselves without permission. The following prisoners, in addition to those already named, have been brought up for exa m i na ti on :—Robert Bell, Daniel Ball, and William Baldershaw, were charged with being in possession of arms for an unlawful purpose, under the following cir cumstances :—ln consequence of some information received, the new police and a party of special ronstables, with a de tachment of the 96th regiment, went to a cellar in Back Crook-street, on Wednesday, and found three pikes (pro duced in court) in a box under a bed. The pikes with the shafts were each ten feet long, very sharp, and were wea pons of a most formidable nature. The also found books of rules and cards of the Working Men's Association. The prisoners were also found in the cellar.—Andrew Knowles, Esq., a borough magistrate, said that there was a great riot and disturbance in the neighbourhood of Great Moor-street, and he saw.a number of persons carrying large weapons like those produced. He was accompanied by the constables and military, and as soon as the mob saw the latter they threw brickbats and stones, and on the officer threatening the sol diers to fire they ran off.—William M`Lean, police-officer, stated, that Ball informed him he had bought one of the pikes produced from Matthews, a blacksmith, and paid a shilling for it, and that t4e other two prisoners had each bought a pike. He also said that there were twenty more pikes at Matthews' when those were bought. Robert Bell and Da niel Ball, after being cautioned, both said that they had bought the pikes to protect the house at night, and Baldershaw said, he was in the cellar with the other prisoners but had nopike. They were all committed for trial at Kirkdale.—Joseph Ros tock, charged with flinging stones at John Entwistle, and kicking him severely, on Tuesday afternoon, in the New Market Place, was also committed.—Edward Glenmen was charged with throwing a stone through 'the f a ct or y w i n d ow belonging to Messrs. Ormrod and Hardcastle, about half past one o'clock on Wednesday last, and (with a large mob of other persons) declaring that they would have the hands out of the mill, was committed for trial.—James Sharpies and John Morris, for a similar offence, were also committed for trial. The whole of the prisoners were taken under a stroll.. escort of the military and special constables, about two o clock on Thursday morning, to the railway, where a carriage, provided for the purpose, conveyed them to Man chester, and they were ,from thence committed to Kirkdale. THURSDAY.—The town appeared peaceable this morning, and business was resumed. The police proceeded to appre‘ hend the different parties charged with offences, and the fol lowing were brought up :—Andrew Morgan was committed for trial for being engaged in the riot at the Town Hall.-- Samuel Sandiford charged with absenting himself from the service of William Garnett Taylor, Esq. at Sharpies, was committed to hard labour for threelrofifffiL—Charles Mor ris, for the riotat the Town Hall, having been seen breaking the chairs, committed for trial.—John Pilling was also com mitted for asiwilar offence.—James Greenwood, charged with absenting himself from the service of W. G. Taylor,—com mitted for'ont' inrinth.—John Wightman, charged with inti midating the work-people at Mr Slater's bleach works, at the head of a mob, and, causing them to leave their employ rhat,--4chifinitteil for trial.—During the above examinations Mr . , Baker, the inspector, brought 12 pike staffs into court, which he had found at the workshop of George Lloyd, the chartist leader; who was committed on Tuesday. FurnAY.--,Order is completely restored, no apprehensions of prisoners have this morning taken place.—The Bth Hussars left the town this morning for Rochdale.—Manchester Guardian. ECCLESIASTICAL AND UNIVERSITY INTELLIGENCE. (From the Oxford Herald.) On Tuesday last, Mr. Edward Brabant Smith, B.A. was elected a Fellow, on the Michel Foundation, at Queen's Col 'lege. On Sunday, the 4th inst. the following gentlemen of this. University were admitted into Deacons' orders by his Grace the Archbishop of York : William Jepson Newman, B.A. Oriel College. Thomas Booth Wright, B.A. Wadham College. James Thompson, B•A. Lincoln College. PROMOTIONS. Mr. Allan Wallace, B.A. of Pembroke College, Cambridge, educated at the King's School, and the brother of the Head Master, has been appointed Second Master of the Grammar School, at Bromsgrove, Worcestershire. Rev.' Geo. Cromwell, to the Perpetual Curacy of Trinity Church, Louth. _ Rev. John Williams, to the Perpetual Curacy of Cilycwn, Carmarthenshire. Rev. James Dalton, to the Rectory of St. Issell's, Pem brokeshire. Mr. C. Easther. B.A. of St. John's College, Cambridge, to the Second Mastership of Richmond School, Yorkshire. Mr. T. Lowe, Perpetual Curate of St. Paul's, Warrington, to the Vicarage of Leigh, Lancashire, vacant by the death of the Rev. J. Topping; patron, Lord Lilford. Rev. T. Scott, to the Perpetual Curacy of Poulton-le- Sands, Lancashire, vacant by the death of the Rev. T. But. ler ; patron, the Vicar of Lancaster. CHARD CANAL.—It is with pleasure we notice the rapid progress of this work. Upwards of five hundred men are now employed on different parts of the line, Enid it is confi dently expected that the whole will be completed by the time specified. SOUTH LANCASHIRE ASSIZES. FRIDAY, AUG. 16. CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER. Thomas Rowe, aged 23, stood indicted for having, at Li verpool, on the 18th of June last, killed and slain -William Owens. The prisoner was ably defended by Mr: MURPHY. Mr. HARDEN appeared for the prosecution, and opened the case to the jury. - Hugh Owens, sworn. I keep a coal-yard in Bolton-street, in this town. My father, William Owens, used to go to the coal-yard every, day. On the 18th of June, the prisoner came there. He had drunk a few glasses. He asked me to lend him 3d. I said " No." There was a loaf in the little hut, and he took it to give it awaY. I took it from him and cut a slice and gave it to him. He threw it down, and took the loaf, and went with it to the jerry-shop. He came back with the loaf. My father was standing outside the gate. He offered the loaf to my father, but did not give it—only aggra vating him. He then took hold of my father's nose. He let go his nose, and dragged him into the yard by the body. There was a coal-heap in the yard, and they both fell down upon it. The prisoner's sister was there. The prisoner and my father got up. They fell a second time — my father on his back. Rowe's sister then came up. 1 then went to my father and took him off. Some one else came and took the prisoner off. My father went to the hut, and complained of being hurt. My father could not speak a word of English. Cross-eXamined by Mr. MURPHY.—It occurred between three and four in the afternoon. I think the prisoner was laughing when he took hold of my father's nose. They did not fall tillthey got to the heap of coals. Row's sister struck my father and dragged him ; and his arms were swelled. Elizabeth Robinson.—l am the wife of R. Robinson. On the 18th of June last I saw the prisoner. He had hold of the old mam. They dragged one another down. The sister came and tried to get her brother from him.- They both got up. I put the old man into the shed. They had hold of each other; but I saw no blows. Elizabeth Richardson.—l reside in Skelhorne-street. On the 18th of June, I. heard the. people about the coal-yard say—" They will murder the old man." I ran up; and saw the deceased in the middle of the coal-yard. The prisoner was near him, and they were both standing. The prisoner ran at the old ma n w ith hi s - Rand up ; but I did. not. see blow. I was shocked to see thO-old, man tell so heavily, and turned round. The old inanliafAhis arms up to prevent the other from strikifig•him.'Matey ' Owens.;---The. deceased lOOgEO.,sith us. He went to the coal-yard that d a Y ht Apradnuil g , and,;eterned at eight at night. He.colla r e iecV 14 - Aas:pale,—quite over done. He wetted - .F*, i 'well. and healthy in the morning. 'He asked; WlYezi7cei s ne. to - go to bed; but he could not get up to the garedt Where his bed was, and was obliged to go- tra-mrbert — NeirMoiiiing`Tre — Was very ill. He kept his bed for a fbrtniglat.. On the Thursday we got a doctor to him. lie was very much swelled, and passed blood at times. Mr. Emmet and other medical men were *called in. He lived a month within oue day., -Mr. Emmet, surgeon, —Stated that he found the deceased much swelled, and he was very weak.- He-died from exhaus tion. He made post i mortem examination. The deceased died from inflammation, caused by disease of, the bladder.' .The disease could not' arise suddenly„ f r o m a blow, but the accident might have had some connexion with it. He .thought the coagulated blood would not have been there Without violence., Cross-examined.—lf I had examined the body of . the de ceased; not knowing any thing of the circumstance, I should have said that the deceased died from extreme irritation of the - bladder. Old people are subject to a disease in that region by which there might arise a coagulation. Great in• jury might also arise from the patient not being medically attended for three days. There were no external appear ances of violence. Old people were subject to diseases of the heart and the brain, which would affect the whole System: Re-examined.—When the bladder is diseased from natural causes; it is not often that blood is found. The voiding of generally comes on gradually. Mr4•Mrnmy eloquently addressed the jury in behalf of the prisoner, contending that the deceased; according to the testimony, died from natural disease, incidental td old age. The Learned JUDGE summed up, in a perspicuous man ner, and the jury found the prisoner guilty of the assault. The Judge reprehended the conduct of the prisoner, a young man, int maltreating an old man, pulling his nose, - and drag ging him about. The sentence of the Court was, that he should, be imprisoned and kept to hard labour in Kirkdale -gaol for six calendar Months. ;,Mr. MURPHY, at a subsequent period of the day, stated to the learned judge, that he had just been informed that the .prisdner bad.previously been fined by the magistrates for the assault, and the present prosecution against him was there fore, he believed not legal . The judge re qu e s t e d th e c o un s e l !to look into the act, an to recur to the subject. CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER. , John Wilson, aged 21, was indicted (having been com mitted by the coroner) for having, at Liverpool, killed and :slain. Hugh Jones. Mr. MURPHY conducted the prosecution. Wm. Bell being sworn, said,—l am a ship-smith, em ployed by :Messrs. Sidebotham, of Sparling-street. I knew the deceased Hugh Jones. The prisoner and he were both employed at the same place. On the evening of the 31st July ; at half-past fivei I was standing near the anvil I was' working at, Jones and the prisoner were a few yards distant. They had been • quarrelling or disputing for about half-an hour. Prisoner said he was not satisfied, and would leave his place. Deceased said he ought to leave, and say no more about it. There was a piece of hot iron on the anvil, and the prisoner and an apprentice were striking at it. They struck it " foul." This knocked the iron on one side. and the de ceased, who was superintendent of the anvil, looked at them and said, " Do you think I am a fool, to put up with that." More words took place at the next heat. The prisoner said to deceased, " he did not care a damn for him nor the shop, nor anyone in the shop." The deceased said, " Do you think I care for you ?" The deceased let the iron fall, but kept hold of the tongs, and moved to the other side of the anvil, and struck the prisoner a severe blow on the side of the face. He then retreated, and the prisoner followed him up, and I think hit him. The deceased became more irritated—and finally again struck the prisoner, who struck the deceased with his hand and then retreated. A sledge hammer was , a short way off. The prisoner went in a stooping position while he re treated, and lifted the hammer, with which he struck the deceased. He flung it sideways at the deceased; and it might have been partly in self-defence. It struck the deceased over the left ear, and he fell against a vice. He was Nild and uncollected when be• was lifted up. He died in about eight days after. The prisoner struck the deceased only once with his fist. He was turned sideways to the deceased when he threw the hammer. James, Bryning, an apprentice, said he was working at the same anvil with the prisoner. When the prisoner said he did not care a d—n for him or any other man, the deceased struck him. Jones struck him two or three times, and the prisoner struck him. I tried to keep the prisoner off, but he threw me back behind an old wall. When I got up, de ceased was falling. The deceased was the. stronger man of the two. Mr. M`Lean, surgeon, described the injury clone to the de ceased. He had received a blow over the left ear. There was a small wound; and he was labouring under symptoms of concussion of the brain. He died on the following morn ing. On a post mortem examination, he found a small frac ture on the left side of the skull, and extensive inflammation of the brain. He died from the inflammation, which was caused by the blow. The prisoner said he and the deceased had quarrelled ; that the deceased struck him • a scuffle took place, and deceased followed him up to strike him again ; that in retreating he took up the hammer, and lifted it to ward off further blows, when it overswung, hit the deceased on the head, and threw him (the prisoner) to the ground. The hammer was a black smith's sledge of lilbs weight. The learned JUDGE summed up—explaining that in self defence, violence to a certain extent only, and proportioned to the violence offered, was admissable. He left it to the jury to consider the statement of the prisoner, and if they be lieved that the hammer was taken up in self-defence, and that the blow arose from its becoming over-balanced, he would be entitled to an acquittal. The jury found the prisoner not guilty, and he was dis charged, with an admonition to be careful in future. MINT CASES. James Gorman stood charged with having in his possession a Mould for the forming of base shillings. The ATTORNpIC-GENERAL, with whom was Mr. ARM STRONG, detailed the case. Betty . Nott said—l live at Lees,. near.Ashton-under-Lyne. The prisoner came on the 4th August to our house, and asked for change for a shilling, which I gave him, and he went away. 1 afterwards found that the shilling was a bad one. He afterwards came and changed half-a-crown, which was also base. He came again on the following Monday, and asked for change for another half-crown. I told him he, had paid me a bad half-crown and a shilling. He said he only paid what he had taken at his standing. I kept the last half crown, and sent for the constable, who apprehended the pri soner. The daughter of this witness was present when the half-crown was paid. The bad money was marked. William Bates, constable, took the prisoner into custody, and told him he was charged with passing bad money... He said, if it was so, he had taken it at his standing. He had some money in his pocket, but it was all good. Joseph Wild received the bad money, and searched the pri soner's house. He kept lodgers. The prisoner described the house. Witness found a mould with the impression of a shilling. It was amongst some cinders, and wrapped up in a piece of cotton. Witness also found some metal and sand paper in the chimney behind a brick. He also found a pipe with metal in it, and a spoon partly melted, &c. Another constable found sbme metal. The prisoner said the metal, sand paper, and white powder were used by him for soldering, as he sometimes tinkered. Mr. Powell, inspecting-officer of her Majesty's mint, stated the half-crowns were counterfeit; also the shilling. The mould had the obverse and reverse of a shilling of 1817, and had been used. The pipe had been used for melting white metal—a mixture of tin, antimony, and bismuth. The whole tube of the pipe was filled with it... . Them-4ali.s all Britannia Metal: The Ilite powder is I:olaieibf Paris, and the mould is made of that material. This shilling (passed by the pri soner) has, I believe, been made in the mould. It corresponds irievery particular. Britannia metal is too hard to be used as solder. The Jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of guilty:: The prisoner was then lint down. „800/ Taylor, alias Mary Carbutt,' alias Elizabeth Carbutt, was charged with having, at Great Bolton, feloniously uttered two base half-crowns, she well knowing the same to be base ; and having been previously convicted of uttering base coin. Mr. Powell, inspector of the mint, produced the record of the previous conviction of the prisoner, at the Salford sessions, in February, 1833. piggies, a constable of Manchester, said he was present when the prisoner was tried. Ellen Hart, said she kept a shop in Bolton. On the 24th of April, the prisoner went to her shop and asked for half an ounce of tobacco. She gave a bad half crown. May• Bell said she kept a shop, and the prisoner came, and bought some things. She gave a half-crown in payment, and witness gave her the change out. Witness gave it to her daughter to change, and afterwards gave it to the'constable. Mary Bell, the younger, a little girl, remembered her mo ther giving her a half-crown. She took it to Hart's, over the way, to get changed. Hart's son lo o k e d a t it, an d said it was a bad one, and gave it back to witness, who took it back to her mother. - Loftus, a shopkeeper in Bolton, said that on the 25th of April, the prisoner came inand bought some cord, for which she tendered a bad half-crown. He said it was a very bad one. She had another in her hand, and said she knew where she got it, and went away. Ellen Hart, said she kept a shop. On the 25th of April, the prisoner came and bought a loaf for 74d. She had two half-crowns in her hand and gave one of them. It was bad, and the constable, Thomas Hart corroborated the last witness. The constable, Rollinson, received the two half-crownS, and marked them and gave them to the deputy-constable. John Barrow, deputy-constable of Bolton, received the two half-crowns and identified them. One of the jurymen was here seized with a violent fit, ap parently epeleptic, and had to be carried out of court. , A medical gentleman attended him in ah adjoining room, and in afew .minutes came into court 'and being 'sworn, stated; in reply to the Judge, that, the gentleman was in such. a state that he did not thinkhe'aiiuld return into court that day, and tlischarge his duty as ajtrryrnan. His place was supplied by another, and anew,paneiwas taken. .The,whole case was then reheard froth' beginning to end, in addition to which, Mr. Powell deposecLitthat the thialf-crowns pibtluced H (those which had been nds-011E to, Mrs: Bell and to Loftus) Were base Ones: . The jury immediately found 'Old SentenceprisoliWkttiltr: l %- deferred. Edward 111`Mahon, 45, was indicted for unlaWfully hiving in his possession certain moulds for coining half-crowns and shillings. The prisoner lived at Manchester, and, in consequence of information received by the police, three officers were sent to search his house. On arriving, the officers found the dobr partly open, and the prisOner sitting beside a table. On see ing the officers, the prisoner was observed to throw some thing into a corner of the room, and, upon examination, it was found to be a mould of plastor of Paris, with the observe and reverse impression of half-a-crown upon it. A number of articles used in the process of coining were found in dif ferent parts of the house; and the appearance of the pri soner at the time the officers entered left no doubt of his having recently been engaged in his nefarious trade. The prisoner cross-examined the different witnesses, but in anything but a Lawyer-like style. He admitted that the• moulds belonged to him, as Ile was a plasterer by trade, and said the impressions had been placed, upon tbqui merely by way of a " curiosity." He handed in ,a document .to his lordship, in which he stated that lie bad been previously con victed, and, owing.to this circuMstance, and having a small family-to provide for; he prayed the alcrey of the wort. The jury immediately found the prisoner guilty. Belitence deferred. The court adjourned at a quarter to seven. NISI PRIUS COURT.-FRID NY. LIBEL.-QUIT V. BROWNE. This was an action brought to recover compensation in damages for a libel on the defendant, published in the Mal Packet, of Friday, June 14. . , Mr. Cresswell and Mr. John Henderson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Alexander for•the.defendant. , • • Mr. CRELSWELL stated the ca se . H e said that-Mr. Henry Quin was a gentleman holding a•eomistiesidninher Majesty's navy •, bu;.• as there was not now sufficient employment for the whole of the officers who had gallantly entered the service during the war, he had, like many others, turned his atten tion to another occupation. Per 'some' time past he - had been acting in *literary capacity; he had been superintending a newspaper (the Hull Times) - in the .g.,aSt, Riding of York.. The defendant, Mr. Robert Bro wn e,. was also an.editor of a newspaper—the Hull Packet ; and ; the libeled' whielt Mr. Quin - 'complained,. which was. , undoubtedly of a . , gross and • aggraVated nature, was publiShed in the Hull Packet} of the 14th June, 1839. He believed that both the plaintiff and de fendant belonged to that party called the conservative, in the town of Kingston-on-Hulle 'and Whether there was any jealousy on the part of Mr. BroWnc,—whether he considered that Mr. Quin enjoyed more influence aelong,' the party, and therefore sought to disparage him in the minds of the public, —or whether it was for the purpOse of injuring thepaper with which Mr. Quin was,coneected, iu order to advance the interest of his own, it was 'totter hint (Mr. Cresewell) to say. It was sufficient if there was found such an unjust and gross attack on the plaintiff as to justify the jury in awarding him such compensation in damages as to show there was not the slightest ground for the imputation cast on him. In fact, the defendant did not contend that there was any ground. Mr. Browne was charged.,in the decletrations with having Published this libel, to which Ise,replied that he was not guilty, which would enable him to say that he did not publish, or that which.was published was not libellous, They would see that there had been published an imputation, that Mr. Quin was guilty of Wilful perjury ;:.and whetheror not the gentlemen of Liverpool would say that that •was a libel he would not stop' to inquire. In, the present state, of society, to charge a man with deliberate falsehood was looked upon as a very gross thing; but to impute wilful perjury was one of the gravest offences with which a man in civilised society could be charged. The declarations that there had been a scrutiny before a committee of the House of Commons rela tive.to the Hull election ; that Mr. Quin was there examined as a witness ; 'that a report of the evidence. was published; and that, after the publication of that r-eert, certain pro ceedings took place in Hull, and then te.: defendant pub lished the libel in question, charging the witness with having stated that before the committee which was afterwards proved to be false. That which appeared to have moved the spleen of - Mr. - Browne on this occasion, or rather that which he seemed to be afraid of as likely to injure him, was an occurrence in the Conservative Association at Hull. It appeared that that body which was associated for the purpose of promoting the in terests of the conservative party, had an annual meeting for the purposehf electing officers for the ensuing year. Mr. Quin appeared to stand high in the estimat on of that body : he had been the honorary secretary for the preceding year, and so far retained the confidence of the members that he was re-appointed for the ensuing year. In the Hull Packet of the 14th of Juhe, there appeared a letter, signed " A Lover of Truth," which stated that at the meeting of the associa tion, Mr. Theophilus Carrick moved the re-election of Mr. Quin as secretary, in consequence •of his - having the con scientious belief that there was no man more devoted to the cause of conservative principles in Hull, and no man more worthy to hold the office. Mr. Christopher Bolton and Mr. Thomas Wayne were stated to have coincided in this expres sion of opinion, and the writer of the letter put it to them whether they were at all'acquainted with the evidence of Mr. Quin - before the election committee. On that inquiry, a per Son named George Laing was examined, and he said, ". I got about £lOO from Mr. Quin, at three different times, at the Hull Packet-office. It was in bank notes and silver." Now, that evidence was given, said the letter, after Mr. Quin had solemnly sworn that he had never paid anything On account of that election. He (the Lover of Truth) would merely ask Messrs.-Carrick; Bolton, and •Wayne what was their opinion, and 'what must be the opinion of the public, of Mr. Quin, after his having Made such a statement ? Having read the letter, Mr. Cresswell went on to say that the three gentlemen named had been called upon for their opinion, and they had sent it to Mr. Browne. They said, with respect to the letter of the " Lover of Truth," that they had been led to examine the evidence.given by .Mr, Quin, and printed in. • the report ordered by the House of Commons, and. they had no hesitation in pronouncing it, a charge wicked and false, and evidently put forward to serve. a party and analignant purpose. They required that their letter should be inserted in his paper, together with the whole of the evidence of Mr. • Quin and Mr. Lairige.in order that the whole. facts of the case might go before 'the public through the same medium which had published the atrocious libel. Mr. Quin, having seen the letter of " ii. Lover of Truth," in the Hall Packet, instructed his attorney to write a•letter to _Mr. Browne, call ing on him to give up the auth or o f th'e letter, in delimit of m dog•which before ten O'ClOck onthe fellowa 4, Morniarg, ac: action would be commenced agai!ist,4n.. e _Teetiii . 4 law. answer was returned, hilt, in reply titetlikletteq . cifilesers. :Cartick, Bolton, and W a y ne , th e defeittlaapnyealstelljes ii paper of the 21st of June a paragraie e Aating.„tbut i lp,e had receivedthat letter, and that lie skolvt,h t lyp,j3qFp)vu as far as was in hiS power, to' ComplY'vittli its. requeste. nd he not received a letter from the prefeseional adviser of the editor of the Hull Times, tljreatening him ,with,ert act* ; but not being Willing to stultify 'hi ohn ,caee e he/cetthl not consent to do as required. Why;(said the learned,coutl: , el,:, if he (Mr. Browne) had publiAsed a statement. Whiela correct, could he not have publishedtisecid,e: e e .sydesieed, to show that he had not brought 411 i 'l'ilifflu i ffac aF&I,I _PS rt Or if, after having carefully read.'( 4 hpef tti Jae 0 that he had been misled, that afalse i Ftiaoaatima i lsa . i of put up on and that a most wrdqfpleltafgep, i perjeespied been made, could he not have expOss i alorp,thft had so hastily - published the eicusatiOn'? i ' nt- be i jar o tems that he not only refused to give int theati . or, o Oft - fli plaintiff an opportunity of - justiftretis character, but de clined to publish the evidence of Mr..Quin, or to make tut apology to him. Copies of the Hull Packet of the.l4th and 213 t June, an the letters referred to, were put is and rea d. .... H,. adT Mr. ALEXANDERthen addressed the jury for theideFeae. He did not come forward on the part , of his clienttoisustifyl the charge which had been made ; but he did wish - that:the case - -had been tried in Yorkshire, where ...both of. the!pertieS Were well known, as well as the manner in which their re spective papers had been conducted.: As it was at present, the action had to .he tried by a, jury who -haffnever before heard of either of the parties, and who hadeperhairs, never heard of their newspapees before. It appeared that there was one person in Lancashire who took the Hull Packet, and on that account the venue had been brought here. He was satisfied, however, that the cause would be tried fairly. and he thought that they would not take the advice 'of his friend (Mr. Cresswell) to visit the defendant with the heavydatnages asked for; when they considered by whom, on whom; and in what times the libel had been, published. Considering the absence of justification, andthatthe defendant did not deny the mistake contained in the letter, he .could not avoid ex pressing a wish that the plaintiff had treated the whole mat ter with that high, and frank,: and generonsspirit whichhe longed to his profession, and not have sunk into the noisy and quarrelling tone of that to-whit:llle was now attached. He looked upon the letter as orfe - of those attacks which were continually made by newspapers on each other-on their po litical as well as their pecuniary opponents: He admired the facilities which the law afforded forthe justification of cha racter, but he thought that the' jury would pause, before they allowed the means of justifying character to •be perverted into the means of exacting a large amount of damages' from the editor of a rival newspaper. The two papers, it appeared, were in the same interestebutoccesionally came into opposi tion; and no doubt that, the jury were familiar with the way in which newspapers of the day were conducted, •for the times were too interesting not to attend to them e and. of -the tone in which they too, frequently, indulged 'with regard to each other. Whether arrising from personal Motives, or froth a desire to fo'rward 'the interests of their' respective • paperS, it was certain that the press did indulge in.high and inflamma tory language against Its rivals. He .could see charges made, which, in point of substance and, language, would not be made under any other circumstances than in nconflict between the press and itself. It wasin such a conflotasthis that tine libel complained of must have originated eand though it '(lid not are.: pear what had been the plainti/Vs and.defendant's conduct to each other before or after, it, seemed that such was the fact,' and that the libel was the Prodnction of ansurknonneorrespondenti. in matters of trade—such as advertisements,. and things of . that sort, there was of co urse a k now led ge that they 'must be paid for if inserted in a newspaper.; ,but if a letter'on a poli tical subject were sent, addressed to the editor, - or to a peli. tical opponent, it was very well known that' it wits: - receiVed With the greatest readiness, and in ninocases . oht - of ten in serted; so that the ,facility with whichthepwere receiVed; and the ,number of them,. tendedete e ere to shell' letterA the least possible value in the public mineieee 'Bid jtirseisitistitl• collect the proceedings on the•.HUlLtelectian eceiAlstilite4,) whiCh would never, be forgotten wliiieieleaiat cforinatte.i:S : were remembered... He had looted intasthedrep4rfoa -klie evidence taken, and. lie knew veryewell thatAltd` Qrtih'itettl not sworn what lied been attributed To hitmeett.*asethittrite' that Air. Quin had swoest that be never paidlanythiniebiiia& count ofthe eleetion, and therefore it,wasipb'siibid• thhthiS client could''juetify. 1--Il cuald.'ceasily•.tintie'rgtand;.ltokvelier,' 'that Mr. Browne .had. not , the•exceedingly'lVoluminons evi dence—for no man would consent to read the whole •of that evidence unless he was. forced, to do so—aridconseqUently that he had put in the letter - without being aware of its falsity or inisrepre4entation. He had•deperlded on the faith of the writer, and that writer, it now appeared and• Was confessed, .hatl . either not read the whole of the evidence or-had miscon ceived the portion which he had reads The parties on the trial were both on the same side in politics, and - what seemed' to' him (Mr. Meiander) quite .certain, was, that they were between them injuring, as far as they were' able, the cause to which they were. attached. But if the disputes of editors were always to furnish grounds for a trial at law, they and all other juries would, have little else to do than to decide upon the opposing statements of political rivals, seeing that, in these times of ,excitement, no, man could mix in politics without subjecting himself to attack. Ile did not seek to throW any ,blame on. the, conductors of the public prints when he spoke thus, because, there were times when most men thought and. epoke strongly, , and this could not but be the case snore especially with,those men who were se intimately connected with nolitics as editors. of newspapers; but What he'wished was., that if they .had disputes and differences, they wouhrnOt make them the grounds of legal proceedings The press had a great deal of• liberty in these-days, as muchein deed, as was consistent with the liberty of Englishmen ; but these were not times when the conductors of it should come forward with actions of this'sort. • _ _ _ ' • HisLonosuiv, in summing up, observed that -the only queStion which the jury had to try was, whether the .publi cution had takers place, and .whether it was libellous. It was not at all pretended that the charge was true, and therefore the truth of the statement would no.`,.eome within' their in •quiry. After having deeided whether or not the matter was libellous, they would, if they .agreed in the affirmative, belt take into their consideration the amount of damages to which the plaintiff was entitled... It appeared that theie was no hos . tility between the parties on, public grOunds; 'and this ought to be taken into consideration in. awardinwthe'damages, be cause, when opponents in polities attacked one another, peo ple of sense did not care what • was , s.,:id ; but the case was somewhat different ss hen the parties ,:belonged to the Sadie side. Still, agood many people paid attention to all that they saw in print, and therefore a libel was likely to do harm, particularly among those people not acquainted with the in dividual. The letter,.too, bore the appearance not Of ati at tack on rr politicol l npponent,,but of having been extolled by the alleged conduct of another person belonging to the same party with the individual attacked, he being represented as one who was doing harm by his conduct to the party he was supporting. The letter purported not to have been written by the editor of the paper in which it appeared, but was signed by " A Lover of Truth." If the letter had been written by the editor, it would not have been surprising ; but it was rather strange that he should find a second person to s y m p a thi se with him in his individual opposition to another man in the same line of politics. They would therefore take it into their consideration how far it was likely whether the letter had originated from the defendant himself. The Jury, after a few minutes' consultation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £3o._ _ _ JOHNSON V bonGLAs. — An undefended action. Verdict for the plaintiff for the sum claimed—X2 6s. Od. 'BREACH OF COVENANT. - TURNER V. BROWNE AND ANOTHER This was an action brought by John Turner, an appren tice, to recover from Messrs. Browne and Powell, late own ets of a cotton mill, and engine builders, at Stockport, to whom the plaintiff had been apprenticed, compensation in damages for not learning him his trade of an iron and wood turner, as also . a. sum Of money due as arrears of wages for the last six months. Mr. Cressweli and Mr. Wightman for the plaintiff, and Mr. Brandt for the defence. _ _ It appeared that Turner had been bound for the period of six years to Messrs. Browne and Powell. The indenture was dated 29th April, 1836. After having been with them about three years, the firm made an assignment of their property, but the business was continued, and the appren tices received their wages. On the 20th of April last, how ever, the trustees put an.end to all work in the mill, a bailiff took possession, and the boys, on presenting themselves, were told by the bailiff that the mill had stopped, and that they were to go there no more. He asked for compensation for the non-performance of the conditions of the covenant, and to recover the wages he had not received. There were owing him six months' wages, at 9s. per week. One of the witnesses calculated that it would, in the present depressed state of the trade, take about £3O or £4O to obtain for the boy another place as good as his original one. Masters were now asking large premiums with boys. Verdict for the plaintiff for £l5. IRVINE V. CRRISTINSON. An undefended;ction. V The plaintiff, Mr. James Irvine, a saltlmerchant in this town, sought td recover from the defendant, Mr. Paul Christinson, the Swedish and Norwe 'gian consul, the sum of X 37 65., the balance of a debt owing for a quantity of salt shipped on board the Ernst, to the order of the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff for £34 is., the amount proved. • WADE AND OTHERS V. CHRISTINSON. This was an action , to recover from Paul Christinson the mini of £217, the value of 310 tons of salt, furnished to him by the plaintiffs. It was undefended. Verdict for the sum claimed. PAILLET V. ANDERTON. _ _ _ An undefended action on a bill of excha nge.—Verdiet for the plaintiff for £95 35„6d.• • - SUTTON ?". LEIGH. This was an action brought by Thomas Sutton against his late landlord, Thomas Leigh, Esq., to recover compensation for an alleged illegal distraint made upon him by the defen dant for rent, when no rent was due. Mr. Alexander and Mr. Tomlinson for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cresswell for the defendant. Mr. ALEXANDER stated the case. He said that if the evidence he should produce made out fully the instructions he had received,' this would prove a very hard case indeed. The action was brought by a tenant against his landlord for having distrained when no rent was due, by which the man was entirely ruined, for the whole that he possessed was seized. He was certain that because the plaintiff in this case was a poor man, and the defendant an extensive land owner, justice would not be denied. The plaintiff was a farmer, and having seen one of the Leigh estates, called Haydock Lodge, in Lancashire, advertised, he opened a communication with Mr. White, an agent of Mr. Leigh's; and in pursuance of an appointment, he went over, in com pany with a relative, on the sth and oth of April, 1836, to see the farm, and to arrange with Mr. White about taking it. The result was that the farm was let to Sutton, at a rent of £3OO per annum, nominally payable at Michaelmas and Lady-day, but really in November and May. Sutton entered, and continued to occupy the farm as tenant until turned out in the way alluded to. The rent was paid by him till 1837, but in Lady-day of that year a. balance of £5O was owing, and a distress was entered for £350. It was then found- that the landlord was claiming a forehand rent, for the rent which would not be due to the expiry of another year. The event terminated, however, by the steward ordering the bailiff off the premises on the payment of £5O. In the month of March, 1838, the landlord distrained again under the follow ing circumstances :—Sutton was about to leave the premises, anadvertised his property for sale. The rent was not then due, though it was about becoming due, and the agent thought, perhaps, that the best plan to secure it would be to be before hand with Sutton, and to seize the property again. He could not do that for-rent, because no rent was due until the 23d, and this was on the Ist of March. He, however, distrained for £150; the property was seized, and in five days it was sold, and the proceeds went into the hands of the defendant. The plaintiff, therefore, had brought his action to recover the value of his property, and such damage as he was entitled to for the inconvenience and loss resulting from the sale of his goods under such circumstances. George Hands, examined.—H6 was a farmer at Dodding ton, in Cheshire... In the beginning of April, 1836, he accom panied Sutton to look at Haydock Lodge Farm, which was then• to let. They met Mr. White on the farm. Sutton agreed to take it at the rent of £3OO. • Mr. White said that the rents were due'at Michaelinae and Lady-day, but that they were paid in • November and May. Sutton entered on the farm in the following .May. Cross-examined by-Mr. CRESS*ELL.—He had married the 'sister of the plaintiff's wife. He never knew that the .rents were reserved payable on the 24th June, although pay ment might not be exacted till aziothertime, at the option of the landlord. He had heen'aennairited with farming for sonie time, but had never heard of such a-custom. Mr. Edward Woods deposed that he *as assistant agent to Mr. , :Lekh, the'defendanE On the sth of March, 1833, he•receivitil directions to enter the plaintiff's premises with a traint-for,Xl3o. cross- 1 0±dinined-:—ltAras the chstoin on Mr. Leigh's estate to , vesetwe'the rents payable on the 24th June. Toithe vh/DGE---The plaintiff gave up pcssession of the lapclitt - Fehtuary, 1 1838, and quitted the house on the suc veedi4 AIWA Otv , May. `fiddon'---t'e'as formerly auctioneer for Colonel George Itaittd, the !principar agent to Mr. Leigh. He sold up ; - .4ltton for £B9 and odd. Mr ,- Georg'e!Pentiirigtori--- . --11e!Was 64 auctioneer at Leigh. I retnembered-thO'plaintiff advertising his property for sale ire AtarMaask;.and was employed by him to sell. He com inended.ilte shle, but by die titoc he had sold a few lots, he was gt4ped , by -, thengent of Mr. Leigh. He made An inven , • itpry;ankrivalinitinn of the • property altar having been thus A6cording to a' fair valuation, it was worth . iXI22 • - Anktio.iciiiirt said that it had been admitted that the raliAtitesniliaft4oibefotehand rent, and that closed his case for the plaintiff. roc' Mrl 'CU44Viti,i, submitted that there was nothing in the evidence to show that Mr. Leigh was responsible. The agent Filad.certainlydistrained, but itliiid . not been proved that he acted with the knowledge 'or 'consent of his employer. u,hHis Lininnitx said that Mr. Raitte as the accredited !ingent of Mr. Leigh, - was supposed to act with•his con Cu r• rencti.!!• They haddistrained for rent, but, as it appeared to him; for rent - whiCh they thought' due. Mr. Clii , ,sswimt said that the decision of his lordship had •relieved Mr. Leigh and his agent from the imputation Of hay— ing..acted oppressively in this matter, inaSmuch'aS theY had distrained for rent' which, 'if nbt really due, they at least thought due. -• NoW, the only . grOund - on which they could be responsible, was that they had acted. in . an illegal and oppres sive;;manlier.''::But the'jury 'were to assume that Mr. Leigh' and his agent intended Iddo that which was right, and that they :believed that the' rent diStrained for was due. •The learned counsel- then went on to state the origin of the mat ter in diSpute. Sutton was about to quit the farm on Lady- Aar, and on the sth of March 'he commenced selling every . thing on the 'Premises. He was then in arrears with his rent, and there hail always been a difficulty in obtaining payment from him. - What was the landlord to do under suc circum stances ? \Vas he to allow every thing to be sold, the money to go into the pocket of the tenant, and the tenant to depart, leaving .his rent unpaid ? • It was complained that Sutton lad been sold up for £BO, and that the money had passed into the hands of the defendant, through 'his 'agent ; but it was not once mentioned that there'was a sum of £l5O owing for rent, which it was never pretended had been paid. An auctioneer had valued the property at £122, but even that would not have paid the landlord's rent. if the goods had been 'sold to the best adVantage and had realized the sum mentioned, the landlord would still have been £35 out of pocket, and the only difference now was that he was a loser of £7O instead of £3O. This was the sole effect of the proceed ings, •unless it was •assumed that the tenant would have put the of the proceeds of the sale in his pocket, and gone away,. and that, he thought,' was what the opposite party would scarcely assume. If it were fair to suppose that such would have been his conduct, then it would be right to esti mate his damages on that ground ; but if he intended 'to have paid his landlord, as far as the money would"go, then he had sustained no los's whatever. A tenant was not al lowed to remove his goods to prevent a distress; ;—he thought there was some provision with respect to that, but, whether or not, the very fact of such a thing being practised might have led landlords to reserve their rents beforehand. The landlord might say, " I will reserve my rents payable at such a time ; but I will collect them 'half-yearly. I will not op. press my. tenants ; but if I thinkthey'are going to deal un fairly:by „me, I will call upOn theni." And such would be found to be the custom of the district in which Mr.' Leigh's property.lwas situated. The landlords had a reserved pay ment beforehand. ..They made the rents payable on the 24th June, so that in any. ease of suspicion, they might put in a distresstO defend themselves ; but if no particular occurrence took:pi:1(v, the rent was collected in November and May. Mr. CREsswEr.i. then called - • _ ; Mr. James Fate, Who , Statect -thine was agent to Sir H. Houghton, who has large estates in this county, in the neigh bourhood of Mr. Leigh. The usual time of entry was—for lands, on the 2d of February . ; and for houses, on the Ist of May. They made the rents payable on the 3d of February and 2d.of -August. Supposing that a tenant entered at the usual time, they had power-to call for rent any - day after the - 3d of February, if, agreementto that effect were made. Selby.---4 - le was agent td Lord Lilford, who had property near to Mr. Leigh. The custom was to enter pasture and arable lands in February, and houses in May. lt•was the custom to reserve the whole year's rent payable on the 24th June, but it was generally received in November and April. Mr. ALEXANDER replied; after which The learned JunGn summed' up, pointing out that one effect of the sale by the agent had been, if the valuation of the witness was correct, to leave the plaintiff a debtor to the amount of £7O, whereas, had the goods been sold for £l2O, he. would have owed £3O only. • _ _ After a brief consultation, the jury found for the plaintiff— damages, £47 ls. Pd. DROWN AND OTHERS V. MELLOR. An action to recover a debt of £ll 9s.—Verdict for the sum claimed. KEARNE V. CALVERT. • The same as the 4bove.—.--Verdiet £76 lls.: 3d. DAVIES V. PARLOUR. Undefended. The action was by the drawer against the acceptor of a bill of exchange for N1:900, thoamount of which; with.• interest for three months, was claimbd. • Verdict £907 10s. BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.---CARR V. STANLEY.. This was an action:brought by Ellen Carr against Francis' Slaney, to recover compensation in damages for a breach• of promise of marriage': ' • Mr.. Brandt and - Mr. Martin for the plaintiff, and Mr. Alexander for the defendant. Air. BRANDT stated the case. The 'Parties were in a hunt ble station is life, but he - hoed, if he proved that a breach of promise had taken plakte, ithat his client would receive such compensation atthe.hanr&of the jury. as she was entitl e d t o claim fOr.the injury, and the defendant could afibrd to pay. Ellen Carr was a nurse in a respectable family at Cheadle,' in Staffordshire, and the defendant was. :a stepson of the person who kept the Unicorn Inn in the same town, and had expecta - - tions of succeeding' to the hcinse, besides having. about 4200 of his own money. The defendant had sedulously attempted to induce the young woman to receive his addresses, but she • discountenanced him until h;: , male his addresses in a proper shape:. Slane); then, in order to induce her to consent to his visits, and.as it afterwards appeared, for the sole pUrpese of obtaining his own vicious ends,' as was too• Often the case, made her a promise of marriage. He signed a paper, in which he' promised either to marry the young woman or to forfeit £lOO.. The document was. certainly not drawn up ...in the.. the "most ClasSical style, for it had ibOibs. not £lOO sterling ; •• but.he would leave it to the jury whether that was not really to induce the plaintiff to believe that he would forfeit the sum of £lOO in the event of not marrying her. He thought that it was, and he hoped that the jury would keep him up to his own estimate at the least. After this transaction he was re gularly received as a suitor, but the result was that the un fortunate young woman became pregnant by him (Slaney,) left her master's house, and was deserted by the defendant, who refused to fulfil his engagement. He was happy to state however, that though her prospects of becoming a decent and wedded wife were blasted, her prospects had not been utterly destroyed, for she had since obtained a situation in a clergy man's family. The present action had been brought at the instance of her late master. Wm. Stephenson, a schoolmaster, in Cheadle, deposed that Slaney.had seen a pupil of his. He (Slaney) was 17 years of age when he first went to witness's school. He taught him writing but not grammar; it was too late to do that. The paper produced was in the defendant's handwriting, The document was handed in and read. It was as follows : " I, Thomas Slaney, does promise to marry Ellen Carr, and if not will forfeit 1001bs,' Margaret Wright stated that she was in the service of Mr. Catlow, solicitor, at Cheadle. The plaintiff was in the same service as nurse. She left in 1838, after having been there about two years. The defendant lived opposite to Mr. Cat low at the Unicorn Inn, the landlord of which was his step father. Slaney was in the habit of visitin g Ellen Can.. She .remembered he r go i ng d owit sta i rs one day and bringing back a paper. It was the promise of marriage which had been read. The plaintiff was away on that occasion about half an hour. Before that she had not received Slaney's visits freely; but after, receiving that paper, she received them without scruple. About two months before the plaintiff left the house of Mr. Catlow, witness knew that she was in the family way, and spoke to the defendant about it. She (wit ness) told him that Ellen was pregnant, and asked him whe ther he remembered having taken an oath to marry her. He replied that he did remember it. 'Witness considered that paper to be an oath, but the plaintiff also took the Bible with her when she went to him, and she said that he took an oath on it to marry her. He did not deny the oath. Witness told him that she should acquaint her mistress with the affair, and he desired her not to. do so, as he intended to marry Ellen. At a subsequent time, she heard the defendant say to the plaintiff that he would send her to Manchester, give her money to pay her expenses thither and of her confinement, and then that lie would follow her and marry her there. He had also promised to marry her at the time of the Hanley races (about three months before), if she would go. She consented, and purchased a dress for the occasion, but he disappointed her. Slaney had said in the hearing of a wit ness that he was worth £2OO, and that he was going to take a farm. Cross-examined.—Slaney was the hostler at the Unicorn. The nursery window looked into.the inn yard, where the de fendant worked. The plaintiff was about twenty-three :..ears of age. Re-examined.—He never talked of his expectations on the inn. He said that his stepfather would assist him in taking the farm. Ellen Carr, the mother of the plaintiff, proved that her daughter had, on the 18th of October, borne a child, which was still living, and that, although the defendant had pro mised to marry the young woman, when she remonstrated with him about sending home her daughter in such a scandalous state, he had never yet done so. Charles Thorley, a cousin of the plaintiff's, went to Slaney for the purpose of inducing him to come to some arrangement, but he said, " I can do_ no more than I have done." Mr. ALEXANDER, for the defence, said that there must be undoubtedly a verdict for the plaintiff, but the amount of da mages would have to be proportioned to the merits of the Case, and to the circumstances of Slaney, who had been ridi culously magnified in the relative of a grand hotel-keeper, with great expectations and some property in hand, whereas he was merely the hostler at an ordinary village, and had no claim whatever on his stepfather, who had children of his own to provide for. The case, too, was such a one as was of frequent occurrence. There had been thousands and tens of thousands who had made similar promises to that of the de fendant, though they had not been such fools. as to write 100 lbs. weight for XlOO sterling. Such a droll way of courtship as that adopted by the plaintiff he had never heard of. She seemed'determined to have the hostler, whose dexterity in handling the fork, three-pronged like that of Neptune's tri dent, she had often witnessed, no doubt, through the nursery window, and that she might not miss him for a mate, she went out armed with a Bible, and made him take an oath. He had conceived a very low idea of her moral worth the moment he heard that fact stated. The learned JUDGE having summed up, The jury had a brief consultation, and agreed upon a ver dict for the plaintiff—damages, £5O. CRIM. CON.-TAYLOR V. BOYLE. This action was brought by the plaintiff William. Taylor, a paint and colour manufacturer, carrying on business in Whitechapel, in this town, to recover compensation in da mages from the defendant, James Boyle, of the Liverpool Customs, for a criminal connection with Ms wife —or, ra ther, as the law terms it, for the loss of his wife's services. Mr. Cressweil and Mr. Venables for the plaintiff, and Mr. Murphy for the defendant. Mfr. VLNABLES having opened the pleadings, Mr. CRESS WELL proceeded to state the facts of the case. He said that they had already been occupied in one trial arising out of the intercourse between the sexes, and they were now called out to try another of rather a graver charac ter, in which, the injury done was rather of a more serious nature than in the last case, though he by no means wished to undervalue the feelings of a girl who had been seduced by a promise of marriage which was afterwards broken. But in this instance, the seductive. influence of the defendant had deprived the husband of the company of his wife, and five young children of their mother. Mr. Taylor, the plaintiff, carried oda respectable business as a colour manufacturer in Whitechapel. In 1829, he married a lady in Birmingham, and after having resided there a number of years, he came to Liverpool. • His residence was in Toxteth-park—his place of business in Whitechapel. Mr. Boyle was in the Custom house, and was in the receipt of a salary o f £2OO a-year: -• In 1838, Mr. Boyle was admitted into the house of Mr. Taylor as a lodger. Between the time of her marriage, in 1829, and the spring of last year, Mrs. T. bore her husband five chil dren—at least, it must be supposed that they were the children of her husband, for until then there had not been the slightest imputation on her character. Mr. Boyle remained in the house of Mr. Taylor far three months; during which tithe, as the plaintiff was necessarily absent a good deal on business, the defendant made use of the opportunity to ingratiate him self with Mrs. Taylor, and to withdraw her affections front her husband. After having remained there three months, he went away; but Ile subsequently ca ll e d severa l times, under the excuse of obtaining lodgings' for a friend, though the excuse was little called for, as the Inisband was away. Such was the fact, however, that he did go there; and remained generally an hour or two, shut up in 'a room with Mrs. Tay lor. On those occasions, the children were put out, and the servant had instructions not to let them go and plague her when she had visitors. It might well be fancied that there was no proper motive for those visits, when the children were thus sedulously and regularly secluded. The hus band remained in ignorance of ail this for many months, and the intercourse remained uninterrupted for a very long period. Mr. Taylor afterwards went and resided at his place of business in Whitechapel. He had not been there long when his attention was attracted by seeing Boyle so Often in the neighbourhood, and making further observations ho detected him in making signs to his wife. This assured him (Mr. T.) that something improper was going on. He consequently, questioned the servant girl, and ascertained , from her that the defendant had been there very often ; that she had carried several notes to him from Mrs. Taylor, and answers back ; and that generally on the same day Boyle paid a visit to the house. The plaintiff, as might well be supposed, was much distressed at this, more especially as' he had grievous suspicions, and could not be certain that they were well founded. If there was one state more full of anxiety and torture than another, it was where a husband had suspicions of the honesty and chastity of his wife, and was not able to bring the offence home to her. A circum stance, however, happened in the month of May, in the present year, which tended to set the matte in a clearer but a most painful light. The servant girl who had been spoken to placed in the hands of Mr. Taylor a note from his wife to Mr. Boyle. It was as follows :—" Dear Boyle, be firm. I am afraid we are betrayed. For heaven's sake meet me at four o'clock this afternoon, in St. John's Market. For mercy's sake protect . me it occasion requires. This may alarm you • but, oh ! meet me." What construction could be put on ;his, but that a criminal connexion had taken place between the parties ? Mr. T. took a copy' of the note, sealed it again, and delivered it to the servant, *lib took it to the defendant. In due time the answer was received, and that was also carried to Mr. T. It ran thus:—" I know all about it, and will be there at the time you mentioned." Having likewise taken a copy of that, the original was sent forward' to Mrs. Taylor, and a person was directed to watch at the market, with instructions, when he had seen the parties meet, to go for Mr. T. and a friend of his named Guy, to whom he had confided the whole affair. That person saw them meet, bu he thought that if he returned to tell the husband, they might possibly be gone away before -he could return. He, therefore, staid and watched their Motions. :They shortly left the market; he followed them, and after .making many turnings and twistings they at last went into a house, No. 7, Pilgrim-street, kept by a man named M'lntYre, and well known to the police as a house of ill-fame. Now, taking this, in connexion with the other circumstances mentioned, who could entertain the slightest doubt that they went there for the purpose of a criminal intercourse ? To what, then, was the plaintiff entitled ? Compensation for the injury could not he made in money, and yet that was all that 'the law al lowed. It was impossible for a husband to be always at home guarding the chastity of his wife, and the husband's necessary absence had' in this instance been taken advantage of by the defendant. Through his instrumentality she had become depraved. If he had not only debauched her person but her mind, and induced her to sink herself so low in de pravity as to enter a house of ill fame, who was blameable ? The defendant, assuredly ;- and the jny, he felt convinced, would punish him by the infliction of heavy damages. Miss Eliza Edwards proved that the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Taylor.took place in Birminghame in 1829. They re sided there until within the last few - years. The witness was in the habit of visiting them up to the period'of their depar ture, and Mr. Taylor, as far as she knew, was always kind and attentive. Mrs. Taylor conducted her Self in a proper manner. They have five children. Mrs. Taylor's age was twenty-nine. Martha Booth had lived as servant with Mr. Taylor, for 18:mouths. When they resided in Toxteth-park, her Master was in the habit of leaving home early in the morning and returning about nine at night. Mr. BOyle came to lode at the house about a monthafter-she went Them* He remained three months. After he ceased to lodge there, he frequently visited the house in the afternoon, and sonaetirnes stopped a; couple of hours. Sornetimes he was with. Mrs. Taylor in the parlour, and sometimes in'the drawing-room.: The Chit:: dren were not allowed to go in when he was there: Witness had directions to keep them out. She, had often taken notes from her mistress.t o M r . Boyle; whe sometime.s.retnrned an 'answer by her. Her Master had resided . allqut twelve weeks in' Whitechappl. After the removal, She: remembered her master speaking. to 'her • about Boyle.' Subieqpently her gave her a note to the defendant. - She•gave it to her, master, who returned it, and she then 'took it to Boyle. 'He gave her an answer: She gave that also toper master, and after he had-read it took it to her mistress. • Mr. William ,Quy, glover, saw the notes, given to Mr. Taylor., lie (witness). caPied both at the request of the plaintiff. ~The witness proved the on which were then handed in., • - ' Mr. William Jones, a tailor, said that he was a relative of the last witness.. He was requested to go-to St. John's Market, to observe whether Mrs. Taylor and Mr.• Boyle met there. He saw them• meet there, and afterwards followed them, through a very circuitous route, to a house in Pilgrim 'street, . No. 7. They aremained there twenty-five minutes. Witness w,aited till. they. came out. They did not leave the house together. • Mrs. Taylor came out first, at the front `tibbr. :Boyle came out •at the back door, down" the entry. 14 4 followed her, joined. her,. and they separated;at the top .„ Cros-examined by Mr. MURPHY.—What induced you to undertake this discreditable occupation of following a woman to it house of ill fame ? Because I was desired to do so. What did you get for it? I did not get a farthing ; I thought it my duty. Do you-think it your duty to follow women to houses or that description? No, I don't. • And don't you-think it discreditable? No, Ido not. Re-examined.—He thought there was nothing discredita ble, if a woman committed adultery, to find it out. John Bewse, police-officer, No. - 23, proved that th e h ouse No. 7, Pilgrim-street, is a, house of ill-fame, kept by 'one M'lntyre. _ _ _ Mr. Joseph Mossop proved that the salary of Mr. Boyle is £2OO a•year, less five per cent. for the superannuation fund. kr. llionruy addressed the jury on behalf of his client, whose offence, even admitting, which he did not, that it was • fro° l fully proved, he characterised as one aPLifilliginegherd"4 thoughtlessness and the passion of a man in his youth. [The defendant is about 45.] His LORDSHIP briefly summed up. The jury, after two or three minutes' consult:l6°l3' a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, £3OO. The Court rose at five o'clock. CROWN COURT.—Sar oan A-v• CU T TING AND STABBING• deri V o; Locker: Locke was indicted for havinaw.lae jaaichit Faaakerly, a police-officer, of Manchester: --" contained the usual counts. Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution . Dory Melville Barton, one of the acting Police of Manchester stated, that, on the lltn, . 5 010 0 , was on duty in the neighbourhood of Stevensola,,tveafsro Manchester,' when he 'heard the usual signal by an sistance. He ran. to the spot, accompain s ome' ai named Fazakerly. He saw the prisoner wa a vo, women. The prisoner threatened them Sudden,:'as` o n Pa:, inspectors oPhitiestot. pressions of defiance. He saw Fazakerly Faze ing his head, stooping and in great pain. y claimed, " Oh, I'm stabbed! Oh, I'm stabheaetteeaaa God !" The prisoner ran away, pursued by' the t 0 11 11°" struck him on the head as he turned into an entry escape. He fastened himself in a house. h anted , al by witness. His mother, who was there, ele - i We' my boy is killed r" He said, " Let me alone,; no more than I deserved for what I have don' _ e heslet'i e l Thomas Fazakerly, a police constable , of 31anc,000, posed, that, on the night of the llth instant, laf,' Barton into Little Lever-street. The witness aescespasfo the prisoner, after threatening and defying hlr sido, sae him and stabbed him twice ; once in the lea' y in the soft - part of his belly. s tated t ec i bat '" / David Lipsitt, an inspector of police, he ad a ' searched the house when the prisoner e - a was aPP rc i t er's K p found, on a cross-beam under the stairs , a Saoaaargeon., Mr. Charles Jukes, assistant to Mr. 011ier, scribed the nature of the wounds, which, tipereatt'cy were not of a dangerous nature. They wer e if the be; dangerous state when he examined them, ?ii' aate the side had not been stopped by the ribs , it "3" fatal. farae The prisoner pleaded intoxication as all r ra c ' l e s tr. crime. He called his mother to give hira a drag set poor woman, who appeared in great distress , 0 10 for her son. She said be supported hi s father a and four children. The Jury found the prisoner Guilty. o tabbl"a a His - Loaansann observed, that the crime t his cl*., o rci becoming too common in this country, and , "' r soll was aggravated by the circumstance of the r e -bow' He , 3 1111 being an oliicer in the execution' of his dual. A k e an e-a ft ao therefore, be acting correctly if he did not Ina' a „atol l by a severe sentence. The prisoner was seatenu-- years' transportation. a _ be° COINING. Michael Grogan, aged 37, Bridget Farrall, 50, and Ellen Rowley, 48, were inalo as a s sil at Manchester, counterfeited - a n umber of shila peaces. te 4 for " tine and The Attorney-General for the County Pal a ..nners , Armstrong, conducted the prosecution. Tlie jaa undefended. ae stet riatf Mr. Diggles, and some others of the lian c- 0. t D° 3 • O' went to the house kept by the prisoner Bridge is „at found all the prisoners there. Grogan was of tastesolJ• sleeves, and he went immediately to a gnus of a le a in which was afteiwards found some fragment-so there, The house was searched, and, in several Pa r ts et a l e. th al nuantity• of counterfeit money and imidern e ' l atanae l o oor used in coining were found concealed. Tlie ec i yO 5 d e entirely fix Elizabeth Farrall and Ellen P ir Stoe t plices ; consequently, their case was not suffer e Gree n tito Jury. Grogan and Dolan were found G • poio° sentenced to three years' itnprisonment, a„n", k ola aa a, years' imprisonment, with hard labour, e tu r . g. coin" HAVING POSSESSION OF IMPLEMENTS r°"-grea'4o'oCer George Lister, aged 55, and Mary Lister, charged with having knowingly had in their P° :-. o hill , ltlo tarn moulds for coining base shillings, and a a rae ° The counsel for the prosecution were the s a ale t ;eat last case. ; lied On the 22d of April, the prisoner, Mary L 'i : lie tit°, Diggles, of the Salford Police. She said she ic. ce b ag to him. He stopped, and she said she could Pa s he I t information respecting a party who were eol i , a li hea s ,l‘ol o chaster. He went with her to a public-house, ~when u r ,qo him, that a man, named Smith, and his sister,of c • ol th a No. 60, George Lee-street, were in the bate' th, t et %l l ' e a; some extent. Her daughter, she said, lian a y,:raoaw h o l trj r morning, and she had seen them conceal til", oven. He appointed to meet her at seven a, c he r o ',e, unable to keep the appointment. She anu„ ig bc_ d ° went to him at the Police-office, about half-Pas" eight, went She said, " You never came, and we have be en t she iv: seven o'clock." He asked the daughter whit., she She said she had been at Smith's that aft e , r , n ald ' t h e ' ll' e • a ▪ ° officers would gu at that instant, they woula .. 11 „ OhW' r, in the oven, as she had seen Smith and his s ,, , s y t e t 'heaag there. He directed two officers to accomPla pea jamin Hartles and another officer went with ta t - he ot,eii dr of way the prisoner said, " Don't go directly Are look about you a bit, and if they ask what /Id a': ;he for, say you are looking for whiskey . ." Th, e Y,,,cp 3 13, , sired them. In Smith's oven they found a cel, which contained a mould complete. to• Pie taining an impression of a tail side of a sh.rliaga t ks of metal. All this was duly reported to Sl l ls o` ‘ the sister of Smith was taken into custorlY , a 't -. D ' i- e lr self being ill from recent confinement. ocepe'o"94 being informed of the circumstance, set lin li a , he f' o oce ° to make inquiry into all the circurnstance,!- ft-loaivfi,cot; a strong evidence, that the Smiths were ° • s ° and that it was sought to make them the victouliibtert, spiracy. It was proved in evidence, that the da t he prisoners had called repeatedly at Smith's, a h iali Ai l a placed herself near the oven. The cellar tnt•ab d is soners resided was searched, and a ladle in," 4 --i ton,7,, .ie e f e a l been melted was found. The piece of rae' .- tia - 0 oven fitted this ladle. Several fragments of In e ° o lilt e d plaister of Paris, a counterfeit shilling, and w s h lar ece ei v i t i; were found, with some other imlements have been used in the manufacture of m oulds' Joe l o f bacco pipes, which appeared to have had tal el ' a el;ePa4 them, were found. ,Smith was stated to be al e of i t Y 4 ," dustrious habits, in the employ of Mr. Gar s ,: Ceelallsl' e a street. Mr. Garside proved, that Smith ha' 'al P' ye; from six o'clock in the morning of the '22d of April theoio hour at night. The counterfeit shilling, found at f° of the prisoner, had been used to make ele in ° at the oven at Smith'a, wa s •t i 6° o o The evidence against the male prisoner Late of sufficiently conclusive. The jury found MarYl the a ce The COURT, after alluding to the enorraitY ° a s ot' mi . of which the prisoner had been guilty, Pa sse P" a 0 0 transportation for life. v ide The prisoners prosecuted by the Mint, colic asta arase day, were brought up to receive sentence• his tiefl P ° • Edward M`Mahon, for having m oulds in was sentenced to transportation for 15 yea rs- ins sell Betty Taylor, for having uttered base coin, teli ,0 1, to ten years' transportation. wae , t d: John Gorman, for having tittered base eouha o rth a ta° to imprisonment and hard labour in Kirkdal e, ', base„ot• : Michael Grady, who pleaded guilty to havina ni asotv his possession, was sentenced to two years' in i r ara 11°1 STABBING• r ita aa ea a- Thomas Moran, aged 35, was c hargeu "JP Warrington, cut and stabbed William Tak er ' t ahst co aK or five counts in the indictment. The first cot r a £ o 4 .ith offence as having been committed with inarci; r iel ° murder, the second with intent to maim, troll:le' ;fl ' tent to disfigure, the fourth with intent to ago s om e a vilit /i bodily harm, and the fifth with a col:an:ton as s 'afta ' Dr. Brown appeared for the prosecution; the defence. diete d o f , The offence for which the prisoner was 1 n , s 3 7, t y mitted so long ago as the 26th March,Geo quently, came under the provisions of the 9th d tha t "Y e j:P r a 31, in which it was more seriously consider a il loA o present statute. The prisoner had absconde e t, t b after the commission of the offence, and could n o de l' o pit" be sooner brought to trial, as he continued 0 till the 4th of April last, when he was recognise afil lis a 0 11 hended by a constable at Altrin,gham. A se The following are the particulars of the t ;et .e Taker was, on Easter Sunday, the 26th Ala te art 'd ° L a ing in Scotland-road, in Warrington-, at the " a . d ov , „4, called Cock-edge. The prisoner was coUn ii b oa er,.' ol . ; t all called the Town-hill, and, as he was erossing.t__t hi, a, named Rowlandson and another mall ran aga i ; c t aiat i i l a i !te e prisoner crossed the road where Taker Nc i. a s a a t P e ato .iti , after looking at him for a moment, ru s 'a e arin it ,fithr w stabbed him in the right buttock. The Pris °- aest P. ran off. The prosecutor walked home wi th griee 1 ' 1° 1;P Ile He was put to bed, and was confined about t ~a a 10°"POW rr The aboVe was the account given by ' s tate - to eye witness, named John Tickle, varied the str eet ` t toP o ot said, that when' the prisoner ran across the P a d his hat fell off, and he exclaimed, " The fi r st p la t ' e a me, I'll put the - knife into him, if 1 can. ri var tl 'edi'd see the knife. man, named Brow° , af t t t e er O l t io it? Taker upon the prisoner, upon which the la, oa erh e stabbed him. It was also proved, that the Pri s pii pelt i! t the prosecutor £lO to make it up. Mr. Robinson, surgeon of the Warri n ,,glesc ribe v illy stated, that he examined the wound• tleetdarterP of x . dangerous. It had narrowly missed the Pi t re ° Il e had it opened, would have caused death. foe? , ele Mr. WILKINS addressed the jury for these evil ing energetically on some discrepancies in ners t e h e 'ar called a man, named Knowles. The wi,, s ola et , transaction. He said the prisoner was eatl e ' e r n a ,a o ,o ' o a but he could not say whether he had a k il l his e c lat a ti ti cording to his Statement, the prosecutor an t i of bull w i j eo er teased the prisoner, and, after- making * or iengt a, time, knocked him down repeatedly. A t . r the ground, one of them put his hand, °!g-ener!'alt. mouth, and Takerput his hands to his O a he 0'40.0 e The jury • found the prisoner gu ilty of t t for , f t p LORDSHIP passed, sentence of impris ons ig ,C. with hard labour. atua -- r A point was reserved for considerationsich aitiernia.ditee, prisoner was indicted under the old law, , o we , of the modified verdict for assault. He was' for `"- „' for and found guilty of the assault. It" ' d g ooda e joe'' to decide whether such conviction can stial sever i ° . ~..The coutf. adjourned, at a quarter-Past „nine on Monday. , t tc r • NISI Pam ouR s cT—soreolot3 Mr. Barona lttaariaai took his seat on the 13 ' • re el past nine o'clock. FINLso) a la tO DEBT.—hDWARDS This was an action brought by Robert far vi d from John Finlayson a sum of about x 2 -, a his s i a t Dished by the plaintiff to the defendant al et paid a d. a period of five or six weeks. The defenalthis saanm X 4 lls. to meet the demand as resPeet ea liable - • plinF a tfi respect to himself pleaded that he was not d the tiP e oat sum of X 6 ss. claimed for spirits, _he plea nor ,eat' , Mr. Cresswell . and Mr. John Hen derson -t :seat' Mr. ,tePcj and Mr. Martin for the defendant. f t he Pr",, aP Mr.. CRESSWELL said, that in June 0 Lo ad° 0 ° e ar Messrs. Gibbles and Poole chartered in We , t he t oi s p vessel called the Dartford, to ply betweeerly be c i ta i dy Beaumaris. The defendant, who had forin esse a ra" e r ia artl o t twin,-thought right, after bringing the v ials O l d 0 0 1 '41, port, to remain on board the steamer_• i n trodu ce r ent ic ,ioi s ,le from sea shortly after, and he also wa", -- „, 1 apP: a a l o as s' and Captain . Finlayson, his s w o o n, came with the Steamer, were supplied "a • nif, a • aaf , ti , ta the Pia -i " • ing wine, spirits, and porter, by wi no ' 1 ,5 1,0 . 10 steward. Part of the account and, with respect to the charge for sp!rL',,,i.osa defendant pleaded the tippling act, vebien e r,2oa 1 0 4 he Man obtained spirits to , the a mount that 4 should be liable, but if to a smaller ow not be liable. Evidence was heard at considerable lerigattlite'rnigattbhai,e. The defence was, that the parties a gree to 0 .0 0 1 .' 0 who accepted a bill drawn by tlae owne rs te atae r ' be " 1 Finlayson should remain on board the s oils to et of it on behalf of the owners, and that 1 ,!, c ot, b to cle'" A e, with provisions by the steward, free.f` so a co,!.! v os i X, wines or spirits. The steward, who , 3 .", eor ge P e ,. s ' c on, e not the plaintiff, but a person name,"aharte.r „I and,. ' he bell' be to supply Captain Finlayson Poole, with the customary provisOat, etc. ° a piriLa pensation, allowed sell wines, • vessel. c de fenrie t The Jury returned a verdict for the 41, The trial listed nearly four hou!s• FP, e rsale TRESPASS.—SPEAEM AN iliog t her This was an action brought hY ttel ' he r e of ..o aafg , against Joseph Eckersley, And • " for trustees of the highways of the towns aad "' b e! 18 too etiterect 'a 3 3141tY, the said ell Plaia r t : W ight)z „ ,‘ 1 1 '1111. 11 44 , ;o r ; def & II ; Mr. Cr 1 1 1 1 ;1 ghrh4,ll:droarsd, d o a 1)1 l l e ad ; a on sli llt6 ielltZ i Which ° W . a bette r s ets i On It B so ci !ellan a f the °s ! t fro 11 a ‘ l,d ' i ofw r " 1 Mr , t7 r. Ile aste, cot 4 °, d efeo rein a i lled -- . err t dallt s t: a res .Pas„ e u g h ' red plaintiff, thiliP Ikea litt le Val„ e • i klad "ed with Nv tt e , The ,~ 1l out ? • ef hda i i i )aesses ut: pi ( tad tiY t he Plaehre" ilee e ._ e tr ti ; ) _t th e 017, erected, t t , w aste. 444 0 a Yea r to r t . r, e t,t _ Out S pa :S;WEL paa a he ti 4 ?„fe s°ll : there k 1 4t e ° l ltl P 414 a s he nu tt ait4 th em Put , Own, l ib :Altos If r st a 2 1 IP t ter. , c a i s ron g( 65:, 0 Yer . ,NLELI or th at ~.;‘, • md, i i ," d hat n o t t ri e Plair W Whi c h Las to k i i t t ritte t 7 4 „,,hot Ir F use t o „ h a, il)4 B i a Lae sit , 1 4 , r !eeli g r , , irin sm Ip ea tlhrr a 7 s to it lt44oan, that It p~OPieT*e' flinti sarn fri tu d lets' ( lent I°4 had ‘ ga a• 44 }, ted lY be ' ,4 hag go e 4 to , posse i e °hte A d er Ilatartee theh 14 $ Nant ktCe -,Whit 8 . Wel Sv h ° t res ,N' but ell . the ,Nir4st an` dal h k • C.)than 11 '0 0 a PPreh kg 4 I}4 * o d f lAti n Atte ! i B ati his • kt e • Th tre spa 'll, //.i4 te r w s th t t e lea O r mate la e qop t • tied dp,t / tO tha th at ,•• la n d , uite , th e " Pal • th e othe r 41ssa e, t h they t it i kd a t id W hether tb o- ; ee„ e_r t . t-,,l7l4thosetall, but, IVe Were tc to ret„ Ile °D art art a CRo wtt gr7 leY ged With •w• Ith3 b r °t6 e , r late tr ow ° ll ats • g p ro , ' t Nt" traiu s etit of -acti tud~o, the n *ICto?! t a w o pro 4)yVll ght. vok4 e rid g e • ' , e 4 to t ics ‘'ere , ti„, ll lti v o ccu - 11 e e E s th e r t r j 'ttilz fil eni4 g ot 'hi p, Vdly f anner vr as 4 ' he f which • 41, y i ) j ‘' 444/. 011 4 tt, l k it arty, 4 eta eerl allsi th 1 / 4 ki klf ° Ped ;r e 1 ' a we w e "ir°o 4 4 ( 4 ,g /lean p it i r g a f Wi a ti i i9li fe se f e r t ki.4,11141. • pr 4r, ° '' 4 and ki l o af i,7 1, 1 tG u y f k l k fell at th with 4 ' 4 ( eti tai kh ,t o to a re, };:t0 to f her h o t ...„-or a 11: 1 17 r tleai s '"! tr, e on the evid ui ; h e , p s tabi e s r e h etict 1 4 4 1 es ~roke 0 ti, ll l i thip' s ° l ler s • 'lt'llll of the H, the 44 4 nj u n: 11,eY Pr° tde see f erl ' Std lll V to t ,!tth s Q. 1 41 1 41 P ti tt l4 t Rr levo a s us 44s t i . ci til4 4 "ll4 e a'na n s; b VA lt talte t it "st attee _ tc tie, 144 14 , 1th4 t i He t 'lls E 4 '. l y ;fl it l 'e°llt t °lllld ti Y of tl itt e kPri seat er , to o•/ 4 Ilth s a " k 4 4N , t s , A T I/ h '°' l, 2 a t i Th t y h h eis aj a n t4 1 1 '14 ( 14 the r ltt r, ttt h e priso n k t t '",;:,, ()4 tki ls s aid tl i tt tN 'v l c o: l c a l(, e ll 41 f' I ler 4eti lltl .r to t‘f t ine N 4 44 4 'ell e I ce ‘i i ere t t i l kiff: / t th" 4 a y e deee °h tt t A lit a th ti e t . 4, 1 6 i tool: ella • t s it'e 1, 0 Thi °l4l N t • s fa ct Itt,,,fro r : 4 414 1( 10, 1 - 4.4 ktd t r lkk hr ew Ne h e 1 13 4 1 ':iuri t 11 : 1 11 ,k4I re l d . a kr ;4 t v 'e h}th . 1(1, 11 _ ' O4O (q 1 'e a ~o vß l4l 4' a "e 1 %, 44141 o a , rath ei tli Ail t' 41 AS e "RM t 1 1, 14 t it a of N. kis •-e w a , N. c cl ' iNll 4 l t l l'e slbl e ty e th e tka, e tfre n s whi (I: 4 'tt i brt ti .°f th, t4 1. 4 ,°41 ) ,! a 4 C'ri4, 41 1k w 4 , 4 ' \I 4 'lei 1 04 1 4 (P e at„ the Prgar ..! No o ros, l't, t 4ti:' ll ls is , • „.. i4L th e w~ to a me ee . ,1 1 0, %l a ' ht raw it .414 fe the '4'l';',,§4` ) t 4 nd 1, 41 •c , 'h()tir • detk4. 0 3 1. ,„ „ „ Ge r 1 4 1 sk. Dr, ~,1„ Ar o ; w d, tre at. t, 4, 0 Ith 4 q i 4ql4l l c r e(l t 4 , eti 11 4 (ti t er tetti, Oik 4 ka t 4 tr) t 41 14 V ! sti ag tl kl 4, 1 4 0 11 1. 4 Y 1 ( °Ce ( QIN elt laa F eV at 4 4 I ) 4 l O t t.ti 4tt S the : 4 ': 1 1 . 4 4, 4 '4 r! e ah 4 1 ,`\% 0 ti ai r cal a '• ‘•• 1, tg, th, -t, 141 i 4 tt - c ti %Oil( L