The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-04-02 00:00:00

SOUTH LANCASHIRE ASSIZES. CROWN COURT.--Fitipast. (Before Mr. Baron PARK.) His lordship took his seat on the bench a few minutes before one o'clock. In obedience to his lordship's directions, William Rogers was placed at the bar to receive the sen tence of the court. His lordship then proceeded to pass sentence. He said the prisoner was tried at the last assizes, before Baron Alderson, for having in his possession at Man chester, in violation of the Bth section of the 2d William IV. chap. 34, a mould, with the intention of uttering base coin, and with having base coin in his possession. He was taken into custody, and was tried with a man named Thos. Large, who was convicted of having 16s. of base coin in his posses sion, and sentenced to be transported. The prisoner had 2s. in his possession, and they were both indicted for having this coin, for the common purpose of uttering the same. An ob jection was taken on the part of the prisoner that his offence was not a violation of the statute. His lordship read the clause referred to, which is as follows :—" Sec. 21-2 4. chap. 34. If any person shall have any such matter in his personal custody or possession, or shall knowingly or wil fully have any such matter in any dwelling-house or other building, lodging, apartment, field, or other place, open or inclosed, whether belonging to or occupied by himself or not, and whether such matter shall be so had for his own use or benefit, or for that of another, every such person shall be deemed and taken to have such matter in his custody or possession within the meaning of this Act." His Lordship then went on to say, it was contended that, as the person had only 2s. of base coin in his possession, the offence was not complete. The learned baron reserved the point for the consideration of the judges ; all but two were preesnt when it was submitted to them, and although, at first, they all felt some difficulty on the question, they, however, finally agreed that the prisoner was guilty of the offence charged. According to their interpretation of the clause; proof was not required to the extent that the indivi dual accused had in his possession three pieces of counterfeit coin. It was enough if the money was found in the posses sion of one who acted as an authorised or indirect agent of the accused, or if it was found in the dwelling of the party. It was therefore the unanimous opinion of the judges that the prisoner was guilty. He (the learned judge) had con sulted Baron Alderson as to the extent of punishment to which he would sentence the prisoner. It was the learned baron's intention to have sentenced him, at first, to 18 months' imprisonment ; but as the prisoner had been already 7 months in confinement, the sentence of the court now was, that he be further imprisoned in the House of Correction at Kirkdale for 11 months, and be kept to hard labour. The prisoner appeared in a very infirm state of health. CUTTING AND STABBING AT MANCHESDBH. Philip Tone was indicted for having, on the 28th October litst, at Hulme, Manchester, feloniously cut and stabbed one Thomas Eddleston. Dr. Betower stated the evidence that would be produced in support of the prosecution. George Wooley, being sworn, said—On Sunday, the 28th October last, I saw the prisoner at the bar at the Bull's Head Inn, Hulme, between 11 and 12 o'clock. He asked me for the' loan of sixpence. I told him I had no money. He then eiught me and knocked me down, and said he would give me more, as I was taking five or six pounds out of his pocket. He did not explain what he meant by this remark. He fol lowed me for 30 or 40 yards, and struck me frequently. Some hien then interfered in my behalf. Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—I never had the slightest quarrel with him. He app eare d exc it e d b y drink. Samuel Oxwood.-1 live in Hulme. On the 28th October I saw the prisoner and Wooley at the Bull's Head, Hulme. I saw the prisoner ill-using Wooley. He struck hi m severa l times. Vs'ooley did not return the blows, but begged him to be quiet. Wcoley at last said he would bring Mr. Alcock, the deputy-constable of Hulpee, to him. Wooley then went away, and the prisoner folloeved and struck him several times. He said he would make him:fetch Alcock. Two young men then came up ; their names kre Bigger and Eddleston. Mr. WILKINS said the prisoner desired him to retract his plea of Not Guilty, and he would throw himself on the mercy of the court. His LORDSHIP said it was better to proceed with the case, as it would determine the amount of punishment he should award' o the prisoner. The witness proceeded to say, that the prisoner stabbed Eddleston on the left side with a knife. Mr. Alcock then came tip. I knocked the prisoner down with a bunch of celery. He had been drinking, but was not drunk. Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS. — Four of them re proached prisoner for striking Wooley. None of them said they would give him a good thrashing, nor did Eddleston say it would serve right to do so. Thomas Eddleston.-1 saw the prisoner and Wooley quar relling in Moss-lane. The prisoner held Wooley by the.col lar, and was ill-using hie,/ very much. I said it was a shame to abuse 'an old man in that cruel manner. The prisOner then walked away, and said kg would ill-use any amongst them that attempted to interfere with him. Ile then ran at me • I raised my bands to protectenyself, and we both fell. When down, I thought he kicked ate in the side ; but on getting up and throwing open my 'taistcoat, I perceived blood flawing from my side, and on examining myself I found I was stabbed in the left side. I was then'. taken to Mr. St. Clair's, a surgeon. I did not know the prispner before that day. Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—I can t say if I called him a blackguard, but I said it was a shame for him to ill use the old man so. I did not lay hands upon hien, nor did I see any one else do so. John Bigger.—l saw Eddleston and the prisoner struggling together on the 28th October last, in Hulme. Eddleston' and I were walking together, and when we got to Moss-lane where the prisoner and Wooley were quarrelling, Eddleston said it was a shame for him to abuse Wooley as he was doing. He said be would ill use any of them, and with that he put his hand in his pocket and brought out a clasp knife, which he opened, and then ran towards Eddleston, put out his hands to stop him, and they both fell. I did not see the pri soner stab Eddleston. Samuel Alcock (constable of Hulme) said.—l came up to the parties during the quarrel. Shortly after it was over I took the knife out of the prisoner's pocket, which I can pro duce. It was then wet and dirty, but had no marks cf blood upon it. Martin St. Clair, (surgeon).—l examined Eddleston. He was wounded near the heart, between the fifth and sixth ribs. The wound was a very dangerous one, and might have proved fatal. He was much injured, and was under my care three weeks. Mr. Wreaues declined addressing the court on behalf of the prisoner. The learned JUDGE then recapitulated the evidence to the jury, who, after a few moments deliberation, found the, pri soner guilty. His LORDSHIP then sentenced the prisoner to be trans ported beyond the seas, for the period of 15 years : and in pronouncing this sentence, he took occasion to express his deep regret at witnessing, as he did in this and other places, the introduction of the use of the knife in the disputes and quarrels that arose amongst the people. HORSE-sTsiuNG AT BOLTON. James Woodward (36) was indicted for having, at Great Bolton, on the 15th October last, feloniously stolen one horse, the property of Samuel Bennet. Samuel. Bennet being called and sworn, stated.—l sent a colt to the fair of Bolton for sale, on the 15th October last, by a servant boy of mine named Job Tong. The prisoner and another man came up to buy it. I asked £lB for it. They agreed to give me that sum, and we went out to a pub lic-house where the prisoner said I would be paid the money. After some conversation they left me there, and when I came out the colt was gone. I made no bargain as to the price of the animal, nor did I agree to swop it with the prisoner's old horse. He stole the colt without any bargain whatever. Next day I went to seek for the colt, and on coming to Long sight bar, which is on the London road from Manchester. William Coates and 1 met the prisoner, and the other man who was with him at the fair of Bolton, with the colt. The man who was leading the colt begged of me not to mention anything about the theft, and offered me the halter. The prisoner came up to me and also offered me the colt, and asked me to forgive him, and to shake hands as friends. I said I would never forgive or shake hands with a rogue and a thief. My son was with me, and we were then going to give information against the prisoner and his companion. William Coates told me not to take them into custody, nor trouble myself about them, as the police officers would have them soon enough. The prisoner afterwards came to my house, as he said, to shake hands with me, but my son on hearing that the person who stole the colt was in the house, went for the constable, and he had him taken into custody. The prisoner then fell on his knees, and said he wished that his eyes might fall into his hat, if he would have attempted to take the colt, if James Grundy had not told him that I was a quiet old man, and that once I got the colt out of the fair, I would not Say a word, for that he had frequently put his cattle to graze on my pasture, and that all I ever did was to turn them out, without ever throwing a staye or raising a whip at them. (The unsophisticated manner in which the witness described his goodnatured weakness, created much merriment in the court, in which his Lordship heartily joined.) My colt was worth £lB then. Now I would not take £24 for it. The old horse that I was to swop for it as the prisoner has stated, was not worth more than £l. He has since been sold for 12s. 6d. (Loud laughter.) The prisoner here observed that the colt was lame and blind, and that his horse was broken winded. (Continued laughter.) Job Tong being sworn, said—l took my master's colt to the fair. The prisoner came up and asked me if it was for sale. I said it was. He asked me where my master was, and I pointed him out in the fair. He also asked what the price was. I told him £lB. He then desired me to walk the colt out. I did so twice. He then called to my master and said he would give him £lB for the colt. My master said he must have the cash paid. They then went to the ale house, where the prisoner said his father was, and that as he had plenty of money, he would pay him at once. Shortly after the prisoner came out and said he had bought the colt, and that my master desired him to have it. Another man then came up, put a saddle and bridle on the colt, and took it away, William Coates.—l am a groom. I was at Bolton fair on the day in question. I saw Mr. Bennet's colt there, and the prisoner and another looking at it, and offering to buy it. Ben net said he would not take less than £lB for it. The prisoner said if Bennet would swap the colt with his old horse, the other man would give him £lB for the old horse. (Laughter.) Bennet declined the offer. About half an hour after this I met the prisoner and the other man taking away the colt out of the fair. I then met the old man, who was grievously complaining of the loss of his colt. I told him I met the prisoner and his companion with it. Mr. Bennet and his son came to my house the next day, and as I was accompa nying them to the police we met the prisoner and his com panion with the colt in their possession. The old man claimed the colt, and the prisoner at once delivered it up to him, say ing, that I was the occasion of finding them out. The learned Judge then charged the jury. Verdict—Guilty. ASSAULT AND ROBIMAY AT SOUTHPORT. William Kilner was indicted for feloniously assaulting Thomas Sawyer in the neighbourhood of Southport, on the Ist of January last, and for robbing him of the sum of one shilling. Thomas Sawyer stated—l am a labourer, and live at Ainsdale, in this county. On last new year's day I went to Southport, accompanied by a young man named Peter Rimmer, to pay some bills that I owed. After paying the bills I had two sovereigns and some silver left, which I had in a purse. We then went to the Hesketh Arms, where we met the prisoner. We all had some drink there. We next went to the Cross Keys' public-house, and had more drink there. Afterwards we went to the Ashtree, where there was a dance. I treated the prisoner to a glass of ale there, and then left him, and went up stairs to where the dancing was. He saw me taking ont the purse containing the money to pay for the drink I. had at the different places we called at. I was not drunk, though I had been drinking during the day, when I was at the Ashtree. I lay down there, and my brother came and took, what money I had on me from me, lest I should fall asleep and be robbed of it. I left Ashtree between twelve and one o'clock, but before going away Rimmer gave me one of three shillings that I lent him in the course of the day. About half a mile from the Ashtree the prisoner came up to me with a staffin his hand, and told me to delivea up my money. I told him I had only a shilling and he might have it. He then knocked me down with the stick ;he searched m y pockets, examined my watch fob, and took the shilling from me That I had from Rimmer. My head was, by the blows he gave me with the stick, dreadfully cut ; both my eyes were blackened and closed up; and 1 lost my hat in the struggle. I then went to the house of a man named Miles Blundell, to whom I told what happened to me. On the 3d of January I gave information of the robbery and assault, and had the prisoner taken into custody some time after. Cross-examined by Mr. BRANDT.—I never saw the prisoner before new year's day. The money I had on that day was my awn. The prisoner was admitted to hail by the magis trates before whome wan taken. The ernes-examination of this witness by the learned counsel as to the quantity he drank during the day, which it appeared was beyond his reckoning, created much laughter in the court. Peter Rimmer was next produced. He corroborated Saw yer's evidence as to the incidents of the day, their meeting with the prisoner, and the returning of one shilling out of three that he had borrowed from Sawyer. John Sawyer, brother of the prosecutor, stated that he took two sovereigns and some silver out of his brother's pocket at the Ashtree. Robt. Marshall.—l live at Halsell ; and was at the Ashtree on new year's day. Ott returning from escorting my sweet heart home, I met the prosecutor on the road from the Ashtree to Miles Blundell's, and about thirty or forty yards behind him I met the prisoner, who had a stick in his hand. I spoke to them both. Cross-examined.—l never saw the prisoner before that night at the Ashtree. I' don't recollect what dress he had on but it was a dark dress. I was not drunk. Miles Blundell stated, that when Sawyer came into his house, he was all daubed over with blood and sand. His head was cut. He lost his hat, but found it the following morning where the quarrel took place. There was a pool of blood on the road side. Caesar Lawson examined by Mr. WILRINS.—Caesar! are you not a constable ? (Laughter.) Yes, sir, I am. He then stated that the prisoner was arrested in Preston about three weeks after the assault, and was admitted to bail by the magistrates before whom he was taken. Mr. BRANDT addresssed the jury on behalf of the prisoner. He dwelt with much force on the difficulty there was of proving personal identity generally, but especially in the pre sent instance, when the only evidence they had to rely on was that of men who, by their own acknowledgement, had been drinking from morning to night during the day the as sault is alleged to have taken place. He submitted that it would be extremely dangerous to return a verdict of guilty founded upon such testimony, and thereby not only subject a fellow being to a very severe punishment, but also be the cause of depriving him of his liberty for a considerable length of time. The learned JUDGE, in discharging the jury, animadverted on the neglect of attorneys for prosecutions, who, in many instances, as in the present, omit to send in the depositions of witnesses, which, he said, were necessary, as being the foundation of bills of indictment. The jury found the prisoner guilty. His LORDSHIP then addressed him. You have been convicted of a desperate as sault and robbery ; and if the indictment had been properly framed, your life would be in danger, you have been guilty of so much violence. that feel it to be my duty to sentence you to transportation beyond the seas for 15 years. KILLING AND SLAYING AT LIVERPOOL. Charles Fagan, labourer, of Liverpool, was indicted for having at Liverpool, on the 26th July last, feloniously killed and slain one John Sheridan. Margaret Sheridan.-1 am the widow of the late John Sheridan. He was a lumper, (one who contracts for the load ing or discharging of vessels by the lump) in Liverpool. We lived in Bury-street, Toxteth-park. I remember my husband coming tome in the month of July last, between four and five o'clock in the afternoon, in company with Patrick and Charles Fagan, The prisoner is Charles Fagan, (on identi fying him, she became much agitated, and exclaimed he was the murderer of her husband.) My husband was much bruised about the body. The prisoner came into the cellar in which we lived, holding my husband by the collar, and his brother, (Patrick Fagan) followed them. My husband said to me, in the prisoner's presence, that he had be en almost killed by him. They then both fell upon my husband. Patrick knocked him down, and lay upon him on the floor, while Charles kicked him in the stomach, and on the lower part of the belly—kicked him six or seven times. Patrick knocked me down, when I tried to save my husband. I got up and screamed out, and John Burrough, who lives next door, came to my husband's relief. The prisoner was curs ing and swearing when he was kicking my husband. When Burroughs came in the prisoner slipt out, but his brother Patrick still lay upon my husband, who was then stretched on the bed. Cross-examined by Mr. MU RPUY .—I do not recollect what answer the prisoner made when my husband came in and complained that he was beaten. My husband did not tell .me that he had got a beating in a fight before this quarrel took place. 1 can't say my husband was fond of drink—he took a hearty glass sometimes. I can't say he was sober when he came into the cellar—he might have been drinking some hut he was not drunk. lam sure it was the prisoner brother knocked me down. 1 sent for a doctor the following morning. I gave my husband no spirits to drink that evening. John Burroughs.—l live in Bury-street, Toxteth-park, next door to Sheridan. I was told by a man passing, that some one was committing murder in the next cellar. I went in and found Sheridan lying on the bed, anik Patrick Fagan over him. I caught Fagan by the collar—pulled him off the deceased, and put him out of the cellar. I can't say whether there was any other man in he cellar. 1 saw none. James Kennedy, (a police-officer.) When I was going on duty, at five o'clock in the evening, of the 26th of July last, I saw several !Persons quarrelling. Sheridan, the prisoner, and his brother were the parties. I heard the prisoner ask Sheridan for money. He said he had none, but as soon as the captain paid him he would pay them both. They then parted, but on going away, the prisoner said he would meet the deceased again. His shirt sleeves were folded up his arms, and his fists were clenched when he used these words. John. B. Davis, keeper of the Bridewell in Brick-street. I remetnbser that the prisoner, his brofher ' and Sheridan were brought to Bridewell in th e mon th o f July last, on a charge of being drunk and disorderly. I did not detain them, but allowed them to go, on their promising to behave themselves. They were all the worse of drink, Sheridan -WOO not then hurt. Thomas iaTila (superintendent of police)—l went to Sheridan's residence, on the 13th of August last. He was than greatly exhausted. I went in consequence of receiving certificate of the surgeon who attended him. Henry Gordon Harman, (the surgeon,) was then called by the desire of his Lordship. Being sworn, he said—l was L .. surgeon of the South Dispensary last July. I remember being sent for to attend deceased on the morning of the 27th July ; Vound the deceased almost dying—he himself expressed a conviction that he was going to die. I did not expect he could survive for any length of time. He was vomiting, and complained of excruciating pains in the body. He was so bruised about the head that it was hardly possible to discover a feature of his face. I attended him in conjunction with Surgeon Archer for three weeks. He died :on the 16th of August. I saw him frequently before his death. When I signed the last certificate it was a few days before his death, when death was inevitable. From the first day I saw him I was of opinion, and so was the other surgeons, that he could not long survive. He was aware of his condition. I exa mined his body after his death ; the liver was ruptured ; the capsule containing the kidney was full of matter, the bowels were ruptured, and there were abscesses in the abdomen. Part of the lobe of the liver which hangs on the kidney was also ruptured. Those injuries were, no doubt, the cause of his death. There were no external marks, but one, which was over the region of the kidney. Severe blows might be inflicted on the soft parts of the belly without producing ex ternal marks. Cross-examined.—Nothing passed the deceased's lips but water, from the time I saw him till his death. He would drink 14 or 15 quarts of water daily, which he afterwards vomited up. Thomas Quick, recalled.—When I called on Sheridan be was in a dying state. I asked him if he was sensible of his condition—he said he was. I asked him if he was prepared for a change—he said, yes, and that he could not survive many hours. He wished to make a statement, he did so, and I took it down in writing as he gave it, in presence of his brother and his wife. In the absence of this document, which could not be im mediately produced, the Counsel for the prisoner consented to take the substance of it from the witness. The witness then went on to say that the deceased stated to him that he had engaged Charles and Patrick Fagan to land lime-stone from a vessel in one of the docks. It came on to rain about noon, and after they left off work, they demanded half a day's pay from him—he said he had no money, but that he would pay them when ne received money from the captain. They then went to a public-house in Garden-street, and had three pints of ale, for which Patrick Fagan paid. On leaving the house Charles Fagan insisted he had money. Com menced searching his pockets, on finding no money on him, he knocked him down and began to kick him in the lower region of the belly. A gentleman then came up and cried " Shame—shame,' and gave them in charge to a police officer, who brought them to Bridewell. When he was at Bridewell he made no charge against either of them, as he was anxious to get home. The prisoner and his brother fol lowed him home, and Charles shouted down the cellar steps, " We have not half served him out yet," or words to that effect—and "we will give it to you now." They then de scended into the cellar, and knocked him down and jumped upon him. His wife endeavoured to part them, but in doing so, she was knocked down, and on her getting up she screamed out murder ! This brought in the assistance of a neighbour, and they were both ejected from the cellar. That is the substance of the statement of the deceased. Both of the Fagans kicked him when he w a s i n th e ce ll ar . George Tyrrell, police officer, stated that he arrested the prisoner. He could not find his brother, Patrick, he has ab sconded. Mr. Murphy addressed the jury for fhe prisoner. He con tended that Patrick Fagan was the person who should be on his trial, and not the prisoner, for it was against him chiefly that the evidence of Mrs. Sheridan and Burroughs was di rected. He pointed out the discrepancies between the state ments contained in the depositions of Mrs. Sheridan and Mr. Quick, made before the coroner, and those now given by them in evidence; and again strongly urged that Patrick Fagan who had absconded, was the person that was guilty of the crime, charged against the prisoner. His LORDSHIP said--It appeared from the evidence they both went to the residence of the deceased for a common purpose, and did not matter which of them it was who in flicted the fatal blows. After a brief charge from the learned Judge, the jury re turned a verdict of guilty. The Court then (six o'clock) adjourned'. NISI PRAYS COURT.-FRID AY. ' (Before Mr. Baron Aufnasoisr.) StnucrioN.—llasskyr v:Si4ALLEY. This was an action• to recover compensation in damages, for the loss of Ihis daughter's services by the plaintiff, Mr. Bassett, of Bury. • Mr. BRANDT appeared for the plaintiff. The defendant did not appear in court. 'Mr. BRANDT stated that the present action had'been laid to ieeover compensation in damages for the grievous injury which the plaintiff had received in his feelings by the seduc tion of his daughter. Cases of this kind varied very much in the circumstances in which they were attended ; and if ever there was a case in which the conduct of the parent of the girl who had been seduced was raised above all suspicion, it was the case which he was about to lay before them. Both the parties were in comparatively humble circumstan ces. The parent was a mechanic, and so also was the defend ant ; but he had occupied the situation of overseer in the place where he was employed. The defendant had resided for some time at the house of the plaintiff, whose family con sisted of himself, his wife, and an only child—the young wo man, whose ruin was the subject of the present action. The defendant was there on terms of intimacy, and became fami liarly acquainted with the daughter, who had a child by him ; and, previous to her confinement, the defendant had left the house of her parent—proceeding to Bolton, and shortly after wards married a woman of some property. From the atten tions of the young man, it had been supposed that his inten tions were honourable, and he was received in the character of a suitor. The fact was undoubted, and could be proved, indeed, from the letters which the defendant had written. The defendant entered the house of the plaintiff about the latter end of the year 1835, and continued to reside there until the spring of 1837. In 1836 the intimacy commenced, which, unfortunately, terminated in the ruin of the young woman to whom he had ;paid his addresses. After leaving the house, in 1837, he continued for a short time to pay his visits ; but, after going to Bolton, those visits ceased, and communication was carried on only by letter. At Bolton, the circumstances of the defendant improved ; he became a book-keeper —went on improving, and married a woman of fortune, or, at least of substance. The defendant, much to his credit, did not appear in court that day ; but he had en tered a plea of not guilty, and had forced the father of the young woman to come into court to seek reparation for his loss—he had driven the young woman herself to be the nar rator of her own shame, and to expose herself to the gaze of the people, before he would make the compensation, which, in justice, he should have paid without a murmur. These facts would be made apparent, by looking into the defend ant's conduct. The young woman, he (Mr. Brandt) ought to mention, was confined in September, 1837. Perhaps sur prise might be expressed that the action Was not brought sooner ; but, when the lett6rs of the defendant had been read by him, it would be seen that there had been sufficient cause for delay, in the expectation that, as the letters stated, the defendant would give any reparation in his power. No action was brought until it was found that the defendant was a man of profession Only. A letter of the date of October 4 would show what the defendant's opinion was of his conduct to the plaintiff's child. The letter was then read by Mr. Brandt. In it the defendant stated that be did not know what to say with respect to his conduct to the daughter of Mr. Bassett. It was a subject which had long excited his most anxious thought, and had been to him- the source of much pain and humiliation—so much so, indeed, that when he first began to think that his suspicions were well founded [viz., that the plaintiff's daughter was enciente] he could not bear to meet the family, nor to think upon the subject of the girl's discovery. Nothing should prevent him from acting the most honourable part, and he entreated that no expense might be spared during the confinement of the young woman, assuring them that he would defray it all. He was far from thinking that anything but marriage would be suffi cient to atone for what he had done. Unfortunately, he had no means of writing at the time, as he had an extravagant father, who was confined, in Lancaster Castle, and it would require all the funds he could raise to free him. After that, he should be at their command. A second letter, dated Oct. 11, which had been addressed to the aunt of, the young woman, was also read by Mr. Brandt. It was to the follow ing effect :—" I am anxious to inquire after your welfare, as well as about Ann, and the little one—God bless it, how is it ? Have you yet given it a name ? Tell her to make her self as comfortable as she can, and not to neglect herself. As to the little one, lam sure that he will not be neglected. I feel that it cannot be long before I shall come to you. I have at present some business with- our attorney, about my father, and attorneys are sad dogs." Notwithstanding these professions, (Mr. Brandt said,) time passed away and nothing was done by the defendant, and the consequence at last was that the present action had been brought. The wife of the plaintiff, since the ruin of their only daughter, had died. He did not lay her death at the door of this young man, but he did say that her latter days had been embittered by his con duct. If the jury thought that this were a light subject, they would of course give light damages ; but if they thought that it was a serious case, and that a serious injury had been in flicted upon the feelings and respectability of the parties, humble though they might be, he hoped that their damages would be such as to meet the case. Ann Bassett was then called. She stated that she was 28 years of age. Her father was a mechanic, residing in Bury. At the letter end of 1835 the,defendsnt came to their house, and resided there between two and three years. After some time he was treated as a suitor of witness's, and was,accepted at such by her father. An intimacy grew up between her and the defendant, and in consequence she became the mother of a child. The child was born on the 29th of September, 1837. He came to see her sometimes after leaving. 'He at last left Bury, and proceeded to Bolton, since which time he had been married. She knew his handwriting. The letter dated October 11th was the defendant's handwriting. When in Bmly, he received 30s. a week : he was now getting about £2. The name of the young lady whom he had married was Ward ; her father was a cotton-spinner. This concluded the plaintiff's case. The learned JUDGE observed, that it was quite clear that the injury which had been inflicted was sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to damages. That point was an admitted one ; and the question for the jury to determine was, what the amount of damages, in the circumstances should be. , The Jury, at first, returned a verdict for the plaintiff— damages £6O ; but the Judge informed them that as only £5O had been claimed, they should not award a larger sum. The verdict was then altered to the sum claimed—Xso. TAYLOR V. WOLSTENHOLM AND OTHERS Mr. KNOWLES stated the case for the plaintiff: - This was an action on a promissory note, dated October 20, 1834. Two of the defendants had suffered judgement to go by default. On putting in an admission by the other under a judge's order, he should be entitled to a verdict.—Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £7O 10s. LUPTON V. STEAD. Verdict by consent of the plaintiff, damages £2B. HILL AND ANOTHER V. ROOSE AND OTHERS. _ _ Mr. WIGHTMAN stated the case for the plaintiff. The action was brought on a promissory; and an admission on a judge's order was put in.—Verdict for the plaintiffs, damages £47 10s. TURNER a. LEIGH. Mr. GREEN appeared for the plaintiff. The action was brought on a bill, and the defendant denied the acceptance. —Mr. John Badcock, bookkeeper, proved the acceptance of the bill by defendant.—Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £4l 10s. MASON V. RAMSDEN. Mr. CRESSWELL said this was an action brought by Mr. Thomas Mason, a livery stable keeper in Ashton-under- Lyne, to recover a small sum of money for the hire of a car and a horse. The whole sum of action was was only £4, and of this £2 was admitted to be due. The party brought his action in a county court, but the defendant though it neces sary to have the assistance of my lord judge and a jury to know whether he ought to pay £4 or £2. In the month of August the defendant hired a car to go from Ashton to Leeds to convey three persons. Plaintiff said he must have £1 for each day, which defendant promised to pay. Plaintiff, hearing that the party was to be larger, followed the defendant on horseback, and found him with six persons in it..He objected to this, saying that the work was unfit for his horse • but in the end defendant agreed to p a y £2 a d a y, and the Whole six got in again, and went on. Defendant now denied the agree ment. Sarah Ogden called.—Knows the plaintiff and the de-. fendant. Was living at Mr. Mason's last August. Defendant came on a Wednesday, in the last week of that Month, for a spring-cart and horse to go to Leeds for two days. He said there were only three going, himself and two little girls. Mr. Mason asked £1 a day, and would take no less for that journey; and it was agreed to on those terms. By Mr. ALEXANDER.—I am the plaintiff's wife's sister. There was a young man by at the time. William Ramsden.--I live at Ashton; am a wheelwright ; was at the plaintiff's house when the agreement was made. Witness corroborated the statement of the preceding witness. Cross-examined by Mr. ALEXANDER.—I recollect the trial in the county court in January last. I was rot there. Patrick Burns.---Going to Mosley, near Ashton, last August, saw Rarnsden with the car, and five in it betide himself. Was there when Mason overtook him. Mason ordered him to stop and get out, and complained of his hiring a car for them, and putting six into it. Witness detaiied the subsequent conversation, and Mason's threat to tarn them all out, which was partially executed. Mason demanded double hire, and Ramsden agreed to pay it, and to make good any damage done to horse or ear, and then he was allowed to drive on. • Mr. ALEXANDER addressed the jury for the defendant. He regretted, with Mr. Cresswell, the case could not have been settled elsewhere, but the reason was, that in conse quence of the absence of the defendant's witnesses in the sheriff's court, he was compelled to come here, after paying the costs in the other court. His defence was this. De fendant was taking his children to school, 32 miles off, in, plaintiff's cart, as he had often done before. Plaintiff's witnesses were either forgetting or mis-stating, the case. The invariable price has been 10s. for the first day, and 7s. 6d. for second ; or, at the utmost, 10s. for the second. It was taken on the usual terms. If the defendant's witnesses were to be believed, and the plaintiff's did not state any circum stances why the charge on that particular occasion should be doubled, why should defendant agree to pay him ? The learned counsel proceeded to contend that the double hire, demanded on the road, was only the double of the usual charge, and not the double of £1 a-day, which would almost pay for posting. When defendant returned, he was adYised to tender £2, and did so, and this the learned counsel con tended was sufficient satisfaction. The plaintiff commenced his action, but defendant was unable to get his witnesses in time, and was compelled to remove it into the Court of Com mon Pleas at Lancaster. Samuel White.—Knows the defendant. Went with him to hire the car. He said it was for himself and party. Mason asked 10s. the first day, and 7s. 6d. for the following. It was engaged on those terms. Cross-examined.-4 lived then 15 or . 16 miles off. I had gone to Ashton on that day to buy hosiery of Ramsden. I stand in Ashton Market. Nobody else was present when the agreement was made. It was in the yard, between four and five o'clock. George Heaton proved the price of a car for plaintiff's to be ordinarily 10s. 6d. the first day, and 7s. 6d. after. John Spencer.—The usual charge is for one day 12., and if they have it more than one they make it into 10s. a day Alfred Lee.—ls attorney for the defendant. Sought out the plaintiff, and told him what I had learned was the regular charge, and tendered £2 on condition of settling the case, which he refused. The COURT said this was no tender, as a tender should be unconditional. Mr. CRESSWELL.—Thc defendand could have had no diffi culty, on their own showing, in calling his witnesses at the inferior court, and the removal was entirely vexatious. The learned counsel also contended that the charge of £1 a day for a rough journey of 32 miles each day was not extravagant. There was no option but to suppose wilful misrepresentation on the one side or the other, both stating the place and the nature of the bargain differently. Mr. Cresswell argued at some length that the pr6balities were that the plaintiff's wit nesses were speaking the truth. Verdict for the plaintiff, £4, including £2 paid into court. ASTON GAS AND WATER WORKS COMPANY V. LEES. _ _ Mr. Cresswell appeared for the plaintiffs. The object was to recover the value of certain gas fittings taken under a commission of bankrupt. As an inducement to the owners of the mills, the company offered to find pipes and fittings and other fixtures for gas at a certain per centage. The factory of Messrs. Garside and Oulton, and other manu facturers, were then lighted. In 1834 the partnership be tween Garside and Oulton was dissolved, and the former carried on business alone until his bankruptcy. Some of factories bought their fixtures, and took their gas at a lower rate, but Mr. Garside did not, and he could call half Ashton to say that it was perfectly well understood that the com pany, was the reputed owner of the property, and not Gar side, and that cases to the contrary were exceptions to the general rule. John Oultom.—Had been Mr. Garside's partner. Was so in 1826. Was supplied with gas by the Ashton company. They put up the gas fittings at their own expense. The case was similar in other factories. I ceased to be a partner in 1834. Up to that time they were at the charge of the fittings. It was the case generally in Ashton, and well known. Cross-examined by Mr. ALExANneii.--Southam and Sons' mill was so fitted up—Kenworthy and Co.'s—Wright and Co's, and a number of others. I don't recollect any sending their own. (Defendant's c ounse l h ere h an d e d up an invoice.) I don't recollect seeing this invoice. I have lived since then hi Ashton. Jdhn Travis.—l was overlooker to Mr. Garside—was with him in 1836. I recollect putting up the fittings by John Tay lor, who was employed by the company. Many other fac tories were fitted up at the same time. It was well known that they were fitted up by the company. I attended the sale of Mr. Garside's effects. Those fittings were taken down and sold for £4O. Charles Dee and others took them down. I cannot swear,to their value before they were taken down. Cross-examined.—l don't recollect a sale at Mr. Andrew's in Ashton. I was not at Mr. Chapman's sale, nor at Stans field's and Rigby's. James Atchell's.—ls clerk and manager to the gas com pany. I came into the company's employ nine years ago. Many of the factories had then been fitted. In every instance the fittings belong to the company. Three or four years after, there was a strike to get the charge for sas reduced. The company had the fittings then valued. None of the factories bought them, but it was agreed the price of the gas was to be lowered, and a rent to be paid on the value of the the fittings. All the mills—about 40—made this arrange ment, M. Garside's amongst them. After that, about seven purchased the fixtures ; the rest pay a rent. The fact was well understood. I saw Mr. Lees, the defendant, and claimed these fittings as our property. They were afterwards pulled down and taken away. Their value, as they stood, was &69 — the rent was paid.on that, reduced 20 per cent. Cioss-examined.—l made the arrangement with Mr. Jas. Garside in 1834 (an invoice was handed up). These invoices were issued by the company. Witness detailed his conversa tion with Mr. Garside. Mr. G. declined purchasing. By the COUUT.—There are some parties who supplied themselves since 1834 with fittings at their own expense. Cross-examined.—Messrs. Kenworthy supply themselves with both gas and fittings ; they bought their fittings of the' company, and the old fittings supply themselves with gas. In Oldham the companies supply fittings; in Manchester I don't know how they do. Witness was examined at much length as to the nature and mechanical description of the fittings, and how fastened, to know whether they came within the legal definition of " fix tures" or not. Mr. ALEXANDER replied —The defendant acting for the creditors thought it right to defend this claim. He found among th 3 papers of the bankrupt a series of invoices from 1833 totally silent as to rent of fittings, and he found an in voice of them, which he concluded had been selected on ac count. This was now explained for the first time by the last witness—that Mr. Garside had been asked to buy them, and had had an invoice furnished him. It appeared that he had declined, while the sum as actually credited in the bank rupt's books as paid. He (Mr. A.) could not ask to disbelieve this respectable person on his oath, but he could only express his aeep regret that, in justice to Mr. Lees, this extraordinary fact had not been known before. A verdict was accordingly taken for the plaintiff for £5O. PRICKELL AND ANOTHER V. PICTON AND ANOTHER. Mr. WATSON stated the case for the plaintiffs, who are ironmongers, the defendants being common carriers from Manchester to Bury. The action was to recover the value of some iron which had been misdelivered. Mr. Whalley, traveller and salesman for the plaintiffs, proved the admission of the defendants that the iron had been sent to Bolton instead of Bury, and that they promised to pay. Verdict for the plaintiffs, £2l Ns. Mr. Watson then made application for speedy execution, and was about reading an affidavit, when The learned JUDGE said there was no real defence, and every body should have in such cases speedy execution. LAMB V. MASON. This was an action On an agreetnent under a 'ewe of certain premises in Manchester, the object being to recover rent and repairs from the lessees : _ Verdict for the plaintiff, £2B 14s. THE QUEEN V. CROSSLEY AND ANOTHER. Mr. PEtt. opened the pleadings. This was an indictment against William Ciosslev and William Robinson, overseers of Todmorden and Walsilen. Mr. STARKIE said, that the charge against the defendants was, in substance, that they had disobeyed the poor law act, in not having produced their accounts before the auditor ,of the union of Todmorden, in obedience to the . preeePt of that officer, and the'provisions of the act; The point that was really at issue ivas, whether the poor law act should be car riod into effect at Todmorden or not, for the offence charged against the defendants was only ; a part of a systematic "resist al-16e to the bringing thai act into operation. He would not detain the jury by any trite remarks on the necessity of every man obeying the law, of the land, no matter' what were the private opinions of individuals relative to the merits of thole laws, but would content hirriself with stating the c*,unistalices of the case. On the 28th of January, 1837, it seemed good to the poor law commissioners to direct the formation of an union at Todmorden And several other places. The Order went down to be acted on, different steps in pursuance of it took place, guardians were appointed, and an order was made for the appointnient of auditors for the pnrpose oranditing the accounts of the overseers of the different parishes or townships members of the union. But since then, down to the prcsent moment, these defendants had neglected to lay their accounts before the auditors. It was directed by,the act of parliament that the accounts should be laid before the auditors or the justices of the peace every three months at least, but the com missioners had the ppwer to order them to be inspected often er ; and in the case of this union they had Made an order that such auditing should take place within thirty days ensuing after certain days in the year, and one of those was Christmas day. It was therefore, their duty to render their accounts on this appointed day, of which they had due notice ; but not only had they neglected their duty on this occasion, but on every preceding one: Those facts he would prove, and he apprehended that - hiS lordship ' would tell them that they amounted to a violation of the law, and it becaine their duty to convict the defendants under this indictment. The order constituting the union was then put in evidence. Mr. DUNDAS called the attention of the court to various parts of the order on which he meant to found technical ob jections. _ _ _ The rules of the poor-law commissioners, directing the au diting of the accounts, '&c. were read, and put in evidence. James Stanstield.—ls a solicitor at Todmorden, and clerk to the board of guardians. Was appointed Feb. 18, 1837. Thirteen guardians were present. They were returned for Stansfield, Heptonstall, and two others,. and one ex officio guardian, Mr. Crossley. I was present also at a meeting held at Stansfield on July 27, 1838. An auditor was appointed— John Glennell. I have- been concerned for the defendants, and know they are overseers of the township. • Cross-examined by Mr. DUNDAS.—Four came from Stalls - field, three from Heptonstall, three from Wadsworth, two from Ebrington, none from Langfield ; there have never been any returned from Langfield. We- had none - from :Todmor den and Walsden at first. It was in 1838 they sent first from those townships ; only one was sent. In July last there were present twelve : none from LaAgfie/d, one from Tod morden, and the others the same as before. I know Lang field. There is no resident justice. Todmorden is in Lan cashire, the other townships of the union in Yorkshire. In January last I spoke to the defendants as overseers. There has been an application to the Court of Qdeen's Bench against these defendants, by the guardians, and the mandamus is now depending on a rule nisi. Mr. DUNDAS.—The question now depending is whether there is a valid board of guardians at all. ' The learned coun sel referred to a. 38 of the poor-law act, with the provision that "one' or more guardians be elected from each parish included in such union." His 'argument was, that a guard ian must be elected for each parish of the union, and Lang field not having elected, there was no efficient board of guard ians. Mr. STARICIE.—This would only, be for the first year by Mr. Peel. The object of the mandamus was only to compel the payment of rates to the union, by the overseers. The COURT.—This is the same question. John Gledhill,—Was appointed auditor of the union. Have audited the accounts twice within the thirty days. On December 26 I gave notice for the 'auditing; then on Janu ary 2. Delivered notices to Ashworth., Have never received any accounts from those defendants. Cross examined.—Have never seen either of them. Live three miles off. Summoned them to the Woodmill Inn. Re-examined.—Other overseers came there. George Ashworth.—l am clerk to Messrs. Shuttleworth, solicitors, at Rochdale. Received the notices spoken of by the last witness. Served them personally on Robinson. John Fletcher.—ls clerk to Shuttleworth and Co. Served the notices on-Crossley on December 28. Thomas Harris.—ls a solicitor at Preston. Produced 'an examined copy of a conviction before the clerk of the peace there, of another oifence under the same act, for the purpose of proving an admission on their part that they were a part of the union. • The information was then read. It was laid before two magistrates in Rochdale, by Mr. Power, the (poor-law com missioner, for his neglect of paymentof £5O duly payable to the defendants, Crossley and Robinson, pursuant to order of the board of guardians ' and the record of the c o nv i c ti on was , that both admitted the whole of the allegations were true, and that they were both thereon convicted. Edwin Collingwood.—as clerk to the clerk of the magis trates at Rochdale, Was present at this onviction. I saw the defendants present. " Mr. DUNDAS contended that this conviction did not amount to pleading guilty, but the court held the objection not to be good. Mr. DUNDAS referred to s. 38 of the act. He contended that there was no legal appointment of either guardians or overseers ;. on the whole they fell to the ground, and again referred to the proviso that one or more guardians 'shall be elected for each parish included in the union, and therefore, here there was six townships, no one place must he unrepre sented. The act also provides for filling up of vacancies—a loss, of course, of that which has been full ; or in case the. full number of guardians shall not have been elected, the other shall continue to act as if such board had been full. Mr. Stansfield was recalled by the court to state if any magistrate was present at the appointment of the auditor. It appeared that one magistrate, Mr. Taylor, was present. Mr. DUNDAS submitted that Lang-field had never been represented, and neither had he, but any resident justice, who, as ex officio guardians, could represent it readendo singula singulis. The COURT seemed to be of opinion that every magistrate resident within the union was a representative. ex officio, of every township in the union. Mr. DUNDAS said, that was one of the points before the court above now. He also called the attention of the court to the order of the commissioners, directing Todmorden to send four guardians, and La.ngfield two, and again submitted that the board, both upon their order as well as the act of parliament, would be bad. The COURT had a doubt, but thought the intention of the act was, that if the commissioners made an order for a union, without giving each township a representative, the order would be null. Mr. DUNDAS referred to another clause, directing, that each member of the union should have one representative, for the purpose of legalising a general rate. He contended that the power of filling up vacancies only applied where there had been a good board at first, and to subsequent elec tions, while here the board was bad at first, and could not be cured. The COURT.—There never can be a good board at all, if a mistake is once committed. Mr. DUNDAS.—A new order for a union might be made out. Mr. STAaalE.—And they might do the same thing again .refuse to elect. The" COURT.—As no mandamus can be obtained from the court in less than twelve months, they may go on vitiating every order by refusing to elect, and there can be no remedy. Mr. DUNDAS next objected that the parties were not liable to indictment, but must be proceeded against under the act. He also objected that there ought to have been a positive averment that the demand had been made ; and also, that the poor-law commissioners should be styled not merely so, but by their proper names. All these objections were discussed at some length on grounds purely legal, but .the learned judge declined inter fering to stop the case, leaving the defendants, if they pleased, to move the court above. Mr. DUNDAS next objected that the disobedience was not contumacious ; and if, under a firm conviction of legal right, was not criminal. The COURT would reserve the point, but did not think it would amount to anything, as the object was merely to enforce the act. The learned JUDGE then briefly charged the jury. SHAW V. BROADBENT. A verdict was taken by consent of parties, subject to a reference. - •. ' RIDEIIALGH V. COLLIER. This was an undefended action for the recovery of a promis sory note for the sum of £lB2 Is. 10d., with interest thereon. Mr. WILKINs stased the case, and said that the plea of the defendant was, that he had not made the promissory note. The note was produced and proved by the attesting wit ness to have been signed by the defendant. • Verdict for the amount claimed, £202 15s. Iod. The court rose at twenty minutes to six. CROWN COURT.-SATURDAY. His lordship took his seat on the bench at nine o'clock • this morning. Charles - Tagan, who was found guilty yesterday of an ag gravated 'case of manslaughter, was placed at the bar to re ceive the sentence of the court.—His LORDSHIP observed, that he entertained considerable doubt whether the case was not one of murder. He then sentenced the prisoner to transportation for life. Thos. Fealy, who was convicted on Thursday of burglary, near St. Helens, was sentenced► to imprisonment for 18 months in Lancaster Castle, and to be kept to hard labour. James Woodward, who was yesterday found guilty of horse-stealing, was sentenced to imprisonment in Lancaster Castle for 18 months, and to be kept to hard labour. CUTTING AND STABBING NEAR ROCHDALE. Thomas Mills, Thomas Taylor, Edmund Lord, and Th6s. Kenworthy, were indicted for having, at Castleton, feloni ously cut and stabbed one John Dearden. The indictment contained three counts : the first set forth that the wounds were inflicted with intent to murder ; the second that they were inflicted with intent to maim the prosecutor; and the third set forth that they were inflicted with intent to do the prosecutor some grievous bodily harm. John Dearden.—l am a pensioner, and live near Rochdale. On the 23d October I was sitting in my house at two o'clock in the morning, in company with two men named Ashton and Fernley. They ran in for protection, and in about three or four minutes afterwards the man Ashton went out. Four men came into the house. He could not identify any of the prisoners as being the persons. He desired them to leave the house ; they refused to do so, and he got up to procure the assistance of a constable. As he was going, one of the men laid hold of him by the waist, and pushed him against the door-cheek. Another of the men went in front of him. The other two parties went out, and stood at a little distance from them. A scuffle ensued between witness and the two men, and during it he received a stab. • The JUDGE.—Did you, before you received the stab, strike either of the two men, or did you in anyway interfere with them ?—I positively did not. I received the wound in the belly, which I felt immediately on the knife entering me. I cried out to my wife, " Oh ! take me into the house; for my belly is out. The men then- roii away. • I received two wounds. My bowela were hanging on the Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINg.—I had been drinking. A person named Clough and I had had three pints of ale. I heard nothing : whatever respecting a clog that I had up stairs, .• • • • • • ek, .s, and that they claimed ; nor did any of them express a wish to go up stairs. Frances Dearden, wife of the prosecutor, confirmed his testimony as to the entrance of the men into the house, and the violence of the assault and the stabbing they were then guilty of. Richard Ashton.—Fernley and I went to Dearden's house on the night in question. We were together on the Oldham road that night, in the neighbourhood of Rochdale. We were annoyed by five or six men, and in consequence we went to Dearden's house for protection. Two men then came up, and subsequently two others followed them. The prisoners at the bar were the parties. They entered the house, and after remainin_g a short time they went out. I followed them out, and recognised them to be four of the men who annoyed me on the road. I heard them speak together, and say, " Let us go back,-and break the windows of - Dearden's house." They accordingly came, and broke the windows of the house. They had been drinking at the Dusty Miller public-house. I seized one.of the men. They said something about a dog they had lost. Lord seized the prosecutor, and Taylor and Mills joined in the scuffle. In the midst of the disturbance one of them stabbed the prose cutor. They ran off, and shortly after the constables were informed of the affray. Grace Shore.—l live near Dearden's house. On Sunday morning, between two and three o'clock, I heard a cry. I then went out and found a hat and cap at the door. Dear den was lying on the floor. Gave the hat and cap to Heron, the constable. They were produced. Cross-examined.—l keep a beer-house. The sign of my house is the " Staff of Life." Dearden was drinking_in the house—his wife was also there. I saw no men with her. Ashton was at my 'house with his master. Fernley was not in my house. Dearden was neither drunk nor sober. Cross-examined by Mr. BRANDT.—What is the staff of life? Witness.—Well, it is bread and cheese.—(Laughter.) Hirani Lord.—l am owner of the public-house called the " Dusty Miller." I had to put the prisoners out of my house on the night in question, between twelve and one o'clock. Taylor, the prisoner, had the hat on him, that was produced by the constable. The men had two dogs with them. Cross-examined.--Ashton was at my house that night, after the prisoners went away. . Robert Orrell.—(a boy of 15 years of age)—l live about 300 hundred yards from Dearden's. I recollect Sunday morning the 21st October. I saw the prisoner Mills, who is called Twig by a by-name, came into my father' s house about five o'clock in the morning. He said to me, " come, make the door, make the door,' —he cried " murder," and said, " that a whole lane full of Irishmen were going to attack him.", He said they had taken one Of his companions. He had a knife in his hand—the blade wkrdsLanclyeet,—like wale blood. He told me to blow the candle out and darkenlhe':;,fire. He wiped the knife on his trowsers, and then put it-in his right hand waistcoat pocket. (The witness .identified the knife, which was a common clasp knife.) William Bentley.—l am a constable at Rochdale. I heard of the attack on Dearden. I went to his house on the Sun day morning in question, about half-past fouro'clock. I got an account of the persons who were accused. In consequence I went in search of them, and in a short time I met Lord and Mills. I told Lord that I was going to arrest him for stab bing Dearden. While putting the handcuffs on him, he said, I should pursue the man (Mills) who had the knife, and was guilty. Mills was taken into cnstody half an hour after. This occurred about thirty or forty yards from Orrell's. Cross-examined by Mr. WiLKINs.—A. man named Hiram Lord, of the " Dusty Miller," heard the conversation. He Heron, a constable.—l went to Dearden's house about three or four o'clock on Sunday morning. Mills was taken about three quarters of a mile from Dearden's. I t oo k Ken- worthy and Taylor into custody at their houses, and on taking them to prison we met Mills. He was put into the lock-ups at Rochdale. Elizabeth Jackson.—l was put into the lock-ups at Roch dale, on a charge of drunkenness, on Saturday night. The prisoners were brought into prison. While Mills was being searched, he threw a knife into my lap. I kept it till the con stables went away, and then I offered it to Mills, who told me to keep it, and do what I liked with it. Bentley, the con stable, came in about an hour, and asked Mills what he had done with the knife, he said, he had none. The knife was still in my bosom. Mr. Wooley then came, I told him where the knife was, and he took it off the ledge where I placed it. Wooley, the constable, identified the knife, pro duced as the one. Sangran Barker.—l was called up on Sunday morning to see Dearden. He had received two wounds —one, about an inch below the navel, two inches in extent, through•which the bowels protruded—the other, to theleft of the navel, was four inches in extent, through which the bowels also pro truded—they protruded 4 feet, and were also wounded. I never saw such a case, nor did I ever read of a recovery on record under such circumstances. Dearden might have been drinking. I can't speak as to the state of his wife. The case for the prosecution here ended. Mr. WILKINS addressed the jury on behalf of the pri soners. The learned JUDGE then proceeded to charge the jury : He observed, that in consideringthe present case they should remove from their minds all reference to the second clause of the indictment, as no evidence had been produced to show the wound were inflicted with intent to maim the prosecu tor. His lordship then recapitulated the evidence to the jury, and explained to theta the law of the ca3e as applicable to the two other clauses of the indictment upon which the prisoners— Verdict 7 -Thomas Mills guilty, on the 3d count of the in dictment. The other prisoners were acquitted. His LORDSHIP, on passing on the prisoner the sentence of transportation for 15 years, again expressed his strong repro bation of the use of the knife, which, he regretted to say, was recently coming into familiar practice. _ _ CHARGE OF KILLING AND SLAYING. Robert Formby was indicted for having, on the 24th De cember last, at Liverpool, killed and slain one John Riley. • Robert Layton—l work in the Fish-market. I know Spink's spirit-vaults. I was in it on Christmas-eve last. I know John Riley—he was there. The prisoner was also there, and had a glass of ale before him. Riley called the prisoner a inollycod. The prisoner said nothing. Riley made fun of the prisoner; he took his fingers and placed them as if to pull the prisoner's nose. The prisoner threw a glass of ale in his face. A struggle ensued, and Riley fell. The prisoner kicked Riley, but not while he was on the ground. Beattie, who keeps the tap, came round, and signed to the prisoner to go out. He did so., Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY. I cant say whether Riley fell by a slip or a blow. The prisoner is a very quiet, inoffensive man. Thomas Beattie, the manager of. the tap at Mr. Spinks's spirit-vaults, corroborated the former witness's statement as to the dispute between the prisoner and the deceased. Riley was in the habit of using very abusive language to the pri soner on former occasions, winch he patiently bore. Cross-examined.—He is a very quiet inoffensive man. Martha Owens.—l saw Riley and the prisoner in the vaults on Christmas-eve. Riley used very aggravating lan guage' and pulled the prisoner's nose—they then fo ug h t , an d Riley fell. down.. I did not see the prisoner kick Riley when he was down. Riley got up and struck the prisoner twice, and he vtas knocked down again. A man named William Drapet said, don't kick him (Riley) when he is down. Wil6ain Draper confirmed the testimony of the preceding witnesses, and added the prisoner made a kick at deceased when lie wa.s down.. Witness said " dont kick him." Charles D. Baylis, surgeon at the South Dispensary. I was sent to see John Riley on the day after Christmas. He was labouring under acute pain, and complained of having received a- blow on the day but one before Christmas. He died on the evening of the 26th, made a post ,mortern ex amination, there was much inflamation of the intestures, and an internal rupture that brought the bowels into the abdomen. Cross-examined. —Great exertion might have occasioned the rupture, owing to the previously diseased state of his bowels. By the JUDGE.—A kick was likely to produce the rupture, more likely than a concussion or overreaching, overreaching of itself would not produce the rupture of the bowels. The coats of the peritoneum were partially worn away by previous disease, but there was more inflamation of the viscera on the opposite side. Mary Duffy.—Ryley lived with me. I went to see him on Christmas day. He was vomiting greatly, he said he was a murdered man, and would never get over it. He said he knew the kick he got would be his death. Surgeon Baylis—From the symptoms I first saw taken in connection with the post mortem examination, my opinion is that he could not live any length of time. Mary Duffy—said the deceased attributed his death to the kick the prisoner gave him on the right side. Mr. MURPHY for the prisoner, urged with much eloquence, that the death of the deceased was owing to the previous disceased state of his intestines, which was aggraved by the fall he received while attempting to assault the prisoner, he contended also, that even if the prisoner kicked the deceased, he was fully justified, in so resenting the insults and provo cation he received. After a brief charge from his LORDSHIP, The jury returned a verdict of not guilty. UTTERING COUNTERFEIT COIN. Bridget M' Laughin, was indicted for a misdemeanor, in having uttered on the 24th January last, a counterfeit six pence, and having in her possession• 13 counterfeit sixpences. Hannah Crompton.—l live with Mr. Ash, of Heaton Norris. He keeps a public-house. I saw the prisoner at the bar on that day, about two o'clock in the afternoon. She asked for gill of fourpenny beer. I served her, and she gave me sixpence, which I gave to my mistress. The prisoner asked me for fivepence in copper. Mrs. Ash made a similar statement to the above. When 1 received the sixpence, I told her it was a bad one. I sent for a constable. John Walters, (police officer) arrested the prisoner, and found on her person 13 counterfet sixpences, which she en. deavoured to conceal. Mr. Powell of the Mint, stated that the money was bad. Verdict, guilty. Sentence, one year's imprisonment, and hard labour in Lancaster Castle. Thomas Kelly was indicted for having feloniously, at Liver pool, uttered to one Sarah Grace, one bad shillihg, well knowing the same to be base, he having been before convicted of uttering base coin. The foriner conviction and punishment of the prisoner having been proved, Sarah Grace (shopkeeper to Mr. Carlile, stationer, Bold street,) proved the utterance of the counterfeit money by the prisoner. James M'Gill, (an officer of Bridewell,) searched the pri soner when he was brought to the prison by Edwards the constable, and found some good, and some counterfeit money in his possession. Mr. Powell of the Mint, stated the money was counterfeit. Verdict, guilty. Sentence, transportation for seven years. John M'Anallii was indicted for having at Manchester, on the 4th of February last, utterred to one Elizabeth Drum niond, one base sixpence, he well knowing the same to be base, and with having in his possession a mould for counter feiting sixpences. _ Mrs. Drummond.—The prisoner came to her shop to buy half an ounce of tobacco, and in payment of it, he gave her a counterfeit sixpence. He was taken into custody. J. Cross.—l took the prisoner into custody, and got a counterfeit sixpence that he attempted to pass to Mrs. Drum mond. I searched the prisoner's house in Rodney-street, Manchester, and found a mould and spoon used for making bad money. Daggat, another officer, accompanied me. Robert Daggat confirmed the above evidence. Mr. Powell stated that the moulds produced had been used for counterfeiting sixpences, and also the spoon. It was also proved that the room rented by the prisoner was the one in which the moulds were found. His LORDSHIP said that the prisoner was indicted for a violation of the 10th section of an act which was passed in the reign of his late Majesty, (the 2d William 1V.,) which consolidated all the laws relating to counterfeit coin. This section made the possession of moulds for coining a felony. Verdict—Guilty. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated that the prisoner was in the habit of employing children to pass the base coin for him. His LORDSHIP sentenced him to seven years' transporta tion. ATTEMPT AT MURDER IN LIVERPOOL. Nathan Booth„ labourer, late of. Liverpool, was indicted for having, at Liverpool, feloniously shot and discharged two loaded pistols at one Timothy Parkinson, with intent to murder him. Counsel for the prosecution Mr. Armstrong, for the pri soner Mr. Murphy. Timothy Parkinson was the first witness called. Being sworn, •he stated—l keep a public-house in Roe-street, in this borough. The prisoner and I married two sisters. Pre vious to the 2nd March last, the day the unfortunate trans action took place, there had been a difference between us. which arose' from money transactions, but it was arranged. The p,risqmer_had lent me money on several occasions, and I had settled with him. There was a bill transaction between us of £2O, which I paid on the Monday before the occurrence in question. We had a quarrel respecting it at my house, on the. Sunday previous. It was an accommodation bill that he gave to me for £2O. I had not taken it up when it became due, but I took it up on the Monday, and gave it to his fa ther, and took means to inform him of its payment on the same day. Between that Sunday and Saturday, the 2d of March,' I saw him once but did not speak to him. On that Saturday evening he came into my spirit vaults, and asked for two penn'orth of rum. This was about half-past eight o'clock in the evening. He laid down a shilling to pay for it, and I gave him the change. He then ordered and I gave him a second two penn'orth of rum, which he also paid for. He did not drink it, but left the place. He returned again about half-past ten o'clock the same evening. I was behind the counter when he came in. He then asked for two penn'.orth of rum on trust, which he got. I was at this time leaving the vaults, and as I was going out—for I then had my hat on—l said to my boy, " I'll b e b ac k i n fi ve m i nutes. " The prisoner was then within five or six feet of me. There was a pier glass over the chimney piece, and I was between it and the prisoner. I hardly turned towards the prisoner, as I was obliged to do, going out, when I heard the report of a pistol, and immediately felt a stunning sensation on my cheek bone. I then dropped on' my knee, and thinking I had been wounded I raised my hands to my head. Finding I was not wounded I rushed into the " snug," which is a small apartment behind the counter partitioned off the rest of the shop. I then heard the report and saw the flash of another pistol. He was after this taken into custodoy by Flockhart, a police-officer, who was in the vaults during the entire transaction. He (tie police-officer) examined the pier glass, and found that it was,broken. He found a pistol ball, flattened, behind the glass, which it had gone through at the first shot. He also found another ball in the ceiling of the vault, and it was also flattened. 'Cross-examined by Mr. MURPFIY.—There was a great number of people in the vaults ; I should say about 20 or 30 ; they were all standing round the counter, and in a position to hear any remarks that were made. The quarrel we had re specting the £2O. accommodation bill took place on the Sun day previous to the firing of the pistols. The prisoner was aware several days before the Saturday in question that the bill had been taken up by me. I have known him since he was married, which was in September ' 1830, the day on whi c h the Manchester Railway was opened. I held the office of Serjeant at Mace, which was a situation that required the possession of money. At any time I wanted money, and made application to the prisoner, he was always willing to advance me what I required. Between the years 1832 and 1836 he was in the constant habit of advancing me sums of money, the amount he lent me was considerable for a man in his situation of life. He not only lent me money, but gave me accommodation bills.. I was at one time liable to an attachment, and not having the money to, spare himself, he applied to his father and got the loan of £4O. for me, he was also security at another time for me, for £75. Mr. Bardswell, the solicitor, was the person who was entitled to the amount. There was also a debt of £2O. due by me to Messrs, Dewharst, Stewart, Dewhurst & Co. of this town, for the payment of which a person named Donaldson ad vanced me the money on the prisoner's security. It was of great importance that I should have had the money on that occasion, as the municipal act then came into operation. It was of such importance that a bonus of £5O. would have been given for obtaining the sum. He went as a joint security to Donaldson for the money. It was determined when the municipal bill came into operation, to appoint a new officer to the situation I held. I applied for compensation for the loss of the office. The amount I sought, at first, and would have been satisfied to receive, was £6OO. or £7OO. Was it not owing to his suggestion that you battled for and suc ceeded in getting for your compensation, an advance of from £6OO. or X7OO. to £9OO ? It was in a great measure owing to him, but others also advised me. On one occasion, an acceptance of mine was received in consequence of my in ability to pay it, and he was my security. Until about 15 months ago, we were always good friends, and lived on the most intimate terms. The cause of the dispute was respect ing the expences of fitting up my house, and had no relation to the £2O. transaction. The prisoner is a furniture broker and cabinet maker ; he supplied me with the fixtures, furni ture, &c. for fitting up my house. Th e room in which the quarrel (the firing of the pistols) took place, is about 8 or 9 feet in breadth, and 15 feet in length. The party who tired the first pistol must have been 6 or 7 feet distant f r o m th e , glass, and 4or 5 feet f rom me: When the second pistol was tired I must have been nearer to him. The second ball was found in the ceiling. The distance from the place where the man stood, to that point on the floor, which would be touched by a perpendicular line suspended from the part of the ceiling that the 1)411 perforated, could not be greater than 6 or 7 feet. The ball Must have passed over my head 4or 5 inches. He never presented a gun or a pistol at me before. I know a person named Denton. I never snapped a gun or a pistol at the prisoner ; I am positive of that, for I have a great terror of using arms incautiously. Re-examined.—Flockhart has taken the measurements that I have been examined about. Flockhart.—The height of the ceiling of the vaults is ten feet. 1 am a police constable. Was in the prosecutor's wine vaults on the night in question. The prisoner came in while I was there, it was then about 23 or 24 minutes to 11 o'clock. He stood near to me, on my left side, he asked for two pennyworth of rum. I spoke to him, and said " Nathan how are you ?" He replied Very well." He was sober ; was dressed in a " down-the-road"* coat, and had both hands in the pockets. Parkinson was behind the bar at the time. I said to him " Come on Tim." We having pre viously arranged to go out, I then perceived the prisoner raising a pistol and firing it off, he said, addressing Parkinson, " That's for you, you b—." Parkinson immediately fell, and in a few seconds got up, with his two hands to his head, apparently greatly stunned. I was also stunned. The pri soner then retreated about two yards, and pulling another pistol out of his left hand pocket he came forward, he told me to stand off, and I retired about two yards. Parkinson was now withdrawing to "the snug ;" the prisoner was trembling, and stooping as if to take aim, he fired again. He then said " missed again," and threw the pistol violently on the floor—so vio lently that he broke the cock off it. He put the pistol he first fired into his left hand pocket. The interval between the shots was not more than two or three seconds. In fact, the whole proceeding did not occupy more than a minute. The vault was at this time-in partial darkness, as the gas had been put out. I said to the prisoner, " for God's sake don't fire any more." He said i n re pl y , " stan d o ff , there is more yet." I then took him into custody and brought him to the Bridewell. 1 found one pistol in his pocket, and the other broken on the floor. They had been both recently dis charged. The pier glass was broken through at the height of five feet nine and a half inches. There Was a slight red mark on the prosecutor's cheek bone. (A plan of the shop, with the relative distances of the parties, and the places which the balls perforated, was here submitted to the court ; the pier glass was also produced.) The prosecutor was about four feet from the prisoner when the first shot was fired. I found the ball behind the glass. It was flattened. It would fit the pistol which I took from the prisoner, and which I now produce. The ball of the second pistol that was fired, struck the ceiling within four inches of the wall, and after passing through the ceiling struck the wall six inches above the floor of the apartment over the vaults. This (the second) ball must have passed 12 or 15 inches above the prosecutor's head. It would also fit the pistols taken from the prisoner. Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY.—Booth (the prisoner) stood in about the same position when he tired both shots, but on the second shot, Parkinson was about five feet dis tant. He was nearer the wall at the firing of the second shot than of the first one. I am a constable, and am very intimate with Parkinson. The prisoner appeared to me to be sober on this night. He stood to my left when he pulled out the pistol. There were a great many persons in the shop at the time, all of whom could hear what observations were made as well as I could. On the first shot being fired the most of them all fled out of the shop. The distance between the upper edge of the pier glass and the ceiling is four feet 16 inches. When 1 went to seize the prisoner he desired me to stand back, as he had still more left. This turned out to be an idle threat, for he had no more to fire. On firing the second shot, he took the pistol in both hands, and was trembling very much. He said when he fired it, " missed again," and then threw it violently on the floor. Charles Naseby, Smart, and William Richardson was present, and saw the greater part, if not the whole, of the trans action. Charles Naseby examined by Mr. ARMSTRONG.--I was in Parkinson's bar on the night in question. I saw the prisoner there. Parkinson stood opposite to him. I saw him dis charge a pistol at Parkinson, which he took out of his right pocket. From the direction of it, I have no doubt, but that he aimed it at Parkinson. Parkinson fell on his knee. The gas was then put partly out. I thought that Parkinson was on the floor when the second shot was fired. The interval between the discharging of the pistols was not more than a second. I was close to the prisoner. After discharging the second pistol, he said he would shoot any one who would at tempt to arrest him. He was ultimately secured by Flock hart. I saw the hole that the ball made in the pier-glass. Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY.----I am positive that not more than a second elapsed between the two shots. I was within half a yard of the prisoner all the time, and did not hear him speak a syllable, till he talked about being arrested. It was impossible for any one to hear all that was said, the noise was so great. William Richardson.—Am a brushmaker. Was at Par kinson's house on Saturday night, the 2d March last. I was standing between the kitchen and bar, and while on the lobby heard the report of a pistol. I then went into the bar, and while going there was a rush of persons made past me from the bar. I saw the prisoner take a pistol in both his hands. Parkinson was rising from the floor and proceeding to the snug. I saw that this shot was aimed at Parkinson. There was an interval of two seconds between the shot I heard the report of, and the shot I saw tired. The case here closed for the prosecution. Parkinson was recalled•and examined by his LORDSHIP.— I had a quarrel about 15 months ago with the prisoner. Af terwards we became friends. The last quarrel we had was about the £2O accommodation bill. On the Thursday pre vious to the Sunday on which the prisoner called at my house respecting that bill, he had received an attorney's letter, threatening legal proceedings, on account of its non-pay ment. When he called at my house on the Sunday he was tipsy, and spoke angrily about the bill. I saw him once be tween that and the Saturday of the unfortunate transaction, on the race-ground, but we did not speak. On the Sunday he called me names —asked me why I did not take up the bill ; why not pay the bill, but he made no threats to in jure me. - Mr. MURPHY then rose to address the jury on behalf of the prisoner, and commenced by expressing the great difficulty he laboured under, arising from the prejudices which many allow themselves to be influenced by, who, considering only the surface of things, and not deliberately examining into and weighing the motives that govern human actions, become alienated from one placed in a situation similar to that of the prisoner at the bar; but he was sure that the evidence that had been produced, would, at all even t s , satisfy the jury, that he had no previous intention to commit the crime laid to his charge. In order to arrive at a just conclusion on this point, they should look to the motives that govern human actions, and then endeavour to ascertain what could have induced him to act as he had done. Thus they would be enabled to judge whether it was an idle act done without any criminal intent; or if he did it, with a criminal intent, then they would look whether any adequate motive existed to influence him td the commission of such an offence. Not one circumstance had transpired during the long and intimate acquaintance of the prosecutor and the prisoner —not a syllable of evidence had. been given to show the slightest pro vocation for the prisoner to commit this violent act of aggression on the prosecutor. There was one striking observation in this case—generally speaking, where a dispute arises respecting pecuniary transactions, under circumstances similar to that now under consideration, the parties are in the reverse situation to what they 'are at present; for the lender being generally the injured person, so harrasses and annoys the party who is placed under the pecuniary obligation, and who is unable to extricate himself from the difficulty, as to drive him to the extreme of despair. But he would ask what motives as to pecuniary want were then to stimulate the prisoner to the perpetration of this violence? They had it in evidence, and the prosecutor has acknowledged it, that -the prisoner had frequently done him very important acts of kindness; they had it in evidence that he is a cabinet-maker; was in good circumstances—they could not, therefore, sup pose that the matter of a 1:20 bill could have induced him to commit this act of violence. Where then can be found an adequate moti re for such conduct? It was not the case of an importunate and needy creditor driving a debtor to despera tion. They are brothers-in-law; and it appeared that the prisoner had, by a continued series of good actions, evinced his friendship spontaneously and generously towards the prosecutor, and at a time when it was essential to his interest to receive such assistance. In fact, it appeared that their recent quarrel resulted from a. renewed act of the prisoner's bounty. Mr. M. then enlarged upon the various acts of kindness performed by the prisoner to the prosecutor, and said it was impossible to show—he defied any one to suggest * This is the witness's name for those fashionable pilot coats that have the . pockets in the front to? convenience, as if the wearers were all expectant turnpike collectors, any malicious—any assignable motive for the prisoner's We' duct. He called upon the jury then to consider whether there was any thing in the statements that had been submitted to them, that could correspond with and account for the stral e se behaviour of the p r i soner on th e n i g h t i n ques tion. I° first place, he called their attention to the evidence of Flele A, . hart, the .police c ons t a bl e , on w hi c h h e commented Floc, much severity, and he expressed his great surprise t h a t he alone, of all who we re exam i ne d, h ear d t h a t opprobious . servation which he i m p u t e d t o th e pr i soner w hen he fir ea the second shot; but h e (M r . M.) saidhe ought not to be surprised, for he had o ft en remar k e d w h en a cas e was at all defective; and although nine or ten respectable witne sses h is were examined, and it still required a little colouring! ~ short experience enabled him to say, and this day's pro ce ! .a t ings convinced him of th e accuracy o f t h e o b serva tion- 03 a constable is always ready to supply the deficiency. In NI!: elusion, Mr. M. said he wou ld b e a bl e t o s h o w that prisoner was in the h a bit o f snapp i ng fi re - arms a t peopl e, from jocularity, and without intending any personal harms' He also maintained, that from the position of the parties , from the places which tne balls perforated, and from the elevation at which he fired, he could have no design of fir ing at Mr. Parkinson. Joseph Darton.—l keep a p u bli c -h ouse i n Stanley-stre et ' in this borough. I had a gun h ang i ng over th e chirnneY.i piece in my room. The pris oner h as a t many ti m es talte! i a down, and pointed it at me. I told hi m t o l a y it down; 3 " on examining it, I found it wa s l oa d e d. I d r ew the charg e ' and showing it to him, I said, there, now, you might I ' 3° shot me." This occurred about two years and a half a; 0 before Parkinson got into busi n e ss , th e y came to my bon g, , and were skylarking one day. Parkinson took down the gr a and snapped it at the prisoner. I h ave b ee n aerlua hl c c ' with the prisoner since the year 1818. H e i s a c haritable a humane man, and always bore a good c h ar acter. I c°° never suspect him capable of doing hurt to any one. Cross-examined by Mr. ARMSTRONG.—I was at Parka', son's house on the Sunday previous to the 2d March-,n went with the prisoner, as he was determined to tell the pr o ` . secutor about the £2O bill being due and unpaid. lor to on my oath say , that I did not tell e Parkinson that f. take care of Booth, as he was likely to do him some mism : n e I did say that Booth was tipsy—that he felt annoyed at It, bill, and I told Parkinson t o g o ou t o f th e wa y, as he (Bno° l was greatly irritated. 1 Hannah Mason.—l reside near the prisoner's hove., n recollect Saturday, the2d March last—he came into my to 5 about half-past eight in the evening. He had a pair of 4 , i's in his pocket, which he took out, and held before me. I ill : to the door and got out of the shop, to escape from him-' called me in, and said there was nothing in the pistols to 1 3 1 , harm to me or any body else. He then put' them in 11 1 ,, packet—he looked wild and furious as if he had a little drill' He always bore a good character—he lives a quarter o!.t_l mile off my residence. I never heard anything a gainst lo o s peaceableness of conduct. I don't know what he is whe drunk. William Williams,—l am a hairdresser. I recollect the prisoner calling upon me on the Sunday morning previOlis the 2d March, to get himself shaved—be had two joist °le ...; with him then. He was always jo cu l ar , an d h e pointed the m at me. I said I did not like to have them pointed at tae, P they might be loaded. He said there was nothing in th eui to do me any harm. By his, LORDSHIP.—He was not drunk then.. he Catharine Oyer —servant to the prisoner, , stated that t pistols produc e d h a d b een lyi ng care l ess l y a b ou t t h e house I "° r at least three mon th s t o h er k now l e d g e—one was under tile bed she slept in—the other in a drawer. The following, amongst a number of witnesses, who we re in court for the same purpose, were examined as to the ch a i rioter of the prisoner, viz. Messrs. Stephen Jones, Rieh ar Picking, William Rutter, Thomas Stretch, James Grat t l t ' Evan Ellis, Henry Spencer, Richard Rimmer, David Pri e s t ' and Robert Crye—they a ll were i n ti ma t e l y acquainted W i him—some for eight, othe rs o th ers f or twelve and thirt een years ; and they described him as a humane, kindheart ed, peaceable, and charitable man • he was the first in his neig s- bourhood to relieve distress, and in consequence of his gene rosity,t he was very frequently imposed u p on . I n answer 1 1 a question by the Judge, Mr. Jones said—he (the prion e a was not often tipsy, but when he was so, he was hot, wh e aggravated. Mr. ARMSTRONG, in reply, stated he did no t dispute t he previous good character of the prisoner—he fully admit cr „, all that had been stated in his favour, but this circumsta l l rendered it the more to be regretted, hat a man bearing stle at a reputation for humanity, charity, and general good conch' should have placed himself in his present unfortunate situi'; tion.. As to the argument of the learned counsel, that adequate or assignable motive could be suggested for the prisoner's violent behaviour ; he begged to state that it was not necessary to show a malicious intent ; for where a 0 1 fires a loaded pistol at an oth er , th e l aw su ppli es the itit 6el d But, independent of this, the evidence of the witnesses, q e the language of the prisoner himself when he missed t" second shot, placed that matter beyond all question. in 0 5 port of this view of th e case , the learnedgentleman revies c h , the evidence at considerable length, and, in conclusion , Ow mitted to the jury, that they could not by possibility enter tain any doubt whatever a s t o. the _criminal i n t en tion of th prisoner at the bar, when he fi re d t wo l oa d e d p i sto l s, in 80C/ ,.e / cession, at, the prosecutor. CO"After a lucid charge from the learned judge, the jury o suited for a few minutes, and w ith ou t l eav i ng t h e 1 0 ' returned a verdict of guilty. His Lordship deferred passing sentencetill Monday in° ll/. ing. - The court then (six o'clock) adjourned.. NISI PRIUS COURT.—SATURDAY. Baron Alderson took his seat o n th e b enc h a t 9 COURT.—SATURDAY., GISBORNE V. HART. MT. In this case Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff, and Cresswell for the defendant. Mr. MARTIN stated, that this was a cause which had P re ; viously been before the court, and had been referred t° 4 gentleman of the bar, Mr. J. S. T urner G reene , w ith P°A . ," c e over the costs of the suite to abid e w ith th e d ec i s i o n. Ja7 r case was one of debt. O n th e 30th o f J une l ast t h e baraisi; e _ gave in his award, that there was due to the defendant te . , sum of £22 Ils. 9d., t oge th er w ith cos t s . T o t hi s th e defei` , dent pleaded, that the barrister had not given hisawar'! d. writing. That was the i s sue w hi c h wou ld have to be trie s There was also a demurrer. The plaintiff, Mr. Thoe 4 ls o Gisborne, was. a gen tl eman , i n D er by s hi re , who had-ie.ka possession a promissory note made by the defendent. ale action was brought for the recovery of the amount of u_,,, promissory note, and„ when the cause came on for trial. th at were some circumstances arose whi c h m a d e it nec e s sary 1 . 1 . 4 ; the defendant should be examined. As th a t exarainatat,!.. could not take place in court, the case wa s re f erre d to a ; 1 , tration, to allow the defendant an opp or t un it y o f b e ing e"; atnined. The award of the arbitrator was made, and , , r persons not accustomed to the l aw , no thi ng cou ld b e plae l— the award. The rule of the court and the award were then read,e . ,, cl put in. The latter docu men t was proved b y Joseph v''''' Abbott, the attesting witness. -Mr. CRESSWELL argued, that his learned friend had ti ii ° e t proved his case. The averment in the declaration, that t o , award was made of an d concerning the premises, Wa S , ' l O sufficient : it ought t o h ave b een s h own, that the award ",16 of and concerning the matters at issue i n th a t cas e. It P ° not been shown, however, what the matters in dispute we! e h ; and he contend e d, th a t t h ey oug h t to h ave been made ". subject of evidence. tha t The learned JUDGE remarked, that it seemed to him. a , certain case h a d b een re f erre d to a gentleman for arbi ts ; tion • he had made an award of an d concerning that said e i l and he, therefore, thought, that the issue had been laFe re w He should give the counsel leave to move, that a verdict , the plaintiff should be taken o n th a t i ssue .' Th e inconyere, ence arose from not having first had th e h ea ri ng of the ~, murrer. He must leave the case f or a new trial, the dam"' to be contingent on the demurrer. . then A verdict for the plaintiff, for £lO4 12s. 9d., was allowed to be recorded. DOE DEM HAWORTH AND ANOTHER V. LIOLME AS ° ANOTHER. This was a case of ejectment. Mr. Cresswell a nd )tr i Wightman appeared for the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Serge° Atcherley for the defendants. ' The Plaintiffs, Samuel Hawo r th an d S usan }lora IVa sought to recover from the defendants, Samuel HohneXh James Hornby, possession of two cottages at Radcliffe, 01 ',,, r , had been leased from Earl Grey de Wilton, by John Wah‘ qi. ", i . in the year 1792, for the term of 99 years. John Ws' p - S died in 1814, having, in his will, bequeathed the two cottag - i to his son, Peter Walker, to have and to hold the same, 3 13 0 the heirs of his body during the term of the said lease. r e the 3d of January, 1817, the two cottages in question we mortgaged by Pete r W a lk er to Mi chael Horn b y, t h e bus , band of the plaintiff, Susan Hornby. Verdict for the plaintiffs. CONSTABLE V MARPLE. 1. CO' This was an a c ti on b roug h t b y t h e p l a i nt i ff, Josep a.,,,, stable, the keepe r o f a pu bli c -h ouse, i n P ortland-stree t, ,0 1 0 a chester, to rec over f rom t h e p l a i nt iff the value of goods F ° and delivered, together with moneys lent. rf Mr. WIG HTMAN sa id, th a t th e i ssue i n t hi s case wasiac short one, because the only question to b e tried was, wi'e,eh t• a'" c c i a the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff. and then to a s. ' tain the amount of that debt. Th e pl a i nt iff was a publil e r , residing in Manchester, a very respectable man, and thef t , fendant was a young man, who either had, or was repate'.'es have, avt ry good income. Th e latter came to the plaintia4 house in the early part of the month o f M ay , 1838, and st „ there till the month of July, i n th e same year , no t only o ' o , Uniting refreshments for himself, but for his friends, scb°, s t he very frequently brought t o th e h ouse . Th e bill aga l : o him amounted to some £33 or £34. The accounts had li _. kept in the way in which s uc h thi ngs usua ll y were a t pul ea ' , houses. The articles ordered were scored up until t; y a amounted to a sum, and th en th a t sum was t rans ferrea,, t , the book. The plaintiff h a d severa l ti mes s h own th e accoun t , to the defendant, and he admitt e d th at th ey were coo'', Nothing whatever had been paid. ao l Evidence was produced to s h ow , th a t th e d e f en dant P , 0 . ( for the space of nearly three months, lived at the honseiaa the plaintiff, and that he had been in the habit of treating friends and acquaintance very liberally. A is ui'l '' Mr. MARTIN, for the defe n d an t, sta t e d , t h at be ..„ r a endeavour to prove that the defendant had been seduced,Z a l the house of the plaintiff, where he was almost in a contra -,` state of intoxication ; and that the question would be, in,'', o al •'' state or extent of drunkenness a man ought to be cousi"' ~.. liable to pay for beer ordered. _ r m The jury gave a verdict f or the plaintiff,—damages' 3 •'` . " CLAYTON AND ANOTHER V. WHITLF.Y• IV This stood No. 7 on the second, or West Derby list. consent of the parties a verdict of £lll9 ss; was taken- HADFIELD V. RAMSBOTTOM. for This was an action to recover compensation in damag e " , injuries received through negligent driving. 8 0 ' Mr. Cresswell and M r . Wi g h tman appeared f or the PI tiff, and Mr. Wilkins for the defence. ' Mr. WIGHTMAN opened the pleadings, and lail y Mr. CRESSWELL stated the case. He said, that the P,,,, a 0 tiff, Mr. Henry Kneeshaw Hadfield, was an artist, who ge n t lessons in drawing, and on the 10th of October last, h e / ice a' from Manchester to Bury, to give lessons in a eche''' . ni' ' ' ia- ' there by Mr. Douglas. He returned from Bury in al o re' a bus, of which the defendant, John Ramsbottom, is tilerafr• c prietor. The co ac h man d rove very rashly, and, as lie ha d C.) thought the jury would think, when the evi dence t he been heard, very care l ess l y , i n consequence o f whichrarii coach was run against a p os t on th e roa d to w hi c h the ,to pike gate was attached. The concussion was SO gr eat :o to throw the plaintiff, the coachman, and another pers° ll bar the road. The plaintiff was very much injured, and, 11 A fortunately for himself, lo s t a great quant i ty of b113°016 lady, who happened t o b e near, an d who knew Mr. Ha d a the assisted in conveying hi m t o th e te ll h ouse, an d s tanche d for , blood as well as they wer e a bl e . A surgeon was cent time plaintiff was conveyed home, and confined for some ii (about three weeks) an d there was a probability, as the ~00.. had been injured, tnat th e pl a i nt iff wou ld b e li a ble to 11 1‘ co e venience for some tim e . The driver endeavoured to e]li no ~,c himself by abusing one of his horses, saying . , that it 13 , at.: . 'i . mouth. Now, if that were true, it was the fault of ,„," orl a ' i fendant in not having provided a better horse. The 'a' bell counsel stated, that an effort at accommodation ha d er to t made, but the parties were unable to agree. In oro isio , , I avoid the inconvenience and trouble of a law-suit, the g ap ed tiff offered to accept £2O as full compensation ; but he road that the sum which his client ' had been induced, for 4 ,.. reasons, to offer to take would not be looked upon by tl ,frii i st ry as the whole amount to which he was entitled, no the action had been brought. i' Evidence o f th e f ac t s state d was prp d uce d. alai" , ' Mr. WILRINS a dd resse d th e j ury on b e h a lf of his_ rie gli' contending,.that the accident had not arisen from th e t ime gent conduct of th e d r i ver , b u t from the plaintiff, at t' ic a he, of the concussion, stooping forward to 'save a dog %. v w ide° had found, and whi c h h e (M r . W.) su p pose d was ' l3 for a study. A th t tber - e The learned JUDGE, in summing np, remarke— , h i s caa; was no evidence that the plaintiff hAd such a dog in ef h " tody at the ti- -- . wanes- me of the arkilent of the !Poke- e , Lar. i i . o or the dog i rc :f r:',eera lost (as i 25.12TY' la vy returner 1 14 Via • thopt,./t B an cP° soa;h;°.!r, resichn the's; art c: .iry of the 11';'... !.erpool to 11 ..4,,,k;resswell an ,4,!;z,iltpton arid 01:4 vittsi;wEta. I ' ep_tile fi sh cart 410',71tu Manch ilri4_,.of cows fr wh, ,o e t the cart h i tu., eame out, totk e L'e driver to tor, this, and the :i°enec was, ti thitt6l4le or the cow, t i re ,4,e bowels prot :,,,4,,.,e wonttl stiff, ° COeui' 11 : 1 1 i!i. a . fax sf t ri p e: t 4 e ItnioUnt of f,oae'd'Zel. to . ;e7 2s. C')' the ti_t!a‘ been , 1,, ...,, taihtiff s attc "_,.tr was retur k id tH•ndant first 1 5..., Itaro„d .i,ne. Gth oi :, :31it'jlt4:::dttl'se::':clIttl;t1:)(+.eellIEts4tt°1):itelnhalciliSli'aoftta-fhtastha-11 the c, "t elent of ail • talh, ord - °f hostilitv _. i , der for the] ] 1,,,,i ‘.4e,tes were ex. thatligt6beet inflicted 0:4 ~.- Cow wa s i n 10i4' t'eo, Ming to hi heeli. :Lae Witnesse, k t• Pa r .,ld for a 3 a set i a, t, ,- Pom Mr a( tatton"at, his client cc • tile, ciit!,l.lle,aceiden el.ir,`_q- Piaintift a strkl, 'nee to show tit , ~,, the (!ows sever t enti " `c'Mow that the trez427,atte.nipt 13. r,..ettling of id likedl, the diffe ir,a:, irs. Ilin r.tlei.4e! to this el tlpp4 tCt,BSWELi i [ ttlttc2 evidee klreals he chncara.c 1 roe ,o hlattledl-DGi I l `eal4 illf4 w ould Cul filth 1..-, whether th *hetie,g4te4, ceof the !- ii°,).litt,t'o,4ll3-cie4l2l..:l)e!llkit:l4l:eeertitaPtl elle:ll:I half a l CI .iv i Iht'Agthat ~. - if they considered Eatll,°nght that Tilialet 4se las tor thted e pl b a ait ;11l this ket(tre ekSe the ph thei r ,8 w hich he - I had :clue, or hav:etl k k t o s l e , ll . fro m („ Iv llot t 404 e . l ailn on the i: Btteed j o l r n to, the pa l efer the I Iver ni' 1 4 thi s . ntRELL 4 / 1 , 1 w k c ase the pl Nseol, ,i.teunv, coact Irt:e'e 84 41 of Xi kld '-'1.:81vell and hl r. a k i:,"}1111,1 hay is kid 1',.. ~'-ktssA-FL claiiii ''"ch thou ' I I. I mtlehN, e.,6. 4 1 i 6 i ( c i i , f " if ih:T i s 2f great c, i,.utio(lB-,''e,ehdant st Propei,t 'or which the *. Ot tlcf ° , l , rB, in future :!Atlisi,,e4 no mode o ""e4t or 11.1°Cle of fil: klettai railroads as t oa r .L e to the i nte ' e 11,11irioo 3.11.041 the r 8 to'' till tl) t heal as th, till Periodical ac( elith,,ll° 84ch ,- It „ . „ „tt,_ neces '' Cl. 4 'en th e p ar Jti t h t .- lttlifficient to N ell 14 that court: P illika', Bl3 tti e few _ 14 47: The Llo raal. „ 0 , 4 ,,,, ~., etor, `.‘,l toki;l, been th e :k'tii,l:!l:4liitititkllqioliLl:e.aevi.:lo4lll3o:ll:dillio:eT,f4:".tt:heo-4!eprg's.:OS:oarsrt. (.sthi:ll!prltedtkit.te.:4,ll4lll3l:t:7::ll:l;isCo.tirrrlitrrs: 11401 /1(1 InK th I' 4 , , v*lti, 4 ,?, whethei ttic?t,..,fp4;zit it by i k ta e he b o t ,!_ e _rtY for th t o ok _.' . .ea or th ,_ten..,providig I ! 41„ I N, ti,,N account. ertting t'll6olley recei tjt,,ed the elpenses i tr 't, cl,rY should , ,tat „portioned t li,tatt.4tet4e coach. '. t;:Bt4ti 1 : / :, Bte- thro, kj,Y month anothe r t oil u o tt t li t4 fr or six ' ti,, cit e_o,4 each 4 . 4 , 1 1 ,',. by it, 4 2 . !k Was s a e' tc,a;Atit'C'srtas• i ll , c , aod !,wnote r( thayorto,, failtle arnou [ tok4". Th e e dist t 't'li tt the arm Irik 41,ained, if c tscd,er,:tt't4ol,lother less tek t , l, tle. , 1 14 y over t, ~„ 0 that au i,7l,,!liviti(l)t, learned !k,,,, ark, ~4ad.agree 1„ ~ titl et Zie (Lstanc thc ti,4qeauant 1 k..tbkh ti_sortner ( lib thtalf Pe rio d 1 tk.,._ t ,,, .._ Period . k ' 4 dl 4de D '')gh'g or P ,„), er three t,, t k i tone recovere ritei,fat to: Pay it, with (4120(1 th,, 40 with . 4 t , 4 j ,,l] , it ~,,a , , ii4,l:t.ltis "..1 Ilo tint G ' (44 "re not p Is 44 1 e clerk - 1 1 , e tie - of t i '4 tiqt le,t4. Kehl ke et v . iter'urits as so E thi;'4,.. . A _ R hich 111 `hie.4XAN-DER wei e th tut c( Itt,':, Q,,,etoseires, i akhr,ssBvvslia, 1 4::','. A t ? to ascert t,- 4 4 . J.'Ll til„AnLit 1 4n 4 ,„ ' court, th, air -Of th , , ,t,.. . e l a , 11, 11 ., t, (:,,ation oft ] i t ,; kitttkuvxu. , ~' 4ett,:fl4Nv migi it. j r tha t th Ptt . loot h„.. e q. 4. , rei,iopoEt tr 4 k Vi ll*`,.. ll : l g tO the '4),,,tti,'4lt. 'nal(' otree Y arhitr Ititt4 tihter()oristont ~. 'iklltttt':4:l3et:tie4:l3'43,._ift4leh:eas4lll't t i : t l . ' i ' 1 : a i li r : t !'hi,;, bp ~2 w as cat i h a ,to tz_Ltasel, q 4 L'So44: /nod e .„ :14:::::41::,/*::el:eloill; ni)tectt:ejt:o4l:str°h:e.Ghls' li tatetliversatioi t l t ,li; ta 11 11 u t ?.t w e I,ltll t t o:,! . ., 4l l l it c . ' i ll ol t ;4; ' 71;44, oOnsto-. 41'1,t,. th,t"tratety v!Y WA:Vareee°' wo. t:i!. e 4, -4(.1n ' rs4.t ~,. ,s '4°.ktsti li,-,-(Jouroi -4 0od ay , ts4t, ) , t 04 14 1.1. /1 N cox '..N l'ie t 1.. 11c AND 'l,* ttr •qi/t er . ii, e t , 4 _,A, ki agl 11f44, l ' ' lt ted u i e ) (l allc t o , lo rd Itt r , t3 Y I?r, 04,, si l i p C O of tt '4,1:110414,:!!, %eted 4 1 4. . i . ) % 47 -4 ' A I 11,4s.Itri: 'Wane t l , .t. Z th, 8 :, I ar ~] ty i ar k iw : ai, k ,4 1 ? ct( 't,)l 444° th: t b ct " 14,114 illtllitllle t k4,l,4lklkft, rya be hi. tit l !lta I. ett P 4 ,,,. ° , 4 pon. ~. , 4„,, 4. near, i 1.1,; It "ip it'll'''. wag iia stair: toe I I• t qo 4 *e - k, tql . 41. 1 tit t o 5-;`,1,14 t4i.atici ..cliarg] th„thr, fur l ~.,.!I,you 1 i‘ : NI; t kae . s . rte eat 4.041 it e t q Y t f! ti ) `Itif:(;) °lt?4* J ii]i` I 4 - 'iltq l i He h,'tt tv )%,,: okd N b liki:il the b lade ` t t'''iltbt;ii-oct"'rsott W'flaa4el;ot '''''e ' t %Pi ' ea 'roe t o f 'isc,... ( A 4 v, (l ) le• I fi r'' -rile - otrkt 8 1 Ptll4`tll,„_43llirletlTly ''t ZTI I.irllN'l the e qq,..t A rs ons • - t' l'r • " it ', t4t, h sr s c,f etso S't;i, k li t' ] l t I s ti sr * • 1 Ifi.Nili. Ylll 414'3 In. I , A „. lig. ~_ltst c .I'it,iiitt,.4.e, 7 4 417 we, ~, Att 1. 4 Vra u s. \ v . Rot t i , "t4 i . l• 4 * left Llll' *hatl'E It T , '• 11ald r 0 t q '4 ' ill I . l ad k rri hie4ll' a ntr! c il he cat , kitrqd. ,4114 wife v t li .; l ie tt ' It It I.VOS 811( 4 '4 'l''kekie 14 1 . i tl,, to hi 115 , . 54,1. ,5 Co n. ir 44 W ith th' (4 1.,,.... is, 7' Pae"