The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-08-23 00:00:00

-. 'N , . •' ' - sultory discussion thereon ensued, in which Mr. IT tnut, Sir T. FREMANTLE &C., took part. Sir F. TRENCR'S resolution regarding the " Bride light" committee having been disposed of, The house adjourned till Tuesday. HOUSE OF LORDS.---TUESDAY. The Marquis of WESTMINSTER directed attention to a subject which he ionsidered to be of extreme importance, the impurity of the water that was supplied to the metropolis from the Themes. Lord BROUGHAM presented an interesting petition as to the " preservation of animal substances." His lordship afterwards instituted inquiry as to the war in the east; but Lord. Melbourne could give no new inform'a tion, repeatirii; . , however, that the integrity of the Turkish empire would be-maintained by the allies. The poor rates , collection bill was read the third time and passed, Lord Lyndhurst not pressing any amendment. The Manchester police bill went through committee, Lord Brougham and the Duke of Wellington withdrawing oppo sition. The Bolton police bill was exposed to strong and extraor dinary statements made by Lord Lyndhurst ; and after warm discussion, further opposition was deferred till Thursday— till which day, after some bills had been forwarded a stage, their lordships adjoarned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-TUESDAY. The Commons met at 12 o'clock, and went through all the orders of the day, with the exception of the Bank of Ireland bill, proceeding on which was deferied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer until five o'clock. The lords' amendments to the highway rates bill were agreed to. The consolidation fund bill (with the clause of appropria tion) was read the third time and passed; as was the exche quer bills (X 13,026,050) bill. The report of the resolutions on the Exchequer Bills Fund ing was presented and agreed to, and a bill ordered accord ingly. The lords amendments to the Unlawful Oaths (Ireland) Bill were agreed to. The lords' amendments to the Assaults (Ireland) Bill were disagreed to on motion of Mr. PIGOT ; and a conference with the lords requested thereon, and afterwards held, at which reasons were delivered in by the commons' managers of the conference. The CHANCELLOR of the ExcHEQUER having noticed that the lords had passed the Slave Trade Suppression Bill, Mr. O'CoNNELT, adverted to the newspaper statements, which turned out to be correct, of a conspiracy on the part of Portuguese traffickers in slaves to have poisoned wine on the decks of their vessels in case of capture, and to poison the water, and thus to destroy, by such horrible means, their captors • and expressed the hope that our government would. promptly represent the facts to the Portuguese government, and require redress by the prosecution of the conspirators. The consideration of the lords' amendments (deferred from Monday) to the Metropolitan Police Courts Bill was re sumed, and called forth some discussion and opposition ; but it was understood that eventually, they were adopted. The Duke of Marlborough's Pension Bill went through committee. At the evening sitting, on motion of Captain PECHELL, a return was ordered of the proceeds paid into the registry of the High Court of Admiralty of all vessels taken under the late Spanish treaty on slave trade, stating the name of the ship by which each vessel was captured, and the portion paid or payable to the captors. Mr. EwArr gave notice that he should, early in the next session of parliament, move for a select committee to inquire ' into the propriety of the appointment of a " public prose cutor, for the better prevention of crime." Mr. O'CoNNELL inquired whether the Secretary for the Colonies had received any information respecting the procla mation for Sir G. Arthur against orange processions having been disregarded in Canada. ' Mr. LABOUCHERE answered that he had not received any information further than that the proclamation had pro duced good effect ; and he added that he could give the house the general assurance that Sir G. Arthur would do all in his power to discourage orangeism and orange processions, and prevent the irritation of party spirit. Mr. HUME asked whether there would be any further di vision of the Deccan prize money, and if so, when it was likely to take place. Sir J. HOBHOUSE answered that if any further division took place it would be very small indeed. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed that there had been no delay on the part of the Home Authorities or the Trust€ .s, whose attention to their duty had been most earnest and unremitting. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained, at very great length, the course intended to be pursued by the go vernment regarding the Bank of Ireland—namely, to commit the present bill pro forma, for the purpose of making it what the government intend it to be; and then to let it stand over till next session, 'so as to be considered in the interim by Ireland. In the mean time to bring in a temporary bill for continuing the powers and privileges of the Bank of. Ireland. The pro forma commitment of the present bill is named for Friday. ' He afterwards brought in a bill to continue the existing act for one year ; and in the measure now to be proposed is to be embodied a resolution (moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer) " to fund £900,000 exchequer bills held by the Bank of Ireland." Mr. GRIMSDITCH moved that the engineer or engineers to be appointed in pursuance of the address do, in addition to the report thereby required to be made, report on the merits of West Cumberland Railway as regards its con nection with the western parts of Scotland and the north of Ireland ; and that he be required also to report on the whole of the lines named in the said resolution, as regards the rela tive merits of each, not only in respect to London, but also the comparative facilities afforded to the communication by railway between the manufacturing districts of Lancashire and Edinburgh and Glasgow and the North of Ireland. Agreeeeti. The reril'aining business being disposed of, the house ad journed tilt tiro o'clock on Wednesday. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WEDNESDAY. The Commons met at two o'clock, when the Exchequer Bills Funding Bill, and the Bank of Ireland Act continuance Bill, were read the second time. The report of the resolution regarding " Exchequer Bills Funding - , Ireland," Bill was presented and adopted. The report of the Duke of Marlborough's Pensionßill was presented, and, after opposition from Mr. WAKLEY who moved its postponement for three months), and Mr. BRO THERTOO (who seconded the proposed postponement), it was carried by 48 to 5 ! The adjourned debate on Mr. HUME'S motion, for leave again to bring in his bill regarding county councils, was resumed. Mr. SANFOED opposed the motion, and, after some fur ther opposition, it was negatived without a division. Mr. GRIMSDITCH observed that the title of such a bill as Mr. Hume's ought to be " To establish county confusion." Mr. II rm r moved for returns connected with the convey ance of the mails to the West Indies and America. Mr. C. WOOD opposed the motion. Mr. HUMS, for, and in the absence of Mr. Wallace (Greenock), moved for a series of important documents ari sing out of the " Auchterarder case." The LORD ADVOCATE most decidedly opposed the motion. Mr. Husei, not being prepared to urge the reasons which no doubt his honourable friend would have adduced, said that if the government objected to the motion he could not press it, and he thereupon withdrew the motion. Captain BRYAN gave notice that, early in the next session, he should bring forward a motion for the increase of the al lowance to the Like of Sussex. Tho house then adjourned. • DEATH OF MR. EDMUND BICKERSTETH. On Saturday last, June 1, about one o'clock in the after • noon, , Mr. Bickersteth, accompanied by a young friend, startedfrom Cape Town, on an excursion to Thred Anchor Bay, for the purpose of fishing and shooting. They had al most.reached their destination when, in crossing some wet marshy ground, poor Mr. B's foot slipped, and he fell for wards ; in the attempt to recover himself, a double-barrelled gun which he was carrying on his shoulder tilted over, and came, in contact with the ground. It being a percussion lock, the sudden blow must have caused the discharge of the left barrel, and the poor young man received the whole of its contents in his right side. The discharge shattered the ribs, and pa3sing through the liver and part of the right lung, found its exit between the spine and shoulder blade of the same .Qde. Having turned round two or three times on the spot, he pressbd his hand firmly on the bleeding wound, and con vulsively closing his lips, without having uttered a word or even groan, he sank lifeless to the earth. In a few minutes his afflicted and bereaved brother was at his side; too late, alas ! for aught else than the melancholy satisfaction of con veying'to some kindlier resting place his sad remains. The' unfortunate deceased was for some time an under graduate of the University of Cambridge ; but from delicacy of health was induced to forsake for a period his academical pursuits, and leave his own for a more genial clime. Since his arrival here, now little more than twelve months, his health had much improved ; and he had devoted himself closely to the study of the medical profession. Being natu rally of a quiet, retiring disposition, he had sought for no acquaintance. and remained, except to a very few, almost en tirely unknown. To those, however, who enjoyed his friend ship, his loss will be keenly felt. To talents of no ordinary cast he possessed, in addition, an almost dauntless perse verance, which carried him through many difficulties that to minds less strongly constituted might have proved insur mountable. As a friend he was warm and sincere, and if he possessed a feeling in this respect, it was that of a susceptibility too keenly alive, perhaps, to the slightest fancied or real change. In the closer re!ationi of life his conduct was no less admira ble and praiseworthy. As a son and a brother, the fervency of his'affection has certainly been seldom equalled, if ever excelled; and the full extent of his worth in these characters has been, alas ! only sufficiently appreciated by the chasm which his awful and untimely death has caused in the imme diate circle that mourn his Loss. —South African Paper, June sth, 1839. [The deceased was the younger brother of the Rev. Edward Bickersteth, of the Abbey Foregate, Shrewsbury.] PERTH CITY ELECTION. RETURN OF THE LORD PROVOST. A correspondent has transmitted to us an account of the election for the city of Perth, which took place on Saturday last. ' On the resignation of the Hon. Arthur ICinnaird, Mr. Oli phant made a hasty canvas of the citizens, and up to the evening of Friday last, it was believed that he would be re turned without opposition. Early on Saturday morning, however, placards were extensively posted over the city, an nouncing that the Lord Provost, David Greig, Esq., would be put in nomination. Accordingly, at twelve o'clock, Mr. Oliphant was proposed by the head resident magistrate, se conded by the Dean of Guild. The Lord Provost was pro posed by Bailie Robertson, seconded by Bailie Johnston. After a show of hands, a poll was demanded. During the afternoon, however, Mr. Oliphant published an address, an nouncing that he had retired from the contest, and Mr. Greig is, therefore the member for the city of Perth. What ren ders this circumstance the more remarkable is, that the Lord Provost is at present in England, and is entirely ignorant of the senatorial dignity which has been conferred on him. The new member is a moderate Churchman, and rather a Conservative Whig. Since the above was written, we have conversed with an Edinburgh gentleman who was in Perth during the election, and who corroborates the preceding statement in its main particulars. The principal cause of the coolness of the Perth -electors towards Mr. Oliphant arose from the fact, pre sumed or real, that that gentleman's return had been all arranged by the Treasury before the constituency were con sulted on a subiect . which so nearly concerned them, and that, in f ac t, Mr. Oliphlajat was merely meant as the locum tenens of Mr. Fox Maule, in the event of that gentleman losing the representation of the Elgin burghs. An under current of discontent had, therefore, been making. way, which eventually displ4ed itself against Mr. Oliphant in very decided terms. At seven o'clock on Saturday even ing, Mr. Oliphant issued a placard expressive of his surprise that his friend the Lord Provost had been put in nomination ; bit that as his lordship supported the same line of politics with himself, and as it would serve a bad purpose to divide the liberal constituency. he retired from the contest " Had the Lord Provost (Mr. 0. states) not been accidentally ab sent; the present emergency would not have occurred." Mr. Greig, the new M.P., left Perth for Liverpool on Wednesday last, and was made partially aware of what was to occur before his departure. He is a silversmith in Perth, and - though not a landed proprietor, is wealthy and highly respected.—Glaallow Herald. %%\' -lIN Ilk SOUTH LANCASHIRE ASSIZES CROWN COURT.—TUESDAY. CHARGE OF MURDER. It being generally known that the trial of the prisoner, charged with the murder of the police-officer, Bailey, would, this day, come on, the court was crowded at an unusually early hour, and the attendance of ladies was greater than we remember it for many assizes. His lordship entered the court at three minutes past nine, and after the usual forms were gone through, Daniel Cole, aged 30, was placed at the bar, and being arraigned, held up his hand, and pleaded Not Guilty. The following jury was then sworn in : Thomas Bird, gentleman, Manchester Josias Booker, merchant, Allerton John Clover, merchant, Toxteth-park Charles Hamnett, calenderer, Cheetham George Hayward, gentleman, Chorlton-upon-Medlock Thomas Hilton, cotton merchant, Atdwick Joseph Knott, oil merchant, Cheetham Thomas Ridyard, grocer, Great Bolton Ralph Robinson, merchant, Liverpool John Sparrow, gentleman, Cheetham - John Stollard, joiner and builder, Hulme Samuel Taylor, cotton spinner, Little Bolton. Mr. Armstrong, with whom was Mr. Ellis, conducted the prosecution. Mr. Murphy appeared in behalf of the pri soner. The prisoner, a stout, broad-set, good-looking man, with dark bushy whiskers, was dressed in a suit of mole-skin or white fustian, a round jacket, vest, and trousers. He had on a white shirt, the collar of. which stood high, and he wore a black silk handkerchief, thrown round the neck and loosely tied in front, after the manner customary with seamen. He moved from side to side, and occasionally turned backward and gazed upon the persons forming the auditory, of the court. He did not appear to be agitated personally ; but there was an unsteadiness and wildness of the eye, which appeared to be slightly inflamed, that indicated the fearful workings of the mind within. At times, however, he ap peared to be totally unconscious of his awful situation. Mr. ARMSTRONG stated the case. He had before him a large plan of the streets surrounding the spot where the crime was committed, which he alluded to, in order to facilitate the understanding of the jury.' After detailing the facts of the case, the learned counsel dwelt on the law that was applicable to the case. ,He said that to resist a police-officer, and cause his. death; while in the execution of his duty, was murder ; but it did not need even that to implicate the prisoner, as he had been guilty of murder, whether the deceased was an officer or not. William Fox.-1 am an assistant surveyor to the corpora tion. I here .pr.oduce a plan which I made. (Witness described the plan.) From Green's-court, to nearest lamp in College-lane, is about nine yards. From Green's-court to the lamp, corner of Hanover-street and College;lane, 52 yards. From the last lamp at the corner of College-lane, to the one at the Excise-office, 46 yards ; hence to lamp oppo site to end of Grallwell-street, 43 yards. Length of front of Excise-office, 24 yards. Alice Murphy, sworn.—l lived in Green's-court, in April last. I knew Mrs. Moran,—my landlady. The .prisoner lived in the house on left-hand side. It was on the night of 15th April, between nine and ten. The prisoner's wife Was there. Mrs. Moran was al4o there. The prisoner came in between nine and ten o'clock. There was no candle lighted, but the fire was in. I lighted the candle. The prisoner's wife quenched it with her hand. I relit the candle, and said, " What's your humour for quenching the candle ? Is that the way again, lassie ?" She had no cap on, and was not sober. Before her saying, " What's your humour," she asked me to quench it. She said, " I am not drunk Dan," and she fell over in a corner. I could not tell whether he shoved her or not, as I did not see. I took my chair away to let her get up, and was going to take the second away when she took hold of it. Prisoner took hold of the chair, and I turned away. Next time I saw her she was on the opposite side of the kite - hen. She had no cap on, and the prisoner pas standing by her. I saw him put his hand to her neck," but saw nothing in it. I then saw the blood flowing from her throat. When he stepped back, I did not see that he had anything in his hand. There was a little girl up stairs, and I called her, and sent her out for the land lady's daughter. She saw the prisoner's wife. She went out for Mrs: Moran's daughter. The prisoner's wife walked about a short time, and then went out of the house. She was bleeding. As soon as Mrs. Moran's daughter came, I went out—to the bottom of the court. I left the prisoner and the landlady in the house, when I came out. The land lady's daughter came out. One officer then came up the court, with others with him. I remained at the bottom of the entry. They came down again in a short time, and knocked their sticks on the flags, and went on towards Para dise-street. I staid where I was. While I stood at the end of the court, the. prisoner walked out. He went towards Seel-street. He came down in a very short time after the sticks were knocked. Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY.—It was the second time that she asked me to put out the candle, that prisoner said, " what is your humour for that," &c. Mary Moran, sworn—l kept the house where the prisoner lodged on the 15th... I- saw the prisoner's wife that night, and she was intoxicated. I said, " you have got drunk since I went out." The prisoner came in in about half-an-hour after me. I heard him say, " Is, that the way, lassie? is that the way." When I raised my head I saw his wife bleeding from the neck. I took him by the collar, and said, " you villain, did you cut her neck." I saw nothing in his hand. Some man came to the door. kept hold of him - for two or three minutes. No one came in but my daughter till he went out. I was so much " through other," that I can tell no more. The man at the door was in the clothing of a policeman. . Cross-examined—The prisoner and his wife had lodged three weeks with me. She was a drunken woman. He was a quiet industrious man, and as quiet a man as ever came within a house. She would get drink if she could get it. She was, and is, a drunken woman. Francis Moran, sworn—He voluntarily said, " I have no thing to say of the prisoner. I did not see the prisoner do anything at all." Examined—The prisoner lodged with us. A Mrs. Carrol, a dark woman, lodged with us. Her daugh ter, Margaret (10 years old), came to fetch me from Mole son's, at the bottom of the entry. I went home. When I got home I saw Mrs. Cole standing at the back of the door.' She wanted me to go to' the doctor, but. I would not. I thought she deserved it. I saw some blood, and her hand to her neck. I remained in the house, and if the prisoner's in tentions were had he might have done , the same to me. Moleson's daughter went up the entry. An officer came to the door, while I was in the house. The prisoner was there, and appeared to me, from his looks, like a man out of his mind. A good many people came when the row began. There , was a confusion in the yard when they said that her throat was cut: A person named Rigg held the door out side, and the prisoner inside. Prisoner got the door off the hinges. We were all insisting on his going out. It is my opinion that he would have stopped all night if he had been -allowed. I and others wanted him to go out, as there was such a row. When he got out, the man, and I think the prisoner, had a scuffle in the entry. It was rather dark, and I saw nothing more. I afterwards went down the entry, and saw a policeman carried to Atherton, but could'not say whe ther he was dead or alive. Cross-examined.—The prisoner was a very dissipated cha racter. He had several times before found him drunk when he came home. I thought him not in his mind from his look. I have heard that he had a wound in his head. • Robert Rigg said, I am a master mariner of Dumfries. In going along College-lane, on the night of the 15th, I saw a police-officer, and spoke to him. 1 was going to part with him ; but when we came to the corner of Peter's-lane, I heard a woman cry out " Murder ! Police ! a man has cut his - wife's throat." The policeman put his hand upon my shoulder, and asked me to go with him. We went a little up, and' into a court, on the right had side of College-lane to a house. I' saw the prisoner there, and two or three females. One of the women had a white apron all covered with blood. The prisoner attempted to get out. I prevented him by getting the door shut. The policeman asked me to hold the door until he could get more assistance. I held it about five minutes. Same persons pulled inside ; something about the door gave way, and the prisoner came out. I was knocked down by a blow from the prisoner, on the head. My face was cut by the blow. I got up, and went to him again, and he again knocked me down. When I got up he was gone. I went down the court to pursue him. There were persons at the bottom. I turned to the right hand, and went to the spot when I heard the policeman say he is gone this way. When I turned the corner of College-lane, I saw him in Hanover-street. He had just got to the opposite side of Hanover-street, when I heard the policeman, I saw it was the same policeman that had left me at th e door. He was about the middle of the street, running towards.the prisoner. I saw the policeman with his left hand up as if going to seize the prisoner. The woman cried out, Oh, dear! he has got a knife, take care—he will kill some one." A scuffle took place between the two. When I got up, prisoner had his right hand up, towards the left side of the police-officers head. I then fastened hold of the prisoner by the right arm, and both of us fell. Some others I think fell; but if not at the same time, they were very quickly on the top of us. The officer did not fall along with us. When the prisoner was on the ground I and two young men kept him on the ground. One of the young men said, " Hold him fast ;" and one or other of them said, " he h as go t a k n if e in hs hand," or " he has got the knife." We were not then aware that the policeman had been stabbed. A number of officers-came and secured the prisoner. I got a cut on the nose, extending along the right cheek, one on my eyebrow, and one on my wrist. The first cut was got by being knocked down in the court by the prisoner, the other when down in the street. One of the officers took me to a house and I washed myself. When we came out we beard that the police man was stabbed. I went to the house where he lay. He was dead. The wound was on the left side of his neck. From the time the officer went up to the prisoner and the time I got up not half a minute elapsed. Cross-examined.—There was no crowd near the police when they went up to' the prisoner. There were people be hind me shouting. The old than and woman I had seen at the bottom of the entry were shouting, but no other persons, either there or in Hanover-street. The police-officer was pursuing him. He was' the same man that went into the court with me. He could not say at the time he first saw._ the policeman's body that he was the same, he was so dis figured with blood. The question was not put to him before. The prisoner's right arm was up towards his own when the policeman went up to him; and the prisoner made a stand. The police-officer never got hold of him. Ann Moulson deposed—My, father is a' shoemaker, and we live at the bottom of Green's-court. I heard an alarm, and an expression about a throat being cut. It was between nine and ten on the night of the 15th April. I went out at the back door, which opens into the entry, and saw prisoner's wife run out of her lodging and pass me. She said something, but I did not hear what. I then went up the court and saw the prisoner standing on the floor. Mrs. Moran was calling him a murdering villain, and shaking her fist at him. There was blood on the floor. I then ran down the court and gave the alarm. A police-officer, Mr. Rigg, and my father came into the court. The officer gave the prisoner in charge of Mr. Rigg and my father, and went into College-lane for fur ther assistance. Mr. Rigg was a little inside the door. My father was on the step. The door was not quite open. The prisoner made an attempt to come out, but was prevented by Mr. Rigg, who got the door closed. He got out and went up College-lane. I followed him. After he came out of the court, and when he was about two yards from me, I saw a knife in his right hand. I kept my eye upon him, and saw it till he reached the Excise-office. I called out as the officer passed— Oh dear ! he has got a k n if e ." The next thing I saw, was, the police-officer, who staggered back, and struck his stick on the ground. I saw him in the act of fall ing. I saw two or three more females run to support him. He tried to walk as well as he could towards College-lane. We had afterwards to carry him ; 1 assisted to carry him to Atherton's. He died in two or three minutes after we got him to the house. Cross-examined.—l saw - the police-officer stagger.. That was all at that time. Manlove Moulson.—l am a shoemaker. The back of my house opens into Green's-court. I was called out between nine and tenon the night of the 15th of April, and saw a woman bleeding. She had her two hands to her throat. I went to call an officer, and told him there was a woman bleeding in Green's-court. The officer I spoke to was at the corner of Peter's-lane with Mr. Rigg. The policeman and I and Rigg went up the court. We went to Moran's house. I saw the prisoner there. There was blood on the floor. I and Mr. Rigg were left in charge of the prisoner to prevent him from escaping. Mr. Rigg reproved the pri soner, who then attempted to get out ; but Mr. Rigg got the door to, and he and I held it by the handle, until, I thought as the prisoner was pulling hard on the inside that he would make his escape. 1 was alarmed at this and went to call the police into College-lane. Whilst I was there the prisoner passed me, and went up towards Hanover-street. I fol. lowed him a few yards. I saw the blade of a knife in his right hand. I did not attempt to atop him. When be had crossed Hanover-street, the policeman came up College lane, rather on the run. The policeman went up to him. I cannot say if it was the same policeman that left me at the door. I saw only one policeman go up to him. I saw no blow given, but saw the policeman afterwards on the ground with &crowd abont him. Ann Atherton—l am the wife of James Atherton. My husband keeps a public-house in College-lane. About ten minutes past ten . 1 saw the policeman go' up College-lane to Han - over-street. I followed him to the Excise-office. I next saw him stepping out of the middle of the street on to the side, and he put his hand up to his neck, and struck the ground with his stick. I heard the blood gushing on the flags. I went and took hold of him. He walked about four or five yards, and then his legs failed him. The blood flowed from his neck. I saw it immediately I went. Jane Grayson.—l live in Seel-street. Coming out of the court, into Seel-street,.a minute or two after ten o'clock, on the 15th April, I heard some women telling the policeman that a man had cut his wife's throat. I went down to Green's-court. I saw the prisoner there. I then went down the court. I saw the prisoner come out of the court, and I followed him. He went round the corner, into Hanover street. I followed him. He passed over into the middle of the street. I saw a policeman who came up College-lane, running after the prisoner. He overtook him by the Excise office. I cannot say whether he got hold of him, but they were very close. I can't say whether the prisoner struck the officer ; but the officer's' hat fell off. The officer was, in a manner, endeavouring to strike the prisoner with his stick, when his hat fell off. He hit the. prisoner on the shoulder. The po liceman staggered back directly, and I followed up to him, and . got hold of his left arm. I did not see the policeman strike the prisoner after his (the policeman's) hat fell off. When I took hold of the policeman's arm, I observed blood gushing from his throat. I asked him if he was stabbed, and he made no answer. Cross-examined.—The policeman had his stick up to strike prisoner when his hat fell off. Thomas Fletcher.—l am a watchmaker, and live in Rich mond-row. On the night in question I heard the cry'of " Murder,!" I heard a ory that a man had murdered his wife in Hanover-street. I went to a house in Green's-court, and saw a young woman with her clothes covered with blood. When I reached the house, there was a, person. dressed as a sea-faring man. This man took the apron off, and said, " This will be another witness for me." The prisoner made use of some foul expression to the' young woman who had the blood on her clothes ; but I cannot say what it was. There was a policeman there, with the sea-faring man ; 'the policeman went for further assistance. The prisoner took his hat and wished, to come out ; but the sea-faring man stopped him. I went down the, court, and stopped at the end of the court.• The Prisonet came' out, and I followed him ; he went down Hanover-street, towards the Excise-office. After he had passed the Exqise-office, on the same side, the policeman came up, and offered to collai.him. I can't say whether it was the same officer. First time he did not get hold of him. The second time .he collared him. The pri soner then struck him with his hand, just above his 'collar, on the left side. After the police-officer was struck, he was going to make a blow at the prisoner, but dropped his blow, put his hand to his neck, and said, " Oh, he has stabbed me," and the blood flowed from him. A scuffle took place be tween the prisoner and the people about, and he was thrown down, and I held his legs till Le was secured. 'I noticed something in the prisoner's hand, but cannot say what it was. James Gilbertson.-1 am a book-keeper. On Monday night, April 15, I was passing along Hanover-street, when I heard an alarm, and heard that .a man had cut his wife's throat. I had previously seen a woman, whom I thought to be her. One of the officers followed in he direction she had taken. The other officers went down Peter's-lane, to look after the man. I continued to go along Hanover-street, and at the corner of College-lane I met the prisoner, with many persons following a few yards behind .him on the parapet. The prisoner 'crossed over the street, and the officer imme diately came up. From the appearance of the officer I think he was the same man I had seen in Peter's-lane. He crossed over towards the prisoner, arid took hold of him. The pri soner turned round and struck at him. His hat fell off. The officer raised his stick as if to strike ; but, so far as 1 could see, did not strike. The officer and prisoner then closed. I should think another blow was given, but cannot swear it. , The officer and prisoner both were down. The officer went to the parapet and knocked his stick. The blood was flowing from his neck. :At this time the prisoner was secured. I went up to the prisoner and stood over him. I saw a knife taken from him. Cross-examined.--I saw several persons running after him. They only called Gut that he had a knife in his hand. William Selsby.—l am with a broker in Castle-street. I was in Han&veir-street on the night in question. I saw the prisoner and the policeman coming after. Several people followed. The prisoner was in Hanover-street. Some of the persons called out that he had a knife. The policeman ran up and tried to catch hold of him but missed, and passed on a few yards. Whilst doing so the prisoner made. two or three blows at him with his right hand. A man in sailor's clothes came and rushed at prisoner, and both fell together. As soon as they fell I got hold of prisoner by the right hand. He dropped a knife from that hand. I picked it up. It was open. I gave it up at the Bridewell. John Thursby,—l am keeper of Hotharn-street Bridewell. The,prisoner was brought there on a charge of cutting his wife's throat anti afterwards stabbing a police-officer. I also received a police-officer's hat, a handkerchief, and a pair of gloves, from a person named M'Clusty. Cross-exthnined.—The prisoner was very quiet when he came. Joseph Chantler, a corkcutter.—l was in Hanover-street and (as before) I saw the prisoner coming from College-lane to Hanover-street. A policeman was running after him. Heard persons cry, "mind him, mind him, he has got a knife." They were going across towards the old Excise office. The policeman ran ten yards past him. The police man then turned round, and the prisoner struck him with his fist, as I suppose. They then had a bit of a struggle to gether. The prisoner then aimed another blow at him, as if he was hitting at his face. I cannot say whether he struck him. The policeman then staggered ; knocked his stick se veral times on the ground. He then put his hands to left side of face, and I saw blood running from him. I turned and saw a man like a sailor run at, the prisoner : they both fell together. When down, Selby, thelast witness, lay down on his right arm and pressed it. Prisoner opened his hand and the knife rolled out. Selby took up the knife, closed it, and put it in his pocket. James M'Cluskie.—l am a glasscutter. I saw the pri soner in Hanover-street at the time in question. -He was coming round the corner of College-lane into Hanover-street. The policeman was following'at a sharp walk. He Went up to the prisoner, made a click at his collar, and got a yard and a' half or two yards rum", Tiro v-dinnman turned rniinrl nnd faced. The prisoner struck two or three hits at the police officer with his hand. The policeman put his band to his neck and staggered, and knocked his stick upon the flags. Some one shouted, "lay hold of the prisoner's legs," and I assisted to hold him down. I Put my knee upon his leg. When the policeman came up a woman picked up a hat and gave it to me. I gave it up at the police-office. Cross-examined.—l thought the last blow given by the prisoner was a backhanded one. -Charles Dougherty.—l am a tailor. I was on the night in question in Hanover-street. It was three or four minutes past ten at night. I saw a crowd in College-lane. I saw the prisoner come down the court, and some person said, " He has a knife in his hand. He turned into Hanover-street. I followed him along that street. I saw a police-officer pass me towards the prisoner. The officer reached out his hand to catch the prisoner. A scuffle ensued. I saw the prisoner's left hand rise and strike the officer on the side of the head. He raised. it a , second time. A man in sailor's clothes seized the prisoner's arm, and prevented the blow. They all staggered towards the parapet. The priso ner and the sailor fell, .and the policeman staggered.. The officer put his hand to his neck, on the left side. The blood flowed on the flags from his neck. The officer knocked his ' stick very hard. I walked with him a little, and then re turned *to where the prisoner was. I saw his right hand open, and a knife drop out of it. Towards the handle there was blood, also towards the point. Cross-examined—They were all three together at the time the officer fell down. Samuel Frazer—l am . a cooper, and live in Seel-street. On the night I heard a female call " police ! police ! mur der ! murder !" It was at ten minutes past ten. I and my wife were out. I heard it said that a man had cut his wife's throat. I went into College-lane, and went to a court on the left hand side. I saw some blood qn the ground. I saw the prisoner come out of the court. Ile had something in his right hand, I cannot say what. He turned towards Hano ver-street. I and other persons followed him. He turned down Hanover-street. A police-officer was following him, and when he passed me, he cried, " Where is he ? where is he ?!' 1 told him. The policeman went up, and they had a scuffle together. I saw the prisoner raise his right hand, and make a blow at the policeman's neck. The police man raised his .right hand to make a blow at the prisoner, but I cannot say whether he struck him or not. The police man then staggered back, and knocked his stick to the ground, a signal for assistance: Two women went, and and took hold of him, as his legs were giving way. Margaret Frazer, wife of the last witness, corroborated her husband and the other witness, John Walker, said he was an inspector of police. The deceased had the thirteenth beat of the section. His name was David Bailey. His number was 3.38. (The witness here detailed the officers appointed to the several beats in the section.) This hat is marked with the deceased's number. I saw the deceased dead. Richard Fergusson, who.was an officer in the police, but has left the force, Police-officers Gregory, M`Rae, Richard Jones, and John Parkes, who were on duty at the surround ing beats, gave evidence of the several parts taken by them, after hearing that a woman had got her throat cut. Mr. Callan, surgeon, Duke-street, deposed, that he was sent for, a little after ten o'clock, to Atherton's public-house. He found Bailey there, dead. He had a large wound on the side of his neck, through which he could introduce his fin gers into the mouth. He afterwards examined the body, in company with Dr. Macintyre. The external and internal carotid arteries were both divided, as was also the jugular vein. The knife had been stopped by the jaw on the oppo site side. The blow must have been a powerful blow. Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY.—If a person had re ceived a concussion of the brain, excitement would be likely to render them deranged. • If a party got into a-violent pas sion, it might produce derangement in such a case, but it seldom does. Dr. Macintyre stated, that he was called in to see the de cehsed. He found him at Atherton's. Assisted in examin ing post mortem, as stated. Concurred with Mr. Callan as to the appearances. Death must have ensued within five minutes after such an injury. Witness was cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY, touching the effects which a concussion or fracture might produce. He gave testimony similar to that of the last witness. Mr. Moore, assistant to Mr. Taylor, of Cleveland-square, described the position of the wound on Mrs. Cole's neck, which wound he dressed. It was on the neck, and a deep, but not a dangerous, wound. •Mr. MURPHY, for the defence, pointed out to the jury that he had abstained almost entirely from cross-examining on the facts. The jury would see, by the few questions he had already. put to the witnesses, what he intended to bring into proof. The learned counsel proceeded to state, that the prisoner had received great injuries on his head, formerly, in Ireland. Once, when he was blasting rocks, a heavy piece fell upon him, and hurt him severely. Ever since this the prisoner had been, upon very inadequate causes, subject to sudden fits of fury, and occasionally of madness. This he should prove by the witnesses 'whom he should call, who were mostly •his relations. The learned counsel said, he should also show,• more definitely than had been done, the • habits of the prisoner's wife. On this subject the learned counsel made an eloquent appeal to the jury. He thought when he had proved the great provocations which the pri soner had received, with his mind predisposed to insanity, he would have convinced the jury, that he had his mind wrought up to such a state at the time when the.act was committed, as would reduce murder to manslaughter. Michael Cole, brother of the prisoner, stated that his bro ther (the prisoner) and he once worked in a quarry together, shortly before they left Ireland for Liverpool, which was, about twelve years ago. Witness described that twice his brother had had his head injured by blasting. His head al ways had to be tied tight for about two years, and ever since when he took any drink. From that time to this his head was never the same, and he always seemed wild when he got any drink. Witness further proved that the wife of the pri soner was a very drunken woman, who used to drink her husband's wages sometimes,—at other times sell the provi sions out of the house. Sometimes when she was very hard upon him, his temper and his head used to be very bad. He used to have his head tied, and it was as much as he (witness) could do to hold him. After these things were over, he used to ask witness when he told him what had happened, why he did not tie him or knock him down ? When told what he had done, he would not believe him. He had assaulted wit ness and smashed his own furniture, The witness said— " He smashed a good clock, with an axe, at the same time he made a lick at me, , and hit his wife, and I was very glad of it, —I wish he had killed her that day." _ _ The witness was rebuked by the court and the counsel for the prisoner. On cross-examination he modified his state ment, saying that the prisoner did not strike his wife with the axe but with his foot. _ _ _ _ The warehouseman of a Mr. Gaebel said, the prisoner had been a porterto the latter for some time. This witness said there was nothing the matter with his understanding so long as he was sober. . John M`Donald, warehouseman to Mr. Henry Hill, stated, that the prisoner had worked occasionally• for Mr. Hill, and borne a good character. The prisoner was sensible when not drunk,—but when intoxicated, drink had a great effect upon him. Had seen him when at home take a clock off the wall and break it and burn it. Mr. ARMSTRONG replied, pointing out the dangerous na ture of the defence set up, whic,h should on all occasions,,be supported'bi . the very best evidence, and be , proved beyond a doubt, ere its effects should be allowed to operate. He agreed with the learned counsel for' the defence, that the circum stance of having a drunken wife was one of the greatest miseries that could possibly befal a person in his rank of life. It did not appear throughout the evidence that the prisoner was irrational till he was irritated ; it was said, on the con trary, that he was (Piet unless irritated by his wife. There was no evidence to show that he was not a responsible being' when he committed the act. If the jury could, by the ut most possible stretch of any construction that might be put on the circumstances, make it appear to them that he had re ceived such provocation as would moderate the crime to man slaughter, it would be their duty so to find their verdict. The learned JTIDGE then explained the law relating to the several circumstances of the case, and summed up the evi dence at full length, commenting on it as he proceeded, and carefully keeping in view every point of law and of fact, that could by possibility of construction reduce the offence to manslaughter. He explained the law as related to the pecu liar protection given to police officers : and directed their at tention particularly to the " scuffle" spoken of, that had taken place between the prisoner and the deceased', of which there were several accounts varying a little. If they were of opinion that the prisoner (who, however, at the time was aware that the police were in search of him) did not know that his pursuer was a police-officer, and that such scuffle took place between them, in which the other struck him, as would induce him in self ' defence to resort to a knife which he might have in his possession, or in his hand at the time — then would it be a consideration whether the offence might not be manslaughter only. He then proceeded to read and comment upon the rest of the evidence, and concluded a lucid charge, by stating, if they were of opinion that the prisoner was insane when he stabbed ' • in that case the pri soner would be imprisoned during her Majesty's pleasure, under the advice of her council. If they were not of that opinion, they had next to consider whether the prisoner knew the deceased to be a police—officer. If they were of that opinion, it was his duty to intbrm them that in law the of fence amounted to murder. They would not have to consi der whether the prisoner did not mistake the officer for another person, and that in a scuffle, he in the heat of passion made use of the knife, and so took away his life. But he must inform them that an assault committed upon another person, who gave some cause of provocation, was not always mere manslaughter. For instance, a man laying hold of a man's collar, did not justify the use of so deadly a weapon as a knife. But if blows were struck, causing aggravation, and the party not knowing the person to be a police-officer, should inflict the stab in a transport of passion, under the smart of the blows received, the offence would be reduced to manslaughter. After a few further observations, his lord ship directed the jury to retire, after an address of one hour and ten minutes duration. The jury retired, and were absent about 35 minutes, when they returned with a verdict of acquittal from the charge of murder., but guilty of a very aggravated case of man slaughter. The learned JUDGE, in passing sentence said—Daniel Cole, you have been found guilty of an aggravated man slaughter—so nearly amounting to murder, that it was scarcely distinguishable from it. You have been fortunate in escaping from capital punishment ; for if the jury had found you guilty of murder, I should certainly have found it my painful duty to have left you for execution. Through your cruelty the town has lost a useful officer, and by that base mode which had latterly become unfortunately too pre ialent. As it is, the sentence of the court is, that you be transported beyond the seas for the term of your natural life, to such place as her Majesty, acting under the advice of her privy council, shall think fit. The prisoner was then removed. The trial was the only one that took place during the day, and occupied the court from nine in the morning till six in the evening. The court then adjourned. NISI PRIUS COURT—TUESDAY. SWALLOW V. NIELD. John Swallow was the plaintiff, and Arthur Nield the de fendant ; and the action (an undefended one) was brought to recover the amount of two bills of exchange for £l3O and £l5O, accepted by the defendant, together with a balance due for goods delivered, making altogether £368 3s. Bd. Verdict for the plaintiff for that sum. GIBB V. BUCK. This action was an undefended one. It was brought by Mr. William Gibb, a wine and spirit merchant, to recover from the defendant the sum of £52 Ils. Bd fl , for goods sold and delivered. Verdict for the plaintiff for the sum &aimed. HARTLEY V. WELLS. Mr. Jas. Hartley was the plaintiff, and Mr. Joseph Wells the defendant ; and the action was brought to recover the value of a bill of exchange for £26 125., drawn by Mr. Rich. Hargreaves on the defendant, and payable in two months after date. Verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of the bill, with interest—£26 17s. 6d. KILSHAW V. DAVIES. In this case Mr. John Kilshaw, builder, was the plaintiff, and Mr. John Davies, attorney, the defendant, (both of this town,) and the action was brought to recover the sum of £3,299 4s. 4d. for work done by the plaintiff in the erection of a house at Liscard, which was first to have been taken by Mrs. Smith, for a school. The work was done in the years 1834 and 1835, and the agreement was, that the work should be valued from time to time by Mr. Wrightman, at the usual scale of Liverpool prices, and, after a deduction of 25 per cent. had been made, interest was to be payable on the re maining sum at the rate of 5 per cent. The sum of £l7 only had been paid ; but, according to agreement, a mortgage on the house had been granted to the plaintiff. The defendant's pleas were four or five in number, one of them being, that the work done amounted to only £2,210, and that the difference between `that sum and £2,950 was made up of interest, and wnq therefore unlawful. He 43. r. , l..ded a set-off of -el .359 - After Mt: Martin, for the plaintiff, had stated the case, a conversation took place between Mr. Cresswell and - him. It was agreed that a verdict for the plaintiff; for £3,299 4s. 4d., should be taken, subject to a reference to a court of equity. TAYLOR V. FRANKLIN AND ANOTHER. This was an action on a bill of exchange for £4BO. The plaintiff was Mr. Mark Taylor, high-sheriff of Dublin, and the defendants Mr. Benjamin Woolff Franklin and Mr. Abraham Lewis Franklin, bullion-merchants, of Liverpool. Mr. Alexander and Mr. Cowling for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Watsbn for the defendants. Mr. COWLING having opened the pleadings, Mr. ALEXANDER proceeded to state .the case. He said that the action was on a bill of exchange for £4BO, dated 9th March, 1839, drawn at three months by Mr. William Jonei on Mr. George Laing •, by them endorsed to the Central Bank of Liverpool, and by the bank to the defendants. The defendants first pleaded that there was no endorsement to them by the Central Bank, and next, that there was no en dorsement by them to the plaintiff. He believed that in the month of March last the bill was discounted by the plaintiff to Mr. Mooney, the manager of a bank in Ireland; it was not endorsed by the two defendants, but by their agent, Mr. Phineas Franklin, who produced an authority empowering him to do so. When the bill was dishonoured, a communi cation was opened between the parties ; in consequence of which Mr. Armstrong, solicitor, of Dublin, came over, and had an interview with Mr. Franklin, who informed him that they were then in an embarrassed state ; that they were about to offer five shillings in the pound to the creditors, and that Mr. Armstrong had better wait until they saw what was done. Ultimately the defendants refused to pay the bill. At that time there was no more thought of what had been set on the record than there was of the man in the moon. He understood that there was something to be put forth relative to a dissolution of partnership between the defendants; but into that he should refrain from entering, unless it were in troduced on the other side. At present he should look upon the action as one brought by the endorsee against the en dorser, and if anything about the defendants,not being in bu siness together was brought forward, he then should see what course to take. He should like to know how, after having paid his £4BO, Mr. Taylor was to be juggled out of it in some way that was certainly not honest. Mr. Henry Taylor examined.—He stated that he was at present a bullion merchant in this town, and knew the defend ants, in whose employ he had been ahout three years ago. Mr. Benjamin Woolf Franklin and Mr. Abraham Lewis Franklin then carried on business in partnership, as bullion merchants. The name of the firm as inscribed on the door, then was—" B. W. and A. Franklin." He understood that an alteration had taken place in the partnership ; he judged from the alteration of the name on the door. That was altered to " B. W. Franklin and Co." and on another door was put up " Franklin and Brothers." He could not tell at what time the alteration had been made. He knew the handwriting of Mr. Abraham Lewis Franklin. [The authority by which Mr. Phineas Franklin acted on the transaction was shown to the witness,' and he deposed that the signature was in the handwriting of Mr. Abraham L. Franklin. A bill of the 3d February, endorsed by B. W. Franklin and Co. was also shown to him, and he deposed that that signature was the writing of Abraham L. Franklin.] Cross-examined.—When he was in the, employ of Messrs. Franklin, he was a watchmaker. He was not a journeyman. He should not know exactly what to call himself. He made watches for them, and received weekly wages, 25s per week. Mr. John Armstrong.—He was the attorney for the plain tiff, and lived in Dublin. On the 22d June last, he applied to Benjamin Woolff Franklin about the bill. - On presenting the bill, he (Mr. B. W. Franklin) said that it had been passed to Mr. Mooney; that an offer of 5s in the pound had been made to Mooney ; that his affairs were in the hands of a so licitor, and he thereforo.could not then give the 5s ; and that in a few days his affairs would be submitted to his creditors, of which they (witness and his client) should havenotice. He believed that his client did receive notice. Mr Henry Jacob.—He was a merchant at Manchester, and knew the defendants. He recollected in February last, see ing Mr. Abraham Franklin at the bullion office ' in Saint George's -crescent. Witness told him that he had a lot of watches which he had no objection to send to his (Mr. F's) brother in New York. 'Mr. Abraham Franklin said that he would speak to his brother Benjamin, and witness might call again. He did call again on the same day, and saw both of the brothers. An arrangement was entered into, by which witness agreed to ship 11 gold watches, and 13 silver lever watches, on receiving an advance of £l5O in cash. The money was paid to him out of the till. They then said that he was to accommodate them with his acceptance at three .months' date for £165. He gave them his acceptance, and they drew on him, but allowed the bill to be returned. On the Ist of March he saw the defendants again, and they said that Le must give them a memorandum of shipment. He accordingly began to write it out, and commenced it with " Messrs. B. W. and A. Franklin." One of them—he thought it was Mr. Benjamin—then said, " Our firm is B. W. Franklin and Co." Cross examined by Mr. CRESSWELL.—He saw Mr. Abra ham Franklin on the subject of the watches, on the 25th of February last, in the office in St. George's-crescent. Some junior branches of the .family might have been there. Mr. Phineas Franklin might have been ; be was not certain ; but be would swear that Joseph was there. When he went again on the Ist of March, he saw Mr. Abraham there. Some of the younger brothers might have been there ; but he could not say whom, as his business was with Benjamin and Abra ham alone. He has known them to carry on business in partnership for many years, perhaps a dozen, or fifteen or twenty. They had conducted their business all that time as B. W. and A. Franklin, previous to the Central Bank affair. It was on the Ist of March he was told to alter the heading of the letter. Abraham was then present. He was a mer chant, dealing in manufactured goods, watches, or any thing else that was cheap. He speculated in . any thing that was cheap, provided it was honest. Re-examined.—The Central Bank stopped in April or May. They said that Benjamin was the sole partner in the firm of B. W. Franklin and Co. They said that they had dissolved partnership. He looked into the Gazelle, and found the dissolution. Mr. Collins proved the hand-writing of Mr. Phineas Frank lin in the endorsement on the bill. It was " P. Franklin for B. W. Franklin and Co." The bill was then put in. The authority under which Mr. Phineas Franklin ;hall acted in endorsing the bill was also read, it was dated March 16, 1839, and was to the effect that " Mr. Phineas Franklin has our authority to enter into any contract on our behalf, and to sign bills and agreements for us." It was signed B.W. Franklin and Co. The bill of the 3d February, was also put in, as was the Gazette of the 19th March, 1539, containing the dissolution of partner ship. It was as follows :—" The partnership hitherto exist ing between us, the undersigned, is this day dissolved by mu tual consent. All debts due by and owing to us will be paid by Mr. Abraham Lewis Franklin." The advertisement was dated March 15, and signed by Benjamin Woolff Franklin - and Abraham Lewis Franklin. Mr. John Dunn examined.—He is clerk in the Provincial Bank of Ireland, of which Mooney is manager. He recol lected the bill of the 9th March being discounted by Mr. Mooney on the 18th March, in Dublin. Cross-examined.—The bank was the holder of other bills endorsed by B. W. Franklin and Co. He did not know whether Benjamin alone had been sued for the value of those bills. On the-day after we got the bill, of the 9th March, it was'endorsed to Mr. Taylor, high sheriff of Dublin. Mr. CRESSWELL put it to his Lordship whether the en dorsement by Abraham had been proved. His Lordship thought there was evidence to go to the jury. - Mr. CRESSWELL then addressed the Jury for his clients. He thought that it would turn out that this was a very un just attempt to fix Mr. Abraham Franklin with the bill in question, and to support it by evidence of the most wicked and fraudulent kind, unless he was misinstructed. The case rested entirely nn the evidence of Henry Taylor, and that good person, Henry Jacobs ; and, if .demeanour went for anything, it was natural to disregard anything that the latter had said. It was for the Jury, however, to weigh the evi dence ; but this he might mention, that Jacobs would not go uncontradicted as to the fact. Henry Taylor had been called to make out that the bill had been endorsed by Abra ham Franklin, and the Jury would understand why the at tempt had been made, when he told them, that he was a much more wealthy person than his brother Benjamin. They had produced an authority to Phineas Franklin to accept bills for the firm of B. W. Franklin. and Co., but they had given no evidence that Abraham ever traded under that firm, except the transaction alluded to by Jacobs, which could scarcely be called trading under that form. With reference to the au thority of Phineas, Abraham would notle bound by it, un less it was made out that he was a partner in the firm of B. W. Franklin and Co., therefore the Jury would well under stand why it was that the plaintiff had called a person to state, that the authority was in the handwriting of Abraham. Whe ther the evidence of Taylor had originated in a mistake or not, he would not say ; but it - must be well known to all how easy it is for a person to be mistaken in the writing of a per son, especially wh en the individual called upon to give his opinion , was but little accustomed to distinguishing such things, and was a very indifferent writer himself, as was pro ved by the specimen which he had asked the witness to give. Mr. 13rocksop Aspinall examined by Mr. WATSON.—He was manager of the Central Bank, in Liverpool, and had been since November last. The bank stopped payment in April last.- He knew the firm of B. W. and E. Franklin. In the month of November that firm kept an account with the bank. An account was afterwards opened with B. W. Franklin and Co. The only person composing that firm was Mr. B. W. Franklin. He knew the bill which was the sub- Bct of the present action. It was endorsed by the Central Bank to B. W. Franklin alone, as B. W. Franklin and Co. Mr. Abraham had nothing to do with the firm. He was acquainted with the handwriting of both the brothers. The authority of the 16th of March (handed to witness) was in the handwriting of Benjamin Woolff ,Franklin. The en dorsement of the bill (handed to witness) was also in the handwriting of Benjamin, and not of Abraham. Cross-examined.—Benjamin was the person who usually came to the bank. Abraham sometimes came, and signed per pro., for his brother. There was a new account begun with Abraham, but the old account continued open till the bank stopped in April. Re-examined.—The old account continued open till the time of the advertisement of the dissolution of partnership. Mr. Phineas Franklin and Mr. Walter Franklin, brothers of the defendants, both deposed that the endorsem'ent to the bill and the authority to Phineas were in the handwriting of Benjamin, and that the firm or B. W. Franklin and Co. was composed of B. W. Franklin only. Mr. Henry Hime was called to speak to the handwriting. Mr. ALEXANDER replied, after which the learned JUDGE summed up. at considerable length. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £484, being the value of the bill, with interest thereon. We are requested to state that Mr. Henry Hime was not the attor ney for the defendants in this cause, as stated in the Courier of Wednesday. VARLEY V. ANDERTON The plaintiff, Mr. Nicholas Varley, is a drysalter, in Manchester, and the defendant, Mr. John Anderton, is a calico-printer, in Bolton, and the action was brought to recover the sum of £24 15s 2d, for goods sold and delivered. Verdict for the plaintiff for that amount. KEMPSON V. MILLS. An action to recover the value of a bill of exchange for £34 Bs, with interest thereon. Verdict for the plaintiff for £34 13s 10d. CURRIE V. DUNCAN. This was an action on a covenant entered into between the plaintiff, Mr. James Wilson, and the defendant, Mr. James Currie Duncan, both ropemakers, in this town. Mr. Cress well and Mr. owling for the plaintiff, and Mr. Crompton for the defendant. It appeared that the plaintiff had invented a piece of ma chinery, for rope-making, which was seen by the defendant, who, after some negotiation, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to give him, for the sole right in the invention, the sum of £1250; one-half to be payable on the completion of the bargain, and until the defendant was in a condition to pay the other half, the plaintiff was to be entitled to a moiety of the net profits resulting from the use of the machine. The defendant had paid the first £625, but having been called upon to pay the second, pleaded that no profits had been made, and contended that he was not bound to pay the second half otherwise than by profits. This (Mr. Cresswell said) was a point of law which was to be decided by his Lordship at another time. The agreement was put in and proved, and a witness called to prove the value of the machine, which he estimated at more than £1250. • A verdict for the plaintiff for £650 was taken, subject to a special case on the point reserved, and an award. SEWEL V. RABY. Verdict for the plaintifffor £22 18s. 4d., subject to a point to be reserved for the higher court. ACTION ON A POLICY OF INSURANCE.-RRID, BART., P NAIRNE AND ANOTHER. This, was an action on a policy of insurance for £2OOO. The plaintiff was Sir John Rae Reid, Bart., of the firm of Reid, Irving, and Co., (or rather Messrs. Hamilton, Jackson, and u 0.,) arm the uerendants wC,v cwu ud' U clia-C-ctora of tha Marine Assurance Company. Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Crompton for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Alexander and Mr. Wightman for the defendants. •Mr. CRESSWELL stated the case. He said, that a vessel belOnging to Messrs. Hamilton was last year trading to the coast of Africa. Having received advices that the vessel had taken on board a cargo of 100 tons of palm oil, they sold it, to arrive, at £43 per ton ; and Messrs. Reid, Irving, and Co. effected an insurance on the cargo, with the Marine Assurance Company, for £2OOO, it being covenanted that the vessel should, for the purposes of that policy, be considered sea worthy. After leaving Africa the vessel encountered bad weather, and was at last obliged to put in at the n ear es t place, which was the Salt Island, one of the Cape de Verds. The vessel was there twice surveyed, and pronounced unfit to prosecute her homeward voyage ; and, as she could not be there repaired, and the captain in vain endeavoured to obtain another vessel to bring home the cargo, the palm oil was sold at a great sacrifice, (X 287 nett,) and the crew returned home as they best might. For the defence it was contended that there was no neces sity to sell, but that means might have been obtained of for warding the cargo to England, or that it might have been suffered td remain at the Salt Island, until a vessel from this country could have been sent to bring it home. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of the policy, less the sum obtained for the cargo, namely, for £1712. The Court rose at half-past seven. CROWN COURT.-WEDNESDAY. CHARGE OF MURDER AT BURY. James Heywood, aged 22, was charged with having wil fully murdered his wife, Mary Heywood, on the 16th of April last, at Bury. He is rather, a good looking young man, with an aspect indicative of firmness but not at all of ferocity. He pleaded " not guilty," with a firm voice. Mr. Brandt detailed the circumstances of the case to the jury. The learned counsel was• enabled to elucidate and il lustrate the details by plans on paper, and by a model of the rooms and furniture of the house. This model exhibited two rooms, in each 'of which was a bed and chamber furniture. One of these rooms was occupied by the prisoner and his wife, and the other by their servant ; they opened into each other, and the door between them did not fit close. It had also a hole in it which would allow sounds to be easily trans mt tted Margaret Walker (examined by Mr. Baines). I am a sin gle woman ; in April last I lived as servant with James Hey wood and his wife. They kept the White Bear public-house at Bury. I remember the prisoner coming home about seven o'clock on the Nth of April ; he had some liquor. About nine o'clock the mistress said to me the master was in a bad humour. About half-past twelve o'clock we went to bed. They slept in a room that was inside mine. They had to pass through my room to go to their own. There is one old door with a hole in it between one room and the other, and one step down. The hole was about three inches in width and six in length. He and his wife passed through my room into theirs. They had with them their child, about three months' old. That was the only child they had, but she had one by her former husband. Soon after he got into the room, he said " If yon young devil is in the house when I getup, I will kick him out." He was a boy about eight years old that was alluded to, the son of the deceased, and he slept with her (witness.) She made no answer, and they began to count up the money which she had drawn that day. She said she had drawn four and twenty shillings. He said, " is that all you have drawn, and yonder kegs were filled up last night ?" She said, " yes ; that was all, only five shillings which she had given to him, and three shillings to the malt ster." He said, " is that all, thou nasty drunken wh—e ?" She saiil.she was not drunk. She was not drunk. She was a sober woman. I next heard a scuffle. 1 was in bed by this time. She said, " Oh, Jim, you'll break my arm ; don't punish me so ba.d." He said she was drunk ; she said she was not. He replied she was. She said, " well Jim, I have had one jill of ale to-day, and that is all that 1 have had." He said, " what makes thee tell me those lies ?" She said, " if I have told you a lie, I beg pardon." I never heard her speak any more.—(By the Judge.)—l thought she was at that time lying down. I thought so because of the groans. I had not heard any sound of her getting out of bed ; I could not usually hear such.—(By Mr. Baines in continuation.) — I heard her groan for about four minutes. Witness being asked what kind of sound it was that she heard, imitated the sound. This sound continued about four minutes. After a pause, he said, " d—n thy soul, if I can find a stick I'll make thee to rise." He found a stick, and I heard him strike three times. It sounded like a blow given with a stick, and not with the hand. All was silent for about a moment. He then asked her if she would get up. He said if she would not get up he would set .fire to her, and she might smother. All was silent again. From what I could hear, he lifted her up, and I heard her bump down again. He then said she might lie there till she might rot. I did not hear him get in bed, but I heard him get out. I thought he was getting out of bed from the sound of the foot on the floor. He went to her, and said, " Mary !" She did not answer. He repeated, "Mary ! get up—wilt thou not get up ?—get up—get into bed—the child wants you—get up, or else I'll call up Mar garet." He came to the door, and called out Margaret. I said, " yes," He said, " come into the room and see what's the matter with the mistress," and I went in. The light was still burning in their room when I went in. It was a rush light which they had taken with them to bed. They gene rally burned a rushlight at night ; it was their common prac tice. When I went into the room I found her lying on her back; with her head towards the dressing-table, and her feet crossed, and towards the head of the bed. As you 0-o into the room, the bed is on the left hand, s t an di ng up 'll3 the corner. The dressing-table was under the window. She was undressed. She had on her night-cap and her chemise. The first thing said was, the prisoner asked me if she were dead; and I said, "yes, she is quite dead." He said, " do you think so ?" I said, " yes, Heavens bless her, she's quite dead_!" He asked me to fetch John Parkes and Mrs. Cromp ton. Mr. Parkes is a surgeon. When I was going out of the room he told me that she had fallen off the bed. Before I went out of the room.l looked at the bed , for the purpose of Seeing, and I saw that only one and the child had been in it. I fetched Mr. Parks and Mrs. Crompton. I was away five or ten minutes. When I went up stairs again, I took the child out of bed and took it away to Mrs. Hayes, a sister of my mistress. , The side of the bed that was pressed was that side next the floor, or the furthest from the wall. I staid at Mrs. Hayes during the night. I did not return to my master's house till seven o'clock next morning. I found Mrs. Hayes and Mrs. Pickup with him. They accompanied me up stairs, and when I had been there in his room about four minutes he came up stairs. He said " Margaret," and I did not answer him. He said, " Margaret, were you asleep, did you hear your mistress fall off the bed ?" I said, " no, she was never in bed." He said, " yea, she was ;if I were going to tell those tales I should do him at once. If I was going to tell those tales I should get him into a hobble." I said, " what have I to tell, I shall tell the truth, and no thing no more." He said if I were going to tell those tales I had made it. He said I was lying ; and I said, " Oh, Jim, where are those sticks that you struck her with ?" He said he never struck her with a stick, nor never lifted a hand up to her. He did not say any thing more to me that day. By the JUDGE.-I could hear my master and mistress get out of bed usually, but I could not hear them get in. Joseph Bothwell, called and sworn.—(Examined by Mr. Brandt.) In April last 1 was an apprentice with Mr. Parkes of Bury. On the 18th April I was called up and went imme diately to the deceased, she was lying with her head towards the window, her feet towards the bed. The prisoner was a lone in the room with a candle in his hand, undressed, looking at her. I asked him what had been the matter. H e said he went to bed with her as usual, and when he had been in bed two or three minutes, he said, " Mary you have been taking something that you should not have done." She said "have I "—raising herself up in bed, " with that she fell of the side of the bed, with her feet entangled in the bed-clothes." He said—he said to her, "Mary, what is the matter." He got off at the foot of the bed, got her upon his knee, and spoke to her two or three times, when she not answering, he laid her down upon the floor, a n d ca ll e d th e servan t. That is all he said to me at that time. I examined the deceased, she was dead. Her chest was warm but her hands and feet were cold. I observed that herlips were pale and very much compressed. They were pressed upon the teeth. Her eyes were wide open. Her hands were partially closed. On the left arm there was a little discolouration, and the marks of four fingers half way between the elbow and the wrist. I observed the bed. It appeared as if only one might have been in bed. That was on the side farthest from the wall. Margaret Walker was recalled, and asked what sort of bed it was on which the prisoner slept. It was a straw matress, with a flock bed on the top. Examination resumed.—The bed clothes on the side fur thest from the wall were turned up, everywhere else they were straight. The child was in bed in the middle. I told the prisoner that his wife was dead. He said "dear, dear ! " and appeared as if he were crying. He asked me if I could not bleed her. I said —no, it was too late. I went and in formed Mr. Parkes, my master. I returned with Mr. Parkes in about ten minutes. The prisoner was in the room when we returned, and the deceased was on the bed. Mr. Parkes examined the body, commencing with the neck and face. While he was doing this, I saw the prisoner looking over his shoulder, and appearing much agitated, John Parkes sworn.—Examined by Mr. Baines.—l am a surgeon at Bury, and have been in extensive practice twelve years. On the morning of the 16th April, I went into the room of the deceased. I found the prisoner and my apprentice, and Mr. Wainwright there. I examined the head and neck first. While I was doing so, he—the prisoner—said he had upbraided her of being drunk. She said, "Have I Jim ? " and she sprang up and fell out of bed. I examined the head first, and found no' bruise, nor anything to indicate that she had received a blow on the head or face, with the exception of the compressed state of the lips. They were compressed or flattened and bloodless. On turning over the lips I observed an indentation on both. They were marks of the teeth. On the neck I did not observe any marks. The eyes were wide open and bloodless. I. observed a bruise on the left arm as if there had been a struggle. I observed an ear-ring that it was crushed and burst open. It was a drop ear-ring. It was one side of the drop that was crushed. It was in such a state that no woman in my judgment, would have worn it. There were no recent marks on the legs. There was a bruise on the right breast, the breast from which she was nursing. She was nursing from only one breast. The discolouration on the breast was recent. I can speak of that with certainty. The back was very much discoloured. A livid colour extended over the entire of the back. That appearance frequently presents itself after death, especially when the body is laid on the back, when the death is natural as well as otherwise. I observed that foams of considerable considerable consistence had escaped upon her linen, from which I infer that she must have undergone a violent struggle. I opened the body. The lungs were congested and gorged with blood and air bubbles. They crepidated to the touch and cracked. They were other wise healthy. I opened the heart, it was healthy, but the right , auricle was gorged with blood, and all the large vessels con ducting thereto were likewise full of blood. The left side of the heart was empty. I next examined the head. I had pre viously examined the abdomen. I secured the openings of the stomach, and took it out. The bowels, stomach, liver, and spleen were healthy : I observed the contents of the stomach having been induced to do so from what I had heard. There was oat cake and spiced cake in the stomach, but not the least appearance of liquor. The veins of the head were congested with blood, but the brain was perfectly healthy. I made re peated sections. The brain throughout was congested. There was no rupture of any of the vessels. There was no appear ance of a bruise on the outside of the head. I should think the death of the diseased was caused by exclusion of air from the lungs. That is the judgment which lam enabled to form with confidence. In my judgment, if air had been excluded by stopping the mouth and nostrils, it would have caused those appearances. The person might make a stifled moaning noise while the mouth and nostrils were stopped. My brother, Mr. James Parke, assisted ; we observed, that the sleeve of the left arm was creased and soiled, which must have been done in a struggle. I had attended the deceased two or three weeks before her confinement, in consequence of some state ment made to me by her. By Mr. WILKINS.—During the time I have been in prac tice, I have attended many cases of sudden death, but not one of suffocation that I remember. Re-examined by Mr. BRANDT.—I should not say that death was produced by apoplexy in the case in question. The vessels of the brain were so distended that the patient could not have lived with it. I look upon the distension of the vessels in this case as a secondary cause. The lungs of the deceased were distended to an excessive degree. They filled the chest. There was no cause that I could discover, on dis section of the body, for the excessive quantity of air bubbles, therefore I was obliged to look to some external cause for it. After examining the body, and finding that there was not sufficient to account for the cause of death, I naturally con cluded that there had been a stoppage of air from the lungs. From the appearance of the mouth I was led to infer that it had been closed by some person. I drew the conclusion upon the whole that the air was excluded. I form that opinion with. a des, ee of eertainty. - In my opinion it wac not possi ble to account for the appearance in the lungs in any other way. In case of natural death, the atmospheric air escapes, for the most part at the moment of death. When I speak of the viscera being healthy, I. mean in all other respects but that of the congestion. The stoppage of air from the lungs would account for all the congestion in different parts of the body. Though there is always some discharge of faeces, there were in this case more than usual, and of greater consistence ; hence I infer that violence had been used. There were no symptoms to lead me to suppose that the party could have died of any other cause than that of suffocation. By the :JUDGE, at the suggestion of Mr. WILKINs.—I have met with cases of an enphyscenza. The deceased parts are more than usually filled with air. A wound on the lungs will not produce enphyscema throughout the body, but a wound on the skin will. There was no appearance of that disease in the deceased. The deceased was from 27 to 30 years old—a thin spare woman, but tolerably muscular. Mr. James Parkes sworn.—l am brother to the last wit ness and a surgeon at Bury. I have been in practice five years. I was present when my brother examined the de ceased. I found the lungs congested and. full of air. The heart, so far as regarde'tl structure, was healthy. The ves sels leading to the heart were foil, the arteries were empty. The veins of the brain were full. The vessels of the liver and spleen I did not examine. I found the bowels healthy. I attribute the state of the lungs to the exclusion of air there from arising from some external cause. By Mr. WILKINS.—I have been out of court while my brother was examined. Mr. Wilkins cross-examined this witness at some length to similar intent as the last witness, but not so extensively. On re-examination the witness stated that there was nothing to lead him to the belief that the deceased died from apoplexy. Moses Fry sworn.-1 am a private in the 98th regiment. I had been lodging there a week on the 16th April last. On the morning of that day I was called up by the prisoner, who said, " Fry, get up—Mary's dead !" I went to his room and found him standing looking at her. He desired me to go for the doctor and alarm some of the neighbours. Mr. Rothwell came. I observed her night dress creased at her sleeve, and marks of fingers on her left arm. The carpets were all turned up and rumpled about the room. The chamber pot was turned upside down. By Mr. Witicuis.—l found the prisoner alone with the corpse. I did not not notice where the nurse girl was, but she was not in the room. Elizabeth. Wainwright sworn.—l was sent for to the house of the prisoner at a quarter past one that morning. The pri soner was in his room. He said, " this is a weary job." I asked how it was. He said, "we had not been long in bed before I said, Mary, thou hast taken something to-day that thou ought not to have done, and she then whisked out of bed and fell on the floor." Jane Pickup sworn.—l knew Mary Heywood some years. I remember being sent for on the morning in qdestion, a lit tle before two o'cock. At seven in the morning I was in the back parlour with Heywood and Mrs. Heyes, and Fry. I said to the prisoner, ' If this is true what Margaret has told me, your deed is a horrible deed." The prisoner said, " How can Margaret say that, if she never seed it ?" I said, "If she heard it, it is enough." He made no reply. He got the pen and ink and began to write. He sent for me about seven o'clock, and asked me what time I thought she should be in terred. I said, " Either Thursday or Friday." Mrs. Heyes proposed Friday, and he said, " Let it be Thursday." I went up stairs with Margaret to look at the body, and while there the prisoner came up. He said, " Margaret, were you asleep ?" and she made no reply. He asked her again. She said, " No, I never was asleep." , He said, " Did you hear your mistress fall off the bed ? ' She said, "No ; mistress never was in bed." He said, " Margaret, if you mean to tell lies, you'll do me at once." She said, " I'll tell the truth— where's those sticks that you used ?" He went to the bed, and showed us the way_that she fell off. Margaret repeated that she never was in bed. The constable came about eight o'clock. Luke Crompton stated that he resided near the prisoner, and proved that about eight o'clock on the morning in ques tion the prisoner gave him two letters, which he was to de liver to the prisoner's parents. He gave them to Sarah Heyes. By Mr. WILKINs.—One of the letters was not sealed, and he said it would do very well if witness would not open it. Sarah Heyes sworn.—l am sister of Mary Heywood. She was 27 years old last November. She had been married to the prisoner about sixteen months. I lived two months in the house. My sister never took liquor. I never saw her 'intoxicated. The prisoner used her very bad. I have seen him once beat her with a stick. I saw him once throw her off the chair when she had the baby at her breast. About a fortnight before the child was born, he turned her out of doors. She lay in at Richard Kaye's, in Silver-street. He said she was drunk. The JUDGE said these matrimonial squabbles did not show malice distinctly. Examination resumed.—The night before the child was born he turned her out, saying she was drunk. She was not drunk. I have heard him say it would be the biggest plea sure ever he saw to have her carried up the church steps stiff. I have heard him say so once or twice. I have heard him say there was a woman at Halshaw Moor he would rather have. He said he would have her when his wife died. A short time before she died he shook a silver watch guard in his wife's face, and said she must never wear that, that woman at Halshaw Moor must wear it. The night before my sister died I was there, but I did not stay. I received two letters from Luke Crompton, which I gave to Mr. An drews, the constable. The witness was examined touching the crack or chink in the door. She said her sister told her that Heywood (the prisoner) did it. Her sister did not do it that she was aware of. I have not got any of the property. that was in the house. Re-examined.—My sister lived in that house with her former husband. I do not know that the mother of that husband has claimed the property. James Andrews, constable of Bury, produced the two letters alluded to. He apprehended the prisoner. He said Heywood, this is a bad job, but it is only what I expected. Had had a warrant against him for an assault upon her on a former occasion. He made no reply. Witness examined under the bed, and found two sticks. Cross-examined.—lt was Heyes, a tailor, who fetch e d hi m . Does not know that it was the Prisoner who sent for him. Is sure Heyes did not bring a message from the prisoner, s b .. rie f The two letters were put in and read. The fir 6t ; r to 02 .1 invitation for the father and mother of the PrO"incede.P", over to him, and an injunction, after he h ad eh° ro w''' . his wife was dead by falling off the bed, for the° toi:01 themselves with decent mourning. The other was wry re address or siguature, and it contained a requestoke care party to whom it was addressed to come over and of his property, as he would have to go to Kirkdale. . ge Mr. WuxiNs addressed the jury for the defencl4had appealed to the jury whether the mode in which the. Tow nbeeessn.brHouegphetinbteefodrneutthetomthdeidinnothtastavgir much 0 1. `? 1 8 1 Or' ences which had been brought before theeminahtardifflanet into the case, and were only what had hancee d I n e 'lears 4 happen to the most innocent man in the court.. i f fl ia d bee° counsel pronounced the medical testimony wh" a ll AOr given altogether wrong. and stated that he s hould c gentles sician and surgeon to contradict it. The learned ge' h; sol analyzed the evidence very minutel and at great lag'," r tios appealed forcibly in behalf of the yrisoner. le n ne r osei' t of his address the learned counsel P NN t ititthr e° o , l3eran pri d, i upon the circumstance of the girl who slept soner's servant not having been produced, whe n " L '-u'rr ° ie.. got up and stated that she had been sent for to vn • morning, and was now present. eb r if be The learned JUDGE said Mr. Wilkins might cell thought proper. Mr. WILKINs said he should call her. was t oe s t a ted t ha tbe Rachel Armstead was then called.—She old ° a ;be was nurse at Mr. Heywood's. She was 13 yea rs A tb• -,.] Ist of April. She remembered Mrs. Heywood's urdepost slept with the servant that niht. The little girL be d, sot that she was not awakened when Margaret came t n o . o lie h er did she know what had happened till the prisoner a thin and told hr tha his wife was ead. She was e cross- t examined by d Mr. Waxiss, but n ° material was elicited. ili Mr. WILKINS called c i been o f William Rayner, surgeon, of Stockport. a •deace practice seven years at Stockport. Heard the 0 1 ;ste d the Messrs. Parkes. If all those appearances o'ooo - ;eht be Toduced by othefoors• described by them, they might be p• The witness proceeded to give evidence more or les; 50 0 dictory of that given by the Messrs. Parkes , 6 1 °0 instances corroborating it. He said it did not at all garb that, from the state of things described by Ai r ' t e d suffocation was the cause of death. On cross-examination BRANDT, the aitnesesi. she that he had gone to schoolwith the prisoner's att °lll ;Dah had been requested by Mr. Wilkins to sit near Idah tell s tsie f i prompted him, and had furnished him with a that he M e meat of his opinion. The witness admitted o. o f tli q never seen any case of suffocation from stoPPav, e d by 1 0 mouth and nostrils.. Death might have been causiing,. of simple apoplexy, or by stoppage of air into the stdll,s; Dr. Rierdon, of Stockport, was called , and g a% ha lf•P testimony. This closed the case for the defence at eight o'clock in the evening. a fa t tY Mr. BRANDT replied, vindicating those concerne , prosecution, from the charge of vindictiveness. The learned JUDGE commenced summing tended to Ji f f o'clock. His lordship said if the prisoner intena„r, the deceased it would amount to the crime of nietbue` he did not intend to compass her death, it wou ld vicie oe slaughter. He (his lordship) did not think frota tin e ty pry that there was any middle course between finait r . A soner guilty of murder and acquitting hint altoge t ;ks O s The general tendency of his lordship's . r charg e favourable to the prisoner. He concluded his d A esse ,d quarter-past ten, and the jury immediately exl),,r to retire. They returned at half-past ten, - up ieci ti" verdi of—Not Guilty. Th ct e court then adjourned, the trial ha ving ace - whole day. , - Mr. Ba N ro o'clock. • 00111 I n Sl m P A lt l y z S to C ok oU hi ß s T s — ea Vi t ''tEhoi:sins:r.rki•iin.g t s oe , NON-FULFILMENT OF AN ORDER.—BLAIN • V. DANIEL• This was a special jury case, in which Mr. -- 1113 1 ° ,, arj laW atif o si f John Bewley, tea dealers, of this town, were therpoeot and Mr. J. N. Daniel s of London, a partner the°action oe Daniel & Co. of Canton, the defendant ; apd , rat of brought to recover damages for the non-fulfli tot terms of an order. for Mr. Cresswell, Mr. Wightman, and Mr. Cr for the the plaintiffs ; Mr. Alexander and Mr. Clea sbY fendant. Mr. CROMPTON opened the pleadings- t hat Mr. CRESSWELL stated the case. lie stu_ t a , " o rrl ae t — ri . Blain and Bewley were tea-dealers in this towed business under the name of Blain & Son. be'So l belonged to the firm of Daniel and Co., carrYins t lf tl' e , this in London and Canton ; and the action ar ose ouato ju speculations in tea entered into by the liner cil s , oPet n ' country soon after the tea trade had been throwiefeaa°"o 1834 or 1835, the plaintiffs had had with the `, t o fia . q , - transaction previous to that which was the subje`",„ toll t oo on the present occasion, and had then som e re°sedthat'o,s satisfied. About that time it had been ascertain., 01 0 ,0 the immense quantity of tea imported into Or t ge 00 4 ,0 -great part of which was very bad, had become a perfect drug in the market. A s ma ia fs; t P in the price in China, made a great difference toe 045 , ev erything slailfe P r iti which could be obtained here. The plaintiffs, a`l.,gos,',,fs facts, sent out, in the autumn of 1835 and the sP t rl o f tr e re; orders to the defendants to ship a certain anint e rs particular kind in the coming season, and an t „oafs t , turned' expressive of the willingness of the del e :d io,!,10 0 up to those orders. The tea season cowmen du c oy' and ended in spring. The defendants had plea e a a of ore had received no such instructions, that the 'that sented to act or be bound by them ; and lastly, that pal) bound by them and had fulfilled' them faithfull, 11:r would find that the instructions sent had been a . s. o ftioff specific character, and he should produce a lette` ct ioalo, fondants, acknowledging the receipt of the ins o tru by en to pel agreeing to execute them. He should also sh not be of the most undoubted character, that they h° had 0 5 ,0 0 1 formed, and that in consequence the plain tiffs d 5 ' a loss of between six and seven thousand P ottD , .13 0 44:, letter, from Messrs. Blain and Son to IN-lesst'io be ' s u' Co. stated the amount and quality of the teas, h i a cy', them. There were to be 100,000 lbs. of 0' 8 ) 1 ' m aa s te el t c . strong and full pekoe flavoured congous, free 's .° v itie ture of brown and faded leaves, to cost fe°„l„ t aff." twenty tales per pekul ; 25,000 lbs. of ov a ' 4 0' e tia t : curled leaf, on the bloom—the lowest of the ce ti nts lo answer their description ; 15,000 lbs. of hYs ts . ' l s l o to ev ois t ' bright, wiry, blush leaf, in two qualities frail' A t l' l° o l per pekul. To that letter the defendants returne.l`tot, stating that they had carefully noticed the e°l t ' he ic;,l t li letter, and that nothing should be wanting c44 ,,tiect',,lo ° • carry the wishes of Messrs Blain and Son into i ti bie,4 secure the successful result of their operations., e dela" 0 0 other letters were sent by the plaintiffs to tn ON 5 one altering the amount of congous to be sent frr t ioa °f one to 160,0001b5, still retaining the f r descriPitiog cat orme ts o f which was to be the very best, aff stri e , limitation as to price. All the letters, howe ve "ord e ' iie j ; fined the defendants to the execution of the, 1 . to t i 4 terms mentioned—no teas in any ways •LP,' thud „caw scriptions were to be forwarded, inasmuc h d vro were satisfied that nothing of an inferior lt,i°,,ferriaste• el,it sell in the glutted state of the market, an" 1. : , z 3 r.oe necessity under which they had been of reiec t l — la,, t aia w inferior order executed by the Messrs. Dani e .'„ o f aw, r ot order could not be executed, by the irripossibilui, o f tb,,',,10 0 ,f such teas in the Canton market, then the mone) 00 I v tiffs was to be returned, either in good hill s Ad o Liverpool or in the shape of consignme nts. moreover distinctly stated that on the strict en t ' s af ' l , l l4P` ‘ order depended the continuance of the transactitb, 10"; Blain and Son with the house of Daniel and 1 ; or le o ; ther the investment should prove a profitah, tha ti be et , matter. To these letters the defendants rePliettiteadVe Blain and Co. might depend upon the beg a an", 10 5 01 paid to accomplish the completion of the ordere'rd tb o iviaf,l ter announcing the shipment of the teas en b° ,, the e o °l oo borough, they stated that, " In remarking °- t uale - A 0 /1 / we may confidently express our sense of the s° w ith c oy h th a e ve tea b s e , en an s d h w ip e pe h d av t e h n is o s fe e a a r so o n f . t , he comPar is° ,,,s ll rue a . Of" He (th e f, s' supposed that they should now be told that t 2 e te ed, were the best of the season ; but what of tha t o .' e t 0:0 words of the order were, "If you ca nnot o ugve l r want, send back the money." The Ingle - it - e r r ta,.,,10,0 and the plaintiffs immediately sent their hr i °' t bel ) ,; - pe'',o, l , the teas. As soon as the teas were sampled S ent ,t`tylfb ported unfavourably. Samples were then ' c iao d f l o ,ls considered the best judges, and they all coln„ bu tt' C O tP of the teas agreed with the order, except the ei al! t oa t hs hyson, and that might pass. Some CO 0 .d place between the plaintiffs and Mr. J. ; e l sal,; ctl t s m ub e j s e s c r t s ,. B in lai t n he se c e o m u e r d se to of be which takin M g r. Dan•-it, ow e To gl p. a a rkcaP ti°- e t ', the teas on account of the state of the etv e tea, charge the plaintiffs returned a respectful hutiPe; and offered to allow Mr. Daniel to take saft i r,, to t ar it and to submit the question as to their oll,a lt f ,'' s ' i do,f l " t tof',J; petent persons, one to be chosen by the " e by the plaintiffs, and the third by the this° fair r• s Orfi selected. They added—" We consider aototftph4ooi and as it is known in the trade that we are 11 10 0 ,i t gigi award in thy favour would be the most triunTollevod.d. thee." The defendants refused to accede to tbs„ t ioai,JeV they had previously been threatened with aff, 3 :t ing that it must now be brought. Thus Vl' at tbe i er` the plaintiffs. had no other alternative th,,,,af t wel °, by auction, and they sent notice to Mr. J' a t j oia br°l"; tention to do so. The teas were accordiltin ache great disadvantage. That being so, an ac t i"bat , `l e i h and would have stood for trial two years ag ° ,i t etl ants, when the time for trial approached, a,:, order to allow them an opportunity of senal to l7 , s sial t etAi to examine witnesses in China. The CO ° •alie ¢t e' tained, but they did not send out for a long tf, st ,i t o v e and the result was that the action could l e jaiitil t now. He (Mr. Cresswell) had to inform t t, h r made out the amount of damages clairaej• Pia tee computed in two or three different Inn ~e h s e se • h st ii idsp supposed that if the money invested i, ' t iffs ° l n d c l if o r, been invested according to order, the plaa, sec°;o, l t,' event had been in pocket about £B5OO. ,l e - ert s e 'ric e ;r , t e ,? tion was on a supposition that they ha d rlcet t°,, l - 1",0 diately on being landed, and the then fl r diatr id P o t supposing that they had been shipped 8 oVe : 0 7 $t and then the plaintiffs would have been ab d be en itsi tL e o than they now were. If, however, they t betn , , e P',4c time to time, as the market would bear lei ofr market price, Messrs. Blain and Son w ci ii i at pocket about £7OOO. He felt, however, do ts a ec ati, ol o,! the true measure of damage. The defe" . 1 4 0 4 1 to invest the money in the manner 'haler were limited to the purchase of partic,,ley ! it ela tt ireii teas, and if they could not obtain thou , "ther 15 olioo remit in bills or goods according to the c ' oc is ria ) the order. The question of advances in, gftheY `shad the present action by the plaintiffs ; anu don e ' the money at the time they ought to ha s r " srarof '4 de, • o a e have been £6900 in pocket. tea tr eeP t V Several witnesses, engaged in the i o called, and deposed that the teas, with W e deocr parcel of hyson, were very inferior to the d tie p▪ „ in the order. P r gd Mr. Williams clerk to Messrs. Bew„ le ibs. 1 0 , 1 1. gross proceeds of the teas were £12,1 6 " barg e t Mr. Martin proved that the a mount c ci f ths,t o g 'ries • toed ora l r O. O l spective teas were £12,843. The in a ce ° r t•a the time it would have arrived, if remitted woo l 1 4 0, would have been £1199 175., whi c h] g O c ; thethe of .d amount to £14,043. The nett procee.s were £7091. Deducting the sum broug can toa,ro 0 ;0 • teas, £6952 would be left. •urY , th e el l ', Mr. ALEXANDER then addressed the de i r jee p behalf of the defendants, that they we re d th e s f a ve ei:6 ?l Messrs. Blain and Co , and had executeo,o a.4„ l) ,Vi'V, the diligence, care, and caution, that c 1 0; ployed ; that they had sent teas corresP s'l4o, the qualities as could be possibly Pn re rce e °C ,P e d e r' °!?•o doing they had faithfully executed the ° 4 ", s ice plaintiffs were known by them to be ON: I ,oo m alli s i er, and he put it to the jury whether, wit h 0 0, ;ai c ior fact, and seeing before them an aster tb, r or e i t iso o #l l , Messrs. Daniel would not have acted refraining from sending them a single_P ° A e d. t he ° O3 ing judgment best that the market attor.atea i e tl it ‘ ei their and discretion went, exe._ sc he e , c ell o * although the teas happened to arrive he . teyo p_`,o cello falling market—a reduction of from 30 ° t hat:, efv t taken place, according to one witness"of ta h oe .oo ,2 ot theirs. He thought that the proper test W o o ' it fe l tLl i t an order by an agent should boa not 'T o it ' itt s fie tif t , but what was obtainable, espectallY,wcottond, Pttictoy that purchasing tea in the market or v elan c e# l3 ferent thing to purchasing an article in P ' to Y that they should have heard nothing bie d , ,oo the teas had come to a rising markut• ~1 0 0,"f Mr. Archer was then called , on " Of that he had once held the situation 0- V, Th ' e ci let f or I t'el tt rc