The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-08-29 00:00:00

y r - a 1 they or Set,thence t O c Zcled to a house called the Magnet. and while Thomas Smalley's, a relative or the pri -oe_eh tn're, deceased ofnred the prisoner some 'L.- 54 7ldent a : h r efused, upon which she said she was as 4: 4 1 1 , i4e ,, Z4 it . s ' ile was, and struck him a blow, but he did Zhu % ;; 11 the ~r:sothen.got up to strike him a second k; 1 11:1._. er nee l t i n . er, In trying to stop her, inflicted a shortly ; he Which at first seemed slight, but • 11 4 14 r geo ll and she died soon afterwards. itt iot , ti s n d t e ith b : l ld w h as called gave it as his opinion that ne tt, %e throat ,en caused by the bursting of a blood he p r i i might have been produced by *riNtielt(iNs was apprehended the same evening. • Vt..te u i t _ e prisoner's counsel, thought there 47% 4d Y to address the jury to which his Lord 17.Sp.aawn_d,otuhe prisoner ' was'a ' cquitted. Z.Ls t iesee 04; 1 9h was charged with the manslaughter `sett, O ct° , "men, at linyton. It appeared that on ti ri ,”,to,, r , s "r last the prisoner was drivinirr a alonc , "4:litli,o'road,when he ran over the deceased, - Who wa - s s eser t p in the same direction. The deceased It . ti t , severe injuries, from the effects of which eourttlryo.a_fteartwards. The prisoner was acquitted. 'e half-past six. 1 ; N 181 PI ----- ri . : l4 . 4 , 411 R -V S COURT.-THURSDAY. , 14 44, eas e. is !! ADMINISTRATOR, V. SUCH. i k. Jur th e .. I) . ', consent of the parties, a verdict was 01 ‘1 , t, Ptaintiff, damages £169 3s. .qt oT 11 414 15 E th,_ thia easeHilas V. OF THE EARL OF DERBY AND r o , b y c'• BIRCH ALL AND OTHERS. , t th e ~,, .09sent of the parties, a verdict was pi lti th ; ren t i ti " P laintiff the lessor, damages Is. ...:: e ase i tt . asT V. BANKS AND OTHERS. lkli z hank s " I mes Devvhurst was the plaintiff, and Olt ,a R anks the elder, Charlotte Banks the younger, 7N ot A o the rton i the defendants. Ik t ly fo rth a _?Peared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Oet e 4titiff w. 7. defendants. N' tr atit, Os a botcher. residing at Southport. and iZse4si ti t e e t an establishment for the education of ISt r i the ,„ s ame town, and the action was brought I Z . I,ll lt aefo r r ° of £2B 16s. ld., the balance of an Ine rith oteher' s meat supp li e d to t h e d e f en d ants t,ltis t h e of February, 1842, up to the month of " far te re sent year. , b o e Plaintiff for the amount claimed. • 1 -Ols a n i a b a . ON V. GREEN AND ANOTHER. 44 alle ged to recover the value of a quantity of r i k :tiff,r.l,hav been improperly sold by the.de ,. atl p rtin and Mr. Crompton appeared for 0..p.ip.. Mr. Wortley and Mr. Cowling for the ) 11 41 a 411.41 il aiiv e , o r e ated the case. The plaintiff, Mr. A. , t aior zi ctd t, r a r t e e s l e y n e t a r manager in of Manchester, obe st er, o Commercial iid Ita ; I lif incli n " Yearg had been continued for the k %,..N eto ad he „ 5 up its affairs, and paying off the share et, l ' i teef , r h " the plaintiff in this action as assignee ti t 7 % ,: t br as e asl n toas Nock, who carried on the busi -41.1,1Aec feelerti near Birmingham, and . who,. at the , lilie t : bted to bank was carried on in Birmingham, 4 41 t inA, wer e U the bank in the sum of £3,200. The Jo sephcep ei t asr r i Green and Silas Ensor, trustees 114: 4 1e5182 9. Re settlement of Mrs. Nock, entered into k i.. „, f ;' , 43 71, and . the action was brought to recover kt h ,.. l4 o„eti wh ich reached the hands of these gen- Valt' in thin the month of October 1841. It ap. V 4 , 4 01 1 1 , 4, v 1829, the bankrupt. Nock, was 1 4, 1 4 a,sie e tn 2 r i named Ta• lor. He then carried on tos i `oti t lCl(lo - 7 as when he became bankrupt, and his V I b e pt at . the time of her marriage. According ht Intl! trit:T t lee. this £lOOO was vested in two per yitiocleellt sostrustees, hut, by a clause in the blabmar !lftettl ot ly were allowed to lend £5OO to the 1 11,N att la th e . upon the wife giving authority to t ttir it oa v. b ack of the marriage settlement. By I, t , Ri o., .nue husband would get the wife's fortune ' t , ple,lrethe event of his bcoming insolvent, in 17 4 iitlell l 4 l stees, and sweep all away from the cre lit. li ‘ tt'e t s w as dated in 1830, and was made payable 11, g r 1 0 8 f 3 O i n , t when erest N l ' tt l . tr e k it?s tb si -P e ! d eer a c r e l n B t 4i, bu no t t fr o o t n ie ' t f h a e rti e in a 141 , 5...k 1t e1Y a s f c'r or paid. He kept and used the n Ni .it 4 L ir It were his own. In the latter end N 4 tti tl i 4 e t' t e . oP. His debts were £10,060, and l i lla,.l4tl i ti s : l , bed by the creditors. It appeared lizn, 1 , e h an Vernber, a warrant of attorney was it "ktle aitt er _ ruPt to the defendants, at the office , ,4 11 1 t was !old Co., of Birmingham. By a law Oi l. Inh the essential that there sh . mild be an at likt. IV,p l :)!l test Part of the person giving a warrant k i i hi. gtr isot. , and the gentleman who attested this is vof th l 2 who was also the attorney for Mr. i. lepte,defendants. The warrant was dated ‘, 40144 ttlill4tilebl;ober, and by the terms of it the money Ik t ki: l tlte e , e^ the following day, the 28th. On k t ofri ale s isyvas entered up; on the 13th October I 1 ,0'41, e "; ~,°ell, and placed in the hands of the sic :e 7er b,-, , , from a letter . written on behalf of li N e !eod,', w atr. Flue, it appeared that the bank -I‘llB I r ..tee di re e e r t e to be seized, was the person re istizzleta tie le iv7Z. i !yl , ll : nd lie (Mr. Martin) le k ziklil, as to the ti 13 manner th of in October which thethe need not tell the jury h l „titt e e ,, alc og, when an execution was an honest k t4 P 4 ll4: 4lti ere " a Matter of great distress, and to an Itgthaiild scarcely be conceived anything n Ini bat h his Property being seized by the she- IS, Ilit t tee ei r • Nock had none of these distressed 0 te a °th e v ed the o ffi cers with great pleasure, %,"ee V s e „ r n a cart load of articles which had been Cer'ea th e Ter count for the purpose of bein 1/471:10etas h e he was y glad his goods had been g N% tltareatee heldw now , perhaps, get out of hot I. 4 4 b k of to •I: - b f h ~',IN N . ith o ,_ wit a ott e o _c ampagne, ;k' litij,i' of the goods, and the balance of that, It c l Th e e officer t o , Mr. Green, who paid it tolit,l4llltoStte..tb,"teutP.retence under , • which b this . exe cution b 1 1%!t' I N t p,i li th v st atiesof trustees tbe w ba e o re k a ro p p p t re tb e a n t s t iv h e e , y w ri o v o iri l l sittei Ir o t Zlnnsible by his wife for the money t o i 1 1 11 1:,7 11 ,14 :1 n n b e a e s n afe pl thought aoe ; that t the insteadm on money Itinlittiltttilther P o sited of in six or eight sums to Edwin .. tli t it„•', 111 0 ,2 e bankrupt, who, after receiving 1 lot h ti. 1 , kip y, gave his promissory note for it. N its lik ti hZeri t p"ra.red, lived with his brother, bought , a la s aid of r h t.'on of the furniture, which was still 11, 1,, It. e '' t si lt N l i s brother, and at the time the mo 41,,0,N!hiekatipe,t.,r; Renshaw was not aware that he l e Co m. , til . w . tu i ~n 7 ., from the examination __ of Mr. 2 `Nlit l tZtcl . t li - 4,-t art zte n under the fiat. O n . the_2 rid N'tlit,e peke issued . out a fiat against Nock, f Lo t ,oe pe - . v . _ n n active part as attorney for the 1 1Sli t ir,ith fiic ' h u we w s h a o v emadery unusual an affid avitthing for for a a o n $:4 4 /e4 e ttni tte l came down, and, if Mr. Harri -I:lStltiibaoteall str • to have the management of it, t •: iv it .'4Bor ai ght, hut the other creditors ap t, ti ; Priv„ Mr. Martin then contended that 0 )s o fled of 1 1 3 ( ,) the execution ; and if so, he t,p; %o lo lti t o 'uktuptcy at the time, and the 4 0 ,:e kt d, kr ° verdict-to recover the value of ti N i t4 .4l ' f the benefit of the whole of the N t t t l i i t t he 'ii 4 t he 4 4 4, t the defendants, contended that the INtflitee,°enorst. instance, for the convenience I tllt th e eit', ll ,avi,„„ e ,h l, ll to set up in business, and k4, 4 ‘00 4 1 1 /OP,oon gi % Beard reports as to the circum teige 11 7 e ; ti ter 4' Proper, kle ON A B , onhi r et?, to take the warrant of at- k\lo t i C t Af p , . gr e at '%irregular in the contract at ' t t)Oit it a l 4 tt 4 th a t t rti n " g t d h n th ot at b m ee a n n proved y of t the e b s v t at7e .lllii.titlit vie w ll tli l i n t th et eut ton was not a scheme of the 1 IN of 4 th e e was no proof of his being in " e th e d efend , tbi.,..es 6 so esti __ , theants on th d e subject. l argue d Ta. t. , 1 - lpf t ;t ti i eit t l o o" i y On, l e ' t ed inlenair,nrnenecro umanner , nse and l i t l i tl o i,,. heir e(t)tobrl. tle v Y i : t w u • e ho of ad t v h i e s i e r d o t ffi he e rn e, s a o ft t e o r 1 4 1 / 4 k. MINE% ' 4 +16 4 ,4 o l f 4 . a v L, in add • the • on e • Rej ,'art from addressing jury, said, hbt, ifs e „ all considerations, was, tt,:ht Jr- c eo - „ ,, ,,.e within the meaning of the ' ' ea call any t •t v, chap. 16, sec. 3, which • ~,haii3Oli, ~..rader shall procure his goods to it. k h ot d e "th intent to defeat delay lfs 4;) I k i ll s t tl kkt lit li tte 1 4 4 tiZteid to have committed or an act o f i k 4ii t aq i l lt t e vih e e ti th i n e e x n , cu t t lii n e n ref i c p ]re, was, whether proceeding theoprocurementtbe pa r t Iti t 4t l i til l t d l' i: l i th v e igeir t n r atth e ee d with his suggestion ; or k 4:41 , o r ittr i jo . to itiv °_stees in demanding security t t t l :i l t i li t : h. ` t i t t le v fes e e n t t h e e r m ed a warrant of attorney, t1 4 :11 ! i t s a ci t rGe .eeded t u o p co an m dmeexoetc upon utlon the aft I he case i ced such parts as he thought \ :11: 1 ' 4t e as opened in behalf of the efe Iv tbin lin k ° dan t , u tes' consideration, returned *tt4‘' l. .. bi t , • til lv i , ll 7 Av ßh ,7iLltie t , hi e aAN AND AND ANOTHER V. . 4 4'41. - 94 a Use we re l ) "OTHER, ks iili i ‘‘ Ol kt ,!!l kkii.. . and tL Japes Aykroyd and Geo. - 1i Ei t l th e r ' i l ,, e, action was brought for the Loto . eerl s hat A ptit of the plaintiff to a patch t . ,',14 . for t t lf , en ed loss, in this county. After \ lli ttioiti o tie e i d e defend s r. Sergeant MURPHY, kh i tt tti o t : l th(! n d Wa so nt, said, the material t7e the ee bil e ;_ tb . e ' l l e es_ti : p n ;I of identity, and after INN un 'nn jury causes in the Sal , l a Nit us ed a e n f di.stb,e following undefended eii • tglii g e l : tt v ".,,Ine West Derby list :- 14 - , et dt,:se wer e ROUTER. k t 0 ,5 1 1 , ti retid aot v Ja mes and William Proc- Noi l l aSa ab tri *orl ie wa r s a master plasterer, and \,. t i c e,,, , of 4() a s hirn as journeyman, ' 4 0 titi ff. 4" toon tu e • \‘‘ ps :4 4 %,, L ti, N , ,th --, J A 1) tY. s‘ Bd . . from defendant y paid on his account. ni e -Tale s s litTni ps tt ftir e t t h lo e ti w a r on is . w: e ' re the suitors in A r att hli Plai rit i rf a oill of exchange for 14 Pt i , ey'lettSmith to u . G o thi. tei ed as _ i t .„ NI NiNci,ugh• " \ Nif.,!l Of (, a l'erdierf ' ccei:ed°ffibcyetrhoefdaefeßnidr-- t,,, , - 2 Noha i - 1 „, a or £3O 35., principal 1 1, /1 1 ‘ 2 . t}: bto v ,_• wtN N A N 1,, e til v v itt by el'. . N i d )I(. o nat or a rze Finch, to recover I n v tiff . " ac ce „, _lll of exchange, with k , C)l , 7 , l Vil t i l i t ,, °l Pr v. \ Pled by John Winnall. r t l ' e r e -r^ Wri CROFT. \ , f t. fit o f ~ Rl,t obtained a verdict for ' farm occupied by the de -11/4NlAttli c rept 1)h! eirook: 'be Co RE N 4 Pt 11 by hB°llebt° to •recover £5OO, on a 41{e%/:tzlef6.yerbehrrther ohn Cooke, as her moth er. Verdict for the l ~ 1 ~~ ~. .0 1 11. (o( fi t 01 jj er s $ ° ,4 00 0 0 1 oP 0,1 11 0 . 1 °' 0 Is t 0 r,°, °. (or r so 1t,"404 POW ER V. SCOTT The plaintiff, John Power, was a corn-merchant, living at Manchester, and the defendant, Joseph Scott, resided in this town. The action was brought to recover the sum of . - e7O, for money lent. Verdict for the amount claimed. BREACH OF CONTR A CT.-SMITH V. PEA RSA LL In this case, William Adam Smith, George Hugh Smith, James M`Donnell, Sir Henry Webb, and Sir Henry Ma nesty were the plaintiffs, and Charles Pearsall the de fendant. Mr. Watson and Mr. Unthink were counsel for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton for the defendant. Mr. WATSON stated the case. The plaintiffs were directors of the National Patent Salt Company, whose works were at Wharton, in Cheshire. The defendant was an ironsmith, living at Anderton, in Cheshire. In the latter part of last year, the plaintiffs were desirous of ex tending the quantity of salt made by them. They wished to get five new pans made, and it being a matter of great importance that these pans should be furnished as soon as possible, they entered into an agreement with the defend ant to make and have them fitted up by a certain time. On the 20th of January another contract was made to have eight front ends of salt pans finished in fourteen days after the 25th of February, but they were not finished till the 21st of April. The learned counsel then proceeded to state, that in consequence of the pans not being finished according to contract, the plaintiffs lost the sale of as much salt as could have been made from the pans, and called upon the jury to give damages to the extent of 2s. per ton, the amount of profit which would have been made upon the salt if it could have been got ready and sold. Mr. Hngarth, the manager of the company, was called, and proved the contract. In his cross-examination, how ever, he could not tell of any orders which the company had been unable to fulfil, and allowed that some altera tions had been made in the construction of two of the pans. _ _ Mr. KNOWLES, for the defendant, contended that not one shilling worth of damage had been proved. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages Is. MARSH V. HARBRID GE. In this case Richard Marsh was the plaintiff, and Wm. Harbridge the defendant. The action was on a Promissory note for £lOO. Damages £lO2 25., including interest. HIGGINSON V. KEARSLEY. Jonathan Higginson, merchant, of this town, was the plaintiff, and Thomas Kearsley was the defendant. The action. which was undefended, was to recover the sum of £36 16.. 6d., the value of nine tons of ebony, sold to the defendant.—Verdict for the amount claimed. Tue court adjourned at twenty minutes after five. CROWN COURT.—FRIDAY. (Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.) Ills Lordship took his seat this morning exactly at nine o'clock. TRIAL OF NEWTON FOR BIGAMY. Joseph Newton surrendered to - take his trial on an in dictment charging him with having married one Mary Bolger, at Dublin, in the kingdom of Ireland, on the 2d of May. 1820, and that afterwards, to wit, on the 30th of July, 1832, he intermarried at Liverpool one Martha Robinson, his former wife being then alive. Mr. Holton appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Wil kins and Mr. Atkinson defended the prisoner. Mr. HULTON, in stating the case to the jury, observed that a question would arise in the present case whether under the circumstances the prisoner was liable to the penalties affixed by the law to the crime of bigamy, as the statute under which he was indicted contained a provision which stated that, if at the time of a second marriage a man and his wife should be continually absent from each other for the space of seven years last past, and that the party marrying did not know during that time that his former wife was living, he was not guilty of the crime im puted t- him. The point was a new one, for as far as he could ascertain no case had been decided o❑ the point. However, he should call a witness before the jury who would prove that she had received letters from the former wife of the prisoner in 1829 and 1841, and delivered them to the prisoner, one of which he read and then put it in his pocket, and then it would be for the jury to say whe ther the prisoner at the time be was married a second time knew his former wife was living—if so, he appre hended his Lordship would tell them he was guilty of the present charge. Elizabeth Waldron was then called, and she said she was the sister of Mary Bolger. The prisoner was mar ried when in the vestry of Townsend-street chapel. in Dublin, by Father Pierce Walsh, on the 2d May, 1820. That was a Roman catholic chapel, and the witness, her sister, and the whole family were Roman catholics. All the family of the prisoner were also Roman catholics. The prisoner was, at the time of his marriage, an ap prentice with his step-father, and for twelve months after his marriage lived with him. He afterwards lived with his wife for about six months, and then left her and went away to Liverpool. Witness saw the prisoner in Dublin about five years ago, and spoke to him. Her sister is still living. She saw her about a fortnight ago. Cross-examined by Mr. Wurcitis.—The prisoner courted my sister four or five months previous to his mar riage, and I saw him generally once a week. I was then living with my father and sister at home. My father was a builder and tailor, and kept a second-hand clothes shop. I don't know that the prisoner was in the habit of attend ing a Baptist chapel previous to his marriage to my sister. I saw him on two occasions with my sister at a Roman catholic chapel. When I saw the prisoner in Dublin, four or five years ago, I said to him "Joe," and he turned round and said "Joe, your grandmother." (L ughter.) I am more than fifty years old but cannot say how much. Aly sister it younger than I am. She has been supported by my brother since her husband left her. Re-examined.—The brother of the prisoner was at Clongerswood College at the time of the marriage, educa ting for a priest. . . . Christopher Fox stated that he was an apprentice with the prisoner, with his step-father. Was present at his marriage with Mary Bolgar, at Townsend-street chapel, Dublin, by the Rev. Mr. Pierce Walsh, on the 2d May, 1820. Saw the prisoner and his wife living together after that. H e was a Roman Catholic. Cross-examined.—Have frequently gone to Roman Catholic Chapels with him. Never knew he went to dis senting chapels. Edward Lovat, clerk of St. Nicholas's parochial chapel, Liverpool, produced the marriage certificate between the prisoner and Martha Robinson, on the 30th July, 1832. Martha Robinson proved that she was married to the prisoner, in St. Nicholas's church, rather more than ten years ago, but cannot say the exact year. The prisoner was married in the name of Newton, and had gone by that name ever since. Knew him about five months before the marriage. Cross-examined.—Since our marriage, the prisoner has always attended the Church of England, and a better or kinder husband could not be. By the Court.—l do not carry on the prosecution, nor do any of my friends. Mary Ann Jones said—ln December, 1829, was in Dublin, and saw Mary Nugent. She gave me a letter which I took to Liverpool, and gave it to a girl who handed it to Mr. Nugent. The latter opened it and read it. A dark woman was present, who asked the prisoner what that was. He said nothing, and put the letter into his pocket. The letter was delivered to me open, and I read it. I was again in Dublin at the beginning of the summer, 1831, and received another letter from Mary Nugent, which I took to Liverpool, and delivered it to Mr. Nugent. He went in behind the screen in his shop, opened it, and appeared to read it. Cross.examined.—l was not before the magistrate when the prisoner was committed. I went to Dublin about my business, hut it is nothing to you, and I won't tell you. I went with my husband, who is a silver plater. He was present when I received the letters from Mary Nugent. I brought three letters altogether. Mrs. Waldron re-called, and examined by Mr. War.- xiNs.—Mary Nugent has not lived in the same place in Dublin since the prisoner left her. She removed about six months to my mother and father's house until they died, eleven years ago, and my brother has supported her ever since in lodgings. For about six months oiler Nugent left her she lived in her own shop, and then removed to her father and mother. Martha Robinson was re-called, and swore that the witness, Jones, never delivered a letter in her presence to the prisoner. George Greaves, one of the Liverpool police, appre hended the prisoner on t: e 17th of July last. Told him that he was taking him on Mr. Bolgar's charge of bigamy. I cautioned him, and he said all they could do was to make him pay half a-crown a week. Cross-examined.—Heard the brother of the first wife wife say he had been over in Liverpool before then. By the COURT.—The prosecutor is present. Mr. Wiexiss then proceeded to address the jury in behalf of the prisoner. He was extremely obliged to his lordship for asking the last question, and also for asking another question from the witness Robinson, as to who the parties were that carried on the present prosecution, because it was evident his lordship saw the nature of the case. There were two questions of fact which the jury would have to decide. The first was, whether it was proved to their satisfaction that the prisoner was ever a Roman Catholic in his life, because, if he was not, the former marriage was an illegal one and a nullity. The next question was. whether the jury were satisfied that the prisoner, for seven years previous to the marriage in 1832, was aware of the existence of the person whom they chose to call his wife. Would any man believe that, be cause a person was seen at a Roman Catholic chapel once or twice, he was, therefore, a Roman Catholic? Unless the Roman Catholic church had relaxed in its discipline to what was known of it from history, it was absolutely necessary that persons should do more than merely attend the chapel to be considered a member of the church. If he had been a Roman Catholic, it would have been easy to prove that he had confessed or attended mass, but where was the proof that he had ever done so in his life ? How many persons were there who attended Roman Ca tholic chapels from mere curiosity ! How many were there who went to look at the vestments of the priests— to see the magnificence of the altar, and its candles light ed! How many were there who attended to hear the splendid music performed there—who in fact went to the chapel because it was the only theatre open on the Sun day ! (Laughter.) And were they therefore Papists ? He did not mean to ridicule the Roman Catholic religion, but there were those who considered the splendid page antry exhibited as a necessary part of religion, whilst others thought it mere mummery. As to that part of the case which went to show that the prisoner had knowledge of the person whom they called his former wife being li v ing, that rested solely on the evidence of the witness Mary Ann Jones, and that they could not rely on, espe ciaPy after it had been contradicted in an e ssen ti a l point by Mrs. Nugent. He remarked on the improbability of the prisoner doing as he had, in opening a shop in the most public market in Liverpool, and carrying on busi ness in so public a manner, if he conceived himself liable to such a charge as the present, on the fact of his being a good and kind husband, and concluded with observing that no doubt the present charge would never have been heard of if the brother of Mrs. Waldren had succeeded in extolling money from the prisoner. The follow* , witnesses were then called, who gave the prisoner en excellent character for good conduct—namely, Mr. W. Procter, Mr. J. L. Aires, publican, Mr. Ro binson, one of the jury, Mr. Kiernan, a fish factor, and Mr. Lovatt, the clerk of St. Nicholas' Church. The Learned JUDGE proceeded to sum up the case, and after observing that probably the jury would be satisfied that the prisoner was a Roman Catholic, said the question for them to determine would be whether they were satis fied that at the time the prisoner married a second time Ise knew his former wife was alive, or had known it during the seven years previous to that time ; because, if they were of opinion that he did, it would be their duty to find him guilty : if they had any reasonable doubt on the sub ject, they would give the prisoner the benefit of it and acquit him. The jury consulted together in the box for a few mi nutes. and then acquitted the prisoner. On the application of Mr. Wilkins he was immediately discharged. THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD. meical Bank of Manchester, and, in consequen:e of his connection with that unfortunate establishment, he be came a bankrupt, and having been largely indebted to thg bank, Mr. Davidson, public officer, was arpointed his assignee. Mr. Hebblewhite had a considerable stock of wine, ale, and beer on the premises at the time, and the gentleman who managed the affairs on behalf of the de fendant took possession of those premises, opened them and continued them open until the following July. when the stock was disposed of. The question was, whether Mr. Davidson, by thus dealing with the property, took possession of it as tenant and made himself liable for the rent. - - A verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the full amount. DOE DEM. ROCKLIFFE V. AMBROSE. Verdict, by consent, for the plaintiff. FRAZER AND OTHERS V. MATLEY. This was an action brought by the plaintiffs. John Fra zer and George Brooks, against the defendant William Matley, for the recovery of a sum of £460, the value of goods sold and delivered. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, except as to £390. Verdict for the plaintiff for £125. DIXON V. WING. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, John Dixon, against the defendant, John Wing, for the recovery of a sum of £3O, money had and received, and on an account stated. The defendant pleaded the general issue and a set-off. The jury found for the plaintiff for £3O 155., with leave for the defendant to move for a nonsuit. CHARGE OF MURDER AT ASHTON. John Hulme, aged 34, was then placed at the bar on a charge of the wilful murder of Thomas Garland, at Ashton-under-Lyne, by striking him with a piece of iron, on the 31st October, 1840, thereby giving him a mortal wound on the first finger of the right hand, of which he died on the 16th of November following. Messrs. Brandt, Hulton, and Townsend appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins for the prisoner. Mr. BRANDT stated the case to the jury. He said the prisoner at the bar was charged with the h;ghest crime known to the law of England—that of wilful murder. The deceased came by his death in the month of Novem ber, 1840, having received a wound on the first finger of his right hand, and the surgeon would tell them this wound was the cause of his death. The reason why the prisoner had not been brought to trial sooner would ap pear in the course of the statement which he (the learned counsel) should make to the jury. The transactions which led to the death of the deceased arose out of a turn-out of all the sawyers which took place in the month of October, 1840, when in consequence of that turn-out all the business was suspended until fresh hands.could be got from other parts This caused con siderable excitement in the town, and a bad feeling was raised against those men who chose to work at the wages given by the masters. The deceased received his death wound in consequence of that agitation. It would be proved that on the 31st of October some men had been brought over from Manchester to work in Ashton, and in the afternoon of that day they were on the Ashton new road, between Manchesier and Ashton, when they were assailed by a party of turn-outs, who rushed upon them armed with sticks, bludgeons, and other offensive wea pons, and beaten severely. The deceased was severely wounded in the affray, and was in consequence removed to the infirmary, where it was discovered that he had re ceived a wound on the first finger of the right hand which nearly severed it from his body. The surgeon who at tended him recommended that it should be amputated, but the deceased refused to allow it, being anxious, if possible, to preserve so valuable a member. The surgeon would tell them he was indiscreet in not allowing the ope ration to be performed, but he (Mr. Brandt) apprehended his Lordship would tell the jury that did not alter the case • and if they were of opinion the deceased came by his death in consequence of the injury inflicted by the prisoner. the prisoner must answer for it. However, the deceased continued until November, when all his wounds, except the one on his finger, were cured, and that one brought on lock-jaw, of which he died. The evi dence against the prisoner would mainly depend on the testimony of a person named Heaton, who would prove that he saw the prisoner strike the deceased with a piece of iron, and inflict the injury of which he died : but it would not be safe for the jury to rely on what he said, he (Mr. Brandt) would at once state, unless they found he was sufficiently corroborated by other evidence of an unimpeachable kind. It was undoubtedly true that Heaton did not make any discovery of what he had seen until sonre time after. The prisoner was tried at the Spring Assizes of 1841 on a charge of felony, when Heaton was a witness, and was acquitted. Some time after the pri soner was taken on another charge, that of taking a quan tity of tools with a view of destroying them, and he and Heaton, who seemed to be a man of very violent temper, were tried for the felony. Therefore, the jur; would no doubt look on Heaton's testimony with a considerable degree of jealousy. He (Mr. Brandt) must also state that the prisoner was not a sawyer, and therefore probably was not likely to take an interest in the turn-out, but he should be able to prove that be was a member of their union, that he contributed to its fund, attended the meet ings of the sawyers, and took an active part in their affairs, and on the day in question it would be proved that the prisoner was at a meeting held at the King's Head, in Ashton, when threats of violence were used against those who were coming to Ashton to work at the wages offered by the masters. lie should also show that shortly before the attack a party of persons went from that public-house towards Manchester, and that one of the party corres ponded to the description given of the prisoner. It would also he proved that the prisoner was seen running from the place where the attack was made shortly after the affray, and that he was absent from Ashton just long enough for him to engage in the affray and return to Ash ton. There was also another piece of evidence which, as well as the testimony of Heaton, he regretted had not been brought forward against the prisoner on his com mittal, 'or it had been discovered since that time. In corroboration of Heaton, there was the evidence of a man named Beswick, who was certainly also liable to suspi cion ; but still the jury would have to say whether they were not so corroborated as to leave no doubt of their speaking the truth. Beswick would relate to them a con versation be had with Heaton respecting the affair in question, which took place in March, 1841, when the pri soner said he was one of the persons who made the attack on the deceased, and that Heaton was the only person who could identify him ; and after the trial of Elulme he told Beswick that it would not be safe for him to remain in this country, and, therefore, he would go to America. He did go to America, where h e: remained until the pre sent summer, when, on his return in July last, he was taken into custody. He (Mr. Brandt) did not mean to offer any observations on the evidence to be offered, but should leave it to the jury to say, after they had heard it, whether it satisfied them beyond all doubt that the pri soner was guilty of the charge imputed to him. The learned counsel then called a number of witnesses who deposed to the circumstances as stated by him in his address. Mr. WILKINS very eloquently addressed the jury for the prisoner. He claimed their sympathy for the unfor tunate wretch on his trial, and whose difficulties had been wantonly and cruelly multiplied. There was not much sincerity in the sorrow expressed by his learned friend in the opening. or the prisoner would have been apprized of what had been kept back until that day. One of the wit nesscs had been in their possession a month, and his secrets known to a police-officer. He was not taken be fore a magistrate, but to a hole and corner in an attor ney's office. The learned counsel designated the case " an infamous history of falsehood and perjury," and pointed to the character of the witnesses, especially to that of Heaton. If the case had been left as it originally stood, before they got the evidence of paupers, convicted felons, and disappointed accomplices, it would have been nothing, and that was the reason why these additions were made. He complained of the reference to the former trial ' , and the repeated introduction of the turn-out, as intended to bias the jury. Was not that trial enough to drive him to America, when every man's hand was pointed against him. Would he have r e hack again if 4 r. none he had been afraid of the charge, an r,ne to a public court, in the eyes of all the most vig, nt of the Man chester police ? These proceedings showed the hollow hood of union in these societies. All the witnesses had fixed the murder on Holland, at the trial of that person, and never hinted at this man. At the close of the learned counsel's eloquent appeal, the prisoner was acquitted of Murder, but found guilty of Manslaughter, and the learned jadge passed upon him the sentence of transportation for life. STABBING. Antonio Conti, 28, an Italian, was indicted for stabbing James Langshaw, with inten► to do him some grievous bodily harm, on the 24th of April last, at Liverpool. It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutor, that on the night in question the prisoner attacked a lady in Hanover-street, in Liverpool. He remonstrated with him, when the prisoner stabbed him. He also attacked a horse in the street, but was afterwards secured and taken to prison. Mr. WILKINS called three witnesses to prove that the prisoner was insan-. at times. The jury acquitted the prisoner on the ground of in sanity, and the learned Judge ordered him to be kept in safe custody during her Majesty's pleasure. The Court adjourned at half-past six o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY. Mr. Justice Cresswell took his at nine o'clock. BENTLEY V. WITTON. An action for the recovery of £lOO, the value of certain tolls.—Verdict for the plaintiff. RUTHERFORD AND UX. V. CHAUNDY. An action for the recovery of £3OO on a bond. — Verdict for the plaintiff. RHODES AND OTHERS V. WILSON. In this action Joseph Armitage Rhodes was the plain tiff, and Thomas Wilson was the defendant; and it was brought for the recovery of the sum of £9O for goods sold and delivered. The defendant pleaded that he was not liable. --- ------ The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—.£66 damages. TURNER V. MILNER. This was an undefended action for the recovery of £2O. —Verdict for the plaintiff. RENT.-BEARD AND OTHERS V. DAVIDSON. This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, Ellen Beard and George B. Lightfoot, the executor and exe cutrix of John Beard, against the defendant, Alexander Davidson, for the recovery of £57, being the amount of a year and a half's rent of a cellar. The defendant pleaded generally that the plaintiffs were not the executor and executrix, and that they were not seized of the cellar. Mr. Martin and Mr. Cowling appeared for the plain tiff 's ; and Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton for the defendant. Mr. MARTIN stated the case. He said the plaintiffs were the executor and executrix of a gentleman named Beard, who, up to the time of his death, carried on a cooperage in Seel-street, Liverpool. There was a cellar underneath the premises. which he did not require for the purposes of his trade, and which, i❑ the year 1826, he let to a Mr. Hebblewhite to carry on the business of a wine and spirit dealer there. The tenantcy was from year to year, at £3l per annum, payable half-yearly. Mr. Hebble white continued in the occupation until 1840. He bad been one of the directors at Liverpool for the Com- ROBERTS AND OTHERS V. MORRIS. This was . an action brought by the plaintiffs, Elizabeth Roberts, Elizabeth Unwin, and John Hughes, against the defendant, Edward Morris, for the recovery of the value of a certain quantity of limestone. Verdict for the plaintiffs for the amount sought. The court rose at five o'clock. CROWN COURT.-SATURDAY. MURDER AT BURY. James Howarth, 20, was indicted for the wilful murder of James Heywood, at Bury, by striking him divers blows on the face, neck and head. Mr. Brandt, Mr. Green, and Mr. Whigham conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins defended the prisoner. Mr. BRANDT stated the case. He commenced by say ing that the facts were wholly of a circumstantial nature, which would require the particular attention of the court and jury. The deceased was a hale, stout man, about sixty years of age, who lived at a place celled Little Heaton. On the 3d of May last, he left home for Bury, which was only about three or four miles distant. He was seen at a public-house soon after nine o'clock the same night, and the last time he was seen alive was about half an hour after that time; when he left another public house for the purpose, as he said, of going home. When he left home in the morning, his relations distinctly ob served that he had a watch in his pocket. On the morn ing of the following day he was found dead on the out skirts of the town of Bury, at a place called the gravel pits. He was lying by the side of a hedge ; and, from the appearance of the body and the place, he had evidently suffered great violence. His watch was gone, and the suspicion was that he had been attacked, robbed, and murdered. On his way home from the public house, at which he was last seen alive, lie would have to pass the New Market in Bury, and then, turning to his left, to go on in the direction of Unsworth. One of the witnesses would state that he was near the New Market on the night in question, and that he saw the deceased going along in the company of two young men, who seemed to be taking him in an opposite direction, leading to the place where the body was afterwards found. He would further state that, in his belief, the prisoner was one of those young men, but he could not speak positively to him ; and he (Mr. Brandt) thought it but justice to state, with respect to this witness, that he was not such a per son as the jury could place implicit reliance upon. There was no doubt, however, that, soon after ten o'clock on the night of the occurrence, the prisoner entered a beer house kept by a person of the name of Jenkinson, in Bury ; that his beer-house was no great distance from the new market-place; that he was out of breath at the time, and appeared to have been running • and that there were marks of blood on his face. He asked a young woman at the shop to wash off the marks; and she having dipped a rag in some beer and complied with his request, he was asked how they came there? He gave two replies; first, he said that he had been in a row in the street, and then he stated that the blood had oozed from a pimple on h s cheek ; but no pimple was v.sible. The parties in whose company he then was were of a very degraded character, and, after they had all remained together for some time, they proceeded to a house kept by a man of the name of Benjamin Cooke, where they gambled for about an hour. They then went to the house of one of their party (Win terbottom's) ; and, while there, the prisoner produced a watch, and, from his behaviour and conduct at the time, there could be little doubt that it had very recently come into his possession. In reply to the questions of the party, he stated that a man named Meadowcroft had told him that the watch was lying in a vacant place near the New Market, and that he went there and found it. Meadowcroft denied that he had ever told him anything of the kind. It was rather unfortunate that the watch had been disposed of; but it could not, therefore, be now pro duced; and that it would rest on the description given of it by the witnesses as to whether it was the one which be longed to the deceased. Mr. Brandt concluded by saying that the watch would be described by the son of the de ceased, and that upon this evidence would rest the guilt or innocency of the accused. James Clough and Charles Shell deposed to the finding of the body. John Heywood, a son of the deceased, described his watch, as did also Ann Heywood, his daughter, the latter stating it had only one seal, when Mr. BRANDT said that he would not press the case any further, as the other witnesses would describe the watch as having two seals attached. His LORDSHIP thought it would be unsafe for the Jury to convict under tl , e circumstances. _ _ A verdict of acquittal was accordingly returned, and the prisoner was discharged. ROBBERY AT WAVERTREE-LANE. William Smith, 26, and Thomas Hughes, 17, were in dicted for having broken and entered the dwelling-house of Jane Lowndes, and stolen thereout twenty bottles of whisky and ten bottles of brandy, the property of Thomas John Lowndes. Mr. Cardwell conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins defended the prisoner. It appeared that, about four o'clock on the morning of the 17th May last, the house of the prosecutor was en tered and the property extracted : and that, shortly after, three persons, one of whom was the prisoner Hughes, were seen coming in a direction from Wavertree-lane, with a heavy basket. Subsequently, Mr. Lowndes suc ceeded in arresting Hughes, whereupon Smith came to his assistance, and, in endeavouring to rescue him, took out of his pocket a bottle of whisky to defend him. which bottle turned out to be one of those stolen on the night in question. The prisoners alleged that they had found the bottle in an adjoining pond, while they were in the act of bathing. They were acquitted. BURGLARY AT LIVERPOOL. Joseph Dalton, 20, was convicted of having broken and entered the dwelling-house of Thomas Todd, in Aber cromby-square, and stolen thereout two spoons, his pro perty, and a dress, a sovereign, and ten shillings, the pro perty of Mary Medcalfe. He was sentenced to transporta tion for ten years. FORGER ASES. Maurice Vincent M` Quin, was found guilty of having uttered a forged acceptance to a bill of exchange for the payment of £5l 95., with intent to defraud Francis Goold Dutton. He pleaded guilty to two other indictments charging him with having uttered two other forged accept ances for £57 and £37 respectively. He was sentenced to transportation for life. Thomas Benson, 42, was convicted on a charge of having, at Manches;er, forged the indorsement upon a certain hill of exchange for £lB, with intend to defraud John Singlehurst. He was sentenced to transportation for ten years. Thomas Franklin Rigby, 24, pleaded guilty to three in dictments, charging him with having uttered forged ac ceptances for £47, £22, and £2O respectively, with intent to defraud John Prichard, Sarah Gibbons, and Henry Steele. He was sentenced to transportation for life. James Park, 32. was convicted of having, at Manches ter, forged the endorsement to a bank post bill for £lOO, with intend to defraud William Brookes and others. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment and hard la bour. William Tyson and William Alexander were indicted for having forged a seaman's shipping note, and fraudu lently obtaining £5 thereon from William Topping, of Gibraltar-row, Liverpool. They were found guilty. The Court adjourned at twenty minutes to five o clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.—SA.TURDAY. The first case taken this morning was MARSH AND ANOTHER V. POLLARD AND OTHERS. It was an action for trespass, the plaintiffs in which were Mr. John Marsh and Lawrence Prenty, and the de fendants Mr. Elias Pollard and some of his employees. Mr. Sergeant Murphy and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiff s; Mr. Hoggins for the defendant. The al leged tre s p ass cons i s t e d o f th e knocking down of a part of a wall b oun di ng th e p ro p er ty of the pfaintiffs , in Gore street, Toxteth-park. The defendant alleged, that the wall encroached upon his land, about one foot of its thickness, and prevented the egress of the inhabitants of his cottages towards the north. His Lordship suggested a reference, and this was agreed to. ILLEGALLY BREAKING AND ENTERING. HOWARD V. BALL• John Howard, the plaintiff in this case, was repre sented by Mr. Whigham ; William Ball, jun., Robert Newton, and Thomas Marshall, the defendants, were re presented by Mr. Martin. The action was brought to re cover the value of certain goods and chattels alleged to have been illegally seized 'by the defendants, as well as compensation in damages for the interruption of the plain tiff's business. The plaintiff is a master painter, who re sides at Cannon Cottage, Southport. The defendant, William Ball, is his landlord. Mr. Newton is an auc tioneer, and Marshall is a bailiff. Verdict for the defend ants. DEPAXIATION AND SLANDER. DOLLING V. SMITH. This was an action for libel. The plaintiff is Mr. Tho mas Augustus Granville Dolling, assistant overseer of the poor for the township of West Derby ; the defendant is Mr. Thomas Smith, a gentleman now residing in West Derby, but who formerly carried on business in Lord street, as a stationer and bookseller, and who, since his retirement from business, was a candidate for the repre sentation of Preston in Parliament. Mr. Watson and Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Baines and Mr. Cobbett for the defendant. j Mr. WATSON said the plaintiff was Mr. Thomae Au gustus Dolling, a gentleman who had, for many years, held the office of assistant overseer of the parish of West Derby. He had also been appointed collector of Queen's taxes, and had held this office for some time. He had recently been appointed treasurer of West Derby ; and be came before the jury to complain of a foul and mali cious libel which had been published of him, and also o slander extremely injurious to his character. The townf ship of West Derby was an extremely populous district - it was composed of two parts, one within the borough,: called the municipal division, and one without the bo rough, called the rural division. lie believed that the sum which Mr. Dolling had annually to collect amounted to something like £15,000. He had to collect it from a a large number of persons, probably 3,000. The de fendant was a gentleman, not in business He resided in West Derby-street, and was a ratepayer of the township of West Derby, and, for some years past, he had been in the habit of showing some degree of enmity to Mr. Dolling. He had, at public meetings and in newspapers, spoken and written offensively of Mr. Dolling in the cha racter of overseer. He (the learned counsel) was told that the defendant was a gentleman who indulged much at public meetings; that be was very fond of making speeches, and of being a leader in parochial matters. On the 30th March, in this year, a meeting of the ratepayers of the township was held for the purpose of nominating overseers for the ensuing year. Mr. Smith, as usual, was present at the meeting. His name was put in as one l of the individuals :nui wdowaHaagnnt among es.ooyhi eol nat, madet nbopy:cogrobi distinct Iraa e tefcdrh x s goa.dew e eu7i t s i lroi t seois:secfno i h. atn. charge t riagei to d:N irsseaegtpnrye b drret erelieisnesocupDttsnd: statement depended Dolling. edl e chlanl nctei dishonestyit n t ntuye e a, „gzni attacking oktww administrationt anhi were tuis ahg o eh ier v i nesasf e hameg r amatv s ga var e ei drn e rl oneey r seadg s .t, inas p rto o fi op. an e f i beordhmttsbnel that pesaenahi for ta s aop p it , edore o ni a o tbeshri nrs, been ti d enssi f of the funds of the township, he was a person who ought not for one moment to be allowed to administer the funds of the township. Was he to sit down quietly under the imputation? His only course was to come there, and ask the defendantjto substantiate the charge or confess at once that it was untrue. Probably, if the thing bad stopped there, Mr. Dolling might have stood upon his character, and not even have noticed that; but it was found that, by a subsequent publication, Mr. Smith had carried this matter so far that Mr. Dolling was bound to come into court. On the 6th April, when the list of persons from whom the overseers for the year were to be selected, and at the head of which was the name of Mr. Smith, was placed before the justices of the peace, at Kirkdale, they, exercising their judgment in the matter, did not elect Mr. Smith to be one of the overseers. On the 10th of April Mr. Smith printed end circulated in West Derby a libel ous document, which he (Mr. Watson) would read; and he would put it to the jury whether any man, in office or out of office, seeing the charges in that libel, could rest satisfied without appealing to the laws of his coun'ry for redress The document in question was signed by Thomas Smith, and was headed " Recent West Derby Vestry." Mr. Watson proceeded to read the document, from which we extract the following passage t— " You know that the two persons whose names you, by an almost unanimous vote, ordered to be at the head of the list, were not the choice favourites of our master, the permanent overseer, and his zealous upholders. 1 was at Kirkdale, according to my promise, and that was suffici ent, as it proved, to prevent a change of the list, had the dissatisfied party been disposed to make such change. But, alone, as I found myself, I was not sufficient to pre vent another course which that party adopted, and adopted with success, as you will learn. There were four of them from this township and neighbourhood, including our overseer, and an attorney whom they picked up in court, as a sort of Godsend, to be their leader and advocate. There were six persons appeared in court against your list, and one, only one, and he the least fitted, to support it, farther than just to say that such was your list. I was the person. And the attorney of the party commenced by discharging himself of a load of accusations against me, a load of spiteful falsehoods, with which they had just been cramming him. For instance, he commenced by declaring that I would never rest till I had ruined Mr. Doleing.' With such stuff had they crammed the man. Bless his stuffed head, I would neither injure him nor Mr. Doleing, as he called our precious overseer and master. I would only restrain ruffians and cheats from insulting and committing depredations on us, and especially from committing them on weak and unsuspicious persons, on lone women, on widows and their families. It is my knowledge of deeds of this description that makes me stick to this fellow of ours. And, if it will ruin him to put a stop to his practices in that way, why, then, base indeed should I be if I were to desist from any fair and manly course in seeking to control me. * * * Thus, my brother ratepayers, ended your late manly and sensible efforts to rescue your parochial affairs from the hands of a small knot of corrupt and infuriated intriguers, who, dead to every sense of truth and justice, invade and tram ple on your rights, and slander, belie, and plunder you. Lei us hope, however, that the two gentlemen who have received the appointment will have the firmness and reso lution requisite to respond to your wishes and fulfil your intentions. Let us hope that they will not leave the township to the mercy of an individual who has been set over you by the little crew of shameless and corrupt crea tures who co-operate with him; who is confirmed and upheld in his office by the three merciless ruffians in Lon don, fellows who are altogether of congenial dispositions, and regardless of your rights and interests. * * * Let us hope, too, that, instead of permitting this overbearing and insolent overseer of ours to send his threatening notes amongst us, commanding us to wait upon him with the amount of our rates; and inflicting upon the humbler and more neceasitous portion of the ratepayers his 2s. sum monses, which 25., I learn, is shared between him and one of his fellow-workers. * * * One other reasona ble hope let me express. It has been the practice of this doughty overseer of ours, when he wanted more of our money to revel in, or to answer some other purpose of his and his little nest of intriguers, to prepare a rate book, call on his creatures, the overseers, mere nominees of his and his crew, to put their names to the book, and thus to lay new rates upon us, whilst large amounts of former rates, very large amounts, remained uncollected and uncalled for. Let us hope that our new overseers will not lend their hands to such proceedings. And, further, let us hope that any rate to be laid during their term of office will be laid equitably and according to law, conditions which have been most grossly and wilfully violated, and for his own manifest profit, too, by this obstreperous and super-serviceable overseer of ours ; grossly and wilfully violated in every rate he has laid during the last four years." Mr. WATSON observed, that the object of the defendant would be one of the matters for the jury to consider when they came to assess the damages in the case. If they thought that this proceeded from malicious motives, he would ask them to give exemplary darnaaes. If, however, even at this moment, the defendant, taking the excellent advice vytaict, would assuredly be given to him by his (Mr. Watson's) learned friend, (Mr. Baines,) would come for ward and exonerate Mr. Dolling from the charges which he had cast upon him, he (Mr. Watson) would only ask for nominal damages, and thus test the sincerity with which Mr. Dolling came there, not to take money out of the defendant's pocket, but simply to clear his character. Mr. Watson then went through the pleadings of the de fendant. With respect to one plea, that the plaintiff had wrongfully defrauded the municipal division of the county, by laying on a county rate, he observed, that the rate was not laid by the assistant overseer, but by the overseers. In 1837, when Mr. Smith was overseer, he did lay a borough rate on the municipal division, and a county rate on the rural division, but that course was found very in convenient, and it was thought better to lay an equal rate over the whole township, and to pay out of that the borough rate to the borough, and the county rate to the county. What robbery of the township was there in that ? Joseph Bispham Leatherbarrow, Mr. Richard Sanders, and Mr. Robert Donnison were called to prove the utter ance of the alleged spoken, and the publication of the printed libel. Mr. BAtNES then addretird the jury for the defendant. H e observed, that his learbTd friend had called on him to say whether he would retract all that his client bad said in respect to Mr. Dolling. If the defendant could with truth unsay what he had said, then he would be the first man to come forward and express his conviction that he had been in the wrong. But, believing that the charges which he had actually brought could be substantiated, his only course was to lay before the jury the evidence on which those accusations were founded. He (Mr. Baines) thought that he should be able to prove to the satisfaction of the jury, before he had done, that with some allowance for the proverbial excitability of a parish meeting, where the speakers felt strongly and spoke strongly, he should be able to show that the allegations of the defendant were substantially correct. The first charge against the plaintiff by Mr. Smith was said to have been made at the vestry meet ing held on the 30th of March last. That was a general annual meeting; and if the jury should be of opinion, as he contended was the case, that the words were spoken bona fide, that the defendant believed them to be true, and acted in the honest discharge of what he conceived to be his duty to himself and the ratepayers, he (Mr. B.) should contend, without the least doubt, that that would be a privileged communication, for which it would be impossible to bold the defendant responsible. Having cited the case of " Spencer v. Hammerton" in corroboration, the learned gentleman went on to state what the circumstances were out of which the charge arose. Since the passing of the Municipal Reform Act the municipal division of the township of West Derby no longer formed a part of the county of Lancaster ; it formed part of the borough of Liverpool, and, by virtue of that was exempted from con tributing to the county rate, because it had its own bo rough rate to contribute to. When the plaintiff came into office, after the passing of the Municipal Reform Act, he made a very material change in the mode of collecting the rates from the whole township ; and the motive for the change would be made apparent when it was recollected ' that he received three per cent. on the money collected in the municipal division, whilst he received nothing from the rural division. He laid one rate over the whole of the township, without separating the amount in any way, and of the sum received one portion was paid to the county rate and another portion to the borough rate, thus causing the municipal division of the township to sustain a loss of nearly £6OO a-year. This was the statement made by Mr. Smith at the vestry meeting • and he (Mr. Baines) should be able to show, that, although his client spoke strongly, he said on that occasion, not that the township had been " robbed" by Mr. Dolling, but that it had been "wronged" to that extent by Mr. Dolling. Mr. Smith was a respectable ratepayer, who had resided in the town ship. for many years, and when he applied to Mr. Dolli ng to see the rarochial accounts, be was refused, and e rn b (the lan guage of such a contumelious character .. h of the defendant. t a ction. Mr. escaped the lips brin f 'lna ctable d to should have had the harchhoo ccorapan ed by a e reap_a did Smith went to Mr. Dolling, j; books. Mr. 13 9 1 in g learned counsel) could not but marvel, h and asked to see Mr he books; but said to ratepayer, bad not t not pretend that be cc' t th ti lt e r flv i i t dhusadl Smith, " You are a cheat, you are a robber, you are a vagabond." Knowing what the defendant did, having ascertained from the books, was he not likely to be led to believe, by this conduct, that there was really something which the plaintiff was anxious to conceal? As to the published document which had been proposed, only 250 copies had been printed ; it was written with a bona fide intention of pointing out grievances ; it was circulated only amongst the ratepayers; and, under these circum stances, he (Mr. B.) contended that it was a privileged communication, and could not, any more than the spoken words, be made the ground of an action for libel. Mr. Baines proceeded to say, :hat, as certain specific acts of misconduct on the part of the plaintiff had been set out on the record, which he should have to prove, he should call the attention of the jury to them. The first thing stated was with respect to a person named Thomas Allen. His learned friend had observed that mistakes would inevi tably occur in the collection of the rates of a large township. Yes • but Mr. Dolling was paid f or th e di sc h arge o f his duties, and the ratepayers had a right to expect that the business should be conducted with ordinary care, so that they must not be unduly harassed by any negligence of his; and, if negligence had been found of so gross a character as to warrant the suspicion of fraud, was it to be wondered at that a ratepayer should conceive it to be his duty to inquire into it ; and, if inquiry was prevented, to denounce it ? Instances of this kind would be found. On the 13th of September, 1839, Mr. Allen paid to Mr. Dolling 18s. 4d., and, on the 20th of July, 1840, Mr. Dolling demanded the amount again, and under circum stances somewhat suspicious. The 20th of July was the last day for paying the rates, in order to qualify a person to vote at the next election. Mr. Allen, who was wishful to be put on the list of voters, went to Mr. Dolling, and asked what arrears of rates he had to pay, whereupon Mr. Dolling told him that he owed 18s. 4d. for 1839, and, not withstanding the remonstrances of Mr, Allen, said that that amount must be paid unless he was content to be struck off the list. Mr. Allen paid him ti e sum the se cond time. By and by, however, he found a receipt fur the first payment, and then Mr. Dolling was obliged to refund. The learned counsel detailed the particulars of other cases of a similar kind. In one of these, an elderly female, living alone, was the party who had been twice charged the same amount ; and, in another, a widow lady was obliged to pay a sum of £3 10s., which, she contended, her husband bad paid shortly before his death, but which Mr. Dolling asserted was only a payment for a previous year. In other cases, summonses had been served on re spectable parties, one of whom was Mr. Robert Willan, who had resided twenty years in the township, and who had served the office of overseer, demanding payment of certain taxes by a specified day, and threatening legal proceedings for default, although no previous request had been made for payment. A considerable number of witnesses were called to prove the statements of the learned counsel. Mr. WATSON replied. Mr. Justice CRESSWELL summed up, telling the jury that the published document could not be considered as a privileged communication. The Jury, after a few minutes' deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff ; damages £2O. The Court adjuurned at a quarter-past six. THE LATE FATAL DUEL. At the Central Criminal Court, on Monday, Mr. Justice Williams, in his address to the grand jury, made the fol lowing observations with reference to the late duel in which Colonel Fawcett was killed. He said Mr. Gulliver was charged with aiding and abetting the person who actually killed the deceased on that occasion. The law with respect to a person killing another in a duel was perfectly clear : if persons met deliberately, in consequence of 'a previous quarrel, after a lapse of sufficient time to allow of the anger and excitement to cool, and the death of one of them ensued, that constituted the crime of murder against the person who killed him. There had been no doubt upon that subject for some years past; neither could there be any doubt thst the second of the person killing his antagonist was also guilty of the crime of murder; but with respect to the second of the person killed, it had been doubted by a very grave and learned authority—he alluded to Lord Hale—whether such per son could be considered guilty of murder, for reasons which he fully assigned, and any doubt entertained by that learned authority were entitled to the greatest and most serious consideration, more particularly as Mr. Serjeant Hawkins, also a writer of great celebrity, did not appear to doubt, or attempt to controvert, that opinion; if, therefore, that was the case, Mr. Gulliver could not stand in a worse position than the second of the party killed. He was aware, however, that at no distant period, and in this very court, an opinion directly in op position to the dicta of Lord Hale and Mr. Serjeant Hawkins had been expressed by two of the learned judges, for whose opinions he entertained the greatest respect, who stated, that beyond all doubt, the second of the per son killed, as well as the second of the person by whose hand he fell, was guilty of murder equally with the prin cipal himself. The mere presence of a party at a duet would not be sufficient to constitute him an aider and abetter, but it was essential that he should be there countenancing, aiding, and assisting in the duel. Sup» posing, therefore, the dictum of Lord Hale to be welt founded, a series of questions must arise before them as to the object of his presence, and the countenance, aid, and assistance, which they should find applicable to the case of Mr. Gulliver. On Friday Lieutenant Cuddy and Mr. Gulliver surren dered to take their trials, when the Attorney-General said, that the charge as alleged against Mr. Gulliver could not be sustained; he should, therefore, decline to offer any evidence against him ; he might, therefore, be at once discharged, and could then become a competent witness on behalf of the prosecution. Mr. Gulliver then left the bar, and Lieutenant Cuddy was arraigned and charged with aiding and abetting in the commission of the offence. In ordinary cases of an, acquittal the precise grounds for the verdict do not appear, but the interlocutory inquiries put by the jury as they were about to leave the box to deliberate to the judge in this case leave no doubt that the reason for the verdict of not guilty was the absence of decisive evidence to show that Mr. Cuddy aided and abetted Lieutenant Munro in the murder of Colonel Fawcett. Whatever may be thought of the weight of the moral evidence in support of the charge of aiding and abetting the murder, the legal testimony, it must be confessed, was meagre. Not one of the witnesses swore positively to the identity of the gentleman placed in the dock with the person who acted as Colonel Fawcett's second, and though Mr, Gulliver, the surgeon, believed him to be the same, that officer seems to have seen—trom defective sight—eery little of the conduct and management of the duel previously to the demand for his professional assis tance; he did not witness the ground measured, or the pistols prepared and handed to the principals ; all that he could prove was, that Lieutenant Munro, on the morning of the fatal occurrence, carried him up to the field where it was fought • that tbere be saw four gentlemen, one of whom he believes was Mr. Cuddy ; that he heard the words " ready—fire," given, a discharge of pistols, and then a summons to attend Colonel Fawcett; that he ran to where that unfortunate officer was lying, and found Mr. Cuddy with two others at his side; and that the wounded man uttered a few words rather exculpatory of Lieutenant - Munro. The poverty of this testimony, joined to the obvious repugnance of a jury to convict a second of aiding and abetting a murder when the murder itself had not been estab ished to a deliverance jury, secured Mr. Cuddy's acquittal; and Mr. Cuddy was immediately discharged. Mr. Gulliver said, in the course of his examination as a witness, that when he got to the ground he found Col. Fawcett lying down, and heard him say something about levelling a pistol. He said, " I was not level enough," or " I did nut cover you ;" to which Lieut. Munro said,_ " Oh, Fawcett, I thought you were covering me." Col. Fawcett said he had been prac ising. From the reply of Sir James Graham to the memorial of the Cheshire Grand Jury, it would appear that there is a probability of having a w nter assize. Sir W. Follett, says the Western Times, netted, in special retainers at these assizes, £4,000 in fees, and without diminishing his ordinary attention to the interests. of his constituents. A true bill was found on Wedcesday morning, at the • Central Criminal Court, against certain merchants for' slave trading. The witnesses for the prosecution were Colonel Edward Nicholls, R.M., the Honourable Capt. Denman t and Captain Hill. At the Cumberland Assizes, Lawrence Doogan. aged Car lisle Gaol en the sth of July, and was sentenced to seven m p a r r is e on a e w r ay had fro p m re t v h io e u p s l l a y intirs years' transportation, to commence at the expiration of 16, was found guilty on a charge of breaking out of been seven years had t c o ar : sentenced. On the Western Circuit an action has been brought by Sir Samuel Spry. to recover the value of a race mare, while having it in their possession it died: called Grateful. from a Mr. Ames and others, who, it was the:d eb the The plaintiff had purchased the mare of a trainer, named Treen. at Plymouth. From Treen's stables the horse wag removed by a man named Sweatman, and this person* being indebted to Messrs. Ames, Castle, and Co., dis satlalebgleeda: and tillers, at Bristol, the mare was seized by them for debt. On the part of the defendants, it was denied that the mare was the same. Several witnesses, well known in the sporting world, were examined. Verdict for the plaintiff—damages £l5O. THREE BROTHERS DROWNED AT HARROGATE. Three brothers of the name of Thackwray, aged 22. 19, and 17, lost their lives whilst bathing in the river Nidd, on Sunday morning last, in the vicinity of Harrogate. They went out to gather herbs, and unfortunately resolved to bathe. The youth of 19 injudiciously jumped into I place much deeper than he expected. and having given the alarm, his elder brother plunged in to rescue Wm: but the effort was in vain, and their dreadful state induced the younger one, in a moment of great agitation, to follow the example of his elder brother. They clung to each other, and all went down together. DREADFUL DEATH OF MR. AYMER, THE CELEBRATED AMERICAN VAULTER.—This unfortunate man, WhOr_. braeth on •ment. met was the recent admiration o Mr. Betty, proprietor of Thursday night at the 0 rcuwshere the late performer wag perfo the Royal Arophitheatr.e, nt The particular performance for i r n m hisancepeactutl peculiar Englishdep.fr Opera exmson fulfilling anr"" ge ="" ' , fl ounced concluded with a double whicb Mr - AYmer considereda almost (if not quite) his feet, fell on his neck, and death aummerset? a feat impos sibie, and en throwing i t the ill-fated artist, instead of alighting on Immediate result. Smith, a great tram poline and vaulter, similar m et his death in a manner precisely during the management of Messrs. Ducrow and some seasons back.—The Times. West, at Astley's,