The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-08-14 00:00:00

FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE. FRANCE. The Toulonnais of the sth instant state that on the 25th ult. the whole of the British squadron (with the exception of the Carysfort, which had sailed front the coast of Spain,) was assembled at Malta, under the orders of Admiral Stoptord. The French squadron, commanded by Admiral Gallots, ar rived on the 16th ult. before Tripoli, (in Barbary,) where he found dispatches left there a few days before by Admiral Lalande, who had visited that harbour with the ship Jena and the brig Lutin. Those dispatches requiring the presence of Admiral Galluis at Tunis within the shortest delay pos sible, he set sail for that destination on the 18th. SPAIN. Letters from Bayonne of the sth instant mention as positive .• quaint - a - Wit - Effie result of the operations i;iGenera=ar Lower Arragon. A sortie effected by the Cbristino r.arrison of Iron had been unsuccessful; the Carlists of Vera and Lesaca united and repulsed the 'Christiuos, and drove them back into the town. Advices from Madrid extend to the 2d instant. A letter from Colonel Cordova's column, received in Madrid, dated Escdlona, the 30th ult., states that Perdiz's main force was close to that town, and three other petty chiefs had joined him. The treasury at Madrid was entirely exhausted, and Rothschild's and Gaviria's agents had withdrawn their proffers of advances upon the securities of the Almaden mines and the ensuing collection of tithes. M. Aguada has, it is stated, withdrawn in disgust from all negotiations with the Spanish loan commissioners. Correspondence from the frontier dated the 6th, after reca pitulating the account of a victory said to have been gained over Bdbrera by General Oran, points out the improbability that a victory of such importance, gained on the 33? h ultimo, should have become known at Sarago.sa only on the fifth day after it was fought, .he distance faces being not 30 leagues. The Christina Guerilla chief Martit. Barea, alias Zariian , met with a severe defeat recently from General Sepelana, who attacked him on his march from Vittoria to Nturgia, and compelled him to retreat to the former city with great loss. TURKEY. The Augsbargh Gazette pul,ll;he; a letter from Constanti nople, of the 18th ult., announcing that the Sultan had ordered the Capitan Pasha to attack Mehemet Ali's fleet, wherever he met it. " This order," adds the letter, " has terrified the whole corps diplomatique, who now consider war as imminent." The Courrier Francais states, on the authority of letters from Bucharest of Ir3th ult., that the General Assembly of Wallachia had been suddenly dissolved after a session ()fairly a few days, and that the government ordinance did nut men tion the period at which it was again to be convoked. ilite - oave recel.—. ! mpil•PßATANzota to the enu or :ti iv . They contain but little news, but are not wholly withoutim portance, as they attest the continuing tranquillity of that part of Colombia, and its progress in national imrrovenient, which, with the exception of its finances, appear to be con siderable. The chambers and the government, keeping aloof from the excitation which disturbs other provinces of :South America, were chiefly directing their attention to internal objects, the promotion of public industry, protecting and favouring native manufactures, and entouraging the exten sion of commercial ship building, upon which much stress is laid. Towards this latter object it had been decided to exempt the materials of vessels from duties, and to release the carpenters and other workmen engaged in these works from serving in • the army or in the ranks of the national guards, unless under circumstances of urgent necessity. A loan of £lO,OOO was to be made to a company undertaking a manufactory of earthenware, which was to be repaid in two years. With all this protective liberality on the part of government, however, it appears that the serious deficiency of the revenue iu the last year, as compared with the pre ceding one, was sensibly and anxiously felt. An order had been issued to the collectors of duties and taxes to insist upon the payment of arrears, and to check smuggling, as it was feared the returns would not meet the current expenses of the state. General Francisco Paulo Santander had been again chosen president of the republic, and M. Jose de Obaldia vice-president, without any opposition. There had dissensions amougs the ministers. M. Lino de Pambo, offended at being foiled in the chamber and by his colleagues respecting an appointment to the cathedral of Panama, had resigned his departments of the home and foreign affairs, alleging the decline of his health and the irritation of his spirits as the cause. From the terms of his letter it would seem that the post of minister is in New Grenada no more a bed of roses than elsewhere. He says that the -' weary labours of five years have shaken his health and intellectual powers, and that the envy, ingratitude, calumny, and male volence with which he has been assailed have sickened his heart and stink deeply into his soul." His resignation was General Herzan, governor of Bogota, appointed in his stead. The last accounts from the Escuador state that since the dispersion of the faction of Riohambra no further disturb ances had taken place. There was nothing new from Vene zuela, and in no part of Colombia did any interest agpear to be felt at what was passing in other parts of South Amtlica. RIO DE JANEIRO. Letters from Rio de Janeiro of the Ist of June have been received, which are not so encouraging as some of those which have preceded them, relative to the financial situation of the country. They state tat the expenditure still exceeds the revenue so much, that auditions to the public debt, and per haps considerable ones, must take place annually for some years to come. Of the loan of 1837, which was for about £700,000, it is said that not more than one-third' is vet dis posed of; but this is considered to arise in part from the high terms demanded by the Finance Minister, who supplies his immediate wants, in the mean time, by a monthly issue of treasury bills, which he had managed to keep afloat to the extent of about £lOO,OOO. The position of the government was nevertheless becoming a steady one, and it is observed as a good omen for its stability, that public credit has not been affected at all by the recent occurrences at Para, Bahia, and Rio Grande. The government was held to possess a large majority in the Chambers, and the election of Litna, the Re gent, was consequently thought to be secure. His ministry was about to be strengthened by the introduction of Antonio de Andrade as Minister for the Home Department, an office filled temporarily by the Minister of Justice. HAY TI. Accounts from Hayti of the 17thofJune, by her Majesty's ship Champion, state that strict regulations had been adopted by President Boyer with respect fo the arrival anti departure of persons from the Republic. 22 persons had been arrested' and tried before the :Military Council as accomplices in the late conspiracy, and the attempt at assassination of th" Se cretary-General Inginac; 9 were found guilty, and 13 ac quitted,, but condemned to a strict surveillance. CHINA. Commercial advices have been received from Canton to the 22d of March. They mention that the local manufacturers were actively engaged, and that the increased detnauds for cotton had caused an improvement in its value. A public meeting of the creditors of the insolvent flong inerc'na los had been held, when it was resolved to memorialise tne Secretary of State for Foreign Aff ir4 at home, noon the tri e,:tion of the large sum owing by them, with a view to o means of enforcing pa) went. DI6TURBANCE3 AT NATAL We have received Cape of Good Ilope papers to the 10th of June, from which we extract the foilnwing:— (From Graham's Town Journal of May 31.) Intelligence has been received within these last few days from Natal, by an overland route, via llaforland, up to so late a date as April 26 We have several letters now before us, giving particulars of the various occurrences Which have transpired in this country, and of which but vague and un satisfactory accounts had before reached the colony. From these several accounts we shall endeavour to gather a clear and connected statement. It appears that, after the treacherous massacre of the bene ♦olent and ill-fated Retsef and his brave compatrio:s, and the subsequent butchery of more than 3)O women and chil dren at the emigrant camp, the farmers resolved to take tie field, to enter the Zoola country, and, if possible to avenge on the head of the ruthless Diugaan, the author of all the bloodshed, this wanton slaughter of their helpless country men. Accordingly it seems from these accounts, that on the 6th April a force of between 303 and 400 mounted mei marched from the encampment, under the command of Piet Uys and J. Potguter. On entering Dingan's territory they found the country abandoned, and it was not till they came near Urn hunginglore, the capital, and principal residence of the King, that they met with any obstruction. They arrived in the neighbourhood on the morning of the 11th of April, and found the Zoola army drawn up in three divisions, and ad vantageously posted on soma rocks, which formed a half-circle. The road to the royal residence lay through a narrow pass in the circle, and on each side of this opening the enemy were waiting the attack. The third division lay in ambush with the intention of closing in upon the farmers in the rear, should they enter the circle, and so preventing their escape. Notwithstanding the immense disparity of numbers, the farmers resolved on an immediate attack. They divided themselves into two nearly equal divisions, and at once op posed themselves to the two divisions of the 'Lucia army. One account states that one division of the farmers had not fired more than 16 shots when they shamefully fled; but this is explained in another account as follows : One division on the first onsetwas completely routed. It appears, from the noise made in beating their shields, and by the shouting of the warriors, the horses of the farmers took fright, and they were thus thrown into confusion. The divi sion under Piet Uys was thus left to sustain the rush of the Zoola forces, and it nobly did its duty by a steady well directed fire. The farmers had thrown the enemy into some confusion, but from this they recovered, and the gallant little band soon found themselves hemmed in on every -side. Every man fought desperately; the fight had continued an hour and a half, when the farmers, finding their danger becoming more imminent, directed a steady fire to one point of the circle, and, having made a line completely through the enemy, they ef fected their retreat, leaving, at the very lowest computation, from 500 to 600 of the Zoolas dead on the field. At the com mencement of the engagement, when the Zoolas were thrown into confusion, the commander Piet Uys ' accompanied by 20 men, rushed gallantly upon the enemy, followed them into a kloof, and were there hemmed in by an immense body of Zoolas. Uys fought in the most heroic manner, but fell with nine of his companions; and his son, a b oy o f 12 years o f age, fell fighting bravely by his father's side. It appears that on the very day on which this severe action was fought, the Natal settlers, under the command .of Mr. Biggan, marched from the port, to co-operate with the farmers. On the morning of the lith of April they at length came into contact with the Zoola army, flushed, with the vi c t ory , as t h ey Tnceived, which they had just before gained over the farmers. he Natal force, it is said, consisted of 800 men. :300 of whom were armed with guns and supplied with powder and ball. The hostile forces immediately came into action. The con flict must have been most desperate and bloody, as the result wits most disastrous. Two thousand of the Natal settlers are said to have fallen; amongst them are 13 Europeans, and 10 Hottentots. P s "tunatelY for the settlers still at Natal, on the arrival of thi 46 astroui intelligence, the brig Comet was still in the har bour, having been del a y e d by the illness of the master, Capt. Sadden here they found refuge. Thetwaoeepeatitentt s .. tate, that since the defeat of the Natal set tlers, rarmers had arrived with a message from the emigrant camp , Arrangements had been made for mutual protection, and a p romise had been given that sr-‘ farmers should be sent to the port,r for the protection of the place. From a later account Shortly after the defeat tZeiLedi there 2dl) men had arrived. remained na, three days, the set tlementd at the port; theyl t here an d swept it of every head of cattle. The native settlers had fled to the bush, and the moveable property was conveyed on board the brig. The houses at Natal had not been destroyed by the Zoolas, as they were deterred from approachin g ; the shore, be a shot toting occasionally discharged from the vessel. BEDFORD,—THE JUDGE AND THE BELLRING4R. At the recent assizes St. Paul's bell rang, as is eustoinarv, for five minutes, before two o'clock, for the boys to go into the differ-. ent schools. The noise interrupted Mr. Justice Park, whilst sitting in the Nisi Prius Court, who asked an officer " What are those bells ringing for ?" " For the boys to go to school," was the reply. " Bless me," said his lordship, "Can't the boys go to school without having a bell rung for them? Tell the fellow who is ringing to cease iminedi tel v." A waY wont the officer, and, on his return, the bell still eon iuu d o jingle. " Did you tell that fellow to stop the he,i?" inquired Ihe judge. " Yes, my lord." "Then fetch him to me, and I wilt commit him for contempt of court." Off went the officer again, and the sexton, not relishing being committed to pri son for doing his duty, prudently decamped without honour , tn g the court with a visit. At thre e o ' c l oc k th e c hi mes played ; "There th e y go aga i n ," sa id hi s l or d s hip ; "h ow f on d the Bedford people must be of a noise; why, the bells are ringing, for something or other, every hour in the day."—Cambridye Press, Emptriat Varliartunt. HOUSE OF LORDS.—THURSDAY. Lord STRANGFORD gave notice, that he would on Monday next call the attention of their lordships to the present state of our commercial relations with the state of South America. Lord LYNDHURST gave notice, that he would in the next session of parliament introduce a bill similar to that which bad recently been rejected by their lordships, on the subject of the custody of infants; the " reasons" prepared for disa greeing to some of the same amendments of the lords, on the "Municipal Corporations (I reland)Bill," and for the lords insisting on certain of their lordships' amendments to the bill, were offered to the commons in a conference. Lord BROUGHAM moved the second reading of a bill intro duced by him, " for declating the true intent and meaning of an act passed in the__present session, of parliament, entitled c o a em iora ro rsr n o e over me of Lower Canada;' and for indemnifying those who have issued or acted under a certain Ordinance, made under co 4our of the said act." His lordship strongly supported the contending not only for the illegality of the ordinance, but adducing some curious instances of the blundering man ner in which it had been carried into effect, as far as regards the naming of the culprits. Considerable debate ensued. Lord LYNDHURST condemned the course pursued by the Canadian government, and declared the ordinances to be Lord MELBOURNE admitted the illegality as regarded Bermuda, but after the suppbrt extended to the act of giving extraordinary powers to Lord Durham, he was not prepared to hear censure applied for the exercise of such powers. The Duke of WELLINGTON complained of the charge thus conveyed, in return forsupooit if the government into which he had been "entrapped;" but though he was will:rig to strengthen the government as regarded Canada, he denied that either he or his friends an% part in the revonsibtlity und•-r the respun sibiity 0; the measure iez..tert with the. gove, , y-, ni. aito 1, was sure more gross illegality than the orditian,a (1,1) , •.s far as it. concerned Bermuda, could hardly he commiii;2(l. He denounced the idea of this country permitting banish ments without Lord BROUGHAM replied. Their lordships then divided on the question. The nom hers were , t'or the bill 54 Against it 36 Majority in favour of the bill lB The house then proceeded with the consideration of the Tithes (Ireland) Bill. The bill was eventually passed. The second reading of the Posthffice Bill was opposed by the Duke of Richmond, and negatived :—The ayes were 25; the noes Majority against it, 7. HOUSE OF COM mONe).--rt, w it in a bill for the better registration of the voters of the Uu ' ivet,ity of Dublin, which was read the first tune, but only with the view of having, it printed and circulated. Captain ALSAGER presented a petition from Surrey,nume rously signed, complaining of the evils of the beer shops —a subject to which, on an early day, he gave notice, he should direct the attention of the house.. Mr. WALLACE presented a petition from the commercial travellers, for post-oflice reform, representing that with it there would be "60,000,000" more letters annually conveyed by such means than were now forwarded through the Post office. He also gave notice that next session he should move for the select committee on the Post-office. Captain PECUELL gave notice that, in consequence of what he had seen passing in this country, he should next session move for a bill to repeal the 6th and 7th Will. IV. for the purpose of putting down the present system of advertising " foreign lotieries." The several bills still before the house were then forwarded a stage. The Consolidated Fund ("Appropriation") Bill, the Excheqeer Bills Bill, the County Treasurers (Ireland) Bill, the Church Buildings Acts Amendment Bill, the Coal Trade (London, &c.) Bill (which is similar to the one that failed on account of some amendments in the Lords), and the Cornwall Tin Duties Bill, were read the third time, and passed. The consideration of the Lords' amendments to the Public Records Bill was deferred to Ft kitty. The Lords' amendments to the Court of Session (Scot land) Bill were agreed to. _ _ Ltird EBRINGI()N moved for a return, similar to that or dered last year, of bills forwarded from the Commons to the Lords, and by the Lords rejected. It was ordered to be prepared. The Lords afterwards requested a conference on the sub ject of the :Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill. This took place. On the return of the committee for managing it on the part of the Commons, Lord Jorix RUSSELL stated what had taken place, and handed in the "reasons" that had been delivered on the part of their lordships, adding' that some of the amendments and rejections were such, their lordships persisting in adhering to them, that he could not propose to the house to adopt them. 13 e moved that the reasons be taken into consideration "that day three months." Mr. bit aw complained of the rather unceremonious man ner in which so unexpected a proposition was made, and declared that the consequences must be on the shoulders of those who proposed such a course. The motion was afterwards carried without a division, and the "Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill" is consequently lost for the present session. The house then adjourned. HOUSE OF LORDS.-FRIDAY. The royal assent was given, by commission, to sundry bills, among wbielr was the Royal Exchange Rebuilding Bill, the Juvenile Offenders Bill, the Affirmations Bill, the Hackney Carriages ( Metropolis) Bill, the Bank of Ireland Repayment (Suspension) Bill, &c. The Customs Bill, the Militia Pay Bill, the Militia Ballots Suspension Bill, the Mails on Railways Bill, the Mediter ranean Postage Bill, the Joint-stock Bank Bills, the Court of Sessions (Scotland) Bill, the Trading Companies Bill, and the Copyright Bill, were severally read a third time and passed. 'The Ecclesiastical Appointments Suspension Bill went through Committee. The Earl o f H. DDINGTON, in moving for some correspon dence respecting the appointment of magistrates in Scotland, and the nominations (orsuggestions) of the lord provost, com plained of the unfairness of the proceedings ; out of 91 ap pointments,• most being notari... whig. an d ra di ca l.. The Loon CHANCELIOIt said that he knew nothing about the facts ; that he had obeyed the recommendations of the lord provost in this particular instance. 'AMA LYN DI: URST added that he also had received many complaints on this matter from Edinburgh • but that as to any difference between Whig or radical, he thought it was very slight— whigs when out of office being radicals. Lord BROUG ki AM caused s , ine men Uncut by observing that he did not exactly admit the accuracy of this definition. Motion agreed to. • On the question that the',rl..rships resolve into committee on the " Canada Governmew.: Act Declaratory Bi;l," Lord MELBoruNE said that lie did not deny the illegality r ~t Durham's ordin,lce—thro 11 not oTer opposi i , a to the bid after what had passel, hu ih.,t he sho•. propose amendments so as to secure ample indemnity to those who might have acted on the ordinance. The hill went through committee (it being understood that Lord Melbourne would introduce a bill to explain the powers of the Government-General of Canada,) and the report was received. On the motion of Lord H A DDINGTON, it was agreed that the clauses struck out of the Sheriffs' Court (Scotland) Bill by the Commons should be restored, and a committee ap pointed to draw up reasons. The Prisons (Scotland) Bill was read a third time, and on the question that it do pass, Lord Ai ANSFIELD divided the house, when there appeared 11 for the bill, and 15 against it. The bill is therefore lost. The Registration of Voters (England) Bill was reported, and ordered to be read a third time on Saturday. The consideration of the amendments made by the Com mons in the Imprisonment for Debt Bill was postponed till Monday, after giving rise to a short discussion, iu the course of which, Lord fIROUG A M said he felt hound to call their lordships' attention to a clause in the bill which required newspaper proprietors to insert certain notices as advertisements on the payment of 3s. He had received letters from the country which stated that the effect of such a clause would be most ruinous, for must of the country newspapers were published once a-week, and the notices might, perhaps, occupy one fourth part of them. Lord LyninFicosr, Lord FALMOUTH, and Lord ELLEN BOROUGH spoke against the clause, and Lord LYN DHURST proposed to strike it out. Lord MELBOURNE said he doubted whether the omission of the clause would not endanger the bill, as the clause was a money clause. -LordßeouGu m said that the clause was not originally in the bill, but it was one of the Commons' amendments to the bill sent down by their lordships. The omission of the clause would not, therefore, trench in any degree on the pri vileges of the Commons. 1;Ord SHA FTEsnurtir coincided in this opinion. Lord MINTo moved the second reading of the parliamen tary burghs (Scotland) bill. It was opposed by Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Brougham, who objected to a bill of 70 clauses, all relating to matters of importance, being brought under their lordships' notice on the eve of a prorogation. Lord Misr() said he felt the force of the objection, and would not press the second reading. The bill, therefore, is dropped. The pensions bill and valuation of lands (Ireland) . bill went through committee. The House adjourned at half-past 10 o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-FRIDAY After the house had been to the Lords to hear the Royal assent given to several bills, the report of the Dublin corpo ration (compensation to officers) bill was agreed to ; the spirit licenses (Ireland) bill was read a thud time and passed; and the lords' amendments to the public records bill were agreed to. The order of the day for the second reading of the Dublin University (right of voting) bill was discharged. Dr. LCSHINGTON moved for correspondence with the French government, relative to certain claims of indemnifi cation for losses sustained by British subjects on the coast of Africa, in consequence of aggressions committed on them in 1831 Lord PA LMERSTON said that negociations were still in progress on the subject, and that therefore it would be in convenient and irregular to produce the documents. Mr. Alderman Ti - iosiPsoN said that there was an impres sion in the mercantile world that the government had not been as earnest as it might have been to procure redress in this case. Dr. LusiuNcT r oN said, after the statement made, that he should not press his motion. Captain WOOD moved for leave to bring in a bill to alter the duties imposed upon "grapes, apples, cherries, and pears, and other fruits imported into the united kingdom from foreign parts." Mr P. THOMSON contended that as the customs bill had not received the royal assent, this bill was premature; and that it was erroneous to suppose that such bill would be a hardship upon the fruit sellers; the contrary would prove to be the case. Captain WOOD then gave notice that he would bring for ward the subject again early next session. On the motion of Captain WOOO, a return was ordered of the amount and value of foreign fruit imported through the Customs, and on -which duty had been paid, during the years 1836, 1837, and 1838. Messengers from the Lords announced that their lordships had agreed to the amendments of the Commons on the schools (Scotland) bill, and returned the Irish tithe bill with amendments. The house adjourned at a quarter before six o'clock till Monday. ENCOURAGEMENT To FEMALE EMIGRAT . IOIV.7 .n The judge a of the county c our t in Rivl,ind State, United States, case of all ege d b reac h o f prom ise, stated that no explicit promi se Was necessary to hind the parties to a marriage contract; but that long-con,inued attention or intimacy with a female was as good evidence of intended marriage as a special contract. A YANKEE HORSE. —He never tried to do anything and eou.dn'i. As for going be codld do that, and begin again when the others leave off. No one going the same way on a 'dike ever saw anything but the crittur's tail when he was a head, and didn't choose to be overtaken. He'll go at any pace under a steam-engine at full speed, and will overtake a first-rate steamer, if it stops to take in water. He's the cheapest crittur, too, as ever I se en; f or he ' ll go by a toll bar on a 'pike before the man can look out to see if anything is coming, LIVERPOOL ASSIZES.-F RID AY. Their Lordship's heard divine service at St. George's, and proceeded to court at half past eleven o'clock. CROWN COURT. Before Mr. Bacon ALDERSON, The Court having been opened with the usual formalities, the following gentlemen were sworn on THE GRAND JCRY. The Hon. Ricuann BOOTLE IyILBRAIIAM, 11. P., Leathern House, Foreman. Peter Ainsworth, Esq., M.P., Smithell's Hall. Sir Thomas Birch, Burt._, The Hazles. Sir Thomas Brancker, Knight, Liverpool. Hugh Hornby Birley, Esq., Swinton. William Bolling, Esq., M.P. Bolton. John Bourne, Esq Liverpool. John Entwistle, Esq., Foxholes. Richard Edwards, Esq., Roby Hall. William Gale, Esq., Lightburne House. William Gerard, Esq., Ditton Grave. James Heywood, Acresfield. Adam Hodgson, Esq., Everton Breck. Robert Gregge Hopwood, Esq., Efopwood. Richard Leyland, Esq., Walton Flail. John Moss, Esq., Otterspool. Joseph Ridgway, Esq., Ridgmont, Clement Iloyds, Esq., Rochdale. Samuel Taylor, Esq., Eccleston Hall. Georse William Wood, Esq, M.P., Singleton Lodge: Wilitarn Gerard Walmsley, Esq., The Platts. John Wright, Esq , Liverpool. • The Mayors of Wigan and Ashton-under Lyne were each fined £5 for not answering to their names when called over. :Mr. Baron Alderson s a id it was necessary that they should acknowledge her Majesty's commission; though it need not on all occasions be done in person. If therefore some person on their behalf should appear, the fine might be remitted. The proclamation against vice, profaneness, and immora lity haying been read, ills Lint DSHIP then delivered his charge to the Grand Jury, which was to the following effect : He was very glad to see so full an attendance of the gentlemen of the county; fur undoubtedly the business with which they would have to deal would require the utmost attention, for, he regretted to say, the calendarcontained charges which would require care ful investigation, and calm and dispassionate consideration. He regretted greatly to see the contrast with this division of the county of Lancaster presented when compared with that from which they had just come, and he would impress on their minds the necessity of consideration as to what might be the cause which made so great a distinction between two parts of the saute county. lii the one he found no capital case at all—no case of manslaughter even which was thought fit ting after the investigation of the Grand Jury to be put in the course of trial. Thar...as—sat e rsea slight charges in which, umaer his ausiee; the Grand Jury hail veto property thuught it necessary to . ptit the parties on their trial,—the rest con sisting of small offences such as were usually tried at quarter sessions, and even those cases were very few in number. This was all that came before' the tribunal of the assize iu the northern division of the county of Lancaster, and here, coining into another part of the same county, he found a calendar of a very different nature, presenting a proof of viciousness, which spread its branches over the whole face of this part of the county. The gentlemen of the county should look about them to see if anythiug could account for it,—and if any thing, —being accounted for,—could be done to remedy it. He urged this upon them as gentl e m en mos t i n t eres t e d i n preser ving the peace and prosperity of the county—most interested in the repression of crime, and he hoped they would take the matter into their most serious consideration when they went to their own homes. The calendar contained the names of not fewer than ten individuals accused of the crime of murder. The Grand Jury would have to investigate carefully one of these cases, which included the names of seven individuals and the point fur consideration would be whether the offence with which the prisoners stood charged amounted to the crime of murder, or fell short of it, and was properly reduced to that of manslaughter only. The distinction between the one and the other would require their careful attention. They knew perfectly well that the crime of murder consisted in the kill ing of one individual by another with malice aforethought; but that malice aforethought was not confined to a determi nation to kilt the individual by reason of a preconceived grudge. It might be that the general charge of malice might be implied from the circumstances of the case, and it was to this latter species of malice that their attention would he di. reeled. If a person intending to kill another did kill him without provocation, or without that justification which would reduce it below the crime of murder, it was clear that a bill should be found for the mnreer, provided there was an inten tion to kill, and a killing. But it' there was no such intent to kill manifested by a previous determination expressed, they might still infer a determination to kill, and couple that de termination with the killing, if the nature of the circumstan ces showed that the party must have had such intention either to kill or to do some grievous and violent bodily harm. which would probably issue in death. Now, if a man used a deadly weapon, it was clear—unless, indeed, he was a madman—that if a person of sound understanding used a deadly weapon and killed, no one could infer any thing else than that in using the deadly weapon he intended that the death following front it should follow, and, therefore, that he must have in tended the death. If a man shot at them with a pistol and they died, who can doubt that his intent was to kill? If a man stabbed them with a dagger or cut them down with a sword, the same consequence followed. So, if a man used a deadly weapon, like a knife, for instance, and stab bed a party, unless under circumstances to which he would allude by and by, without provocation, so that death ensued, the offence would be murder. He now came to another and a different class of cases. Ile would take that of a man who used no weapons but those which God and nature had given him—his fists, and with them occa sioned death. This was an ambiguous act. It might be that a person who used his fists, struck and killed, might have in tended no such thing as to kill or inflict any grievous bodily harm; he might have intended to hurt the party, to knock him down, or prevent his following, but if he used his fists contirmously after the party was at his mercy, after he must have known, if he had any understanding left, that the blows then inflicted must of necessity end in death, or in such bo dily injury as would probably terminate iu death, then the continuance of the blows made him equally guilty of murder as if he had used a deadly weapon, for the continuance of the beating, and the continuance of the ill-usage was the same in effect, the expressed intention of the party to kill. So if a man used a bludgeon, which was the intermediate case be tween the use of fists, and the use of a deadly weapon, he might use that bludgeon as to reader it as deadly a Weapon as if he had stabbed, shot, or cut down the party with a sword, and if the use he made of it showed that he intended to kill or to inflict such injury as would occasiou death, then he who so used it was undoubtedly guilty of murder; and if many persons were together, all engaged in one violent and illegal purpose, and the violence used all conduced to the coinple-' tion of the attempt in which they were engaged—if, for, in- Stance, the parties had a common intent to attack a police man, who unfortunately received his death wound, they would then consider whether the violence used towards him could be used with any other intent than the intent of killing. If they thought it was used simply for the purpose of punish ment. though that would be improper—tor the purpose of hurting him, though that would be wrong, and if death en sued, that would be manslaughter only ; but if they found that such violence was used and so continued that rational persons must have concluded that death was likely to follow such violence, then the parties were undoubtedly guilty of murder. So much for that case; but there was a case in which death had followed from the use of the fists only, and which appeared to him rather to fall tinder the more merci ful classification than under that of murder. 'l' hey would have. to consider this, and the case might turn out more strongly than appeared from the depositions. It was the case of a man from Manchester, who struck another with his fists only, so that he died. The blow was given in a very vital part—behind the ear. and they must consider whether the prisoner intended to kill, or used such violence with an intention that death should follow. If they thought that that was not made out, it would be their duty to put the prisoner on his trial for manslaughter only. On reading the deposi tions he should come to that conclusion himself, but the case might come out more strongly in evidence, and if it did, it would be their duty to find a bill ler murder. With respect to the police case, though the weapon used—a bludgeon— was not a deadly. one in the ordinary acceptation of the term, it might have been used for such a time, and so violently, us to render it a deadly weapon, and to show that the intent was to kill. A third class of cases consisted of persons charged with stabbing with a knife. They would consider whether there was aoy provocation that could reduce the offence to manslaughter. Supposing the use of a deadly weapon to be proved against the party, they would ' then consider whether any thing arose on the case before them to show that the man had received such provocation as would not indeed jus tify the act, but might reduce the crime from one class to the other. But this must he a provocation, not by word of month, but by blows and violence; if such provocation were given the offence would be manslaughter, though a deadly weapon was used—but if a deadly weapon were used without such circumstances of palliation, it would be murder. There was another case which was unquestionably one of murder. He need make no comment on the law, which was clear, for the only doubt was whether the party accused was lie who committed the act. The question was one of fact only —was he or was he not the guilty person—and on that they would decide iu the first instance. There was another class of cases which he was sorry to see so numerous—that of stabbing in which death had not ensued. They should exa mine all these cases carefully, and see whether the indict ment contained a count charging the person with intent to murder. They would enquire whether the infent to mustier existed; if it did, they should take care that it was charged in the indictment. whilst on the other hand they should throw it out of the indictment in cases in which they were not satis fied on that point, because there was now a distinction be tween the crime if charged with intent to murder, or not with any particular intent, being a capital crime in the one case, and not in the other. It was therefore necessary that they should make the distinction now, though it was not so formerly. With respect to the other count, it was now no longer necessary, as it bad been before, that they should be satisfied that the stabbing, cutting, or wounding took place under such circumstances that, if death had ensued, the crime would have amounted to murder. It was so formerly, but it was so no longer, for if death ensued, the crime would have been manslaughter only; still, if the party maliciously used a deadly weapon, with the intent charged—if he used it under circumstances of showing that he intended to do some grievous bodily harm—if he used it with the intent of maim ing or disabling—in all these cases it was necessary to find the intent, even though provocation had been given, which, if death had ensued, would have reduced the crime to man slaughter • for malice, in the sense in which the word was used in these acts of parliament and according to the laws of England, did not consist in a preconceived grudge, but in every act which was done maliciously, which was done wil fully and without a justifiable excuse. By that criterion they would judge. Every death following the commission of an unlawful act amounted to manslaughter. If persons agreed to fight with their Ssts and death ensued, the offence was manslaughter, because it was unlawful t o fight. If death ensued from furious driving—from the speed with which the horses were compelled to go by the act of the coachman or driver—then the driver was responsible. If carelessness were used by those who had the conduct of machinery, and in consequence of that carelessness death ensued, the party using such carelessness was guilty of manslaughter. if, in administering medicine, it was administered with careless ness, negligence, or gross ignorance, the party so adminis tering, it was guilty of manslaughter. With all these cases they were no doubt familiar, and only required that their memory should be refreshed when cases of this sort came before them. It was only necessary for him to detain them with observations on two other cases—in one of which the prisoner was charged with the commission of an unnatural offence—in the other with rape. They knew what was ne cessaiy in order to prove the completion of these offences. With respect to one of them, they would have to consider whether the evidence was such as to induce them to think that the jury, which would ultimately pass its decision on the case of the prisoner, must come to such a conclusion as would lead to his conviction. If they thought that would be the result, it would be their duty to find the bill; but if they bad any reasonable doubt on that point, it would be better, as he always told a grand jury in such cases, that the country should be spared the ignominy and shame of such an investigation. He feared, however, that this was not a case of that nature. With respect to the charge of rape, they would consider whether the offence had been completed or not, and also whether it was with the consent of the party or nut. If it were with her consent, though it was a great and heavy sin, it was no offence known to the laws of the land, and they must throw out the bill; but if they were satisfied that the offence was fully completed, and without her consent, then they must find the bill. Before he concluded these observa tions, which were all he intended to make with reference to the calendar, he must express his surprise at the vast num ber of persons charged with bigamy, and his intention to make some severe examples, in order that the crime might be put down, for he saw that it was increasing. He wished to call their attention to a subject which he had much at heart, and which this seemed a good opportunity to notice— he meant the subject of prison discipline. It must be ob vious to all, when they considered what prisons were in tended for,lhat a good deal must depend upon the classifi cation of prisoners to be subjected to discipline. It was manifest that the discipline for persons kept in custody on civil process, as they were in this county at present, must be essentially different from that which should prevail in a gaol of punishment for crime committed against the state; for iu the former case a person was detained in order that he might be induced by his detention to satisfy his creditors with the money or property which he withheld from them—for if he did not withhold it, there was no reason to detain him at all. A distinction ought to be made between the debtor who is fraudulent and the debtor who was willing to give up his property for the benefit of all his creditors together; but it ryas to cif .t ..,st4cl3 1 4 ,14 tuil,jasatiaest,„6 per d .. a Tb.>^:' within a prison which might properly be called a peniten tiary. There was another class, also; he meant those who were put into . prison in order that they might be detained to take their trial; these persons might be innocent; and why, then, subject them to the same penalties'as those who had been found guilty of the crime with which they were charged? As long as the same prison contained the class of debtors, the class of persons accused, and the class of per sons convicted—manifestly they could not carry out that course of discipline for each which ought to be uniform in every respect. There was also another observation ; the person who was very properly qualified to manage one class of prisoners might be a very improper person to have charge of another, fur a man might have a taste, a genius and disposition to govern persons who were subjected to penalties for offences of which they had been convicted. In somedegree a prison of that sort should be a place of reform as well as terror; a place of reform, in order that criminals might amend their ways—a place of ter ror, in order that those without its walls might be deterred from the commission of offences. Until they divided pri soners, and had a prison for one purpose and a prison for another, it seemed to be that there would be very . great diffi culty in carrying out any good plan of prison dicipline. Iu this county, however, they had a great advantage. He had already told them of the happy state of the northern division of the county. There were only eleven prisoners for trial, but there was a gaol capable of holding six hundred persons, which was in truth, a penitentiary for the county of Lancas ter; and if it contained but few persons accused and detained to take their trial, it would not be difficult to devote as much of it as possible for the safe custody of prisoners from all parts of the county, and so render it a penitentiary for the county of Lancaster. This hint seemed to him worthy of consideration, though it would not carry into effect all that was desired, because it was necessary to have a penitentiary for children, a penitentiary for women, and a penitentiary for men, and they should abolish a county gaol, so to speak, and have penitentiaries for districts. It appeared to him tkat they mtgbt in this county carry clre,tiwiewan experiment. He threw out the sugges ti o n v ery h um bl y, and with a wish that it might be of use if attended to,—as no doubt it would be, with their assistance, and the benefit of their superior judgment. If it were adopted, then this black calendar— this heavy assize—might nut have been without its effect. His LORDSHIP then dismissed the Grand Jury to their labours. POLYGAMY, James Bell, aged 42, was indicted for having, at Eccles, feloniously married one Jane Brown, his lawful wife, Rebecca Wildgoose, being still alive. He was further charged with having afterwards, at Eccles, feloniously married Lucy 111‘Guffaron, his former wife, Rebec c a Wi s ildgoose, being still alive. Mr. Hutton conducted the case for the prosecution. The prisoner was undefended. _ James Smiley stated that he apprehended the prisoner on the 7th of May last. Ha told him that he was taking him for having married three wives. He said it was not true; he had only married two wives. Witness asked him if he had not married a women of the name of Rebecca Wildgoose. He said yes, but she was so bad and drunken a woman that he had left her. He subsequently certified that he had mar ried Jane Brown, at Eccles, about ten years ago. Witness produced certificates of both marriages. Fanny Norris proved that she had seen the prisoner re turning from church after the marriage with Rebecca Wild goose had been solemnized. She also remembered the mar riage festivities. The prisoner examined ;this witness and Smiley, touching the character of the first wife. It appeared that she had been for nine years a prostitute., but Mrs. Norris said she was a decent young woman when he married her. The jury found the prisoner guilty under the first indict ment. The prisoner was then tried for having married the third wife, Lucy 111‘Gafferon. Catherine Brookes statd that she went with the prisoner to church when he was married to Lucy M'Gafferon. She was, however, taken ill in the church, and did not witness the cere mony, but she was present at the marriage festivities. A certificate of the third marriage was produced by Smiley, and read by the Clerk of the Crown. The jury returned a verdict of guilty under this indict ment also. His Lordship ordered the prisoner to stand down, saying he would consider the sentence. POLYGAMY. Joseph Smith, a respectable looking man, aged 65, habited as a farmer, was placed a t th e bar charged with having, at Bury, feloniously married Margaret Waters, his former wife, Grace Barlow, being still alive. Mr. 'WILKINS conducted the case for the prosecution. The marriages were proved by certificates read to the and by the testimony of the second wife. The prisoner entered into a very long statement of the grievances he had suffered through the misconduct of his first wife, whom be described as a most drunken and dissolute woman. He also mentioned the names of two women who told him that she was dead. His LORDSHIP directed that the prisoner should endeavour to give him satisfactory proof of the truth of the latter state meut, for which purpose he would give him time. The pri soner was put back. POLYGAMY. Philip Peat, aged 35, was charged With having at Mottram feloniously married Ann Armstrong, his fociner wife being then living. He stood further charged with having at Man chester feloniously- married Sarah Lunn, his first wife being then living. . _ Mr. Brindt conducted the prosecution, and Dr. Brown defended the prisoner. The marriages under the first indictment were fully proved, but Dr. BitowN, for the defence, endeavoured to show that the first wife Liao been married before. The mother of the first wife. Sarah Buckley, was called, and she acknow ledged that she remembered something of a marriage when she was in Scotland, at Gretna. Mrs. Buckley showed that her daughter had ,also married another person since she had parted from the prisoner. The second wife was also married aga in. - His Lordship allowed Sarah Buckley. the first wife, to be called by Dr. Brown. This was objected to by Mr. Brandt, inasmuch as the witness stood in the relation of wife to the prisoner. His LORDSHIP said she might be called to show that she was not his wife, that is, that she had been married before; but might decline answering any question on the subject, as the answer might probably criminate her as guilty of bigamy. After some conversation, his to ship went and consulted with Mr. Justice Williams. On ffis return, he said there was a difficulty, inasmuch as before she could give evidence it would be necessary 14 prove that she was a competent wit ness. He should, therefore, reject her testimony. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Mr. BRA N T said that there was another indictment against the prisoner. This affair was more complicated than it had even at first appeared to be. If the first marriage were un lawful, it created a difficulty- with respect to this case also, and they did not know how to lay the indictment. His LORDSHIp said it had been stated by the prisoner that he married the second wife under the impression that his first marriage was illegal. It was evident, therefore, that he was somehow guilty of bigamy. The indictment had, in conse quence, better be made two ways—stating both to be hist lawful wife. WOUNDING WITH INTENT TO MAIM, John 111`Gowan, a little ill-looking man, aged 25, was charged with having, at Wardlewortb, cut and wounded Alice Dodds. with intent to maim her. Mr. Bit AN or conducted the prosecution. The prosecutrix stated that she was the wife of John Dodds, of Rochdale. On the '28.11 of June last, she went to the pri soner, who lodged with her, and asked him for sonic money. She had asked him repeatedly before. He told her plainly be would not give ber any, as she was so craving. She said if he did not she would tie up the bed, for she could not afford to find him" for nothing. lle went away into the corner where he worked as a shoemaker, and on his return he made a blow at her, exclaiming that he would cut her throat. She threw up her arm, and a blow descended, and her arm was severely eat; She exclaimed that she was killed. He said, " No; - I've given you what will make you remember me for a bit." She ran down stairs, leaving her husband in the room. Her husband was not able to interfere, and she saw the pri soner strike him. When she got down stairs the prisoner at tempted to escape, but she held him. The prisoner cross-examined the witness at considerable length, but nothing material was elicited. John Dodds, husband of the last witness, corroborated her statements. He deposed that he was thrown down upon the bed by the prisoner immediately after his wife "was struck." Next day he examined bis coat and waistcoat, and found that they were both cut. Nancy Ryley stated that she beard Mrs. Dodds call out murder, and she went into her apartment. The prisoner was striking her. She was bleeding very profusely from the arm. She fainted, and witness asked one of the lodgers to hold the veins together till the doctor came. The prisoner passed through the house,_ and she saw him pi c k u p a k n if e an d pu t it in his pocket. He went upstairs. She went into the street, and through the window she saw the prisoner take something from his pocket and put it in the corner of the room. Edward Diggle stated that he went with the last witness to the assistance of Mrs. Dodds. He saw a shoemakers' knife lying on the steps. The prisoner took up the knife. He (witness) immediately sent for a doctor. William Really, a constable of Rochdale, deposed that he found a knife in a corner of the prisoner's room. Witness produced a shoemakers' knife, which he said the prisoner had claimed as his. There was much blood on the floor, both in .the room, on the stairs, and below. Mr. Lumen, -a surgeon, of Rochdale, stated that he was called in to see Mrs. Dodds. He found a cut seven or eight inches long, and about an inch and a half deep. The main artery of the arm was divided, and, if assistance bad not been rendered, she would have bled to death-in half an hour. He tied up the artery, and sewed up the wound. As there was a count in the indictment that the prisoner committed the act with intent to do some grievous bodily harm, the learned JUDGE said the jury had better confine their attention to that. His LORDSH IP then went minutely over the evidence, and left it to the jury to draw their own conclusions. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Sentence deferred' WOUNDING WITH INTENT TO DO GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM. James Fiddler, aged 75, was-charged with having, at Den ton, wounded Joseph Buoth, with intent to du htm some grievous bodily harm. Dr. BROWNE conducted the case for the prosecution, and, as the prisoner was stated to be a pauper, and was, moreover, exceedingly deaf, at the suggestion of his Lordship Mr. BRANDT kindly undertook his defence. Joseph Booth stated that he resided at Denton. On Thurs day night, the 12th of July last, he was called out of his house. He found the prisoner quarrelling with a person named Harrison. The prisoner was very much enraged, and he had a knife in his hand. Witness asked him if he were going to kill somebody. They had been excellent friends, and he (witness) wished to pacify him. The prisoner turned upon him and stabbed him in the side. A witness was called who corroborated the above state ment. Mr. Cooke, a surgeon, described the nature of the injury, which he at first considered dangerous. The wound was from two inches to two inches and a half in depth. James Harvey, who stated that he saw the whole transac tion, said the prisoner was much enraged, and he seemed to be under the impression that Booth and Harrison were in tending to do him some grievous injury. The knife was pro duced by the constable. It was a sharp pointed knife. The jury found the prisoner guilty of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The learned JUDGE passed sentence of one year's imprison ment. The court adjourned at a quarter to six o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRTDA Y. (Before Mr. Justice WILLI/Ims.) The business of this court commenced about half-past eleven o'clock. HALL V. OSBORNE. The plaintiff in this case, who is an innkeeper in Li verpool, sought to recover the value of a saddle which had been lett in the custody of the defendant, an inn keeper in Chester, in April, 1837, and had not been re turned. The action was braught.in this court on account of the plaintiff living in Lancashire and the defendant in Ches ter, and being for that reason removed from the cognizance of the iEferior courts. Mr. CROMPTON appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. CRESS-, WELL for the defendant. The case occupied some time, and terminated in the plaintiff being nonsuited. HARRUP V. CHATHAM. This was an action to recover the sum of £32 I3s 4d, the balance of a year's rent. The case was undefended. ' Verdict for the plaintiff. HOLMES V. HOBSON. This was an action to recover the value of a bill of ex change for £74 lOs. Verdict for the plaintiff. WEAVER V. JUNES. The complainant in this case, Mrs. Susannah Weaver, resides at (istvestrv , and the defendant, Mr. J. Jones, resides • parties were standing un George's pier, the defendant charged the plaintiff with stealing a cloth basket cover, and she was taken to Bridewell and there confined from Saturday night to Monday morning, when no charge was brought against her; and she was discharged in due course by the magistrates. Meantime the defendant found the cloth cover which he alleged the plaintiff had stolen. The action was brought to recover compensation for this false imprisonment. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £l2. DICKENSON V. PARKINSON. This was an action brought by the plaintiff a woollen manufacturer at Leeds, to recover the sum of £53. It ap peared that the defendant had been his clerk, and was sud denly dismissed his service, and, on making up his accounts it was found that he was deficient in the amount sought to he recovered, in his accounts. An arrangement for its payment had been endeavoured to be made, but was not fulfilled, and the action was accordingly brought for the recovery of the amount. Verdict for the plaintiff, for the amount. WELLESBY V. SHARP. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an attorney, at Ormskirk, to recover the amount of his bill of costs, for con ducting a former action for the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £36 I7s Id. LIDDLE V. LORD. This was an action brought for the recovery 'of £l3O with interest, money lent. Verdict for the plaintiff, £lO7 10s. HOLDSWORTH V. ANDREWS. This was an action brought to recover the amount of a bill of exchange. Verdict for the plaintiff, for the amount EGO 103. ASPINA IA V. MENDALL. This was an action brought to recover £5B 17s 2d, the amount of a dishonoured acceptance. Verdict for the plaintiff, for the amount. GROWGEY 2. FAIRCLOUGII. . . Mr. MunPur appeared for the platutni, and Mr. ALEX ANDER for the defence. This was an action brought to recover damages for an as sa:ilt. • The circumstances of the case are these. In the month of April last, the plaintiff, accompanied by Miss Elizabeth Hughes, entered a public-house kept by Mrs. Pat terson, corner of Vine-street and Myrtle-street, as stated, to avoid a shower of rain. They requested to be shown into a private room, and were shown into a room in which was the defendant lying asleep drunk on a bench. After they had been there a short time the defendant started up, and insisted upon having his "documents," and immediately knocked the plain tiff down with the leg of a tongs. The plaintiff had one or two serious wounds and contusions inflicted on his head thereby, and brought the present action to recover damages for the assault. ➢liss Hughes was examined, and deposed to the assault; that the defendant started .up without their having said a word to him, and demanded his documents, and immediately knocked Mr. Crowgey down. His LORDSHIP asked what documents were meant? The witness knew nothing of any documents but the Albion newspaper. Crins . -examined.---She did not ask the defendant what do cuments he meant. Would he (Mr. Alexander) if he had found a man after him with a poker, have asked about docu ments? (Loud laughter.) Mr. ALEXANDER.—That is rather a home question. Mrs. Patterson, the landlady, was next examined, and stated, that the defendant called next morning at her house, and said he was much annoyed by what had happened, but that his reason for doing it was, he had felt the woman's hand in his pocket. . _ _ Cross-examined.--Mr. Crowgey and Miss H ughes 'we re in the habit of calling at her house about once a fortnight, and were always shown into a private room. The plaintiff was between 60 and 70 years of age, and the defendant was about 40. Mr. ALEXANDER for the defence said, there were actions which were brought to put money into attorneys' pockets, and not to afford recompence for injury to clients, otherwise he should have thought it would have been for the plaintiff's interest not to have had the case dragged before the public, where it appeared, that an old man, with a young female, were in the habit of going to a private room in a public house, where the assault in question had occurred. He said the story about the defendant having felt the female's hand in his pocket was but the dream of a drunken man; but most likely he had felt her push him to ascertain if he was awake, and he had jumped up with a different impression. He called Mr, Peacock, the defendant's attorney, who de posed, that on the action being commenced against his client he was instructed to settle it ; to pay all expenses, and to express the sorrow of the defendant for what had °centred, which offer he made to Mr. Dewhurst, the plaintiff's attorney, but it was refused. Nfter the declaration was tiled, he again made a similar offer, which was again refused. There was a Borough Court in Liverpool, where such actions might be tried at much less cost than at the assizes. The plaintiff's attorney said the action should go on, the defendant should he punished. Cross-examined.—He made the offer of settlement to Mr. Dewhurst, and never went to the plaintiff. Mr. MURPHY replied. His LORDSHIP summed up. He said a very serious assault had been committed, for which the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. The amount of damages were for the considera tion of the jury. There was no extenuation in the defendant being drunk; other than, perhaps, there was not so much contumely in the injury, in the defendant not being in his rational senses. He had endeavoured to ascertain if there were any documents to give rise to the defendant's observa tion when he got up and committed the assault, but he could not learn that there was anything more than the Albion newspaper, and no one would take that for a document, whether drunk or sober. (A laugh.) The jury, after consulting together for some time, expressed a wish $o retire; having bien absent an hour and a half, the officer who had them in custody came into court and stated that eleven had agreed, but that one still held out, and that there was no chance of his agreeing. They were, of course, given to understand that they must he unanimous. At a few minutes to seven o'clock, the jury (having been absent nearly three hours) returned, and gave in a verdict fur the plaintiff, damages, 4Us. CROWN COURT.—SATuann y (Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.) His Lordship took his seat at nine o'clock. MANSLAUGHTER. Joseph Rimmer, aged 20, was charged with having killed Michael Newar, at Knowsley, by beatidg him and casting him on the ground. Mr. Brandt - conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Venables the defence. It appeared that on the 29th of July the prisoner was drunk at a public-house at Knowsley, and had a quarrel with a man named Burns, which ended in a fight. After they had fought several rounds the deceased interfered, and after a few words had passed, the prisoner struck him and knocked him down, and he lay itt a state of insensibility, and was carried into a barn. He snored very loudly, and it was concluded he was asleep. He was left in the barn till next morning, when it was discovered that he was dead. The Learned JUDGE, after remarking that the case against the prisoner was exceedingly slight, passed sentence upon him for one week. HIGHWAY ROBBERY. John Lee; and Michael Burke. were indicted for having at Ashton-under-Lyne feloniously assaulted Alfred Saxon, and stolen from his person four sovereigns, one half-sovereign, and a' gold watch, his property. Mr. L. Peel conducted the prosecution, and Dr. Brown the defence. The prosecutor, Mr. Saxon, is a cotton spinner at Ashton under-Lyae. On the evening of the 4th of May last he was at the Syd'amore public house, about half a mile from Ashton under-Lyne, where he had bought a horse from a Mr. Chad wick. He had a quantity of punch with a party of friends, and left the house about six o'clock perfectly sober. When he bad gone about a hundred yards he met four men, one of whom he recognised as the prisoner Lees. He said ".good day, gentlemen," and passed on One of them exclaimed, "what the h—il art thou doing out at this time o' night, thou little devil ?" Presently he heard some persons following him, and his impression was that it was the party whom he had wet. They came up with him, and he again recognised the prisoner Lees. They then attacked him and rifled his pockets, taking from him his gold watch and his purse. One of the men kicked him two or three times ; they then left him. Ile went immediately to the house of the manager of his factory, and told bin► what had happened, mentioning the name of Lees. Mr. Chadwick, cotton•spiuner, who was of the party at the Sycamore, Mr. Nott, son to the landlady of the hous e , and other persons, proved that the prisoners Lees and Burke were at the Sycamore on the night in question, and were in company with two other men. One of them was heard to say, "by G—d, we'll nab either Shaw, Saxon, or Chadwick." They were ultimately turned out of the house for quarrelling. The constable of Ashton-under-Lyne deposed, that when he went to apprehend Lees, he told him what he was taking him for, and he replied, " I never touched him ; I did not lay a finger upon him ; it was Burke who knocked him down." Subsequently, when he had Burke in custody, the latter said, " I did not touch him, (Saxon.) I only pushed him off the sidestone." For the defence Dr. BROWN urged that the conductof Lees was not that of a man who had been guilty of robbery, as he named the parties who had assisted to thrash Mr Saxon; and the evidence against Burke to connect him with the robbery was not conclusive. Witnesses were called who gave the prisoners good charac ters. The jury found the prisoner Lees guilty, and acquitted Burke. The sentence was deferred. MANSLAUGHTER. James Parrin, aged 39, a bailiff, was indicted for killing Ralph Hough, at killing, on the 2nd of June last. Mr. Grime appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins for the defence. It appeared that the deceased Ralph Hough lodged with his brother-in-law, Joseph Potts, in Hulme, near Blanches ter; and Potts' goods having been seized by a bailiff in exe cut►on, some of Hough's goods were taken along with them; Hough wanted this property restored, and went to the Kiug's Arms tap-room in Back King -street, Manchester, where the bailiffs had gone. The landlady ordered him out; an alter cation ensued, and the bailiffs commenced kicking Hough and Potts, and told Hough that he should have bailiffs up at his house next morning. One of the bailiffs kicked the de ceased on the pit of the stomach, and he immediately fell. Hough's wife soon after arrived, and accused the bailiff with having kicked her husband; and the ruffian threatened to serve her in the same way, and immediately kicked her twice on the stomach. The wife of the deceased swore positively that the prisoner was the man who kicked the deceased. The prisoner's counsel said this was a case which he felt he could not get over. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and his lordship, after commenting strongly on the brutal practice of kicking, com mon only in this county—a practice which he would do his best to prevent—sentenced the prisoner to transportation for life. MANSLAUGHTER. Bernard Hughes, aged 39, was indicted for killing and slaying Thomas Sheran, on the 28th of June last. Air. Armstrong appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins for the defence. The circumstances of the case were these:—On the day of the coronation the deceased went to the liquor-vaults of Mr. Middleton, in Swan-street, Manchester, where the prisoner also was. Immediately on his entering the place theprisoner said, " That is the man who has been aid•du-camping all the morning," and then knocked him down. He was carried bleeding to the door, and then the prisoner was apprehensive that he had done him some serious injury. The deceased soon after died. The prisoner gave himself up on being accused of killing the deceased, whose skull was found to be fractured. • The prisoner was found guilty, and his lordship, after ad vising him in future to restrain his passion, as be bad been guilty of an act thereby which he would probably regret as tong as be lived, sentenced him to be imprisoned one week. BURGLARY NEAR BOLTON. John Brown and Mary Wilson were indicted for having burglariously broken into the dwelling-house of Mr. Abra ham Hopwood, at Moorgate, near Bolton, on-the 27th July. It appeared that the prosecutor's house was broken into on the night in question, by a pane of glass having been cut out of the window, and a large quantity of wearing apparel was stolen from the drawers. On the 30th of the same month, l)iggles, the deputy-constable of Salford, saw the prisoner Brown in Chapel-street, Salford. After watching him some time, he saw the prisoner Wilson come out of a pawnbroker's shop and join him, showing him a pawn-ticket; and Diggies then took them into custody on suspicion, and found on them the stolen wearing apparel in question. Both prisoners were found guilty. The sentence was de ferred. DEATH FROM FURIOUS DRIVING. James Newton, aged 31, was charged with having, on the sth of July last, caused the death of Nancy Stump, by fu riously driving a coach on which the deceased was riding, by which , he caused the overturning of the coach, and the de- ceaseslvoisr,e(l..such. inj uries_ the - reJa_gs_po.s_ed .11er de Mr. usHToN appeared for the prosecution, an WILK INS for the defence. It appeared that:the prisoner was the driver of a coach from Oldham to Manchester, and on the 6th of July last, several witnesses deposed that be was racing with another coachman till the fore-wheel of his (prisoner's) coach came off, and the coach upset. The coach for a long distance before the ac cident was swinging frightfully from the rate at which it was driven. On the upsetting of the -coach the deceased was found lying with her leg unde'r the coach. She was taken to the house of a gentleman in the neighbourhood, named Daggett.. and the coachman was given into custody. The deceased was afterwards sent to the Infirmary, where she died of the injuries she had received. Mr. Smith,house-surgeon to the lnfirrnary, stated that the deceased's jawbone was broken, and she had also sustained a compound fracture of the leg, near the ankle joint. Other witnesses were called who deposed, that the prisoner refused to race the coach, and was not driving at all rapidly, and that the coach-wheel got into a hole which caused the coach to rock, and finally to upset. Several witnesses gave the prisoner a good character as a careful steady driver. The learned JUDGE said, the question for the jury to con sider was, whether the coach was racing or not. If the pri soner was racing his coach with another, he would be guilty of manslaughter; if not, it was an accident.• The jury acquitted the prisoner, and he was ordered to be discharged. • "WIGGING." Edward Oakes, aged 25, was charged with stealing two £lO notes, two £5 notes, sixteen sovereigns, and half a sovereign, the property of George Fitzgerald. Mr. ItusteroN stated the case for the prosecution, and Dr. Bitowei defended the prisoner. It appeared that on the 27th of last July, the prosecutor was walking in Castle-street, Liverpool, when he was accosted by a person having the appearance of a country gentleman, and after they hail walked together some distance, the "gen tleman" invited the prosecutor to have a glass of wine with huff at a public house, where they had some wine and ale. Presently another man (the prisoner) cameinto the room, and after calling for some ale, introduced himself to the prose cutor and his companion as a pour lad who had come to the property of his uncle. He said his name formerly had been "Billy Wilkins," (laughter) but now there was an " Es quire" added to it; that he was now living at an hotel. He produced a large quantity of what appeared to be bank notes. The prosecutor then stated that he wished to go to the Zoological Gardens, and his companion said he would go with him, and then the prisoner begged they would permit him to keep the company of respectable men. The prose cutor then remarked to him on the impropriety and fully of his exposing his money before strangers, and the prisoner placed it in a pocket book. The party then went to the Zoological Gardens, the prisoner paying for a coach. The prisoner, on their return, invited the others to dine with him, and they all went to a public house near the gardens where they dined and had some wine and ale. After dinner cigars were introduced, and the prisoner asked Fitzgerald, who wanted to pay his share, "Why don't you put your money together and keep it up ? Whilst you are with me you shall pay nothing." The prosecutor then produced his money, consisting of bank notes, sovereigns, doubloons. and an eagle which he had kept in his fob ' • and the prisoner insisted that he should keep his money in his pocket-book in his fob. The prosecutor placed the money on the table and one of the party produced sonic paper to wrap up the money, in which the prisoner assisted. A parcel was placed in the prosecutor's poCket-pook and the prisoner and the other man advised the prosecutor not to spend any money, but to put his pocket book in his fob, and he (prisoner) would pay all expenses. They remained about half an hour longer and then went out. They called at a public-house again, where the prisoner called for some ale and said he would go and see his lawyer, and then went out, leaving the prosecutor with his first com panion, who soon after went out also, and said he would look after the prisoner, as he was a kind of foolish man. Soon after the prosecutor left the house and called at a boot store to buy a pair of bouts, and pulling his pocket-book out from his pocket found that the paper parcel contained only a few half pence, and he had never got his money back. The pri soner was apprehended the following day, and part of the money found upon him. _ _ Air:RUSHTON. That is the case, my lord. His LORDSHIP. And a very nice case it is. Dr. BROWN addressed the jury on the part of the prisoner, and said the question resolved itself into one of identity. He called several witnesses who gave the prisoner a ' good' character. His Loa DSHIP said the question was whether the prisoner was "Billy Wilkins" or Squire Wilkins, or not. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to be transported for seven years; his Lordship saying that he was too clever a man to remain in this country. BURGLARY. William Winward, aged about 25, was charged with having burglariously entered the dwelling-house of John Spencer, at West Houghton, on the 4th August last, and stolen there from certain articles, his property. Mr. Hulton conducted the case for the prosecution. The prosecutor is a draper, at West Houghton. On the evening of Saturday, the 4th instant, the prosecutor secured his shop. About oue o'clock on the following morning a female named Anderson, whose residence is opposite to the prosecutor's, saw a light moving about in the shop of the latter. She called her husband and a person hawed Yates, and they saw an individual, whom they described as the prisoner, moving about the prose cu t or ' s shop with a light. They supposed it to be a dark lantern. They disturbed Spencer, and found that the place had been entered and robbed. Access had been obtained by breaking into a baker's shop next door and forcing an entrance through the wall into Spencer's. The shop till was found at the back of the pre mises, and some copper was found wrapped in a handkerchief, which Mr. Spencer believed to belong to the prisoner's mother, she having worn one like it on the preceding night, when she was in the prosecutor's shop. Footmarks of two persons were found in the garden of the prosecutor; one of them had been barefoot. Footmarks of two persons were found near the house of the prisoner; one of the persons who had made these marks had also been barefoot, but the shoe marks at the two places did not correspond. The pri soner loudly protested his innocence. The Jury, after consulting together for about ten minutes, requested permission to retire. They returned in about twenty minutes and delivered in a verdict of guilty. The prisoner was sentenced to fifteen years' transportation. ROBBERY AND CHARGE OF RECEIVING STOLEN GOOD. _ _ _ John Disley, aged 23, and John Hodgson,aged 53, were placed at the bar, the former charged with having stolen a cask of oil, - the property of Joseph Davies, and the latter with having received the same, knowing it to have been stolen. The prisoner Disley pleaded guilty, Hodgson plead ed not guilty. Mr. Rushton appeared for the prosecution, and Dr. Brown defended the prisoner. The circumstances of this case have been fully detailed in all the papers very recently. Disley and others broke open the warehouse of Mr. Davies, in Great Crosshall-street. They took a cask of oil and sold it to the prisoner Hodgson, who keeps an oil warehouse in Circus-street. . _ . The Jury at once acquitted the prisoner. The learned Judge deferred passing sentence on Disley till he had made some previous inquiries respecting his pre vious character. The Court adjourned at five o'clock NISI PRIUS COURT.—SATURDAY. (Before Mr. Justice WILLiAms.) His Lordship took his seat at nine o'clock. • BOND V. PROCTOR. This was an action on a bill of exchange for £75. accepted by the defendant. The plaintiff is a spirit merchant in Li verpool, and the defendant is a publican at Clithero. They had many transactions together, and the hill in question was given in payment by the defendant.—Verdict for the plaintiff fur the amount. o'coNNott V. SCHOLEFIELD AND ANOTHER. Mr. Alexander appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cress well appeared for defendant Scholefiebl,.and Mr. Armstrong for the defendant Critchley. The plaintiff, Mr. Hugh O'Con nor, was a publican carrying on business in Tithebarn-street; the defendant Scholefield was an attorney, and the defendant Critchley was his clerk.• It appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff formerly kept a wine and spirit vaults, and a Mr. Carrol, a publican at Southport, found him money to enter upon the house in question; he was to pay £7OO. on en trance, and £BO. a year rent; the plaintiff to manage the bu siness, and Mr. Carrot to be a sleeping partner. The house was the property of Messrs. Ward and Greaves, brewers. On the 2Gth of May last, the, defendant, Scholefield's clerk. Critchley, went to the house, and according to the evidence of Ellen Henry, was accompanied by 14 or-15 men armed with sticks, and demanded possession of the house. After a time, he went away again, Mr. O'Connor not being in. Soon after, Critchley and his men returned when O'Connor was in, and turned Mr. O'Connor and his household out of the house, and in so doing Critchley struck the plaintiff They then seized all the plaintiff's furniture, and he had got none of it back but a bed. In the row which ensued witness's clothes were almost torn off her back, and she was turned into the streets without a bonnet. A bed, and bedroom furniture which were taken, were worth £lO. Eleven new shirtsof the plaintiff's taken, were worth £5. 10s., and some fine flannel, ftc., was worth £l. The other furniture taken was worth about £9., and there was a stock of porter, cyder, rum, brandy, whiskey, and raspberry brandy, which was also taken. The tenant succeding the plaintiff was called to prove the value of the furniture in the house, and swore that the furni ture was not worth £lO. there were a few mugs and jugs "of course." He gave £550 for the stock and good will. He would not tell what the furniture consisted of. The evidence having been gone through, Mr. CRESSWELL submitted that there was no evidence against Scholefield. - His LORDSHIP thought there was not, and, therefore, the case must go for the defendant as regarded Scholefield. Mr. ARMSTRONG spoke for bhe defence on behalf of Critch ley He contended that •Critchley was armed with the au thority of the law, and the assault he contended was commit ted by the plaintitf, and not by the defendant, in hi s res i s ti ng the execution of the law. His LORDSHIP having summed up, the jury expressed a wish to retire, and after an absence of half an hour, returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages. 40s. STAKER V. GRAHAM AND ANOTHER. The Attorney-General and Mr. Wightinan appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cresswell for the defence.. This was an action brought for the recovery of the amount of two bills of exchange, given in payment of freight and average, of the amounts of £1.79 17s. 6d. and £3O 10s. 10d. It appeared that the Plaintiff, who is a respectable mer chant at North Shields, and the defendants, who are also re spectable merchants at Liverpool, entered into a charter party to charter the brig Loyalist to Newfoundland. The goods of the vessel were consigned to Slade, Biddle and Co., of Newfoundland, who had a house at Poole, in England. Slade, Biddle and Co. made au average, and paid the cap tain of the vessel in two bills, which they accepted, payable at ninety days after sight by the English house. On pre senting the bills -it was found that the house of Biddle and Co. had failed, and the bills were dishonoured; the plaintiff then came upon the brokers, the other charty party, knowing nothing of the house of Biddle and Co. The defendants re fused to pay on the ground that there had been great neglect in transmitting the bills, and that, if they had been forwarded in the due and usual course, they would have been presented before the house of Slade and Biddle failed. It appears that the bills became due only on the 29th of January last, and were not presented till February. The bills were accepted in November, and were dated the 12th of August; and in the ordinary course, the voyage being about twenty days, ought to have arrived much sooner. For the defence evi dence was called to show the custom, which was to send off bills by the first conveyance, and get paid as soon as po ss ibl e . This, it was contended by th e defendants, was very far from being the case in the present instance. The jury retired to consider their verdict at two o'clock, and did not return before the rising of the court. At three o'clock on Sunday the patience of the jury became exhausted, and they returned a verdict for the defendant. TREEWREE, ASSIGNEE, V. ROTHERHAM. Mr. Cresswell appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Alex ander for the defence. This was an action which arose out of the cotton specula tions of last year. The plaintiffs are merchants at Savannah, and the defendant is a merchant at Greenock. The defend ant sent a commission to the plaintiffs, in February, 1837, commissioning them to purchase for him 400 bales of cotton, at 14 cents per lb. But if there should be a change of ministry, the defendant might give a slight advance in price. Under this commission, the plaintiffs purchased 150 bales of cotton under 14 cents per lb., and shipped this, begging off purchasing the remaining 250 bales, owing to the bad state of the market. The cotton was sent off, and the plaintiffs, in the usual course of business, drew upon the defendant for the amount of 'cotton, £l5OO, dated the 29th of March. On the 31st of March he received a countermand of the former order from the defendant, after the bill for the cotton had been drawn. The defendant refused to honour those bills, on the ground that he'had countermanded the order. Lengthy evi dence was read, which had been taken at Savannah, proving the purchase of the 150 bales according to the defendant's order, and the receipts of the countermand severAlslays afterwards. The cotton was afterwards sold for £9OO. It was urged for the defence, that the 150 hales alleged to be purchased, were the property of the plaintiffs; and also, that the whole statement of the receipt of the date of the counter mand, depended upon the evidence of the plaintiff's clerk, whom the defendant had no person to contractict. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffsless than amount of sale. The court adjourned shortly after five o'clock. CROWN COURT.-MONDAY. MINT CASES. His LORDSHIP took his seat on the bench at nine o'clock. UTTERING COUNTERFEIT COIN. James Anderson, alias Gorman, was indicted for, having at Newton in April and March last, uttered severatiounterfeit shillings, knowing the same to be base, he havin g p rev i ous ly at Salford, ou the 3d of April, 1833, been convicted of a simi lar offence, and imprisoned for one year. The previous conviction was proved by Mr. Powell _an officer for the mint, and by the o ffi cer of the Salfo r d New Bailey prison. Thomas Aldred, keeper of a Beer House on Newton Heath, proved that on the 4th March last the Riisoner called at hi s house, and pur c h ase d a g l ass o f ale. He paid a counterfeit shilling, and receiv e d t enpence halfpenny in change. They discovered that the shilling was bad, and sent for an officer, but before he arrived, the prisoner had departed. The.shil ling was given to the constable; be (the prisoner) called again three weeks after and played the same trick; he was detained and given into custody. Mr. Powell proVed_ that the shillings were counterfeit, and from the same mould. The prisoner said in his defence that he was a weaver out of work. A few shillings were collected for him amongst his fellow workmen, and he received it in copper. He got the copper exchanged for silver at Oldham, and he supposed he must have received the shilling which he paid ou the 25th of March in this way. He denied that he had been at Aldred's on the 4th of March. • Mr. Serjeant Atcherley and Mr. Armstrong conducted the prosecution. The jury found the prisoner guilty. Mr. Serjeant Atch erley then informed his lordship, that the prisoner had been tried twice before for uttering base coin, and twice for larceny. Sentence deferred. John Cosgrove, aged 49, was charged with having at Man chester, on Friday the Bth of June last, uttered a base shil ling, and with having on Saturday, the 9th of June, uttered two other base shillings, he having been previouSly con victed of having uttered base coin. • Mr. Powell Powell put in the record of a previous conviction, which was read by the clerk of the crown, and the identity of the prisoner was proved. Mr. Serjeant Atcherley and Mr. Armstrong .conducted the prosecution. Margaret Thomas, tbe wife of a publican in Manchester, proved that the prisoner came to her house on Friday, the Bth June, and got a glass of beer. He paid for it with a shilling, and received the change. When the prisoner departed, it was discovered that the shilling was a bad one. The shilling was delivered to Chesworth, an officer, Mary Hassall, servant of John Bolton, who keeps a beer shop in Smithy Door, Manchester, proved that on Saturday, the 9th of June, the prisoner purchased a glass of ale from her and received change. The shilling was afterwardsdiscovered, to be a counterfeit, and it was delivered to au officer named Nor bury. • The daughter of Mr. Durnville, a publican in Manchester, proved that the prisoner had on the same day (the 9th• June) paid a bad shilling to her. While the person was there, Ches. worth the constable entered, and he took ,the prisoner into custody. Mr. Powell proved that the shillings were all from the same die. The jury found the prisoner guilty. Sentence deferred. ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A MOULD. William Gregory, aged 38, was charged with having at Man chester had illegal possession ,of a mould for. counterfeiting shillings. Mr. Serjeant Atcherley and Mr. Armstrong for the prose cution. It appeared that on Thursday, the sth July, Phenix Butcher and Bianchi, constables of Manchester, were passing along Woodward -street, when they saw the prisouer, uho turned quickly away from them round a Cartier. They took him into custody, and on searching him'found in hiS posses. sion a plaster of Paris mould for counterfeiting shillings, and several base pieces of coins east from it. The, prisoner on being questioned said, " a man put them in my pocket, but I will never split, I will suffer myself." The jury found the prisoner <runty. Sentence deferred. Philip Makin, aged 29, and b .fehn Bannon, ligled ,23, were charged with having had p ossess i on o f certain moulds for Counterfeiting shillings and sixpences, and some. other imple ments for coining. Mr. Serjeant Atcherley and Mr. Armstrong appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. 'Wilkins for the defence. It appeared that in consequence of information received several officers of Manchester went on -Thursday, the 3d of May, to a house in Frank-street, in a district of Manchester called Little Ireland, from the number of Irish who inhabit there. A perfect mould, a quantity of white metal, several broken moulds, a spoon in which had been molten white metal, mere found on the premises. Witnesses were called by Mr. WILKINS to prove that the prisoners had not many weeks occupied the house, that they did not know of some of the articles found twine. on the pre mises, and that the moulds bad b ee n us e d by th;.wife of one of the pi isoners to clean the hearth with. The jury found the prisoners guilty: Sentence deferred. Martin Kirlan, aged 31, and Henry Caster, aged : 2l, were indicted for having had in their possession a mould for coun terfeiting half-crowns, a mould fOr counterfeiting shillings, and for being possessed of nineteen base shillings with intent to utter the same. Mr. Scrjeant Archerley and Mr. Armstrong con d ucte d the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins - appeared as counsel fur Carter. It appeared that on the 16th of June last, Sawlev Armi tage, and Hindley, officers of the Manchester.police, went about half-past two o'clock to the house occupied by the pri soner Kirlan, in Mount-street, in that town. Notwithstand ing the early hour the two prisoners were up. The officers entered the room on the ground floor, and there saw the pri soners, one sitting by the tire, and the other sitting on the bed, smoking. The officers searched the room: B e hind a tub of water they found a bundle of wet rags, and within the wet rags a mould which was warm. The rags it was supposed had been used for the purpose of taking hold of the mould while it was hot. In another parcel nineteen baSe shillings were found. These shillings were hot. A mould for half crowns was also found. Kirlan exclaimed, on seeing these discoveries made, "Oh Mr. 6awley, dune—l'm done fur ever!" Mr. Powell deposed that the 19 shillings had been cast from the mould produced. It. did not appear that Carter had known the prisoner Kirwan for any length of time. Mr. WILKINS contended that the grounds of suspicion against Carter were too slight to warrant.convietion. He exhorted the jury to give his client the benefit of any reason able doubt. Witnesses were called who gave Carter a good character. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for the county said he felt it his duty to say that the police of Manchester knew nothing, whatever against Carter previously to this charge. The jury found the prisoner Kirlan , guilty and acquitted Carter. ALTERING FARTHINGS SO AS TO - MAKE TURN! RESEMBLE SIXPENCES. - : • --! Michael Earl, aged 66, and Francis Donelly, .aged 26, were charged with having, at Manchester,. :feloniously filed' marked, and col oure d certa i n p i eces of the current coin e, the realm called f a rthin gs , so as to make themoresemble aPd pass for sixpences. It appeared that on the Bth of May last, Diggles, the de" putt'-constable of •Salford, sent-severai linkers -I.6l*.the house of Donolly. There they found the two. prisoners. TheY found in the lower apartment a tin eau, -containing a o we' her of farthings; several farthings which had been tiled devin to the size of sixpences, some of which had. been lacquere d to resemble silver. • A tea cup, which contained tt mixture el wash, which rubbed on copper give it a white appearance . Two files and some,sand paper,. wh ichuppeared to have been rubbed against copper, One of .0n . prisoners, on the re' trance of the officers, got up and threw something out of the window. A female who jived in - the Same, court, afterward s found a filed farthing under .the window. Donolly said t° the officers—" What can you make of it, it is not coin t all ?" • Mr. Powell stated that the filed pieces produced had orig i d natty been farthings. Those which had been .coloured, ha been washed with a solution of silver mixed with whiting Le The counsel for the prose cu ti on was the same as in t".. preceding mint cases. M r Wilki ns was reta i ned for the P r , l e miner Donolly, and at the suggestion of his Lordship kindly undertook the defence of Bari. The principal pen offered in defen ce was , th a t D ono ll y b e i ng a shoemaker, lisa,r files and sand-paper to rub s h oe . so t * With; that coPr, sprigs were put into the best s or t s o f shoes, and that On. were rasped in the finishing of the soles. B e i ng i n theb 3L l l Of going about gathering rags and bones, it was asserted 0 , his behalf' that he made the coins front farthings for toys, a , pocket pieces to give children in exchange fur such matte' as the above. de' The Jury found both prisoners Guilty. Sentence ferred. „ UTTERING AND BAYING POSSESSION OF BASE COIN •:11 INTENT TO OTTEE: 1 0 ' Thomas Barlow, aged 3.3, and James Hall, aged 45, wo .e ! t o dieted for a misdeme a n our , i n h av i ng un l awfu ll y utter ed „ e Rachel Dobson, on th e 2d o f J un e last, at .Warrington, base shilling, in having. had in. their possession 90 count e b ' e feit with intent to utter them, k now i ng t h e m t° base. Counsel as in the last case. The prisoners were ur defended. It aeared that on the 2d of J une l as t, th e t oo prisoo ers , went t pp o the shop of Mrs. Rach e l D o b son , i n W ar ringt e, Barlow went in and H a ll rema i ne d at t h e door. - 13a , r i , is of asked for twopenny worth of bread a nd twopenny w"r'l. cheese, which articles weregiven to him. He gave i 0 Dobson half-a-crown, and she gave him two shilling 9 r change. She was about to give him twopence in c"q o , l when the other prisoner answere d an d said, 4‘ Thou ho' r to occasion to et change—Ll've got c o op er ." H a il p a id he h is copper, and Barlow r e t urne d h er s hil l i ngs and receivet i jr.. half-crown back. They left the shop i m m e di a t e ly, and Dobson directly afterwards discovered that one of the 'ere lings was base; she ran to the door, but the; prisoners w il d out of sight. In the evening the prisoner Barlow o tit is again and purchased some tea and sugar. He paid for 10 ,1 in copper. She taxed him with having paid her a wit shilling. He denied it, and she.showedit to him. Ile oor it up, and giving her a goo d s hilli ng f or i t l e ft the 14 0 hastily. It further app eare d th a t M r . Pl att, one of the c te to the magistrates of Warri ng t on , saw ihe prisoner secrlice, bag in a field opposite t o hi s house. He sent for the P. ° fl et,' and they examined the bag. It was found to contain n' per s, five counterfeit shilling s . Th e y l a id wa i t f or . t he Pris e e el ) and about nine o'clo c k at ni g ht th e two prisoners were o f to go to the spot. They t oo k ou t th e b ag from the Pi" The concealment, and one of the officers rushed at them• bag had beets previously emptied, and some sand and len O' pieces submitted for the cou n t er f e it s . The m o ment t v v ore P soners wete detected thiy th rew a way the hag. Th e - I taken into custody, and wer e c onveyed to the lock-uP.,, e5 0 1 The prisoner Barlow frequently accused the wito.e:;r perjury. Both prisoners said they had never seen el, t , ori bag or the coin till they saw theta on their examinati fore the magistrates. The jury found both prisoners guilty. pal" t be e The learned ATTORNb:Y•GENERA I . for the county' t said the prisoners were both tried together at Preston ' l hey same offence, and were imprisoned for nine months., In the were out only three weeks when th ey were dettier . ., tr ied' comm ission of this offence for w hi c h they w ere nu" Sentence deferred. SY • • • POSSESSION OF AN INSTRU MENT Fon .staxts° psi% • PIECES. at l an, Patrick Savage, aged 52, was charged with having °[ chester feloniously in his possession a certain instil,'" s cen t tool for counterfeiting pennies. , _ t be , o t, John Turner, formerly a policeman stated that 'tho to the house of the prisoner the . With- of I r' in and as he entered the prisoner threw -soniethrod it to .er fire. Turner went and snatched it opt, anti , Ilqb tile a natNid for castiv , vennies tho pOcf;ClQ'