The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-03-27 00:00:00

NIATtI.II _ 4 25, . _ !: 4 1 ' " ::LANCATER,SPRINGASSIZES .!;,jty' r business of these 'assizes cdminenced at Lancaster, on iNtio<y last, before Mr.- Sustice' Patteson and M. Justie Colei r 4age=the: former 'presiding_ in. the Crown Court, and the latter at Nisi Prins. The calender contained the names o f sixteen prisoners for trial,•af whorn six were charged with man_ slaughter. - .The etithinal business terminated on Wednesday morning, and Mr, Justice Patteson afterwards took two,or three civil causes. The cause list contained only nineteen cases for trial, including . .the two indictments from Liverpool. None o f tbe cases tried on Monday possessed any particular interest ex:. ceptiog to the parties. TUESDAY, MARcil 20. Before Mr. Justice CA/len:dye and, a Special.Jary. THE. CHEMICAL I . 4IIISANCE.-THE QUEigN V. A iltEi „ . This.was :an indietmeitt againit the defendant, Mr: Oswald Airey; kir hairing - kt. , ,t'a•nd niaintaiued a nuisance iu the town of Liverpool. coaasel I. r ..the -prusecution , Were Messrs: Cressivell. Wightmair, and-Watson; lots the defendant, Messrs. Alexan der, Starkie, and Tomlinson. eff be..Ptosecatieu was conducted by Mr. Crooke, the Deputy Toivri..elerVorLi'verpool;' the'defetice by Norris... 1111-. C 1-LSSWSLL, in opening the case, said he had the honour to appear as couussliar the prosecutors, the Mayor and Town 'Coutiell,of the borough of Liverpool, who•had felt it to be their ditty, as the municipal body . governingthat town; and. watching ever the interests and Veit - at-e'er its inhabitant* to institnte t hese praccorlings,• :The defendant, Mr. Airey, was charged in the j.iinlrctraent with tarrying ort a mantifactory which sent forth. ;volumes ,of smoke and v a pour charged With a matter-highly 6.ft7,!tiAve, very `injurnitlit 6-property Of alinost - every detetiption, `Mitre or less affecting- the health, and• decidedly affeeting the coinfort of all. who : were. ekposed.ao its influence. The mann -Ictory in question was a manufactory of alkali; which Of late years had been earifkl'on to a eery great "extent in the town of ;diverpool,„. as well as - tit other places; it having been discovered • Itiat alkalirmantifaeluiarl bi . this.process,Was a good and cheap substitute for baritla or kelp in the manufacture of soap. In the ',41-rOcesses gases of different kinds were 'evolved, which -never :clientieally rtin ne d with time • atmospheric air. There was a Union far a titue'; the gases were carried Sometime§ a shirt diStatie.:e,'SOnietimes ftirther off; but wherever they fell they. prodketi the canto quenCeS whichlhe-jury -would hear de, thibed by” the witnesses: He would calla vast number of per i„ sons living in the neighbourhoad'of Canning-street, where the efendanfiCrtianittletory was; and would shew.thatwhen the 54 ' s . r itlWs'aslcont.the:vteetward, or north-west, these vapours affect.- ,scettaed.-yoad, Rose-place,: Rose-hill,' Richmond-rOw, St.. atia,,;as,it.ao SboW' that these fettles were no. re-' .hectors of persons, he should cad A witness. fzum the:house cfccupied by the Queen's Judges at the assizes, to show that fiel 1 - h• •-• • • • • '' • r or( s• ips were'by nA gre - ans. exempt from the-consequenciis . ." 1 4 t!rltich -all,- . wituttame . ••witYkin the sphereof their-action- were ' iietnntenting,pn the puinher pf-witnesses sum-- , Tncii . ed,. (we.,,lielieve I fos the . prosecution„). he Said he ,should s , • tiiily'Call'ettough'to prove that this' was a v ry exteiisiie tjui- - ;. 84 "of - and One 4ficeli-niusf be very Severely -felt by•the intrahi vapitur occasioned coughing,. a difficulty_of breath- . -seusation„ofpricking about the e.yeS, almost immediately' on coining intd - centract With it. It penetrated - dwelling-heuks 7-8-1 16 - fili died' firnituii; the doors and windmVs valid hardey, 14 so- Ousel,' as to exclude; whilst,-if the duorsror windows opened, the house was almost immediately filled •wita. it.• Allicet a l s were tarnished by it ;• all. furniture *as .diseoloured " 4 VIt; and the Vegitation•Was deSti dyed. Dyers, draPeri, halier tlash.ere especially irortitiongerS, suffered in their KiiiineSs' • ;-jtonLits tendency to rust and .discolour _every Ailing- etposed to Many _persons had quitted -their houses in cotise- - i;-....luenee, and rents had beeu much reduced in the neighbour -1146(E' He - wen call the rit - iirker inspectors; butcheri, fish inongers, and othere,•.to show - the effect Which the vapour ,prd- Auced9o all sorts of provisions and vegetab!es exposed in the market for Sale. should call" the masters of ono 'or that. .sehools in the neighbourhood, 'who would describe the effeet pie ' duce&l on .the scholars, and tell them. that any person might •• trace, a sort of white naze ou the atmosphere, and note the plaee . 'Where it:fell; that they had 'seed it entering the school-room, - a nd' alme s ' t every pupil' iu , it beginning to cough at the same time. How could they.doubt that this was a nuisance? 'N , Vliat uPswer could his learned friend give to these. statements? It ' 40 0 , 1 ba said that Mr. Airey was not the only manufacturer of amid it would beSald'that Mr: Airey only committed a ';acct of -the nuisance; but- he should , call witnesses to say that 'they-had seen this. white. cloud. in the .air—that they had expe-' 1 1euced .all the. sensationa.dascribed—that all the effects men • 1 :0,.ed lad been produced; and if it were asked from whose , this vaptiur came; he - was in a condition to prove that . it istmed directly from Mr.,Airey'f premises, IF Mt..Airey . did 4( 4 Pru,-fiace all the mischief—if. there were seven other .spirits " I S:wickail a s himself,--still one perscn was not to be allowed to his neighbOsit's becatisa - others were doing 'something of itt e , sattie , kindliethWie , life was half extinguished 13V one nui 'sauce, it was not to be wholly extingished by another. They could nod al J,e igelualed .in one.intlictment—they. must be in .")_.,eted'OUe by tine,-and ,that the , prosecutors had thme. lie would iroi detain Mena longer' in' the outset. Heivould call 'witnesses to pro-ve .the.-case , stated; he would call scientific •:"..atistsao prove.that.such of must escape wherever such 4 ,-,2Pituut•acture was carried op, and .then he trusted the jury wr '4ld lie of opinion that it ;taus high time fur Mr. 'Airey to re itrAgclift,WOrki etsewhere. . 16 4 z -411)1w : Loga.a eX ana irked by Mr. WIG ti TM A N :—OCC ti pi ed eaveneersaw-finalsin Naylor-street, and lived in the yard. - ;4 1 5...w Mr. iiroy's.Works. l'hey were about..l3o yards distant hthi• f4eii a'whife,Vapdur rising frOni the " 14 '.'•'!It - -Came 'into the house and saw-mills. The effect it e. ' . 4". ' i -,,' 4 P‘ ) 4.hilat and his family was to make them cough, to make salt,-%.er„,spre,, aud OCea SO a a nausea in the stamach. It ae,SaWS,in the mill directly, discoloured furniture, took t, 4 ;7tbiiiAsotf'paiiit, turned fenders, fire-irons, -and polished steel I ,7 4 trador.ust biack, cut•into brass, and tookihe prints out of You,. goods, citrtaina,&c. ..Llaabinuticed. all these at - , •s▪ corvinrid hundteda e. is tr - iIE4-:ekatiiiiied;at :very great length by Mr., ri ntiVally.fbrthe •purpose 4140 w ing that there amber:of oitierawarkeremit•titirsaioke, anti 'occis' • tht,tr anneyances, both inahe immediate yiciuity of the • ti ant'S'w or k s Lind in that art of the town miterallv. 7 • - • • aed lyy Mr. CA E&6O ELL.-1 Vapour from t he ' • " v nrks - was -n•grettudSti , worst than all the other stnokes • e•et . 16!. , • • George Pym, Sctitland 7 road, gave.rimilar testi-. to time e ff ects the•vapour on - himself - and otherS, and articles-oh " - .• 44 4 Greetkain , examined- by Mr. . Crittsswaaau...— Was • a -4911 yra•• 1 eau *ad trtille„ for alanulaciurioa .lieur in 'Naylor-street, /..15 1, 9 ' 1 9 4:1Ar . L10.4%) Ha'd house in . - tfand,road, eleep - fhete. Went tit a hetise'iti'tlia-counity -fOur or - , c ,Z 4 tes'nif s leep sold', on account of theatnnoyance .he re , .tirl';i°'-'o'43t. the alkali:wtiolcs, which spread iteelf.into his house , th ,, , a ; ,P,ie whole neighbouihood. When the:vapour :penetrated it destreyedifie wires the machiuery. Had iruugrit specintetts the - Wire. .•;I,The:wittiesa produced - three ,X,tTunens of wire. The :-Erst, whi,ch had .been wrapt p in ,pa-• rr, wars bright and free :From rust.; the second, which he had. unkr uo - .for a week at dike frense.ni• the otruntry uutside - of- - the • ui < it ) wi was nut discoloured; and the third, a part of which had . 4 7 a :covered, and the Test exposed to the action of vapour tor , w eek inSi'otland,roart, 'site co'ioded in the exposed part of it. -fie also produced a piece of•wire'Udtt•ze , ...Ntitt•.,4 had been exposed, in as similer . way, from Tueeday tilt tlur cjY, itt Sem - land-road, aud.,which was so rotten that it - • . I Cd not bear handling.] ' lie droVe itAtitown in the'tnoritinge -211-aa epen vehicle. Lila harness was bears - mounted, and he star tea with it pretty well burnished, its a dual& ot'c"ur se * Qu e toad he fiequelKly:canie in contact with a clo ud of th_e unite 'which chanoed the.coblia altitost immediately. kle h ad • if ituite•brtght at Everton, anal in five tninutes-afterwards;. ""forehe reached his shop, it was.•tarnished arid diseeloured WV. ilea t h e w i n a was 44)rat direction, they were frequently • ntiliged t o s h u t the flop clout's •aud keep customers out. S oine tillkeS tl-...1•c uStentera,could hardly speak to tell what they want ed coneequencemithe,vapour.- He had a house and shop in '''' , "‘lnw-street, close belt/incline one he occupied, which had let -.for i:2l a- • • • d 'nee repeatedly offered it for VP....and . ) ear. ela JO .: 0 111(1 nut ' lit it. The otojectia'-u to.it was op account of thealkali .. 'workS - ; :'•-• • • ' Mr. James, Hartle}, •ticeber, dealer, Rosehill, gave similair tes that hies mother had been obliged to reduce the rent of a house in lieau : street,..a,bept half a mile from Mr. . Atrey'S WeVka, cnasequesice of thelen'aut:ii•complainta of the Iti' , 'Ekirta ' ti'a vapour. , = • . • Mr. James Davies, silk dyer;7 Scotland-road, produced a 004, which ; hp had_ litiaLg.up to dry - in th e c‘peti ai' i Wrt.pping a hart of it roundthe - pole.' Tke part exp ose d to ' •ihe'vhp o u r was- uf - a-4utiish r ed ed:oitr,•whilit the . rest 16s'ats. exte:.lecit black. 'The witness reittnested - the - inq to examine it, •: ant', - 6*(14 btlai. if they put .1 he-red part ,te • the; Hips they woubf that it wastinptegnatea witksalt, ,lie produced• - ther spe'ciinren of black, past ad which, afte.r a few hours' ex per su re to th-, vapour; Ma lieen turned blue. 14 (it bev:u xpes,ed tn so attach' acid. His family formerly lived at . the s hy . (..etlatid-roact, but above tw lve montlts ago. he was ohl.gect • -to riA nci i ii&;iii'cO6eciu'euct'aihe 'annoyance from the , '„--K•vttas. ali ,-. . • in Bur'ineton-street, t b it the a vtit ►and.was very ''inch an thr 7 Witid - set 111 that ilirvction It 0 „f t . & cfr t his-wife wan l• • v.(6 I t II AVIY'Ia Dr. P ales, Mr. g, par- . o. • trtetyled tier, he had sent her (it4Y and orel j) fut r i . l ° on ' D c [ ' Z. e l Oceasionaflraffect .,:.7n.,.:. h . very i .e m s, . i tie s e l t h iii e tt i s : l .l f the 7a a p d o ' tt fil l t i 17.1'.ireoe grates,,l be 3 . t 4 IllatileD as the former..vir • C. Avco.ir anfl. Was 6tllicient (q .do :llie Uiiscttirl', slid that his milt ib,iii ,.. uit,n.lipik4 as if it had Imen I in con i n e etz e n t f t v h i h e v greasy ; water,tiestreaked-with.idaick lead, ' ;. :lf it •caught white paitit it took the gloss of and turtril it -far gas Were ab ou t ).. ,tut thittlc tliat the-effect on the daoUogrardisdrtrietuphro"- •c4,cit.ltgiatrmnT Slit- chesiuecal •• r.'1?....Ne !son, 'master of the Nt . itii:6; rt oation «School, and Mcrris, teacher of the North lilat r t the chool, testified to s t e h l e ves t and their, tit i.:4 prOduced by the vapou r t o ••1•1 - i:o;ar , i;. and also toits destructive effects ott u the. yard, Which adjoins Mr. Alireny'lli,:hne(i- ilk"Agrik • Nead.rton, keper lodgings iti A .. .nue -4 Ailrfa - Tfraiii,()4 , 4'the "eirectT of the vapour on grates, f i re irons . i .t 41.9ir .:;.! forks,• plates furniture, &e. there. , hland, haberdasher and h os i er, Scotland -1:114:;' r i;. -4 -I,7,4 lrd ti,:a eh la u rt r i e n!s market,--described the inj ury . which the v11 . 9, 41r 0i n l 3 0 lain goods. atit b l.exhibited specitnens of thimbles, me discoloured and rusted after -43 "11 lit.,.. *4 . _e Vi y. 9 .e5te4‘ ‘e ,which i became had had the management of .. l'a‘' ; i rtio'hir, - ..c l' o b te re er j n a iiinlat slop, tCihe r pert of the town, and never saw 4to lira nttbe ki,i t id deefore. . i,%14, • • • -Liuro.oyne, R.N - ., residing _in St. ,i,, 1 / 2 " l4 .. 444eileri i' k Wi_ta' l ''' the j ulg , es' lodgings, de. ' .1.- i , meet , next dear out,olle to : . 4 n ( , , A _ , q‘,44l,;,e ... , e f ec t g of the vapour on gra . e..s, brass ornaments, 'lke., 4 -1 - 4%*;51,144,‘,viat, ti t s .the'imeeedttig witness, and stuted that he ~ - • wa olit , t4i , pd.,o.keeplcutvesi. plate, &e.. l % i v . rapped up in le.ither. ' - 1 70tsiSisig. ' Artjen,. but at wits of-no tree; . is attention had been , n e ti ., 4 ,lf4 In thg effect of t tli t e . Na,.pcwr tin vegetation in h a very jimid xt t r h a e - ' '''itil 4. WI he ,came to the house , he * ' 411':Ei441''''.1% '.. tea I i to *iave been one of the. ere-4, ;. " ra 'h p i e r s h . ' '': ' - ' t. -rve llit 3l l l t as IS 4r l,4 l l.p.ti kt' ir a l. a : t .4 '3 ' e lie i.. st - n t ni a p P4 -'i l i e ll E t e t oij vine - was . t h . I I: 4l SitlAsiss,sgo.„had produced an . itnuietu . s quail:o_ o i r t, r ai, ,.. hes, '- 10. '5;t111,4,4xn l ot; eta outer stumps ot tlitte4,,turrat n i t , ' n''.4-4r4 iillff4V;it aiti ,(l4 'ivi , "r Pr4auci444 44 1 i -. 'th. it. for, Ailing' lie was tei t4/0 . 2 , wcsi ,: t ,t , whether' he could do ivil' l •‘• t ig . ' lll , x _., i t , 4l "lak , a l - • h I 1 f 1 i4w lie ,weut to an ' itlat‘ r ti , e,,was.. iitt( o gar( en ~.. ‘,.` t.,,514-toit6:39i,iii for seeds and other Iltings. Whilst the wil t !!! 44( t ) Ilit ea4th.or , west. he fount' the peas coming &p 1'',37.1:44.. . ful lVlbt9 UkkieJt so. tliat.he went to a neighbour, sod said.' " 1 ,.,, ' ~ ,trk,:k to ine, aliol , t these chimneys: hut it's all -noinien ... - : -, •'Fi t i l i t etr)2l;.ext eveuinv Ile eras ;If ii;a g (Mt ; 'he Aiponed!sP, ‘ : 7, C , al : 111 C ' .' ' ; riL , he *I id feel the V a Doll C in a ro , :at dreadvi, i t ..l . '"' -' -' - , Goliged to shut the door. . 'Oil.' fI , V c I. 4 11 e le it '', - Z f a - t. . ll ''' - ;'.... 'O'er.) ' Now 1.• will tsertivilat it•teet tit's 1,1 - 4 4 4 if'''..!1.., , , 4 ,. , ''''' ' 7. ''t 4 ZVI . 114, ,, 11 11) V 1 , eii ttti tg ' 1 , •: , -112-5?.13. 7 , ::( 44 k 1 , , tth ea ,1 :r ,. 2; • I , F. ,, ...5.,.! 'J.. ; ./1,,t I, i.,, , 1, LI tul •tLry.;100k.T.0t,0z4e.'iv,4+33..4".-'''' 1 . '''t'l ''''l' ,l 4 - fi', ~,:, t ,, as.f. , Titlit%U. iht.u.xzbith.4l-fW“ry?anitiug CV' ITO 'St ..!"*J6litUy.-.1 in': ,:tii before,. Ili-Aitot:irrlut4 two orrthle4briranpts .' r • 1,4 ,1* ,1.1'6•'4 ,ficiti..iiltsti,'4it xs4.),4*.rthidiliwibeir 00. it " p-, ':4" w iltt.l2/t4 _ ,l4l)l4tAti F'ii*Wiiierifhaielflittllpri keshitivaLtive irtne wag "' 4l "- 14 `' 4 tritthe niultitirk. , :,:- •:"..4 , 4-4 , 151,-.lr.sLiel In Vik• ,. -.----- - - ' - - • • WEDNESDAY,.IIIAVIi72I. * THE QUEEN U. /If the opettitig of:theCourt this morning; Mr. WIGHTMAN Robert Grose, the superintendent of St.. Martin's Market, who stated that the chemical work 4 of the defendant were about 200 - yards distant from the west end .of the market. Had seen the Market completely filled with - the white vapour from Mr. Airev's works, when the wind was in that direction. Had seen its .effects on•ateat, fish, and vegetables, and heard many com plaints about it from butchers and others. It discoloured meat, and made it unsaleable until the outside had been pared off. 'l'be vapour rusted the butcher's saws. knivet; &c., and also the hooks in the market, in a very short tithe. It also dis coloured fish, rendered it unsaleable, and withered up vegeta bles. .particularly tender cabbages. itecolletted the vapour coming into the market on the 18th Deceiriber; and again on the 3d January last: Could trace it distinctly to Airey's chim ney. - It. produced the effects which he had. described on the tneat,,fish, and vegetables exposed for Safe. Peter Campbell, the market con Stable at St. Martin's, gave testimony to the saute effect as that of the last witness. Mr. William Hind, a butcher, occupying a Shop in St. Mar tin's Market, described the effect which the vapohr produced on his Meat, saws, knives, &c. It discoloured the meat, turn ing it of a darkish colour. He was obliged to pare it. It rusted his clea vers, and knives; sometimes in half an hour, sometimes in tWo:'houis, just according to the thickness and strength of the v apour. Sold the outside parings at a great losS. If he were selling the meat at sixpence a pound, should sell the par ings alTonipence or fourpence halfpenny. • Mr. Jolla Kirby stated, that be was almott the only fishrthirt= ger left in St. Martin's Market. All the rest had ran o, ex; cepting bile oft, woman. Had sold fish there ever since the market was opened,,aix -or seven years ago. All his neighbours were .Stunk out. Had Observed this vapour coining into the market tob ofte6 4 ."' It came itr.olten, and was quite dreadful. - It very High-roafited.fresb fish. (Latighter.) After it, had been pretty well seasoned with the vapour; it was not saleable at all. "When the quality cotnes;:" 'continued 'the witness, " they say, how do.you sell ,our fish 1 tells them... Then they say, It's not fresh.' \Veil 'says I, its because of the vitriol.' (taughter:) ' Well, never 'mind,' says they, I'll wait tilt to taorrow,'7 , and so -they leave the.fish to perisli." (Much laugh ter.) Had put wet cloths over' the fish to protect it from the 'vApour. There;was a Welshwoman at the door I when she saw the vapour couting c sile shouted; out, " John I—vitriol."—(much laughter)- z -and he inamediatelY put cloths over it. That was when Mr.'Airey was giving sauce to the fish, andlave it ton strong. (I..,attlillter.) The vapour-was id strung that it would go through the cloth. It also covered his scale beams With rust. There Useeto be abOtit thirty fiSh-dealers in the market. .He now hiAttoarnatropoly altnost,eatirelv to himself. It had taken then-all urX,bn,t, one,- Mr. Ailey had too strong a breath for LdWughter.) Dealt is oysterS. The vapour jaw locked them, . The .rnooe.—"Wha:t rjti Yon mean by jaw-locking an oyster ? Dees it give them a locked-jaw ? Witness: They open; and can't . ciose.againlor the vapour. (Much laughter.) The J_nprix.—Then 1 suppose the vapour makes the oyster open of itself, without a knife ?—Witness : Can't tell, my lord. BY•Mr....Winicrstats.---.Have -- you ever traced the .vapour to Mr. Army's chimney?-:-Nes. Has it any effect on you?—Yes. 'What effeet•?-ItSets me Coughing, and makes me setup tuy back.likeliimisoned rat. _ (Laughter.) _ . • Cross-examined by Mr. ALEXA NDER.—A poisoned rat sets up its back as high as it could get it. There was onlY one other fish-dealer in 'the market, and the bottotri of her. pocket was nearly bare. She was not a witness, and he was ,sorry for it. Cthild ntit . l6ll Whether . she Was ill or not; she might be tipsy. Thottg,hthtlitti - C verY.likely.' The oysters were- jaw-locked with the.vapoar„and enough. it killed them. It killed lohsters tob.*lt set them 'frothing at the mouth and killed thern. The - etabstittltd not - Steal away either; it killed:them too. Did not sell. perviwirikles and limpetS. lint supposed it would kill theM tin); There had been about 30 fish-dealers in the market. He had stood them all out except that one wbinan, and she.was as tough.as leather. Mr. G.l" - folden, inspector of markets, formerly a butcher, and - Mi.; - -11..1 - lorner, butcher, Scotland-road, gave similar'tes. timonyas-to.the effect of the vapour on meat anti other articles. Mr. William Taylor, Mr. James Gill, Mr. T. S. Barker, Mr. Daniel 'Brook, and Mr. James Wood, surveyor of buildings for the northern district of Liverpool, proved the depreciation of property _in that quarter; and attributed it principally to the vapour frnm Mr. Airey's works, Mr. W. Gregory, pawnbroker,Ellenborough-street, produced a silver tea-pot, a set of lire-irons, and various other articles. pledged With hiM, which had been rusted or otherwise injured by the vapour : . . Mr. Thomas Atkinson,inspector of weights and measures, 'slated that at"the •beginning of this month be went to the pre mises•of Mr. Airey fur the purpose .of inspectiog his weights. He Asked Mr. Airey bow he accounted for the corroded state itt which they•Werevand whether he thought it was from the va pour or gas froni.the works. Mr. Airy said he could not ac count for it any other way. . ' Jahlei•Caltiurne, principal turnkey at the Borough gaol, spoke to thereffects.produced by the vapour on hitnself and the prisoners in the gaol, and.also on the vegetables in the yard and garden.- ' • - Mr. George 'Rogerson examined :by Mr. CREsSWELL.—Was a surgeon, anti lived in Duke-street, Liverpool. Knew the nit , lure of the business carried on at the alkali - works. The ina jority of thentirtamifactured - sulphurfc acid. In the process of manufacturing, sulphuric acid gas. called muriatic acid gas, was . generated, anti sent up the long chimney along with the smokC from-the furnaces. He had performed several experiments in order to ascertain what proportion of muriatic acid gas mixed with the - iiir'etild be Salubrious. Had first tried it in'aconcen trated :state. ''On the immersion Of a grtiwing plant into - it, the leaves were withered and curled. up, and the plant killed in a few minutes. It destroyed the branches 'and trunk of 'a young myrtle tree :in ten minutes, and succulent plants somewhat earlier. -He then tried the effects ofcurrents of this gas coining 'in the same way as from the chimney throligh the atMospheric -air,' and fnuild-•that-ii was destructive as well as by immersion; .b,tit not He then tried it in a concentrated state on . animals, by immersing mice and birds in •the , gas. He found that the animal, immediately on its itninersinTh panted, anti •respiratinkbitc.:Jitn#extretnely difficult; the covering of the eve .was,kompjetely "destroYed, in its texture, the animal. becoming blind, and' ifltimatqy expiring' in consittlsiotts in front ten to fifteenininuten :Lie then triedthe effects of muriatic gas mixed with yarious . ..plaportio,ns of air, anti found that one part of mu , riatie iicid . gas mixed ivith five parts of attnespherke air curled the foliage nt - Vrowing plants, quickly destroyed the leaves.• af terwards affect no..the branches and trunk; and, ors removing. time plants into the Pure air, they never recovered. Found it equally destructive to animal' life He. had made the experi ments with varions.proportions—always with the same results excepting as : to tine, and found it prejudicial, though not de sffuctive,, britlitto"plants and animals, up to the proportion of, one part of tneriatic acid gas to 1000 parts .of common alma. , phericajr. Cried one part to 1500, and found that it then ap parently had baTeffeers. Had-inhaled the gas himself and suffered severely from it, owing to its having escaped from de fects in the instruments he used in these experiments. In cori secieence"Of inhaling 'the gas, he suffered inflimination of the inner membrane of -the lungs: anti from a smarting of the eyes. The gas was of,a nature to affect the mucous membrane along the whole tract-- Had seen the specimens of rusted and cor , -roiled articles exhibited in court. The gas in question would piisolifee that - effect. in dyeing articles it would convert vege' table blues.ilvto;reds. - T The impregnation of the air with muriatic acid has was decidedly injurious to the comfort of the inhabit• sots, and d ec ittedly prejudicial to the health of persons subject 'so oeffeetioo4;olthe mucous membrane, covering the eyes, or ,errtering into the lungs, stomach, and bowels. r. G. Webster, chemist, Mr. J. Cooper, surgeon, and Dr. gaue corroborative testimony as to the effects of the gas on -vegetalile and animal life. - I Ahr,•Aa..Eis.rstiosa addressed the jury at great length for the defendant, conlendiug,on the one hand that there was, no, evi dence to injuries complained of were occasioned try the alkairunit'sd.tilyor even principally,—and, on the other, .thattite nosiness. was -one of too much importance,. both to the itubvicinals.ingaged in it and to the trade and manufaCtures of the County-generally, to be putdown merely because a feW the.neiglitiourliood suffered, or fancied. thatthey suf fered,;sinne slight iuconvenience froM it, because they saw the v o a fhe pct r u , garissestsis,._tignm,?tere ipiv olu taiheiou, .chimneys of the alkali works, whilst and which might be the cause of all the tnischie?,Coittplained if , werequite invisible.—The learned gentleinao ettntd Ito witnesses. Mr..Justicecougut LIGE said that the doctrine of the law with respect to ; nu"ces was this--A nuisance was not that wh i c h was injuriouiio One, - Lien, hr threepersons Only, but something to the neighbourhomi.,ln th e nex t ylace, the initirv'erust not be an ituagisgary one, — but a suhstan eitii4Wpeisinforproper4 y, , bot Win nature antis Mount. It must ."itiVtr'irkikiti,l4B4.ll>life or obnoxious to the sepses. It was not necessary that health should be seriously injured, in (-rider -it,' eitristit4e'it- =-lint it must be a stibStant ia I in jury to itealth . , - or. a subst an4 ; 3 l : o ir eno e, n ,the senses of the body. If it were an Injury to pro+, mu st he a substantial injury t io n t ri h t a . t th a e lsi. 'Mho; ns niters; be cot - nth - wed that, he had oceasioneda sultstan -orderttrb:' t o mtits r.'Aiiey on this indict jtuiarlyititujuirhyeitroliilelliiir,operty of his neighbours,—a substantial in ' It *0 not net ,, ,,1tm. ,. y 0 1' * It Siliastantial injury to titeir's'enOs• utncient if t hat it should' amount to all three; - it was beiatisfiekl that ill .it--litottnied .4) ,. In the next place they must - e - 'Outsell - 6e 'was oneW Melt had grtiwo ttp within few ' Y ears i -a otti. hot cam ! in which the. neighbourhoo d had ac- TneSced• in ac the third place, they must be satisfied that Mr. A i rey t as'i'etift'i:ti4ibleelitter in the whole, or in „part, for the Ncuitiariee.. If - Mr. Airey only occasioned a part of time nuisance,. hea lv g bgt , e,spopsiftle for his share—others for theirs. TPeY Most be itTaii..ed one,' - 14 iliiitVasthedniy way of g t ettstig at tbehil; , iliey42otild not all be included. in one indict orient, since thay,were„ntit.engaged in committing a joint offence. If A was not to be t-onvicted to-day, beeause others were com mitting a.sintilßi•offentse, then B could not be convicted-to mor- POW, because &was.not convicted to-dav, , --and the next day C could not be cOnvictedhecauSe A and - B had escapkl. - If A.. committed aYweit of the: nittsance,.he Musthe . responsible for it, and go with Merl hers. .A fter the evidence they had, heard, they valid hardlytlonbt that the injury occasionedin the neighbour hoed was a anis/thee inl'point• • of law. AS tnthe Hate, it was .adraitte'd ou,aili'haod that this was a trade Which had grown up : Within the,last few years, And therefore there was within? 'like what crauld beeV'dlfecl < atl ailiiieseerice on the pact of the public. 'There byould , tkterefore, he no oitliculty at to the se6nd 'point.- . As to the third point,:the jury would have to say whether Mr. , Airey confribk9tfit'hii share to the nuisance, if the alkali works were a nuisance. The scientific witnesses had,ail agreed that muriatic gas.,weold produce all the effects described by the wit nesses in this Case. • It' appeared that other gases produced the same effects ; and - if the matter . stood there, they. could hardly proceed t o a ver di c t ; b u t th e muriatic acid gas was traced in a white strearn'Of vapour to the places where the injury was ,pro clnced, an d. t-hesses. the, had the concutrent,evidence of the medical wit nesges that n ikiri a ti c acid gas would produce, and did produce, all the effetst s ascr ib e d t o the ,vapour by the non-medical wit- The question was not now whether the annoyances in De neighbOtrishood p'roceeded in some degree -front' other manu factories• hutstietber tbe alkali works occasioned a part of them, alit! whether they were injurious to the health, comfort, or prti perty the iolaitants. • The jury iefitetiat .halrpast tive.o'clotk- They returned in less than tag Inintit•es.With a verdict of guilty. , • THE QUEEN •V. STOCK DA LE. • inapqaeturei.sand soap,builers, Tow n - council ag a i ns t M essrs . Th omas St o ckdale atitt Son. This s ' i a a THE indictment preferred by the Mayor and alkali in Canning-street. A special iitry'• Was summoned t o Ire it, and the coutisel , were the ssime as those:en4aged in the last case: 11 '. CoLittu.GE also asked whether, with the same ,Itidge and _ L inty the defendants could expect a result different fri`tl!,that atrthe ,iUdiettnent. Mr. Altiusantrair -admitted that•he could not hope fit'. a dif ferPnt " . -sta f , ' 411 1 4 1 WAS direction of-his loid Ali') the jury returned a Vocritifl Mir letribPF.. • 1.40401 " bin. 4**, Ans auttiitm for assault and false itnrrrisonment , maws dried acheititatavl4, tutlxich - .tertninated the business ut Lan imam rariElelt,Tat 75EirPowlsrfri.411 , 1 , 11.--:!l.n.e Chief Justice of New itas frit it this . duly r‘o lecture the 1. Oman catholic, bi. ‘ Sui f , ) „ npfs.n'lheihrrprnprieiv of ra wing op 'a will r , thrrstir IMAM, 4,v -whiar will 'he hiutself to succeed to a ~Inal4eftefsta&rf pr.operly. The consequence has been a series most unjasliti:thle attack* tipo4 the Chief .Just . :ce` by the • • • „ • _ - - .• . LIVERPOOL.SPRING AS-SIZES. CROWN COURT.---SAToRDAy. Mr. Justice Pattison took his seat this morning. a few mi nutes before ten o'clock. He• was attended by the sheriff. The court having been opened with the usual formalities, the names of the justices of the peace werssalled over; subsequently the mayors and coroners within the southern division of this county. The following gentlemen were then duly sworn on the grand jury.— Hon. CHAS. WM. MOLYNEUX, Lord MOLYNEUX, of ToxTETit, Foreman Sir Henry Bold Houghton, hart., Bold Hall. James Aspinall..Esq., Liverpool. Peter Bourne, Esq., Liverpool. Thomas Bright Crosse, Esq., Shaw Hill. Wm. Wallace Currie, Esq., Merslie. Win. Earle, jun., Esq., Liverpool. Paulson Ellatnes, Esq., Al!erten Hall. Jas. Hilton Ford, Esq. Rainford. • Benjamin Heywood, Esq., Claremont. Michael Hughes, Esq., Sherdley Hall. • Win. Ford Hutton, Esq., Hutton Park. Charles Lawrence, Esq., Wavertree Hall. Robert Josias Jackson Norreys_ Esq., of Davyhulme•Hall. Charles Orrell Esq., Blackbrooke. • Shakespear Phillips, Esq., of Barlow Hall. Stanley Percival, Esq., Liverpool; . • Rathhune, Esq., Greenbank , • • Nicholas Blundell, Esq., of Crosby. Charles Tayleure, Esq.,•Parkfield , • Charles 'Tempest, Esq., Rixton- Ilutnphrey'rrafforil, Esq., of 'rrafford Park. • Win. Gerard Walmersley, Esq., of Westwood. The usual preliminary proceedings having beetii gone through, fHis I.oapSiiir addressed the grand jury to the following effect:-,-He assured them that it was with considerable pain he had. to address theta on the duties which 'devolved' upon them. The calendar was,a frightful one. Besides nineteen cases of death which were_ to be brought before theM, there were •several_ others of cutting, stabbing, and wounding, to do grievous bodily harm. Of. the nineteen cases in the calendar, six were set down as murder;, but of the cases depotnlnated manslaughter there were two, he thought. which would turn out, on examination, to be murder, and there was another'case, not - mentioned in the calendar.,. which would probably tome under the same head. He then said, 'that however painful it might,bc to their fee/iugs to prefer, an indictment for a charge if,proved, occasioned the forfeiture of life; instead of one Which was not penal, yet it must be recollected that,thc pritixcs tion Of the lives of her Me-jest:Om subjects , ivas an important diary.. Some eithe cases M which lie had. allude , ' were fur what Were termed kicking and punching, although there were not many on the present occasion: It was a featful,thing that such a barharOus system should prevail in any part of the country. He. had hoped that it had been nearly dune away with; but such was not the fact; there had been several cases of the,kind at Lancaster. In one of the cases which would come 'before then, it appeared that the deceased himself had been fighting in the same fashion, so that there was no reason to suppose that the prisoner had taken any undue advantage—he had acted-to wards the deceased as the deceased had acted towards him. But death was frequently the result of that savap practise of kickinx an antagonist When on tile ground, and he declared it. to :be his determination, when a case was brought borne against any indi vidual, to punish him with great severity, in hopes' that such an example would do something towards the extirpation Of. trrlrtt4l and disereditable a system. Thegrand jury were most probably aware that the laws with respect to murder and inanslaughter were not affected by the act which was passed in the last session of parliament, but which did not come into operation until Oc tober last. Manslaughter was a crime which varied most in the circumstances with which it was attended. Sometimes it ap-' proximated very nearly to murder, and sometimes:: it was of a character very trifling indeed. One person might strike another' in ,the heat of passion, and falling, his head might come in con- . tact with a stone; but there was in that case no inteution what: ever to do murder.- According to the lames of the laud, murder is defined to be an act of homicide committed with malice `pre pense; and it was also most distinctly laid down that all homi cides should be deemed to be malicious until the contrary ap peared, and it was, therefore, incumbent on the prisoner, when placed upott his trial, to show the real nature of the case. .oe nerally speaking, circumstances of extenuation did arise in the Course of the proceedings. The circumstances which would reduce a case from manslaughter to murder were distinctly stated; of those provocation might be mentioned, when resented at the time; but no provocation given at an antecedent period could be admitted as an extenuation. In fact, for a case ofhe micide to be so teduced to manslaughter, all Me facts of the case must lead to the conclusion that it was not the result of a cool and deliberate purpose, but was the immediate effect of the angry feelings which had been generated on the spot and at the moment. Now, there were one or two cases wnere the whole cause of provocation consisted of words; but words Only were not deemed asufficien,t provocation ; tey would not reduce niurder to manslaughter. But when the provocation consisted of a blow, that was sufficient to do so, provided time weapon with which the provocation was resented was•in the hand of the per son at the time. There were also cases where the nature of the instrument or weapon with which death was inflicted would have the effect of limiting the crime to manslaughter; if, for in stance, a person was to strike another with his• fist and knoek him down, so that the fall and blow should be fatal, that would be considered as manslaughter, for they could dot frbitt the facts draw the inference that serious injury had been intended. There Was one case which' would come before them, in which time pri saner stood committed for manslaughter, where the whole pro vocation consisted only of Words. The deceaied had merely remarked to the prisoner, who was .quarrelling with his, wife. "Are you not ashamed to behave in such a manner?" on which. with some sharp instrument, he inflicted a wound (in the deceased, which' severed the' carotid artery. They had also the case of a man named Davies, who was quarrelling with his wife when in a state of drunkenness, (a great many offences were committed by men when in that state, but drunkenness was no extenuatien—it was rather ate aggrava: lion,) and then seized hold of her by her clothes and knocked her on the ground. Though she was six tnontlis advanced iu pregnancy he also kicked her most shamefully .when upon thb. ground; and that was called a case of manslaughter; but,lf the facts stated in the depositions could be established it was a clear Case of murder. The, next case which ..he should notice was marked Nos. 8 and 9 in the calendar, where a person named James. Walters was said .to have been killed by a cart rusting over him; that seemed to .be a case of manslaughter. It ap peared, however, that there had been three carts running rates, and if the accident could be proved to have occurred through negligence then it was one where severe punishment was tnerited. No. II also appeared to be a case of manslaughter, as did that marked 21, where a constable had beat a' resistirist person about the head with a stick. The next, Nos. 28 and 29, was also a case of manslaughter; but he did not know whether there was sufficient evidence to implicate both.. If the act was committed by may one of the prisoners, the other had probably assented to it; the case was somewhat ambiguous, but thee would no doubt be able to pick out the truth. No. 31 was case of manslaughtet, where John Whitehead was ailedged to have been killed by Joseph Charnock. They had disagreed, and had begun to fight in the savage way peculiar to a porthiri of the county ; one main knelt down, and, while he was kneeling, the other.seized hold of him and broke tine of his ribs. He then w ca o rn ti l e d to findN T o • 4 n2e , a c n o n o t t h ra e t r i it c l a o s r e y e o t t: idence. u g N h o t, In s er 46 a nwd .h 4 k 7 h they s a case of mansl aug h ter , w hi c h s hould undoubtedly b e preferreu against the engineer or the person whose duty it Was to keep a look not, though. who.: that was did not appear to be - certain. No. 57 was another case of manslaughter, l one; the death hail resulted from a blow in fig ht ing, n o e peered that no blows were struck except i i e g d a n i t o ellil fighting, however, was undoubtedly case r heen n .e t h it a i , t g i included hvei having, l e e i t t t h d e a r r,h a d o f through a Bence, caused the death of a woman iii it was left to,thetri whether it should .go before a jury or n u t neared that the medical man had been in the habit of * It ape upon the deceased, and it was said that, when first called a"ending in, he had administered medicine for the purpose of dela • partu rition, When, as other medical men declared, it .11111 V my to have been forced. lie, however, had distinctly stated tirl that he was elsewhere indispensably engaged, and-advised patient if necessary, to call in another person and not to depend'ed him. To this the deceased had an objection, and de ath herll'" the result: If the person accused had not attended his wfis properly he was undoubtedly amenable to law; but, it I pa t ient properly trary was the fact, he thought that the individual Ought' not put upon his trial, because it would he a fearful thing ifotidor • everK failure of medical skill, aJnedical.practitioner were ' brought before a legal it ibuoul. It appeared to him that ne tt l m 't could not be attributed in the present case, he had distinct • told the woman he could hot attend Upon her,and A t • cireumsantes it was • • - - very' questionable whetheeheought to he; put upon his trial. Ile therm came to those called reu r Casei • o f which Were were six.. Under that head should have -placed the case. of John. Hyatt,- who was indicted • r slaughter, hut he thought. it quite elthat • ear a bill for murder should be found; there had been inflicted on the deceaseh wound with - a sharp instrument, Which had severed the carotid . artery... Whetherany -thing could be fouted f irt 3 t4e.evidenee to mi tigate it, he could not tell, but the case seemed to fall clearly with iii role he , had•taid=rilovia in 'the. distinctibe'whith he had -drawn between :the Awe offences of .inauslatighter and murder. 140: eio related to a flew-born child; but it could not be consk dered as a case of Coneenlioent, beeause by that the 'act (it pat lianment meant the secret burying or otherwise disposing of the dead body of a child, for the purpose of concealing it; but in the:ease before, them it was a : liVing body, and the act. matte no eir "" . respecting the hiding of -a living provision igno ra nce al9nbsrnfir:yd'als''tthntsi:t;itvahailell boily.• The child, had•livedintSmne time , and medical men declared th4t the it had (lied by suffocation, and that tt n ere were •arks o pressure on the throat. 'lf that had d been done in the act of delivery, r the wo man was guilty of. no offence—it would not even be niattis slaughler; . but it was said the ma yk s were such as could writ have been made unintentionally. There was also an unfortu-• hate expressitia she had mad e use of, living: which would tend tot, hOw was but then, watt• that she was aware that the child also,known that there wag ' nothin g so difficult as to give the very possible. L'Px words' which a person had used; it was al h il e " tc s i t d i i rn ivn, they would cept ashert-hand writer were to take I dS had used ; 'they be quite unable to repeat the prccise words he w •ould 11. The might give the substance, perhaps, and that h was charged The Cage of Charles Worthington, (No. 61,) w 0 . with.murder, was as clear a case of manslaughter as he ha, ever read, and of manslaughter only. James Callagan, it .app. would not suffer the boy togrind his chisel at the grind-stone; • having a altercation ensued; he struck the boy ; and the boy hip chisel en his hand, kttuck-Callag,an with it; the blow caused death. the two nett (Nos. 6 2 and 6.3) the learned judge de scribed as very serious cases s be gave a brief view of theirs na tare. went through several other cases, of forgery, poion . ing, shooting, ke., commenting upon them as he proceeded. ' His addreea occupied an hour and twenty minutes in the de livery. 1 . LIVVR'iN)oi tf.kriSLAUG LITER. . . John Skerratt. 3g, a labourer, of Mattchester, itas 'Char with the manslaughter of Janet Grange, a lawyer, at Munches ter, on the 11th of February last, by the furi‘ons driving of a coach. Mr. Pell appeared for the prbSectition, and Dr. Browne fot the defendant. . Joseph Hawksworfh deposed that he got upon the coacb driven by Skerrett, which piled betwee'n Btiry . and Manchei: ter, about a mile on this side of itury. There was eleven pet.. sons on the outside, and five inside, one of whom was the wit' , of the driver. lie described the coach as having proceeded .a• a rapid rate, and the body of it swung so .much from side n side that he was somewhat alarmed—the wife of the driver wa ve' v much so. Shortly after the coach had 'descended Chee! haul-hill, (a very slight descent,) it ufseti, and was dragged. it lay sideways on the ground, a•consttlerabl e space. He ( 1 1 .' serYeil the deceased, James Grange, among the t i as3engers ; ho after the accident he did not take Tarticular . notice of him. A+ . onintbUs came up at the time; and those who lay on th a were put into it. Several other witnesses Were called, one whom deposed that the coach, though going at a pi - 'tty rapt pace, did no: exceed more than nine.ilides an hotir, and that t • driver was perfectly sober though all declared that it swagged' . or swayed about frOm_ side to side. Others deposed that 1. 1 4 speed was from,l2 to 15 mites; the witness who computed th speed at 15 miles, admitted that he was not ac6usfoineit to sue' calculations: . Henry Strgden Faw !lid coach Ilipsct i and ran to the spot when hd ea* Mr, Omelet lying: tin 'his ill:eV - tin the road blood was streaming from his mouth and nose, and he appeared totally insensible. • Mr, Lomax, house-surgeon of_the jpfirmatry, - -dt, Manchester, deposed to receiving Mr. Grange on the Sundity evening 'be ta een eight and nine o'clock ; he died at four on the following morning. The cause of death was fracture of the brain. Dr. BitowN addressed the jury in defence of the prisoner. The accident he attributed to some defect in the ciiat•h, of which, as the prisoner was not the re.ular driver, he mast have been ignorant. Besides, the evidence had not desfinctlt shown that there was an, thing like furious driving ; on the contrary, Entwistle, %‘ ho had suffered severely himself, and Sfill more deeply in the pei sort of his son, had deposed that he had tie quently gone at a much quicker speed, and that he himself was 'not in 'the least alarmed. The fact, too, of the prisoner's wife having been in the coach was a sufficient guarantee that cafe had bee❑ taken by him d r iving. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. BIGAMY. . _ _ Joseph Bucksley was charger) with bigamy. It appeated from the statement of the prisimet that he had had various dis4iree ments and temporary separations from his first wife ; Susannah Lord, who was continually desiring hint to go and reside with her mother. To this he Would not for some time consent; but though he did so at length, it did not lead tothe peace which he anticipated. Ile accordingly left, telling his wife that, if she was willing to live with him, he would take a house, but that he could no more reside at her mother's. lie went one day to he house of his wife's mother, on purpose to see his wife; but they told him that he had nn occasion to come there any more, as " Sarah" hail got married to another person. Ou hearing this, the prisoner determined, as he said, to bring the affair to a conclusion, and, to •''get shut altogether of his first wife." married a young woman named Susannah Taylor, to whom he distinctly related his situation, and she notwithstanding his • previous marriage, consented to unite herself with him. He was found guilty, and the learned Judge, previously' to passing sentence, remarked that though the prisoner had acted under a delusion in fancying that he could by any proceeding dissolve the marriage with his first wife, yet, as he had not fed the second wife into forming a connection with him by denying or conceal ing from her his previous marriage, his case might be looked upon as less criminal. lie, however, stated, that from certifi cates which had been handed into the court, he found tbat the prisoner's charges against his. wife were unfounded; she was described as a:modest and irreproachable character in those Certificates..' The prisoner was sentenced to two months' itn-r prisonment and hard labour. Daniel Holt, 26. of Ashton-under-Lyne, was charged with having, while his first Wife was alive, married Elizabeth Robin son, at Oldham. Mr. Peel appeared for the prosecution, and biiedy stated the case. Ellen Marsden nroved the fact of the first inartiage with Frances Ellis, at Ashton. She was about 26. They -lived together about three or four months, and then be went off . to Liverpool. He returned and' lived with her two ; or three weeks, before.he finally abandoned her. Elizabeth Robinson herself was examined. She deposed that she had known the prisoner. .about. four years. She had heard that he had another wife, but he denied the fact, saying that she had died of fever of the brain. Told her so several times. She had been married three .years on .the 1411 Sept. next. On the morning of the marriage, she had been told that he had a wife living; asked him, and he again denied it. She believed him. About a year and seven mouths after the marriage, the first wife came over; she lived with him a little while after that cir cumstance, and than left him. The child she had in her arms was the prisoner's. Joseph Wiede, the deputy constable of Oldham,; deposed to having arrested the prisoner on the 4th of January. He told him trie.charge, and prisoner said it was all nonsense. He afterwards told him where his first wife was living—she was a servant in a public-house at Ashton-under- The prisoner, who was a countryman, made rather a curious defence he said, "Th' fist woife o' mine left me about three months after I had wed her; and I Beet agate with this other. I told her I was wed, and oo said on had been made a too on once before, and oo would not have we. Well, I said, I caunt help that; I wuz wed; but for a' that on kept following me, and telling tne what no would do if I would nut wed her. One morning oo met me when I was grming to work with William Cross and two others, and on said if I would not have her, 00 would make away with herself before neet. So we went to a public-house to Beet a glass of ale, and then Wm. Cross carne back to see why I wur stopping. Why, says I, we're gooing to have a wedding. Well, we went ; and had a wedding; but Win. Cross toad her I wur married before-hand." The JUDGK said that the case was sufficiently clear. The prisoner himself admitted the Net, but seemed to think he was to escape all liability in consequence, as he declared, or having made known to his second wife the fact of his previous mar riage. But whether he had done so or not, he was equally liable to punishment for the of f ence. The jury found him guilty, and lie was sentenced to 6 months imprisoninent,. with hard labour. Sarah ltroitn. 34, was indicted for having feloniously married • one James Harticastle, at Rochdale, on the first October last, her first husband, Edward Brown, being then alive. The pri soner pleaded guilty. She handed in a memorial to the court, which having been read by the .learned Judge, he stated, that if she In ought her mother to testify to what was therein con tained, it would certainly, affect the extent of her punishment. William Seddon was indicted for bigamy. He had married, on the 28th August last, Ellen Lofthouse, spinster, his first wife, by whom he had three children, being alive. The p r i soner pleaded guilty; but stated, in extenuation, that his first wife I had not behaved herself welltowarda him. He Was sentenced to be imprisoned and kept to bard labour fur six calendar months. BURGLARY. John Walker and Michael Whaling were charged with having, on the morning of the 27th February last, burglarlodsly entered the dwelling-house of Catherine Weight, at Pendleton, and stolen therefrom a variety of articles. Mr. BRAN C/T appeared for the prosecution. Wm.Wilcock was the first witness called. El e deposed that he slept. in a room on the.ground [lour of Mrs. Weight's house, and was disturbed, about three O'clock on. the morning of the 27th February, by a noise at the door. He immediately got up :and, looking through the key hole, saw a light in the adjoining room. He made an alarm, and went out dins room; in doing which he .heard.a.great noise in the music room, and presently after the breaking of a window. The entrance had been effected by taking a panel out of the door, and drawing two bolts. He r found a pair of clogs inside the door, a hat in the music.romni in which was a handkerchief, and five skeleton ke)s, On the Steps leading into the garden, he saw several drops of blood, which he could trace for about 100 yards. He was in company with Mr. Allen when a piece of blue cloth (apparently from the lap of a coat) was found in a strawberry tied in the gimlet'. There were some palings which were broken down ; the untruth ern seemed to have run against them, and by that means the coat might have been torn. Miss Weight deposed, that she resided with her mother, and stated, that she had ascertained that all the small silver articles fro 111 a work-box, which lay in the parlour, haul been stolen. She had nut seen the articles in question for some time betiure the robbery ; but she knew that the work-box itself had been re moved, on the night of the rubbery, trout the place in which she bad left it. Thomas Allen, constable of Pendleton, deposed, that he was sent for to the house of Mrs. Weight, at five o'clock on the morning of the 27th February. He examined into the state of things there; and he saw some skeleton keys. which were de- livered to him, as well as a hat and handkerchief, He observ ed traces of blood, extending from a broken window and across the garden, in the direction of Salford. He had compared the piece of blue cloth found on the strawberry bed with a rent in a coat shown him by pity / zits, deputy constable of Salford, and they corresponded. He saw the prisoners in enstody on the following, morning (the 28th.) Ile took Walker's ,hues from hint, and compared them with some impressions on a walk. The shoes exactly tallied with those Impressions. Miss Goold saiv fonr men pass the house on the evening of the preceding dar, and she was positive that the two men at the bar were among them. Her reason for remarking them was, that they looked particularly at the house as they passed. John Diggles, deputy constable of Salford, in consequence of information which be had received, went in search of Whaling, and found the two prisoners together at a public house. He re marked, that Whaling had on a fresh hat, and he noticed the fact to him. Lindsay, a polite officer. bearing the remark, took the hat from his head, which witness then observed was severely ' cut at the back. The blood was still trickling from the wound upon his shirt collar. The prisoner accounted for the hurt by saying, that a man had hit him With a big stone on the bead that morning.• He took both prisoners into custody. Whaling had on a blue coat i from the skirt of which a strip, he found, had been tern. He haul received a piece of blue r loth front Allen, which had evidently come front the coat. Allen showed him the hat found on Mrs. Weight's premises • he knew it was Whaling's, because he had had it in his hand several times.— (The coat, the strip of cloth, the hat, and shoes were handed in and inspected by the jury.] Lindsay, a police-officer, had been in the habit of having Whaling's hat in his hand three or fottr times a week. He had seen it on the Monday night, (the night preceding the robbery,) ' and there Was then in it a half handkerchief; the one prevtuus ly produced seas the one which he had then seen. The prisoner Walker cross-examined nearly the whole of the a itnesses at some length. He now addressed the jury in his defence, maintaining that he. had not been absent from his own house from half past eight on, Monday evening, till half-past four op Tuesday afternouin. He called several witnesses, (his nither.'and other persons resident in the same house,) to esta .lilish 'Their`the ; alibi. evidence, as far as the principal facts `eon necteuf wit h'thepriSnoerwere concerned, varied but slightly.' and tended to establish the truth of his statement; but, in the searching cross-examination to which they were subjected by Mr. Brandt, there were found. on all the incidental and extra= citeumstances, many discrepancies. ' • • The jury, after a short consultation, brought in a vedict of guilty against both prisoneri, and they were sentenced to be transported for life. - • NISI PRIUS COURT. This Court opened on Friday morning, shortly after 12 o'clock, before Sir J. F. Coleridge. PAPER AND PENS POI?. THE BARRISTERS. The ATTORNEt-GENERAL slid—My Lord, we are in a great difficulty here: there is a dispute who is to find pens and paper for the bar; there are neither pens nor paper, it is so small a county. His LortostitP—l am afraid I cannot assist you. Mr. PI. ETCH ER RA I NCOCK.—The Attorney-General comes froM the county of Chester, and therefore he takes liberties with Lancashire. (A laugh.) The Under Sheriff was sent for to eitplain the reason why paper was not'ufforded as usual. The ATTORNEY-GENERA I..—Your lordship is aware, that be fore the removalof the assizes from Lancaster, the county found paper. His Loßosnly.'•—But, before the removal; the Under Sheriff says the Corporation undertook to find the paper. The ATTORNEY-GENBItAL.—That is hi.ftween themselves. A LEARNED GENTLEstAN.—They had better split the dif erence. (Loud laughter.) Ills Lonnsole.—The county have refhsed to pay for the taper supplied for last session, saying the corporation under ,mk to do it. Mr. C RESSWEL L.—Why, my lord, the funds of the corpora ion are now under act of parliament. Mr. ItAttscock.—l think the barristers of Liverpool might nbscribe a quire of paper each and surmount the difficulty. (a 'A message was sent to the Town Cleric, we believe, to in trtn him of the want of paper, but none was supplied. This is candle-end and cheese-paring econopy with a ven !'aut.e. The whole cost of the paper would hot amount to £5. RI! worthy of Liverpool Corporation ! None has sinee bee n ipplied - and we undcrstand their Lordships are furnished 111 - 1 pens at the pi irate evense of the Mayor! Cm PLAN]) V. CIIANKSIIA , k. This was an 'action to ought to recover the Om of £46 on a .adrantee, from the•defen(iant, who resides in Manchester. Verdict fur the plaintiff lot the amount. • Loma V. eASI,BIITTOM. The plaintiff,- in this case, is a toil-bar;keeter, near Man `foster, , auti the defendant, a roach-proprietor at Manchester• act ion was),ought for the recovery el a stim Of £5B 4s. ltd. tolls which the defendant had run in the debt of the plain Sue the action hail been - oontnenced, two shins had been aid in liquidation, leaving a balance of £23 t,. The del'end it also, to pay the costs of the action. Verdict for the plaintiff for the amount. ItACKIPtG V. LA ING. This Was ad little** ed a &Med eneharle tdt EA and the costs on' it £1 103. wilieelh . e . dlfendant had endorsed: Verdict for the plaintifffOi the amount. BUTYKISFIE!..2I This was an stet ion -for-a debt, foriCtinis sold and rlelilit.red, to the amount of £3B 133 8 , 1. It was undefended. The debt was proved. Verdia for the plaintiff for the amount. BA nioti v. EDGE. This was an undefended delion for the recovery of £52 4s, money lent and interest. VErdict for the plaintiff for the amount. SMITH V. WA.I.SH Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Wightman rippeared for the plaintiff, and the At rorney•General for the defence. The declaration stated that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff for money had and received for the use of I he defendant, which the defendant said be had not received, on which issue was joined. Mr. CHESSWELL, in opening the case, said this was an action arising out of a contract for the sale of shares—a description of action very common in Liverpool within the last two or three Years, in consequence of the large speculations in shares. The defendant was the manager of the Northern and Central Bauk Brarfeh at Liverpool, and also the agent of Munk's Ferry Com pany. Mr. Walsh took upon him to sell some of those shares, When the price was £6 lOs per share. The proceedings of the Monks Ferry had been arrested in consequence of an action' pending to be settled at the present Chester Assizes, to ascer tails whether the company had a right to establish a ferry or not. In consequence of this, shares greatly fell in price in the market. In 183E1 Mr. Walsh took upon him to sell ten shares ! of the company allotted to Mr. John Fernley, of Manchester. Mr. Smith became the purchaser for £65 10s, which sum found its way into Mr. Walilr'S pocket. Mr. Smith desired to have the scrip. He was told that Mr. Fernley had not executed the deed, and until lie. had done go, he could have no property in the scrip. This Mr. Smith thought very strange, and afte r applying several times in vain, a notice was sent to him that another call of £2 per share was made in March, 1837, with in formation that unless the call was paid within a certain period the shares would be forfeited. Mr. Smith, in order that they might not be forfeited, paid that amount into the bank to Mr. Walsh. Ultimately, it turtle(' out that Mr. Walsh had no shares to dispose of, and that Mr. Walsh had altogether repudiated these shares. Mr Smith then wrote to Mr. Walsh. saving he could get nothing for his money, and therefore begged that he would pay him back his Money. He receiver' fur answer, thir teen months after, when the shares had fallen in price to £2 lOs per share, that Mr. Walsh was ready to transferother shares to Mr. Smith, the•scrip of ithich he could get, and which he had never refused to do. But this would 'nut do. It would appear that Mr. Walsh had no right even.te transfer these shares. Mr. John Middleton, assistant to Mr. Barber, of Liverpool, sharebroker, on his examination stated tttat'Mr. Barber, by the instructions of Mr. Walsh, sold ten share's in the Monks Ferry Company to Mr. Smith. 1-Wproduted the sale note—" Mr. 'rhoteas smith bought of Thomas Barber', froM John Peiziley originally, 10 Monks Ferry, £5 per share pair!, at £6 UV pet: share, making altogether £65." Mr. - Smith-applied to him for the scrip, but he told him he could only give him the banker's receipt for the call, in the name of Fernley, and that the scrip would not be issued by the company until thedeed of settlement had been executed by Fernley. Cross-exatnined.—Smith told Mr. Barber to sell the shares for him, but Mr. Barber told him his limits were too high ; he could not sell them at that price, Mr: Smith did not himself wish to take original shares, which he might have had instead, as he did not wish to 'sign the deed of settlement, and be made responsible for the expenses of the chancery suit. Ite-examitted.—Mr. Walsh Might have tdytitlrted other shares on which he could have got the seripif he had thought fit. By His LORDSHIP.—Mr. Walsh had pffered to transfer Mr. Smith other shares in the place of these 10, but Mr. Smith, the next time lie came, demanded his money. A tender of 10 other shares by the plaintiff's solicitor to the plaintiff was put in and read, and the scrip purported to be exe cuted by Mr. Walsh and Mr. Curet. Mr. CRESSWELI. handed in a letter, stating that Mr. Curel bad not executed the above deed conjointly with Mr. Walsh. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then ruse for the defence. He designated the action as a tnost shabby attempt on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had bought the abates, and after en deavouring to sell them in the market for twelve months, on the action against the company ripening, turned round, and said, 'Now I won't have the shares, 1 will have my money." He wondered if the shares had risen in the market, whose shares the plaintiff would have said they were. His Lou osHIP, in summing up, said the plaintiff himself had shown the consideration on which he was 'tohave - the shares, to go to market with them the save as Walshr arid he must say he thought the defendant wits entitled to a verdict. The plaintiff bad adopted the shares as his own so long as there was It chance of sale in the market. It was then too much for him to turn round and say he would not have the shares. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, Mr. CRESSWELL gave notice of a new trial.. 141`CLURE r. FItASER. Mr. Alexander and Mr. Wightinan appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cresswell for the defeuce. This was an action brought for the recovery of £45, ova gua rantee furnished by the defendant, who is a respectable draper in Manchester for goods furnished by the plaintiff on the gua rantee of the defendant, to a Mr. Jardine, whoon 1836, niade.a composition with his creditors, leaving the plaintiff a creditor in the amount sought to be recovered, for which the plaintiff came on the guarantee. It appeared that the plaintiff had accepted the dividend of 10s. in the pound, front Jardine, ou £9O, and had given a dis charge in full. His LORDSHIP said the obvious meaning of that was, that there was an end of the debt. Plaintiff nonsuited. SCOTT V. FOSTER. This Was an action for all assault. The parties reside in Man chester. It appeared that the plaintiff Scott's father, who was a schoolmaster, not being able to obtain a debt of £lOO, em ployed the defendant, who is an attorney in Manchester, to recover the debt. The defendant obtained about £7O of this money, but as Mr. Cresswell, the counsel for the. plaintiff oh serve,l, it sometimes happened when money got into the hands of an attorney, unless of first-rate respectability, there was much difficult* in getting it out again. The plaintiff agreed to receive vmetit from the defendant for the money which he had received, byinstaldiefits; and as one insfalittent the defendant gave a bill for 1 . 5, which *as not paid away; and when this became due, the defebdairt sent his clerk with a £lO note. to the plaintiff, in order tel recover possession of the bill. The plaintiff refused to give up tiossesSi“n on receipt o f thi s, sav i ng he must have £5 more, the clerk then endeavoured to obtain re possession of the LIO Ige, but the plaintiff sa id" N o , M r. F oster owes my father more than this, and I will not give it up ;" whereupon . the clerk went away a cid !aid a charge of felony against him at. the Police-office, for stealing tne £lO no t e , on w hi c h char4e he was next day taken into custody, and brought before the magis trates, who dismissed the case as one of disputed property. and not of felony. It teas for the assau l t o f ta ki ng t h e p l a i nt iff i n to custody, and the imprisonment t her e u p on, t h at t h e act i on was brought. W i t nesses were called t o p rove t h e case „ w h en his Lordship inter fered, and said he was clearly of opinion that there was no pretence to a fetony itr the taking of the note, which was endeavoured to he proved on the cross examination of the witnesses. -- His Loansute said the defendant's plea of felony was not made out, and the verdict must .therefore go for the plaintiff. The only thing was the question of damages. - It really was a pity that actions of this kitid were brought, and respectable attorneys, when applied to a b out such actions, ought to say. " vou, you get a verdict will get very trifling damages, and will be pUt to great expense, while I only shalt gain by it." He thoultht the damages ought to be eery moderate. Verdict for the plaintiff a farthing damages. H is Loidship refused to certify. The court then adjourned at a quarter to five, to nine o'clock neat mot ning. CROWN COURT.—SATURDAT. ➢lr. Justice Patteson took his seat nine o'clock. niGt-tWat ttonntiny. James Turner, aged 21, was charged with having, in company with others, at Guest Bolton, feloniously assaulted and rubbed Thomas Taylor, on the 12th July last. Mr. Cross conducted the case fur the prosecution, and Dr. Brown defended the prisoner. Mr. Burrow, deputy constable of Bolton, on the Monday after the robbery received a watch from Mr. Blundell. That was in July last. He kept it about three months, and then delivered it to Mr. Thomas Taylor, the owner, having previ ously marked it. He got it back in December last. In July last, witness received information of a robbery from Mr. Taylor. Since then had endeavoured to apprehend hits. Apprehended him in December last. John Blundell stated, that he seas a pawnbroker at Wigan. In .truly last, he received a watch from his sister in law, Jane Watson, who is his assistant. Witness gave it to Burrow, the deputy constable of Bolton, having first marked it. [Witness here examined the watch produced by Burrow, and declared that to be the same.] Jane Watson stated, that she was sister in law'and assistant with the last witness. On Thursday, 13th. July, at half-past eight o'clock in the morning, a person Wought a watch to her. That person was William Hulme. Dr. Brown objected to the accounts of other person's for which it might be assumed those persons had been made amena , ble, being brought in as evidence against the present prisoner. Mr. Caoss con.ended, that he had a right ter call such evi dence, if he proved that the parties were together, and acting in concert. t.; His Lonnsiate decided that the evidence would be admiss2t-, ble when this had been shown. Miss Watson went on to prove, that the WOO was with her, and that the glass was broken. • William Redfarn stated, that on the 13th of July last, the pri soner, and those others, Hulme, Leach, and Sharpies, carne tai his leer shop, in Wigan. They got seven quarts of beer, and paid at first sixpence in copper. Afterwards two - of the partieS got change of two sovereigns. As they were geeing out, the prisoner at the bar offered him as old fashioned watch without a glass, for twenty shillings. The - watch produced was similar to it. Witness followed them down to the Wellington Inn, a bottle having been broken near the fire, wnich he wished them to pay for. Ann Green stated, that she lived in Bolton. She was in Wigan in July last. On TherSday morning the 131 h, abut gshe saw the prisoner in companawith three other eight o'clock, persons, rpleg, Leach, Mid Hulme, Sfiti knew Turner. Sharpies spoke to her. She asked hilts What he was doing there? and be said he had been coming trout Bolton all night. They went together to a public house, (the Shovel and Bloom) Sharpies having said he would trust them. The prisoner ac companied them. Hulme said, he had a watch that was without a face, and.he would go and get it repaired. He went and re turned. When he returned, he said he had been to three watchmaker's shots, and he could nut get it repaired. He went out again; saving he would go again, and get it repaired. Turner and Leath said he should not go unless he left security that he word(' bring the watch back again; He left 7s. 6d. as security with Thrner. On his return, he said he had pawned the watch for 10s. Turner then returned him the 7s. 6d. The 10s. was divided—each taking 2s. 6d. They tossed up for the pawn ticket, and Hulme won it. They all then went away to another public house. They then began to quarrel about their money. Sharpies said he hail not got his rights. Witness then left them. She saw them again in about ten minutes. They were in a field quarrelling about their - Money. Witness was merely passing. A man said- the constables were coming, and they all ran awat. Witness was herself taken into custody, but discharged. 'Mary Smith was With her. Mary Smith corroborated the eVidenCe of the lain witness. Thomas Taylor stared that he resided in Bolton: On the 12th of July last he teas g oing to his house, which is about half a mile out of the town, it iv,ts between eleven and twelve at night, when he carne to Bradford-square he was knocked down by three or four persons he felt a petion'S hand in his right Jratirl pocket, a purse containing; two of inure Sovereigns. his snuff box, and soMe sifter Were taken', his hat and a silier watch were also taken. On pulling off his boots u hen he got home, the glass of the watch fell out of his boot. Ile had re: ceived several itijorieS, a blote across his eye deprived him of the use or it for several (Log. tie was cow:inert to the honk fur five or sik days in conseqtreote of the injuries he had re, ceived. The men ran al4.' after they had robbed hini. Wit ness identified the watch produced by Berrtrve as his property. lie was certain there were two pergous difacking him, but he could not speak positively to inure, tre EDOught that thee were more. bruit-eitattained bt Dr: liften*N:=- - fettfitfini ftom. Co'n'serlidtive dinner ad Bolton, and the wine had cireolatete !treely. Dr. OFl Q %yr.i, defertee of Pre prisoner, impressiii upon the jury th - e - iincertainty - as whether the robbery was committed by more than two , person's, the prosecutor not being able to identify any person. nor to et'ate exactly il'Otry many bad robbed him. Ilia Lord'rthip said' it was necessary for the jury to be satisfied that thy pirsat4-er wl#'s present when the robbery was committed : The Jury foundtwi prisoner guilty. Dr. ifthrOtis# called two witnesses, who stated that they had known the prisoner for several years, and he had bo r ne a good character during t E'er riine. The learned J he should direct sentence of death to' he recorded against the prisoner, but he should recounnendhint, to her Majesty''' . uiercy,rthat his life might be spared. Onwbat terms would d•fpend upon the result of the inquiries that would, be made as to what depeddeace could be placed on the evident, es to character. HIGHWAY i s eliatuar. • Ric D',Yrirn, aged 20, and William Maguire, aged 21, were charged With having, at Stratford, assaulted and robbed John Atkinson Simpson. and Ann Ransome, of certain money: and further with having, at Manchester, stolen three brace of pis tols, and one cheese, the property of Daniel Rowden. Sir GMEGORI LLWIN conducted are prosecution; Dr. Baeirri defended itiFiguire. . , Mr. John Atkinson Simpson, (wbb Mr/ not wear the garb of a quaker) was abowt to affirm, when IY,r. Urtrter asked him if he were one of the people called qUak'el'ii Ir. Siropma said he was one of the ire'Ciety of Frieniti till' abbot fifteen mouths' ago, when, with °there; in CobseqUediT or some drfferenee,ota points of doctrine, he seceded ;' but he was still of the same oh-the with them o the siihiect of oaths, and on on other point. The secession arose out of some disputes in which Mr. Crowdon of Manchester Wes con't'erued. Iu point of fact he was not a Quaker. - Sir GlifiGOltYLewin coniehde4 that urrder an Act 3tl and 4th William IV., individuals of the pet udi,#h called Quarters; might make the affirmation. The words " L.)trakers and filo ravians" occurred in a former Act of Geo. IV, arid the words "of the persuasion called Quakers" constituted flci difference between the two Acts. It was clear therefore that all persons' who were of that persuasion, though not, in fact, belonging. to the society. were entitled to affirm. The information would be' receivable it it were equally binding on his conscience as at oath. Much loose discussion took place on the subject. His LORDSHIP acid he had great diffieultv in construing those Arts; but he thought the at and 4th of William IV, was intended to extend the liberty of affirmation to persons n4tiri . - . . chided in the f o rm er ac t s . The Oth of Geo. IV., howeverAwas: precise in its terms, that every Quaker should snake the affirm- , ation. - The form of the a ffi rma t io n . Was also Made in a particu lar form. And he should put these questions to the witness: " Wil , l you make the affirmation in thesa words.—" I, John' Plekiellon Simpson,. being one of thto people Caked Quakers Anser.:—•: No." Juobtc.—Wilk you make the afrirtriation tr 6 (tuns:— " I, John Atkinson Simpson, being one of the petstialionlolttni people called Q uakers.' • Answer.—" No." The oath was then tendered to the witness in the usual form,' but he refused to take it. His Lou DSHIP then asked the witness if be had any objet.; lion to to take the affirmation in general terms, as " I, John Atkinson Simpson, do solemnly and sincerely declare and atilini," &c., and if be should consider such an affirmatiort binding on his conscience ? The witness answered that he had no objection to such an afgrmation, and he should consider it binding on his conselence. His LORDSHIP said that the only question would be, whether an individual would be indictable for perjury it he were found to have spoken falsely after such an affirmation. He . was at present under an impression that he could not administer the affirmation generally, He said he would, however, conikeit 11Ir. Justice Coiridge ott the subject. His LORDSHIP, on his return, said the other witnesses had better be called, and Sir Gregory could see bow far his casd would stand upon that evidence: 'Filen, if he thought proper' to press the matter, be thought the best way would be to take the affirmation generally, and afterwartii refer it to the opiniort of the judges. Cyrus Ancock was then called. tie dtrited that be was constable in the township of Halrne. In the beginning of February, he received information of a robbetli and - in conse.; vence thereof he went with Mr. Boothby to ttit load between Stretford and ilulme. They met these persons, wire; when they saw them, attempted to run away. They took the pri: saner Doran, and found in his po - ssession two pistols. He told . the prisoner, when he go t t o th e l oc k= u p, that h e was accused o f having robbed a lady and gentleman. tie trai4" I believe we did." Witness then said " How Ninth did you tke froty them ?" He replied, ..N About I. in silver." He examined the pistols and found them loaded with bath Th appearance of one of the men who escaped corresponded with the deiciir lion he bad received. William Boothbv stated that he was with &hat witnesri when he was out on the 2,1 of Febrhaty; He sari that one of the men was the prisoner Maguire: John Smith, a constable of Manehegter, stated that on Monday, the sth of February, he west in search' of Maguire: He found him in bed at his father's house. He told him that he wanted him for being on the Stretford hew road oh the 2d of February. He was searched, and some keys and a dint were found in his pocket. His box was examined; and h pistol, a dagger, and a bag of powder were found. He gild; •"I"hose things belong to Doran." This witness slated a con*eisatiori that had taken place between Maguire and. Mt.• Thorne; the deputy constable of Manchester, in which he (Maguire) saidi in renly to certain questions, that he and Doran had comthitted the robbery, and that they took two shillings from the gentleman and that the lady gave them eight shillings. Mr. Milne and Mr. Berwick, of Manchester, proved the de. , position of the witness and the statements of the prisoners on examination before the magistrates The statements of the prisoners were read as follows: " Richard Doran says he has nothing to say furthar, thad that they took only len shilling 3." The other prisoner had nothing to say. As the evidence was not suffieient to prose the cage, hi/ Loensviti signified his intention of nettling the general affirmation of M. Simpson. Mr. Simpson *as recalled, and afilhhed.—tie gaited teat he was on the Stratford road on the 31st of January. Was stitki Miss Ransoine. Two men came tip to them.' One of the men said " Stand add deliver !" and presented pistols. To the best of his belief Doran was the man who presented the pistols. The ether then look hold of him and felt in hi§ pocket*, He had about 23a. Some money was certainly taken as he had only Is. left. They took keys and some other matters which they returned. The lady gave them her looney . , requesting to be all lowed to keep the purse. They said they could not Starve, and departed towards the turnpike. Ann Ransome was called.—She expressed herself of the same opinion as Mr. Simpson. She stated that She was in com pany with Mr. Simpson oh the 31st of January. She was *of much alarmed. She saw the face of the man who presented the pistol very distinctly. She believed Doran was the than, and_ she believed Maguire was the mah *ho took her fihrse. Richard Vaughan stated, that he was a was a hatter at the sign of Paganini, in Manchester, in January last. On the 3lst of January last the prisoners were drinking there together. The jury found the prisoners guilty. 'His Loa nstr P said he should respite the judgment till he had taken the opinion of the Judges on the evidence Of Mr. Simp son and Miss Ransome. His own opinion was that the evidence would not stand good. The bill for the iatceny bad nut come in from the grand jury. M A N SI. A UG H TE R. Patrick Crugan was charged with i 13% ing killed James Gora raan, In tfii4 too n, on the 21th December last. Mr. HAttDlNti conducted the prosecution. All the details Of thiS Oise have been reCentlypbbliihed in the journals bithis town. Ooriaaia and his wile, who had taken some drink, were proceeding home together on Christmas eve, when they met the lititi►her. some Kurth passed; and the pri.; sorer struck Gorman, according to the opinion of the surgeon, with some weapon, though none of the Witnesses had seen any: thing in his hand. Gorrsan fell and the prisoner kicked him.. The unfortunate man died almost immediately. The officers of police came up and took Cregan into custody, but; in the conz fusion that succeeded, the otlieerS were struck by several per sons in.the crowd; and the prisoner got away. He was after= wards taken into ctisiody in the month Of February. The Jury found the prisoner guilty; but recommended him to mercy. A list was 'handed up to lii4 tordShip of persons who coald speak to the charatter of the prisoner. Two of these angweied The id, a he had nd stated, that iiei:iardneedi ti Jud g e 4 t u h i ep inquiries te w h • se a h s tor a uult q 6f, hietni,litioie)eftztlf,evlt. feloniously inoffensive passing t yts e aus i ttio i enu s nu i gt ae e s:eni h niti l sul a wer i n t eo . Reguiem:edteielltd. ing the character ix i v e bi r :rH of l sN h t e r:i p its ri Tl s v o i t i l og e a r oa . nii indicted for . having, on * the! Timothy Suaitua, aged 26, William Lancaster. Mr. SEG A lt conducted the prosecution. • It appeared from the evidence, that Lancaster, a constable of Wigan, was, on the 30th September last, c.tlied into•a house, where a man named Skelly and another person were fighting together. He took Skelly into tustudy, and .was pro ceeding with hint towards the Lockitip, when. he was•struck on the head with a spade. The blow stall so violent that it cuts through his hat, and inflicted a seiete wound. According,ts, the evidence of the surgeon,-this *nand wat2i inehetalring, and the'proiecultor Was for ;time tithe in rt slat!, tit considerable dart-1 ger. A man, named Hart, a stone-tuasou, arpt eittie neSteSi proved OA the prisdnet Wai the Otion *NO itittailid . _ . _ The Prisoner pleaded as ati excuse, that he wai istremele in= toxicated when he struck the bliA6, and he did not know what he was doing. The jury found the prisoner guilty. His Lordship said, as the offence was committed on the dal preceding that on which the new law came into operation, sen tence of death would be recorded against the prisoner. Hd could nut now say what punishment might ultimately bd awarded. NISI PRIUS COURT.—SATunnAt. WAKEFIELD V. GitsBoN:s.—SLANDER. !qr. I✓ressi4ell, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Wightman appeared for the plaintiff, and the Attorney •General for the defence. The plaintiff, in this case, is the assistant overseer of the' borough of Salford, whose duty it was to collect the rates as they became due; and he was in the habit of Collecting about £lO,OOO a-year; and his reputation the lertried counsel for the plaintiff, believed to be unblemished, poi the lightest itnputaz lion ever having been cast 00 his charseier. Ile therefore belt it due to him Self, to call upon the defendant; either to Make an ample apology for the slanderons expressions he had tirade use of, affecting his character; or to probe the truth of them. iii the course of last year, an attiitant of Mt. Wakefield, of the name of Ashton, received a tate from a rate-payer which he did not communicate to Mr. Wakefield at the time; and, in conse-: quence, Mr. Wakefield demanded the same rate again, of the late-payer, which was paid him. When the revising barrister visited the bortingh, skefield stated that the rate-payer had not paid his rate in sufficient titne to entitle him to a vote. The rate-paper said that he bad nut only paid the rate in time, bet he had paid it twice over. It appeared that Mr. Wakefield o.rfectly Correct, and that the error lay-i.iith Ashton, aho' expressed his regret at the mistake and refunded the motley to the rate-payer, and his Vote was allowed, and the Mallet', it wolf thought, would here have ended. Some time after this occur rence, in October. it appeared that, actuated by some political feetingi of excitement, the defendant *eat into the shop ora respectable hat-Manufacturer, named Tinker, and said, "Well. you area d---=--(1 nice set of fellowS. Mr. Tinker asked—" What do end mean ?" He ,replied—" 1 mean some of you town servants : Ashton and 'Wakefield are two thieve"; they have received money. and poi it into their own pockets, and not accounted for it to the Ura)." 'Thin was the direct imputation on Mr. Wirt:, field's character. which he telt it due to himself and the public of SalfOrtl, to Call on the defendant either to prove or apologiie for:. Mr. John Tinker, harrnannfactiirer, >nas called to prove the ounveriatinn which for Med the sUbStatice of the present action, when The ArroftNEy.GENERAII , IhOrieii the Case had gone fat' enough. The fact was, the defendant wen t into a barber's 1104 ti, get shaved, Mitre he heard the report. and repeated it atter- 2 wardi: Ail be timid gay was, I dead the dial* Arta itarcei bad. (Claugh.) 4 . 4014 His Lords** thetisht thii 101 1 / 4 14 WM! (14 44.04