The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-04-09 00:00:00

s 4 I. .~ L ino. week , e, in Glas created a l y i n jured. )unit man, En the gal the brain. RIGGItit• Nantyglot th a PaF tl 1 being in mn. Not sovereign ain, when un known , t up, 08 41 6 . at lenr abbed ba? 'ad. " r, [rig of hita. o be Be' 7 C/a OOl6 et, al l : bar-1'" channel; :his rate , )13taining ;ain 91 i r No. otch r ton hag ironalaft' to clo 9f i wo o,. east 205' ri at PI A ' 3iCil i i n th ls esson tO ntaineti April 9, 1844 LIVERPOOL SPRING ASSIZES. CROWN COURT.—TUESDAY. (Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN.) 14? 1.1 Brambill was acquitted on a charge of having and slain Mary Bramhill, at Liverfounool. Antonio, a Spaniard, was p d guilty of the mansla ughter of ' Andrew Davis, at Liverpool, and sen tenced to 12 months ' imprisonment. t o t H'i h iam Tayl or , f oun d gu il ty o f f orger y, was sentenced ransportation for 15 years. Robert Simpson pleaded guilty to a charge of misde meanour in falsifying a marriage register. 1r • CROMPTON, w i t h w h om was Mr. Monteith, for the Prosecution, st a t e d th at , i n consequence o f th e man y im proper marriages, marriages which had been productive of ettt.th.raoral and social evils, this prosecution had been ted by the Rector of. Bury, with the concurrence the nillscrt of the Bishop of Chester. It appeared that cho r ; r 4 B° aer, who lived in Bury, went to Rochdale parish with his wife, and falsely represented that they of (wi n the parish of ' Rochdale, and that they were both ge. age, whereas they lived in Bury, and were under wif There was another indictment against Simpson and his at e for a f e l ony. Upon this indictment, Mr. MONTEITH wad to th e j ury that, on the part of the prosecution, he ould offer no evidence, and that, under the direction of his I°rd abilD, they w ou ld' return a verdict of not guilty. The prisoner was ordered to pay a fine of 205., and the 'art_ having been paid, he was discharged. ihT iphe cri proceedeLousinessd CIVIL CAUSES. TWINAME AND OTHERS V. SMART AND OTHERS. This was an action brought by Messrs. Twiname, M . ax- t * ell. and others, corn-merchants, of Liverpool, against Messrs. Smart and Co., for the recovery of losses sus- Mr. by an alleged breach of contract. Watson and Mr. Drinkwater appeared for the Paintiffs, and Mr . Martin and Mr. Cowling for the de fenants. It a pool, and that, of itoodPer n e r d iett th a a: the defendants agreed to send a cargo Iv w en he i a t t a , r o ri f ve a d s , p i e t c w ifi n e s d d w efi e .n ig ie h n t t , itno weight and inferior •in t h e - "tY, and not worth within ss. to 6s. per quarter of Wheat in question. The defendants deficient paid into court X 159 for th e i nfer i or i ty, an d £6l f or th e y in weight. The cargo was disposed of; and the acti on was brought for the recovery of a sum of about 1,60(), which was the difference between the price Wiled ob tained the price at which the cargo was purchased -114,..ra,e1y, 50s. per quarter. Mr. MARTIN contended, for the defence, that a suffi ; Cl eat SUM had been paid into : court . and that the plain tiffs c ould not re cover f or th e l oss sus t a i ne d by an y con tra ct l i e )! might have entered into with the parties to wh o m '"?Wheat h a d been sold. The jor returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum 0 6 Y . 3 134 d s . DOBSON V. HOWSLEY. T h iS was an undefended action , brought by the p laintiff, Joh n Dobson, against the defendant, George Howsley, he recovery of a covenant on a mortgage deed for f u r. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the " aziount with interest. MAINWARING v. FOSTER AND ANOTI!ER. Alexander 1 This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Richard fo:arin- . g Con against the defendants, J o o f hn com Fo r s e t n e s r a and i .r M`Gregor, for the recovery Juries suffered while in their service. Mr. Dund s and Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff, atl l d Mr ' *arson and Mr. Littledale for the defendants. lelt appeared that the plaintiff was a porter, and that the calp li or nd br "aght for - the recovery of compensation for negligent fracture of the leg, which he received by the business,mariner in which the defendants conducted their co ' n s ' i d abl e T h w e a wick-street, Live c y le or f if) en ol il ui ants carried on business in Bruns hants and brokers, in a 'si a n s es m s and, in the spring of last Year t hey engaged the plaintiff as a porter, at the rate of cellar, in had (1. day. Upon the 31st of March, the defendants occasion to remove a quantity of cotton from their Great Howard -street, when four of the bales, vbviliai.chhad been negligently piled, fell down and broke the laid leg ; and, in consequence of this injury, he was _ up in . th nfirmary for four months after. A verdict Was returned for the plaintiff, damages £35. NISI PRILIS COURT.—TUESDAY. c a t te d a l ). C 9 l , a l 1:1 t was occupied the greater part of the day with jury case, Fletcher and another v. Manning pr o ,_" ° "er,—a question as to whether a seizure of some arrant o f Mr. J. B. P. Chappe, of Manchester, under ;Ivart of attorney by the defendants, and the sale of and Pr° PertV after an act of bankruptcy by Mr. Chappe, Z Ure aft er notice t o th e s h er iff n ot to sell, was a legal Bei the Cha c ; a - s one. W have not space to insert te Toort of at length. e The jury found for the plaintiff h s, Mr. PPes assignees, damages £ 963 . LANDEn.--YATEs CIIFFLEY. T his was a s tion for slander, in words spoken by the of t defendant n hc ac plaintiff; but the defendant having found there were no grounds for what he had s tate d , was willing to Pay the plaintiff £5O, as indemnifying him for all ex penses, at the same ti me s t a ting, by his counsel, that he believ e d the plaintiff to be a respectable man, was fully convinced there was no truth in what he had stated, and regretted the injury the plaintiff had suffered in conse quence of the words complained of. The plaintiff's coun sel expressed his satisfaction with the defendant's apology, and a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, by consent, sub ject to the terms stated. In the next case (before a special jury), Aitkin and Others v. Slater and others, the question was as to whe ther a mortgage was executed under such circumstances rto become invalid, by b e i ng a f rau d ulent transfer by a 411.1_krUpt, to the i n j ury o f hi s creditors. When the court lunrned at seven o'clock, this case was not concluded. CROWN COURT.—WEDNESDAY. teurte,"„t• BUCKLEY.—The plaintiff not being in at- IIL 4 - - ' e u called, a nonsuit was taken. oo ktt '" 4 4 , actio n f 1 t• ISHERWOOD.—In this . case, which was ' 4l e plainti ff a debt of £32. 10s., a verdict was taken for A B lThject to a reference. ' iB / I , 2 ,—lll aolcrits' CLAIM FOR COMMISSION. fill..Mir...o'o 'OTHERS v. FAITH AND OTHERS.—The r,itht ln this case, Messrs. James Aikin and Son, mer- f 15 1. 8 1k' ll d s hipbrokerg sought to recover the sum o Path, 7 8 * from the defendants, who belonged to a com sioti', called the British Shipping Company, for commis- Whieh ° ,. 4 a ccount of effectinc , a charter for a vessel of Ta ft ..` he defendants were the owners. pcFCPpeared that in Au.ust, 1810, a ship, called the tiotii, belonging to the ' defendants, was lying at this throu gh nd a charter- was effected thereon by plaintiffs agent s Messrs. Chapman, Willis, and Co., who acted as to 6asito the company : the ship was to go on a y tog g , c ‘ n tto, with a freight belonging to Mr. Gardner vog the ,' i.` ° whom the vessel was shortly afterwards sold by betthrendants. The commission on the charter, at the alth - ra te of £8 per cent., amounted to £156, 155., an t d o th e d e g the plaintiffs had made frequent application s to obtaie„'!tidants and others they had never been defendantsab It f del:lie-CI tb -r " , that time to , the present. The h sold to jk",reir li ability,alleging, ha . as the vessel ad been !,ies to wl l o e _ s srs . . Bogg Taylor and Co., they were the pa.r lilon ; aoa , p the plaintiffs should look for thei . r commis effect , . that an agreement had been entered Into to that from ' ° Y which they (the defendants) were discharged se "' all res quently ade, b i Ponsib . li An offer had, however, been sub ;he defendant, of £7B, leaving half the am ount of commisysion, the other half, t.s stated by them, wer nir, du . e to Messrs. Chapman, Willis, and Co., who plaintiffs e entitled to it, according to custom, for assisting the ill effecting the charter, hut which they had con ;°Rented to forego. This was refused by the plaintiffs, who rltended that they were enti•led to the whole sum, in the ,r,,st instance, and they could then settle with Messrs. " l aPman and Co. The jury found for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed. ISPUTED CLAIM. WEBER V. PRELLER.—The plaintiff WAS Mr. G. G. Weber and the d, fondants Messrs. Preller and Prom melt, ll'oth parties extensively engaged in the salt trade, in this town. The action was brought to decide whether the defendants should pay Gs. or is. 6d. per ton for 1,500 tons of salt which had been supplied to them. into It appeared that a c tween the plaintiff andotdibe tract had been entered rin should supply to the 'latter, a t defendants that the forrlte 1812, to December, ,At fro periods,tlre tforotmenlays' December, no tice, 1,500 tons of the best ro e m ommon white salt, at the market price, but never to exceed n s. the defenta m nts an t , 7 when the price ranged below i baLsring have the benefit the if otherwise, the plaintiffs to sustain the 0 Whole of the year, and until about the 16 l th ss o . f December, o ti orders were given by the defendants ; hut about that time, they gave an order for 1,500 tons to be delivered in the following week, which had the effect of causing a sud den rise in the market, and the plaintiff, w;th considerable he e a c ultY, succeed e d i n comp l et i ng th e or d er , though to Pay 7s. 6d. himself for every ton supplied. ....mch a BIIPPIy in so short a space of time, was, it was contended, Contrary to the meaning of the contract. The defendant ref used to g i ve more than 6s. per ton, which, he con tended, was the market price, and had tendered the sum con of the plalnliff, however, sought to recover £550 ss, * 2. 1 1 was at the rate of is. 6d. per ton, that being alleged 7atitheaverage price at that period. £96 11 s d Jury f oun d a verdict for the pla i nt i ff f or t endered, .7 wlc h• • dd . ion to the sum he had thiiii a mounted h to £520 2s. t , being at the rate of seven ngs per ton nett for ti.e salt supplied. Ti BREACH OF TRUST: PRESCOT V. BALL. p - ue Plaintiffs were the Guardians of the Poor of the rite for and the defendant Ball had become sem i) - 41 enrY Longden, who was appointed assistant jereseer of the di•trct of Woolton in 1840. Since that •;1 141 , it had been discovered that Longden had been mis ,„,,POlYing the money passing throfth his hands, and, con 4::ntlY, the surety had become liable. The sum of amount as claimed, and a verdict was given for that yerdl • AMGER V. TIMMON. et Was t a k en in this case by consent for £3O. NISI PR ICS COURT.-WEDNESDAY. (Bcfore Mr Baron Rolfe,) ATSyED F RAUDULENT CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY. , 4 8 an ' . ! l OTHERS V. SLATER AND OTES.—TDIS Tu esd action (tried before a special jury,. partly heard on d Atri t i2Y), to recover possession of certain title deeds an . apt which the plaintiffs as the assignees of a bank a. li t r a ` on narn e d Holdsworth, Atkin, Alexander 1 4e s . and Charles Turner; and the defendants were tratte'r• William Slater and Thomas Williams, two f l'ea co srr i,_e, in Liverpool, and gentleman of the name o fend elk, a solicito r , of the same place. The two first de the raiatsk7,74;,stMwsitfeee: under the marriage settlement of and the question turned upon the validity of the mortgage for £4,000 upon certain prover Y at Egremont, which Mortgage was executed by ti,e iemk runt to the trustees in question in Fed. 1841. The plain tiffs alleged that there was no consideration given to the mortgage, and that the whole was a fraudulent and crdlu sive scheme,—fraudulent at common law, arid fraudulent within the statutes regulating bankruptcy.—'n defeat tho general body of creditors, The bankrupt fin merly carried on business as a brewer, in Liverpool. be-ids being a large speculator in railway shares, arid at the rime of his failure owed upwards of £30,000; and it was prose that there was not more than £5O of assets. The de , ence was that to the extent of £2,000 there was a perfectly legal and valid consideration, the trustees havini , g iven up a previous mortgage to that amount. and that the bankrupt, when he executed the mortgage, had reason to believe that he should get consideration for the whole £4,000. A great deal of documentary and parole evidence was given, and the bankrupt himself was examined as to the circum stances under which he executed the mortgage. His lordship left it to the jury to say whether they were satis fied, from the evidence, that the transaction was a fraud, The jury after a few minutes' consideration. found a ver dict for the defendants. The trial ocupied the court nine hours. DEBT. BANKS V. HALSALL.—This action was brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Meyrick Banks, of Winstanley Hall, near Wigan, coal proprietor, to recover from the defendant, Mr. Thomas Halsall, coal dealer, of Liverpool, £33 6s. the amount of two boat loads of coals supplied to him in January and March, 1843; but, since the commencement of the action, £3O has been paid on account by a person named Everall. The defendant did not receive any of the goods, and the question to decide was whether he ordered them. The whole case turned upon two written orders, and those orders were not forthcoming; but they were sworn to have been in the defendant's handwriting, and upon those orders the goods were sent. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff; damages £3 65., his lordship stating, that he would certify that the case was proper to be tried, so as to secure the costs. ACTION TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF PROPERTY HELD AS SECURITY FOR A BANKRUPT'S DEBT. CAZENOVE AND OTHERS V. CLAYTON AND OTHERS. — This was an action of trover, brought by the plaintiffs, Messrs, James Cazenove, Philip Thompson, and Benja min Franklin, assignees of Richard Almond, formerly a coal dealer and flat owner, at Orrell Mount, near Wigan, a bankrupt, to recover possession of two flats and two certificates of registry held by the defendants, Messrs. Clayton and Wilson, bankers of Preston. The facts of the case appeared to be these:—the bankrupt, Almond, having an account with the defendants, deposited with them two or three years ago, his muniments of title to two flats, called the Longton and the Lord Stanley. In March, 1843, about a month before the fiat of bankruptcy was issued against him, the defendants had reason to doubt his solvency, and pressed him for a mortgage on the vessels. He had been looking into his affairs a few days before ; and, finding himself in a state of insolvency, he resolved to stop payment, telling the defendants that it was too late to grant them what they asked. Mr. Wilson, one of the defendants, then said they had a lien upon the vessels, and would go and take possession of them. To this the bankrupt consented, and accordingly the vessels were taken possession of by the defendants. On the 28th of April following, the fiat of bankruptcy issued, and the assignees claimed the two vessels; but the defendants re fused to give up possession, alleging that they had an equitable lien upon the property by virtue of the docu ments, which the bankrupt had placed in their hands as security for the advances made to him. His LORDSHIP, in summing up, said the plaintiffs would be entitled to recover if the jury were of opinion that at the time the bankrupt consented to the defendants taking possession he did not mean thereby to confer a new right, or that he meant to give a new right, and did so vo luntarily and in contemplation of bankruptcy. if, on the other hand, the jury believed that he intended to give the defendants a security which they did not hold before, and that, in consequence of pressure, then the defendants would be entitled to a verdict. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, for the da mages laid in the declaration, to be reduced to 40s. on the vessels and registers being given up. The court rose at a quarter-past six o'clock. CROWN COURT.--THURSDAY. JONES AND OTHERS V. LOWE. The plaintiffs in this case were the assignees of Mr. T. Wardle, attorney, and the defendant a gentleman out of business belonging to this town. The action was for the sum of £95 ls. 10d., being the balance of an account current for work done by Mr. Wardle for the defendant, in carrying on law proceedings previously to the bank ruptcy of the former. The defendant, who conducted his own case, pleaded that the work had been improperly performed by Wardle, and that his interest bad been sacrificed in consequence ; that on one occasion, when his services were required in behalf of the defendant, he was in bed at borne in conse quence of intoxication, having drunk the best part of a quart of pure whiskey during the night, which he alleged he had taken by mistake, and was obliged to be carried to a warm bath to be sobered ; and that he (defendant), when advised by Wardle to supply him with cash, had been charged 6s. Bd. for such advice. He then called several witnesses, amongst whom were two gentlemen belonging to the bar, Mr. Ramshay and Mr. Martin, and told the latter with much gravity, in reference to a state ment he was making, that what he (Mr. Martin) did not know from his own personal knowledge could not be ad mitted as evidence. Mr. JAMES replied, observing that the spirit of litiga tion seemed to have taken a very strong bold of the de fendant for a long time back, and there was nothing new in his alleging negligence against parties whom he em ployed. if they did not succeed in obtaining all he expect ed. He had acted in a similar manner with reference to an attorney at Manchester; and he (Mr. James) con tended that there was no ground for a charge of negligence against Mr. Wardle. Verdict for the plaintiff for the amount sought. BATTERSBY V. BATTERSBY. In this case a verdict was taken by consent for the plaintiff, for £36. There was also another action between the same par ties, in which a verdict was taken by consent for the plaintiff, for £l3 16s. DE WOOLF AND OTHERS V. BEVAN AND ANOTHER. The plaintiffs in this case, which was an action of tro ver, were the assignees of Messrs. M`Leod, Wood; and Co., and the defendants, Messrs. Bevan and Smith, warehouse-agents, of Liverpool. The action was to re cover the value of some brandies, sold by Fanck Brothers to the bankrupts. The amount sought was £77. The jury retired before five o'clock, and at seven they had not delivered their verdict. The court rose shortly before six o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.—THURSDAY. WRIT OF RIGHT.-RISIITON V. NESBIT. In this case four knights of the shire—Sir Thomas Brancker, Sir Joshua Watmsley, Sir Thomas Potter, and Sir George Drinkwater—were summoned to apear, ac cording to ancient custom, " girt with sword," to try, along with twelve other recognitors, whether Anthony Nesbit, the tenant, or Charles Rishton, the demandant, had a right to certain property which formerly constituted part of Chorlton Hall Estates, in Chorlton-upon-Med lock, n-ar Manchester. Mr. Starkie, Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Tomlinson con ducted the case on behalf of the tenant; Mr. Dundas and Mr. Archbold were counsel for the demandant. An attempt was made on the pea of the demandant to postpone the trial, on the ground of the absence of a ma terial witness, but on his Lordship intimating that if a postponement took place the demandant would have to pay the costs, Mr. Dundas said he would rather proceed. Some conversation then took place as to which side should proceed first : and his lordship ruled that the tenant should. Mr. STARKIE then stated the case. He said the de mandant claimed, as the heir-at-law of a lady named Bar bara Aytown, who was possessed of the estates early in the last century. The learned gentleman then proceeded. on behalf of the tenant, to show how the estate had been handed down until it reached the present owners, and, besides that, denied that the demandant was heir-at-law. To prove the right of tenant, a vast number of title and mortgage deeds were read ; and to prove the pedigree, many copies of registers of births, marriages, and deaths, were also read, and several witnesses examined. As soon as the case for the tenant had closed, Mr. DUNDAS said, on the part of the demandant, he had performed his duty by watching the case; but finding it was not in their power to bring forward evidence to rebut that already adduced, they must submit to a verdict. His LORDSHIP then intimated to the jury that there was nothin g left for them to do. The parties were satis fied, and of course they (the jury) were released. This case lasted from nine o'clock in the morning till about half-past four in the afternoon. RODGERS AND ANOTHER V. MAW. This was an action to recover £l7OO on a bond. The defendant pleaded a set off of £lBOO. Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cowling appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. Martin and Mr. Crompton for the defendant. The plaintiffs were Henry Rodgers and William Marshall, and the defendant iron founders Edwin Maw, and formerly they were par tners as founders and engineers in this town. In January, 184 . 0, the partnership was dissolved, Mr. Maw agreeing to give up all interest in the concern, and his partners releasing him from all the debts and liabilities of the firm. The de fendant further agreed to give the plaintiffs a bond for £2OOO, payable by yearly instalments of £5OO. The de fendant fulfilled the terms of the bond, until he was com pelled by Messrs. Spooner, Attwood and Co., of London, to pay the amount of an acceptance for £l7OO, which had been drawn by one of the plaintiffs and accepted by the other in the name of the firm. It came out in the course of the cause that the real plaintiff was the Royal Bank of Liverpool, and ultimately the question resolved itself into a point of law. His Lordship, therefore, directed a verdict to be entered for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed, with liberty to re duce the verdict t o suc h sum as the'Court might direct. AVERY AND OTHERS V. BROWN AND OTHERS. This was an action to recover damages. for an alleged breach of co n t rac t, an d a ft er th e case had been heard, it was agreed between the parties that a verdict of £5O should be taken on behalf of the plaintiffs. The Court adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock. CROWN COURT.-FRIDAY. INDICTMENT FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF A 'HIGHWAY. REGINA V. THE INHABITANTS OF DOWNHOLLAND. — This was an indictment against the inhabitants of Down holland, for not repairing 1,774 yards of a highway situated within that township. It appeared that the parish of Halsall consists of five townships, Downholland being one of them, and it was contended, on the part of the prosecu tion, that it was a general custom for each township to repair its own road, and that consequently the defendants were liable to repair the portion in question. After the THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD. witnesses on the part of the pro=ecution had been examined, his Lordship expressed his opinion that no ancient custom of the kind referred to had been made out, and the jury under his direction, found the defendants not guilty of the matters contained in the indictment. ACTION TO RECOVER MONEY RECEIVED BY AN AGENT ON ACCOUNT OF A PUBLIC COMPANY. CAMPPELL V. POWNALL.—This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Duncan Campbell, against Wm. Pownall, the defendant, to recover £322, the balance of an account for goods sold and delivered, abd on an account stated. The plaintiff is a proprietor of water-side carts, in Liver pool, and a member of the Old Carters' Company, an as sociation consisting of persons in the same line of busi ness. The defendant had been secretary to the company. His duties were to keep an account of the work done each day by the carters employed, and to collect the cartage accounts from the merchants when due ' • and the amount now sought to be reco vere d was the balance of a larger sum which the defendant had collected during his secre taryship. The defence was, that Pownall was dealing with the company and not with the plaintiff individually, and that therefore he had mistaken the person against whom he might proceed for the recovery of the money. The jury found a verdict for the defendant. NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY. The court was opened shortly after one o'clock. ASSAULT. ALDERSON V. WAISTELL AND ANOTHER.—This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendants, Thomas Waistell and Henry Waistell, his son, for an as sault. The plaintiff and the defendants are farmers, at Birkdale, in the North Riding of the county of York, and were in the habit of tending their sheep upon a piece of common land, at Birkdale, which they enclosed with " bield walls," so as to prevent the sheep from straying, and to protect them from the snow. On Sunday the 4th February, a nephew of the plaintiff was tending sheep in one of the " bields," when the elder defendant's son came up, and said his father would have one of the plain tiffs enclosures, and drove a number of sheep into the place. The plaintiff and his nephew attempted to drive the defendant's sheep out, and then the elder defendant struck the plaintiff on the temple with a large stick. He then got a large stick from Henry Waistell, and knocked the plaintiff down. The younger defendant next threw a stick at the plaintiff; and the elder defendant, seizing the plaintiff by the legs, threw him into a ditch. The principal witness for the plaintiff was a strapping young fellow, 19 years of age, who diverted the court and jury by the stupidity of his answers to the questions put to him. ••• Mr. DUNDAS, for the defendants, said the younger de fendant bad certainly been included in the case, for the purpose of preventing him being made a witness for the father • who the learned counsel contended, was perfectly justified in using violence in order to get possession of the sheep. The jury found the younger defendant not guilty, and returned a verdict of guilty against the father ; damages, £lO. quired if he bad seen IA illiams since Monday. Booth replied, " I have not ; but the subject on which I had some conversation with him will not do." Beeston said, " Well, Booth, you know best yourself, bur Williams made £3,000 by getting goods out in that way, which he has melted : I know it can be done, and it will be a good thing." Beeston then invited him into a public-house in Oldhall-street ; and Brocklehurst went with them there. It was there agreed, that. when Booth went upon duty at Green's, be should meet Beeston at the Wagon and Horses. Booth ;Neat there as appoint-d, and found Bees ton and Brocklehurst together, and they had some drink, which Beeston paid for. A landing-water, named Wm. Nia, was also there. Beeston went out to try to find Williams, but returned in five or ten minutes, saying, he could not find him. Booth then said he must go, and Beeston promised to meet him at his station the next day ; but he did not see any of the defendants till the 25th. After " siming off" at the Custom-house, in the after noon of that day, Booth and Richards went into Nuttall's public-house, adjoining, where they had something to drink, which Booth was in the act of paying for when Williams came in, and insisted upon paying for the liquor himself. As Booth was leaving, Williams called him back, and said he had bought forty-four bags of foreign coffee, and he wanted to know if they were sent to his station he would let them go without paying duty. It appeared, that, in the summer of 1813, Mr. Syers, merchant, of this town, imported several thousand bags of coffee from La Guayra, which were deposited in Drinkwater's bonding ware house, Tower-gardens. Of these, Mr. Syers sold sixty-four bags to Messrs. Wren and Co., who again sold forty-four to the defendant Williams, ten of which he wished to remove, as part of the scheme, to Green's ware house, in Dundee-street. Williams had not been known before to be in business by Messrs. Wren and Co. To this question from Williams Booth replied, that he could not then stay : whereupon Williams appointed to meet him, near Nut tall's, at five o'clock the next day. During this conversation Brocklehurst was standing at the op posite side of the street. On the 26th witness communi cated to Richards what had passed between him and Beestoa and Williams; and, in consequence, information of all the circumstances was given, first, to Mr. Brown, the superintinding locker, and, subsequently, to Mr. Bulteel, the acting surveyor, who gave certain directions to Booth and Richards for the purpose of securing the offenders. In pursuance of the directions they bad re ceived, Booth and Richards stationed themselves in South John-street near Nuttall's, where Williams had proposed the meeting. Williams was there first, Brockle burst standing on the other side of the street. Booth then told Williams that he could not do what was wailed without the knowledge of his partner, Richards, to which Williams made no objection, and they went into Nuttall's. Brockleburst being still in the street, Wit hams wentand brought him in. Brocklehurst then said to Booth, "Are you aware that I come from Manchester ?" Williamsproducedapaper,whichhesaid wasa delivery order. He was going, he said, to pass a "removal sufferance" for forty-tour bags of coffee, from Drinkwater's ware house, and he would get out ten bags the next day, and give Booth and Richards £5 if they were got out without payment of the duty, and would remove the remaining thirty-four the day following. They were all to have a share of the profits. Brocklehurst said he would pay the officers well for any similar transaction ; and both he and Williams stated, that it was Beeston who had put them up to it ; and that the pay of the officers was small, but they might make a fortune in the course of a few months by getting goods out of bond without paying duty. Booth and Richards consented to do what was proposed. On the 27th they were on duty at Green's, Mr. Bulteel being stationed at the back of the office, so that he could bear, and, if he choose, see, all that passed within. At half past three in the afternoon Brocklehurst came alone, and said a " removal sufferance" could not be got out in time to get a cart-follower, but the coffee would be removed the next day. This took place in the office, in the presence of Richards, and in the hearing of Mr. Bulteel ; and, immediately after, Brocklehurst invited them to God frey's public-house. Richards went there first; and when he returned Booth stepped there and found Williams as well at Brocklehurst. Williams said he could not get a re moval sufferance in time for a cart-follower, but he would remove the coffee next day. They left together, Williams going across .he street whilst Brocklehurst and Booth stood in conversation together at the top of Dundee-street. During that time Mr. Bulsteel passed from the ware house, disguised by wearing spectacles, whereupon Brocklehurst inquired who that gentleman was? After that Williams and Brocklehurst joined, and they went away together. On Friday, the 28th, Mr. Bulteel was again concealed in the warehouse, as was another officer named Brown. About half-past two in the afternoon Brocklehurst came alone, and said, " the ten bags of coffee are coming, and they'll be here in a few minutes ; proposing, at the same time, to Booth and Richards to take something to drink. They went to Godfrey's for that purpose, Richards first and Booth afterwards ; and directly after their return a cart came up with a cart-fol lower named Higgins, (since dead.) bringing the ten bags of coffee. Williams came with the cart, and, in order to deceive Higgins, said he would remove the coffee next day. Higgins got his receipt from. Richards for the coffee, and then went away. Brocklehurst, at this time, was standing at the top of the street, about twenty yards from the warehouse. Williams then said he could only find three sovereigns at that moment, but he would pay the remainder the same night at Nuttall's, where he would meet Booth and Richards along with Brockle hurst, and the following day the remaining thirty four bags should be removed. Williams then placed Three sovereigns upon the desk, and followed the cart, which had gone away. The bags had never actually been in the warehouse, because, after the signature of the cart-follower's book, they were supposed to be in the cus tody of Booth and Richards. The cart having gone away Booth went to the door and saw Brocklehurst at the end of the street; he joined him, and whilst they were together, they saw Mr. Bulteel coming down Great Howard-street, following the cart. Mr. Bulteel had no spectacles on, and, on seeing him, Baocklehurst said, " That's the same gentleman I saw here yesterday; he's a superior officer to you ; I should know him a quarter of a mile off; and if I thought he was following the cart 1 would go and bring it back." The cart was then going in the direction of Old hall-street, towards which Mr. Bulteel was going. The three sovereigns were wrapped up in paper, on which Booth and Richards placed their initials; and, in the meantime, the cart was followed by Mr. Bulteel along Oldhall-street, Chapel-street, Exchange-street East, Dale-street, and North John-street, into South John street, where the coffee was about being deposited in Rig maiden's 'warehouse, in Cable-street, when the officers stepped in and seized it. Mr. Serjeant MURPHY addressed the jury in favour of the defendant Brocklehurst, contending that he was alto gether innocent of any guilty concern in the transaction; that he was merely in Liverpool attending to his own busi ness, part of which was with Williams; and that he was of unblemished character. Mr. RAMSHAY, on the part of Williams, urged, that the coffee had never been in the warehouse in Dundee street, and, consequently, the allegation in the indictment, that Williams had conspired to obtain it from that ware house, could not be sustained. He contended, further, that the evidence of Booth the chief witness, could not be relied on, as, in the first instance, he was a participa tor, and next, that he had already received, and probably expected, promotion, for the detection and conviction of the other parties. Mr. JAMES addressed the jury for Beeston in an ener getic speech, in which be strongly contended, that the evi dence against the defendant was too insufficient and trivial to warant a conviction, especially when it was considered h'w carefully the case had been fostered and supported. He had not yet been dismissed from bis situation in the customs ; and the learned coun-el besought the jury to consider the fact that upon their verdict would depend whether he was reinstated or not. His previous character as an officer of long standing was freely admitted to have been irreproachable on his cross-examination of the wit nesses for the crown. Three witnesses were called for Brocklehurst, who showed that he had dealings in Liverpool with Williams, and that his character was good in all respects. Mr. STARKIE having replied, The JUDGE summed up at considerable length, remark ing, that the evidence against Beeston in the second count of the indictment was very slight ; but he left it to the jury to say whether the evidence brought the charge home to him in the more general allegations of the first count. The jury retired to consider their virdict ; arkd after an absence of a quarter of an hour, they returned into court with a verdict of guilty against Williams and Brockle hurst : Beeston not guilty. ACTION OF DEBT. GOSLIN v. BIDDER.—This was a special jury case, in which the plaintiff sought to recover from the defendant a sum of money, for the use and occupation of rooms and furniture. for goods sold and delivered, and for money lent. The defendant pleaded to the declaration, first, that he was never indebted in the manner and form stated ; and, secondly, that he had paid the demand. The plain tiff denied these pleas, and issue was joined. Mr. Watson and Mr. Hoggins conducted the plaintiff's case ; Mr. Knowles and Mr. Segar that for the defendant. The plaintiff is a railway contractor, and the defendant is Samuel Parker Bidder, resident engineer of the Preston and Wyre Railway and Dock Company. Money had been advanced, it appeared, at various times in 1840 and 1841, by the plaintiff to the defendant, during his residence at Fleetwood, in sums of £lOO, £490. £l2O, £l5O, and sev eral smaller amounts ; in addition to which the defendant, after his marriage, occupied a house of the plaintiff's, in Queen's-terrace, Fleetwood, at the rent of £3O per an num. The court rose after the examination of the first witness on the part of the plaintiff, and the remainder of the investigation promised to be very long and excessively uninteresting. The court adjourned at eight o'clock. AN ATTORNEY'S BILL. BRAY V. EASTWOOD.—This was an action brought by Mr. Bray, attorney, of Preston, against the defendant, Mr. Thomas Eastwood, of Brindle Lodge, in this county to recover the sum of £547, for professional services. The costs were incurred in defending Mr. Eastwood against an indictment, at Lancaster, for a libel upon the Rev. Mr. Sherborne, Roman Catholic priest, and two actions for libel subsequently brought against the defend ant, by the same reverend gentleman, at the assizes at Liverpool. The libels appeared in the Lancaster Gazette, in the shape of letters from the defendant ;' and Mr. Quarme, the editor of that journal, was the nominal de fendant in the two last actions. The libels imputed to Mr. Sherborne, and to the Roman Catholic priesthood generally, that they induced persons on their death-beds to make wills in their favour, or for superstitious purposes. The defendant was found guilty upon the bill of indict ment preferred against him at Lancaster. The two ac tions brdught against Mr. Quarme, after being made remanets at one assizes, at Livei pool, were ready for trial at the succeeding assizes, in March, 1843, when the plain• tiff, Mr. Bray, wrote to Mr. Eastwood to furnish him with money to carry them on. The defendant refused to send any money ; and Mr. Bray thereupon agreed to a verdict for the plaintiff, for nominal damages, and those actions were settled. He delivered in his bill to the de fendant in July last, but the defendant refused to pay, and in consequence, this action was brought. Two or three witnesses were called, who proved that during the progress of the actions in question Mr. Eastwood was fre quently at the plaintiff's office, and letters were also put in evidence, showing that he was the person who gave directions during the entire suit. Mr. WATSON addressed the jury for the defence, con tending that for the costs, incurred in the two actions against Mr. Quarme, the defendant could not be held liable. In the bill which had been handed in were some matters which related to the indictment brought against Mr. Eastwood, at Lancaster ; and for all that he had done for Mr. Eastwood, the plaintiff had been paid. It was the opinion of the great and learned Lord Tenterden, that every attorney ought to take a written retainer from his clients; but in the present case there was no written re tainer, and that the defendant was not the real defendant in the two actions brought against Mr. Quarme might be inferred from the fact that he was to be examined as a witness. His LORDSHIP observed, in summing up, that there could be no doubt that the bill of £547 had been properly incurred, and he left the jury to say whether it was due from the defendant. The jury found for the plaintiff; damages, £520. CROWN COURT-SATURDAY. STEAD V. ROBERTS. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Thomas Stead, to recover the sum of £4O lent to the defendant, Abraham Roberts. The defendant pleaded that he was not i o l n i a w b l a e s , b a r n o u d gh t h t . a t B h e o t h h ad these e p s e a i p d he l e t asw money before e nied ; a t n h d e on this issue was joined. Mr. Knowles and Mr. Addison appeared for the plain tiff; and Mr. Watson for the defendant. It appeared, from the statement and evidence, that the plaintiff was a maltster, at a place called Clackbeaton, near Leeds, and that the defendant was a stonemason, near the same place ; and the object of the action was to recover a sum of £4O, which, so long ago as October, 1810, was lent by the plaintiff to the defendant. The latter had a brother, Samuel, who married a daughter of the plain tiff; and when an intimacy had been thus . formed, the there e u r e e l fo s r e w , be who e c h t a l d y 8 1 i o n a c n e p d a i s e s d e . d t The u g l o h a tnh ec ould h and s n o o f t proved ; but admissions had, from time to time, been made by the defendant, which left no doubt that the money had been lent. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount sought. . . . — His LORD - SHIP intimated that he would not take any more cases, and the Court accordingly adjourned at ten o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.-SATURDAY. CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE CUSTOMS AT LIVERPOOL : REGINA V. WILLIAMS AND OTHERS. Thomas Williams, Henry Beeslon, and Jonas Brockle hurst, were indicted for a conspiracy to defraud the cus toms. There were two counts in the indictment. The first charged the defendant with a conspiracy to defraud the Queen of her Customs' duties. The second count charg ed that certain merchandise had been placed in a bonding warehouse in the port of Liverpool; and ten bags of coffee had been removed therefrom, in order to be re-warehoused ; and that the defendants conspired to obtain these ten bags from the Queen's officers without paying the duty, : and, pursuance r b s u r i a b n e c e t h o e f s o u ffl e ecrosn by piracy,t r h o s e e f e n n f d a x n s t s also ' endeavouredthat, in and the actual payment of £3 to procure the removal of the ten bags. The defendants pleaded not guilty to both charges. . The following are the circumstances of the case, as de tailed in the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution: —The defendant, Beeston, was a landing-waiter in the Customs at the time of the occurrences which were the subject of the indictment. Williams was described as a general dealer, and Brocklehurst was said to be a store keeper and general dealer in Manchester. The most im portant witnesses were two lockers, William Booth and George Henry Richards; and it appeared, that on the 17th of July last, these persons had been appointed to receive goods and keep them till the duty was paid in Green's, 340, Dundee-street, which is a bonding ware house. The same day Booth was standing under the dome in the Custom-house passage, when Beeston and Williams came to him, and the former asked him what duty he was upon. Booth replied, " Not upon any par. ticular duty at this time, adding that he was going out of town on leave of absence for two days. Beeston next asked him what duty he would be on at his return. Booth replied he did not know. Beeston then invited him into Nuttall's public-house, which adjoins the Custom-house, and on his going t oos h op, D e to r nhas e n,ev i dddi then asnhd dined landing-waiter a f nent a nedo n rtign,e h agat o tnw u eda r ray i aft, tnh e aer e an r dt w nrbon a rwmo r e d mhee s e, d nuhrippehe stairs. tosvatuwi Davies, gW s tenotinhni Williams, ar p: wsg ß iot e tni e li e s lni t ga o l n te , soe Beeston insisted on paying for the dinner. After dinner they w ent down stairs into the room they had left before, when Davies came in with a person named Jones. Booth went out, and was going in the direction of South John -street when Williams overtook him and said Beeston wanted him at the Globe public-house, in Copperas-hill, and that he (Williams) was not to part with him on any account. Booth went to the Globe about four o'clock. but Beeston was not there, and whilst he was waiting Williams in quired if he was a single man, adding, that he knew what Mr. Beeston wanted to s p eak with him about : it w as to know what station he would be upon , and then h e (Wu_ which, (Booth) l so i an a i m td f, s o ) trht w ay t o oi u fr l paydhe was on a station wh ere there were duty upon five bags of co ff ee and get fifty, as he (Booth) pleased. Willi ams also t g h o e o y ds m p i a g y h i t tongahkeeavxyl,douotio a month, he s a id , would es , such as coffee, tea, and s ugar, be divided between four of them—h imself, Bo o th , B ees _ ton, and another person who s e name he did not mention. Beeston, be said, bad directed him to speak to B ooth about it. Booth, in answer , sa i d he could not do " the thing" ; whereupon he desi r ed t h at he would meet hi m the next day,telBth and ]9th, at th the Black Bull public-house, however, h w ot was Kirk dale. On hsn absent on leave : he returned on the 20 th , and was forth w ith or deredßieha Richards wGreen's duty in warehouse. th e warehouse , O n the I s t, Beeston, a 8 he and with another person, afterwards discovered to be the defen dant Brocklehurst, came to the warehouse doo r , an d called " Booth , I want to see you." Booth replied, that it was then past four o'clock, the usual hour of locking up, but he would be with him directly ; and the two de fendants waited in the middle of the street till the locking up. Beeston and Booth then walked toge ther, Brocklehurst walking behind, when Beeston in- TOWN COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS. On Wednesday the usual monthly meeting of the council was held at the Town-hall. vVYY FINANCE COMMITTEE. The proceedings of the Finance Committee comprised the recommendation to increase the salaries of Messrs. Woods and Rishton, the district surveyors, from £2OO to £250. The committee stated that additional sales of land at Wallasey Pool had been made to Messrs. Laird, Potter, Bailey, Horsfall, Macgregor, Radcliffe, &c. Mr. G. H. LAWRENCE, seconded by Sir THOMAS BRANCRER, having moved the confirmation of the pro ceedings, Mr. TINNE asked whether the report was correct that the opposition offered by the committee to the Monks Ferry Bill had been characterised as useless, frivolous, H. LeAteurEs. NcE, after havi ng a ll u d e d t o th e in n an d v exatious, and that the bill bad been supported by the eo borough. e u. s g s fih Inn of newspaper reports, particularly when such p r eman ated from anonymous c orrespon d ents , wen t remror. c. te o on to say that it was very true the Finance Committee had acted up to the powers confided to them by the coun cil to watch all bills which were progressitig through par liament, and which bore in anywise upon the interests of Liverp mol. They had, therefore, watched the Birkenhead Improvement MIL and more especially one of its clauses which seemed to interfere with their int-rests ; bat it was equally true that the remonstrances of the committee on the occasion had been set aside. He had never heard that ihe two borough members voted against them, or that the attempts of the committee to frustrate any part if the measure were considered frivolous and vexatious. Lord Fandon could not have voted against them, inasmuch as be was not a member of the parliamentary committee, and as to Sir Howard Douglas, he fully concurred in the views of the council. Mr. PARKER said he had crossed the water the evening before, for the purpose of attending th e meet i ng o f t h e Birkenhead Commissioners, and that he was quite sur prised to hear " the great man" on the other side (Mr. 'William Jackson) talking of having defeated the corpora tion of Liverpool upon all points. These were the words of " the great man ; ' and they had certainly startled him (Mr. Parker.) He had always had his doubts es to whe ther they should go to parliament to oppose bills, and the Birkenhead Improvement Bill amongst the rest, except upon very good grounds. At the same ti me h e supposed the Finance Committee had the power to send deputations to London whenever they considered it advisable. H e understood that Sir Thomas Brancker, Mr. Nicol, and a large party had lately gone up—(" No, no")—and be cer tainly thought if these sorti o f deputations were to be con tinued, it would be well to subdivide the council and s en d up others also. (A. laugh.) He wished to know why one of the terms of the sale of the Wallasey Pool property had been altered? for it seemed to him that the gentlemen on the other side had only to expre s s their wishes in order to induce the corporation to accede to them. He also wished to know whether the deposi t of ten p er cent. had been paid ? (A voice—" It is.") He understood, from the reading of the proceedings, that the purchasers of the Wallasey property were to be allowed to make bricks and sell them off the premises, on the payment of half-a-crown a thousand; but did it never strike the committee that by selling the clay they would make bare the land ? The TOWN-,CLERK said they were limited not to go be yond a certain depth. Mr. PARKER said they were at liberty, if he understood right, to send bricks to any part of Birkenhead, on the payment of half-a-crown a thousand, and that the money so received was to go towards the payment of the land. Mr. BIRKETT.—Oh ; no, no ! Mr. THORNHILL.—Yes ; it's so stated. The DEPUTY TOWN-CLERK having read that part of the proceedings which had reference to the disputed point, Mr. BIRKETT defended the conduct of the committee in having opposed the bill. Mr. lionnsorr thought it perfectly out of order for any committee, on any general grounds, to take upon them to become opponents without havin g fi rs t come d own to th e council, and stated the nature of the case. Mr. H. HORNBY, as one in favour of the opposition, had merely to say that there was a clause in the Birken head Amendment Bill, which interfered with the rights of the corporation ; and he always conceived that it was the duty of the Finance Committee to protect those rights from any attack made upon them in any bill before parliament. There was no time to have brought the bill before the council, as the committee of the House of Commons were to meet in a few days. One of the clauses interfered with their rights to the corporation ferry ; for, by the original bill, it was provided that no tunnel should be made from the terminus at Grange-lane to the Monk's Ferry until a branch should also be made to the corporation ferry. But, by the present bill, this clause was attempted to be evaded; and it was under those circumstances the com mittee considered themselves justified in making the op position. (Hear.) With regard to the liberty given the purchasers of the Cheshire property to make bricks out of the clay, that was a permission which all lessees who pur chased land for 75 years were entitled to obtain, and all the committee bad done was to provide that nothing should be taken off the land until the price was paid. But, when that was paid, the parties might do what they pleased, so as they did not injure the value of the land. Mr. ISAAC HOLMES expressed his belief that Lord Derby did not allow lessees to make bricks, except to build on the property they obtained from him. He believed that Mr. J. S. Leigh would never dispose of land on which there was a great mass of clay without having first ob tained the value of that clay ; and he thought the council could very well have disposed of the clay on the Cheshire property before they effected the sales. He believed the Finance Committee had been called upon by the tenant of the Birkenhead Ferry to oppose the bill in question, as it infringed on his rights ; and he further believed that the committee would be bound to oppose it still in the House of Lords. Sir T. BRANCKER thought great inconvenience would arise if the Finance Committee were to come before the council on all occasions and expose their case to the pub lic, and that if the council had not sufficient trust in that committee, in the matter of watching bills, they had better appoint another committee. (Hear.) Mr. G. H. LAWRENCE said that the ten per cent. must be paid on the purchases ' • that Messrs. Horsfall and M`Gregor, two of the purchasers, were going to establish a large foundry on the other side, and that Mr. Radcliffe and others of the purchasers were about to make other improvements : so that the property would be brought into real usefulness, and was not sold, as had been said on former occasions, to gamblers. (Hear, hear.) Mr. J A Loyn intimated his intention, when the increase of salaries to Messrs. Woods and Rishton was brought before the next council, (as it must be according to the standing orders,) to call for the proceedings of the Paid Officers' Committee, with reference to those gentlemen, to be read. The proceedings were then confirmed. DOCK COMMITTEE. The proceedings of the Dock Committee having been read, Mr. ASPINALL asked whether Mr. Parker could inform the council why the Birkenhead Commissioners were op posing the Liverpool Dock Bill ? Mr. PARKER replied that the information he had ob tained on the other side of the water amounted to just nothing at all. (A laugh.) The mode of doing business was just this : the great man, Mr. Jackson. gave his nod; whatever he said was law; if he said certain things must be done, or must be altered, it was done immediately; and therefore there was no knowing what was done or what might be done. Mr. BIRKETT said a petition had been presented against the Liverpool Dock Bill, signed by certain merchants and other inhabitants of the port, in which pretty hard names were used against some of the members of the council, who, it was said, were promoting their own interests by the sale of the Harrington estate. Now it was well known that none of the members of the council who had an in terest in that estate were allowed to speak or vote upon the question when it was before the council. It had been reported that one or more members of the Dock Com mittee, who were also members of the council, had taken an active part in procuring signatures to the petition in question ; and he wished to ask the chairman of the Dock Committee if that report were correct ? _ _ _ Mr. MOORE said there was no doubt that petitions had been presented from Liverpool, also from other places, against the Liverpool Dock Bill, which imputed motives to the members of the Dock Committee and council as being interested in the Harrington estate. The question was put to him in the committee of the House of Com mons as to whether there were not members of the Dock Committee interested in that estate, to which be replied in the negative. But several of the petitions broadly alleged that they were proprietors of the Harrington Com pany. 'With regard to the question put by Mr. Birkett, he believed that it was a notorious fact that members of the Dock Committee had taken active measures to promote those petitions—so much so, that he heard notices had been sent to different parties in the town to ask them to sign. He did not feel authorised to mention names, but believed such was the fact. Mr. NORTH read and pointed out certain allegations in the petitions which, he said, were wholly unfounded. Mr. BIRKETT said, that when they considered the cir cumstances under which the council went to parliament for the bill, the way in which it was carried, and the way in which the rate-payers of the town bad expressed their opinion recently in favour of the dock extension, the course for any member of the council to pursue was, either to giva up his own opinion to that of the majority, or to take the other course left open to him—to resign his seat. This was his opinion, and the opinion of many out of doors. (Hear.) Mr. AIKIN said be yielded his opinion to that of the majority, and that he had never signed or taken any part in the petitions to which allusion had been made. The remarks which had just dropped must have applied to one individual, [Mr. Evans, who had shortly before left the council,) and to one or two members of the Dock Com mittee; but he was of opinion that members ought not to be subject to censure, or to be called upon to resign their seats, simply because they had done that out of doors which they considered best for the interests of the town. Mr. fIODGSON coincided in this opinion. Mr. BIRKETT thought it unfair to impute motives, and to circulate untenable allegations. Mr. Nicol, said he had proof in his possession that one member had taken an active part in the opposition. The reason he declined to mention his name was, because he was not then present. After a few words from Mr. Amu/ in explanation, the proceedings were confirmed. EDUCATION COMMITTEE. From the proceedings of the Education Committee, it appeared that the average attendance at the schools from the 28th of February to the 27th of March was as follows : _____ ..._ _ NORTH. SOUTH. Boys Girls. Infants 602 476 The numbers on the books were :—North, 754 ; South, 617. OBSERVATORY COMMITTEE. After the proceedings of the Observatory Committee had been read, a memorial was presented from several of the watchmakers and chronometer makers of the town, in which they stated that their attention had been called to a report of the last meeting of the council, from which it appeared that chronometers were to be ratel at the Ob servatory for captains of ships at a small charge. This they considered would be unjust to the tr a d e , as th e y h a d gone to expense in obtaining a correct rating of time, and as they had heavy rents and taxes to p a y. Th ey contend ed that such competition would be ruinous ; and they prayed the council to prevent any such attempt being made. Mr. LLOYD said it was well known that the watch ma nufacturers of this country were much interfered with by those of France and Switzerland, and that the council ought to exercise particular caution in dealing with them. Mr. AIKIN paid his great object was to make the obser. cations as valuable as possible for public purposes without being injurious to individual interests. After a brief discussion, upon the motion of Mr. LLOYD, the memorial was referred to tihe Observatory Committee, with an understanding that the memorialists should confer with that committee upon the subject. HEALTH OF THE TOWN COMMITTEE. Mr. ASPINALL stated that since the appointment of this committee 5730 yards of flagging, and 3134 yards of phanneling had been laid down in the north district, and 6507 yards of flagging, and 3974 lineal yards of channeling in the south district. Mr. BLACKBURN said the Abbatoir Company was a great nuisance, and that it demanded immediate atten tion. He asked whether a memorial had not been sent in against it ? The MAYOR replied in the affirmative, but said it had been mislaid. MR. EVAWS'S EXPLANATION. Mr. EVANS here rose and said he had been told that during his absence frJrn the council a question had beea put as to whether any member or members of the Dock Committee and the council had put their names to a peti tion against the dock bill, and used every influeace in their power in favour of that petition. Now, for VI own part, he was the man that did it, and that would always do it when he considered that the Dock Committee and the council were pursuing a wrong course. He was told what was rather more materia , that there were allegations its the petition which were untrue. He had not drawn it up, but he had looked it over, and he declared there was no thing in it which struck him as untrue. This was not the first time that an attempt had been made to interfere with his public duty. Upon a former occasion, there was a long editorial article in the Albion; and a gentleman of the Dock Committee got up and complained that it contained insinuations against himself. He could have told that gentleman, as he told him then, that if he went and asked any of the editors where he believed his (Mr. Evans's) hand was to be distinguished, they had full authority to give his name up; and then, if he had any complaint to make, ;any redress or satisfaction to demand, he would know where to come; but not to go and get off all perso nal responsibilities by drawing, as it were, public assem blies on to shield him and his purposes. He could not but admire the effrontery of Mr. Birkett. There—(point • ing at him)—there he is, at the head of the warehouse interest; and there he and others were, opposing the Warehouse Dock Bill year after year. Mr. BIRKRTT.—It's not the fact as regards me. Mr. NORTH having here again pointed out in one of the petitions, the Manchester one, which he belived to be similar to that sent from Liverpool, what he conceived to be misrepresentations, Mr. BIRKETT denied Mr. Evans's right to impute motives. Mr. EVANS, (with emphasis.)—l assure you, sir, that I have not the most exalted opinion of your motives. Mr. SHEPPARD rose to order. The MAYOR.—I ask Mr. Evans to withdraw the impu tation of motives. Mr. EVANS.—What motives ? The MAYOR.—T understand you imputed motives : I didn't hear it myself, but Mr. Birkett says so. Mr. EvA.Ns.--No : I told him I hadn't the most ex alted opinion of his motives : and I hold that opinion. still. The conversation here dropped. St'. NICHOLAS'S CLOCK. A. memorial from Mr. Hugh Hughes praying for fur. ther investigation with reference to the clock lately fitted up at St. Nicholas's Church, was referred to the Watch Committee. MR. BOUTFLOWER ' S DEATH. The MAYOR read a note from Mr. Howard, announc ing the death of Mr. Boutflower, one of the members for Abercromby Ward; and his worship was authorised to acknowledge its receipt, and to express the regret of the council and their sympathy with the afflicted widow and family. THE CORONER'S ACCOUNTS. A letter from the coroner, praying for increased accom. modation, and also the coroner's accounts, amounting to £lOl, were referred to the Finance Committee. THE PICTURE OF THE CRUCIFIXION. Mr. NORTH moved, pursuant to notice, " That the fine picture of the Crucifixion, on the Town-hall staircase, considering its sacred character, is very inappropriately placed there, and that it be presented to some church ; and that a committee of three be now appointed to in quire, and report their opinion, in what church it would be most appropriately and suitably placed." He thought this was a proposition of self-evident propriety ; his re spect was for the picture alone, and for its own sake; his object was to secure it from profanation ; and he bad no sympathy with the late revellers at the mayor's parties. The MAYOR.—I beg to say I have none, sir. (A laugh.) Mr. NORTH—Or with the larger assemblies at the tom. fooleries of the fancy ball. (Great laughter.) A long discussion followed, and at the close the council divided, when there appeared— For the motion 10 Against it .. .. • • .. 33 The motion was consequently lost. • THE LANDING PLACES. Mr. NORTH next moved, pursuant to notice, " That a spcial committee be now appointed to take into considers. lion, and to report upon, the more effective regulation and management of the ferries, ferry-boats, and landing. places; and that it be also an especial instruction to such committee forthwith to inquire and report their opinion as to the necessity and propriety of promoting, by all means within the power of the councii, the establishment; by act of parliament, of an efficient inspectorship of all steam-boats carrying passengers, with a view to their greater security and sea-worthiness." Mr. TINNE seconded it. This motion also gave rise to a lengthened discussion, at the close of which the council divided, when there ap. peared— For. Against it The motion was consequently declared to have been carried ; and the seven following gentlemen were appoint ed at the special committee :—Messrs. Aikin, Wood, Royden, Gladstone, Blackburn, Stewart, and North. The following motion, of which Mr. Isaac Holmes had given notice, was referred to the Finance Committee: " That the committee on bye-laws for the regulation of the slips and stairs and landing-places, be instructed to take into consideration the passing of a bye-law for ex tending to forty minutes the period of twenty minutes, allowed to steam and other boats usually employed in carrying goods or passengers beyond the port to remain at the slips, stairs, or other landing places, for landing or re ceiving passengers, luggage, or goods, each voyage, pro vided that such extension shall be limited to one landing or receiving in the twenty-four hours." The only remaining motion on the paper, that of Mr. Blackburn's, respecting the schools, was postponed until the next meeting of the Council, which it was understood would be held in the course of a week, when the Dock Bill will also be submitted. ••••• The Council adjourned at twenty minutes to four. DOCK COMMITTEE. On T )ursday the following members were present at the usual meeting of this body ;—Messrs. Moore, (chairman,) Nicol, Molyneux, Smith, Holmes, Holt, Barclay, Royden, Bold, Kendall, Sandbach, Ripley, Bulley, Moore, Aikin, Evans, Tobin, and Chilton, A letter was read from Messrs. M'Tear and Hadfield respecting the dirty state of the dock quays, some part of which, it appeared on enquiry, was said to have been caus ed by the complainants themselves in landing a cargo of hides. Instructions were ordered to be given to the dock constables to see that they be properly swept. An application from the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company respecting a railway line between the station yard and the King's Dock was referred to the Harbour Master's Committee. THE NEW DOCK BILLS. The CHAIRMAN observed that, having been lately in London, he could state that the proceedings relative to the new dock bills were going on as favourably as could be desired. A question had been put to him as to whether any of the members of the Dock Trust were proprietors of the Harrington Dock Company, and he put it to the gentlemen present to say whether such was or was not the case, so that he might be enabled to give an answer on his return to London at the next examination. No one answering, he said he must take it for granted from their silence that none of them were proprietors. The CHAIRMAN then referred to a certain allegation contained in petitions which bad been presented from Liverpool against the Dock bills, to the effect that several members of the Trust were proprietors of the Harrington Estate, that the object of the scheme was to destroycom petition and restore monopoly, as well as to give to the Corporation and Dock Committee an immense profit on their estate. He said that five or six petitions had been presented, and the allegation was in several of them ; the question which he had put showed, however, that it we false. Mr. EVANS said, allusion had been made on Wednes day to members of the Dock Committee who signed the petition. There was no such allegation so far as the pe tition he signed was concerned. The Cn AIRMAN said Mr. Evans's name was not in the document before him. Mr. AIKIN said the impression on Wednesday was that members bad signed the petition, and having opposed the measure it was deemed far better that they should have resigned. Whatever the impression was, it seemed to be the opinion that members having signed the petition were unworthy of confidence. If it turned out that those parties never signed the petition, there was an end of the allegation. The CHAIRMAN.—I merely said members had been promoting opposition. Mr. EvANs.—The impression was that they were false allegations. Mr. IttrrEv said an explanation ought to go forth. He, as well as other members of the Dock Committee, was mixed up with a petition in the remarks which had been made in the Council, a petition which they did not sign. Mr. EVANS.—I am an active opposer of the scheme, and use all my influence, and will continue to do so. It is stated as if there were something criminal. I have never yet been guilty of hole and corner opposition. CONVERSION OF THE THREE-AND-A-lIALFS.--The contemplated conversion of the Three-and-a- Halfs has alraady thrown the money market into sixes and sevens. The Bears and the Bulls are down on all fours ; and the result is so doubtful that it is quite a toss-up with the Bulls whether they will come out losers by the transac tion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also contem plates the conversion of the short sixes into long fours, fof he from experience that the fours give a much better light. and the sixe s will conse quen tly b e gra dually extinguished, It is generally believed that the conversion of the Three and-a-Halfs is preliminary to the abolition of the income tax. It might as well be said that the invasion of England by the Romans was preliminary to the inttoduction, or railroads.—Punch.