The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-08-27 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL SUMMER. A,,;bizEs. CROWN COU:ca.—TvEsn \Y. Edward Standing, 67, and James Taylor, alias Wil liam Starkie, 21, were indicted for having committed an abominable e.',:ttne,, at Bury, in May last. The Jury re turned a. verdict of acquittal for both prisoners. William Anderson, 42, was charged with causing the death of Jane Foley, an infant, by administering an over dose of medicine. Several of the medical cllicers be longing to the Manchester Infirmary, were called to sub stantiate tae case on the parr of the prosecution, who all concurred in the opinion, that the mixture furnished by the prisoner, and administered to the deceased, had been the awe of death. The prisoner was known as man midwife in Manchester, but never practised surgery or pharmacy, and was not recognised as a medical practi tioner. The jury retired, and after being absent about ten minutes, returned with a verdict of acquittal for the prisoner. He was immediately discharged. John Ord, 36, was indicted for having in his possesSion, at Manchester, on the 2nd of August last, a mould for casting counterfeit sixpences. Guilty, and sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment. Barbary Ord, 10, daughter of the above prisoner, and included in the same indictment, charged with uttering, was not proceeded against on account of her youth, and the supposition that she had acted under the directions of her father. She was accordingly acquitted. John Kearns, 46, charged with uttering base sixpences, at Warrington, in July last. He had been previously con victed of a similar offence. The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to seven years transportation. Robert Horrocks, 22, was charged with uttering coun terfeit shillings, at Little Bolton, in July last. He was found guilty, and sentenced to twelve months' imprison ment and hard labour. _ _ William Jones, 35, who pleaded guilty to a charge of being in possession of a mould, and also making counter feit coin, at Great Bolton, was brought up and sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment and hard labour. NISI PRIUS COURT.-TOESDAY. BOOKER AND ANOTHER V. TEBBUTT. This was a special jury case brought by Joseph Booker and James Whitelegg, assignees of James Potter, against the defendant, Thomas Tebbutt. It was an action of trover, for the recovery of letters patent, documents, and papers. The defendant pleaded first, that he had never converted them; secondly, that the plaintiffs were not possessed of them; thirdly, that the defendant purchased them for £2O from James Potter; fourthly, that they had been deposited by James Potter for a loan of £2O before his bankruptcy; and fifthly, leave and license to commit the grievance, on which pleas issue was joined. _ _ 'gr. Knowles, Mr. Tomlinson, and Mr. Noggins ap peared for the plaintiffs; and Mr. Martin, Mr. Green and Mr. Cowling for th. defendant. Mr. KNOWLES stated the case. He said the plaintiffs were the assignees of a person named James Potter, who carried on business as a cotton spinner at Manchester; and the object of the action was to recover from the de fendant certain letters patent by which the benefit of a very valuable invention had been secured to Mr. Potter. It was unnecessary to inform the jury that letters patent, if in the possession of a bankrupt at the time of his bank ruptcy, became as much the property of the parties to whom he was indebted as any other description of pro perty. It would appear that a short time before the bankruptcy, Mr. Potter delivered the letters to the defen dant without any consideration at all, or for a considera tion so purely nominal that it would be idle to say it was any consideration whatever. The defence was, that the defendant fairly bought the patent, and that it had been as fairly assigned to him. This would be the question ; and he (Mr. Knowles) would convince the jury that the defendant had no right to the patent, that it had come in his possession in a way which the law designated a fraud, and that a concert had been entered into between him and the bankrupt to deprive the creditors of that to which they had a legal claim, for the advantage of the bankrupt and his family. It appeared that Mr. Potter was in part nership with his father, Richard, and his brother John, and that they carried on their business at Manchester, had a mill at Ancoats, and a warehouse in Mosley-street. They carried on a very extensive business, and occupied a respectable position in trade. It would seem that in the year 1841, the firm began to feel embarrassed, that they owed considerable debts, and that, among other parties to whom they were largely indebted, was the Bank of Man chester, to whom they had given a warrant of attorney, dated July, 1841, which authorised the bank to issue exe cution, and enter judgment to the extent of £20,000; and upon the 28th August, in the same year, execution was issued, and the whole of the property at the mill and warehouse was seized under that warrant of attorney. The property seized was much greater even than the large sum which the warrant covered, but owing to the extreme mismanagement of the sale, the sum realized did not amount to anything like £20,000, and did not exceed £12,000. This fact was not in issue to-day, but was men tioned merely to show that when the execution was put in, and the property of the bankrupts seized, the whole of their stock was taken away. They had not, in short, a shilling to pay the creditors, except some small debts and household furniture, which, curiously enough, in the fa mily arrangements that encompassed the whole transac tion, found its way, by an assignment, into the hands of Mr. Tebbutt, the defendant. The assignment was not, however, ultimately insisted upon, and the money was re funded. It might also be mentioned, not as a part of the case, but with the view of explaining it more fully, that ultimately the Bank of Manchester was found not entitled to the property it had recovered, and that a sum was reco vered horn the bank sufficient to give the creditors a tri fling dividend in the pound. His principal object in call ing attention to the execution was this, that at the mo ment, the 28th of August, Mr. Potter and his partners were utterly and hopelessly insolvent, that there was no resource or refuge but lir bankruptcy, that no man at all acquainted with the matter could doubt that when the bank seized the whole of the property, bankruptcy was inevitable, and that these facts must have been known to Mr. Tebbutt. The latter was a merchant at Manchester, and was a family connexion of James Potter, having mar ried that gentleman's sister ; and it would be shown that throughout the whole of the transaction Mr. Tebbutt was in the warehouse, that he conversed with the different partners, and that be was just as well acquainted with what was going on as the firm itself. He knew that bankruptcy was inevitable, and that, when the execution was issued, no man could treat with James Potter for any thing. This being the state of the case, it was unneces sary, at this stage, to call the attention of the jury to the immediate subject-matter of the action, which was to re cover letters patent. James Potter, a man of considera ble mechanical genius, had turned his attention in the year 1829 to the improvement of that part of the machinery with which his business made him conversant, and he more particularly turned his attention to the improve ment of a machine called a " mule"—a machine used in spinning, and a very important one indeed in that opera tion. Mr. Potter had, as he thought, discovered an im proved mode of making it, and, after expending consider able time, labour, and expense, he brought the invention to a head; and in December, 1836, letters patent were granted to him in England, and in the following year, October, 1837, Scotch letters were granted to him for the same invention. It was for a term of fourteen years, and then he might have an opportunity for renewal, if he could make a fit case out for such a proceeding. Besides this, be took out letters patent in France, Austria, Holland, and Belgium. In the foreign patents, a gentleman named Nicholson had some share ; but in the English and Scotch patents nobody had any concern or interest but James Potter himself ; and at the time of the execution, the 28th of August, it seemed to have entered into the mind of the said Mr. Potter that he might, by some scheme or other, secure the benefit of those patents to himself. It would be shown by the evidence of a party, who was free from suspicion, that on that very day he heard James ask Mi chael Potter " to whom he should transfer the letters pa tent." Michael replied, "say nothing of that," and there the conversation ended ; but the jury would have no doubt that about this time, or shortly after, James Potter con sulted his family connexion, Tebbutt, and that between the two a concert was entered into for taking the letters patent out of the hands of the creditors and assignees. and of keeping them in the hand of Mr. Tebbutt, for the be nefit of Mr. Potter. At the time in question, one of the letters patent was at the warehouse in Mosley-street ; that letter was carried to Mr. Potter's lodgings ; and the whole of the letters patent were conveyed to Mr. Tebbutt's house, on the 2d September, five days after the seizure; but in order to make out that something of a legal as signment of the letters had been effected, it was consi dered advisable to prepare a transfer. In the meantime, on the 4th of September, a meeting of the creditors was held, and when the bankrupt was requested to execute an assignment for their benefit, he thought fit to refuse, and put off the execution until he bad done some other act, by which he supposed he had parted with the letters patent ; and, in fact, he did not execute the assignment in question until after an act was done, which would be relied upon to-day, as a transfer of the letters patent. The bankrupt, Mr. Tebbutt, and Mr. Lever met together about this time, and then the farce, now about to be described, was en acted. Tebbutt drew a cheque for £2O. The cheque was then handed to the bankrupt, and the latter was requested to write his name on the back of it ; and after he had en dorsed it in this manner, the cheque was delivered to Lever ; and from that day to the present neither cheque nor money had been recovered by the bankrupt. The cheque, which was drawn on the 4th of September, was dated the 28 th of August; it would be observed that it was for £2O for letters patent, worth, perhaps, as many thousands; and upon the 6th of September the bankrupt executed some instrument, which was called an assign ment to his creditors. It was only by a strange providen tial circumstance, and when the parties quarrelled among themselves, that the matter of the so-called transfer, which had slept for a long time, was brought to light; for it was only in the December of 1842 that the assignees be came more correctly informed of the circumstances under which the transfer had taken place. The learned counsel concluded by stating that at the time of the sale of the effects in the mill, Mr. Tebbutt demanded a shilling for every spindle made according to Mr. Potter's invention ; and as there were many thousands of such spindles in the concern, the jury would be enabled to form something like an estimate of the value put upon the invention by Mr. Tebbutt. After the examinatioangoref agreed to number of witnesses, the parties consulted, an d to withdraw a juror, upon the understanding that the letter s patent were to be given up to the plaintiffs. A j uror a ccordingly withdrawn, and the case was thus brought to s a abrupt and amicable conclusion at half-past two o'clock. n His lordship then proceeded to try CRIMINAL CASES. Some conversation took place between the Judge and Mr. Ellis, one of the magistrates clerks, as t o the best part of the court in which to place the prisoners. Mr. KNOWLES said that as himself and the other gen tlemen of the inner bar were about to retire, the party on trial might occupy one of their seats. The JUDGE.—No; I shall not.place a felon in one of the seats of the inner bar. (Loud laughcer.) It was then arrang, , d that the prisoners should take their places in that part of the court in front of the pro thonotory's desk, usually occupied by the attorneys. FORGERIES AT LIVERPOOL. Thomas Evans, 39, was indicted tor having, at tiver pool, feloniously uttered a forged order for the paynterit of 1:4 10s., wall knowing the same to be forged, with intent to defraud Martin Cross. Mr. Paget conducted the prosecution. The prisoner was undefended. It appeared that shipping-notes were in common circu lation at Liverpool, and that they were, in the nature of promissory notes, payable in the event of the sailing of a mariner. A short time before the 4th of April, the pri soner presented an instrument of this description to the prosecutor, stated that he was the person described in it, and that he was about to sail in the Jane Augusta, then lying in one of the docks. He accordingly received 255. from Mrs. Cross ; and it subsequently turned out that the note was fictitious, that it was not signed by the captain of the Jane Augusta, and that the prisoner had never been engaed to sail in that vessel. Tile prisoner was convicted. William Cartney, 29, was indicted for having, at Liverpool, felonionAy uttered a certain forged order for the delivery of goods, to wit, seven yards of moleskin and a gross of buttons, he well knowing the same to be forged, with intend to defraud Robert Murray. Mr. Ramshay conducted the case for the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended. It appeared that on the let of May the prisoner went to the shop of Mr. Murray, a draper. and produced a docu ment for the goods, which purported to have been signed by a Mr. M`Kenna, of Tithebarn-street. The goods wers supplied, and shortly after it turned out that the in strument was a forgery. The prisoner was found guilty. MANSLAUGHTER AT LIVERPOOL. James Price pleaded guilty to a charge of having, at Liverpool, feloniously killed and slain one Elizabeth Fairhurst. _ . _ The court adjourned at twenty minutes to five o'clock to nine the following morning. CROWN COURT.—WEDNESDAY. Sarah Williams, 21, and Robert Jones, 20, were found guilty of uttering base coin at Wigan. Williams twelve months' imprisonment, Jones six months. John Burgess, 34, was found guilty of burglary at Sal ford. Sentence, six months' imprisonment and hard labour. _ _ _ _ _ _ Francis 0' Neale, 31, charged with a robbery and as sault at Manchester, was acquitted, no evidence being offered, on account of the absence of a material witness. Henry Hamilton, 21, charged with a similar offence at Manchester, was acquitted on the same grounds. James Wade, 18, John Kenyon, 18, and Thomas Leigh, 40, were found guilty of a robbery at Warrington. Sen tence deferred. Michael Riley, also charged with assault and robbery at Manchester, was found guilty, and sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment. Thomas Hirst, 17, charged with maliciously shooting at Ashton-under-Lyne, was found guilty of an assault. Sentence deferred. William Jones, 25, and Edward Thomas, 32, were charged with robbery and assault on Michael Riley, at Manchester. They were both acquitted. John Pilkinglon was charged with bigamy, he having married Jane Rogerson at Manchester in 1825, and Eliza Shore at the same place in 1842. The prisoner was ac quitted ; and the court adjourned. NISI PRIUS COURT.-WEDNESDAY. The undefended causes were called over, but, with one exception, they had to stand over in consequence of the absence of the attorneys for the plaintiffs. PROWSE V. ACKERS. Verdict for the plaintiff, by consent, damages £37 10s. LUMLEY V. GOWLAND. - - Verdict for the plaintiff, Thomas Lumley, damages £ll2. O'GRADY V. ROUNTHWAITE. The plaintiff in this case was Daniel O'Grady, and the defendant, John Kirby Rounthwaite. It was an ac tion of trespass, in which Mr. Sergeant Murphy and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. James for the defendant. The declaration alleged an assault and false imprisonment in the Bridewell of Liverpool for two days. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and several other pleas. The plaintiff had been in the employ of the Dublin Steam-packet Company for twelve years, and on the 13th of January last was second clerk in the ticket office. On the day in question, he was at the Clarence Dock, when a Liverpool police-officer demanded a ticket for conveying him to Dublin, and when the plaintiff produced the ticket, the policeman arrested and took him to the defendant, who was the agent of the Steam-packet Company, and then be was conveyed to Bridewell, where he was detained until the Monday following. The defence was that the plaintiff had issued tickets which he ought never to have issued, and that the company had reason to suppose he was guilty of a felony. The case was abruptly concluded by the withdrawal of a juror. STRETCH V. LEA. Verdict for the plaintiff, Joseph Stretch, damages £l3O. GREGORY AND OTHERS V. WILLIAMS. This was an action for libel, in which the plaintiffs were Joseph Gregory and others, and the defendant was John Williams. Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Watson for the defendant. The plaintiffs are slate merchants, in North Wales, and the defendant was a fuller by trade, living in Merionethshire. The libel was alleged to have been contained in a letter written by the defendant to Mr. Williams, the owner of the slate quarry, in which he stated that there were defal cations in the accounts of the plaintiffs. The jury re turned a verdict for the plaintiffs, damages £lOO. DRESSER, PUBLIC OFFICER, V. CLARKS AND OTHERS. The plaintiff was Henry Dresser, one of the registered public officers of the Yorkshire District Bank, and the action was brought to recover a balance due upon a bank ing account. Mr. Baines and Mr. Addison were for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Martin and Mr. Tomlinson for the de fendants. THE ISLE OF MAN JOINT STOCK BANK.-CRELLIN V. BROOK In this case Mr. Martin and Mr. Cowling appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Watson and Mr. Robinson for the defendant. The declaration was for money lent on a bank account, and the defendant pleaded in abatement, not denying the contract, but alleging that he entered into it along with fifteen others, whose names he gave, and claimed that they should be entered with him as the parties to be sued against. Mr. MARTIN said the plaintiff in this case, Mr. Robert Quayle Crellin, was a gentleman in the Isle of Man. The defendant, Mr. William Brook, was a manufacturer, re siding in the neighbourhood of Huddersfield, and he was sued as one of the shareholders in the Isle of Man Joint Stock Bank—a bank which formerly had been a private one, but which, in the year 1836, was formed into a joint stock one. His client had paid in the sum of £l4OO, and in about a month after the bank stopped. The amount claimed was £1319 Is. 2d., the plaintiff having taken out checks amounting to near £loo.—Philip Gelling, cashier of the Castletown branch of the bank, proved having re ceived the £l4OO.—R. W. Fletcher, manager of the bank, was called to prove that John M`Quillan, Adolphus M`William, and William Smythe, of Rugby, were all shareholders in the bank, and within the jurisdiction of the court. Mr. WATSON, in cross-examining, re a d th e fift een names which were entered on the plea of abatement, and asked the witness if they were all s h are h o ld ers. The an swer was in the affirmative. Amongst the names was that of Thomas Calvert, the defendant in the next case. This closed the plaintiff's case. Mr. Watson conte n ded, amongst other objections which he took, that no proof bad been adduced that the defendant had sanctioned the establishment of the Castletown branch. This objection was overruled. He then contended, that although he did not make out his plea of abatement, the plaintiff was only entitled to is. damages, and was proceeding to argue this point when his Lordship said ,— l do no t see the logic of this ; and upon Mr. Watson contending the point, the Judge said, you must shape your plea accor din g l y , and if not, get a rule to alter it. He then informed Mr. M artin he need not trouble himself to reply, and ordered the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, £1319 is. 2d. His lordship ordered execution in a month. CRELLIN V. CALVERT. Mr. MARTIN said this was precisely a similar case . The plaintiff in this action was the mother of the plaintiff in the last case. She had an account with the bank at the time of its stopping, and there was owing to her the sum of £676 is. 3d. The jury would see that the plain tiffs did not desire to press too hardly on any one party, for the defendant in this case was not Mr. Brook, but Mr. Calvert, and nothing like extraordinary haste had been used, for the bank had been stopped twelve months, and these parties had been written to to settle the ac count. Mr. Fletcher, the manager, was the only witness examined. He was called to prove that Mr. Calvert was a shareholder, and, although Mr. Watson, in the last case, took Mr. Fletcher's evidence as to Mr. Calvert's being a shareholder, in order to prove the plea of abate ment he c-oss-examined him this time to show that there was no proof that Mr. Calvert was a shareholder. The partnership deed was produced, and, although Mr. Cal vert's name was there, the signature was not witnessed, and there was no one in court to prove it. Mr. WATSON.—Then there is no proof at all. His LORDSHIP.—No, there is no evidence at all. I am only sorry I passed it before. It is a most extraor dinary proceeding, if the same gentleman instructs you in both cases. It is one of the most extraordinary proceed ings I ever saw in a court of justice. Mr. ROHINSON.—It was in answer to the question, whether there was a person of the name of Calvert a shareholder. His LORDSHIP.—If your client will say he supposed at the time that it was a different person, I will exonerate him from the remark 1 made. Otherwise I will not. Mr. MARTIN then argued there was no occasion to prove defendant a shareholder, he having admitted that in his plea of abatement. His LORDSHIP.—I think you are right. MC. WATSON was proceeding to urge further objec tions, but His LORDSHIP said it was clear that if they were to be made anything of they must be made elsewhere. A verdict was then returned for the plaintiff —damages £676 7s. 3d. His LORDSHIP.—I shall not have evidence given by the defendant in one case that he insists is not evi dence in the next. The court adjourned at a quarter to six o'clock. CROWN COU RT.—THURSDAY. The Court opened at nine o'clock, and a jury having been his Lord,hip proce.ded to trial with the cases conbtituting the third class in the calendar, namely, TH E LI VERPOOL STA N DAR D. THE RAPE CASES. rhimas Dutton, 17, (could neither read nor write,) pleaded guilty to having ravished Jane Hyde, a girl of 'eight years of age. Thomas Howard was charged with having feloniously ravished Ann Clegg, at Ash ton -under. Lyne ; and Thomas Andrew was charged with feloniously aiding and abetting him in committing the felony. Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Wil kins appeared for the defence. The yriv acquitted both prisoners. John Cross, 23, (could neither read nor write,) was charged with having violated Susan Bamford on the 28th June. Mr. Wilkins appeared to prosecute, and Mr. Green to defend. The prisoner was discharged. • Robert Knight, (could read and write imperfectly,) was charged with having, at Reddish, feloniously ravished Alice Booth. Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Wil kins defended the prisoner. It appeared in evidence that the mother of the girl might have had the means of knowing the outrage which had been committed on her daughter, and that when she became acquainted with it, she did not for a week after wards apply to have the prisoner apprehended. Under these circumstances, at the suggestion of the Learned Judge. Mr. Brandt declined to go further with the case. The prosecutrix, in giving her evidence, stated as the reason why she had not reposed confidence in her mo ther, and told her of what had happened, that she dreaded her severity. James Seal was indicted for a misdemeanour, in having assaulted Amelia Meanor, with intent to ravish her, on the 29th July, at Ashton-under-Lyne. The jury acquitted the prisoner. WOUNDING, WITH INTENT TO MURDER, &C. John Johnson, 32, (could neither read nor write,) was indicted for having, at North Meols, on the sth instant, maliciously cut, stabbed, and wounded Mary Johnson, his wife, with intent to murder, or do her grievous bodily harm. Mr. Monk appeared to prosecute. The prisoner was without counsel. It appeared that, on the day mentioned in the indict ment, the prisoner, whilst under the excitetnent of liquor, quarrelled with his wife, and during the altercation took a knife from his pocket and attempted to stab her. She escaped from him, and ran into a house, where she re mained for some time, and, on coming out, the prisoner again attacked her, and stabbed her on the lower part of the right thigh. The jury found the prisoner guilty of the offence, with intent to do grievous bodily harm.—Sentence deferred. John White, who had been convicted on Tuesday of a burglary, and sentenced to seven years' transportation, was placed at the bar, when the learned JUDGE said, that at the time sentence was passed upon him, some doubt was expressed whether the term ought not to have been ten years. Upon consulting with his learned brother Judge, he was disposed to concur in that doubt. It would be necessary, therefore, for him to pass a sentence of ten years' transportation ; but he would make a repre sentation with respect to the prisoner's case, and he hoped the original sentence would not be increased ; and if it should turn out that the Court had the power of passing a sentence of seven years, he should have the benefit of it. The Court rose at a quarter before seven o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.—THURSDAY. Mr. Justice Cresswell took his seat on the bench at nine o'clock. WALKER V. JACKSON In this case, which was an action to recover a penalty under a bond for £B4 175., given on the 4th Feb., 1826, by the defendant to the plaintiff, Mr. Baines and Mr. Addison appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cowling for the defendant. It appeared that Jeremiah Walker, a farmer, carrying on business near Tadcaster, in Yorkshire, lent the defen dant, William Jackson, the sum named whilst he was a prisoner in Yolk Castle. The penalty under the bond was £169, Since the bond was given, the defendant had come into possession of considerable property, and a let ter, promising to discharge the debt, together with the bond itself was put in in evidence. No defence was of fered. The plaintiff had advanced other sums, for which no bond was given, and as the defendant had pleaded the statute of limitations, that part of the action was abandoned. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the amount of the penalty. ACTION ON A SHIPS CHARTER SMITH V. BOUTC HER. The declaration in this case was for work and labour done, and on an account stated, to which the defendant pleaded that he was not liable. Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton conducted the plain tiffs case ; and Mr. Martin, with whom was Mr. Edwards, appeared for the defendant. On the part of the plaintiff it was stated, that he is a ship broker in Liverpool, and he brought the action to recover the sum of 415 due to him for procuring a charter for a ship called the Emanuel Boutcher, after the name of the defendant, who is a ship owner, carrying on business in the city of London. In the beginning of 1843, the de fendant, under the name of John Blackall and Co., with which he was identified, wrote a letter to the plaintiff, ad dressing it to Messrs. Smith. and Co., stating that a charter was wanted for a ship called the Princess Royal, and requesting him to procure one upon the terms which were stated. A charter was procured and sent to Lon don by return of post, and it came down again confirmed and signed by the defendant ; but before it was received, Messrs. Blackall sent a letter to the plaintiff, inclosing a signed charter for the Emanuel Boutcher, in lieu of the Princess Royal. and requesting him to get it confirmed. It was confirmed ; but subsequently the defendant thought fit to make other use of the Emanuel Boutcher. By the charter, the ship was to proceed to Laguna, from Messrs. Tayleure and Co., of this town, and there take in cargo ; but the defendant having an opportunity of taking troops to Bermuda, he wished the vessel to call there before pro ceeding to Laguna. The charterers refused the ship upon these terms, because as Bermuda was not within the limits to which the charter was confined, it would have been impossible to have the ship at Laguna wi'hin the time appointed. The plaintiff contended that with these latter transactions he had nothing whatever to do ; his duty was to procure a charter, which he had done, and therefore he was entitled to his commission. After some witnesses had been called, and Mr. Martin addressed the jury for the defendant, a verdict was re turned for the plaintiff for £3s.—Costs, 40s. EJECTMENT. - DOE DEM JARDINE V. HAWORTH AND OTHERS. An action of ejectment, in which Mr. Martin and Mr. Atherton represented the plaintiff; Mr. Cowling the de fendant. The defendants pleaded not guilty to the decla ration, and issue was joined. _ _ It appeared that Mr. Thomas Jardine, the plaintiff, is an attot nay at Bolton, and he brought the present action to recover possession of certain premises mortgaged to him by the defendant Haworth, for £2OO, in the year 1825. Mr. Haworth was an attorney, carrying on business in Bolton, and being about to erect some cottages he applied to the plaintiff for a loan of £2OO upon mortgage, to ena ble him to complete the erection. The money was lent, and in Lecember, 1825, a mortgage deed was executed. The interest was regularly paid till 1829-30, when Mr. Haworth became bankrupt, and his assignees proceeded to sell the property. Mr. Blinkburn agreed to become the purchaser, but Mr. Haworth refused to give up pos session. Attempts were subsequently made by the plain tiff to get payment in some friendly way, but without suc cess, and at last he resorted to this action. The other de fendants besides Mr. Howarth were tenants residing in the premises, under him. The action' in the point of fact was undefended, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the Judge di rected possession to be given up in a month. ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE.-JONES V. WILLIAMS. This was an action to recover a promissory note for £5OO, given as a consideration for the transfer of the li cense, goodwill, furniture, &c. of a public-house in this town. After the opening by Mr. Sergeant Murphy, (with whom was Mr. James,) a verdict was taken by consent for the plaint , ff, the proposals being met in a spirit of fairness by the defendant. Another action between the same par ties also went off in the same way. ACTION FOR USE AND POSSESSION.-ECCLES V. UNSWORTH. An undefended action for the recovery of £37 rent for the use and occupation of a farm at Pemberton, near Wigan. Mr. Cowling appeared for the plaintiff. Verdict for the amount claimed. ASSAULT AND BATTERY.-M'CLURE V. FRANCE AND ANOTHER. The plaintiff in this case is Samuel M'Clure, and the defendants are William France and Thomas France; and the declaration stated that the defendants assaulted the plaintiff and threw hint down. The defendant William France pleaded not guilty ; that the plaintiff committed the first assault upon him, and that he only acted in self defence. The defendant Thomas France pleaded not guilty • and, also, that the plaintiff and William France were fighting, and he interfered between them only to keep the peace. Mr. Wortley and Mr. Cowling appeared for the plain tiff; Mr. Martin and Mr. Crompton for the defendants. Mr. WORTLEY opened the case. Mr. M'Clure was formerly in business, but had now retired, an d h e ld h er Majesty's commission as a magistrate of Wigan. The two defendants, Mr. William and Mr. Thomas France, lived in the adjoining house to the plaintiff, both of them living in the principal street in the borough. The houses which they occupied originally belonged to one proprietor; the consequence of which was, that the yard and passage between were used in common by the occupants of both premises. There had been some misunderstanding, he believed, between the parties, which might have excited in the mind of Mr. William France some ill-feeling to wards the plaintiff. Mr. M'Clure, in the exercise of his privileges as a voter for the county of Lancaster, on the 27th of May last had attended at the election, and had recorded his vote, after which he attended a meeting of the friends of one of the candidates, where he dined. About nine o'clock in the evening he went home to his own house. Having occasion the following morning to go to Ormskirk, he went into the yard of which he (Mr. Wortley) had spoken, for the purpose of going to the stable to order his horse to be ready at an early hour. The defendant William France was standing in the same yard, a little distance, further down, and, before Mr. M'Clure was aware, without any provocation on the part of Mr. M'Clure whatever, rushed upon him with a heavy stick in his hand—a walking-stick. Without saying any thing, (or if he did it was unintelligible,) he immediately laid upon the plaintiff, and gave him a most severe beat ing. In the course of this beating by William, his bro ther Thomas c ame , an d , i nstea d o f separa ti ng them, he laid his hands, not upon his brother, who was committing the outrage, but upon the plaintiff. The defendant Tho mas hid pleaded, upon the record, that he was endea vouring to separate the combatants; but I e (the h artied counsel) should show there were no combatants to sepa rate, the violence being all upon the side of Mr. William France. It would appear, undoubtedly ) that the attack was made by Mr. William France, and, although Mr. M'Clure had received most extensive injuries, it was not pretended that, in the scuffle, the slightest injury had been inflicted upon Mr. France, yet it was pretended that Thomas was endeavouring to prevent the violence. Severe blows were given. Mr. M'Clure was knocked down upon the pavement. lie was covered with blood ; and a sur geon had to be 'called in.—The learned counsel proceeded to dilate upon the assault upon the plaintiff, which had been committed in the presence of his wife and niece. Several witnesses were called, who proved the facts. Mr. MARTIN, for the defendants, said, Mr. M'Clure had been dining on the day in question with the party with whom he voted and acted at the election ; he did not mean to impute that he was drunk, but after having dined he was cominc , home through the street, and a little child of Mr. Wm. France's was also in the street. The child, by some means, struck against Mr. M'Clure's legs, and he, having a small stick in his hand, struck the child with it. He did not mean to impute to Mr. M'Clure that be hurt the child by the blow, but the child ran crying home, and told his mother that Mr. M'Clure had struck him. The mother went into the yard and saw Mr. M'Clure, and asked him why he had struck her child. He replied to her, " Go to the devil !" She ran into her house and told her husband what had taken place, and he came out. Ile (the learned counsel) did not mean to say it was a proper thing for one man to strike another in the way the defendant had struck Mr. M'Clure, but he called upon the jury to take the whole circumstances into tneir con- sideration, and say whether the assault was so unprovoked as bad been represented. He should call witnesses who would prove distinctly what he bad stated, and also that Mr. Ivl'Clure gave the first blow. As to Thos. Frances, there could not be the slightest doubt, from the evidence he should produce, that he was there only to separate the parties. Under all the circumstances, he trusted the jury would see that, if they gave damages at all, the very small est would satisfy the justice of the case. Two male and two female witnesses swore stoutly to this version of the transaction. The JUDGE summed up at considerable length, pointing out the contradictions in the testimony; and the jury, after considering a few minutes, returned a verdict for the plaintiff against both defendants. Damages £5O. DEBT AFTER BANKRUPTCY. KIRKPATRICK AND ANOTHER V. TATTERSALL. This was an action to recover £76 13s. 4d., in which Messrs. Martin and Crompton appeared for the plain tiffs ; Mr. Knowles, with which was Mr. Cowling, for the defendant. On the part of the plaintiffs, it was shown that the plaintiffs are provision merchants in Liverpool, and the defendant a corn dealer. In 1840, the plaintiffs sold to the defendant a cargo of oatmeal, at the invoice price of .E 321 14s. The defendant paid £lOO on account. Afterwards, the defendant became a bankrupt, upon which the usual proceedings were taken. The plaintiffs never proved their debt, but were anxious to assist the defendant through his difficulties; the result was, that, by their exertions with various persons, he obtained his certificate from his creditors. Some time after that, the defendant, by a written document, promised to pay the plaintiffs the balance due by instalments. Mr. KNOWLES said the question in this case was one solely for the Court. The certificate was dated on the 20th February, and the promise reviving the debt was dated on the 17th, and it was clear that the promise could have no operation, as it was given before the certificate. He cited the 37th and 121st sections of the Bankruptcy Act. Mr. COWLING followed on the same side. Mr. 'MARTIN contended that as the debt was valid at the opening of the fiat, it was valid on the 17th February afterwards ; consequently there was a good cause of action. The JUDGE sustained the objections taken by Mr. Knowles, but gave the other side leave to move. A nonsuit was then entered, the plaintiffs having leave to move to enter a verdict for .£75 13s. 4d., if the point of lax should be adverse to the defendant. TROVER.-DAVIES V. MEREDITH AND ANOTHER. An action in trover, to recover the value of a quantity of timber, which it was alleged that the defendants, who represent the Neptune Carrying Company, between Li verpool and Shrewsbury, had converted to their use. Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton were for the plaintiff; Mr. Martin and Mr. James for the defendants. The circumstances were of no public interest, and the court rose when the plaintiff's case had finished. The court adjourned at half-past six o'clock. CROWN COURT.-FRIDAY. Eliza Daly, an unmarried woman, was indicted for having at Manchester, on the 26th July last, attempted to murder her new born child, and her mother, Elizabeth Daly, and her brother, James Daly, with aiding and assisting. It appeared that the prisoner lodged with a woman named Evans, and that she noticing the appearance of Eliza Daly, had hinted to the mother her suspicion that her daughter was in the family way. The old woman de nied it, alleging that it was a disease to which she was subject, and that two of her sisters had died in Ireland of it. On the 25th of July, the younger prisoner fell ill. She went into the water-closet, and remained there a considerable time. Mrs. Evans told her that she was in labour ; but she denied, and refused all assistance. Her brother, James Daly came in, and, after speaking with his mother, appeared in great distress, crying, " my cha racter, my life I " Mrs: Evans told him that his sister was in labour, but he said, " No." In the course of the night, she distinctly heard a child cry, and subsequently saw all the prisoners go down to the yard. She got up and satisfied herself that the young woman had been de livered ; but on attempting to go into the yard the male prisoner prevented her. Next morning, the child was found alive, on some dry ashes in the midden ; and is now doing well. This was the evidence for the Mr. Wilkins was proceeding to address the jury for the prisoners, when he was interrupted by his Lordship, who desired to consult with Mr. Justice Cresswell. The Learned Judge returned after a short time, and informed the jury that he had consulted with his learned brother es to the case then before them, and he had entirely coin cided with himself in thinking that in the evidence they had heard there was nothing whatever to prove the charge in the indictment. A future prosecution might be insti tuted, but with that they had nothing to do. The pri soners would be detained in custody until it was known what steps might be taken. The jury, therefore, found a verdict of not guilty. DARING BURGLARY AT MANCHESTER. Alfred Locke, Thomas Jennings, and Ellen Leech were charged with having, on the 21st April, at Salford, broken open the dwelling-house of Deborah Taylor, and stolen therefrom £3lO, and a number of silver spoons. Mr. Brandt and Mr. Monk were for the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins and Mr. James for the defence. Mrs. Deborah Taylor deposed that she was landlady of the Nelson Tavern, Salford : the tavern had several en trances to different streets, and persons had to descend steps to get to the first floor: her own bed-room was on the first floor up stairs : on the same floor was a sitting room, drinking-room, and closet. On Sunday, 21st April, had £3lO in a cash-box, in her bed-room : the cash-box was placed in a secretary, which was locked : it was all safe at nine o'clock : most of the money (£280) was in gold : about ten heard an alarm that it had been entered, and, on going up stairs, found the secretary broken open and the cash-box gone: Jennings had been there that evening : he came with a woman, who resembled the female prisoner, but could not say that the two per sons were the same. This testimony was confirmed by several witnesses, and to connect the prisoners with the burglary a great deal of circumstantial evidence was offered. The priso ners were found guilty. NISI PRIUS COURT.-FRIDAY. DAVIES V. MEREDITH AND ANOTHER. At the sitting of the court this morning, Mr. Martin addressed the jury on the part of the defendants. A verdict was returned at 11 o'clock for the plaintiff, for £35 damages and 6d. costs. MILNE V. THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF MANCHESTER. The following special jury was sworn to try this impor tant cause :—Samuel Sudlow, Liverpool, merchant ; John Buckley Johnson, Liverpool, merchant ; David Roberts, Liverpool, merchant ; Thomas Crowther, Everton, mer chant; William Wilson, Liverpool, merchant; Thomas Smith, Toxteth-park, merchant; George Halewood Grant, West Derby, merchant ; James Anderson Forshaw, West Derby, merchant ; Thomas Manders, West Derby, mer chant; Urial Ralph Crooke, Charlton : Hughson Dutch man, Toxteth-park, merchant ; and Thomas English, Kirkdale, merchant, Esqrs. Sir Frederick Thesiger, (the Solicitor-General,) Mr. Starkie, Mr. Cowling, and Mr, Cardwell, appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brandt, and Mr. Crompton, for the defendants. Mr. CARDWELL opened the pleadings. This, he said, was an issue upon a return made by the Council of the Borough of Manchester to a writ of mandamus. The writ recited that after the passing of the Municipal Cor porations Act, a separate charter was granted to the bo rough, end that, before that grant, Mr. Oswald Milne, the plaintiff, held the office of Clerk to the Justices, and Clerk also to the Stipendiary Magistrate of the division of Man chester, both of these offices being offices of profit, and that he received the fees and emolurne,As thereof; and that, in consequence of the grant of the charter, he was deprived of a great part of those fees. The council denied that he was an officer in the division of the county in the view of the law, or that he had lost any fees ; and upon these pleas issue was joined. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated the case. He said that although the proceedings, out of which the questions had arisen which were now submitted to the consideration of the jury, were of great importance to the plaintiff, for whom he had the honour to appear, yet, the questions presented no very formidable difficulty, nor did he see how they could possibly occupy much time. The case ,came upon a claim made by Mr. Oswald Milne, upon the recently-created Corporation of Manchester for compen sation in consequence of the loss of a portion of the fees and emoluments attached to certain offices which he held within the Manchester division of the county of Lancas ter, and which loss had been occasioned by the charter of incorporation granted to the corporation of Manchester, and the grants consequent thereon. The offices which were held by Mr. Milne were those of clerk to the ma gistrates acting for the Manchester division of the county of Lancaster, and clerk to the sitting magistrates, who was appointed under the provisions of on act passed in in the year 1813. With respect to the first of those offices, it would appear in evidence that the district of the county which was known as the Manchester division had existed for a very considerable period of time. Mr. Milne became clerk to the magistrates of that division in 1812.. He had succeeded his father, who had been for many years before him a clerk to the ma gistrates; .. but, from the year 1812 d ow n t o the present time, M • mil within the division. The meetings o had been invariably a c ti n g as a clerk tot. tthbee Bailey, at Salford. were invariably held at the Ne w re ma a g g i i s s t t r r a at t e e s s There Mr. Milne, and Mr. Milne only had officiated as clerk for all the divisional business of that district. In the year 1813, it was considered necessary that a stipen diary magistrate should be appointed. The first stipen diary who was appointed was Sir William David Evans, and he appointed Mr. Milne to be his clerk. The present stipendiary magistrate, Mr. Maude, had also appointed him, and he acted in the same capacity towards that gentleman also. The magistrates appointed under the borough commission commenced their sitting in Brow street, Manchester, and in pursuance of the provisions of the commission, appointed a Mr, Higson as their clerk. 'f hey proceeded to discharge within the new borough all the duties which had been discharged by the magistrates at the New Bailey, and Mr. Higson received all the emolu ments which Mr. Milne would have received but for the charter. An objection was made to the validity of the charter, and an action was brought by the county coroner against the borough coroner cf Manchester, which was tried at the Liverpool assizes in 1839. Various legal questions arose upon that occasion, - and ultimately the matter was pending before the House of Lords when an act of parliament was passed upon which the present claim was based. He alluded to the sth and Gth Vic., c. 111, which recited that, since the passing of the municipal corporation Act, doubts had arisen respecting the validity of the said charter, and then proceeded to legalize the several charters of incorporation and all acts done in pursuance of the same; and then, for the very purpose of meeting the par ticular case of Mr. Milne and any gentlemen similarly circumstanced, who were not deprived of their offices, but who suffered in the diminution of their fees, it pro vided that every officer of any such borough, county, or division of a county, who was in any office of profit at the time of granting the charter of incorporation, and whose office should have been abolished or removed, or who should have been deprived of any part of the fees and emoluments of his office in consequence of any such grant, should be entitled to have an adequate compensa tion, to be assessed by the council, for such part of the fees as he should have been deprived of. This act received the royal assent in August; and in the fol lowing October or November, Mr. Milne applied for compensation. The town-council of Manchester then summoned him before them, and, after having cross examined him at some length, came to a resolution that he wps entitled to no compensation at all ; upon which Mr. Milne applied to the Court of Queen's Bench for a mandamus to compel them to assess compensation. The matter was argued in the Court of Queen's Bench, and, without hearing the counsel for Mr. Milne, the court di rected the mandamus to issue; and now the corporation had returned that Mr. Milne was not an officer of any division of the county, and that he was not deprived of any fees or emoluments in consequence of the different grants made to that borough. Mr. Milne traversed that return ; and the question for the jury would therefore be, whether he was an officer of that division: of the county, and whether he had lost any portion of his fees by reason of the grants. He (the Solicitor-General) would prove that there was a division of the county called the Man chester division—that the office or appointment of clerk to the magistrates acting in that division was an office within the meaning of the act—and that Mr. Milne was actually the officer who performed the duties of that office. It would be necessary for him to show that in consequence—not by the grants themselves—but in con sequence of the grants, Mr. Milne had been deprived of a portion of his fees and emoluments ; and this he believed he should be enabled to do in a manner satisfactory to the caurt and jury. He should be really ashamed of him self were he to occupy more time. He believed, by means of a witness, and admissions on the other side, he should prove his case and entitle himself to a verdict, there being no question here as to the amount of the fees and emolu ments, but merely whether Mr. Milne had lost any fees or emoluments, and whether he was entitled to compen sation under the provisions of the act of parliament. Mr. Wm. S. Rutter was the first witness. He deposed that he was one of the coroner's for the county, and that he was formerly in the office with Mr. Milne. He de- 1 posed generally to the nature of that gentleman's duties — the Manchester division of the county, and the several other material points referred to in the Solicitor-Gene ral's opening speech. Edward Gorst, Deputy-Clerk of the Peace for the county, was the next witness, and he produced a table of the fees payable to the clerks of the justices at petty sessions. The charter, the commission, the act 53d Geo. 111., the sth and 6th of Vic., and other docume n t s were h ere put in, and the case for the plaintiff terminated. Mr. KELLY then addressed the jury for the defence. He said he had the honour to appear before the jury as counsel for the Corporation of Manchester, who, in the discharge of a public duty imposed on them, had felt it necessary to put the present case in the course of legal investigation ; and he concurred with the Solicitor-Gene ral that it was not a case which could occupy any con siderable portion of the public time. There was, in reality, no one fact in dispute between the parties ; and the only question to be determined was a question of law, which might be decided by his Lordship here, or might ulti mately be decided by the Court of Queen's Bench, or the Court of Error. Mr. Milne, as they had heard, was em ployed for a very great number of years, as clerk to cer tain magistrates acting for the division of Manchester, and there was no doubt he had discharged many impor tant duties, and that after the grant of the charter of in corporation, a very considerable diminution of fees and emoluments had taken place. Mr. Milne had, under the Act of Parliament referred to, made a claim aeainst the Corporation of Manchester for the sum of £34,000, for the loss or diminution of those emoluments. The Town Council of that Borough had little or no personal interest in the question •, but, inasmuch as had they at once com plied with the demand, they would have ill discliarged their duty to the inhabitants of the borough, for whom, in that respect, they were mere trustees ; because if Mr. Milne were entitled to any sum at all, whether £34,000 or any larger or smaller sum, it was net the corporation but the inhabitants, who contributed by a borough-rate to the borough funds, that must satisfy the demand. It was, therefore the bounden duty of the Corporation to resist the claim—a claim which, according to the advice they had taken, was altogether unfounded in law. Ac cordingly, Mr. Milne applied for a mandamus to the Court of Queen's Bench ; the mandamus was issued, the claim made, and resisted. The ground of objection to the claim was this—that Mr. Milne was not, within the —inD Division; other a w n - o d rd th s, at t , ha su t p h p e os w in a g s not for a a C m le meaning of the Act of Parliament, an officer cf any diii sion—that he was not the officer he stated himself to be was s t nofotalosso of Parliament, ~a o n f id t Magis trates of the county at sessions held for the Manchester a e ' m ith o i l n um th e e nt m h ea e ni o rk me to nt ti l l i e e wasati sustained, n g of t it the officer be described himself to be, still the loss of pro and emolument within the meaning of the act. Those o fi ffi t and ce r were three questions of law, and presented nothing for the jury to consider or determine. He should call wit nesses to prove that, in point of fact, there were, during the whole or a great part of the time, other petty sessions held by other magistrates, within the Manchester divi sion ; and this would show that Mr. Milne was incorrect in calling himself the Clerk to the Manchester Division. The JUDGE.—There is an alias to that. Mr. KELLY admitted that there was. The alias was-- " otherwise called clerk to the justice's of the petty ses sions held for said divisions ;" but he (the learned coun sel) denied that he ever was such clerk. He had officiated as clerk to certain justices, who had held petty sess i ons for that division, but that did not constitute him a del k to the whole body of justices. There was no such office existing in law as that of sole clerk to the special sessions held for the Manchester division ; any magistrate had a right to appoint his own clerk ; the clerk appointed, who ever he might be, only officiated on and for the single oc casion when the magistrates sat; his office ceased when they adjourned : and any three or four of them might joie in the appointment of a clerk. IThe learned counsel argued this point to a considerable extent, contending all through that when the business of the day was over, the appointment of the clerk closed, and that a new clerk might be appointed by the magistrates, or a majority of them, on the following day. In the present case, he said there had never been either a written or a verbal appoint ment, and, that as Mr. Milne had not received any sala ry, weekly or even daily, he was no servant or officer within the meaning of the act. He apprehended that a party entitled to compensation must be an officer of a di vision, and that the office must be of a continuing nature, not ceasing when the business of the day was over. He must, moreover, be acting as clerk at the petty sessions at the time the charter received the Royal assent, or lie was not an officer within the meaning of the act. He knew not whether the court meant to decide the law points on the present occasion. The JUDGE.-1 shall adopt the course of a learned pre decessor cf mine, who heard a long argument, and then said—" I am very much obliged to you for your opinions, but I shall not decide the question in dispute." Neither shall I ; I shall express no opinion upon it. (Laughter.) The following witnesses were examined for the defence : —James Smith, of Leigh ; Mr. Henry Coppock, town clerk of Stockport; Mr. Parte, solicitor, Wigan; and Jo seph Walker, after which the case for the defence closed, Mr. Kelly remarking that he had no objection to a spe cial verdict. -.-. ........,.. The JUDGE then charged the Jury. The first question for their consideration was, whether the petty sessions held at the New Bailey was a petty sessions for that divi sion of the county. If it was, then he advised them to find for the crown ; if otherwise, then their duty would be to find for the defendants on that issue. The second ques tion was, whether the plaintiff had sustained the loss, and been deprived of the fees and emoluments, in consequence of the grants ; and upon this point they would have little difficulty in finding that he had sustained a loss of profits and emoluments. The grave and serious question was, whether a clerk to the magistrates, under the circum stances mentioned, was an officer of that division of the county within the meaning of the statute. The Jury returned a verdict for the Crown—damages One Shilling. His Lordship certified for a special vet-- p . ar, ver dict. LIABILITY ON A BILL OF E XCIIANGE.—FARRER v. DE FLINNE—(SpeciaI Jury.) This action, the circumstanc es of which are well known, the case having been trie d at a former assizes, was an ac thtooswe h h e i t l h ls e , r e t i h th e er defendant asan aet wasual tion to determine the l iabilit y of the defendant on three bills of exchange, accep ted in the name of Tod d ; and the liable tner, under the firm of Todd and Co., or und er circumstance s to • rcumstance s the question plaintiff on which entitled the p laintiff to tre at him as a Partner in th a t concern. The parties are all manufa c t urers, carry ing on business as salesmen in Manchester. was as Mr. Baines, Mr. Dundas, and Mr. Cowling the plaintiff; and the Solicitor-G ene were for Solicitor-General, Watson and Brandt for the defendant. , and Messrs. Mr. BAINES went briefly over the facts of the case, and then proceeded to call witnesses : and after sev era l h a d been examined, the Cou r t adjourned. _ CROWN COURT. —SATURDAY. MURDER OF A WIFE BY HER HUSBAND. Wm. Swanton, 40, ivns indicted for the murder of his wife, Ann Swanton, at Wigan, on the 7th instant. Atiolist 27, 18 it. Mr. Sergeant Murphy and Mr. Serrar appeared for the ' prosecution ; and Mr. Wilkins and Mr. James defended the prisoner. e chargedl i l d t e a n l e v,o a if r t e ht d hh , ea f s o i en rn ,g, e r t l e t i a dt t n e te m ls) se e e n sd t , eotafhcalt that the b e c y o s u tpr n ri k sel i si on ng a e, n r d b ev, t a h at e s• ing, and kicking his wife upon the abdomen and other parts of the body with such violence as t.) produce her de cease in the course of two hours after. At the time of the occurrence he seemed to have been an overlooker and manager in the factory of Messrs. Taylor and Brothers, cotton-factors, of Waldgate, Wigan. He resided in 'Vic toria-street, about two hundred yards from the factory, and, on the evening in question. he returned home about twenty minutes to eight o'clock. One circumstance In the case differed in the sequel from ordinary cases of this description, inasmuch as nearly the whole of the evidence affecting the prisoner, instead of depending on the extra neous evidence of any persons who were witnesses to all of the acts of violence, was all derivable from the in' ferences to be drawn from the appearances of the body of the deceased, and the admissions of the prisoner. Mary Anne, the daughter of the deceased, sixteen years of age, corroborated what occurred after the time the prisoner had left the factory to return home. She went to the house about that time, and the only persons then in the place were the prisoner, the deceased, one child, who was up stairs, and another child, in the lower room. When the girl arrived at the door, the prisoner and his wife were both up stairs. Immediately aft e r she hear d one of the children crying, and, presently, the prisoner came down stairs. Upon his coming down the witness went up stairs to ascertain what was the matter, and spo'e to her mother, who was unable to reply. The prisoner followed her up, said he was very sorry for what he had done, and told the witness to go for Mr. Pennington, th e surgeon. She went accordingly, and, when she cam e back, she found her mother sitting below stairs, and she inferred from that fact that her father must base carried her mother from the upper into the lower room. Tbe; prisoner then made an admission to the effect, that he had struck her, that he was sorry for what he had done, snd that if she recovered he would never strike her again' The next witness who spoke to any of the facts was lkfr: Pennington, surgeon ; and he deposed, that it was Ido l ' eight o'clock when the girl came to his shop to stun' mon him, that he accompanied her, and found the de ceased in the lower part of the house. She was; at the time " cruddled" down,—by which it was meant that n n td s h ei c tr a ew u swaesadsa as much hdo ffia as squeeze q c u tuh e l eteyzpeirniasnsodunpedproourbt couldil supporting h dh e oe r r s t e oi l i f ih t to o hi g c the h e t a h i r ep , ra l her up. At this period the prisoner appeared to be aware of the nature of his situation, and was endeavouring to render her every assistance in his power. One of the ap pearances was that there was lying under the seat where she was sitting a pool of blood which was a yard and a, half square. He made an examination of the lower parts of her abdomen, and discovered that blood was still streaming down her legs in large quantities. He directed that she should be put in a recombent position. At that time the pulse was nearly gone, the body was cold and clammy, and she exhibited all the appearances of being dead. He bled her, and ordered her to he taken up stairs. Previous to bleeding her she was in a state of insensibility and inaction, and his object was to give something to re vive her. When bled she seemed to come to herself, and then he administered brandy and water, which fora whiles rallied her to some extent ; but, after having continued in this state until about eleven o'clock, she breathed her last. In addition to describing appearances, Mr• Pennington went on to detail certain statements made hi the prisoner • for it appeared that • after the deceased bad revived a little from having swallowed a portion of the brandy, she contracted a loathing for it, and said, " cannot drink." The prisoner immediately replied , " Thou should'st not have been drunk, and I then would not have done this to thee ;" and the reason here as' signed for the violence he employed against the woman was corroborated by Mr. Pennington, who stated that there was a strong smell of liquor about the deceased. He further stated, that the clothes and bedding of the de ceased were saturated with blood; that his remedies for her restoration were wholly ineffectual ' • and that, besides the other injuries, he observed a wound upon her lip. He asked the prisoner what had caused the latter wound, to which he replied, that he had struck her on the lip with his fist; that it was a sad job, and he was very sorry for it, and he kept continually moaning. He went on to state, that the reason he committed the act was, because, when he came home from his work, he found the house dirty and his wife drunk in bed. He afterwards went and voluntarily surrendered himself to the police, having made a declaration that he had used violence to his vine , and that the result was the death of the woman. A post mortem examination was made, and the surgeon minutely described the wounds. Mr. WILKIN s addressed the jury, strongly endeavour ing to reduce the case from murder to manslaughter. He called the employer of the prisoner, who gave him an ell' cellent character for kindness and humanity; and, after the judge's charge, the jury found the prisoner guiltyt but strongly recommended him to mercy on account 0 1 his previous good character. Sentence deferred. CASE OF GEORGE EVANS. Upon George Evans, charged with the murder of a fe male named Miller, at Manchester, on the 14th instant' being called, lordship Mr. JOSEPH Potr.ocx rose, and applied to his I° • to have the trial postponed. In support of his the learned gentleman read two affidavits from Mr. Ed ward Bent, the prisoner's attorney, which alleged that the evidence given before the magistrate at the time of has committal, and the evidence before the coroner, had been published in the Manchester Guardian, and in conse quence of this publication, a great excitement and prejd' dice had been created in the mind of the public against the prisoner ; and that several of the jury empannelled to try the said George Evans had come from the town where the Manchester Guardian was circulated, and the prisoner, could not be expected to have a fair trial. The ; f73" affidavit set forth that the Manchester Guardiamof i s p e- i nesday contained a letter addressed from the po i t te Bristol to Mr. Superintendent Taylor, of the Mane " --r application, borough police. which contained an account of the i pri soner's former life, and w as i mproper l y pu bi the Manchester id Manchester Guardian, and was hi g hly c alculated to create, a strong prejudice against the prisoner. The learned counsel suggested that there was a case where a sim ilar application had been granted upon similar grounds. LORD CHIEF BARON.—It was some case before inY brother Alderson. Mr. Ponoock.—Ys ; the case of Bolam. Mr. SOWLER.—My lord, I also appear on behalf of the prisoner. I concur in what has fallen from nay learned friend Mr. Pollock, but I would direct your lordship 6 attention to what appears to me a very material distinc tion between this case and that of the Queen v. Bolar 4 in the 2d Moody and Robinson, and the distinction is veF9 much in favour of cur application. Your lordship will observe that in &lam's case the murder was committe d in December, and the trial was to take place on the 4th of March following, so that there was an interval of wor e than two months for any excitement that might preva il to the, prisoner's prejudice to subside. In the present case the offence was committed on the 14th of this month (August), and the prisoner is here on his trial within ten days. Great excitement has prevailed and does still Pre,' vail, and there can be little doubt that the paragrap h complained of in the prisoner's attorney's (Mr. Bent's) affidavit has b, en seen by some of the jurymen. Ther e is another distinction between this and Bolam's case+ which your lordship will not fail to mark. In that case the reports and paragraphs were on the authority merell of the newspapers in which they appeared ; in this case the letter of superintendent Taylor, which appears in the paragraph, bears a kind of official authority about it' which must have great additional weight with all vib e peruse it. On these grounds, my lord, I support 11151 learned friend's applic a tion. Mr. BRANDT said that no stress could be laid upon that part of the affidavit which referred to an infuriate, mob. Ile would not make any allusion to one affidavi t ' It was his wish to have the administration of justice coo; ducted in an honest, public manner. He quite agree?, with what had been said about the publication of 01 letter if any police-officer of Manchester had been instrtl' mental in its publication. His LORDSiiip retired to consult Mr. Justice Cress' an d well. After a short a b sence hi s l or d s hi p re t urne d A consulted my n t y t 0 1 learned r p re o d s t b p r o o n t e h d e .r The e v C r esswell,id evidence s m a d , Th l a that have t is I entirely agree with him, or rather he quite agrees w ith before the coroner and the magistrates have both bee ° pul - Aished ; but there is an additional publication Pl lr duced which is alleged to have come from authority, giving an account of the life and character of the prison er j thP facts of which, if possible, ought to be forgotten, B , n j the immediate impression of which ought to have subsia e , before the prisoner be called on to take his trial. A mot reprehensible publication, more calcul a ted to interfer e ~, with the impartial administration of ju s ti c e I h a ve rate!: l ever met with ; and I think it behoves the persons,!, authority in the town of Manchester to institute t .r P, strictest inquiry, under what circumstance—by whose Efc 71,e mission a letter addressed from the superintendent's cw„ in the central police station, Bridewell-street, Bristol , M`Callum, who purports to be an inspector of police, a• dressed to Mr. Superintendent Taylor, who pro bablY ‘a one of the witnesses—for I see John Taylo r i s on e of tR witnesses at the back of the indictment—l say, it belU ge, a those in authority in Manchester to inquire hew: tier under what circumstances, it could happen that a ' e ;s9, written by one official person t o another found its: ot into the public paper, t o th e d estruction of the eel he justice, as it seems t o me at l east for a time. It woo' ar• doing mischief if I were to read the letter for the P lot' pose of commenti ng upon it. Superintendent Til o s must have known from its nature that that letter ia gti most confidential, and either some one has been A l g :tbe: of great treachery towards him and crime towaru. - „ n ot prisoner, or he h as b een gu il ty o f a cr i m i na l violet:011 duty, whi c h ca ll s for the strictest inquiry. It i s no 'tbia mischief, that, in consequence of this publication, jaue application is made, and a trial, that ought to tak e r take for the vindication of public justice, cannot ne a s the place. I thought it right to make this observation) by no ground on which this trial is to be postponed. 4d e oce , means say that the mere publication of the e's m agiS" taken before the coroner, or that taken before th e bic h rn9 trate, is of itself sufficient. The point upon w thi ; s MOSt brother Cresswell and myself mainly rely ' 5 urpOrt ing improper and, I think, criminal publication, P f e. to give art account of the life, conduct, and histor_Y, l i a bett n thes pr6oner, calculated most deeply to affect him, P o u " but a few days before his supposed trial. UP - , - i s . a nces grounds, the trial must be postponed; the rece i r, tia tod/ must be respited, and the prisoner must rernaio till the next spring assizes —or, rather, the next "' whenever they may take place—at Li ver pool. ~o n. o f so Mr. BRANDT said that his lordship's sugg es " inquiry would most certainly be made. wilt net LORD CHIEF BARON.—I think the authorities , to ju s • discharge their duty unless some:person is br!) r ti c l;7 . istan ce. tice lor it. I car e t( t conceive under what u soineWhere* it could have happened without a criminal fault ij,,r imag ine It certainly calls lor public inquiry, and 1 . n L';',_Y rno t, that it does not in some way deserve pu u