The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-08-09 00:00:00

ON GUILD, 1842. Years, wit th if September, 1842 on and Brandon, K.G Earl of I 3alcarres )n.. the Earl of Sefton Ica Egerton, M•P . Lord Skelmersdale. Sir Robert Peel, Baronet, First Lord Lindsay Bootle WilbrahaiC M.P, aroneleAl•P rd, Baronet Holt Leigh, Bycinet .nard BirctS, Bar keth FlestWond, Baronet, SI.P a Heywood, Baronet. de Trafford, Baronet. a(Sir Thomas Whitehead, K.C.B Knight 'was Bran€ker, Knight. Esq., Smithills Hall. "sq., Downbam Hall. —ten, K.H., Fishwick Hall. rerton, Esq., Euxton Hall. a, Esq., Haighton House. Bourne, Esq., M.P., Hale Hall. 4, Esq., Crosby Hall. d, Esq., Grimsargh House. Ale Braddyll, Esq., Conisbead Priory. .herbert Brockholes, Esq., Clatighton Hall Atli, Esq., Myerscough Cottage. Bourne, Esq., Stalmine Hall. alrow, Esq., Walton Lodge. ice, Esq., Recorder of Liverpool. • fton, Esq., Lytham Hall. ght Crosse, Esq., Shawe Hill. ,tll Farrington, Esq., Worden Hall. ►den, Esq., M.P., Foniscoles. alien Fazakerley, ESQ., Gillibrand Hall. sue, Esq., M.P., Whittington Hall. Haliburton, Esq., Whitley. _ owden Hindle, Esq., Woodfold Park. ..mund George Hornby, Esq., Dalton Hall. !ugh Hornby, Esq., Ribby Hall. leorge Jacson, Esq., Barton Lodge. A. Lomax. Esa., Clayton Hall. Colonel Aus A.nderto Esq., Penwortham Lodge. , ALT— Capernwrav Hall Esq:, Davyhulme Hall. rker, Esq., Cncrden Hall. 'LEIN. , M.P., Bank Hall. Esq., Dunkenhalgh. vstorne, Esq., Penwortbam Hall othwell, Rec Standisl or of Sefton. Esq., M.P. M. Standish. Standish, Esq., Duxbury Park lor, Esq., Moreton Hall. rnpeiit, Esq., Croston Hall. dder, Esq., Ashton Lodge. owing is the arrangement of the Entertainments :-- MONDAY MORNING.Sth September, THE GUILD COURT id, the Guild Books opened, and the legal business did transacted. On MONDAY EVENING, LN D DISPLAY OF FIRE-WORKS, BY MR. BYEWATER. On TUESDAY MORNING, rUE PROCESSION OF THE GUILD, layor, Corporation, Guild' Officers, and Companies of s and Societies to the Parish Church, where the Ser will be preached by the Rev. J. 0. PARR, Vicar of In, and Chaplain of the Guild, and a Church Service med by the principal Vocalists, assisted by an efficient s. under the superintendence of Mr. GEORGE HOLDEN, 3RAND vo lAYORES )N TITEDAY EVENING, lISCELLANEOUS CONCERT 07 ND INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC. BDNESDAY MORNING, PROCESSION, with Ladies, to the Burch, where will be performed S SACRED ORATORIO OF THE MESSIAH, litional accompaniments by MOZART. PRINCIPAL VOCAL PERFORMERS. rch,—Miss Stott,—and Miss Maria B. Hawes. Mr. Hobbs, and Mr. Phillips. INCIPAL INSTRUMENTAL PERFORMERS. st Violins, Mr. Herrman and Mr. Seymour. d Violins, Mr. Shargool and Mr. Eyton. 'errors, Mr. E. Sbargool and Mr. C. Herrmann. rioloncellos, Mr. Wm. Lindley and Mr. Jackson. )ouble Basses, Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Tayleure. Organ, Mr. Matthews. Leader, Mr. Herrmann. Ir. G. Holden will conduct the Chorus. :hestra, selected principally from Birmingham, and Manchester, will consist of Forty-two Per id the Chorus of Sixty-six Voices ; forming, to the Principal Vocalists, a total of ONE HUNDRED RF 61= E RS )AY EVENING, A DRESS BALL. THURSDAY MORNING, Ft FORMANCE OF SACRED MUSIC, _ _ Wilfred, by —Sig. Puzzi,—Sig. _A Sig. Rubini,—comprising A SELECTION FROM THE BRATED "STABAT MATER," By Rossuu. Races, and Regatta ON THURSDAY EVENING, ) CONCERT, principally of VOCAL MUSIC INCIPAL PERFORMERS 4adle. Ostergaard.7 —Signor Puzzi,—Signor Signor Rubini 'On FRIDAY, T TO THE SHOLARS OF ALI, THP SCHOOLS, ifM E . BALL DMISSION first Concert, to the Dress ith separate Tickets of Ad 9q_ oratorio, to t — of these Tickets will be Balloted losed on the 13th instant. TICKETS. &DMISSIO £ s. d. 010 6 0 7 6 0 5 0 0 10 6 0 7 6 0 5 0 0 3 0 3r Seat Unres , Upper Gatler Wilfred's Chapel the Chapel 0 5 0 0 4 0 0 10 6 1 1 0 Parish Church. on Tuesday, September s of the Musical Entertainments and the Balls, aying the expenses, be applied for the benefit CHARLES WILLMER, 4PER AND ADVERTISING AGENT, S ADVERTISEMENTS for insertion in every ablished in ENGLAND, IRELAND, SCOTLAND, iso In the United States of America, British a, and the West Indies. :nts forwarded to London daily. wards to order NEWSWERS, MAGA BOOKS to all parts of UNITED STATES, VA SCOTIA, and NEW BRUNSWICK, by the ERS, sailing on the 4th and 19th of each 4IVERPOOL, as ll as by those from BRISTOL MPTON ; and tall the WEST INDIAN lEXICO, ant TEXAS, by the ROYAL MAIL 'Hinz every fnight from FALMOUTH. :i;b - 4 in the United Kingdom supplied ICANADI i ir, and WEST INDIAN Newspapers bseribers immediately on the arrival of every LL PARCELS received and forwarded to and Canada by the Steamers and Sailing t, June, 1842 WILLIAM nrr, l; PAPER DEALER k STATIONER, N .A ND-STREET, LIVERPOOL, ived the appointment of Agent for the Sale DEN'S INKS and INK POWDERS, COOPER and PHILLIPS, (late WALK TERRY,) No. 5, Shoe-lame ; London, begs 'rade in general that -ley can be supplied Jn, in large oOlnall quantities, on the .e Manufactory in London. ,s the present opportunity to thank his Ai(' for the very liberal support he ha nmenc,sttnPr from t business, begs to assure to merit the cotideuce of ased to honour him with their patronage. is and Shipping Orders particularly at full amount of Excise Drawback allowed Stationery for Exportation. Ruled and Bound to any pattern, and on 4 2 .7 °N.—"Shall I cut this loin of m utton 4 tlenaan, No," said one of his gues ts, "for then I may chance to get a bit in my have on our desk the first boll we have seen p. It is from the plantation (Dun barton) of Gen. R. •ounty, It was Dulled on th e 2Lt h of J une, an d is of apte.—Savannah Republican. ,IP4ES CHECICED.—Lord Chelsea has published tors of Reading, embodying a letter from the heryuer, refusi ng the Stewardship of the . ground that he feels bound not to be instru the compromise disclosed by the late com- • -The cage, measuring 2 feet a inches in in depth, in which the unfortunate Mrs. r weeks by the Chinese, when she was and child on their shores, has just been -- It is made of rough fir stakes, and ish Museum ent and England, which tenni England the winner, with nine UNIVERSITY. - Dr. Longfield ha 4 is iti o n to Mr. G. 4 1.1Iami!ton, as rnembe. 'lie principal objection raised against Mr in Oxford man, and the Statesman say e show school to represent such a hig' mbers the Universit-- of unemployed seamet: than on any previous occa jest ship-owners nst embarked for the continent :d to go abroad for a short time !made affection, from which he kod, of London, hung himself e Goodwood races. The poor the tur t for 14 hours and of an hour only. Orracompoun - d stern. —Coy ruin 3s. to Is. per quarter ; and a _tither decline of 2s. per quarter ation for this borough toc as proposed by Mr. Hardwick, Charlton, the candidate at the la by Mr. Bean and seconded by M ght o'clo( th( numbers were:—}ir Wult&ir for Ur. Walter, 81. A. GR THE NEWFOt in our pad abstract of the 'NDLAND BILL iamentary summary on Friday, a brief of Sir Howard Douglas in the House of Commons, on Wednesday, on the adjourned debate on Lord Stant Howard on such a subject, from his acquaintance with the country and it habitants, are peculiarly valuable, and as the provisions of the bill are of great importance to a consi- derable number of our readers, we are glad to be present them with a full report of Howard's address which made a deep impression on the house, and was warmly applauded by Lord Stanley. Our honourable member proves himself on every occasion a well-qualified representative of a commercial constituency ; and by his attention to every measure which affects the mercantile interests of the coun try, or of this borough, has shewn that he is not only of the service to the government, but the best member greatest that Liverpool could have chosen. The following is Sir Howard's speech I should not like to give a silent vote upon this subject ; a subject involving question ,, of the greatest importance in principle, in practice, and iii tendency. Immature seizures upon liberty, by untimely applications of constitutional theories ill adapted to the peculiar condi tion and actual wants of the communities to which they are to be applied, invariably occasion disorders and reactions hurtful to freedom and pernicious to the people for whose benefit those theories were designed, and who are thus made the subjects of such rash and ill-advised experiments. It is not my intention to notice at all any religious dissen tions, or to advert to any divisions with respect to religious persuasions which may or may not have appeared in recent disorders in Newfoundland; bat taking the population as a whole, I will say that there never was a case in which the truth of the position to which I have adverted is so apparent as in that which we are now considering. It is clear, from what has been laid upon the table of this house, from all that we know here, from what has been stated by the honourable member for Droitwich, and by the honourable member for I ? iskeard, that it was a great mistake to confer upon this colony, in 1832, that constitution which we are now called upon, either to modify or take away. Freedom to be well enjoyed,stiould never be seized upon immaturely. The way to profit by 'conjunctures favourable to the advance ment and diffusion of freedom is not to attempt all that a perfect or highly-advanced theory teaches and admits of, with respect to a people more or less accustomed to the en joyment and workings of free institutions. The practical statesman should let himielf down to an exact and deliberate consideration of the actual, the backward, imperfect, or perhaps primitive state of society. to ascertain whether the people in the community in question be in a state to receive, with advantage and safety to themselves, the prof d sys- tem ; and if riot, to adopt the necessary measures to prepare them gradually to discharge the difficult and important duties which free institutions impose upon all classes of the people; and then, and not till then, to confer those institu tions upon them. Now . l think this has not been observed with respect to Newfoundland. I know something of that island. Ifirst became acquainted with it in almost all its parts inhabited, as well as in some parts uninhabited, I having been ship wrecked upon its shores, and mercifully preserved with the other survivors of a terrible calamity, in which one-third of the officers, soldiers, crew, and all the women and children perished, and here I feel it impossible not to express the strongest possible feelings of gra titude towards a kind hearted, hospitable, and generous people, for their uncom mon kindness and even tenderness to us, and among whom there numbered a very large portion of the countrymen of the right hon. the member for Cork. When I returned some years afterwards to British North America, 1 found Newfoundland at my command; and in that situation, and in the government afterwards of one of the continental pro vinces of British North America, I was enabled to bring up my information with respect to Newfoundland to the peril:o at which this constitution for them was discussed and framed, and to express my apprehension and conviction that it would lead to trouble and disorder. Why, sir, at that time the population of Newfoundland, always migratory and uncer tain, could not have been 60,000—1 doubt whether it was above 50,000--dispersed on part of a coast of an island near 400 miles long and 300 broad. The honourable member for Montrose states that the population at present is near 100,000. The last official returns state it to be 75,000. In 1832 there could not have been any schools, excepting, per haps in St. John's and some other towns. There are at present only 16 schools, and not, I think, above 3,000 scho lars of both sexes. I do not say that at that time nothing was required for the organization, improvement, and better government of Newfoundland ; but I think that that some thing ought not to have been the constitution then prema turely conferred upon it. A resident governor, with respon sible executive council, the settlement and improvement of the country, an improved organization and administration of justice, and public education, was all that was required at that time, and I should have thought for some time to come. However, the constitution was given —it has occasioned the disorders, the accounts of which we have before us. It is quite impossible that things can go on as they are ; and a case is made out which calls upon us either to take that con stitution away or to modify it. This case presents a choice of evils. Of these I take what I deem to be the lesser evil, that of modification, and shall accordingly support as a whole the bill proposed by my noble friend the secretary of state for the colonies. First, with respect to that part of the remedial measure which consists in raising the qualification, I entirely approve of that. I think something like this should have been done at first. If lam told that in 1832 the state of Newfoundland was such that no sufficient qualification could be had without acting almost exclusively, I should say that that was a sig❑ most distinctly denoting that that community had not ar rived at a state to receive and to work a representative sys tem. And even where communities appear to be sufficiently advanced to receive such a system the qualifications for re presentatives as well as voters should be comparatively high, that the representation may be select, and the constituency by limitation respectable and intelligent. Then as society improves the qualifications may, if necessary, be reduced to open the representation and extend the constituency, but here too we are forced back, raising the constituency instead of reducing it, and all these are the necessary reactions of a rash and untimely experiment. I now come to that part of the bill which I own I approach with great dread, and upon which I entertain great scruples and doubts : I mean the abolition of the council as a sepa rate branch of the legislature, and combining together in one chamber the elementary principles of nomination and elec tion ; and I only vote for this as a case of extreme necessity, a temporary expedient to avoid the greater evil, that of abro gating the constitution altogether. But, in so voting, I pro test against the dangerous and unconstitutional innovation which this makes in principle upon the British and British colonial constitution ; so that, whilst supporting my noble friend the Secretary of State for the colonies in this mea sure with the strong objections which 1 feel to it in principle, I may learn from him distinctly that he admits these objec tions in principle, that this is to be a temporary measure, and that whenever the state of society in Newfoundland ad mits of enlarging the constitution by resolving to the ele mentary principles of nomination by the crown, and election by the people, into their distinct and appropriate estates and chambers, that this will be done. But now I must refer to this measure, which, as a principle, was, it appears, designed to be applied originally to Newfoundland in 1832. Sir, I protest most strongly against the principle of applying the British constitution in mutilated form to any British com munity. If a colonial community be in such a state as not to furnish materials sufficient for the machinery of a repre sentative system in all its branches, according to the form and principles of the British constitution, this too is a sign that that community has not arrived at a state such as to supply the machinery requisite for the working and success of the representative system, and therefore that the commu nity should be kept in that less perfect form of government which consists of a governor and executive council. Ad verting, then, to the reasons assigned by the noble lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1832, for having, on the grounds of this insufficiency, designed to apply a consti tution to Newfoundland in this mutilated form, had he not then been restrained by the then existing royal instructions, I beg leave, with the greatest respect to that noble lord, to express my entire dissent from that reasoning, and from the deductions drawn therefrom. I protest, too, , against the peculiar constitution of British Guiana being drawn into a precedent for imitation with respect to Bri tish colonial communities. That constitution is foreign. It was established there before that colony became a British possession. It may be well to leave that colony for a time under the peculiar form of government which it formerly possessed, and to which the people are habituated ; but I must protest against that form of government being applied in any degree to British Colonial communities. So, with respect to Australia. I object strongly to the establishment of a representative system in one branch ; and hope here, too, that the constitution will, as soon as possible, be ampli fied. The two elementary principles—aristocratic and demo cratic, compounded together in one chamber cannot long sub sist together : one or other must prevail, and that one must be the democratic principle. As with respect to the House of Peers here, so with respect to the colonies • the councils as separate branches of the legislature are the foundations of the monarchical principle. These cannot be abolished without endangering the monarchical form of government, or monarchical principle. The separate action of the other two elementary principles in their separate estates, their jealousies of each other, their attachments to their privileges, the resistance of each to the encroachments of the other, are indispensibly necessary to maintain the balances of the British constitution, and thereby enable the crown to coun terpoise the democratic principle. I doubt very much whe ther —having amalgamated these principles. having abolished . . _ or withheld — a council as a branch of any legislative hotly, when it is found necessary in process of time to resolve these two principles into different branches—clamours will not then be raised to make the councils elective. In every case the object should be to raise an imperfect, backward state of society to such a comparatively perfect state as to admit of the application of the British constitution in its triple estate perfect in its form and branches, and not to lower and muti late it, to adapt it to an imperfect, unsuitable, and almost primitive state of society, by depriving that constitution of its essential form, feature, and mechanism ; taking out, in short, one of its principal wheels. Sir, there has been too much tampering already with the colonial councils; as separate branches of the colonial legis latures they have been too much deprived of the aristocratic principles , • too much of the democratic principle infused into them. The monarchical principle has thereby come into defect, the crown thereby deprived of much of its ne cessary intinence. I am prepared to show with respect to the history of Massachusets and other parts of the old pro vinces, that it was by such subversions of the monarchical principle and of the councils, and by their becoming elective, that the power of the crown was ultimately overpowered in the legislative bodies, where both branches being elective combined against the other. Sir, I think that the colonial councils as branches of the colonial legislature require to be supported, to be invigorated and encouraged, ix a due and suitable manner, considering the great run that has been made and i s making against them. Observe the c ollisions that are t a ki ng p l ace i n Prince Edward's Island between the Council and the Assembly. Collisions, as the House of Assembly state are so serious, that there is no prospect of agreement; and, therefore, they demand a change in the council, or no co constitution. I have no doubt that they may, under the reformed in 1839 in fluences.be induced to p of these examples, mem bers, six of der the crown. and of these onl was a great mista;kep the influence of Y the into a separate now is only 47,000 pray for an elective uncil at all, for the legislative council was and with respect to the almost universal suffr ; a i a of the value of t 35 only ! r h e r v o i w ot n is , to thatit consisted of nine thesemem- N b o eing functionaries holding situations un der would advise my noble f • the council consists of 12 members, three e are functionaries, and so far under yet these troubles continue. It provincialre too to erect Prince Edward's Island for the Colonies, to annex Prin r c i e utu Brunswick, and I will venture to a " l e n s da t io rt icfi b e lilm r :nt. The population must then have been very trifling, that of the voter is If the representative property these squabbles continue, I Edward's Island to New interest, but the subjects of the Secretary of State b n l e a c t c h o e u r n e t , though pe rso n t a h l e dispute would be speedily settled, o m b o je r c e tio tr n oll o I Sir, I have advisedly spoken all this , to m a y ig t i l: t athere will be no be of course some . guard my se lf ingiving this against any supposition gotten the lessons which experience and some study tau for me, when conducting colonial governments ; with thesaeught planations I shall vote for the bill of the noble lord. ex- More-than a hundred emi g rants left London, on Monday, f or Nelson, the new settlement of the New Zealand Company, in New Zealand. SUMMER ASSIZES .-FRID Lord Chief Justice DENMAN.) His Lordship took hi ,eat shortly after nine o'clock William Saxon, labourer, of Heaton Norris, was indicted for an offence of this description. The particulars were unfit for publication. The proof was insufficient to convict, and the Judge directed an acquittal. The prisoner was quite a youth. He was defended by Mr. Wilkins. Mr. Brandt appeared for the prosecution :fob Valentine, 23, of Eccles, was similarly indicted. Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution. The jury, after a few minutes' consideration, found the prisoner guilty. The Judge told him that his life was forfeited, though he would not be executed, but sent, probably, to some distant colony for life. Death recorded. STEALING FROM THE PEELSON William Heaton, 23, was indicted for having indecently assaulted an old woman, 74 years of age, at West Houghton, and stolen from her two shifts and a pair of clogs. The after some hesitancy, convicted him, and he was sentenced to three months' imprisonment and hard labour, the first and last week solitary. 'ORGING A SEAMAN'S WILL Margaret M. Grath, 19, and Sarah Hodpkinson, 29, were indicted on a charge of having feloniously offered and uttered a certain forged will and testament of one Robert Wilson, with intent to defraud the representatives of that individual. Mr. Adolphus conducted the prosecution. Mr. Owen, clerk in the Registrar's Office, Chester, produced the forged will, with a certificate attached. The Rev. T. S. Bowstead, sur rogate, said the instrument produced was handed to him on the Ist of February last, by a woman who called herself M`Grath, but whom he could not identify. She was sworn to it, and it was sent to Chestir for probate. The probate was got from Chester, and he gave it to Mr. Maddock the clerk. —Thomas Maddock, clerk of St. Philip's Church, was sent, in April last, by Mr. Bowstead to Mr. Hurry, agent to the port trustees, with the probate. M'Grath came to him, and said Mr. Bowstead wished him to go with her to Mr. Hurry. He went with her to that gentlemen. Mrs. Ann Taylor was there. Mr. Hurry refused to pay the money, as he said he thought it was not a true will. Mrs. Taylor ob ,ed to the money being paid. Witness went again to Mr. rry's, by request of M'Grath, , for the money. He went, Mr. Hurry refused to pay it. He went a third time, at request, and he still refused to pay it. He went with a view to get the fees for the probate out of the money. The will and probate were here read, by which the prisoner was made sole executrix of the said Robert Wilson, at his de cease, and a previous will in favour of Ann Taylor, of Ray street, was revoked. The certificate of the prisoner M'Grath, to the effect that she was sole heir, and sworn to by her be fore the Surrogate, was also read. It was dated 27th Feb., 1842.—Ann Taylor, a lodging-house keeper, said the de ceased owed her upwards of £3 ter board wages. He sailed with the ship Peru on the 28th February. 1841. The ship returned hrime in the beginning of the present year. She went several times to Mr. Flurry, and there saw Sarah Hodgkinson, who asked her her name, which she told her. She afterwards met the prisoner M'Grath and Mr. Mad dock. They both asked them to go into Mr. Hurry's office. They went there. Mr. Maddock showed the probate to Mr. Hurry, and the witness said it was false. M'Grath had a child with her, as now, and said it was Wilson's, and he had left the property for it. Witness inquired the date of the will, and was told it was the Ist of March. Witness said it was false. as Wilson had gone before it was dated. M'Grath said she had known Wilson two or three weeks before he went. M'Grath said he was a middling fine man, tall, and with whiskers, all of which witness denied, as he was a very small dark-complexioned man, without whiskers. She went again, and found the prisoners there with Mr. Maddock. Witness afterwards saw Ainsworth, the constable. The prisoners had employed Mr. Davies, an attorney, in John-street. She there saw Hodgkinson, who said M'Grath's mistress was ill, and she could not come. Hodg kinson said M'Grath lived in Chapel-place, Brick-street. She afterwards saw M'Grath, in presence of Ainsworth, and she then said the child was not her's. Wilson could not read nor write. He did not knosv a letter in a book. On cross-examination by M'Grath, witness admitted that she once said she wished the business was settled, and she agreed to take the money owing to her by the deceased—they hav ing offered her £4.—Harriet H ilton, wife of a publican, said M'Grath was in her service. Hodgkinson often came to the house, and asked M'Grath to go out with her, which the frequently did. M'Grath•said that she was receiving money from her uncle, and afterwards that it was from her sweet heart. Before she was taken into custody, she told witness she had done wrong, as she had signed a false will, and that it was through Mr. and Mrs. Hodgkinson. She afterwards said she had received some drink from them, and that was the reason she had signed it. She had never been ill, while the prisoner was with her. The prisoner Hodgkinson, who had a child in her arms, said she had three children, and had been deserted by her husband and left destitute.—Constable Ainsworth apprehended the prisoner M'Grath at Mr. Hilton's public-house, Henderson• street. He charged her with having forged the will of a Robert Wilson. She said she had not—she could not write. He asked her if she had had a child by Wilson, and she said she never had a child. She said she was taken to Hurry's by Burns, who had per suaded her to sign the certificate of the will, and to say she had a child.—The cooper of the ship said Wilson went on board the Peru with him, on the 28th February, 1841, with witness. He died at Benin, on the coast of Africa, before the return voyage.—lt was shown that Messrs. Harrison, owners of the Peru, had paid over a sum of £l4 ss. 6d., due to Wilson, to Mr. Hurry.—William Edmondson proved that Wilson could not write, as he had made his mark fre quently in place of signing it, to advance shipping notes, &c.— ject Hui but her Mr. Hurry, receiver of dead-,money for the port trustees, said he received, on the Ist of February last, £l4 ss. 6d., due to the late Robert Wilson. Both the prisoners fre quently called for the money.—The learned Judge summed up, and the jury found both prisoners guilty, and they were put down to wait the result of the other similar cases. ANOTHER WILL FORGERY. Ann Bevan, 44, and Catharine Williams, 30, were indicted for having forged a will, purporting to be that of John Kenny, of Liverpool, mariner, with intent to defraud the represen tatives of the said John Kenny. Mr. ADOLPHUS appeared for the prosecution. The pri soners were undefended. Mr. ADOLPUL S stated the facts, which were briefly as follow :—John Kenny, a seaman on board the Superb, for Port Adelaide, New Holland, sailed on the 21st of July, 1840, and died during the return voyage in August, 1811. Messrs. Claypole were the owners, and had a balance of wages due to him in their hands. On the 18th of February, 1842, the prisoner, Bevan, went to tae Rev. John Hermann Stafford and, produced a will made in favour of Margaret Dawson, swearing that she was that person, and received probate as executrix. On the 26th of March the prisoner, Williams, took the probate to Mr. Charles Hesketh clerk to Mr. Clare, Solicitor, Liverpool, and represented her self to be Margaret Dawson. She then went to Mr. Charles Townley Pover, clerk to Messrs. Claypole, for the money, and was told that it had b een pa id to Mr. John Gardon, the uncle of deceased. Mr. Gardon, ou hearing of the applica tion, went to the alleged residence of Margaret Dawson, No. 2, Jones's-buildings, Birkett-street, where he saw Williams, who represented herself to be that person, and said the child she had in her arms was his nephew's, that it was eight months old, had been born on the 16th July, that she had known him two years and that he was a Scotsman, when he was never in Liverpo6 :until June last, and remained only till the 21st July, ands a native of Harwich. Williams, when before the magi Sates, stated that the will had been brought to her by Mrs. Burns, who had instructed her what to say and do. George Kewley, mate of the Superb on the return voyage, proved the death of the deceased. Mr. the magistrates' clerk, proved the depositions. The pri soner, Williams, received an excellent character. The jury found the prisoner guilty. ANOTHER FORGERY OF A SEAXI AN'S WILL Thomas Burns, 45, was indicted for having, aiLiverpool, feloniously forged, and in another count feloniously offered and uttered a certain forged will and testament, purporting to be the last will and testament of one Georg e D unn , with intent to defraud the representatives of the said George Dunn. Mr. ADOLPHUS was also engaged for this prosecution. The case was very similar to the two former. Dunn was a seaman on board the ship Emma, the owners of which were Messrs. Edward Halton and others, and sailed on the Ist of August, 1840, for the coast of Africa. He died on the sth of January, 1841, on the return voyage, and on the vessel arriving the prisoner went to the R ev . M r. S ta ff or d , as the executor, and obtained probate in the name of Thos. Jones. He was not, however, succes s f u l i n o b ta i n i ng t h e money, as it had been previously paid to Ellen Dunn, the mother of the deceased. The names of the witnesses to the forged will were John Burns and George Williams. The prisoner said he had done it in order to get the sum of twenty-eight shillings owing F to him by the deceased; and that during twenty-four years residence in Liverpool he had borne an excellent character, having served Mr. Rathbone, Sir Joshua Walmsley, and the first men in the town, and never having defrauded any body of a sixpence. The jury immediately found him guilty. All the prisoners were then placed at the bar for judgment. His LORDSHIP observed that he hoped these -inquiries would be of some service. The frauds which weak-minded persons were led to commit by others of greater cunning were easily proved, and almost impossible of success. Burns appeared to be connected with all the transactions. He had been convicted of forgery, and had admitted that he did it to get money that was owing to him, but if he had done so this would have been a fraud upon the mother of Dunn, who was entitled to the property. The offence was of the most serious character, and it was necessary that he should be made a public example. The sentence of the court was that he should be transported beyond the seas for the period of fifteen years. With respect to the females he did not mean to pass a severe sentence upon them ; it was through their weakness they had been led to commit these mean and wretched frauds which were committed by the aid of perjury. The sentence upon each of them was that they be impri soned and kept to hard labour for six calendar months. THROWING VITRIOL Alice Carron, a married woman, of about thirty-three years old, with an infant in her arms, pleaded guilty to an indictment, charging her with having thrown a quantity of vitriol over her husband, doing him grievous bodily harm. Mr. WlLams said the woman had been in an agony of grief ever since the unfortunate occurrence. Her husband was present in court, and willing to admit that he had driven her almost to madness by his conduct, and treated her with great cruelty. The vitriol had not been got for the purpose, but had been some time in the house for the cleaning of rusty metal. The JUDGE remarked that it was thrown when her hus band was asleep. Mr. WILKINS suggested that he was in a state of intoxica tion, and would sooner be asleep than if sober. He had struck his wife one blow on this occasion, and had often be fore beat her severely. The husband said that she had always been a faithful and affectionate wife to him, though he had used her very ill. He should be happy if he were to live with her again, and the children were quite lost for want of her attention. The JUDGE said he would take time to consider the sen tence. MANSLAUGHTER AT LIVERPOOL. William Smith was indicted for having killed and slain Eliza May. Mr. Hu - lton was for the prosecution, and Mr. Hampson for the prisoner. The deceased was a loose woman; very drunk en an d guar relsome, and had just come from prison on th e 2 8th of April At nine o'clock she was passing along Preston - street, where . the prisoner wqs making a small boat w i th a k n i fe. She as saulted him, and he struck her on the neck w i t h t h e knife, severing the carot id arteg. She died almost i mme di ately. The jury found the prisoner guilty. The JUDGE caution ed him a g ainst eve r usin g a knife in the same manner again, and sentenced him to seven d a y s ' imprisonment STABBING AT LIVERPOOL. John Carney, a rough-looking man, aged about 22, was indicted for cutting and stabbing James Graham, with intent to maim, disable, or do him some grievous bodily harm. Mr. Hulton was for the prosecution ; the prisoner was undefended. The prosecutor, who is a labouring man, stated, that he was in Dale-street on the morning of Sunday, the lith of July, at a quarter-past six o'clock, when the prisoner passed and spoke to him. He replied, and a scuffle ensued, wh en the prisoner struck the prosecutor with a knife, inflicting two wounds on his person, one in the belly and another in the chest. The surgeon said they were very slight, and the prosecutor was able to go to his work in three days. The prisoner said he had been drinking at a house in the neighbourhood, and was in the act of cutting some tobacco, when the prosecutor attempted to take his ale from before him, and snatched the pipe froth his companion's mouth and ran out. He followed, and tbe' prosecutor knocked him down by the parapet and kicked him, when he inflicted the wounds in self-defence Witnesses were called on both sid _Lae counsel for the prosec been two different squabbles. ;eci that there Verdict—Guilty oY common assault,'aCquitting him of the felonious attempt.: Sentence—Twelve months' imprison ment and hard labour; the first week solitary, the week at the enc solitary irst six weeks so itary, an, he last week Jahn Martin, 25, a man of colons~, was indicted for having cut and stabbed James .Donohoe, with intent to maim, dis figure, or do him some bodily harm. Mr. Holland was for the prosecution. The prisoner was undefended. The offence was committed about eleven o'clock on the night of the 13th of May, in Vauxhall-road. The prisoner was taking a handkerchief from two females, when the pro secutor interfered. A quarrel ensued. Some blows were struck ; and the prisoner drew a knife and inflicted wounds upon the prosecutor's left cheek and nose, on the left hand, and in the belly. The prosecutor remained at the Northern Hospital twelve days. _ . The prisoner said - he took the handkerchief because the women had taken one of his, and he had been severely ill treated by the prosecutor and others who were with him. Verdict—guilty. Sentence — eighteen months' imprison ment. 015TH LANCASHIRE CROWN COURT, STABBING Joseph Pedley was indicted for stabbing Richard Webster, at Liverpool. On Thursday, the 21st July, the prosecutor was in Maguire-street, and observed the prisoner holding a little child with its face down in the hot water which pro ceeded from Bullen's brewery, and immediately interfered and collared him, soon after which the prisoner took out a knife and stabbed him in the breast, causing a wound to be produced about two inches in depth. The prisoner was im mediately apprehended. • The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to sixteen mouths' imprisonment and hard labour. Alice Carron was brought up, and sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment and bard labour. The court rose at a quarter-past five. NISI PRIUS COURT.---FILIDAY (Special Jury Case.) Bowker and Another v. Burdekin, public officer.—This was an action in trover to recover possession of certain . —aar. Knowl es , i n s t a ti ng th e goods, or the value of them case, said that the plaintiffs, Joseph Bowker and John Whitelegg, were the assignees of Messrs. Richard, John, and James Potter, bankrupts, and the defendant, Mr. Edward Burdekin, was one of the public registered officers of the Bank of Manchester. For many years Messrs. Potter carried on business at Manchester, and the plaintiffs, as their assignees, sought to recover from the bank a sum of between £20,000 and £30,000, being the value of goods which the defendants had obtained possession of and which the plaintffs said the bank was not entitled to retain in opposition to the claim of the bankrupts' assignees. There would, in fact, be scarcely any questions for the jury, however, because, after he had given formal proof, and shown the several ingre dients necessary to raise the questions, his learned friend would then justify under the execution, and it would become a question for the court, or perhaps for a higher tribunal, as to which party was entitled to hold under the peculiar cir cumstances of the case. The bankrupts carried on business at Birkacre, near Chorley, where the works were situate, and at Pollard's Mill, in Ancoats, Manchester. The at tendance of Richard, the father, was not so regular as that of his two sons. James was not altogether employed at the works, and John attended at the mill, and also on 'change. In 1841 the Potters were embarrassed ; some of their creditors were paid by small instalments, but for the most part not at ull. That would be general evidence of their insolvency at the time that Mr. Bowker, a cotton merchant, and a petitioning creditor under the present fiat, was a large creditor. the bankrupts owing him, when the fiat was issued, the sum of £2,400. The defendant, in one of the pleas, disputed the petitioning creditor's debt; but Mr. Booker held a dishonoured acceptance of the bankrupts quite sufficient to establish his claim. It was necessary to esta blish an act of bankruptcy in the conduct of each of the three partners at some time previous to the issue of the fiat, namely, the 13th September, 1841. The learned counsel then detailed circumstances which amounted to acts of bank ruptcy on the part of Richard, James, and John Potter, which it is unnecessary here to detail. The Bank of Man chester had made large advances to the firm on the security of a warrant of attorney; judgment was entered upon it; and the bank, availing themselves of their rights, put in an execution. A question of law would arise for the considera tion of the court as to whether, under the circumstances of the case, the defence as against the assignees of the bank rupts could be supported. The goods seized amounted to between £20,000 and £30,000 ; and if the plaintiffs were en titled to recover, the next question would be to what amount? The learned counsel contended they were entitled to recover the full value of the goods at the time they were taken away by the bank. It might be urged on the other side that what the bank ought .to pay was the amount which the goods fetched when they were sold ; but, in an swer to that, he should say that the sale was grossly mis managed. The bank, indeed, had notice that the party . to whom the sale was entrusted was not a proper person to manage such a sale; and that the goods did not fetch more than one-third of their actual value. Mr. WORTLEY, on the part of the plaintiff, called the attention of the learned Judge to an order from the court above under the lnterpleader act requiring the Sheriff to sell the goods which had been seized, pay the money into court, and directing the present action to try the right of the par ties to the proceeds, the Sheriff in the mean time beingain demnified. The money was now in court. Some discussion on technical points connected with the practice took place, at the end of which it was understood that the inquiry should be directed to this point—the suggestion of a reference not being adopted. Evidence of acts of bankruptcy was then gone into; the fiat was put in, and the appointment of the plaintiffs as assignees ; and evidence was also given of the value of the goods and the mode in which they had been sold.—Mr. Wortley then addressed the jury, contending that in order to entitle the plaintiffs to recover the large amount which they claimed, his learned friend must prove an act of bankruptcy on the part of all the three Potters. As to James Potter no proof had been given ; and as to the other two the evidence was insufficient. The learned coun sel examined the facts of the case with the view of establish ing this proposition. The assignment relied on as an act of bankruptcy was invalid because it was a collusive and a con certed act. Indeed in so great a hurry was it prepared that James Potter had not time to sign it till after the fiat had been issued. As to the valuation of the machinery, he con tended that if even the plaintiff had made out in this respect he was entitled to only n ominal damages ; but if the court should think differently, he would contend upon the evi dence that, when the, period at which the sale took place was considered, the proper value of them had been obtained. Under all the circumstances, he called upon the jury to give their verdict for the defendant. —Mr. Justice Maule having summed up, the jury retired to consider their verdict, and after a long absence they returned, giving a special verdict for the plaintiffs, damages £15,000, on the assignment as respected Richard Potter ; but as respects James and John, that they had committed separate acts of bankruptcy. THE COMMERCIAL BANK OF ENGLAND. Davidson, public officer, v. Heywood.—This was an ac tion brought by Alexander Davidson, public registered officer of the Commercial Bank of England, at Manchester, against Richard Heywood, of Burslem, to recover £3,390, alleged to be due from him to the bank. Mr. Knowles, Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff, and for the defendant, Mr. Dandas and Mr. Warren. Mr. KNOWLES said the object of this action was to recover £3,390, which he alleged the plaintiff was entitled to recover, eithe ras the price of certain shares sold to the defendant, or for money lent to him to pay for those shares. On one or other of these grounds the plaintiff would be entitled to a verdict. The bank was established in 1834. It appeared to be originally set on foot by a gentleman named Macardie ; and a provisional committee, composed of the defendant, and Messrs. Bower, Turner, Slater, and Patin. These five gentlemen were afterwards appointed the original directors. It was intended that the bank should consist of 100,000 shares of £5 each, and it was the qualification that a director on the Manchester board should hold 200 shares, and on each of the local boards 100 shares. The five gentlemen just named, who had been appointed provisional directors, were consti tuted directors, and it was resolved that their proceed ings should be under the supervision of the general board of directors, which general board should be composed of the Manchester directors, and of one man from each of the local branches. Branches were established in Liverpool, Burslem, and a number of other place s . There was a re serve made, however, the particulars of which he could not establish, by which the directors reserved 13,000 shares for distribution among themselves. Bower, Ashton, Slater, and the directors had 1500 each, and Macardie had 2000, which gave 9500 shares to the Manch es t er b oar d an d M acar di e . Then the local directors had 2300 to distribute among them selves. Among others, it would be found that the defendant, who resided at Burslem, had 800; and he became one of the members of the general board, in conjunction with the Man chester directors. He should, hereafter, show fee dates when Mr. Heywood treated these shares as his own : the exact date of their appropriation be perhaps should not be able to prove. Soon after the bank had been in operation, it began to do an exceedingly profitable business. On the 3d February, 1836, there was a general board of the direc tors, at which Mr. Heywood was present, and at that meet ing a report was presented to the shareholders which said " the grand negative characteristic of this bank is the total rejection of nominal capital." The jury would hereafter find that the shares he was about to speak of were nominal capital altogether. At the end of the report a dividend of 8 per cent. was declared upon the appropriated shares of the company. The general body of the proprietors accordingly voted thanks to the directors, arid consented to the report, which recom mended a dividend of 8 per cent. Iu that year, 1836, these 800 shares were entered in the books, and Mr. Hey wood having another 100 shares, by virtue of which he was entitled to, be a director, received the dividend of &per cent. upon his 900 shares. But it was Part of the plan of these gentlemen that they should borrow from the funds of the bank the shareholders' money to pay for the shares they had thus appropriated to themselves, and they agreed to pay the bank interest upon the sums borrowed at the rate of 4 per cent. On his 800 shares be received £320 as his divdend, and then he was debited with interest on the shares from the 2d June to the 31st December, 1836, £252 18s. Bd., so that he would be entitled to put in his pocket £67 ls. 4d., the difference between those sums. This £67 ls. 4d. was car ried to the Burstein branch to the account of a firm of which Mr. Heywood was a member, and thus he put into his pocket, the difference between the interest he owed and tine dividend of 8 per cent. From this time the jury would find that these shares were treated as Mr. Heywood 's shares, and at every subsequent meeting they would find that whenever a dividend was declared of more than £5 per cent., Mr. Heywood always got the amount of dividend after having paid the 4 per cent., and he bad to pay for the purchase of the shares. After the first meeting, Mr. Heywood convened a meeting of the Burslem proprietors, and communicated to them what had been done in Manchester, and a vote of thanks was voted to them in a letter from Mr. Heywood to Mr. Bower. The next meeting was held on the 9th February, 1837, and the report of the directors was then sanctioned by Mr. Heywood, in which the directors stated that they laid a statement of the finances of the bank before the shareholders, the result of which was that there had been a profit of £27,098 10s. 11d., which amounted to 10i percent. upon the paid up ca pital, of which £19,000 was available for the purpose of a dividend. A dividend of 5 per cent. per annum upon the paid up capital was declared. m r . Heywood took that divi dend, and, like the former, it was carried to his credit in the bank. The next meeting was held in February, 1838, bein g the third an nua l meeting ; and, the d irectors the n stated that! their paid up ca pit a l was £260,935, which included th e 80 0 shares of Mr. Heywood, and they recommended a dividend of 5 per cent. upon it. This dividend Mr. Heywood did not receive upon his 800 shares. Why? Because a few day s before he hatrsold 200 of them to Mr. Holt; he completed the transfer of those shares a few days afterwards; he re ceived the money for those shares through the agent of the bank ; and directed the agent how it was to be appli e d . He sold those 200 shares at a profit of 12s. 6d. a share, making £ll3B ls. 4d., which was paid in money by Mr. Bolt, and carried by the direction of Mr. Heywood to.his credit in the bank books. The meetings were afterwards alte re d to half yearly meetin gs , a n d whe n the directors made the report in the August following, Mr. Heywood was there again. The directors declared the amount of paid up capital, which ineluded the shares of the defendant, and they recommended a dividend of 7 per cent. per annum, which Mr. Heywood re ceived on his shares. . At the following half-yearly meeting a similar statement and dividend were declared and made. At this time some suspicions had crept into the minds of the local directors that the 'Manchester directors were in arrears to the bank, and consequently it was moved and seconded, that at.the next general board meeting the current accounts the head. branch should he submitted to inspection. Th were laid before the next board meeting, which was held the Ist Jan. 1840: amlitors wet appointed, and it was then apparent that great irregularity bad crept into the affairs of the bank,—that the directors had borrowed large sums, and were then largely indebted to the bank. Another half-yearly meeting was held, at which a dividend of 2 per cent. was •lared, which Mr. Haywood put into his pocket. Soon after this, namely, on the 27th of June, 1840, the bank stopped payment, so far as public business was concerned, although it was kept open even now for the purpose of wind ing up its own affairs or other transactions. Mr. Haywood was then called upon to pay what he owed to the bank, and then he declared that he had never accepted the 800 shares. That was the question the jury would have to decide; and he trusted that the facts he should be able to prove would justify them in finding a verdict for the plaintiff. __ _ Mi. Thomas Hebbiewhite was the first witness. He said he was one of the local directors appointed to the general board. He proved the presence of the defendant at the board meetings referred to, and his testimony generally con firmed the statements of the learned counsel. Mr. Hay wood was a brickmaker, and reputed to be rich, but witness did not know whether he dealt in shales for other people.— Thomas Jones, a clerk in the bank, produced the account current, which it was his duty to make up from the ledger.— Mr. Dundas objected to the production of this book, on the ground that it had not been brought specifically under the notice of the defendant at the general board meetings. — The Judge allowed the objection, but took a note of the tender of the'book, and on the same ground which he had previously refused to allow the book containing the state ment of the directors' accounts with the bank.—Mr. Swin dells proved the transfer of 200 shares from Mr. Haywood to Mr. John Holt, for £11,251 4s. Several formal proofs were then put, and some witnesses examined in support of the other statements in Mr. Knowles's address. A great variety of documentary testi mony was produced, which gave rise to many objections from Mr. Dundas. The plaintiff closed his case at a quarter to seven o'clock, at which time the court adjourned till nine o'cloCk this morning. In the course of the day the Learned Judge, in reply to an application from Mr. Wortley, announced that after he had concluded the first list he should proceed with the cases in the second list, whether special or common, in their order. 4Z , CROWN COURT.- -SATUILDAY CHARGE OF RAVISHMENT Thomas Bowker, aged 32, was charged with having com mitted a rape on Sarah Schofield. Mr. Cross conducted the prosecution ; Mr. Wilkins de fended the prisoner. It appeared, from the evidence, the details of which are unfit. for publication, that the prosecutrix was a servant. On the 9nd of May she left her place in the country, near Bol ton, to go to * Spindle -point, close to that town, where her parents lived. As she went on it began to rain, and she cal led at Lever Hall, a friend's house, where she remained until seven o'clock in the evening, when she again set out on her journey. Soon after, as she proceeded, she met the prisoner and another man. She had known the prisoner before ; and he said he had occasion to go in the direction of her home, and would accompany her, which he did, the other man leaving them. He made her an offer of marriage. After proceeding about a mile and a-half on the road, when they got near a place called Stone Cleugh, he took hold of her by the waist, and carried her, through a gateway, into a field — distance of forty yards—where he threw her down on a bank, and in a short time (according to the prosecutrix's account) forcibly effected his purpose, she continuing to scream. This was about nine o'clock at night. Mr. WILKINS addressed the Jury in behalf the prisoner. The learned JUDGE summed up with great minuteness, re marking as he proceeded on every point on which doubts might arise or facts be inferred. The Jury retired to consider their verdict. After an absence of thirty-five minutes they came into court, and re turned a verdict of Guilty. His Lordship after alluding to the peculiaratrocity of the prisoners offence, sentenced him to transportation for life. RAPE. Samuel Peacock, aged, apparently, about 30, was indicted for committing a rape on Mary Owen, at Cuerdley. Mr. Wightman conducted the prosecution. It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutrix, that she is the wife of the master of a flat, plying between St. Helens and Fiddler's Ferry. On Sunday last the flat was lying on a bank, opposite Cuerdley Marsh. Her husband had gone somewhere on shore, and, about twelve o'clock on that day, she left the vessel to•endeavour to find him. She thought she could most likely find him at the public house, and pro ceeded towards it across the Marsh by a foot-walk, which extends about a mile. When she got about half way across, she met the prisoner, who asked her whether she had been mushrooming, and whether she had come from on board. She gave him no answer and went on. She went on a little, and, looking back saw him walking fast after her and, finally, running. She ran on a short distance, he pursuing her till she readied a railway, which she got over, and reached the canal bank. The prisoner then got hold of her, and, taking her by the shoulders, rolled her down on the bank. She offered him her watch, or 55., or both, not to abuse her ; but he persisted, and effected his purpose. The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to be trans ported for fifteen years. MANSLAUGHTER. Wm. Cringle, sen., 52, and Wm. Cringle, jun., 19, were charged, the for mer With h av i ng, at Li verpoo l , kill e d an d slain Peter Carlin, and the latter with aiding and assisting in the act. Mr. Hutton appeared for the prosecution, Mr. Wilkins for the prisoners. The elder prisoner kept a cart, as did the deceased, who was 21 years of age. On the 6th of May, at six in the even ing, a quarrel and tight took place between the prisoners and the deceased. Carlin, before the disturbance, came from on board a vessel in the Victoria Dock, carrying a chest, which he put into his cart. Cringle the elder was then standing near the vessel, and said something. Carlin said, " What are you jawing about ?," and the other struck him with a piece of wood on the cheek, and they then began to fight. While they were fighting, the younger prisoner was throw ing stones at Carlin, who ceased fighting with the father. whom he struck very severely, and ran after the son, and caught him. They fought some minutes. Carlin let go the younger man, and turned to fight the elder. While the younger men were fighting, old Cringle took up a stone, or a piece of copper dross, the size of a man's hand, and threw it at Carlo. It struck him on the back of the head. It did not appear to be thrown with great force. Blood flowed from. Carlin's head while the fight went on. He had no hat on at the time. After the fighting was over, Carlin got his head tied up, and went to the policeman's hut at the gates and lay down on a form. It appeared, from further evi dence given, that the quarrel had arisen out of the rivalship between the respective parties, both of whom were getting chests out of the vessel. One witness spoke to deceased being struck three times on the head with pieces of copper dross, thrown by the younger prisoner. The whole three fell down several times on the pavement, and the deceased, at one time, knocked the younger prisoner down with his fist. There was a good deal of mystery about the origin and pre cise manner of the fight. Carlin was afterwards taken to the Northern Hospital, where it was found that he was wounded in the back part of the head, the bone being ex posed. A small piece of the bone, about the size of a pea, bad been chipped off, as if by an angular substance. He was attended to, but died on the 22d of May. The immediate cause of death was erysipelas. On the 9th of May be was suffered to go out to attend the police-court. He bad orders to return to the hospital on leaving the court, but did not re turn for three days ; and the surgeon was of opinion that he, probably, overheated himself when going about the town, which predisposed him to erysipelas, and that he might have recovered had he attended to the orders of the hospital. He was not in danger on the 9th, but was so on the 12th when he returned. Mr. WILKINS spoke at considerable length for the pri- soners The jury retired to consider their verdict, and, after a short absence returned a verdict of not guilty in favour of both prisoners. They were immediately discharged. SENTENCES The following prisoners were up for sentence: Charles Grace, for forging a check for £4O, a second offence, was sentenced to be transported for fifteen years. Thomas Turk and Charles Sweet, convicted of horsesteal ing at Liverpool, were put at the bar. The former was sen tenced to be imprisoned and put to hard labour for twelve months, and the latter for eight months. Edward Mercer, for burglary at Liverpool, not under aggravated circumstances, was sentenced to be imprisoned for eighteen months, with hard labour, and the first and last weeks of each six months in solitary confinement. MANSLAUGHTER, James Riley stood indicted for the manslaughter of Mary Woods, near Southport. The coroner's jury, on the inquest on the body, had returned a verdict of accidental death. The prisoner was the owner and driver of an omnibus run ning between Manchester and Southport. The deceased took her passage by the coach at Scarisbrick to proceed to the latter place. The omnibus broke down, and the deceased was so much injured that she afterwards died, and hence the charge against the prisoner, from furious driving of the machine, the insufficiency of the coach in strength and con struction to withstand the effect of driving on a rough and broken road, and the machine being thereby upset. A police-officer stated, that the horses, after leaving ,Scarishrick, were driven as fast as they could go. There were ten grown-up persons and two children passengers. lie described the state of the coach after the break-down, from which it aPpeared that the wheels were not secured to the axle-trees in the usual manner. It appeared, however, that the prisoner did his utmost to restrain the horses, and, in doing so, was dragged along the road himself, with part of the carriage which was detached by the shock, and that be was much bruised and ,injured. There being, moreover, no distinct proof that the carriage was peculiarly insecure, it was not considered necessary to proceed further with the case, and the prisoner, being thus virtually acquitted, was discharged. Thos. Golding, a surgeon of Heaton Norris, was charged with the manslaughter of Ruth Barnett, by unskilful treat ment, or neglect of attendance during her confinement. The case was, however, scarcely opened by Mr. Brandt, when it was found that the evidence would by no means bear out the charge, and, under the direction of his lordship, the prisoner was pronounced not guilty, and was discharged. Thomas Riley was charged with the manslaughter, at Man chester, of John Ormerod. He had pleaded not guilty, but now withdrew his plea and pleaded guilty. The case was one in which stabbing was resorted to. The prosecutor was his son-in-law. He was sentenced to be imprisoned for 12 calendar months, the first and last weeks in solitary confine ment. The court rose at a quarter before five o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.—SATURDAY. Mr. Justice Maule took his seat a few minutes past nine o'clock. DAVIDSON V. HAYWOOD This case, which was partly heard yesterday, was resumed this morning, with Mr. Dundas's opening, on the part of the defendant. Mr. D.UNDAS commenced with some general observations on the importance of the case to the defendant, and ex plained that his client was not responsible for the pleas which had been put on the record, as insinuated by his learned friend ; they were the offspring of the special pleader, in London, and the defendant had no knowledge of them. The plaintiff had endeavoured to prove, that the plaintiff had received the dividends on the eight hundred shares ; but the evidence on that point was altogether defective, for only £67 Is. 4d. had been paid to the defendant, and that not to his private account, but to his partnership account. As to the other dividends, the plaintiff had furnished no proof whatever that they had been paid to the defendant. With regard to the sale of the two hundred shares to Mr. Holt, the explanation was easy. - They were sold for th e benefit of the bank ; the bank received the money, and not the defen dant. That was established beyond all doubt by the books which had been produced. The defendant had received no benefit whatever from the transaction with regard to the shares appropriated to him ; and it was his great misfortune, like that of many other honourable men, to be involved in this concern without having any control over its management. He was at the Burslem branch, whilst the busy people who were directing the whole business were at Manchester, and, therefore, he could ha ve no cognizance of their transactions. In conclusion, the learned connsel strongly pressed upon, the attention of the jury the circumstance, that £67 Is. 4d.. was the only dividend (and that it was a dividend he denied) which the defendant had been proved to have received, and that it had not been proved to be the dividend in respect the eight hundred shares. 'The Judge .having summed up, the Jury, after a short de. liberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages £3,300. DEFAM ATZQN - BROADBENT V. CROMPTO This was an action (before a special jury) fOr defamation; Mr. Wortley and Mr. „ Atherton appeared for the - plaintiff ; __..... ... Mr. Wilkins, Mr. Hill, and Mr. COss fur the defendant Mr. ATHERTON stated the nature of the pleadings Mr. WonTLEY stated the case. The gentleman who was the plaintiff in this case was Mr. William Broadbent, and he brought it before the Jury in order to obtain reparation, 'at their hands, for a very serious and grave injury done him by the defendant. Mr. Broadbent came before them to vindi cate his character as a man and a trade'sman : he came for reparation and compensation for a grievous injury which had been done him. Mr. Broadbent was in the paper trade : he had been a paper dealer in Manchester, and he had also, within the last three years, established a paper manufactory near Bolton. Mr. Compton was a gentleman holding a high station in the county : he had lately had his name placed in the commission of the peace for the county, and he was reputed to be possessed of considerable wealth and posses sions. He was a gentleman (therefore, whose assertions would carry with them very considerable weight. He was likewise engaged in the paper trade, and was the owner of an extensive mann actory of paper about three miles distant from that of the plaintiff. The defendant's manufactory was an old establishment, and for many years he had enjoyed a comparative monopoly in that neighbourhood, and, there fore, it was but natural that he should view with some jealousy, and; perhaps, with some disappointment, the establish ment of a new manufactory in competition with his own. It appeared that, from some motive or other, the defendant had thought himself justified in communicating, in a quarter where it was most likely to be injurious to the plaintiff, as persions upon the plaintiff's character, both as a man and as a tradesman, which could not but bring upon him immediate and great inconvenience, and expose him to great loss in his trade and also in character. All manufacturers of paper were subject to visits from the Excise, and it was usual for the officers to mrke periodical visits to the works of persons engaged in that trade. The Manufacturers were bound to return to the Excise all the paper they manufactured ; all the paper was afterwards put into reams; those reams were stamped by the Excise, and in that form the Excise certified that the duty had been paid. In the month of January last the Excise-officer, whose duty it was to call at the defendant's manufactory, called there as usual for the purpose of exami ning and receiving the return. On that occasion he saw the defendant. No inquiry was made by the officer, and there was nothing to suggest what was afterwards said by the ' defendant; but, in the course of the interview between the officer and the defendant, the defendant made use of these expressions—" There is something wrong in the paper trade." "Is there ?" said the officer, " what do you mean ?" Now, if the defendant was actuated by nothing but public motives, he would have• said so, but he took a slip of paper and in pencil wrote down three or four names, and at the head of the list he wrote the name of the plaintiff. He put his finger upon that name and said, " That man is selling paper fifteen per cent. under the mar ket price ; he is either running into the GazetM, be, is selling paper at such a price, or he is running. the Excise." " In deed," said the officer ; and something more passed, but these were the important words•which fell from the defend ant. It was true that the officer had this in confidence. The officer behaved as he was perfectly justified in doing : he im mediately reported the matter to his superior. That superior refused, at first, to give credence to the information, but the officer, whose name was Goodhire, was sent back to make further inquiry. He then asked the defendant whether he was sure that the paper he alluded to was manufactured by Mr. Broadbent : on which the defendant said, " Yes, I know it : it is a fact : the paper I mentioned was manufac tured by Broadbent, and, it is time that something must be done ; " clearly intimating, that the Excise was cheated, and that the excise should take some measures against Mr. Broad bent for the purpose of ascertaining to what extent they had been defrauded. The officer reported this to his principals, and it was their duty not to neglect this information coming from a gentleman of Mr. Crompton's character and station in life. A search-warrant was, therefore, issued, and, in the absence of Mr. , .Broadbent, his warehouse, in one of the public streets of Manchester , was searched. The premises of the plaintiff were searched from top to bot tom; and all he mentioned this fact for was to tell the jury, that it turned out that the information so conveyed to the excise was utterly without foundation. The excise were per fectly satisfied : every facility was afforded to them in their search ; and they found that there was not the shadow ( f pretence for this very serious imputation. The next time that Mr. Goodhire saw .Mr. Crompton he repeated to him what had happened, and said to him, " What would you ex pect a man to do when you had given him such informa tion ?" " Expect you to do ?" replied the defendant, " I should expect you to do just. what you have," express ing no regret or anything of the sort. The plaintiff had afterwards considerable difficulty in ascertaining from whom the excise had; derived this information. The officers of excise, with great propriety, refused to give up the party. They were bound to act upon the informas tion, but not to expose their authority. And it was a difficulty under which he (Mr. Wortley) should labour that he should be obliged to call the excise-officers, who were not always willing to disclose more than what was absolutely. necessary. Doubtless, however, they would tell the truth, although they had given no assistance to the plaintiff ; but, at the same time, he felt confident that the evidence would support the charge. From other sources M. Broadbent discovered that there was every reason to believe the defendant was the party who had made this in formation, and proceedings were commenced against him, the result of which was the present action. One would have thought that, by this time, Mr. Crompton would have bad time to reflect, having discovered that the information lie had given to the Excise was false, and that he would have expressed himself sorry for what had occurred. If that had been done, proceedings would have been stopped. But, so far from this, the defendant, on another day, met a Mr. Stones on the station of the Bolton and Manchester Railway, and said, " I have had a writ served upon me by Broadbent." " What about ?" he was asked. "Because," he replied, " I gave information to the Excise that he was running the Excise ;" and, he added, " I would tell Broadbent to his face, if he were here. Ido not care about him nor about his writ : they may both be d—d." The jury, then, would judge of the tendency of such imputations. Now, what was to be the defence in this action ? The defendant had pleaded that he was not guilty of making these imputations, but he should have no difficulty in proving that. But perhaps he might endeavour to contend, under that plea, that the communica tion made to the Excise was, under the circumstances, pro tected bylaw, as it was a privileged communication. He (Mr. Wortley) contended that it would not be held as a privi leged communication, inasmuch as it was a purely voluntary communication of what turned out to be entirely false. The other two pleas of justification were the most remarkable that he (Mr. Wortley) had ever seen in a case of this descrip tion. In point of law, those pleas were not worth a farthing. They did not attempt to justify the real gravamen of the charge : they did not say it was true that the plaintiff was defrauding the excise. As to that part of the case, there fore, the action was undefended, and the only question then was the damage. What could possibly be the motive of the defendant? He had been in the enjoyment•of a monopoly in the neighbourhood; his works were old; they were not .newly constructed, embracing all the improvements made in modern times. The plaintiff's works, on the other hand, had been newly constructed; a large sum of money had been spent upon them, and that must account for the difference in the expense of manufacturing paper. The expense of manufacture depended also upon other circumstances. The learned counsel concluded by expressing a hope, that, as the defendant had been lately added to the commission of the peace, his conduct in this case was not a sample of the way in which he would deal with the rights of others. Mr. Richard Goodhire, supervisor of Excie in the Bolton District and Wigan Collection, proved the expressions uttered by the defendants on the two occasions described by Mr. Wortley. In his cross-examination, by Mr. Wilkins, he admitted, that, subsequently to the information being given, • the Board of Excise censured him for his conduct in the busi ness. The impression upon witness's mind was, that he gave the information to protect himself in the way of trade and ' the revenue. Mr. John Stones, paper-manufacturer, of Little Lever, near Bolton, proved the expressions used by Mr. Crompton on the Ist of March, whilst they were together at one of the stations on the Bolton and Manchester Railway. This witness said, that, in his judgment, the plaintiff's works, which had beed re-built within the last three years, would produce more paper in less time than Mr. Crompton's. Mr. WuxiNs said, that he should be willing to withdraw a juror, if his learned friend would consent. The JUDGE, would offer no objection to the withdrawal of a juror, if it was desired. ' • Mr. WORTLEY said he had no objection, on condition that Mr. Crompton would publicly retract the imputation upon the plaintiff, express his regret for what had occurred, and indemnify the plaintiff against all expenses. Mr. WlLKins said Mr. Crompton, who was a gentleman of high character and respectability, did not care a single farthing about the amount of the damages, but he did wish to stand well with his neighbours and friends. He had not the least objection publicly to withdraw the imputation upon Mr. Broadbent, but it must be in such a mariner as to leave no imputation upon himself. Mr. WORTLEY suggested that Mr. Crompton should pub licly state he was perfectly satisfied there was no foundation for the imputation. Mr. 'WORTLEY understood Mr. Crompton to be willing to say this—that, upon further inquiry, he found the imputation he had made against the plaintiff, as to having defrauded the Excise, was without foundation, and that he regretted hav ing made it ; and that, upon further inquiry, he also found that he was mistaken in saying that Mr. Broadbent was sell ing fifteen per cent. under the market prices, and he re gretted having said so. Mr. WILKINS requested this to be written _clown.. After some consultation, Mr. WuxiNs consented to a nominal verdict upon these conditions. Mr. Crompton, after further inquiry, was sa tisfied that the imputation of defrauding the Excise was not well founded; that, after further inquiry, he was satisfied that the statement of the plaintiff selling fifteen per cent. under market price was a mistake; and he regretted that, though mistaken, he had made the imputation. Mr. Cromp ton would not have come into court to defend this action if he had not been anxious to stand well with his neighbours. When he made the statement he believed what he was say ing : he had since ascertained that his belief was not well founded, and he regretted having said so. He hoped that this declaration would cause Mr. Crompton to retain that good opinion which had always attended him through life. Mr. WORTLEY, on the part of the plaintiff, was perfectly satisfied. A verdict of 40s. was then taken for the plaintiff. CONTRACT FOR BUILDING A UNION WORKHOUSE. ORE AND ANOTIIER V. THE GUARDIANS OF CHAPEL-EN- LE-FRITH This was an action brought by the assignees of a bankrupt, named Salford, against the Guardians of the Poor for the Union of Chapel-en-le-Frith, in Derbyshire, to recover a sum of money amounting to between £3,000 and £4,600. The bankrupt had contracted with the guardians to erect a workhouse for the union, and the building was proceeded with, but the guardians were not satisfied that it was exe cuted according to th e plans and specifications. A sum of the money was paid to Salford, but before the matter in dis pute could be settled he failed, and his assignees brought the present action to recover the balance. As the question in volved a great many points connected with the plans, as well as the execution of the work, the cause and all matters in difference was, after some consideration, referred, MARSHALL AND OTHERS V. LAMB This was an action for the recovery of money had and re ceived, brought by the assignees of a bankrupt, named Thorns, who carried on business in London as a warehouseman, against Mr. Lamb, an attorney, at Basingstone. It appeared that, on the 15th August, 1841, Thorns committed an act of bank ruptcy by absenting himself with the intention of delaying his creditors, and on the 25th he paid to the defendant £7OO for a mortgage which the defendant had on some property in trust for the benefit of Mrs. Thorns. The £7OO he had raised by the sale of all the goods he had previously to the act of bankruptcy. The learned JUDGE instructed the jury, that the bank rupt had paid off the mortgage with £7OO, which was the property of his creditors, and that it was a fraud upon the creditor §, not by Mr. Lamb, but by the bankrupt. The assets of the bankrupt amounted to £3OO, whilst his debts and liabilities were between £13,000 and £14,000. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for £717. The court adjourned at a quarter to six. CROWN COURT--YESTERDAY CHARGE . OF MURDER Franci.i Brindleg, aged 32 barged with the wilful mur, ler of Alice Bradley at MaiNrster The prisoner, on being plagi at the bar and hearing the charge against him, said, that, as he was very poor, he could not pay for counsel, and should feel obliged if his lordship would appoint a barrister to defend him. • • . . His LORDSHIP said that it was difficult for a barrister to undertake a defence on so "short a notice, but, perhaps, some gentleman . would undertake to watch the progress of the Dr. BROWN immediately intimated to his lordship that he would undertake the prisoner's defence, and his lordship cquiesced Mr. WILKINs, v%ho was for the prosecution, then ex pressed his regret that he witnesses (who belonged to 'Man chester) had not yet arttved. His LORDSHIP said that they might possibly be detained by some accident ; and, t/s a charge of so serious a nature could not be abandoned so immediately, he should take the next case CHARGE OF CHILD MURDER, Elizabeth Russell, 28, was charged with the wilful murder of a new-born male child, at Liverpool. The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Paget—the defence by Mr. Wilkins. The case was reported in this paper, on the prisoner being committed for trial on the coroner's war rant; but, as the evidence was then not so fully adduced es on trial, and the case assumed a serious character against the prisoner, we now supply it at length. Mrs. Mary Cole said she resided in Sandon-street, Liver pool, and the prisoner was in her service on the 2d of June last. About three o'clock that day she left her house, leav ing the prisoner, my mother, and a lady who was residing with us. She returned about nine in tire evening. The pri soner was there, and complained of being ill. She was sent to bed. She afterwards resumed her duties. On the Bth witness told her that she had heard that a child had been born, which she denied. The house was afterwards searched. Agnes Harding, a servant to Mrs. Cole's sister, said she was at Miss Cole's house ou the 9th June last, and told pri soner that her mistress wished to know if the reports were true. She hesitated, but, on being asked if a child was born, said yes. On being asked if she was seven months gone, she said she believed she was. Witness returned home, and gave an account of what she said. - Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—The prisoner was always considered a kind, humane, good gill. Ann Smith said that on the 9th June she saw the prisoner in the Bridewell. I was put to stop with her during the night. The prisoner asked her how long she thought she (prisoner) would be kept there. Witness said she thought not long—that she would be sent away presently. 'Witness told her the child would be brought, and she said she hoped they would not let her see it. Re-examined.—Prisoner said she had squeezed the child's head with a towel, for fear of its making a noise. She also said she had put it in the midden. She said she did not intend it to remain there. Mary Bruce, a girl, said she was at Miss Coles on theGth. assisting in cleaning, and on that day saw something in the privy—a bundle. It appeared to me to be a child. I asked the prisoner what the articles were. She said they were rags the men had left there. I asked her might I have them if I went for them. She said, no, 1 would dirty myself. Cross-examined.—l said it was on Monday Or Tuesday— in the beginning of the week. The bundle was chucked up in a corner, under the privy seat. James Ainsworth, police-officer, searched the privy, and found a bundle covered with ashes. I took it up, and it was handed up in a basket. It was covered with ashes. Dr. Blackburn was present. Mr. Thomas Blackburn, surgeon, said he went with the last witness to Miss Coles, on Thursday, the 9th June. I cursorily examined it then. I saw the prisoner before that. I stated to her the reports in circulation, and asked if it was a fact that she had given birth to a chill. I afterwards ex amined the prisoner, and was convinced that she had been delivered. My belief is that the child was born alive, and that death was caused by a sharp flat instrument, passed into the head, above the right bone, so as to mix up the brain and blood in a mass. I do not think it possible that any accident could have produced such injuries. Thera was no other injury that could have caused death. Cross-examined.-=I have no knowledge of any case of a paroxysm of pain after child-birth that might produce uncon sciousness, but such might possibly be the case. No- fall upon any instrument could have produced such a wound. The membranes of the brain were torn away, no portion of which was entire. • The lungs had been inflated with atmo spheric air. Vital action must have taken place. It is pos sible that breathing may take place when the head is born, and the child born before the body is wholly born. Re-examined.—My opinion is, that it is improbable that this took place in the present case. By the Judge.—l think it highly probable that the injury to the head could have taken place before the entire birth. Mr. Batty surgeon, who had also seen the body, was of opi nion that it had been alive, from the state of the internal or gans. From the examination of the body, and in my opinion the cause of death was the inset tioti of some sharp instrument. The brain was broken down in its substance, and there was no solid substance in it. The dura mats was detached from the skull. It would have required the insertion of an instru tnent to produce such injuries, such as a pair of scissors or a skewer—inserted the whole depth of the skull. The lungs were healty. Witness was cross•examined, and admitted that causes might arise after the head was born, to produce suffication, after the child had breathed, and before it was fully born. It was a full grown child. Mr. Blore surgeon, who had examined the body with the two last witnesses, was of opinion that the child bad been born alive, and that death was caused by the insertion of a sharp instrument into the brain, which destroyed its texture. He agreed with the two last witnesses as to cause and effect. Mr. WILKINS addressed the jury in behalf of the prisoner, in a very feeling, ingenious, and eloquent manner, during great part of which, the prisoner wept loudly and bitterly, and appeared to be in great distress of mind. His LORDSHIP summed up with great care, and a most humane consideration of the state of the party accused of the offence. In such a case great allowences ought to be made for the prisoner, and they must even speculate on the possi bility of her being unconscious at the time, from bodily pain, and the circumstances 14y which she was surrounded. He then went through the whole of the evidence minutely, com menting upon it as he proceeded, and dwelling on every point that appeared to be at all favourable to the accused—her previous good character ;—the possibility of the death having occurred before the birth of the whole body, &c. If they had any doubt whatever they would not find her guilty of the murder ; but were bound, he thought, to find her guilty of the concealment, of which there appeared to be no question. His lordship, in the course of his address, paid a very marked compliment to Mr. Wilkins for the able manner in which he had, at the request of the prisoner, and without previous notice, conducted the defence. The jury retired to consider their verdict, and after being absent three quarters of an hour returned a verdict of not guilty of the murder, but guilty of concealment. CHARGE OF MURDER. Francis Bradley, charged (as before stated) with the wil ful murder of Alice Bradley, at Manchester, on the 20th April, by giving to her two drachms of arsenic, mixed in some beer, was then placed at the bar. Mr. Wilkins conducted the prosecution and stated the principal circumstances of the case, which are more fully detailed in the following evidence : Mr. Roys, physician's cleric at the Manchester Infirmary, and a Licentiate of the College of Surgeons, said, I attended the deceased Alice Bradley first in the month of March, in Golden-street, Manchester, I found her ill, she complained of great weakness and pain in the region of the stomach. He stated in the prisoner's presence that she had taken a powder in some beer on the previous Saturday evening, and became ill soon after. She complained of a sensation of burning in the throat and stomach, and a violent vomiting, sickness, and pUrging. Her pulse was quick but feeble. Cross-examined by Dr. Brown. She had previously been attended to at the Infirmary for illness, and was there slightly salivated. Her husband supported her as she walked in the garden. _ _ Mr. Holland, house-surgeon of the Infirmary, said the deceased was brought there on the 22d of March. She had a weak low pulse, and was very pale, with an anxious ex pression of countenance. I gave her a slight laxative. Next morning she had great pain at the pit of the stomach, which was increased by pressure ; also heat of the skin, which was flushed, from which I inferred that in flammation was going on of the coats of the stomach. This was followed by numbness and rigidity of the lower extremities with paralysis ; and also spasmodic centricution of the hands. She died on morning of the 20th of April. Improved from what I had heard that she had taken poison. 1 made a post mortem examination twelve hours after death. The stomach was quite pale colour, and there were some red patches. I found the same appearance throughout the whole intestinal canal. The heart and lungs were healthy—except congestian on the lower part of the fissure, which I attributed to arsenic. The cause of death was, in my opinion, the slow effects of arsenic. Sugar of lead would not produce these appear ances. Three papers were handed to me. One contained ascelate of lead, or sugar of lead, one pounded alum, and one magnesia. About thirty grains of arsenic would produce such effects. There was no appearance of cholic, which sugar of lead would produce. The paralysis would not be produced by sugar of lead. The quantity of arsenic that could be put on the point of a knife would produce death. The same quantity of sugar cif lead would not produce death. I put the contents of the stomach into a bottle, and I boiled the intestines in pieces in distilled water. I gave them to Mr. Davies, chemist, and was present when he analysed them. Arsenic was discovered in a large quantity. The body was not buried for ten days, and decomposition had but slightly begun. I attribute this to the preservative effecct of arsenic. When the deceased came to the • hospital, her mouth was rather clean and required no lotion. There was no appearance of syphilis. Cross-examined by Dr. Brown.—The red patches in the stomach and intestines could be produced by large doses of sugar of lead or other poisons by causing inflammation. Mr. Blackburne, surgeon of Liverpool.—l have heard the last witness, and from the account he gives of the ap pearances I consider them precisely such as could have been produced by arsenic, and by no other poison. Cross-examined. — Sugar of lead would produce death if taken in large quantities. Sugar of lead, if death ensued, would not render the body less liable to decomposition than arsenic would. Mr. Davies, lecturer on chemistry at the Royal Institution, Manchester.—l examined the contents of the stomach, &c., brought to me. I analysed the whole, and found arsenic, which we reduced to the metallic state. We found no sugar of lead: Catherine Lee said, the prisoner and his wife occupied an upper room in my h ouse. I frequently saw the deceased. I saw her on the night of Saturday, the 19th of March. At twelve oclock that night she seemed to be quite well. She had not appeared ill that week. I locked the door that night. I saw the prisoner next running with a tub in his hand. He said, " Alice is very bad this morning." I said, " How is that? I saw her well last night." He said, " She is ill with a purging all through her." He went up to the de ceased, arid returned, and called me up stairs. He said, " I have got a draught from Mr. Sherlock, and will let you see it. Ile had it in a small jug. I looked at it. He gave it to the deceased, and she drunk it. She was in a low, weak state. He did not say why he wanted me to see the draught. He took the tub out of doors, and brought it back again. I did not see its contents. He did not say anything about powders. I saw her again on Monday evening, and asked her how she felt ; and she said, " Very ill." I saw her again on Tuesday. She called me in, and said she thought herself a done woman. At her request I fetched Mr. Sherlock. About three weeks before, the prisoner came down to me, and said, " I am after giving Alice a cooling powder ;" and I said, " She seems to be b e tt er w ith o ut powders than with them." He said he would leap or dance upon any one who interfered between him and his wife. She then said that her mouth was very sore, and she had a flannel round her jaws. She said her mouth was scalded and sore. I was present when Dr. Sherlock came to see her, and asked her how she was. The doctor questioned her. The deceased said, she was very well after her work on Sa turday night ; and he (prisoner) sent m e ou t f or a pint of beer ; and he gave me a part of it warmed, and that caused a purging. She further said that he gave her another white (Monday) th a t he gave h er an other. said night shetook in boil e d m ilk. O n b e i ng as ked T po b w es d e er la . s a t n s d he last by me how she felt them, she said she felt them coarse and rough in the mouth, and gritty and weighty at the bottom. She also said that she did not take the whole of the last powder, it was so bad. Mr. Sherlock said, " Where did You: got them?" and he said, " I got t h em f rom you. " Mr ; Sherlock said, " No, you did not ;" and he said, " Then get them from your brother. He (the prisoner) added, that. it was magnesia. The de cease d sa id M r . Sh er l oc k woul d